When it comes to an undergraduate degree I would completely agree with you that location means very little (other than the amount you can afford). But I would be very surprised if more than a very few Harvard graduate students paid anything (MBA's aside). Particularly in the sciences. In fact, I would bet she was probably compensated pretty well as a PhD student. And while connections can be extremely important in a graduate placement, these connections tend to be academic and earned.
Also I reject your statement that a PhD is irrelevant if not in the exact field of research. Although a PhD does reflect a strong understanding of the topic at hand what it really reflects is an ability to do research and, in the case of a PhD in the sciences, and strong understanding of the methodology of science and statistics. Or in other words, she knows how to recognize a well formed question and what would be required to answer it. She may not be able to trounce you at quake but I am sure she is pretty capable of creating an objective and testable definition of violence in which to scrutinize quake.
Note that this definition may not perfectly jive with everyone's definition of violence, which she is very candid about. But the important part is that the measurement can be made independent of the observer. Only once you have a testable definition of violence are you able to search out for correlations with other data. From a glance over, it doesn't appear that her research is attempting to be the final word on these video games. Rather it is supposed to offer the tools so that real science on the affects of video game violence can be done, rather than simply philosophizing on the topic.
While good to get some tech in these kids hands, I can't help wondering about permanence. Without the printed page, past facts are easily changed to suit current attitudes. I know this isn't quite the case yet. But as we go farther down the road with ebooks, it will be a concern.
I agree with you that we do need to be concerned about facts changing with time and how do we record the past (in fact I think this happens all of the time, and it appears to me it happens mostly due to negligence and not due to direct influence by those in power). However, I think you are only looking at half of the scale when it comes ebooks. Yes, it is hard to white out facts on old textbooks through out the world. But at the same time it is hard to read old textbooks that are across the world. What you lose in the ability to detect manipulation you more than make up for in availability. After all, I can still easily look at the first linux kernel without going to a library. But I find it extremely hard to find print evidence of whether or not their existed a debate about the existence of WMDs in Iraq before the war. (Guys, like Kerry will tell you that everyone believed in WMDs so he had no reason to doubt their existence. Yet, somehow I remember a debate.) Even with DRM, digital texts are more available simply because they don't go out of print.
ok fine... but you're splitting hairs here. My general argument was that while ebay may be the only major auction site on the internet they do receive significant competition from non-auction sites.
I am sorry if you feel hard done by by the comments and moderation but I think if you calmly consider the chain of events you'll come to the conclusion all of these actions were reasonable and predictable. First you wrote a comment that read like an advertisement (at least to me). The term "it really felt like an upgrade" is just one of those market speech phrases that sticks with you. However at that point I (nor anyone else that I noticed) accused you of anything. But it was enough to raise suspicion. Then when I read the ac comment that just seemed too weird so I checked for myself. Sure enough, the Administrative Contact was a Chandler Kant (a pretty unique name). So now I have a suspicion and this weird fact that seems to support it.
So what is this "step beyond" that you are are referring to? You commented in another message that you would like to have been emailed. Well the reality is you posted to a public forum. The most reasonably place to respond to such a message is in that same public forum. I wasn't just responding to you but commenting on your comment to the other readers of the article. If I had sent an email and waited for a reply my comment would no longer have been topical or read. And where's the fun in posting an unread comment (reading and posting is all about the fun remember... no one lives and dies by their karma).
Also I'm not sure how the information presented is selective. He (or I) could have checked the "about us" of the website in question but really that would have just led to more information, not less, linking you with LinuxCertified.
Let's assume for the moment that I am somehow obligated to do the "right thing" when it comes to responding to your message (I'm not after all. I'm just some dude wasting some time by taking part in a conversation on slashdot). What is worse, accidently falsely accusing someone of spamming for their company, or not commenting at all to the first comment moderated at 5 which is more than likely spam (I say more than likely because I sincerely believe that the vast majority of the time that you see a glowing review of a company from someone who can be linked to that company - even if that link is just having their website hosted by tha company - that you are looking at spam).
I'm also not sure what these "smear tactics" you refer to are. Are you referring to all the people who modded your comments down? Isn't this response a little predictable? I'm not saying this response was necessarily right or any of that wisdom of crowds crap. I'm just saying that when a whole bunch of people do something, whether you agree with them or not, it is usually not a surprise that they are doing it. Like how it was never that hard to guess the top answer on the Family Feud. Couldn't you figure out that once it got posted that you had some sort of association with LC that people were going to mod you down. It seems kind of silly to complain about something that you could have predicted was coming and probably could have prevented.
Feel free to respond to me at
steven <dot> noble <at> gmail <dot> com
. It makes more sense to me to post any responses on/. but if you prefer email I am fine with that.
ps It still seems likely to me that you work for LC (or at least you are close friends with someone who works for them)
eBay doesn't have a monopoly on payments.
It has a monopoly on auctions.
I'm sorry, but that just seems like too narrow of business description to stamp on the title monopoly.
What ebay is selling is a venue to sell your wares online. In that market they may be the market leader but there is certainly healthy competition: of note would be craigslist and amazon. Yes, ebay may be the only business in this market that uses the mechanism of an auction.
Monopoly laws exist so that they may be applied when consumers have no other choice. Here consumers have a choice.
They may offer functionality or features that their competition does not offer but does it really make sense that if you do that you suddenly become a monopoly? Consider how ridiculous that is. That means if you have a business and you want to distinguish yourself from competition then you immedeately become a monopoly. So, if you don't want to become a monopoly, the only way to compete is on price. That doesn't sound like a healthy market to me. That sounds like a Walmart to me.
As an earlier anonymous coward mentioned, if you do a whois on wineverygame.com you find that Chandler Kant is the administrative contact. At the same time LinuxCertified has a major employee named Chandler Kant (see http://linux.about.com/b/a/062983.htm for one reference). It is quite unfortunate when a dealer of linux systems will lie on a forum like slashdot about his identity in order to sell systems.
The funny thing is that stem cell research isn't tightly controlled. In fact I'm not sure there are any real limiting restrictions at the moment. There is certainly a ban on federal funding of most stem cell research (a ban to which Bloomberg is referring). However, if some old rich white guy wants to drop a few billion on stem cell research in the hopes of extending his own life, he is completely allowed to do that. And I don't think their is much of a political movement trying to deter him from doing so either.
I think the thing that you are missing is the Republican theory of economics. No, I'm not referring to fiscal conservatism or even tax cuts for the public. I'm referring to the fact that one of the major distinctions between democrats and republicans is their support for large corporations. Democrats (as a terrible over generalization) tend to see corporations as these large entities with lots of money and no mouths to feed, that are oppressing those that are working for them. Where as Republicans (similar terrible generalization) tend to see large corporations as the number one employer of Americans, and representing a huge amount of American wealth. Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg seem to fall into being this sort of republican.
As for Sullivan, I think comments like those made in your second paragraph is precisely what pushed him towards Republicans. I tend to think he's the sort of guy who rails against people who say "well you're gay so you have to be liberal (or at least anti-republican)." I like to think of myself as a pretty cool headed guy but I think I would get pretty ticked if someone suggested how I was born absolutely determined what side of a debate I was always on. In a sense you are absolutely correct when you say "Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?" Isn't he just declaring his right to determine his own political perspective and not having it dictated to him by his sexuality?
From the article The researchers studied about 300 children with an average age of 10.
Heck these kids weren't just stupid they were pretty much vegetables with that IQ. Of course I could give the writer the benefit of doubt and assume that the 10 was a typo of 100 but I prefer thinking that these were a group of kids who could barely figure out how to breath (at least on average).
Just to be clear Canada does not have a free health care system. We have a single tier health care system. To have insurance you must either a) have a job that covers it, b) be on some form of social assistance or c) pay for it yourself. This means if you work a contract job or several part time jobs (or your employer gives you full time hours but lists you as part time) you do not have health insurance unless you pay for it yourself.
It's not a case of 'they have to provide the means' it is that they are deliberately attempting to interfere with and restrict our rights
You can look up title 17 here http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html . But the excerpt I'm interested is "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work [...] is not an infringement of copyright." Similarly it is also not considered an invasion of privacy for a post office worker to read what is written on a post card since the writing is in plain site. So by your logic of rights it must be illegal for me to write an encrypted message on a post card since the delivery man has a right to read it. Hmm... somewhere a long the way there must have been a flaw.
Either there is fair use and you have free excersize(spelling left in tact) of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
I'm sorry but isn't this a false dichotomy? I can certainly imagine a world where there is fair use but you aren't technically able to exercise those rights. You might not like that world but that's a job of a congressman to deal with this issue: not a lawyer or judge.
Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights.
I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use.
Furthermore does this even make sense? And if it does how far does this go. We know that time shifting falls under fair use. But I may find it technically difficult to go buy a tape and VCR (or whatever tool I wish to use). Does this mean that if I demand that a network mail me a recorded copy of a TV show that they must comply?
Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law.
I switched from using a linux desktop for the past 4 years to almost exclusively using a mac. What's the size of my demographic? What do you mean nobody cares?
The Onion was amused. "I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion," Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists.
I realize that this is a joke to a degree but 'come on!' Isn't the above comment equivalent to a speeding motorist getting pulled over and then complaining that the cop should be spending his time stopping murders rather than pester speeding drivers.
The truth is there is value in a law that protects the seal of the president: protection above and beyond standard copyright. Just like how there is value in a law against speeding. Pointing out the fact that there are even more important laws out there to enforce does not negate the value of these laws and it certainly isn't a mark on innocence.
For just US$30 more you can get a DS, and for US$20 less you can get an SP with the newly brightened screen. It occupies somewhat of an awkward place in terms of price point and features.
When talking about things like palms this sort of note makes sense since really everyone would rather have the most expensive palm for the cheapest price. Same story when it comes to the same line of mp3 player with different storage capacities. But here I don't think that is the case. It seems these 3 products have different values for different customers. If somebody wants something small there aren't going to go for a DS even if it is the same price as the micro. If someone really wants the DS features instead of the extra portability they'll get the DS. And for someone like me who doesn't want something as big as a DS but finds the SP more comfortable to play they will get an SP, even if again all 3 are at the same price.
Instead of having 3 compromises of price and features Nintendo actually has 3 different products, although clearly they are competing against each other.
but at the same time prefers the size of the SP
Certainly being down 8% to 10% from the year before in most markets is more than just noise. But does that make sense in the movie market when 10% of sales between January and September can be made up of just two or three movies. Let's consider the plus $300 million films for the last few years (since sales are down by about half a billion from last year). By my count 2001 had 2, 2002 had 3, 2003 had 3, 2004 had 3 and 2005 had 1. Well if we say for argument that for each year there were 6 movies that had the potential to become a plus 300-mil we might average out that such a movie has a 0.20 chance of making it. Then we would expect about 1 every 5 years a set of 6 such movies would only produce 1 actual 300-mil.
Now this is just a two minute analysis with several bad assumptions. But all I'm trying to say is that not all numbers have meaning when it comes to statistics.
First I got to say this: it's 2005 and you don't have the ability to get around region coding on dvd and you're posting on slashdot. Yes I know circumvention isn't the answer to your dad's problem but it certainly can be the answer to yours.
Now for your claim that the industry is hurting itself by not making more quality films like "A History of Violence." If Hollywood only made the sort festival films comes out in the fall then they would quickly put themselves in even worse shape when it comes to revenue. The predictable summer block buster out sells the art house festival film virtually every time they come up against each other be it in theatre or on video. My guess is this is because that most people who appreciate art house films see less movies than those who enjoy the basic movie mould. I would suspect this is because the more aware film watcher is also interested in arts in many forms. So you have a lot more to compete against when trying to get his recreation time. But that is only my guess.
In whatever case it seems that every year that by the end of summer everyone is complaining how no good films get made anymore (unlike the year before) however there may be a fall film that may be alright. This year the summer block busters were not able to get the audiences they wanted. But since the "quality" films have never come out in summer (with several note worth exceptions that I should but won't note) this lack of revenue says nothing about Hollywood's ability to make good film. Films may be getting worse but falling interest by the film going audience (largely teenagers) doesn't affirm or deny this.
Slashdot Mirror
wow furball, you are really looking like the ignorant jackass who keeps getting showed up in this conversation.
When it comes to an undergraduate degree I would completely agree with you that location means very little (other than the amount you can afford). But I would be very surprised if more than a very few Harvard graduate students paid anything (MBA's aside). Particularly in the sciences. In fact, I would bet she was probably compensated pretty well as a PhD student. And while connections can be extremely important in a graduate placement, these connections tend to be academic and earned.
Also I reject your statement that a PhD is irrelevant if not in the exact field of research. Although a PhD does reflect a strong understanding of the topic at hand what it really reflects is an ability to do research and, in the case of a PhD in the sciences, and strong understanding of the methodology of science and statistics. Or in other words, she knows how to recognize a well formed question and what would be required to answer it. She may not be able to trounce you at quake but I am sure she is pretty capable of creating an objective and testable definition of violence in which to scrutinize quake.
Note that this definition may not perfectly jive with everyone's definition of violence, which she is very candid about. But the important part is that the measurement can be made independent of the observer. Only once you have a testable definition of violence are you able to search out for correlations with other data. From a glance over, it doesn't appear that her research is attempting to be the final word on these video games. Rather it is supposed to offer the tools so that real science on the affects of video game violence can be done, rather than simply philosophizing on the topic.
I agree with you that we do need to be concerned about facts changing with time and how do we record the past (in fact I think this happens all of the time, and it appears to me it happens mostly due to negligence and not due to direct influence by those in power). However, I think you are only looking at half of the scale when it comes ebooks. Yes, it is hard to white out facts on old textbooks through out the world. But at the same time it is hard to read old textbooks that are across the world. What you lose in the ability to detect manipulation you more than make up for in availability. After all, I can still easily look at the first linux kernel without going to a library. But I find it extremely hard to find print evidence of whether or not their existed a debate about the existence of WMDs in Iraq before the war. (Guys, like Kerry will tell you that everyone believed in WMDs so he had no reason to doubt their existence. Yet, somehow I remember a debate.) Even with DRM, digital texts are more available simply because they don't go out of print.
In a couple of years we'll have 27/1/8. Kind of weak really. What I'm looking forward to is 3/14/15. That'll be pretty sweet.
ok fine... but you're splitting hairs here. My general argument was that while ebay may be the only major auction site on the internet they do receive significant competition from non-auction sites.
So what is this "step beyond" that you are are referring to? You commented in another message that you would like to have been emailed. Well the reality is you posted to a public forum. The most reasonably place to respond to such a message is in that same public forum. I wasn't just responding to you but commenting on your comment to the other readers of the article. If I had sent an email and waited for a reply my comment would no longer have been topical or read. And where's the fun in posting an unread comment (reading and posting is all about the fun remember... no one lives and dies by their karma).
Also I'm not sure how the information presented is selective. He (or I) could have checked the "about us" of the website in question but really that would have just led to more information, not less, linking you with LinuxCertified.
Let's assume for the moment that I am somehow obligated to do the "right thing" when it comes to responding to your message (I'm not after all. I'm just some dude wasting some time by taking part in a conversation on slashdot). What is worse, accidently falsely accusing someone of spamming for their company, or not commenting at all to the first comment moderated at 5 which is more than likely spam (I say more than likely because I sincerely believe that the vast majority of the time that you see a glowing review of a company from someone who can be linked to that company - even if that link is just having their website hosted by tha company - that you are looking at spam).
I'm also not sure what these "smear tactics" you refer to are. Are you referring to all the people who modded your comments down? Isn't this response a little predictable? I'm not saying this response was necessarily right or any of that wisdom of crowds crap. I'm just saying that when a whole bunch of people do something, whether you agree with them or not, it is usually not a surprise that they are doing it. Like how it was never that hard to guess the top answer on the Family Feud. Couldn't you figure out that once it got posted that you had some sort of association with LC that people were going to mod you down. It seems kind of silly to complain about something that you could have predicted was coming and probably could have prevented.
Feel free to respond to me at . It makes more sense to me to post any responses on
ps It still seems likely to me that you work for LC (or at least you are close friends with someone who works for them)
eBay doesn't have a monopoly on payments.
It has a monopoly on auctions.
I'm sorry, but that just seems like too narrow of business description to stamp on the title monopoly. What ebay is selling is a venue to sell your wares online. In that market they may be the market leader but there is certainly healthy competition: of note would be craigslist and amazon. Yes, ebay may be the only business in this market that uses the mechanism of an auction.
Monopoly laws exist so that they may be applied when consumers have no other choice. Here consumers have a choice. They may offer functionality or features that their competition does not offer but does it really make sense that if you do that you suddenly become a monopoly? Consider how ridiculous that is. That means if you have a business and you want to distinguish yourself from competition then you immedeately become a monopoly. So, if you don't want to become a monopoly, the only way to compete is on price. That doesn't sound like a healthy market to me. That sounds like a Walmart to me.
As an earlier anonymous coward mentioned, if you do a whois on wineverygame.com you find that Chandler Kant is the administrative contact. At the same time LinuxCertified has a major employee named Chandler Kant (see http://linux.about.com/b/a/062983.htm for one reference). It is quite unfortunate when a dealer of linux systems will lie on a forum like slashdot about his identity in order to sell systems.
this should be modded way up. The grand-parent appears to be pure advertising.
The funny thing is that stem cell research isn't tightly controlled. In fact I'm not sure there are any real limiting restrictions at the moment. There is certainly a ban on federal funding of most stem cell research (a ban to which Bloomberg is referring). However, if some old rich white guy wants to drop a few billion on stem cell research in the hopes of extending his own life, he is completely allowed to do that. And I don't think their is much of a political movement trying to deter him from doing so either.
I think the thing that you are missing is the Republican theory of economics. No, I'm not referring to fiscal conservatism or even tax cuts for the public. I'm referring to the fact that one of the major distinctions between democrats and republicans is their support for large corporations. Democrats (as a terrible over generalization) tend to see corporations as these large entities with lots of money and no mouths to feed, that are oppressing those that are working for them. Where as Republicans (similar terrible generalization) tend to see large corporations as the number one employer of Americans, and representing a huge amount of American wealth. Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg seem to fall into being this sort of republican.
As for Sullivan, I think comments like those made in your second paragraph is precisely what pushed him towards Republicans. I tend to think he's the sort of guy who rails against people who say "well you're gay so you have to be liberal (or at least anti-republican)." I like to think of myself as a pretty cool headed guy but I think I would get pretty ticked if someone suggested how I was born absolutely determined what side of a debate I was always on. In a sense you are absolutely correct when you say "Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?" Isn't he just declaring his right to determine his own political perspective and not having it dictated to him by his sexuality?
I don't know what's sadder, that you tried to make a visual pun by encoding it in TeX, or that I understood it.
Perhaps it is sadder still that I can't help but to mention that it should be \lim_{x\to8^+}.
Maybe I'm the one with an average IQ of 10.
From the article The researchers studied about 300 children with an average age of 10.
Heck these kids weren't just stupid they were pretty much vegetables with that IQ. Of course I could give the writer the benefit of doubt and assume that the 10 was a typo of 100 but I prefer thinking that these were a group of kids who could barely figure out how to breath (at least on average).
Just to be clear Canada does not have a free health care system. We have a single tier health care system. To have insurance you must either a) have a job that covers it, b) be on some form of social assistance or c) pay for it yourself. This means if you work a contract job or several part time jobs (or your employer gives you full time hours but lists you as part time) you do not have health insurance unless you pay for it yourself.
It's not a case of 'they have to provide the means' it is that they are deliberately attempting to interfere with and restrict our rights
u sc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html . But the excerpt I'm interested is "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work [...] is not an infringement of copyright." Similarly it is also not considered an invasion of privacy for a post office worker to read what is written on a post card since the writing is in plain site. So by your logic of rights it must be illegal for me to write an encrypted message on a post card since the delivery man has a right to read it. Hmm... somewhere a long the way there must have been a flaw.
You can look up title 17 here http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/
Either there is fair use and you have free excersize(spelling left in tact) of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
I'm sorry but isn't this a false dichotomy? I can certainly imagine a world where there is fair use but you aren't technically able to exercise those rights. You might not like that world but that's a job of a congressman to deal with this issue: not a lawyer or judge.
Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights.
I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use.
Furthermore does this even make sense? And if it does how far does this go. We know that time shifting falls under fair use. But I may find it technically difficult to go buy a tape and VCR (or whatever tool I wish to use). Does this mean that if I demand that a network mail me a recorded copy of a TV show that they must comply?
Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law.
I switched from using a linux desktop for the past 4 years to almost exclusively using a mac. What's the size of my demographic? What do you mean nobody cares?
I realize that this is a joke to a degree but 'come on!' Isn't the above comment equivalent to a speeding motorist getting pulled over and then complaining that the cop should be spending his time stopping murders rather than pester speeding drivers.
The truth is there is value in a law that protects the seal of the president: protection above and beyond standard copyright. Just like how there is value in a law against speeding. Pointing out the fact that there are even more important laws out there to enforce does not negate the value of these laws and it certainly isn't a mark on innocence.
For just US$30 more you can get a DS, and for US$20 less you can get an SP with the newly brightened screen. It occupies somewhat of an awkward place in terms of price point and features.
When talking about things like palms this sort of note makes sense since really everyone would rather have the most expensive palm for the cheapest price. Same story when it comes to the same line of mp3 player with different storage capacities. But here I don't think that is the case. It seems these 3 products have different values for different customers. If somebody wants something small there aren't going to go for a DS even if it is the same price as the micro. If someone really wants the DS features instead of the extra portability they'll get the DS. And for someone like me who doesn't want something as big as a DS but finds the SP more comfortable to play they will get an SP, even if again all 3 are at the same price.
Instead of having 3 compromises of price and features Nintendo actually has 3 different products, although clearly they are competing against each other. but at the same time prefers the size of the SP
oops... I meant to say each such movie had about a 0.4 chance of success.
Certainly being down 8% to 10% from the year before in most markets is more than just noise. But does that make sense in the movie market when 10% of sales between January and September can be made up of just two or three movies. Let's consider the plus $300 million films for the last few years (since sales are down by about half a billion from last year). By my count 2001 had 2, 2002 had 3, 2003 had 3, 2004 had 3 and 2005 had 1. Well if we say for argument that for each year there were 6 movies that had the potential to become a plus 300-mil we might average out that such a movie has a 0.20 chance of making it. Then we would expect about 1 every 5 years a set of 6 such movies would only produce 1 actual 300-mil.
Now this is just a two minute analysis with several bad assumptions. But all I'm trying to say is that not all numbers have meaning when it comes to statistics.
First I got to say this: it's 2005 and you don't have the ability to get around region coding on dvd and you're posting on slashdot. Yes I know circumvention isn't the answer to your dad's problem but it certainly can be the answer to yours.
Now for your claim that the industry is hurting itself by not making more quality films like "A History of Violence." If Hollywood only made the sort festival films comes out in the fall then they would quickly put themselves in even worse shape when it comes to revenue. The predictable summer block buster out sells the art house festival film virtually every time they come up against each other be it in theatre or on video. My guess is this is because that most people who appreciate art house films see less movies than those who enjoy the basic movie mould. I would suspect this is because the more aware film watcher is also interested in arts in many forms. So you have a lot more to compete against when trying to get his recreation time. But that is only my guess.
In whatever case it seems that every year that by the end of summer everyone is complaining how no good films get made anymore (unlike the year before) however there may be a fall film that may be alright. This year the summer block busters were not able to get the audiences they wanted. But since the "quality" films have never come out in summer (with several note worth exceptions that I should but won't note) this lack of revenue says nothing about Hollywood's ability to make good film. Films may be getting worse but falling interest by the film going audience (largely teenagers) doesn't affirm or deny this.
What sort of burning restrictions does itunes have? I've never run into any.