Yah, I accept your points that planning for location shoots involves large amounts of time and effort. But... 'at the end of the day', at it's core, this planning is a well-understood mechanistic process whose purpose is to enable delivery of the writers' vision. One can specify a list of required skills needed to plan a location shoot and hire the appropriate people to carry it out. When I say one, I mean the writers.
What the writers offer is far less mechanistic or indicidental. Of course you can't measure its importance in terms of numbers of people or budget and so it's easy to dismiss it as incidental but take it away and what have you got?
What you've got is hollywood today, where the focus is on how much money can be spent, how many people are involved, how many locations, explosions, car chases etc. etc. etc. The public have been coached for a number of years on the importance of the budget, with slick (greasy) movie-reviewers rattling on about the numbers with no mention of quality of the content.
This phenomenon is paralleled in the games industry where the games-buying public has for years been trained to consider number of polygons per second rendered an indicator of the quality of the game.
In both cases, the industries have neatly drawn their customers' eyes away from what matters but is difficult to quantify towards something which is incidental but easy to quantify.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. I'm simply saying that writing is core, that the creators of the writing should be in overall control and hire everyone else to perform the incidental but necessary tasks.
There were about thirty people there for about a day and a half. When I finally saw the commercial on television, the scene that they shot at my work was about 2-3 seconds worth of the commercial. Thirty people over a day and a half to get 2-3 seconds worth of footage?! That doesn't even include the time it took the editor and all of the post production people to put it together. And the commercial itself was about 10-15 seconds. They were probably shooting that stupid thing for a good month or two.
If you express a desire to shovel money into a hole, you'd be amazed how deep a hole I can dig.
Not at all. Rules govern inter-personal relations: ie: how people get along. What I can do to you (and what I cannot), and what you can do to me (and cannot).
Yes, I agree; rules _do_ govern interpersonal relations but I'm arging that they do so without requiring an agreement between every distinct pair of people. Instead, all individuals have an agreement forced upon them between themselves and the state.
If one wishes the rules to not apply to them, then the only fair thing to do is suspend BOTH rules (what they can do to others, AND what others can do to them).
[Warning: Incoming sporting analogy..]
So, if I make an illegal tackle in, let's say football, the ref should step in and suspend the 'no dangerous tackling' rule, thus beginning a free-for-all where the players can tackle each other as dangerously as they see fit?
Surely not. As you say, the purpose of rules is to promote interpersonal harmony. If person A in some way injures person B, allowing person B to engage in their own retaliatory action increases the overall disharmony and will almost certainly lead to further action from person A. The appropriate thing to do is for the state to punish the rule infringement. How does one strike back against the state?
Hmm, so all the writers need is actors, stagehands, a set, and all the other stuff required to produce a movie and they can make it and distribute it online. Maybe they could organize all these things together and call it a "production company". Thatll show those studios!
This isnt the end of studios, those amatuerish videos on YouTube may be entertaining but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex. The only thing that will change is that some of the marketing and sales may be different.
You miss the point. This is about (not that I've read the article) a shift in power. Rather than the talentless middlemen making all the money, why can't it be the writers?
Why should he get a windfall, even if Christie's was pulling a scam?
Maybe not him but Christie's should definitely get stung for a large wad of cash. IIRC, their business model rather depends upon the legitimacy of the items going under the hammer.
You want to cheat? Fine- but you can't complain if others cheat back.
Sure you can. The rules are a (one-sided) contract between individuals and the state. That contract still exists for person B, even if person A broke the rules to the detriment of person B. [IANAL]
Show me there are hoardes of people out there sharpening their knives to destroy civilized society.
Plus, America is hardly civilized. Your healthcare system should be a cause for national shame. Certainly the American people have the sympathy of others, worldwide - at least in this respect.
For what it's worth, flamebait != reading an unpleasant (if obscured) truth.
Block HTTP, FTP, NNTP too, that way the tubes will be nice and clear so that you can have a better internet experience. I'd be happy to forgo internet altogether; use my share to build him his own private intarweb.
That's a good analogy. To my mind, neither of these pursuits (sport, music) would be any the worse from having the business people removed from their operations.
Today is a new world. Certainly within music, noone needs the _industry_. Producer and consumer are able to communicate directly via the internet. The industry's contribution is to insert themselves in the process for the purpose of taxation, which serves only them. Without them, the tightness of the feedback loop (consumer is able to give their feedback immediately after downloading the album and the musician is able to take those comments on board and may choose to alter their approach (or not), moments after reading it) is surely going to lead to everyone being a whole lot happier.
Radiohead and Reznor are demonstrating this; surely that obvious, even to someone who paints their face?
Anyhow.. it's painful to watch the industry-formerly-profiting-from-music die (and it's putting up a great fight), but die it will. If we stop feeding it, that will help.
that's why i've always said we should never have electronic, or even mechanical, voting systems
We, by virtue of voting, hand-over responsibility for implementing our wishes to those politicians who believe as we do. It's important that everyone should have a voice so that the many facets of the collective will of the people is represented within government.
What you seem to forget, is that the day of politicians with ideals has ended. Today, politicians claim alleigance with whatever idea is most likely to get them elected; then, when elected, they take the power they've been given and use it to further their own agendas, something you must surely realise.
It matters not a jot whether the ballot is rigged because politicians don't enact the will of the people nor even act in their interest. What matters more is to get them to do so.
It's just world-wide teething pains as we move from a hierarchy/tree of control/domination to a network of reciprocal moderation. As those who previously had been on the lower layers become more intelligent and informed, it will become more and more difficult to force them to submit and indeed, why should they? Why not have them participate rather than obey? You can see this happening in the consumerist arena too (e.g. p2p as a method of freeing themselves from what they see as exploitation.) The only sensible, long-term solution is to stop trying to suppress people and start figuring-out how we can all get along.
Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions so clearly I'm a misguided l00n..:D
Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam... or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
That's how some young children would describe any of their toys that aren't made or yellow, red and blue plastic, "bland", because their senses are dull, their appreciation for anything that doesn't blind them with primary colours is low. Same for you - your palette is that of a child. Don't feel bad though, you're not alone...
*Instead*, we've alienated half the world, we look like big stupid drunk redneck bullies, and put ourselves into multigenerational debt and destroyed the worth of the dollar and *increased* the likelihood of more "terrorism".
Indeedy.
On the plus side, the world is more aware of the problems within the US, which would allow such a group to seize control and run the country and it's people into the ground. So, long-term it's a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
What the writers offer is far less mechanistic or indicidental. Of course you can't measure its importance in terms of numbers of people or budget and so it's easy to dismiss it as incidental but take it away and what have you got?
What you've got is hollywood today, where the focus is on how much money can be spent, how many people are involved, how many locations, explosions, car chases etc. etc. etc. The public have been coached for a number of years on the importance of the budget, with slick (greasy) movie-reviewers rattling on about the numbers with no mention of quality of the content.
This phenomenon is paralleled in the games industry where the games-buying public has for years been trained to consider number of polygons per second rendered an indicator of the quality of the game.
In both cases, the industries have neatly drawn their customers' eyes away from what matters but is difficult to quantify towards something which is incidental but easy to quantify.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. I'm simply saying that writing is core, that the creators of the writing should be in overall control and hire everyone else to perform the incidental but necessary tasks.
If you express a desire to shovel money into a hole, you'd be amazed how deep a hole I can dig.
Yes, I agree; rules _do_ govern interpersonal relations but I'm arging that they do so without requiring an agreement between every distinct pair of people. Instead, all individuals have an agreement forced upon them between themselves and the state.
[Warning: Incoming sporting analogy..]
So, if I make an illegal tackle in, let's say football, the ref should step in and suspend the 'no dangerous tackling' rule, thus beginning a free-for-all where the players can tackle each other as dangerously as they see fit?
Surely not. As you say, the purpose of rules is to promote interpersonal harmony. If person A in some way injures person B, allowing person B to engage in their own retaliatory action increases the overall disharmony and will almost certainly lead to further action from person A. The appropriate thing to do is for the state to punish the rule infringement. How does one strike back against the state?
You miss the point. This is about (not that I've read the article) a shift in power. Rather than the talentless middlemen making all the money, why can't it be the writers?
Maybe not him but Christie's should definitely get stung for a large wad of cash. IIRC, their business model rather depends upon the legitimacy of the items going under the hammer.
Sure you can. The rules are a (one-sided) contract between individuals and the state. That contract still exists for person B, even if person A broke the rules to the detriment of person B. [IANAL]
Umm.. http://imdb.com/title/tt0096256/plotsummary/
Yep, we live in the world from the film 'They Live' (http://imdb.com/title/tt0096256/) :(
He can't be all bad then
Uhh, but maybe he's got a point? How long would *you* spend reading slashdot if you hadn't eaten a real meal for months?
Maybe the XO will blend and someone will find a way to turn the XO-dust into a tasty and nutritious meal..
If I had mod points, you'd have one. We are collectively to blame for failing to restrict the excesses of our governments.
Humourous and (sadly) accurate. Nice combo :D
Plus, America is hardly civilized. Your healthcare system should be a cause for national shame. Certainly the American people have the sympathy of others, worldwide - at least in this respect.
For what it's worth, flamebait != reading an unpleasant (if obscured) truth.
Now now, language plz. You forget that we only exist to consume his product. Anything which interferes with that is wrong and we should be ashamed.
Block HTTP, FTP, NNTP too, that way the tubes will be nice and clear so that you can have a better internet experience. I'd be happy to forgo internet altogether; use my share to build him his own private intarweb.
That's just stupid. You can't have countries running their own affairs. How would that benefit the US?
Excellent US-centric rebuttal =)
That's a good analogy. To my mind, neither of these pursuits (sport, music) would be any the worse from having the business people removed from their operations.
:D
Today is a new world. Certainly within music, noone needs the _industry_. Producer and consumer are able to communicate directly via the internet. The industry's contribution is to insert themselves in the process for the purpose of taxation, which serves only them. Without them, the tightness of the feedback loop (consumer is able to give their feedback immediately after downloading the album and the musician is able to take those comments on board and may choose to alter their approach (or not), moments after reading it) is surely going to lead to everyone being a whole lot happier.
Radiohead and Reznor are demonstrating this; surely that obvious, even to someone who paints their face?
Anyhow.. it's painful to watch the industry-formerly-profiting-from-music die (and it's putting up a great fight), but die it will. If we stop feeding it, that will help.
Say hello to tomorrow
We, by virtue of voting, hand-over responsibility for implementing our wishes to those politicians who believe as we do. It's important that everyone should have a voice so that the many facets of the collective will of the people is represented within government.
What you seem to forget, is that the day of politicians with ideals has ended. Today, politicians claim alleigance with whatever idea is most likely to get them elected; then, when elected, they take the power they've been given and use it to further their own agendas, something you must surely realise.
It matters not a jot whether the ballot is rigged because politicians don't enact the will of the people nor even act in their interest. What matters more is to get them to do so.
It's just world-wide teething pains as we move from a hierarchy/tree of control/domination to a network of reciprocal moderation. As those who previously had been on the lower layers become more intelligent and informed, it will become more and more difficult to force them to submit and indeed, why should they? Why not have them participate rather than obey? You can see this happening in the consumerist arena too (e.g. p2p as a method of freeing themselves from what they see as exploitation.) The only sensible, long-term solution is to stop trying to suppress people and start figuring-out how we can all get along. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions so clearly I'm a misguided l00n.. :D
That's how some young children would describe any of their toys that aren't made or yellow, red and blue plastic, "bland", because their senses are dull, their appreciation for anything that doesn't blind them with primary colours is low. Same for you - your palette is that of a child. Don't feel bad though, you're not alone...
Indeedy.
On the plus side, the world is more aware of the problems within the US, which would allow such a group to seize control and run the country and it's people into the ground. So, long-term it's a good thing.