Not really, that's not how a free market works. The creator get's to decide how they want to try to put their product out to consumers but ultimately, it is the consumers that decide how to consume the product. Certainly, anyone creating something deserves compensation for their work, that is a given, but in this instance, we're talking about how something they are fighting tooth and nail against is actually HELPING them make more money than they would have without it. Until they start delivering content to us in ways that we want to consume, they will be fighting a battle like this. I can't help but think that a movie like this would have made a hell of a lot more if they had released it through a service like netflix or a custom content delivery system, charging $4 or $5 for a viewing opening weekend. I think about places like where I am currently and it was storming pretty much most of the weekend. So many people wanted to go see it, but didn't want to go out in the storms. They could have made $5 for each of us, but instead made nothing from us. Again, the secret they have not learned yet is, cater to your audience/consumer base, not your draconian ways.
I'll say this, you are correct that they aren't "our Batman and James Bond" but the younger generations aren't our generation either. They have different views of what is good and what isn't. Honestly, I would rather have new movies that cater more towards them to keep the story and characters alive and kicking for the next few generations than to lose them to obscurity.
Except that time and time again, game, app, and indie movie publishers are shown that piracy actually ends up helping their sales and the spread of their product.
I honestly didn't mind the hollywood remake of Girl with a dragon tattoo. It wasn't that far off the story, very close to what they original Swedish version was and had good casting. I would like to see them make Girl who played with fire and Girl who kicked the hornet's nest though.
This is corporate america. They spend large sums for migrations to get mediocre upgrades while laying off thousands of people in order to keep the exec's salaries and bonuses in the 30+ million range.
It's the complete office integration. It's not just excel. I give you the example that my company uses, MS Office is pretty much the cornerstone of daily business for these guys. They rely on things like Outlook -> Office communicator integration. They can't have a meeting where a powerpoint deck isn't shown, even when it has meaningless or trivial information. They just spent around $11,000,000 migrating all internal sites and employee portals to sharepoint 2010 which integrates with.... office.
Real integration. Additionally, it isn't nearly as stupidly easy as most end-users need it to be. You have to remember, the people sitting at the desks that aren't in the IT office are generally morons when it comes to the magic adding machine they can't even turn on.
Normalization!?! You mean there are people other myself that actually know what this is? I swear, I've had to work on some horrible pieces of shit recently. Most not even able to meet 1NF.
If you're doing it right, you're not having to "do it all over again". You're only having to change small portions of a piece of software rather than huge chunks or starting over.
Sort of, I find that agile works great in conditions where the product is in an industry with much regulation. Regulations tend to get changed, added to and sometimes even removed often enough in many industries that agile works great.
+1 though I do have to say, it is a very fine line to walk. I've had many customers come back with "we didn't ask for it, we're not paying" when the reality is, it often comes out to be the best and most used part of the software they are buying. The contract I am on currently is a prime example of the responsible parties not having a clue as to what they users of the software actually need. However, when building what the users actually need, the "stakeholders" get pissy about costs, implementation, etc.
Because, as a point of fact, ethnic minorities are always targeted first by police. "He's , so he's going to commit a crime at some point. Let's go ahead and book him for something so we can get him on file"
So, when the police come knocking on your door to take you to jail for a rape that you didn't commit, 4 states away, because your markers were "close enough" or they fucked up the evidence/results (which happens all the goddamn time), you're going to be okay with that? How about when they decide to start selling your information off to private companies for whatever use they deem fitting.
Not many places still use fingerprint cards. Most of the up to date police stations used a scanner to scan in your fingerprints. The scanning glass is cleaned prior to and after the prints are taken.
But there you hit the nail on the head. You would willingly divulge this information rather than them forcing you to give it up under penalty of law. Major difference between giving something away and having it take from you.
No, an officer detaining someone merely means that they are keeping them present while questioning, witness statements are and evidence is gathered. Technically, when you are pulled over, you are being detained but not arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, that's not how a free market works. The creator get's to decide how they want to try to put their product out to consumers but ultimately, it is the consumers that decide how to consume the product. Certainly, anyone creating something deserves compensation for their work, that is a given, but in this instance, we're talking about how something they are fighting tooth and nail against is actually HELPING them make more money than they would have without it. Until they start delivering content to us in ways that we want to consume, they will be fighting a battle like this. I can't help but think that a movie like this would have made a hell of a lot more if they had released it through a service like netflix or a custom content delivery system, charging $4 or $5 for a viewing opening weekend. I think about places like where I am currently and it was storming pretty much most of the weekend. So many people wanted to go see it, but didn't want to go out in the storms. They could have made $5 for each of us, but instead made nothing from us. Again, the secret they have not learned yet is, cater to your audience/consumer base, not your draconian ways.
I'll say this, you are correct that they aren't "our Batman and James Bond" but the younger generations aren't our generation either. They have different views of what is good and what isn't. Honestly, I would rather have new movies that cater more towards them to keep the story and characters alive and kicking for the next few generations than to lose them to obscurity.
They do know and they don't care. Ignoring inflation gets them new "records" and thus more press and free publicity.
Except that time and time again, game, app, and indie movie publishers are shown that piracy actually ends up helping their sales and the spread of their product.
http://www.digital-digest.com/news-63620-New-Study-Says-Music-Piracy-Does-Not-Hurt-Music-Sales-May-Even-Help.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/29/report-album-piracy-may-help-musicians-sell
http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-may-boost-sales-111102/
That's complete bullshit. There are too many instances here where laws do not get changed even though millions desire it.
I honestly didn't mind the hollywood remake of Girl with a dragon tattoo. It wasn't that far off the story, very close to what they original Swedish version was and had good casting. I would like to see them make Girl who played with fire and Girl who kicked the hornet's nest though.
This is corporate america. They spend large sums for migrations to get mediocre upgrades while laying off thousands of people in order to keep the exec's salaries and bonuses in the 30+ million range.
It's the complete office integration. It's not just excel. I give you the example that my company uses, MS Office is pretty much the cornerstone of daily business for these guys. They rely on things like Outlook -> Office communicator integration. They can't have a meeting where a powerpoint deck isn't shown, even when it has meaningless or trivial information. They just spent around $11,000,000 migrating all internal sites and employee portals to sharepoint 2010 which integrates with.... office.
I don't drool over apps. They, however, do.
Real integration. Additionally, it isn't nearly as stupidly easy as most end-users need it to be. You have to remember, the people sitting at the desks that aren't in the IT office are generally morons when it comes to the magic adding machine they can't even turn on.
Normalization!?! You mean there are people other myself that actually know what this is? I swear, I've had to work on some horrible pieces of shit recently. Most not even able to meet 1NF.
it's true but people here are using these unrelated things as arguments against agile.
be glad they did, I did some work for the Air Force some years ago. It was a nightmare.
If you're not accounting for overage/scope creep from the get-go, you're doing it wrong.
If you're doing it right, you're not having to "do it all over again". You're only having to change small portions of a piece of software rather than huge chunks or starting over.
Sort of, I find that agile works great in conditions where the product is in an industry with much regulation. Regulations tend to get changed, added to and sometimes even removed often enough in many industries that agile works great.
+1 though I do have to say, it is a very fine line to walk. I've had many customers come back with "we didn't ask for it, we're not paying" when the reality is, it often comes out to be the best and most used part of the software they are buying. The contract I am on currently is a prime example of the responsible parties not having a clue as to what they users of the software actually need. However, when building what the users actually need, the "stakeholders" get pissy about costs, implementation, etc.
Most stated actually have separate definitions for evasion vs resisting.
Because, as a point of fact, ethnic minorities are always targeted first by police. "He's , so he's going to commit a crime at some point. Let's go ahead and book him for something so we can get him on file"
So, when the police come knocking on your door to take you to jail for a rape that you didn't commit, 4 states away, because your markers were "close enough" or they fucked up the evidence/results (which happens all the goddamn time), you're going to be okay with that? How about when they decide to start selling your information off to private companies for whatever use they deem fitting.
Not many places still use fingerprint cards. Most of the up to date police stations used a scanner to scan in your fingerprints. The scanning glass is cleaned prior to and after the prints are taken.
But there you hit the nail on the head. You would willingly divulge this information rather than them forcing you to give it up under penalty of law. Major difference between giving something away and having it take from you.
No, an officer detaining someone merely means that they are keeping them present while questioning, witness statements are and evidence is gathered. Technically, when you are pulled over, you are being detained but not arrested.
No, you are then arrested for felony evasion. Very different than just resisting arrest.
Yes they do. To the extent of being unidentifiable in comparison to the early scans in many cases.