They're a few months old, but they already picked several appropriate movies to blast: Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Gigli, and others. The problem is that you have to actually be seen renting these turkeys.
Now here's a guy who really doesn't understand the industry....
How can you make this statement without backing it up? What credentials do you have within the console gaming industry? What information do you have that refutes his research? He may indeed be wrong, but unless you have something to contribute to the debate, don't bother posting.
When I saw the name, I thought an "orgasm of war" (meaning lots of intense fighting), no sex involved. Adding "gasm" onto something doesn't necessarily mean sex, just intensity, to me anyway (like Dane Cook's Tourgasm, for example). Marketing is comepletely different, and if the ads, boxcover, etc..., implied sex, then that's not the actual title's fault.
I don't think "Wargasm" and "If It Moves, Shoot It" are names that should be on the list (they're bad, but not top 50 bad). Surely these games didn't expect to set any sales records, and you certainly know what you're getting with these titles.
And often, they got there through connections and help from others. How many people with big jobs got there without any connections, without any insiders to help them out? Few, if any.
"Often"? How often? And what is a "big job"? Does making $50,000 (or Euros, Pounds, whatever) a year qualify? $100,000? $1,000,000?
Secondarily, are "connections" bad? How did you find your job? How did all of your friends and family find their jobs? "Often" people find "small jobs" because they have "connections" with people that know about other jobs. Why should it be any different for "big jobs", as long as everyone is qualified? I know, a big "if", but I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of those in "small jobs" are less qualified for their positions than those in "big jobs".
The fact is, people with no wealth in the family "often" improve their financial situations. I come from a relatively poor family, have no formal education (exactly two quarters of college), and I make more than 90% of Americans from a job in a nice office with nice people. I made well-informed choices, met many people in industries that paid more than mine, and then I pulled myself out of a situation where I'd make less than 80% of Americans for the rest of my life because I had a desire to do so. No one handed me a thing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
Here in Belgium, all that is funded with tax-payers money. So it's just a matter of HOW your money is going to end up in public faciliteis. Either you give them money, or we all do. And I rather have some rich guy pay +70% of my wellfare costs, than having to pay them all by myself in order to get less taxes...
That's the problem: You (and many millions of others) want "some rich guy" to pay your way. If he pays for your education, that's a job that he can't provide to someone who may need it, like you. Shouldn't people have to work for what they get?
I did mean that I "Save"d the movie late last year (probably Novemberish) and then put it at the top of my Queue when a date was announced.
Your list is impressive. I have never received that many movies in that period of time and I get 4 at once (I have tried 3, 5 and 8 at once - no difference in the throttling). I usually return 75% of my movies within one day, and I keep one (usually a TV series disc) for 2-4 days, but I bet I am in the upper 10% of discs-per-month-per-dollar. My friend who rents 2 at a time, and keeps them about a week each gets almost every new release immediately, even if it's after Tuesday of the week of release. Her Queue status for new releases is always one level below mine (Short as opposed to Long, etc...) for the same movie if there is a wait. Another friend rents at about the same pace as I, and he has the same issues. Maybe the Northern VA Netflix just does it better, but here in Atlanta (distro center about 15 miles from me), it's vastly different.
I do notice that you don't have any new releases in your list (maybe 21 Grams and Bruce Almighty) for that time period, and they tend to throttle the new releases more than the movies with less demand.
This is not the way that Netflix runs its Queue. I have been a Netflix customer for years as well, and they definitely throttle my Queue, especially new releases. For example, I put Hustle and Flow into my Queue last year sometime and put it in the top slot as soon as a date was listed. I returned a movie the day that it came out, and my Queue said "Long Wait" for H&F. The next day it went to "Very Long Wait" and stayed there for over two months. I finally received the DVD in mid-April, over three months after it was released. This is ludicrous by any standard, and if the Queue worked like "first-come, first-served", then I would have had the movie in January. This is the longest that I ever had to wait for a new release, but waiting six or eight weeks is not uncommon. And my wait time should never increase if it is first-come first-served because no one could get ahead of me, but slipping from Short to Long or Long to Very Long happens every time a new release is in my queue and I miss "opening day".
I have read several accounts of how they throttle movies and spoken to many friends who also subscribe, and the way it works is this: If you have an open slot when a movie is available for shipping for the first time (the Monday before it's released officially, usually), then you are likely to get the movie. Anytime after that, including the Tuesday it is officially released, you are ordered by how much profit they make off of you. For example, if you rent and return 5 movies a month with them, and I rent 10 movies a month, and we both have the movie at #1 in our Queue, then you get priority for that new release. This compounds the problem further because you will keep the movie twice as long as I would have, so everyone else waiting on the movie has longer wait times as well.
I had an experience at CompUSA involving the extended warranty, which I wrote about in my blog. Pretty funny and sad at the same time. You can read about it here (note no ads on the site - I make zero money from it): http://www.wadegolden.com/blog/?p=9
I watch Ebert pretty much every week because he is intelligent and an insightful reviewer. Yes, his opinions differ from mine quite often, but he does a very good job of explaining why he doesn't like something, and sometimes suggests what type of audience would enjoy the film. He sees so many movies that I appreciate his point of view, even if I don't agree with him.
...these are artists who have made millions upon millions, so the need to tour is just about zero. So they jack the price up.
What does one have to do with the other? Because an artist has made millions doesn't mean that the artist has stopped producing music. Fans want to see their favorite artists, and if $250 is what the market will bear, then let the artist charge that.
No one is "fleecing" anyone. The fan gets a concert for an agreed-upon price. You don't have to pay it - just don't go.
The one feature that I'm looking forward to is...
on
Why Vista Won't Suck
·
· Score: 1
Tired of listening to some music or playing a game, and having that instant-messaging sound blast out your ears because it's five times louder than your other sounds? Vista will have per-application volume control. Problem solved.
Oh ye who understand so little. No one wold be "overthrown" because everyone would be free to make their own fortunes. Only the minority who refuse to work and depend on welfare would be upset. That's hardly enough people to overthrow a resourceful and intelligent group that the achievers are. Besides, if something happened where I couldn't make a living in this field, I'd go learn another trade. It's very simple - I achieve; I don't whine about others having more, or fret about others having less.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, only I matter. My own welfare comes first because I do not wish to burden society. If someone truly needed my help and I could give it, I would. But I am being forced to help people who won't help themselves. That is an insult to what America used to stand for - opportunity.
There is nothing wrong with arrogance. Arrogance and greed are not horrific traits, as "victims" would have the world believe. Arrogance and greed go hand in hand with ambition, which is what makes countries, businesses, and men great. If it weren't for arrogance, you couldn't sit at a computer, drive a car, or read your own double-digit IQ-test results.
Excise taxes and tolls are COMPLETELY different than income taxes. I can choose not to spend on things that are taxed, but I can't choose not to give up my income when it is taxed. That is slavery.
"the highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world is the result of a properly functioning society."
No, that's the problem - it's not a 'properly functioning society'. Libertarians want to make it one.
"freedom of religion also means freedom from religion"
Not true You have no right to be free from religion. You should never be forced to enter a church or get down on your knees to pray, but you have no right to never see or hear anything religious. Just like you have no right to not be offended (kind of the same thing for some, I guess). Too many people are such pussies. No one gets hurt if religious activites happen around them (human sacrifices excepted) - Deal with it and move on.
Oh, I see, so to hell with all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists, eh?
Well, none of these religions were prevalent in 1789, but according to the Constitution, government can make no laws regarding the establishment of them. And how can you group agnostics and atheists in with religions? They are not religious by definition! So it's not "to hell with them"; The Frist Amendment guarantess that they'll never have to worship at a church. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
One more thing. Why are non-liberal groups always perceived as the "haters" when it's the liberals who always talk about hate? I don't hate anyone - never have. Do you really "hate" Libertarians? I guess it's because liberal ideas don't hold up when logic comes in to the picture. Libertarians embrace logic, not sympathy, which is what drives the liberals.
Go ahead and hate us all you want. But your time would be better spent actually educating yourself on the issues and not insulting people and assuming every Libertarian and Republican is a Bigoted-Porsche-Driving-Filty-Rich Jerk. Liberals are by far the most racist people I know. (Affirmative Action, anyone? Implying that blacks and women aren't good enough to get jobs on their own merit?) And jerks? I don't even have to comment with posts like yours to back me up.
Who cares about social justice? I owe nothing to anyone, and you owe nothing to me. If I am forced to give up part of my life (i.e. my earnings) to someone or something else, that's slavery. That is Social Injustice.
Anyone born to the "wrong parents" (what a bedwetting liberal idea! everyone's a victim of circumstance) can improve their situation. No one is stuck with the opportunities we have. I came from a relatively poor household, have no college education, but I learned how to program and I now make a decent living developing software. I'm not a multi-millionaire, but nothing is stopping me from becoming one except myself.
Money is the most important thing in the world. It's what drives the world - whether it's paper money, gold, property, or whatever has any value. Property especially. Many countries don't have the kinds of laws the U.S. does concerning property, and look at them - whole countries living in squalor with wealth all around them!
An estate tax (even on properties as little as $2 million) promotes the idea that you don't deserve what you have earned, which is Socialist in nature, and should be avoided by anyone who claims to be an American.
The point is that you have earned what you have, and it's ALREADY been taxed. There is no reason to pay taxes AGAIN on the same money, meritocracy or not. And who cares if the rich get richer? That only creates more jobs for us.
The reason these millionaires are fighting against the repeal of the estate tax is because it doesn't affect them. Bill will never spend all of his billions, and neither will his kids. He's trying to look like a hero by saying "We make too much money already - please keep taking part of what we have earned."
The people that would be most affected by this repeal is small-business owners. Right now, if your dad owns a coffee shop (or any kind of business) and dies, his estate is taxed. You may have to sell the shop just to pay those taxes! This is ludicrous. People should be able to keep what they earn, no matter how much or how little it is. We're taxed all of our lives anyway, so why is that money taxed again just because you die? Yes, it would help the rich keep more of what they earned, but it would help alot more people in the middle class keep the American Dream alive.
Atlanta is a quickly growing area for the tech industry, and has the highest number of strip clubs (which are all-nude and serve alcohol) per capita in the nation. Coincidence? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
They're a few months old, but they already picked several appropriate movies to blast: Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Gigli, and others. The problem is that you have to actually be seen renting these turkeys.
http://dvdpodblast.blogspot.com/
How can you make this statement without backing it up? What credentials do you have within the console gaming industry? What information do you have that refutes his research? He may indeed be wrong, but unless you have something to contribute to the debate, don't bother posting.
When I saw the name, I thought an "orgasm of war" (meaning lots of intense fighting), no sex involved. Adding "gasm" onto something doesn't necessarily mean sex, just intensity, to me anyway (like Dane Cook's Tourgasm, for example). Marketing is comepletely different, and if the ads, boxcover, etc..., implied sex, then that's not the actual title's fault.
I don't think "Wargasm" and "If It Moves, Shoot It" are names that should be on the list (they're bad, but not top 50 bad). Surely these games didn't expect to set any sales records, and you certainly know what you're getting with these titles.
"Often"? How often? And what is a "big job"? Does making $50,000 (or Euros, Pounds, whatever) a year qualify? $100,000? $1,000,000?
Secondarily, are "connections" bad? How did you find your job? How did all of your friends and family find their jobs? "Often" people find "small jobs" because they have "connections" with people that know about other jobs. Why should it be any different for "big jobs", as long as everyone is qualified? I know, a big "if", but I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of those in "small jobs" are less qualified for their positions than those in "big jobs".
The fact is, people with no wealth in the family "often" improve their financial situations. I come from a relatively poor family, have no formal education (exactly two quarters of college), and I make more than 90% of Americans from a job in a nice office with nice people. I made well-informed choices, met many people in industries that paid more than mine, and then I pulled myself out of a situation where I'd make less than 80% of Americans for the rest of my life because I had a desire to do so. No one handed me a thing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
That's the problem: You (and many millions of others) want "some rich guy" to pay your way. If he pays for your education, that's a job that he can't provide to someone who may need it, like you. Shouldn't people have to work for what they get?
Yes, watch them in production order. What good scenes there are in the prequels are given more weight when knowing what happens decades later.
I did mean that I "Save"d the movie late last year (probably Novemberish) and then put it at the top of my Queue when a date was announced.
Your list is impressive. I have never received that many movies in that period of time and I get 4 at once (I have tried 3, 5 and 8 at once - no difference in the throttling). I usually return 75% of my movies within one day, and I keep one (usually a TV series disc) for 2-4 days, but I bet I am in the upper 10% of discs-per-month-per-dollar. My friend who rents 2 at a time, and keeps them about a week each gets almost every new release immediately, even if it's after Tuesday of the week of release. Her Queue status for new releases is always one level below mine (Short as opposed to Long, etc...) for the same movie if there is a wait. Another friend rents at about the same pace as I, and he has the same issues. Maybe the Northern VA Netflix just does it better, but here in Atlanta (distro center about 15 miles from me), it's vastly different.
I do notice that you don't have any new releases in your list (maybe 21 Grams and Bruce Almighty) for that time period, and they tend to throttle the new releases more than the movies with less demand.
This is not the way that Netflix runs its Queue. I have been a Netflix customer for years as well, and they definitely throttle my Queue, especially new releases. For example, I put Hustle and Flow into my Queue last year sometime and put it in the top slot as soon as a date was listed. I returned a movie the day that it came out, and my Queue said "Long Wait" for H&F. The next day it went to "Very Long Wait" and stayed there for over two months. I finally received the DVD in mid-April, over three months after it was released. This is ludicrous by any standard, and if the Queue worked like "first-come, first-served", then I would have had the movie in January. This is the longest that I ever had to wait for a new release, but waiting six or eight weeks is not uncommon. And my wait time should never increase if it is first-come first-served because no one could get ahead of me, but slipping from Short to Long or Long to Very Long happens every time a new release is in my queue and I miss "opening day".
I have read several accounts of how they throttle movies and spoken to many friends who also subscribe, and the way it works is this: If you have an open slot when a movie is available for shipping for the first time (the Monday before it's released officially, usually), then you are likely to get the movie. Anytime after that, including the Tuesday it is officially released, you are ordered by how much profit they make off of you. For example, if you rent and return 5 movies a month with them, and I rent 10 movies a month, and we both have the movie at #1 in our Queue, then you get priority for that new release. This compounds the problem further because you will keep the movie twice as long as I would have, so everyone else waiting on the movie has longer wait times as well.
I had an experience at CompUSA involving the extended warranty, which I wrote about in my blog. Pretty funny and sad at the same time. You can read about it here (note no ads on the site - I make zero money from it): http://www.wadegolden.com/blog/?p=9
"Swap" works this way on the HD Box as well.
I watch Ebert pretty much every week because he is intelligent and an insightful reviewer. Yes, his opinions differ from mine quite often, but he does a very good job of explaining why he doesn't like something, and sometimes suggests what type of audience would enjoy the film. He sees so many movies that I appreciate his point of view, even if I don't agree with him.
What does one have to do with the other? Because an artist has made millions doesn't mean that the artist has stopped producing music. Fans want to see their favorite artists, and if $250 is what the market will bear, then let the artist charge that.
No one is "fleecing" anyone. The fan gets a concert for an agreed-upon price. You don't have to pay it - just don't go.
I've been wanting this for years in Windows.
Oh ye who understand so little. No one wold be "overthrown" because everyone would be free to make their own fortunes. Only the minority who refuse to work and depend on welfare would be upset. That's hardly enough people to overthrow a resourceful and intelligent group that the achievers are. Besides, if something happened where I couldn't make a living in this field, I'd go learn another trade. It's very simple - I achieve; I don't whine about others having more, or fret about others having less.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, only I matter. My own welfare comes first because I do not wish to burden society. If someone truly needed my help and I could give it, I would. But I am being forced to help people who won't help themselves. That is an insult to what America used to stand for - opportunity.
There is nothing wrong with arrogance. Arrogance and greed are not horrific traits, as "victims" would have the world believe. Arrogance and greed go hand in hand with ambition, which is what makes countries, businesses, and men great. If it weren't for arrogance, you couldn't sit at a computer, drive a car, or read your own double-digit IQ-test results.
Excise taxes and tolls are COMPLETELY different than income taxes. I can choose not to spend on things that are taxed, but I can't choose not to give up my income when it is taxed. That is slavery. "the highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world is the result of a properly functioning society." No, that's the problem - it's not a 'properly functioning society'. Libertarians want to make it one.
"freedom of religion also means freedom from religion"
Not true You have no right to be free from religion. You should never be forced to enter a church or get down on your knees to pray, but you have no right to never see or hear anything religious. Just like you have no right to not be offended (kind of the same thing for some, I guess). Too many people are such pussies. No one gets hurt if religious activites happen around them (human sacrifices excepted) - Deal with it and move on.
Oh, I see, so to hell with all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists, eh?
Well, none of these religions were prevalent in 1789, but according to the Constitution, government can make no laws regarding the establishment of them. And how can you group agnostics and atheists in with religions? They are not religious by definition! So it's not "to hell with them"; The Frist Amendment guarantess that they'll never have to worship at a church. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
One more thing. Why are non-liberal groups always perceived as the "haters" when it's the liberals who always talk about hate? I don't hate anyone - never have. Do you really "hate" Libertarians? I guess it's because liberal ideas don't hold up when logic comes in to the picture. Libertarians embrace logic, not sympathy, which is what drives the liberals.
Go ahead and hate us all you want. But your time would be better spent actually educating yourself on the issues and not insulting people and assuming every Libertarian and Republican is a Bigoted-Porsche-Driving-Filty-Rich Jerk. Liberals are by far the most racist people I know. (Affirmative Action, anyone? Implying that blacks and women aren't good enough to get jobs on their own merit?) And jerks? I don't even have to comment with posts like yours to back me up.
Who cares about social justice? I owe nothing to anyone, and you owe nothing to me. If I am forced to give up part of my life (i.e. my earnings) to someone or something else, that's slavery. That is Social Injustice. Anyone born to the "wrong parents" (what a bedwetting liberal idea! everyone's a victim of circumstance) can improve their situation. No one is stuck with the opportunities we have. I came from a relatively poor household, have no college education, but I learned how to program and I now make a decent living developing software. I'm not a multi-millionaire, but nothing is stopping me from becoming one except myself. Money is the most important thing in the world. It's what drives the world - whether it's paper money, gold, property, or whatever has any value. Property especially. Many countries don't have the kinds of laws the U.S. does concerning property, and look at them - whole countries living in squalor with wealth all around them! An estate tax (even on properties as little as $2 million) promotes the idea that you don't deserve what you have earned, which is Socialist in nature, and should be avoided by anyone who claims to be an American.
The point is that you have earned what you have, and it's ALREADY been taxed. There is no reason to pay taxes AGAIN on the same money, meritocracy or not. And who cares if the rich get richer? That only creates more jobs for us.
The reason these millionaires are fighting against the repeal of the estate tax is because it doesn't affect them. Bill will never spend all of his billions, and neither will his kids. He's trying to look like a hero by saying "We make too much money already - please keep taking part of what we have earned." The people that would be most affected by this repeal is small-business owners. Right now, if your dad owns a coffee shop (or any kind of business) and dies, his estate is taxed. You may have to sell the shop just to pay those taxes! This is ludicrous. People should be able to keep what they earn, no matter how much or how little it is. We're taxed all of our lives anyway, so why is that money taxed again just because you die? Yes, it would help the rich keep more of what they earned, but it would help alot more people in the middle class keep the American Dream alive.
Atlanta is a quickly growing area for the tech industry, and has the highest number of strip clubs (which are all-nude and serve alcohol) per capita in the nation. Coincidence? I think not.