My wife confirms this. She said Cinemark doesn't make a dime off of ticket sales and all revenue comes from the concessions.
This is why we only go to the local Drafthouse theater, even though their projectors and sound system are a bit lower quality. You get real food at real food prices. A pint of beer is $3..about the same as the local bars.
You actually pay for theater snacks? Are you made of money?
Joking aside, my wife worked at Cinemark in college and told me that the cinema doesn't make a dime off of movie ticket sales and all the revenue is generated from the game machines and the concessions. Explains a lot...
I paid $12.50 for Avatar at Imax. I'd rather pay $12.50 for District 9 at the Draft House Cinema, because the movie was better AND I can drink beer. I felt ripped off with Avatar because I paid extra for effects, and paid way too much for a Dances with Wolves/Pocahontis remake.
So "scam" is now the equivalent business concept of "striking while the iron is hot". Interesting.
By the way, the best part of Avatar at my local Imax theater was not the big screen or the 3d--it was the awesome sound system. Maybe theaters should work on having a nice 2d image (as opposed to dim/murky grainy film technology of 30 years ago) and decent surround sound before worrying about 3d.
And there is no way I'm missing Toy Story 3, even if it IS in 3D.
Naive my ass. I'm a 17-year Intelligence Professional in the Middle East/North Africa region. Notice I said "not always". However, I can think of two pretty clear "bad guy" scenarios, and they both start with "World War".
Well my background allows me to understand it quite well (I have professional proficiency in Arabic, for starters). What I'm saying is that when there's an Israeli attack, it kills EXACTLY who it was intended to kill, in addition to innocent bystanders. The other side randomly launches high explosive missiles into civilian populations. People who can't see the relative differences in this confound me.
Or, to paraphrase "if their ideology is different from mine, it is not wrong to kill them".
That is a poor paraphrase. A better one would be their ideology is so offensively dangerous to the plight of humankind that is is not wrong to kill them.
I fail to see how killing a person will kill a concept like terrorism.
I never inferred it would. But not killing terrorists hasn't done much to stop terrorism either, so time to explore our options.
or 'beard police' or whatever, without even defining what that means,
Beard Police is a perfectly self-explanatory, concise example of the types of ideologies on this planet that should be eradicated.
why bother with the label? It really seems like an extraneous step.
The label provides a method of identifying the target.
There are Japanese films depicting them as 'good guys', even though they were the bad guys for attacking the US for no reason and siding with the Nazis.
If the suspect is a known international terrorist who is plotting to kill thousands of infidels, then I'd say "immediate lethal force" is the "only likely and forseeable way to resolve the situation", yes.
That is exactly correct. By citing a source, I'm not saying "I'm too dumb to have figured this out myself, so I'm just copying this guy". Instead, it says, "My findings are supported by the credible research of these other people as well". Or they just show your readers that you've adequately reviewed existing materials in the field of study that lends more value to your findings.
Wow, you really didn't read this thread, nor do you understand how a UAV works. The unmanned aerial vehicles are flown by enlisted guys sitting back in Arizona or California (or Dubai, or Qatar, place immaterial). They "fly" the planes via joystick and monitor. Humans tell the UAVs to turn around, fly higher, take a picture, launch a missle, etc. not the UAV its self.
Sorry, meant to say the FBI doesn't go around arresting NON-US citizens abroad...they leave that stuff up to the CIA. The FBI doesn't deal with non-citizens overseas, they merely handle criminal/security issues for US Persons overseas on US installations. FBI agents "deployed" to Aden in response to issues affecting the security of "US Persons" (which include US facilities) stationed overseas. A crime committed by a US soldier on a base in Germany or Japan is FBI business, because it is US persons involved on US facilities. Depending on Status of Forces Agreements, the FBI may cooperate with host nations as well, such as Scotland Yard, if a soldier gets drunk off-base in London and commits a crime.
Also wanted to ask, did you ever wonder why there aren't many German films depicting Germany as the Good Guys in World War II? (hint: because on all accounts, they were the bad guys). Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.
You didn't flip anything on its head because I didn't infer there was a good guy or a bad guy--only the government forces had every right to kill the enemy forces.
But you are right...the other people's "freedom fighters" (enemy combatants for those of us on the side for human progress) are exactly that--they fight against freedom whenever they can. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong. Killing beard police in the name of fighting terrorism is one of those.
Excellent post. It goes to show that people who know what they are talking about --people like you who don't mix up the FBI and CIA's respective roles-- well, know what they are talking about. Hint: if any post in here reads something like, "the FBI is off killing people in foreign countries", the poster knows nothing and should be ignored.
Excellent post, except I think you miss the point of the ACLU's actions. They aren't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we don't indiscriminately kill US citizens. If they get their information, they'll see that's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success.
How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant? It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife confirms this. She said Cinemark doesn't make a dime off of ticket sales and all revenue comes from the concessions.
This is why we only go to the local Drafthouse theater, even though their projectors and sound system are a bit lower quality. You get real food at real food prices. A pint of beer is $3..about the same as the local bars.
You actually pay for theater snacks? Are you made of money?
Joking aside, my wife worked at Cinemark in college and told me that the cinema doesn't make a dime off of movie ticket sales and all the revenue is generated from the game machines and the concessions. Explains a lot...
I paid $12.50 for Avatar at Imax. I'd rather pay $12.50 for District 9 at the Draft House Cinema, because the movie was better AND I can drink beer. I felt ripped off with Avatar because I paid extra for effects, and paid way too much for a Dances with Wolves/Pocahontis remake.
3D does not make a bad script/actor/director/... better.
Frankly, 3D has nothing to do with story telling.
It does, evidently, garner a bunch of unworthy Oscar nominations and victories though.
So "scam" is now the equivalent business concept of "striking while the iron is hot". Interesting.
By the way, the best part of Avatar at my local Imax theater was not the big screen or the 3d--it was the awesome sound system. Maybe theaters should work on having a nice 2d image (as opposed to dim/murky grainy film technology of 30 years ago) and decent surround sound before worrying about 3d.
And there is no way I'm missing Toy Story 3, even if it IS in 3D.
Naive my ass. I'm a 17-year Intelligence Professional in the Middle East/North Africa region. Notice I said "not always". However, I can think of two pretty clear "bad guy" scenarios, and they both start with "World War".
Well my background allows me to understand it quite well (I have professional proficiency in Arabic, for starters). What I'm saying is that when there's an Israeli attack, it kills EXACTLY who it was intended to kill, in addition to innocent bystanders. The other side randomly launches high explosive missiles into civilian populations. People who can't see the relative differences in this confound me.
You can totally own me if you change your example to something dealing with Vietnam, though.
Or, to paraphrase "if their ideology is different from mine, it is not wrong to kill them".
That is a poor paraphrase. A better one would be their ideology is so offensively dangerous to the plight of humankind that is is not wrong to kill them.
I fail to see how killing a person will kill a concept like terrorism.
I never inferred it would. But not killing terrorists hasn't done much to stop terrorism either, so time to explore our options.
or 'beard police' or whatever, without even defining what that means,
Beard Police is a perfectly self-explanatory, concise example of the types of ideologies on this planet that should be eradicated.
why bother with the label? It really seems like an extraneous step.
The label provides a method of identifying the target.
Nazis are an exception because of the holocaust.
There are Japanese films depicting them as 'good guys', even though they were the bad guys for attacking the US for no reason and siding with the Nazis.
There, fixed that for you.
If the suspect is a known international terrorist who is plotting to kill thousands of infidels, then I'd say "immediate lethal force" is the "only likely and forseeable way to resolve the situation", yes.
That is exactly correct. By citing a source, I'm not saying "I'm too dumb to have figured this out myself, so I'm just copying this guy". Instead, it says, "My findings are supported by the credible research of these other people as well". Or they just show your readers that you've adequately reviewed existing materials in the field of study that lends more value to your findings.
Wow, you really didn't read this thread, nor do you understand how a UAV works. The unmanned aerial vehicles are flown by enlisted guys sitting back in Arizona or California (or Dubai, or Qatar, place immaterial). They "fly" the planes via joystick and monitor. Humans tell the UAVs to turn around, fly higher, take a picture, launch a missle, etc. not the UAV its self.
Sorry, meant to say the FBI doesn't go around arresting NON-US citizens abroad...they leave that stuff up to the CIA. The FBI doesn't deal with non-citizens overseas, they merely handle criminal/security issues for US Persons overseas on US installations. FBI agents "deployed" to Aden in response to issues affecting the security of "US Persons" (which include US facilities) stationed overseas. A crime committed by a US soldier on a base in Germany or Japan is FBI business, because it is US persons involved on US facilities. Depending on Status of Forces Agreements, the FBI may cooperate with host nations as well, such as Scotland Yard, if a soldier gets drunk off-base in London and commits a crime.
Also wanted to ask, did you ever wonder why there aren't many German films depicting Germany as the Good Guys in World War II? (hint: because on all accounts, they were the bad guys). Not always, but usually, the good guys vs. the bad guys delineation is pretty clear to most sane/rational people of Earth.
You didn't flip anything on its head because I didn't infer there was a good guy or a bad guy--only the government forces had every right to kill the enemy forces.
But you are right...the other people's "freedom fighters" (enemy combatants for those of us on the side for human progress) are exactly that--they fight against freedom whenever they can. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong. Killing beard police in the name of fighting terrorism is one of those.
Spelling missile correctly and making a typo are two different things entirely. People skills go a long way in my book.
Excellent post. It goes to show that people who know what they are talking about --people like you who don't mix up the FBI and CIA's respective roles-- well, know what they are talking about. Hint: if any post in here reads something like, "the FBI is off killing people in foreign countries", the poster knows nothing and should be ignored.
Well good, I'm glad we agree then. I don't know what set me off in your post now that I read it again...maybe I responded to the wrong one?
Excellent post, except I think you miss the point of the ACLU's actions. They aren't criticizing or defending anybody or anything--they are merely seeking information to ensure that what you and I as Intel analysts already know is true--we don't indiscriminately kill US citizens. If they get their information, they'll see that's the case and their goal of transparency will be a success.
Something tells me Israeli strikes are a bit more precise than your average Hizbollah rocket launched blindly into Israel.
How likely is it that John Smith being killed by a Predator drone in an Al-Qaieda training camp in the middle of Pakistan somewhere was errant? It's not like John Smith was sitting on his Sofa in Madison Wisconsin and a hellfire missle dropped in on his house.
Again, the FBI is a domestic agency and do not go around to other countries arresting US citizens (see: CIA).
The FBI is a domestic agency. They can't enforce US warrants or US law against citizens abroad.
So a cop responding to gun fire and fires back killing the suspect shooting at him is "assassination" and "cowardly"?