As one of the players profiled in BDTH, I can say with authority that Bill Kaplan is definitively NOT the basis for the Mickey Rosa character in the book nor the character that Mr. Spacey plays on screen.
While I will not comment on any of the rest of Mr. Kaplan's claims, I will say that, following the release of the book, and especially given the success of the movie, there have been several people who may or may not have been active card players at that time that have come out to falsely claim that the book is about them.
Lest you suspect I may be one of them, I will point out that I was the one who submitted the original WIRED story to slashdot several years ago.
First of all, an increase of costs (writers fees) will do either one or both of the following: increase prices of content and decrease the budget of other areas of production. You can damn well guarantee that even if the Studios and the writers do make a deal, that extra money is definitely not coming out of the Studios' pockets.
Well, this is silly. If the studios have the capability to magically cut production costs or increase the prices to consumers, why have they not already? They are in the business of making money; it would seem that either or both of these would be in their best interests, whether or not the writers get a new contract. Since the last writers' contract, which gave them an (albeit much smaller) increase in compensation, production companies profits have gone UP, not DOWN. The overall cost of television and film has increased, and yet the price of movies on DVD and Video (studios' primary source of income) has dropped.
Second, the average writer in the WGA makes about US$200,000 (I don't have a link to back it up, though I heard this figure from a big expose on the WGA). These striking writers are forcing many crew (cameramen, makeup artists, set construction, actors, assistant, etc) out of work. None of these other crew get royalties, and the writers are striking to get *more* royalties. Sure you can say that without writers, you won't get a show. But without everyone else you won't get a show either, it's all a big chain. These writers are acting selfishly by essentially screwing over everyone else that relies on week to week paychecks. Do the writers actually think that the crew they work with are in support of their strike? The crew will get nothing out of it but late fees on their bills.
This is one of the most offensive inaccuracies stated by the studios. The average working writer, extrapolating their salary to an annualized figure would make more than $200,000. The problem is this: the "average" writer spends most of his/her time not working. It is the nature of the industry that, at any given time, only about 40% of WGA members are working. The rest of the time, they are hustling for work, or doing non-writing employment so they can make ends meet. For those whose primary source of income is writing, the annual figure is much closer to $60,000. For a skilled job, in a city like Los Angeles, that's not exactly gluttony.
Secondly, as to the issue of the writers "screwing" the rest of the crew:
IATSE, who represents grips (people that move things) and gaffers (electricians), receives 4.5 times the amount of residuals as the writers. It is paid directly into their health and pension fund.
SAG (representing the actors) receives 3x the amount, and
The DGA (who represent the Directors and Assistant Directors) get the same as the writers do.
Clearly, your assertion that the writers are the only ones who receive residuals is a lie. But it's also beside the point. Every one of these crew members is also a member of a union. They also have the right to strike. Many have used it. To say that the writers are "screwing over" these people is simply misguided. In such a heavily unionized industry, the writers are exercising their rights, just like any of the other (as you call them "screwed") unions would if they were not offered a reasonable contract.
Third, all unions eventually turn into a self serving, bloated, top heavy organisations, much like...movie studios! The unions want their members to strike, to show their members that the union is important. While the writers are not working and not getting paid, you can be damn sure those union bosses are sitting pretty on union fees, maintaining their extravagant lifestyle.
Wrong. While many members of the WGA Board of Directors or the Negotiating Committee are wealthy due to professional succe
Actually, I think you're inferring a relationship that's not necessarily there.
He didn't actually
link the two ideas (I see no "therefore"). It
could be argued that he's implying a relationship,
but he very well may may have meant "I have a
degree in economics AND I know what I'm talking about.
First, how much should we pay someone to pilot a 73 billiondollar company?
(please pick a number smaller than Ms. Fiorina's salary--if you know what it is).
Once you have that number, please explain to me how we can divide up Carly's 3.4 million to better provide for the company's 142,000 employees. $24 a year won't buy much health insurance.
Sure, some CEOs are overpaid. They all make a crapload more money than I do. They're in charge of multi-billion dollar corporations and hundreds of thousands of employees. My guess is a few million dollars in salary isn't too much. Pick a better example. At best, you're making a case for equity in pay for women, but you're not helping your 'overpaid CEO' argument.
Try this: we need stricter ethics in business. Long term jail sentences and lifetime poverty for criminals like Kenneth Lay. Incentive clauses and stock options.
And no, companies still won't be able to afford your so-called "living wages" just by redistributing CEO salaries.
When offshoring 3000 jobs saves $168 million we really need to consider if the US
is still a business-unfriendly environment.
The UAW nearly killed the auto industry in the 80s. It was a couple multi-million dollar CEOs
that saved the entire US auto industry from disappearing.
It's a global market. Technology improves
efficiency, in all areas, including labor.
Welcome to the information age.
Innovation drives the US economy. Protectionism and entitlement remove competition, eliminating
the need to innovate. Everyone (non innovators included) lived fat off the dot com era. Now it's
time to get back to work and stop acting like
wealth is a birthright.
So, what you're saying, is that the government
should be required to use higher-cost contractors,
as domestic employees refuse to work for competitive
salaries.
Of course the US Federal, as well as most state and local governments are already cash strapped, in large part because they're not bringing in as many tax dollars as expected (see "bubble, pop").
Domestic-only contractors mean higher costs. Higher costs mean higher taxes. The top income tax bracket in the country already pays about 50% (state and local taxes included), which is the point at which most economists believe people will 'take their money and move elsewhere'. As a result, the taxes will have to come from business,
thereby (wait for it) increasing the cost of doing business domestically.
To be sure, offshoring is doing an immense amount of damage to the so-called "working class" in the US, but workers aren't doing themselves any favors, either.
Campaigns for job protection, a "living wage" and universal health care would be a lot more reasonable if the "working class" wasn't drinking three $5 lattes a day, driving $40k escalades and living on more consumer debt than at any time in history. How many kids in the US are receiving financial aid to go to college, while their parents drive two year old SUVs?
The US is going to drive itself under and force business to go elsewhere unless people can get over the economic anomaly of the dot com bubble. We need to get back to working for competitive wages, living within our means, saving and spending responsibly.
Yes, but as the article (and, indeed the summary) indicates... the news here is that the screener ban has been lifted. Screeners ARE going to go out, but only to academy members.
If it's too much effort to read the article, at least read the summary. If it's too much effort to read the summary, don't post.
Academy voters are already required to vote only in categories in which they've seen all the films. That's what the purpose of screeners (or private screenings) is for: to level the playing field.
Michael Moore made a huge deal about it last year when he thought he wouldn't win Best Documentary. "Bowling for Columbine" was for a mainstream audience, and not enough "mainstream" voters had seen the others in his category.
Really, how is this bad news for anyone who isn't trying to steal content? I'm a strong advocate of being able to backup and/or copy things that I have a legal right to. I'm also a strong opponent of "tools" like the DMCA that use corporate fear to try to over-legislate or get rid of technology because it *could be* used to break the law.
But restricting screeners to academy members is only "bad news" if you were hoping that someone in the wider distribution list was going to copy the movies and distribute.
Espousing piracy significantly weakens an anti-MPAA stance. In fact, it plays right into the pro-MPAA argument saying "the only reason people want the ability to copy is so they can pirate."
If you're against the MPAA's position on heavy-handed anti-technology legislation, I'm with you. If you're only in it because you want to steal some stuff... coun't me out.
Can someone justify the philosophical conflict I see permeating slashdot?
Slashdot, as a whole, is outspoken on the subject of patents and intellectual property. The overwhelming voice claims IP laws are "corporate protectionism" and anti-competition.
At the same time, the same voice cries out against moving labor offshore. Posters ask their governments for policies to protect their jobs, claiming that opening the labor force up to global competition isn't fair for domestic workers.
It seems to me that the opposite sides to the same arguments are being used here:
Artificial barriers to competition are bad... except when they help me keep my job.
Whoever can produce a product most efficiently/cheaply deserves financial reward... except when my job can be done somewhere else.
I can build something better/cheaper than the company doing it now, so I should be allowed to... but if somebody else will do my job for cheaper, my company is wrong if they hire them.
Look, I understand exercising a voice to protect one's own interests, but slashdot is filled with pages of people using the same high-minded philosophical arguments in two completely opposite directions. Rather than being hypocritical, if the true motivation is going to be "supporting best for me," can we at least be honest about it?
I don't want to start a war here, but I'd love to hear a coherent argument from someone espousing both anti-globalization and anti-IP ideals that doesn't undermine their position on one with their position on the other.
I finally got networked play going for
my Atari 2600. I gotta tell you, being
able to play "Combat" head-to-head over
the Internet is an absolute revolution
in gaming!
This article is useful for a technical understanding of Moore's "law," but I don't believe it pays enough mind to one of the factors that I believe to be possibly the most significant factor in keeping it going: the economically self-perpetuating nature of it.
Quite simply, companies expect Moore's law to remain true. Software companies plan product lines in anticipation of processor capability doubling every n years. Processors are going to get improve at this rate, therefore we know how quickly bus performance and peripheral performance need to improve.
Semiconductor manufacturers know this. They plan product lines in a Moore's-law-consistent manner (not necessarily explicity, but surely as a matter of economics). If they're a little behind the curve, more money gets put into keeping up with it... or somebody else steps up and keeps it true. If they're at or ahead, they hold the course.
If someone were to introduce a processor that was 10x the density/speed of current processors, don't you think more resources would then go into peripheral design/heat management/software development to utilize the improvments, rather than continuing to focus on improving the processor?
The reason the law has held so long and seems to be so consistent is that it sets everyone's expectations, and people plan towards those expectations. Not less, not more.
Unfortunately, what you fail to give in your post is any reason why you are more qualified than an applicant with an H1-B visa. Certainly, there is some weight to the argument that "we" should not be importing more of the workforce when there is adequate supply here, however the "problem" as you phrase it, seems to be workers willing and available to work at a reasonable rate.
I am and engineer. I hire and manage engineers. When I'm reviewing candidates, some of factors by which I differentiate between them are (in no particular order):
skills
education
experience
expected pay
evidence of dedication
etc.
Simply saying "I'm an American, I should have priority" doesn't work, and, unfortunately for you, the "import" and "export" of engineering jobs means that the willingess of foreing workers to work at a particular rate very much impacts your situation.
I'm not saying "the economy sucks, live with it." Certainly, the government has some duty to look out for it's own, but in the post dot-pocalypse world, I still routinely come across engineers expecting their 1990s-era inflated salaries who cannot differentiate themselves from foreign nationals, willing to work for much less, other than by saying "I'm an American. I should be first."
As an aside, the most vocal opponents of illegial immigrant labor in the produce industry are the American produce workers. Unfortunately, if we were to simlply toss out all the illegal workers, produce costs would rise so much that the american laborers would be unable to afford to put food on the table.
Out of Date Already
on
Enigma
·
· Score: -1, Troll
Due to production delays, it's already out of date.
From the RedHat site:"With the money we saved from not buying proprietary licenses, the school district purchased additional resources that directly effected the learning experience of our students and brought us into the 21st century."
effect: (v) - To cause to be. affect: (v) - To influence or move.
The implications of this passage are either:
Without RedHat, the district never would have been able to buy "additional resources," and the students would have had NO learning experience, or
RedHat decided to quote an educator that doesn't know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect,' illustrating that the students will receive an imperfect education regardless of OS.
Your ISP seems to be providing you the gunpowder in this situation, but not quite enough material to actually deliver rounds to the target.
A while ago, we were all playing with dial up BBS'es, running around with black powder Muskets. People were still shooting the content creators, but it took a long time to reload, and not many people (by today's standards) had access.
We went through Gopher and FTP in the 80s and 90s; sort of the M1 and 1911 of filesharing "weapons." Both standard and long-lasting, but not really capable of taking down a lot of content at once.
We got the WWW and search engines in the mid to late 90s, easily mass produced and pandemic, sort of like the M16--not the most accurate things in the world, but capable of doing a lot of damage in the right hands.
And then came Napster and Gnutella and the other M60-chain-fed-no-other-(real)-purpose-than-mass-IP -wipeout.
Now this is a horrible analogy. File sharing ain't killed anyone (that I know of), but it is an interesting issue.
Independent jurisdictions handle the ownership of firearms very differently. Some places, it's illegal, some places it's completely unchecked. Everyone has an opinion. I hate the "guns don't kill people..." slogan, but it's got a point to make.
Sure, these file sharing programs don't, purely by their existence, violate copyrights, but the proportion of people using them for "legimate" file sharing, I would guess, is about the same proportion of people who are using a chain gun to hunt game.
When you put it in quotes or italicize it, you're claiming it's a verbatim transcription. What you should have said, was to paraphrase Leia.
The proper quote is: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
You could also add an ellipsis to make it relevant, and still leave it in quotes:
The more you tighten your grip... the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Of course, that's only appropriate if you don't substantially change the meaning of the quote. It would be improper to quote Yoda as saying "Adventure, Excitement, a Jedi craves... these things."
Censorship is just the government abusing it's unlimited supply of moderator points. Unfortunately (in the "free world"), too many voters don't take advantage of their meta-mod capabilities.
I just read my most. Now I know I need to take a break from/.
More important than connecting that much bandwidth to your phone is sharing it among many devices.
The problem most people haven't realized yet (and the press coverage doesn't seem to understand) is that the existing wireless bandwith is getting eaten up, not because individuals are using more and more of it, but because more and more individuals are using it.
Have you noticed an increase in "all circuits are busy" or "unable to connect" messages, even when you're getting perfectly good signal? I know I have. As more people get phones/PDAs/computers connected to the wireless networks, it's only getting worse.
Yes, 3G provides a fat pipe to your phone, but a more important aspect is that it's just plain capable of sharing a fatter pipe among all the phones.
Puff, puff, give. We're pushing the limits of what the existing networks can handle; 3G *should* give us enough capability so that we dont f*** up the rotation.
Slashdot Mirror
While I will not comment on any of the rest of Mr. Kaplan's claims, I will say that, following the release of the book, and especially given the success of the movie, there have been several people who may or may not have been active card players at that time that have come out to falsely claim that the book is about them.
Lest you suspect I may be one of them, I will point out that I was the one who submitted the original WIRED story to slashdot several years ago.
Well, this is silly. If the studios have the capability to magically cut production costs or increase the prices to consumers, why have they not already? They are in the business of making money; it would seem that either or both of these would be in their best interests, whether or not the writers get a new contract. Since the last writers' contract, which gave them an (albeit much smaller) increase in compensation, production companies profits have gone UP, not DOWN. The overall cost of television and film has increased, and yet the price of movies on DVD and Video (studios' primary source of income) has dropped.
This is one of the most offensive inaccuracies stated by the studios. The average working writer, extrapolating their salary to an annualized figure would make more than $200,000. The problem is this: the "average" writer spends most of his/her time not working. It is the nature of the industry that, at any given time, only about 40% of WGA members are working. The rest of the time, they are hustling for work, or doing non-writing employment so they can make ends meet. For those whose primary source of income is writing, the annual figure is much closer to $60,000. For a skilled job, in a city like Los Angeles, that's not exactly gluttony.
Secondly, as to the issue of the writers "screwing" the rest of the crew:
Clearly, your assertion that the writers are the only ones who receive residuals is a lie. But it's also beside the point. Every one of these crew members is also a member of a union. They also have the right to strike. Many have used it. To say that the writers are "screwing over" these people is simply misguided. In such a heavily unionized industry, the writers are exercising their rights, just like any of the other (as you call them "screwed") unions would if they were not offered a reasonable contract.
Wrong. While many members of the WGA Board of Directors or the Negotiating Committee are wealthy due to professional succe
It's already loost it's grip on english.
He didn't actually link the two ideas (I see no "therefore"). It could be argued that he's implying a relationship, but he very well may may have meant "I have a degree in economics AND I know what I'm talking about.
I have a degree in English. I'm unemployed.
(please pick a number smaller than Ms. Fiorina's salary--if you know what it is).
Once you have that number, please explain to me how we can divide up Carly's 3.4 million to better provide for the company's 142,000 employees. $24 a year won't buy much health insurance.
Sure, some CEOs are overpaid. They all make a crapload more money than I do. They're in charge of multi-billion dollar corporations and hundreds of thousands of employees. My guess is a few million dollars in salary isn't too much. Pick a better example. At best, you're making a case for equity in pay for women, but you're not helping your 'overpaid CEO' argument.
Try this: we need stricter ethics in business. Long term jail sentences and lifetime poverty for criminals like Kenneth Lay. Incentive clauses and stock options.
And no, companies still won't be able to afford your so-called "living wages" just by redistributing CEO salaries.
When offshoring 3000 jobs saves $168 million we really need to consider if the US is still a business-unfriendly environment.
The UAW nearly killed the auto industry in the 80s. It was a couple multi-million dollar CEOs that saved the entire US auto industry from disappearing.
It's a global market. Technology improves efficiency, in all areas, including labor. Welcome to the information age.
Innovation drives the US economy. Protectionism and entitlement remove competition, eliminating the need to innovate. Everyone (non innovators included) lived fat off the dot com era. Now it's time to get back to work and stop acting like wealth is a birthright.
Of course the US Federal, as well as most state and local governments are already cash strapped, in large part because they're not bringing in as many tax dollars as expected (see "bubble, pop").
Domestic-only contractors mean higher costs. Higher costs mean higher taxes. The top income tax bracket in the country already pays about 50% (state and local taxes included), which is the point at which most economists believe people will 'take their money and move elsewhere'. As a result, the taxes will have to come from business, thereby (wait for it) increasing the cost of doing business domestically.
To be sure, offshoring is doing an immense amount of damage to the so-called "working class" in the US, but workers aren't doing themselves any favors, either.
Campaigns for job protection, a "living wage" and universal health care would be a lot more reasonable if the "working class" wasn't drinking three $5 lattes a day, driving $40k escalades and living on more consumer debt than at any time in history. How many kids in the US are receiving financial aid to go to college, while their parents drive two year old SUVs?
The US is going to drive itself under and force business to go elsewhere unless people can get over the economic anomaly of the dot com bubble. We need to get back to working for competitive wages, living within our means, saving and spending responsibly.
John Underkoffler is a former member of the Tangible Media Group, and was the science advisor on the film.
If it's too much effort to read the article, at least read the summary. If it's too much effort to read the summary, don't post.
Michael Moore made a huge deal about it last year when he thought he wouldn't win Best Documentary. "Bowling for Columbine" was for a mainstream audience, and not enough "mainstream" voters had seen the others in his category.
As for enforcement on the policy... no idea.
Seriously?
Really, how is this bad news for anyone who isn't trying to steal content? I'm a strong advocate of being able to backup and/or copy things that I have a legal right to. I'm also a strong opponent of "tools" like the DMCA that use corporate fear to try to over-legislate or get rid of technology because it *could be* used to break the law.
But restricting screeners to academy members is only "bad news" if you were hoping that someone in the wider distribution list was going to copy the movies and distribute.
Espousing piracy significantly weakens an anti-MPAA stance. In fact, it plays right into the pro-MPAA argument saying "the only reason people want the ability to copy is so they can pirate."
If you're against the MPAA's position on heavy-handed anti-technology legislation, I'm with you. If you're only in it because you want to steal some stuff... coun't me out.
Slashdot, as a whole, is outspoken on the subject of patents and intellectual property. The overwhelming voice claims IP laws are "corporate protectionism" and anti-competition.
At the same time, the same voice cries out against moving labor offshore. Posters ask their governments for policies to protect their jobs, claiming that opening the labor force up to global competition isn't fair for domestic workers.
It seems to me that the opposite sides to the same arguments are being used here:
Look, I understand exercising a voice to protect one's own interests, but slashdot is filled with pages of people using the same high-minded philosophical arguments in two completely opposite directions. Rather than being hypocritical, if the true motivation is going to be "supporting best for me," can we at least be honest about it?
I don't want to start a war here, but I'd love to hear a coherent argument from someone espousing both anti-globalization and anti-IP ideals that doesn't undermine their position on one with their position on the other.
I finally got networked play going for my Atari 2600.
I gotta tell you, being able to play "Combat" head-to-head over the Internet is an absolute revolution in gaming!
I'd have skipped school with my friends, spent my days in the arcade and ignored my homework, fantasizing about how I'd write better games than...
oh. wait. that's what happened. nevermind.
Quite simply, companies expect Moore's law to remain true. Software companies plan product lines in anticipation of processor capability doubling every n years. Processors are going to get improve at this rate, therefore we know how quickly bus performance and peripheral performance need to improve.
Semiconductor manufacturers know this. They plan product lines in a Moore's-law-consistent manner (not necessarily explicity, but surely as a matter of economics). If they're a little behind the curve, more money gets put into keeping up with it... or somebody else steps up and keeps it true. If they're at or ahead, they hold the course.
If someone were to introduce a processor that was 10x the density/speed of current processors, don't you think more resources would then go into peripheral design/heat management/software development to utilize the improvments, rather than continuing to focus on improving the processor?
The reason the law has held so long and seems to be so consistent is that it sets everyone's expectations, and people plan towards those expectations. Not less, not more.
You've all been Jedi mind tricked.
Oh, wait... hmmm... I wonder which I'll need first... a DVD player, or a girlfriend.
I am and engineer. I hire and manage engineers. When I'm reviewing candidates, some of factors by which I differentiate between them are (in no particular order):
- skills
- education
- experience
- expected pay
- evidence of dedication
- etc.
Simply saying "I'm an American, I should have priority" doesn't work, and, unfortunately for you, the "import" and "export" of engineering jobs means that the willingess of foreing workers to work at a particular rate very much impacts your situation.I'm not saying "the economy sucks, live with it." Certainly, the government has some duty to look out for it's own, but in the post dot-pocalypse world, I still routinely come across engineers expecting their 1990s-era inflated salaries who cannot differentiate themselves from foreign nationals, willing to work for much less, other than by saying "I'm an American. I should be first."
As an aside, the most vocal opponents of illegial immigrant labor in the produce industry are the American produce workers. Unfortunately, if we were to simlply toss out all the illegal workers, produce costs would rise so much that the american laborers would be unable to afford to put food on the table.
Due to production delays, it's already out of date.
Isn't it supposed to be "Valhalla?"
effect: (v) - To cause to be.
affect: (v) - To influence or move.
The implications of this passage are either:
Then I realized that /. was just pushing another "get rich quick" scheme.
- Your ISP seems to be providing you the gunpowder in this situation, but not quite enough material to actually deliver rounds to the target.
- A while ago, we were all playing with dial up BBS'es, running around with black powder Muskets. People were still shooting the content creators, but it took a long time to reload, and not many people (by today's standards) had access.
- We went through Gopher and FTP in the 80s and 90s; sort of the M1 and 1911 of filesharing "weapons." Both standard and long-lasting, but not really capable of taking down a lot of content at once.
- We got the WWW and search engines in the mid to late 90s, easily mass produced and pandemic, sort of like the M16--not the most accurate things in the world, but capable of doing a lot of damage in the right hands.
- And then came Napster and Gnutella and the other M60-chain-fed-no-other-(real)-purpose-than-mass-I
P -wipeout.
Now this is a horrible analogy. File sharing ain't killed anyone (that I know of), but it is an interesting issue.Independent jurisdictions handle the ownership of firearms very differently. Some places, it's illegal, some places it's completely unchecked. Everyone has an opinion. I hate the "guns don't kill people..." slogan, but it's got a point to make.
Sure, these file sharing programs don't, purely by their existence, violate copyrights, but the proportion of people using them for "legimate" file sharing, I would guess, is about the same proportion of people who are using a chain gun to hunt game.
The proper quote is: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
You could also add an ellipsis to make it relevant, and still leave it in quotes:
The more you tighten your grip... the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Of course, that's only appropriate if you don't substantially change the meaning of the quote. It would be improper to quote Yoda as saying "Adventure, Excitement, a Jedi craves... these things."
I just read my most. Now I know I need to take a break from
The real problem is that, after the first week:
The problem most people haven't realized yet (and the press coverage doesn't seem to understand) is that the existing wireless bandwith is getting eaten up, not because individuals are using more and more of it, but because more and more individuals are using it.
Have you noticed an increase in "all circuits are busy" or "unable to connect" messages, even when you're getting perfectly good signal? I know I have. As more people get phones/PDAs/computers connected to the wireless networks, it's only getting worse.
Yes, 3G provides a fat pipe to your phone, but a more important aspect is that it's just plain capable of sharing a fatter pipe among all the phones.
Puff, puff, give. We're pushing the limits of what the existing networks can handle; 3G *should* give us enough capability so that we dont f*** up the rotation.
Lovingly referred to as the "Pei Toilet."