To an extent. But look at what's happening with movies: a lot of people are giving up on them and staying home and using their home theaters. And online shopping: Amazon is doing quite well, among others.
Basically, if the place you have to go is filled with people you'd rather not be around (theaters), or if the convenience is far-and-away better (Amazon), people will avoid going places. But in the case of groceries, it seems to me that shopping online just isn't that convenient and has serious problems: 1) how do you inspect your produce before buying? Is it too ripe or too green? Is it bruised? How do you pick out the milk that has the latest expiration date? Etc. Do you really trust some minimum-wage worker employed by the store (who'd rather you take the oldest milk and the wilted produce off their hands for full price instead of trashing it) to make the best buying decisions on your behalf? 2) Browsing is a lot easier by just walking down an aisle than surfing a bunch of slow-loading web pages full of tracking code and bloat. And I don't have problems with the people at the local grocery store, unlike in theaters.
Define better. There are currently basically 3 types of ground transportation:
1) Mass transportation -- cheap but slow 2) Taxi/Uber/Lyft -- fast but expensive 3) Personal Car -- fast AND cheap once you own the car.
This isn't really true, it depends on where you are and where you're going. #3 is the most incorrect, because personal cars are much slower than #2 in most cities. The factor you're missing is parking. When I go to the downtown part of the large city I live near, a good half of my time is spent looking for a place to park on the street, and then walking from there to wherever I'm actually going, which can be over a mile because I don't want to spend a fortune on a parking garage closer to that place. With #2, there's no parking and they drop you off right at your destination, so it's very fast. Also, depending on the parking situation, #3 can be more expensive than #1 or #2: if you're forced to use a garage, the fees for that can easily be more than just getting a taxi or Lyft, plus you still have more walking time than being dropped off at an exact place.
Finally #1 frequently isn't that cheap. The subway in my city is usually around $3-4 per trip per person, which can be competitive with Uber Pool. And with high traffic, it might not be any slower, or even faster. But buses are usually slower since they're subject to the same traffic problems as cars.
But you're absolutely right about the cost of the driver being a big factor in #2.
Speaking personally, even if I lived right in or near the city somewhere and just used public transit or even walked/biked to work, I do a fair number of 1-2 hour trips to rural hiking spots on the weekends, plus 3-4 hour trips to visit family every few months, that I can't imagine how it'd be economical to *not* have my own car. Renting a car every weekend would get expensive fast, plus there's a significant amount of overhead time involved with the rental process. Plus there's the fact that I can't easily bolt up my hitch-mounted bike rack to a rental car when I want to take my bike someplace for a long bike excursion (and those crappy trunk-mounted racks are infamous for damaging cars).
Citation needed on adding stuff. I can't help you with GoT or Harry Potter (never read the GoT books and never saw or read Harry Potter), but with LotR, I can't think of anything significant offhand that was added except maybe 10 seconds of a minor plotline about Aragorn's romance with Arwen. There was tons of stuff taken out of those stories, some of which probably wouldn't have translated that well to the screen anyway (like Tom Bombadil), and some which was pretty important (Scouring of the Shire).
As for GoT, I've never heard of them adding anything, and those shows were made with significant involvement from the books' author himself.
The Hobbit movies came later; the LotR movies were great, though I do have to admit that Fellowship was the best. But anyway, Jackson seemed to be a different person back then, and did a much better job. No, I wouldn't want the modern-day Jackson making a new set of LotR movies at all; I'm sure they'd be terrible.
Exactly. And according to another comment here, the new Wonder Woman got 97% on RT. So it's not like it's sinking all movies, or even all mass-market action movies.
If theres one impression I get out of modern Hollywood movies; its that they are specifically forbidden from making good movies, especially good remakes. Its as if there is some unwritten Hollywood law "Thou shalt not make good movies."
That depends on your definition of "modern" (how far back is "modern"?).
Here's a list of some movies that may qualify as "good modern remakes": Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 - remake of 1956 version) The Invasion (2007 - another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, not fantastic, but not bad IMO) Lord of the Rings trilogy (remake of animated movie from 70s) The Ring (2002 - remake of 1998 Japanese movie Ringu) 3:10 to Yuma (2007 - remake of 1957 version) Cape Fear (1991 - remake of 1962 version) The Departed (2006 - remake of 2002 Hong Kong movie) (personally I didn't like this one much, but a lot of other people did) Disturbia (2007 - remake of Hitchcock's "Read Window" from 1954) Heaven Can Wait (1978 - remake of 1941 movie) The Fly (1986 - remake of 1958 movie) Heat (1995 - remake of the same director's 1989 movie LA Takedown) Insomnia (2002 - remake of 1997 Scandinavian movie) Ocean's Eleven (2001 - remake of 1960 version)
All the sci-fi movies back then had completely impossible physics, except perhaps "Destination: Moon" (1950). I highly recommend that one; it's a rather boring movie really plot-wise, but the physics are really interesting considering it was made in 1950, well before the Apollo missions or even the Mercury missions. They got a lot of things right: zero-g, spacewalks, the transit time, the Moon's low gravity, etc. Watching it was like watching a movie about aviation made before the Wright Brothers.
Moves based on books that have no resemblance to the book the movie is supposedly based on.
The rest of your post is spot-on but I have to object to this one. There's nothing wrong with making a movie that's inspired by some book, but veers off in a very different direction. In fact, movies which attempt to be extremely faithful to the book usually end up being terrible; it just isn't that easy to shift a story between two such totally different media and still make it come out good.
For evidence, I cite Stephen King's "The Shining". I never read the book, but I'm told it was good for a King novel. Stanley Kubrick made an adaptation of it around 1980 starring Jack Nicholson, and it's widely considered a masterpiece of horror, which I agree with. However, it diverges from the book's plot immensely. King hated the movie, probably mainly because of this. But it was a critical and fan success. Later on, King got involved with a miniseries adaptation starring Rebecca DeMornay and some forgettable guy. This version was extremely faithful to the book, yet fell fall, like pretty much all faithful adaptations of King novels do. King's books just don't usually translate well into movies, unless huge liberties are taken.
Another example of this is 1987's "The Running Man" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger; it bore very little resemblance to the book, but was a fantastic and fun movie (though it's actually quite disturbing to watch now because it predicted an over-the-top dystopian future but was obviously not serious about it, whereas today it's mostly come true). Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is probably another good example here.
Offhand, the only movies I can think of that were remotely faithful to the books and came out well were the Lord of the Rings movies, and even here they had to cut tons of material, such as the very important Scouring of the Shire at the end. Movies just aren't long enough to contain everything in a normal-length novel, which is why the Game of Thrones show uses 10 hour-long episodes to tell the story told by a single novel in the series (and here again they cut stuff out for length). I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if Peter Jackson had had the budget and approval to make two 3-hour movies for each LotR novel (6 3-hour movies total).
It is strange that the non-critic reviews are so much higher than the critic reviews. That, IMO, gives some legitimacy to the gripe.
If the watchers like the movie, then they have the wrong critics rating it; or the critics are being forced to rate it in a way that fails to express the critic's actual judgment.
No, it really doesn't give legitimacy to the gripe. Think about it: Fandango has both the Rotten Tomatoes score, and next to it the viewer score. Who's going to watch the movie after seeing the critic reviews are terrible? Only a select subset of people, likely ones either being forced into watching it by peer pressure, or more likely people who generally disagree with critics and have poor taste in movies.
So of course after you warn people that Baywatch is crap, the only people who still go to watch it (and use Fandango, where it just told them the critics thought it sucked) are not going to be representative of the population at large. And in fact, if you value critics' reviews rather than a bunch of morons, you're doing the right thing by avoiding the movie even though the viewer score is high. In short, there's nothing remarkable here. It's like wondering why fans of Transformers 5 (or whatever) like it even though all the critics say it's crap.
More interesting situations are when 1) the critics laud a movie, and the viewers say it's crap, and 2) the critics and viewers both laud a movie. In the latter case, the movie is likely extremely good all-around, whereas in the former case the movie is likely too intellectual for most audiences.
A movie that is supposed to be a brain-dead comedy should be rated by and for people who want to go see a brain-dead comedy
Most likely, the critics already take this into account and adjust their expectations, and are still very disappointed.
but I think the distillation of the rating down to a single number is a harmful oversimplification.
If you're going to have movies that, by your own admission, are "brain-dead", which obviously then must cater to "brain-dead" people, then a complicated rating system is not going to be very helpful.
Yep, this is Hollywood complaining yet again that they don't control all the information. I still remember when "Gigli" came out and flopped, and Hollywood was pissed off that moviegoers were using their phones to text all their friends about how bad the movie was, saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that because it "disrupts our carefully crafted marketing".
Huh? This has nothing to do with governments or taxation, it's entirely about religion. Americans are happy to hand over their money to their church, especially when their church tells them that God will make them rich if they do.
Changing the physical key isn't going to keep people from stealing the car if they have the codes. You only use the physical key when the car's lost power (so you can open the door, and thus the hood, if it isn't a stupid Jeep), or more frequently if your keyfob's battery has died.
That sounds good, except that it's penalizing one guy, instead of the platform that's spreading all that false bullshit. They should also be going after Facebook itself, and giving them a huge fine ($40B sounds good), and then jailing any execs from the company they can get their hands on if they don't pay up.
I believe that the Wrangler were targeted because they are valuable in Mexico, not because they were particularly hackable.
Whatever the particular reason, I for one applaud the Hooligan biker gang for performing this valuable public service of removing Jeep Wranglers from US territory. I hope they'll improve their hacking skills to include all Chrysler models. It'd also be nice if they'd steal the last few remaining Pontiac Azteks and ship those to Mexico too (or better yet, some cooperative junkyard where they can be crushed).
Teslas have almost no market for used parts. Maintenance is always done by Tesla service centers. And Teslas are such a tiny portion of the market that even if this weren't the case, no one would want the parts because of the lack of market penetration; it's the same reason no one steals Rolls-Royces for parts.
It seems that the "Hooligans" are a lot smarter about basic economics than you are.
Finally, I applaud this biker gang: they're doing a real public service by removing those shitty Jeep Wranglers from US territory. Hopefully they'll expand their operations to include all Chrysler vehicles.
This is a biker gang. Bikers are almost all white, except for the small number of all-black biker gangs. I've never seen a Hispanic person in a biker gang or on a motorcycle.
Modern windshields on $40k cars are a lot more expensive than that. $40k cars have a bunch of sensors behind the mirror that have to mate up with the pattern on the windshield, and I believe you also have to do a special alignment process using a service tool when you change the windshield.
Sure, on some 15-year-old no-frills car, replacement windshields are $150.
Why does so many Americans reject the thought of soceity keeping the population healthy and educated? Is it because most Americans are religious, and believe if God gave you poor parents you must deserve it?
As an American, basically, yes. We really do believe that kind of thing here. We have tons of mega-churches telling us that rich people are loved more by God and that's why they're rich. I wish I were kidding.
Yep, the Gameworks I occasionally visited back in the 2000s was like that too, really large with a bar/restaurant in the back. And I seem to remember a car-racing game where they were all linked. I guess they haven't changed much.
Yeah, and I'm sure if Hillary had won, it'd be exactly the same on the Dem side too. The parties really aren't that different from each other.
Also, you need to look at the context of these polling questions, as they're frequently rigged. When they say they'd vote for Trump again, what's the hypothetical alternative? Switching to Hillary? Of course they're going to say they'd vote for Trump again; Hillary is even worse in their opinion. So the poll isn't really producing any useful info here. If Hillary had won, the answers would be the same: unhappy Dem voters would also say they'd vote for her again, because switching to Trump certainly doesn't make sense to them. Go find some Hillary voters now, and find the ones who were highly reluctant Hillary voters. Ask them if they'd change their vote in the general election or not. I don't think many of them will say they wish they had voted for Trump instead.
The theoretical gain for the studios and distributors is that more people would actually watch the movie during the opening weeks. Right now, it's likely many people just aren't even bothering, because the cinema experience is so miserable, so they're just skipping it and doing something else, like watching something older on Netflix, and maybe they'll eventually get around to watching today's new hot movie after it's a few months old or more and has gotten to Netflix or Redbox or Amazon or whatever. By offering it simultaneous with cinema release at a high price, they might get more viewers.
But I doubt the studios/distributors will see it that way. They seem to have zero capacity to understand why people aren't interested in going out to the movies any more.
Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes
The Democrats are exactly the same. Look at how they ramrodded Hillary down everyone's throats, and even now still refuse to admit what a huge mistake it was backing her instead of Bernie. Instead of blaming themselves, they're blaming Russian hackers, the FBI, etc., instead of admitting they picked a lousy candidate.
it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
That's no surprise; Trump really won the GOP nomination because the other choices were 1) all clowns too, and 2) too numerous, so the vote was split. If we re-did the GOP primaries, and instead had a single vote (all states on one day), and used some other election system besides FPTP, and somehow magically made everyone voting forget what's happened since then so as to not taint the results, then I'm quite sure Trump would not be the winner. Most likely, it'd be Kasich, or maybe Rubio or even Jeb!. FPTP elections frequently result in the most polarizing and horrible candidates winning, when in reality most people would be happier with some boring but safe candidate who isn't their first choice, but is someone they can agree on with most other voters.
So of course lots of GOP voters aren't happy with Trump. They only voted for him because he was the GOP nominee, and the alternative was Hillary, who they hated even more. If Hillary had won, it wouldn't be any different: lots of Dem voters would be unhappy because Hillary's a right-wing corporatist, and the only reason many voted for her is because they hated Trump even more.
1980s to 1990s - transition period, with the first blockbuster console games without a corresponding arcade release (Super Mario Bros).
Actually, that's not correct. Super Mario Bros in fact did have an arcade release: Vs. Super Mario Bros.. But this is an interesting development because unlike the previous period where successful arcade games were adapted to home consoles and PCs, it was backwards: SMB was success on the consoles first, and then ported to an arcade version. Nintendo did this with a bunch of NES games, but SMB was probably easily the most famous; most of the rest seemed to be sports games.
2000s and 2010s - all games are now released directly to console or PC. Ask a kid if they want to go to the arcade, and they'll reply "What's an arcade?"
They still had arcades during the 2000s (and still do, I think), but they were different: they had a lot of games where you'd play for tickets, that you'd then then use to buy crap. A lot of these weren't even video games, but things like throwing basketballs into hoops. One arcade I used to go to sometimes (Gameworks) had some fun game with 3 big screens stacked vertically where you'd sit in a seat which was motorized and would go up and down as the balloon you controlled rose or fell, and you'd try to pop the other players' balloons. Something like that isn't exactly reproduceable at home. They also had a bunch of classic arcade games, plus a bunch of pinball games (which again can't be reproduced at home on a computer). I don't know if they're still in business though.
They're not forcing you to watch camrips, they're just not offering their product at a price (and in a venue) that you're happy with. They're under no obligation to do so either. My advice: get a Netflix subscription and just use that. It's cheaper than a single ticket, and has lots of older stuff, which is better than all the new crap that's coming out.
Slashdot Mirror
To an extent. But look at what's happening with movies: a lot of people are giving up on them and staying home and using their home theaters. And online shopping: Amazon is doing quite well, among others.
Basically, if the place you have to go is filled with people you'd rather not be around (theaters), or if the convenience is far-and-away better (Amazon), people will avoid going places. But in the case of groceries, it seems to me that shopping online just isn't that convenient and has serious problems: 1) how do you inspect your produce before buying? Is it too ripe or too green? Is it bruised? How do you pick out the milk that has the latest expiration date? Etc. Do you really trust some minimum-wage worker employed by the store (who'd rather you take the oldest milk and the wilted produce off their hands for full price instead of trashing it) to make the best buying decisions on your behalf? 2) Browsing is a lot easier by just walking down an aisle than surfing a bunch of slow-loading web pages full of tracking code and bloat. And I don't have problems with the people at the local grocery store, unlike in theaters.
Define better. There are currently basically 3 types of ground transportation:
1) Mass transportation -- cheap but slow
2) Taxi/Uber/Lyft -- fast but expensive
3) Personal Car -- fast AND cheap once you own the car.
This isn't really true, it depends on where you are and where you're going. #3 is the most incorrect, because personal cars are much slower than #2 in most cities. The factor you're missing is parking. When I go to the downtown part of the large city I live near, a good half of my time is spent looking for a place to park on the street, and then walking from there to wherever I'm actually going, which can be over a mile because I don't want to spend a fortune on a parking garage closer to that place. With #2, there's no parking and they drop you off right at your destination, so it's very fast. Also, depending on the parking situation, #3 can be more expensive than #1 or #2: if you're forced to use a garage, the fees for that can easily be more than just getting a taxi or Lyft, plus you still have more walking time than being dropped off at an exact place.
Finally #1 frequently isn't that cheap. The subway in my city is usually around $3-4 per trip per person, which can be competitive with Uber Pool. And with high traffic, it might not be any slower, or even faster. But buses are usually slower since they're subject to the same traffic problems as cars.
But you're absolutely right about the cost of the driver being a big factor in #2.
Speaking personally, even if I lived right in or near the city somewhere and just used public transit or even walked/biked to work, I do a fair number of 1-2 hour trips to rural hiking spots on the weekends, plus 3-4 hour trips to visit family every few months, that I can't imagine how it'd be economical to *not* have my own car. Renting a car every weekend would get expensive fast, plus there's a significant amount of overhead time involved with the rental process. Plus there's the fact that I can't easily bolt up my hitch-mounted bike rack to a rental car when I want to take my bike someplace for a long bike excursion (and those crappy trunk-mounted racks are infamous for damaging cars).
Citation needed on adding stuff. I can't help you with GoT or Harry Potter (never read the GoT books and never saw or read Harry Potter), but with LotR, I can't think of anything significant offhand that was added except maybe 10 seconds of a minor plotline about Aragorn's romance with Arwen. There was tons of stuff taken out of those stories, some of which probably wouldn't have translated that well to the screen anyway (like Tom Bombadil), and some which was pretty important (Scouring of the Shire).
As for GoT, I've never heard of them adding anything, and those shows were made with significant involvement from the books' author himself.
The Hobbit movies came later; the LotR movies were great, though I do have to admit that Fellowship was the best. But anyway, Jackson seemed to be a different person back then, and did a much better job. No, I wouldn't want the modern-day Jackson making a new set of LotR movies at all; I'm sure they'd be terrible.
Exactly. And according to another comment here, the new Wonder Woman got 97% on RT. So it's not like it's sinking all movies, or even all mass-market action movies.
No, they should use alien xenomorphs. That'll totally fit into a Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
If theres one impression I get out of modern Hollywood movies; its that they are specifically forbidden from making good movies, especially good remakes. Its as if there is some unwritten Hollywood law "Thou shalt not make good movies."
That depends on your definition of "modern" (how far back is "modern"?).
Here's a list of some movies that may qualify as "good modern remakes":
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 - remake of 1956 version)
The Invasion (2007 - another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, not fantastic, but not bad IMO)
Lord of the Rings trilogy (remake of animated movie from 70s)
The Ring (2002 - remake of 1998 Japanese movie Ringu)
3:10 to Yuma (2007 - remake of 1957 version)
Cape Fear (1991 - remake of 1962 version)
The Departed (2006 - remake of 2002 Hong Kong movie) (personally I didn't like this one much, but a lot of other people did)
Disturbia (2007 - remake of Hitchcock's "Read Window" from 1954)
Heaven Can Wait (1978 - remake of 1941 movie)
The Fly (1986 - remake of 1958 movie)
Heat (1995 - remake of the same director's 1989 movie LA Takedown)
Insomnia (2002 - remake of 1997 Scandinavian movie)
Ocean's Eleven (2001 - remake of 1960 version)
All the sci-fi movies back then had completely impossible physics, except perhaps "Destination: Moon" (1950). I highly recommend that one; it's a rather boring movie really plot-wise, but the physics are really interesting considering it was made in 1950, well before the Apollo missions or even the Mercury missions. They got a lot of things right: zero-g, spacewalks, the transit time, the Moon's low gravity, etc. Watching it was like watching a movie about aviation made before the Wright Brothers.
Moves based on books that have no resemblance to the book the movie is supposedly based on.
The rest of your post is spot-on but I have to object to this one. There's nothing wrong with making a movie that's inspired by some book, but veers off in a very different direction. In fact, movies which attempt to be extremely faithful to the book usually end up being terrible; it just isn't that easy to shift a story between two such totally different media and still make it come out good.
For evidence, I cite Stephen King's "The Shining". I never read the book, but I'm told it was good for a King novel. Stanley Kubrick made an adaptation of it around 1980 starring Jack Nicholson, and it's widely considered a masterpiece of horror, which I agree with. However, it diverges from the book's plot immensely. King hated the movie, probably mainly because of this. But it was a critical and fan success. Later on, King got involved with a miniseries adaptation starring Rebecca DeMornay and some forgettable guy. This version was extremely faithful to the book, yet fell fall, like pretty much all faithful adaptations of King novels do. King's books just don't usually translate well into movies, unless huge liberties are taken.
Another example of this is 1987's "The Running Man" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger; it bore very little resemblance to the book, but was a fantastic and fun movie (though it's actually quite disturbing to watch now because it predicted an over-the-top dystopian future but was obviously not serious about it, whereas today it's mostly come true). Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" is probably another good example here.
Offhand, the only movies I can think of that were remotely faithful to the books and came out well were the Lord of the Rings movies, and even here they had to cut tons of material, such as the very important Scouring of the Shire at the end. Movies just aren't long enough to contain everything in a normal-length novel, which is why the Game of Thrones show uses 10 hour-long episodes to tell the story told by a single novel in the series (and here again they cut stuff out for length). I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if Peter Jackson had had the budget and approval to make two 3-hour movies for each LotR novel (6 3-hour movies total).
It is strange that the non-critic reviews are so much higher than the critic reviews. That, IMO, gives some legitimacy to the gripe.
If the watchers like the movie, then they have the wrong critics rating it; or the critics are being forced to rate it in a way that fails to express the critic's actual judgment.
No, it really doesn't give legitimacy to the gripe. Think about it: Fandango has both the Rotten Tomatoes score, and next to it the viewer score. Who's going to watch the movie after seeing the critic reviews are terrible? Only a select subset of people, likely ones either being forced into watching it by peer pressure, or more likely people who generally disagree with critics and have poor taste in movies.
So of course after you warn people that Baywatch is crap, the only people who still go to watch it (and use Fandango, where it just told them the critics thought it sucked) are not going to be representative of the population at large. And in fact, if you value critics' reviews rather than a bunch of morons, you're doing the right thing by avoiding the movie even though the viewer score is high. In short, there's nothing remarkable here. It's like wondering why fans of Transformers 5 (or whatever) like it even though all the critics say it's crap.
More interesting situations are when 1) the critics laud a movie, and the viewers say it's crap, and 2) the critics and viewers both laud a movie. In the latter case, the movie is likely extremely good all-around, whereas in the former case the movie is likely too intellectual for most audiences.
A movie that is supposed to be a brain-dead comedy should be rated by and for people who want to go see a brain-dead comedy
Most likely, the critics already take this into account and adjust their expectations, and are still very disappointed.
but I think the distillation of the rating down to a single number is a harmful oversimplification.
If you're going to have movies that, by your own admission, are "brain-dead", which obviously then must cater to "brain-dead" people, then a complicated rating system is not going to be very helpful.
Yep, this is Hollywood complaining yet again that they don't control all the information. I still remember when "Gigli" came out and flopped, and Hollywood was pissed off that moviegoers were using their phones to text all their friends about how bad the movie was, saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that because it "disrupts our carefully crafted marketing".
Huh? This has nothing to do with governments or taxation, it's entirely about religion. Americans are happy to hand over their money to their church, especially when their church tells them that God will make them rich if they do.
Changing the physical key isn't going to keep people from stealing the car if they have the codes. You only use the physical key when the car's lost power (so you can open the door, and thus the hood, if it isn't a stupid Jeep), or more frequently if your keyfob's battery has died.
That sounds good, except that it's penalizing one guy, instead of the platform that's spreading all that false bullshit. They should also be going after Facebook itself, and giving them a huge fine ($40B sounds good), and then jailing any execs from the company they can get their hands on if they don't pay up.
I believe that the Wrangler were targeted because they are valuable in Mexico, not because they were particularly hackable.
Whatever the particular reason, I for one applaud the Hooligan biker gang for performing this valuable public service of removing Jeep Wranglers from US territory. I hope they'll improve their hacking skills to include all Chrysler models. It'd also be nice if they'd steal the last few remaining Pontiac Azteks and ship those to Mexico too (or better yet, some cooperative junkyard where they can be crushed).
Teslas have almost no market for used parts. Maintenance is always done by Tesla service centers. And Teslas are such a tiny portion of the market that even if this weren't the case, no one would want the parts because of the lack of market penetration; it's the same reason no one steals Rolls-Royces for parts.
It seems that the "Hooligans" are a lot smarter about basic economics than you are.
Finally, I applaud this biker gang: they're doing a real public service by removing those shitty Jeep Wranglers from US territory. Hopefully they'll expand their operations to include all Chrysler vehicles.
-1 Stupid.
This is a biker gang. Bikers are almost all white, except for the small number of all-black biker gangs. I've never seen a Hispanic person in a biker gang or on a motorcycle.
Modern windshields on $40k cars are a lot more expensive than that. $40k cars have a bunch of sensors behind the mirror that have to mate up with the pattern on the windshield, and I believe you also have to do a special alignment process using a service tool when you change the windshield.
Sure, on some 15-year-old no-frills car, replacement windshields are $150.
Why does so many Americans reject the thought of soceity keeping the population healthy and educated?
Is it because most Americans are religious, and believe if God gave you poor parents you must deserve it?
As an American, basically, yes. We really do believe that kind of thing here. We have tons of mega-churches telling us that rich people are loved more by God and that's why they're rich. I wish I were kidding.
Yep, the Gameworks I occasionally visited back in the 2000s was like that too, really large with a bar/restaurant in the back. And I seem to remember a car-racing game where they were all linked. I guess they haven't changed much.
Yeah, and I'm sure if Hillary had won, it'd be exactly the same on the Dem side too. The parties really aren't that different from each other.
Also, you need to look at the context of these polling questions, as they're frequently rigged. When they say they'd vote for Trump again, what's the hypothetical alternative? Switching to Hillary? Of course they're going to say they'd vote for Trump again; Hillary is even worse in their opinion. So the poll isn't really producing any useful info here. If Hillary had won, the answers would be the same: unhappy Dem voters would also say they'd vote for her again, because switching to Trump certainly doesn't make sense to them. Go find some Hillary voters now, and find the ones who were highly reluctant Hillary voters. Ask them if they'd change their vote in the general election or not. I don't think many of them will say they wish they had voted for Trump instead.
The theoretical gain for the studios and distributors is that more people would actually watch the movie during the opening weeks. Right now, it's likely many people just aren't even bothering, because the cinema experience is so miserable, so they're just skipping it and doing something else, like watching something older on Netflix, and maybe they'll eventually get around to watching today's new hot movie after it's a few months old or more and has gotten to Netflix or Redbox or Amazon or whatever. By offering it simultaneous with cinema release at a high price, they might get more viewers.
But I doubt the studios/distributors will see it that way. They seem to have zero capacity to understand why people aren't interested in going out to the movies any more.
Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes
The Democrats are exactly the same. Look at how they ramrodded Hillary down everyone's throats, and even now still refuse to admit what a huge mistake it was backing her instead of Bernie. Instead of blaming themselves, they're blaming Russian hackers, the FBI, etc., instead of admitting they picked a lousy candidate.
it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
That's no surprise; Trump really won the GOP nomination because the other choices were 1) all clowns too, and 2) too numerous, so the vote was split. If we re-did the GOP primaries, and instead had a single vote (all states on one day), and used some other election system besides FPTP, and somehow magically made everyone voting forget what's happened since then so as to not taint the results, then I'm quite sure Trump would not be the winner. Most likely, it'd be Kasich, or maybe Rubio or even Jeb!. FPTP elections frequently result in the most polarizing and horrible candidates winning, when in reality most people would be happier with some boring but safe candidate who isn't their first choice, but is someone they can agree on with most other voters.
So of course lots of GOP voters aren't happy with Trump. They only voted for him because he was the GOP nominee, and the alternative was Hillary, who they hated even more. If Hillary had won, it wouldn't be any different: lots of Dem voters would be unhappy because Hillary's a right-wing corporatist, and the only reason many voted for her is because they hated Trump even more.
1980s to 1990s - transition period, with the first blockbuster console games without a corresponding arcade release (Super Mario Bros).
Actually, that's not correct. Super Mario Bros in fact did have an arcade release: Vs. Super Mario Bros.. But this is an interesting development because unlike the previous period where successful arcade games were adapted to home consoles and PCs, it was backwards: SMB was success on the consoles first, and then ported to an arcade version. Nintendo did this with a bunch of NES games, but SMB was probably easily the most famous; most of the rest seemed to be sports games.
2000s and 2010s - all games are now released directly to console or PC. Ask a kid if they want to go to the arcade, and they'll reply "What's an arcade?"
They still had arcades during the 2000s (and still do, I think), but they were different: they had a lot of games where you'd play for tickets, that you'd then then use to buy crap. A lot of these weren't even video games, but things like throwing basketballs into hoops. One arcade I used to go to sometimes (Gameworks) had some fun game with 3 big screens stacked vertically where you'd sit in a seat which was motorized and would go up and down as the balloon you controlled rose or fell, and you'd try to pop the other players' balloons. Something like that isn't exactly reproduceable at home. They also had a bunch of classic arcade games, plus a bunch of pinball games (which again can't be reproduced at home on a computer). I don't know if they're still in business though.
They're not forcing you to watch camrips, they're just not offering their product at a price (and in a venue) that you're happy with. They're under no obligation to do so either. My advice: get a Netflix subscription and just use that. It's cheaper than a single ticket, and has lots of older stuff, which is better than all the new crap that's coming out.