Ok so I can appreciate that the contract says Lee gets 10% of the profits from the movie. And through clever accounting, they have not made a profit on the movie. He was dumb to agree to a percentage of net vs. gross. It's not illegal to be greedy or slimy--and Lee chose to sign under the agree-upon terms.
My problem is that Marvel knew full well that they would not make a profit on the movie because movies never make profits. So they offered him an amount they knew was equal to zero. Because the contract was not made in good faith, it should be void.
I hadn't thought about the NCAA analogy, but find it very interesting. The NCAA is absolutely notorious for making inconsistent, hypocritical decisions which almost always consider the financial implications to the NCAA and almost never consider the best interests of the student athletes. Case in point, the shoe fiasco at the University of Wisconsin where student athletes got discounted shoes--(a discount available to any student who asked for it by the way) Meanwhile, they don't bat an eyelash when the same university gets $7 million to get free shoes from Reebok. The NCAA signs a $6 billion contract with CBS for the rights to the NCAA basketball tournament, yet the players aren't allowed to get a dime of it. And if a player gets injured in "voluntary" training, they aren't covered by university insurance. Drew Hensen and others are allowed to sign a contract and signing bonus to play basebball while still being eligible to play football. Colorado player Jeremy Bloom isn't allowed to receive endorsments for skiing and still be eligible for football.
Rant aside the NCAA analogy rings true. Both are supposed to have the best interests of the little guy, but really only care about the almighty dollar.
Not really--people are more than happy to try listening to all kinds of different music to find stuff they like. That is essentially what the Napster phenomona is all about. The radio stations all play the same music, and people want to find different stuff. Yeah some of it is just getting music for free, but big part of it is trying and finding new music. If tons and tons of stuff was available to "sift through" most of us would be much happier. Plus whole new "channels" would be created. A lot of people love to find a new band and recommend it to their friends--for crying out loud, the maket that everyone says the record industry survives on, teens whole culture is based on this--getting respect/credibility/whatever from others by turning them on to "cool stuff."
And P-to-P systems can easily have ratings for music, the crap gets sifted out, and ti would be much more successful than the record companies at this because they're guessing at what people like while people rating the music is by definition what they want.
Actually he hasn't been doing this for all that long. By far what's made him the richest man in the world has been his lack of diversification in other holdings. While other founding CEO's like Ellison, Michael Dell, Bezos, Rob Glaser (Real Networks) and even fellow MS foundner Paul Allen have done the "smart thing" (according to financial planners) and protected their assets at least to some extent by investing in other companies, Gates kept nearly every penny in MS for years. It's only been the last year or two that he's been selling off a small percentage of his MSFT holdings.
a good liberal education is, and should be, part of what being a college graduate in any subject means.
I almost agree, just one minor change: a good liberal education is, and should be, part of what being a University graduate in any subject means.
Pretty much every University's mission or charter is to provide a broad education in addition to (book) expertise in a specific field of study. I think the argument most of us have is that they need to do a better job of keeping up with the times as far as what elements should be part of this broad education, but for the most part their intentions are good.
However, small colleges and technical schools should be able to focus specifically on one area if they choose, so students can choose that route if it's more appropriate for them. One size does not fit all.
Society is best served if most people have broad experiences to give them perspective and yet a small percentage are allowed to focus singlemindedly on a specific field of expertise.
Ideal world aside, I have to admit that I was pretty upset when the University I attended forced me to take some classes not even remotely connected to my major--not because I was against learning the material but because I objected to being forced to pay for it.
Harley Davidson is a little bit of another story anyway--as you said, they were very close to disappearing, for a lot of reasons--arrogance and neglecting signs of the market changing among them. Anyway, they got bailed out big-time by the state (primarily because of then governor now HHS secretary Tommy Thompson who's a big Harley fan) decided that HD failing would put too many people out of work and hurt the state economy too much. It ended up working out well, the state funding kept HD solvent, they made a lot of improvements and within a few years (5 or so) were successful enough to repay a lot of the state's money.
I'm normally a pretty big believer in keeping the government out of things, but sometimes it turns out to be a great move for everyone.
I'm considerably over 21 (and gaining speed so it seems) and I disagree. I believe those who are over 21 and drink responsibly due so in large part because it is legal. The thrill of rebellion is gone. Drop the drinking age to 18 or 19 and I think more 18 or 19 year olds would behave approximately as responsible as 21 year olds do now.
Though I have a much larger issue with forcing the BAC level to.08. In my area, the larger problem and danger to society is the great number drunk drivers who have been pulled over 5 or more times, and often even 10-15 offenses. These people are 25+ and will not stop until they kill themselves or more likely some one else. A real prison term might help as well, and at the very least, it would keep them off the roads. But by lowering the BAC, the politicians get to pretend they're fixing the problem (which clearly they are not), without costing any more money like atually giving prison time for multiple offenders.
No you didn't read the post you responded to--he was arguing that even if they have a patent on the gene (which is absolutely insane) a test to see if that gene exists is not patent infringement. Say you have a patent on a new carburator for car engines. I can't copy it, but there's no way you can stop me from opening the hood of a car simply to see if it is there or not.
They can patent a specific test for that gene, in which case using that test would be patent infringement. But others would be free to come up with a different test for it. And if they have somehow gotten a patent on any possible test then whoever the patent reviewer was should be shot.
I know I'll get slammed for this, but how does a post saying software is cheaper than cars get a +4?
I was going to list a bunch of reasons why comparing cars and sofware is invalid but I haven't the time or energy. You can't compare intellectual property with physical property from a cost (either to create or selling price) perspective. It's so apples and oranges it's not even funny. You might just as well say that audio CD's are cheap compared to furniture. But if you're really intent on comparing the automobile and software industries, I refer you to If Microsoft Made Cars.
Germane issues to this would be development costs, duplication & distribution costs, marketing, supply and demand, etc. But not the cost of cars.
Actually that's not true. According to the Ad Council's website, the Campaign for Freedom campain was developed following the tragedies of 9/11:
"Developed following the tragedies of September 11th, the Ad Council's Campaign for Freedom is an unprecedented volunteer effort from the advertising industry. The initiative is designed to assist Americans during the war on terrorism through the development of timely and relevant PSAs. This first round of PSAs has been created to celebrate our nation's freedom and remind Americans about the importance of freedom and the need to protect it for future generations. According to research, Americans are looking for messages that will inform, involve and inspire them during the war on terrorism. This inspirational campaign is advertising's gift to America. All of the ads conclude with the powerful tagline, "Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it."
Almost, but not quite. The law is completely ineffective. But not pointless--the point is to make it look like they're protecting people without offending the roller coaster operators (or at least their checkbooks). Ineffective doesn't mean it's not dangerous or perhaps more appropriately negligent. I have no personal experience, but from people who have, it seems like there are some legitimate safety concerns with New Jersey roller coasters. This law pretends to make them safer but does not--and they know it. Politicans who do things like this (authoring/passing a law that they know doesn't do anything) should be thrown in jail for violation of the public trust.
Then again, even though I'm a very vocal advocate of stiffer drunk driving laws, I think the same thing of the Federal Government using highway funding to force states to lower the legal BAC to.08 is just as bad if not worse. At least in my state, repeat (and often even 10+ time) offenders with BAC of over.15 make up the majority of accidents and especially fatalities.
I don't think we believe everything unless it can be proven wrong--I think it's more a matter of whether it can be proven. There is no proof of extraterrestrials or that we're not alone in the universe. But at some point, it can and will be proven. We will discover other beings (or more likely, evidence of their existense) or we won't. At some point, our we will have explored enough of the universe to know one way or the other. Granted we're a really long damn way from that point, but ultimately we will get there. No amount of time or exploration will provide proof either either way on God--either people believe in God or they don't--to an agnostic, it is unprovable.
steve snyder
I thought it might be of some interest--Oscar winner Marlee Matlin was one of the biggest advocates of closed captioning and worked hard to get the legislation passed in congress.
Anyone who has ever been in a busy bar and wants to catch something on TV knows closed captioning is a great feature for more than just hearing impared people. More recently, as the father of a brand new baby girl, I've found it very useful when either she's crying and I'm trying to rock her to sleep or I want to watch something and don't want to wake her up.
In theory I agree with you--for most people, it is about what tasks or work needs to get done. This is more like the Palm OS, which is much more task oriented IMHO. Howerver, the big conflict with this is that choice and competition is a good thing. If you want to write a letter, how does the OS decide what program to use? And if the OS forces the issue, it's essentially just part of the OS. Why not just have the OS integrate everything? Surely it would improve speed, stability and interopability. But choice and competition are that important. Look at MS Word--no real competition so it has become so big and bloated that it gets in the way 95% of the time. Look at other things like Illustrator vs. Freehand or Flash vs. LiveMotion. Granted that's kind of extreme because the two companies seem to really hate each other, but competition has pushed them to create really good software. Think of the serious dent in innovation if freeware/shareware or Open Source Software had the barriers to getting on users machines that seems at least somewhat inevitable in a solely task oriented approach.
This is one of those things that is a pretty difficult issue to deal with, how do you remedy the task oriented approach vs. still allowing for choice and competition. Are there ways for the two to co-exist that I'm missing?
Hate to repeat other posts, but I wanted to emphasize that AppleScript does a really good job of what you're asking for. It's not for the very basic user, but moderate to advanced users can do a lot of really powerful scripting with AppleScript--complex tasks that are too intricate or repetitive to do with a GUI can be doing really well with AppleScript. Fault the implementation or the syntax it uses or the fact that it's only for Macs, but AppleScript seems to be exactly the concept you're asking for.
And OSX has brought back the CLI, if you think AppleScript falls short. (normal disclaimer about Macs only being a low percentage of computers (and really low for those using OSX) and limtited, expensive hardware)
That's always been my complaint about Jef Raskin too--while he did some great things with the Apple's GUI, he's always so critical of what's wrong with everything out there, but doesn't give reasons or better solutions. I guess some of it comes with the territory of being a usability expert, because I have pretty much the same gripe of Jakob Nielson--though in all fairness, he does spend a lot of time explaining the why's and why not's. While developers can try and learn from what these guys do, and make sure to not do the things that they complain about, I would love to see them help bring to market better solutions. Let's face it, UI is a follow the leader endeavor--there hasn't been any great innovation since 1984, because there really hasn't been any leaders. There's nothing left to copy, so things have pretty stayed put. If Raskin were to come out with a UI that is 1/10 as revolutionary as the original MacOS, everyone would be copying it.
Not just CYA for HR but it's also a matter of justifying their existence. They like to show how important they are, and that no one else can do their job. Personally this has always been one of the most obnoxious things about corporate America to me--It's kinda like letting the Federal Government run everything imaginable (of course every time you blink they are taking more over)--but anyway, the truth is 95% of the decisions should be made by the person/people closest to the situation. If I'm a manager, accountable for a certain product (or process) no one else in the company, should be able to tell me how to get it done. HR should not be able to tell me who I can hire or fire because they don't know my job. My boss can give me suggestions and guidance, but if he/she want's to micromanage me, he must not think I am capable of doing the job and should fire me and find some one else who can.
Rather than when will insurance companies mandate this, when will the politicians (whose pockets are greased by the insurance and other "interested parties") pass legislation that with holds federal highway funding unless the states require it. Just like the drunk driving laws--never mind the fact that lowering BAC limit to.08 from.1 does nothing to reduce the accidents from drunk driving. At least around here, I'd bet at least 75% of the time when there's a druk driving fatality, the driver had been convicted of drunk driving multiple times typically with BAC of.15 or higher.
OK OT rant, it's a hot topic for me--I guess I could use a karma smacking anyway.
steve
I have to agree with that--I'm not a professional astronomer (though I am interested in science and astronomy) it really doesn't mean much to me--not because I don't understand the scale, I looked it up and understand it for the most part. But to say that this is x percent more or less likely to kill me than a random astroid doesn't make me feel any better or give me a better understanding of the risks because I don't know what the "background risk" currently is.
I am however a firm believer in spending money to look for & track everything out there with even a remote possibility to hit us. The odds may be slim, but it only takes one.
I kind of agree--the points about it being good from time to time to throw everything out and eliminate the layers of garbage are good, but the problem is whenever there's this break, the reasons cited-to allow big steps forward by eliminating all the old junk-never happens. The implementation sucks I guess, because whether it's software or hardware, it always ends up being years before all of the functionality, speed & stability are back to where they were before.
A new study done by the Flugenheimer Institute shows that 80% of the listeners of FM radio do not buy music in stores. "These people are clearly being unethical and taking food off the table of starving slav...er artitsts," said Hilarity Red. "By listening to the radio in place of purchasing music, they are endangering the artistic incentives for all of humanity."
I understand the trade secret thing, really I do. And I understand that Google Technology explains as much as they're willing to say about PageRank and their algorithms. I really do understand that--and keeping it secret helps prevent abuse by the marketers which preserves the great quality of the results. But why couldn't he have bee a little more polite and said that they don't disclose that and directed people to the webpage or given the general info from it. At least for me, it wasn't that he wouldn't disclose the info, he just seemed to short in the way he avoided it. The rest of the interview was really good, and I can't help but wish I were smart enough to work there and have a hand in the fantastic stuff they do.
Slashdot Mirror
My problem is that Marvel knew full well that they would not make a profit on the movie because movies never make profits. So they offered him an amount they knew was equal to zero. Because the contract was not made in good faith, it should be void.
Rant aside the NCAA analogy rings true. Both are supposed to have the best interests of the little guy, but really only care about the almighty dollar.
And P-to-P systems can easily have ratings for music, the crap gets sifted out, and ti would be much more successful than the record companies at this because they're guessing at what people like while people rating the music is by definition what they want.
Did I miss something?
Pretty much every University's mission or charter is to provide a broad education in addition to (book) expertise in a specific field of study. I think the argument most of us have is that they need to do a better job of keeping up with the times as far as what elements should be part of this broad education, but for the most part their intentions are good.
However, small colleges and technical schools should be able to focus specifically on one area if they choose, so students can choose that route if it's more appropriate for them. One size does not fit all.
Society is best served if most people have broad experiences to give them perspective and yet a small percentage are allowed to focus singlemindedly on a specific field of expertise.
Ideal world aside, I have to admit that I was pretty upset when the University I attended forced me to take some classes not even remotely connected to my major--not because I was against learning the material but because I objected to being forced to pay for it.
I'm normally a pretty big believer in keeping the government out of things, but sometimes it turns out to be a great move for everyone.
Though I have a much larger issue with forcing the BAC level to .08. In my area, the larger problem and danger to society is the great number drunk drivers who have been pulled over 5 or more times, and often even 10-15 offenses. These people are 25+ and will not stop until they kill themselves or more likely some one else. A real prison term might help as well, and at the very least, it would keep them off the roads. But by lowering the BAC, the politicians get to pretend they're fixing the problem (which clearly they are not), without costing any more money like atually giving prison time for multiple offenders.
They can patent a specific test for that gene, in which case using that test would be patent infringement. But others would be free to come up with a different test for it. And if they have somehow gotten a patent on any possible test then whoever the patent reviewer was should be shot.
I was going to list a bunch of reasons why comparing cars and sofware is invalid but I haven't the time or energy. You can't compare intellectual property with physical property from a cost (either to create or selling price) perspective. It's so apples and oranges it's not even funny. You might just as well say that audio CD's are cheap compared to furniture. But if you're really intent on comparing the automobile and software industries, I refer you to If Microsoft Made Cars.
Germane issues to this would be development costs, duplication & distribution costs, marketing, supply and demand, etc. But not the cost of cars.
Almost, but not quite. The law is completely ineffective. But not pointless--the point is to make it look like they're protecting people without offending the roller coaster operators (or at least their checkbooks). Ineffective doesn't mean it's not dangerous or perhaps more appropriately negligent. I have no personal experience, but from people who have, it seems like there are some legitimate safety concerns with New Jersey roller coasters. This law pretends to make them safer but does not--and they know it. Politicans who do things like this (authoring/passing a law that they know doesn't do anything) should be thrown in jail for violation of the public trust.
Then again, even though I'm a very vocal advocate of stiffer drunk driving laws, I think the same thing of the Federal Government using highway funding to force states to lower the legal BAC to .08 is just as bad if not worse. At least in my state, repeat (and often even 10+ time) offenders with BAC of over .15 make up the majority of accidents and especially fatalities.
steve snyder
Hell froze over. Must have if the EFF and the telcos are joinging sides.
I don't think we believe everything unless it can be proven wrong--I think it's more a matter of whether it can be proven. There is no proof of extraterrestrials or that we're not alone in the universe. But at some point, it can and will be proven. We will discover other beings (or more likely, evidence of their existense) or we won't. At some point, our we will have explored enough of the universe to know one way or the other. Granted we're a really long damn way from that point, but ultimately we will get there. No amount of time or exploration will provide proof either either way on God--either people believe in God or they don't--to an agnostic, it is unprovable. steve snyder
Anyone who has ever been in a busy bar and wants to catch something on TV knows closed captioning is a great feature for more than just hearing impared people. More recently, as the father of a brand new baby girl, I've found it very useful when either she's crying and I'm trying to rock her to sleep or I want to watch something and don't want to wake her up.
steve snyder
This is one of those things that is a pretty difficult issue to deal with, how do you remedy the task oriented approach vs. still allowing for choice and competition. Are there ways for the two to co-exist that I'm missing?
steve snyder
And OSX has brought back the CLI, if you think AppleScript falls short.
(normal disclaimer about Macs only being a low percentage of computers (and really low for those using OSX) and limtited, expensive hardware)
steve snyder
OK OT rant, it's a hot topic for me--I guess I could use a karma smacking anyway. steve
I am however a firm believer in spending money to look for & track everything out there with even a remote possibility to hit us. The odds may be slim, but it only takes one.
steve snyder
steve snyder
steve snyder
steve