Actually, it's easy to argue with. If I list an item on Ebay, that doesn't make me an auctioneer, it makes me a seller. Ebay is the auctioneer. It's no different than giving a bunch of items to an old-fashioned auctioneer to sell. You're not the one up there auctioning them; he is. This just sounds like more local and state governments trying to collect money for nothing.
I'll take the guess work out of it. The link to the Philadelphia Inquirer article that I was talking about is in it too. Here:
How are eBayers not paying taxes? If you derive income from selling things online, you're legally obligated to report that income on your income tax form and pay taxes for it. If you do it as a business, your business has to keep records and pay taxes. There's nothing fair about adding extra taxes on something just because it's on the internet.
Simple. They either don't know the laws or don't report! I'm not saying that they got hit with extra taxes from the government. It's just that they may have been paying no taxes at all.
Well, that would probably be the reason why Batman was particularly bad to watch there! I agree that OmniMAX is great for nature films and it's totally unsuitable for a regular movie. Someone needs to tell them that. One of my coworkers said that he went to see Superman at the same theater, but walked out 10 minutes into the movie and demanded his money back. I wish I had known to do that because I had actually considered walking out. I would have done the same for sure!
I'm pretty sure I read an article in a newspaper about people having to register as auctioneers because of their volume of business. It's hard to argue with. Why should a normal business have to pay taxes when an eBayer only has to pay eBay? It might seem lame, but what's fair isn't always popular.
I saw the new Batman in what I'm pretty sure is a "true" IMAX theater in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. I saw 300 in what is I heard is not a "true" IMAX screen in King of Prussia. I just think that the screen is too big and there is too much to look at. Keep in mind that I saw both in regular theaters as well, so I have an excellent frame of reference. I'm not alone, I have heard a lot of complaints about various movies. When people left the theater, all I heard was people talking about the projection method of the movie, not the movie itself!
Here are a few examples:
- Scenes were you had two people on either side of the screen. You literally have to rotate your head about 150 degrees. - Action sequences a hard to understand because all you see is a foot or fist flying. It's hard to get a comprehensive view of the action. - Headshot cuts are just massive. - One is too concerned with getting comfortable and it ruins the suspension of disbelief.
Needless to say, I think that some sort of repeat customer metric would be interesting to evaluate.
I totally agree with you. It's rare that an action film like Batman could offer such insights. It truly was a treat to experience and I can't wait for more!
Hang on a second there with that IMAX comment. I honestly think that people want to like IMAX so much that they don't objectively evaluate it. IMAX is great for nature movies. It's downright awful for regular feature films. The screen is simply too big and it is so uncomfortable to watch. One can hardly tell what is going on during action sequences because it's too hard to get the whole screen in one's field of vision. Regular stadium seating theaters are probably the best format for a feature film. It's what the film was meant to be shown on. It's a bad idea to shoehorn one technology into another because they don't play as well as one might imagine at first.
Re:It's not the latest Batman flick
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
After viewing American Psycho, I feel like Christian Bale was hardly allowed to use the available talent that he has. Granted, different movies call for different styles and not all characters are the same, but Bruce Wayne and Batman both didn't seem to get the treatment that they deserved. At least not when compared to the Joker.
If that's the case, then I don't think that it translates the medias well. I don't think you can force one to the other and have it work. The adaptation of 300 did a good job, but I think that Batman is a bit too choppy.
Is it just me or was the Bat-Bike the slowest fast thing that you've ever seen in a movie? It always looked like on a relative scale that it should be or was moving fast, but it wasn't actually going that fast at all on an absolute scale. It was weird.
Even though I think the move was excellent, I agree with you. Sometimes they would have 3 or so subplots going concurrently and just cut to each one. The transitions were poor and it seemed like just a bunch of scenes thrown together. It actually reminded me of the beginning of Star Wars Episode 3 when the plot was coming at the audience at light speed and they would just jump all over the place. It was especially awkward because I think there was little background music.
Either way, I still like both movies a lot though. The new take on Batman is very compelling and interesting. While I like the Tim Burton style in its own right, I like Batman being less cartoony. The new style seems to really help to add meaning to the character development of almost all of the characters. The takeaway is a much more rewarding experience on a deeper level.
I'd be interested to find out if eBay is losing popularity or if online auctioning is losing popularity. Remember that that has been a crackdown by some state governments to collect taxes. This could discourage people from continuing their activities.
Looks like I picked the wrong parser option. Let's try that again.
I'm not trying to start an angry thread here, but I think there are a few problems with your post:
- You assume that making the wrong choice (as defined by your disappointment) is worse than making no choice. - You assume that McCain was properly informed to vote on the bill. - If McCain was in fact not informed and did not feel qualified to vote on the bill, you assume that making an uninformed decision is better than recognizing that one is not informed and it is better to abstain. - You assume that one must vote on a bill whether or not one agrees with the entirety of the bill.
I'm not trying to start an angry thread here, but I think there are a few problems with your post:
- You assume that making the wrong choice (as defined by your disappointment) is worse than making no choice.
- You assume that McCain was properly informed to vote on the bill.
- If McCain was in fact not informed and did not feel qualified to vote on the bill, you assume that making an uninformed decision is better than recognizing that one is not informed and it is better to abstain.
- You assume that one must vote on a bill whether or not one agrees with the entirety of the bill.
It's because Obama isn't the political messiah that he and his rapid horde of supports claim him to be.
NEWS FLASH: Obama is just another politician! Just because he says he represents change and claims to be changing things, the truth is that he really isn't! He criticizes Clinton and McCain for playing the same old Washington politics for the gas tax holiday even though he did the same thing in his own state. When confronted about it, he spun it such that he knew that it doesn't work through experience. Guess what. He still tried to play those very games that he denounced!
Politics make me sick. They should make you sick too. Don't view third parties as "throwing your vote away". Almost everyone has been throwing their votes away and the people we have representing us are just the proof of that!
I wasn't really making an argument, just more stating my feeling. I know that the code has nothing to do with it. It's just a feeling of guilt by association now that I think about it.
Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?
Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's easy to argue with. If I list an item on Ebay, that doesn't make me an auctioneer, it makes me a seller. Ebay is the auctioneer. It's no different than giving a bunch of items to an old-fashioned auctioneer to sell. You're not the one up there auctioning them; he is. This just sounds like more local and state governments trying to collect money for nothing.
I'll take the guess work out of it. The link to the Philadelphia Inquirer article that I was talking about is in it too. Here:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080201/021626147.shtml
How are eBayers not paying taxes? If you derive income from selling things online, you're legally obligated to report that income on your income tax form and pay taxes for it. If you do it as a business, your business has to keep records and pay taxes. There's nothing fair about adding extra taxes on something just because it's on the internet.
Simple. They either don't know the laws or don't report! I'm not saying that they got hit with extra taxes from the government. It's just that they may have been paying no taxes at all.
Well, that would probably be the reason why Batman was particularly bad to watch there! I agree that OmniMAX is great for nature films and it's totally unsuitable for a regular movie. Someone needs to tell them that. One of my coworkers said that he went to see Superman at the same theater, but walked out 10 minutes into the movie and demanded his money back. I wish I had known to do that because I had actually considered walking out. I would have done the same for sure!
I'm pretty sure I read an article in a newspaper about people having to register as auctioneers because of their volume of business. It's hard to argue with. Why should a normal business have to pay taxes when an eBayer only has to pay eBay? It might seem lame, but what's fair isn't always popular.
It was literally a bike? I assumed it was CG. I guess that partially explains it.
Speaking of the new Batmobile, I think it's just plain silly. Maybe we can get a new one now that the current one was self-destructed!
I saw the new Batman in what I'm pretty sure is a "true" IMAX theater in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. I saw 300 in what is I heard is not a "true" IMAX screen in King of Prussia. I just think that the screen is too big and there is too much to look at. Keep in mind that I saw both in regular theaters as well, so I have an excellent frame of reference. I'm not alone, I have heard a lot of complaints about various movies. When people left the theater, all I heard was people talking about the projection method of the movie, not the movie itself!
Here are a few examples:
- Scenes were you had two people on either side of the screen. You literally have to rotate your head about 150 degrees.
- Action sequences a hard to understand because all you see is a foot or fist flying. It's hard to get a comprehensive view of the action.
- Headshot cuts are just massive.
- One is too concerned with getting comfortable and it ruins the suspension of disbelief.
Needless to say, I think that some sort of repeat customer metric would be interesting to evaluate.
I totally agree with you. It's rare that an action film like Batman could offer such insights. It truly was a treat to experience and I can't wait for more!
Hang on a second there with that IMAX comment. I honestly think that people want to like IMAX so much that they don't objectively evaluate it. IMAX is great for nature movies. It's downright awful for regular feature films. The screen is simply too big and it is so uncomfortable to watch. One can hardly tell what is going on during action sequences because it's too hard to get the whole screen in one's field of vision. Regular stadium seating theaters are probably the best format for a feature film. It's what the film was meant to be shown on. It's a bad idea to shoehorn one technology into another because they don't play as well as one might imagine at first.
After viewing American Psycho, I feel like Christian Bale was hardly allowed to use the available talent that he has. Granted, different movies call for different styles and not all characters are the same, but Bruce Wayne and Batman both didn't seem to get the treatment that they deserved. At least not when compared to the Joker.
If that's the case, then I don't think that it translates the medias well. I don't think you can force one to the other and have it work. The adaptation of 300 did a good job, but I think that Batman is a bit too choppy.
Is it just me or was the Bat-Bike the slowest fast thing that you've ever seen in a movie? It always looked like on a relative scale that it should be or was moving fast, but it wasn't actually going that fast at all on an absolute scale. It was weird.
Great move though. I can't wait for more!
Even though I think the move was excellent, I agree with you. Sometimes they would have 3 or so subplots going concurrently and just cut to each one. The transitions were poor and it seemed like just a bunch of scenes thrown together. It actually reminded me of the beginning of Star Wars Episode 3 when the plot was coming at the audience at light speed and they would just jump all over the place. It was especially awkward because I think there was little background music.
Either way, I still like both movies a lot though. The new take on Batman is very compelling and interesting. While I like the Tim Burton style in its own right, I like Batman being less cartoony. The new style seems to really help to add meaning to the character development of almost all of the characters. The takeaway is a much more rewarding experience on a deeper level.
I'd be interested to find out if eBay is losing popularity or if online auctioning is losing popularity. Remember that that has been a crackdown by some state governments to collect taxes. This could discourage people from continuing their activities.
They have a business model? What is it?
Let me clarify my correction by rewriting the point:
- You assume that making no choice is worse than making the wrong choice (as defined by your disappointment).
No, you are not missing something. I mixed them up! I meant that making no choice is worse than making the wrong choice.
It wasn't a Freudian slip, I swear!
*rabid horde of supporters
Agreed!
I'd be interested to see why he didn't vote and which way he was leaning, that is if he was leaning one way at all.
Hope is not a strategy! Someone needs to tell Obama fans that!
Looks like I picked the wrong parser option. Let's try that again.
I'm not trying to start an angry thread here, but I think there are a few problems with your post:
- You assume that making the wrong choice (as defined by your disappointment) is worse than making no choice.
- You assume that McCain was properly informed to vote on the bill.
- If McCain was in fact not informed and did not feel qualified to vote on the bill, you assume that making an uninformed decision is better than recognizing that one is not informed and it is better to abstain.
- You assume that one must vote on a bill whether or not one agrees with the entirety of the bill.
I'm not trying to start an angry thread here, but I think there are a few problems with your post: - You assume that making the wrong choice (as defined by your disappointment) is worse than making no choice. - You assume that McCain was properly informed to vote on the bill. - If McCain was in fact not informed and did not feel qualified to vote on the bill, you assume that making an uninformed decision is better than recognizing that one is not informed and it is better to abstain. - You assume that one must vote on a bill whether or not one agrees with the entirety of the bill.
Why didn't Obama try to stop this?
It's because Obama isn't the political messiah that he and his rapid horde of supports claim him to be.
NEWS FLASH: Obama is just another politician! Just because he says he represents change and claims to be changing things, the truth is that he really isn't! He criticizes Clinton and McCain for playing the same old Washington politics for the gas tax holiday even though he did the same thing in his own state. When confronted about it, he spun it such that he knew that it doesn't work through experience. Guess what. He still tried to play those very games that he denounced!
Politics make me sick. They should make you sick too. Don't view third parties as "throwing your vote away". Almost everyone has been throwing their votes away and the people we have representing us are just the proof of that!
I wasn't really making an argument, just more stating my feeling. I know that the code has nothing to do with it. It's just a feeling of guilt by association now that I think about it.
I never said it was logical! It's creepy!
Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system? Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.