Nice. Somebody who clearly didn't read the link because he was in too much of a rush to be the first to say "this isn't news, this already exist" gets modded up to 5, even though the link itself states that it already existed in Europe.
Then, I chastize him for being an obvious early-post karma whore, which he was, and instantly am knocked down to -1 as "flamebait". (Learn the difference between flamebait and flame, moderators).
Then somebody reprints almost my entire post for the sole purpose of flaming back at me, and gets modded up as insightful (what insight did he offer, exactly?)
My intial point stands, every last one of you who posted "this already exists in England" are not "insightful" nor "informative". You are redundant, because you are just repeating information that was already present for anybody who followed the link.
Clearly neither you, nor the dumb-assed moderaters who modded you up, nor the other dumb-asses who posted the exact same thing as you, nor the dumb-asses who modded them up, bothered to follow the link.
If you had, you would have seen:
"While on a trip overseas in the early 1990s, Ontro's founders, Jim Scudder and Jim Berntsen, came upon an interesting product... a beverage container that would heat its contents without the benefit of external energy sources (microwave, heating element, etc.). They soon found similar products in other parts of the world, but all had two very significant problems."
Followed by information about what makes their product different.
All of you should be modded into oblivion as redundant. Have a nice day, Karma whores.
People who smoke are far more likely to be aware of what's going on in other departments of the company, because they go to that spot outside the building and stand around with smokers from all other branches of the company and bullshit with each other (conversation outside of conference rooms and away from executives tends to be much more frank and direct). If you really want to know WTF is up, ask the smoker in your office.
Smokers are also less likely to get RTS injuries, because the stop typing every hour and a half or so to go have a smoke.
Smokers also save money on the company retirement plans and health insurance policies, because smokers tend to die younger and quicker (heart attacks and lung cancer are much cheaper ways to die than slower diseases).
Bosses who take frequent smoke-breaks are much less likely to be hard-assed about you going to Starbucks every morning at 10:30.
Conclusion: I don't smoke, but would never discourage others in my office from smoking. It is mostly to my advantage that they continue.
Hundreds of years ago, people like Bach didn't care who played their music, and I'm sure they wouldn't care who played recordings of their music if that had been at all possible.
Setting aside the incredibly dumb anachronism in that statement...
People like Bach were paid by patrons (in Bach's case, a Lutheran Church).
The patronage system fell away as the middle class grew, and artists discovered there was more money to be made by entertaining the masses than trying to anticipate the tastes of some snobby duke. Mass distribution of music (first as piano sheet music and player-piano rolls, later as recordings) lead to people copying it without paying for it, which lead to demands for more strident protection. For as long as there has been "popular" music, this has been an issue.
Why can't we be like that today? We need more open-source bands, using a GNU-style contract:
Then form one. Am I the only one getting tired of all these open-source "advocates" who keep talking about what everybody else needs to do for them.
I thought that the whole point of the Open Source software movement was supposed to be so people with ambition could contribute to the improvement of the code and that this would lead to better software. Some people seem to think the whole point of the GNU public license is to provide them with more free stuff.
If you live near an urban center, getting a CI equal to your age or higher is a noble goal. If you are not there yet, start buying motorboats, riding lawn tractors, chainsaws, bigger vehicles, snowblowers, gas-powered weed-whips, etc., and your CI will quickly rise. Good luck!
How does what you've suggested change from today? If I were a mutli-billionaire, TODAY PRE-McCain-Feingold, I could buy say Gannet News Services, and use it as a platform for supporting political candidates. [man I can't get past my sarcasm; character flaw I suppose]
You are driving home my point. Yes, you can buy Gannet today, and you can do so after the bill passes. But what you can't do after the bill is use your own money to run a TV ad critical of, oh... say Senator McCain... within 60 days of his re-election campaign unless you happen to own a news outlet to do it on.
Also, most news organizations these days are owned by major corporations, who have an interest in a lot of political issues (i.e., DMCA). This bill will make it much, much more difficult for somebody like the EFF (every slashdotter's favorite PAC) to compete with the media groups who can shape the story whatever way they wish.
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, as well as many third-party candidates (some of whom actually won). I did not vote for George Bush, nor did I accept the absurd arguments of James Carvelle and the various DNC leaders who tried to claim that Bush "stole" the election. I will not accept being placed in one of your pidgeon holes, just because I disagree with the current reform bill, and consider McCain to be a shameless media whore.
As for believing it favors the Unions is any particular way, and "empowers" the Media is some NEW way is unfounded and unsupported (here and by you).
So, you are saying that if I, as a multi-billionaire, were to purchace... say, Gannet News Services, I could not use it as a platform for supporting political candidates (in exchange for future favors and access) while avoiding all of the McCain-Feingold regulations?
I do not agree that 'soft money', 'campaign contributions' etc are free speech. Here is why:
The corperation/person is not saying anything. They are giving money to canidates to do something for them. IF they were truely for 'free speach' they would say I/WE/MEGACORP WOULD LIKE YOU TO VOTE FOR XYZ CANIDATE. Instead, they donate money to try and win favors. That in my book is bribery.
Actually, what you describe is hard money.
Soft money is spending on "issue ads" (which are often thinly veiled attempts to bash a favorite candidate's opponent). Direct contributions are not soft money, and are not limited by this current reform proposal.
The real question is, will campaign finance reform prevent this kind of thing in the future?
The real answer is, no. It won't.
The real agenda of campaign finance reform is this:
1. Create populist support for Republican Sen. John "20% of the Keating Five" McCain, and several of his cohorts in the Democratic Party.
2. Expand the power of unions, who are not bound by the new rules.
3. Expand the power of corportations who happen to own media outlets, because producing a 30-minute hatchet job on a candidate on "20/20" or "Nightline" is Free Speech, but a private citizen (or group of citizens) buying 30 minutes on the radio to do the same thing is Soft Money. Ditto for the difference between a two-page editorial and a one-page ad.
4. (and most importantly), Drastically expand the power of incumbents running for re-election, because the new campaign finance law effectively makes it illegal to make critical statements about what your congressman is doing, in any way that costs money to get the word out, within 60 days of an upcoming election.
All of this should get knocked down by the Supreme Court as a clear violation of our First Amendment rights, and most experts agree that it probably will. Any politician that is getting behind it with any enthusiasm is really only doing so to puff up thier image as "fighting for the little guy", and knows full well that they are feeding you a load of BS.
The problem I have with the many cuts of Bladerunner, is that I've never been completely satisfied with any of them.
Spoliers ahoy! If you have not seen the film, read no further.
I rather liked the voice-overs that Scott can't stop telling us he hates. Yes, a few of the lines over-explain a little too much, but it adds to the "Noir" feel that made Bladerunner such a unique sci-fi flick. The line "I didn't know how much time we would have, but then again, who does?" was a pretty good closer for the film, too. That said, the narration does get annoying after you've seen the movie a few times and just want to take in all the eye candy.
The "Director's Cut" seemed to be a case of addition by subtraction. The narration was taken out, but without revisiting the music or pacing of the film, making the experience very slow and ponderous. People who did not see the original theatrical version first did not enjoy it nearly as much as we geeks did. Also, you can't possibly tell me that the close-up of Deckard as the elevator door closed could possibly be the shot that Scott really inteded to end on. It leaves the viewer hanging, and not in a good way. Also, the "Unicorn Dream" seemed to be stock footage from Legend, or something. (Yea, yea... I know... the original ending used leftover footage from The Shining... but at least it was a less obvious recycle job.)
For all of Scott's protests about how the producers of Bladerunner screwed up his movie, it became a classic, and was well loved long before he ever got around to re-doing it. Besides, whenever he's allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit "1492: Conquest of Paradise." Maybe a strong hand from the studio is what he really needs to do good work.
I can see where you are coming from, except the US, while being a big consumer, is not really a big polluter. Many of the so-called "developping world" nations are still generating most of their electricity by burning coal, the worst fuel you can possibly burn, from an environmental standpoint.
Clearly the answer is to do what it takes to make sure that every nation in the world gets filthy rich... as rich as the US. Rich people live longer, grow taller, produce more, pollute less, and offer much stiffer resistance to tyrants and despots. The best way to make a country rich, as the British discovered when they were managing Hong Kong, is to mostly leave them the hell alone. Government can, and must do many things, but too much government is a hinderance to getting rich, and if you want a cleaner environment, you need nations to get rich, therefore less global planning and less enforcement world-wide will probably lead to solving the pollution problem a lot sooner than telling people in dirt-poor equatorial countries that they can't preserve their food in refrigerators that contain CFC's.
On top of that, Apple only bought NeXT because they couldn't cut a deal with BeOS for their system.
Actually, they could. BeOS was available for them to buy, and would have been much cheaper than what they paid for NeXT. They had a choice, and chose NeXT.
Bottom line, Apple believed that Be simply was not worth over $200M, but NeXT was worth over $400M. I suspect the reasons for that difference could be summed up in five words: Steve Jobs and Avi Tevanian.
Of those four movies, I've seen two with digital projection and with normal film, Monster's and Akira. In both cases, the digital experience was much much better.
Telling me that digital was better for watching two cartoons does not do much to inform me.
How about making your A-B comparison with photographic images (where color contrasts matter a lot more) and then come back and tell us what you thought?
When I pop in a CD I want to hear the acoustic guitar like the player was sitting in my living room. Music is an auditory art, and for the most part the artist wants you to hear what he hears when he plays it. Music is the art of reality.
Except that most modern music doesn't really exist in reality.
Ever since Wendy Carlos released "Switched On Bach", the definition of hi-fi has changed. For small ensembles, you still want to try to create the illusion of the "real" performance (although no living room stereo could ever match the power of a full orchestra... you wouldn't want it to if it could), but for the vast majority of what people listen to, it's more like animation that photography.
The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" can be reproduced, sort of, on a live stage, but the "performance" captured by the record is the result of endless hours of studio trickery.
David Gilmour recorded a guitar solo on "Comfortably Numb" which is considered one of the all-time great rock guitar solos... but it never was performed, and never can be. It's physically impossible for a single player to reproduce it. He actually played about a dozen improvised solos, and then patched together the phrases he liked best with a mixing board.
Amelie: Yes its foreign. But why can't it have been nominated for best picture? Is there a rule that best picture has to be a drama?
The people who vote on the Oscars are almost entirely from Hollywood, so unless you are a foppish Italian who is likely to make a jackass of himself for the amusement of all when he wins, your chance of even getting nominated are slim at best. Hope that answers you question.
Well, a plot summary is not the same. I mean you could literally tell the entire story of Moulin Rouge in one sentence, and not leave anything out.
Please do so. Be sure to include:
Satine's tuberculosis, how she was not infomed that she was dying at first, and why.
The other show girl's jealousy of Satine rising above her station.
The way in which the details of the play were used to forshadow the events in the movie.
The underlying struggle between practicality (represented by the Duke and flashbacks to Christian's father) and wild fancy (depicted by the "Children of the Revolution").
I would very much like to see you pull it off.
On the other hand, could it possibly be that the movie actually had a point, but you just missed it?
Put it this way: did you feel any suspense about the relationship and how the movie would end, or did you just watch the spectacle?
Of course not! You are told the very beginning of the movie. One of the first lines in the film is "the woman I loved is dead".
When you watched "The Sound of Music", did you really think that they might not escape the Nazis? That the movie would end with the von Trapp familly being captured, tortured, poisoned, and burried in mass graves at Auschwitz?
I knew how "Ghandi", "Titanic", and "Das Boot" were going to end, too (Ghandi blows up; Titanic sinks; the Germans lose the war).
Sometimes the ending is not what is important about a movie. Moulin Rogue was not an M. Night Shyamalan film.
You "guess" that a French film, in French with English subtitles would be a foreign film!?
(Flame on!)
And what's all this about watching "mostly foregin [sic] films"? Are you saying that you avoid masterpieces like "Memento", just because it's from the same country that gave us dreck like "Slackers"? Or are you just saying that you don't pay much attention to American movies so you can sound more cool and urban?
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of American-made films do very well at Cannes, because even the French can see that the US makes most of the best movies. It wasn't always the case, and it might not be the case a few years down the road, but at the moment it's true. We suck at soccer, at least let us have this!
Remember that the Academy hates any kind of Genre film, be it Western, Crime, Horror, Sci-Fi, or Fantasy.
Westerns like "Unforgiven" and "Dances With Wolves"?
Crime films like "The French Connection", "The Godfather", and "The Godfather, Part II"?
Horror films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Shakespear in Love"?
Okay, you might have a point about sci-fi and fantasy (although "Gladiator" and "Ben-Hur" could loosely be called fantasy movies... well, gay fantasies, anyway).
Then again, even as somebody who really likes science fiction, I can't really think of a sci-fi movie that should have won a Best Picture Oscar. I guess you could make the case that "2001: A Space Odyssey" should have beat out "Oliver!" in 1968, but your opinion would probably be in the minority there.
I guess there was sort of a story, but it was so simplistic you probably sum it up in one sentence.
The same can be said of most musicals.
The Sound of Music: A flighty nun becomes a caretaker for a rich Austrian family who decides to leave the country when Hitler takes over.
West Side Story: A ballet-dancing street thug falls in love with a girl who's brother is in a rival gang.
Jesus Christ Superstar: The Gospel according to Judas.
The Music Man: A con artist pretending to be a music teacher sell instruments in a small Iowa town and falls in love with the local librarian.
Cats: A bunch of faggots jump around in furry costumes while singing lame rock-opera adaptations of poems that T.S. Elliot wrote to amuse small children.
This is just my own opinion, but I suspect if you were to give OS X a chance, you might find that it could simplify your life... You would be able to run the vast majority of apps you have been running on Linux, and would not have to dual-boot to write.doc files or watch DVD's.
I am positive that, with the money it costs to buy a G4, I can build a faster Linux box using AMD gear.
Another reason is speed and maturity. Linux has run on PowerPC for years, and is well supported.
But Linux has run on x86 platforms longer, and is better supported there.
Final reason is cost. OSX isn't free of charge and you must pay for upgrades.
You can not buy a new G4 without getting OS X. And every upgrade to OS X to date has been free. I know this, because I have installed every upgrade on my G4, and have not had to pay a dime for any of them. When 10.1 came out, I was even handed free CD's of the upgrade by the nice folks at the Apple Store, to save me the downloading time.
So all this brings us back to the question: If you want a Linux server, why would you buy a G4 to install it on when a PC is cheaper?
It seems to me like buying a Mercedes and converting the body into a custom pick-up truck... You can do it, but just buying a Toyata Tundra seems to make a whole lot more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Then, I chastize him for being an obvious early-post karma whore, which he was, and instantly am knocked down to -1 as "flamebait". (Learn the difference between flamebait and flame, moderators).
Then somebody reprints almost my entire post for the sole purpose of flaming back at me, and gets modded up as insightful (what insight did he offer, exactly?)
My intial point stands, every last one of you who posted "this already exists in England" are not "insightful" nor "informative". You are redundant, because you are just repeating information that was already present for anybody who followed the link.
If you had, you would have seen:
"While on a trip overseas in the early 1990s, Ontro's founders, Jim Scudder and Jim Berntsen, came upon an interesting product ... a beverage container that would heat its contents without the benefit of external energy sources (microwave, heating element, etc.). They soon found similar products in other parts of the world, but all had two very significant problems."
Followed by information about what makes their product different.
All of you should be modded into oblivion as redundant. Have a nice day, Karma whores.
Smokers are also less likely to get RTS injuries, because the stop typing every hour and a half or so to go have a smoke.
Smokers also save money on the company retirement plans and health insurance policies, because smokers tend to die younger and quicker (heart attacks and lung cancer are much cheaper ways to die than slower diseases).
Bosses who take frequent smoke-breaks are much less likely to be hard-assed about you going to Starbucks every morning at 10:30.
Conclusion: I don't smoke, but would never discourage others in my office from smoking. It is mostly to my advantage that they continue.
Setting aside the incredibly dumb anachronism in that statement...
People like Bach were paid by patrons (in Bach's case, a Lutheran Church).
The patronage system fell away as the middle class grew, and artists discovered there was more money to be made by entertaining the masses than trying to anticipate the tastes of some snobby duke. Mass distribution of music (first as piano sheet music and player-piano rolls, later as recordings) lead to people copying it without paying for it, which lead to demands for more strident protection. For as long as there has been "popular" music, this has been an issue.
Why can't we be like that today? We need more open-source bands, using a GNU-style contract:
Then form one. Am I the only one getting tired of all these open-source "advocates" who keep talking about what everybody else needs to do for them.
I thought that the whole point of the Open Source software movement was supposed to be so people with ambition could contribute to the improvement of the code and that this would lead to better software. Some people seem to think the whole point of the GNU public license is to provide them with more free stuff.
Time to start working on your CI then.
If you live near an urban center, getting a CI equal to your age or higher is a noble goal. If you are not there yet, start buying motorboats, riding lawn tractors, chainsaws, bigger vehicles, snowblowers, gas-powered weed-whips, etc., and your CI will quickly rise. Good luck!
You are driving home my point. Yes, you can buy Gannet today, and you can do so after the bill passes. But what you can't do after the bill is use your own money to run a TV ad critical of, oh... say Senator McCain... within 60 days of his re-election campaign unless you happen to own a news outlet to do it on.
Also, most news organizations these days are owned by major corporations, who have an interest in a lot of political issues (i.e., DMCA). This bill will make it much, much more difficult for somebody like the EFF (every slashdotter's favorite PAC) to compete with the media groups who can shape the story whatever way they wish.
Starting to see my point?
There's no need to resort to name-calling.
I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, as well as many third-party candidates (some of whom actually won). I did not vote for George Bush, nor did I accept the absurd arguments of James Carvelle and the various DNC leaders who tried to claim that Bush "stole" the election. I will not accept being placed in one of your pidgeon holes, just because I disagree with the current reform bill, and consider McCain to be a shameless media whore.
So, you are saying that if I, as a multi-billionaire, were to purchace... say, Gannet News Services, I could not use it as a platform for supporting political candidates (in exchange for future favors and access) while avoiding all of the McCain-Feingold regulations?
The corperation/person is not saying anything. They are giving money to canidates to do something for them. IF they were truely for 'free speach' they would say I/WE/MEGACORP WOULD LIKE YOU TO VOTE FOR XYZ CANIDATE. Instead, they donate money to try and win favors. That in my book is bribery.
Actually, what you describe is hard money.
Soft money is spending on "issue ads" (which are often thinly veiled attempts to bash a favorite candidate's opponent). Direct contributions are not soft money, and are not limited by this current reform proposal.
The real answer is, no. It won't.
The real agenda of campaign finance reform is this:
1. Create populist support for Republican Sen. John "20% of the Keating Five" McCain, and several of his cohorts in the Democratic Party.
2. Expand the power of unions, who are not bound by the new rules.
3. Expand the power of corportations who happen to own media outlets, because producing a 30-minute hatchet job on a candidate on "20/20" or "Nightline" is Free Speech, but a private citizen (or group of citizens) buying 30 minutes on the radio to do the same thing is Soft Money. Ditto for the difference between a two-page editorial and a one-page ad.
4. (and most importantly), Drastically expand the power of incumbents running for re-election, because the new campaign finance law effectively makes it illegal to make critical statements about what your congressman is doing, in any way that costs money to get the word out, within 60 days of an upcoming election.
All of this should get knocked down by the Supreme Court as a clear violation of our First Amendment rights, and most experts agree that it probably will. Any politician that is getting behind it with any enthusiasm is really only doing so to puff up thier image as "fighting for the little guy", and knows full well that they are feeding you a load of BS.
Spoliers ahoy! If you have not seen the film, read no further.
I rather liked the voice-overs that Scott can't stop telling us he hates. Yes, a few of the lines over-explain a little too much, but it adds to the "Noir" feel that made Bladerunner such a unique sci-fi flick. The line "I didn't know how much time we would have, but then again, who does?" was a pretty good closer for the film, too. That said, the narration does get annoying after you've seen the movie a few times and just want to take in all the eye candy.
The "Director's Cut" seemed to be a case of addition by subtraction. The narration was taken out, but without revisiting the music or pacing of the film, making the experience very slow and ponderous. People who did not see the original theatrical version first did not enjoy it nearly as much as we geeks did. Also, you can't possibly tell me that the close-up of Deckard as the elevator door closed could possibly be the shot that Scott really inteded to end on. It leaves the viewer hanging, and not in a good way. Also, the "Unicorn Dream" seemed to be stock footage from Legend, or something. (Yea, yea... I know... the original ending used leftover footage from The Shining... but at least it was a less obvious recycle job.)
For all of Scott's protests about how the producers of Bladerunner screwed up his movie, it became a classic, and was well loved long before he ever got around to re-doing it. Besides, whenever he's allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit "1492: Conquest of Paradise." Maybe a strong hand from the studio is what he really needs to do good work.
Clearly the answer is to do what it takes to make sure that every nation in the world gets filthy rich... as rich as the US. Rich people live longer, grow taller, produce more, pollute less, and offer much stiffer resistance to tyrants and despots. The best way to make a country rich, as the British discovered when they were managing Hong Kong, is to mostly leave them the hell alone. Government can, and must do many things, but too much government is a hinderance to getting rich, and if you want a cleaner environment, you need nations to get rich, therefore less global planning and less enforcement world-wide will probably lead to solving the pollution problem a lot sooner than telling people in dirt-poor equatorial countries that they can't preserve their food in refrigerators that contain CFC's.
Actually, they could. BeOS was available for them to buy, and would have been much cheaper than what they paid for NeXT. They had a choice, and chose NeXT.
Bottom line, Apple believed that Be simply was not worth over $200M, but NeXT was worth over $400M. I suspect the reasons for that difference could be summed up in five words: Steve Jobs and Avi Tevanian.
Telling me that digital was better for watching two cartoons does not do much to inform me.
How about making your A-B comparison with photographic images (where color contrasts matter a lot more) and then come back and tell us what you thought?
MI:2 is a confused mess in the right order anyway, so no harm done.
Except that most modern music doesn't really exist in reality.
Ever since Wendy Carlos released "Switched On Bach", the definition of hi-fi has changed. For small ensembles, you still want to try to create the illusion of the "real" performance (although no living room stereo could ever match the power of a full orchestra... you wouldn't want it to if it could), but for the vast majority of what people listen to, it's more like animation that photography.
The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" can be reproduced, sort of, on a live stage, but the "performance" captured by the record is the result of endless hours of studio trickery.
David Gilmour recorded a guitar solo on "Comfortably Numb" which is considered one of the all-time great rock guitar solos... but it never was performed, and never can be. It's physically impossible for a single player to reproduce it. He actually played about a dozen improvised solos, and then patched together the phrases he liked best with a mixing board.
The people who vote on the Oscars are almost entirely from Hollywood, so unless you are a foppish Italian who is likely to make a jackass of himself for the amusement of all when he wins, your chance of even getting nominated are slim at best. Hope that answers you question.
I actually found it refreshing to see a film take so many risks, even if it failed to connect with some of the audience. For me, it worked.
No need... the title takes care of that for you. :P
Please do so. Be sure to include:
Satine's tuberculosis, how she was not infomed that she was dying at first, and why.
The other show girl's jealousy of Satine rising above her station.
The way in which the details of the play were used to forshadow the events in the movie.
The underlying struggle between practicality (represented by the Duke and flashbacks to Christian's father) and wild fancy (depicted by the "Children of the Revolution").
I would very much like to see you pull it off.
On the other hand, could it possibly be that the movie actually had a point, but you just missed it?
Put it this way: did you feel any suspense about the relationship and how the movie would end, or did you just watch the spectacle?
Of course not! You are told the very beginning of the movie. One of the first lines in the film is "the woman I loved is dead".
When you watched "The Sound of Music", did you really think that they might not escape the Nazis? That the movie would end with the von Trapp familly being captured, tortured, poisoned, and burried in mass graves at Auschwitz?
I knew how "Ghandi", "Titanic", and "Das Boot" were going to end, too (Ghandi blows up; Titanic sinks; the Germans lose the war).
Sometimes the ending is not what is important about a movie. Moulin Rogue was not an M. Night Shyamalan film.
(Flame on!)
And what's all this about watching "mostly foregin [sic] films"? Are you saying that you avoid masterpieces like "Memento", just because it's from the same country that gave us dreck like "Slackers"? Or are you just saying that you don't pay much attention to American movies so you can sound more cool and urban?
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of American-made films do very well at Cannes, because even the French can see that the US makes most of the best movies. It wasn't always the case, and it might not be the case a few years down the road, but at the moment it's true. We suck at soccer, at least let us have this!
Westerns like "Unforgiven" and "Dances With Wolves"?
Crime films like "The French Connection", "The Godfather", and "The Godfather, Part II"?
Horror films like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Shakespear in Love"?
Okay, you might have a point about sci-fi and fantasy (although "Gladiator" and "Ben-Hur" could loosely be called fantasy movies... well, gay fantasies, anyway).
Then again, even as somebody who really likes science fiction, I can't really think of a sci-fi movie that should have won a Best Picture Oscar. I guess you could make the case that "2001: A Space Odyssey" should have beat out "Oliver!" in 1968, but your opinion would probably be in the minority there.
The same can be said of most musicals.
The Sound of Music: A flighty nun becomes a caretaker for a rich Austrian family who decides to leave the country when Hitler takes over.
West Side Story: A ballet-dancing street thug falls in love with a girl who's brother is in a rival gang.
Jesus Christ Superstar: The Gospel according to Judas.
The Music Man: A con artist pretending to be a music teacher sell instruments in a small Iowa town and falls in love with the local librarian.
Cats: A bunch of faggots jump around in furry costumes while singing lame rock-opera adaptations of poems that T.S. Elliot wrote to amuse small children.
This is just my own opinion, but I suspect if you were to give OS X a chance, you might find that it could simplify your life... You would be able to run the vast majority of apps you have been running on Linux, and would not have to dual-boot to write .doc files or watch DVD's.
On the other hand, to each his own.
I am positive that, with the money it costs to buy a G4, I can build a faster Linux box using AMD gear.
Another reason is speed and maturity. Linux has run on PowerPC for years, and is well supported.
But Linux has run on x86 platforms longer, and is better supported there.
Final reason is cost. OSX isn't free of charge and you must pay for upgrades.
You can not buy a new G4 without getting OS X. And every upgrade to OS X to date has been free. I know this, because I have installed every upgrade on my G4, and have not had to pay a dime for any of them. When 10.1 came out, I was even handed free CD's of the upgrade by the nice folks at the Apple Store, to save me the downloading time.
So all this brings us back to the question: If you want a Linux server, why would you buy a G4 to install it on when a PC is cheaper?
It seems to me like buying a Mercedes and converting the body into a custom pick-up truck... You can do it, but just buying a Toyata Tundra seems to make a whole lot more sense.