This excellent piece went into exactly why movies are focused on the all-important opening weekend. Basically the huge megacorps that own all of the studios want to minimize their risk and maximize return so they gravitate to formulas with known elements.
What's behind the opening-weekend box-office mania? Does marketing hold too much power over the fate of a film? Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE's interviews with Mandalay's chairman, Peter Guber; Bob Levin, president of worldwide marketing and distribution for MGM; journalist Richard Natale; longtime studio executive Lucy Fisher; actor and producer Michael Douglas; Sony Corporation of America's chief executive, Howard Stringer; and Bill Mechanic, former Fox studio chief.
If this program airs again in your area, I highly recommend you check it out.
Reminds me of that tv spot. Joe the IT manager is shon interacting with his users and their managers throughout the day.
"Joe, I sent you an email telling you that the email is down!"
"Joe, I opened that email virus, just like you told us not to."
"Looks like another all-nighter, eh Joe?"
Point is, non-technical users will always do stupid things. I've seen places attempt to make people accountable for their actions by documenting specific policies, and then threating diciplinary action if those policies are violated.
Thing is, you'd end up firing 1/2 the staff if you let go anyone caught opening "I Love You". I know most IT people would not shed a tear if 1/2 the lusers got let go, the the reality is that it is expensive to replace people. Firing a few people over spreading an email virus would probably cost the company tens of thousands by the time you add up the lost productivity, training the new hires, the overhead it takes HR and the manager to screen, interview and hire new employees.
From my perspective, I think you could make a case that in the long run this would save the company money, but in reality I think companies just won't do this. Last time we actually fired someone for violating company policy, he was misappropriating company resources by hijacking a machine and setting it up as a personal web server and he was writing a worm. You gotta really go out of your way to get fired by doing something blatant and intentionally damaging. Clicking on an email attachment is just dumb.
But then, why did the designers also put this port at the end of a long trench, lined with defensive turbolasters? Seems like they did anticipate that smaller craft might come close to the surface enough to put guns all along?
Another thing, why such a tiny (2 meters) port? Something as large as the Death Star must have a colossal reactor core and generate a huge amount of heat. We're supposed to beleive that all the excess heat is exhausted to the surface by a thermal port only 2 meters wide?
Also, why did the torpedoes make a 90 degree turn on ther way into the exhaust port?
Also, why am I trying to poke plot holes into a movie 25 years old that was basically just a lot of fun to watch?
>Of course, I'd want the first one, as we all know the second one is not yet fully operational.
(tongue inserted firmly in cheek) No way. That first one had that clearly-labelled 'self destruct' button on it. Version 2.0 eliminated this design flaw, the subsequent failure of ground-based security through gross management incompetance was the only reason for its destruction.
This new weapon system represents the most awesome destructive power in the universe. Fortunately, they put a button right here that will blow the whole thing up!
How will we find this button, sir?
That's the best part! They built a trench that leads right to it. Just drop in, fly to the button and fire. You can't miss!
That page is pretty funny, I saw it earlier today linked off bluesnews. My favorite part was where they claimed "Lunix" was an illegal hacker operating system written by Torvalds (or some variation), who was working for the Soviet Union.
What is the long-term interest/feasibility in colonizing or otherwise usefully exploiting Mars? Again, going back to total recall, sounds like everyone would have to live in domes to provide a pressurized, breathable atmosphere and to protect them from solar radiation. Any crops grown would also have to be indoors, no?
I'm having a hard time imagining how this situation would provide meaningful advantage over constructing habitation domes here on earth in what we currently consider uninhabitable regions? (the assumption being you have run out of room for people to live on earth and you want to start colonizing mars in order to have somewhere to live and new resources to exploit).
There must be some other factor I'm missing that would make Mars attractive to anyone other than NASA?
Isn't atmospheric pressure also an issue, though? Even if Mars could sustain plant live and eventually produce enough oxygen to make the atmosphere technically 'breathable', what else would you have to (could you) do to make things hospitable enough so humans don't need a pressure suit*?
Aside from converting CO2 to oxygen, don't you have to increase the overall 'amount' of atmospheric gasses in order to get something close to an Earth-like atmospheric pressure?
*although, I'm basing this question from assumptions taken from 'Total Recall':-)
It's those damn martians and their indiscriminate use of freon air-conditioners and styrofoam coffee cups and aerosol hairspray that is depleting the martian ozone layer and causing this potential environmental catastrophe.
They must take immediate action to save mother Mars, otherwise their entire existance will be threatened! Think of the children!
>Probably the end result of that would be another Big Bang.
so its possible that the universe has banged, expanded, collapsed in on itself and banged again multiple times already, right? (in fact, you can give yourself a serious headache by pondering the implications that this sequence of events is repeated infinitely, that there was never a 'first' time and there will never be a last).
You know, I'd love to know some of the details of this transaction (although that would take away some of the fun of wild speculation).
I'm really scratching my head about what, if any, strings Larry was able to put on this 'gift'. Doesn't seem to likely he would be able to steer the way this goes by putting conditions on his donation.
"Here, I'm granting a 'special-use' license to the US Federal Government for unlimited instances of Oracle9i. Now, you can use these any way you see fit for the national id card project, with just a few 'provisoes'. First, you can't ever run it on or with any Microsoft software. Next, blah blah blah...."
"Um, okay. Gee thanks."
I'd have to guess Oracle would have to gift this software with no strings, other than stuff to cover their butt.
urgh, hate it when I find something I should have put in my post.
Attorneys for Excite@Home bondholders, the largest and most vocal group of creditors, said the cable companies should pay at least $50 a month per subscriber for nine months. Excite@Home was losing about $6 million per week because of the contracts, according to bondholders' lawyers.
Wish I could go back and ammend a post instead of replying to myself. Guess that opens too many problems for abuse though.
>Aren't Excite's shareholders the biggest losers for rejecting AT&T's offer
I thought it was the bondholders (people who lent money?), not the stockholders (those that bought equity) who went to court? What I remember hearing was that AT&T's offer wouldn't cover the debt. This dosn't make much sense to me since the idea was to buy out the company and keep it running, not cash-out the bonds?
Yeah, not very good strategy on their part.
Yeah, well show them. We'll cut off their service and then they'll *have* to come crawling back with more money. I mean, what are they going to do? Convert almost a million users over to a brand-new network?! HAH!"
apparently hemos can't/doesn't read. the press release announces AT&T customers being migrated to a new network run by AT&T, NOT turning @Home back on.
AT&T Broadband has moved about 86,000 customers in Oregon and the Vancouver area of Washington from the Excite@Home network to the new AT&T Broadband Internet network
The deal is between Comcast, Cox and @Home. Those subs didn't even lose service, did they?
Here in Chicago, the modem light went on about 10:30 but no service yet (well, can't even get DHCP yet). We are still being told we will be moved to attbi, and in Chicago we can expect service today.
The headline implies that AT&T struck a deal with excite, the linked articles do not say this and all other evidence continues to be that AT&T is moving its customers to a new network.
Am I reading this wrong? We've just gotten back online here in Chicago, and it sure ain't @home service!
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.
What the hell does this mean? I can't have a file/print server within my home network? Or are they tring to say the machine(s) connected directly to the modem can't be servers?
No one is saying anything about email? I'm in Chicago and I'm not back online yet. I'm getting calls from my friends and family telling me their email to me is bouncing back with cryptic error codes.
I'm assuming that AT&T is (rightfully) concentrating on getting everyone back online first, then email and personal webspace will follow - but I'm curious about how long this will take. I'm not looking forward to changing everything over (again) and letting everyone know what my new address is (we were just moved from mediaone.net in October, and yes, I do have a webmail account - call me old-fashioned, but I do prefer to have real email)
>switching current customers to a new network will take about 2 weeks
What is the source for this? AT&T has said 7 -10 days fairly consistently. Over 40% of customers are already on attbi. AT&T said they will have 600,000 subs moved over by the end of the day Monday, with the rest back up by Friday.
...it has already moved to its own high-speed Internet network nearly 40 percent of the 850,000 customers who lost service this weekend...
About 330,000 subscribers in Oregon, Washington and the Dallas area have been moved to the new AT&T Broadband network, the company said in a statement. Customers in San Francisco and Illinois are scheduled to be moved during the day on Monday, and by day's end it expects to have switched 657,000 subscribers to its network.
The balance of its affected customers will be switched by Friday, it said
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. - AT&T Broadband moved about 330,000 cable Internet customers to its new high speed Internet network as of Monday morning, Dec. 3, less than 48 hours after the At Home Corporation shut off service for more than 850,000 AT&T customers. The At Home Corporation's action followed a decision in U. S. Bankruptcy Court to cancel cable company distribution agreements with At Home.
The customers moved to the new AT&T network so far reside in Oregon, Washington, and metro Dallas. Customers in San Francisco and Illinois are scheduled to be moved today and tomorrow, bringing the total added to the new network to about 657,000.
There are lots of other details in the AT&T press release, including what will happen to customers still on the MediaOne network in Ann Arbor, Mich.; Atlanta; Jacksonville; Los Angeles; the Stockton and Fresno areas of Central California; New England; Richmond, Va.; and St. Paul, Minn.
Customers formerly served by MediaOne are remaining on a separately operated network
...
For the group of customers in the markets being served by this separately operated network, the service will be re-branded as AT&T Broadband Internet. For the majority of customers in these markets, the network, Internet service connectivity, email domain names, and data transmission speed won't be affected. The only change these customers will see is new content provided by Yahoo! To access this new content, customers can direct their browsers to http://home.attbroadband.com/.
Slashdot Mirror
>all those 'roids
:-)
A little Preparation H will clear those right up.... or, so I'm told.
Spot on. Anyone else see the 'Frontline' show a week ago or so entitled "The Monster that ate Hollywood"?
This excellent piece went into exactly why movies are focused on the all-important opening weekend. Basically the huge megacorps that own all of the studios want to minimize their risk and maximize return so they gravitate to formulas with known elements.
What's behind the opening-weekend box-office mania? Does marketing hold too much power over the fate of a film? Here are excerpts from FRONTLINE's interviews with Mandalay's chairman, Peter Guber; Bob Levin, president of worldwide marketing and distribution for MGM; journalist Richard Natale; longtime studio executive Lucy Fisher; actor and producer Michael Douglas; Sony Corporation of America's chief executive, Howard Stringer; and Bill Mechanic, former Fox studio chief.
If this program airs again in your area, I highly recommend you check it out.
Reminds me of that tv spot. Joe the IT manager is shon interacting with his users and their managers throughout the day.
"Joe, I sent you an email telling you that the email is down!"
"Joe, I opened that email virus, just like you told us not to."
"Looks like another all-nighter, eh Joe?"
Point is, non-technical users will always do stupid things. I've seen places attempt to make people accountable for their actions by documenting specific policies, and then threating diciplinary action if those policies are violated.
Thing is, you'd end up firing 1/2 the staff if you let go anyone caught opening "I Love You". I know most IT people would not shed a tear if 1/2 the lusers got let go, the the reality is that it is expensive to replace people. Firing a few people over spreading an email virus would probably cost the company tens of thousands by the time you add up the lost productivity, training the new hires, the overhead it takes HR and the manager to screen, interview and hire new employees.
From my perspective, I think you could make a case that in the long run this would save the company money, but in reality I think companies just won't do this. Last time we actually fired someone for violating company policy, he was misappropriating company resources by hijacking a machine and setting it up as a personal web server and he was writing a worm. You gotta really go out of your way to get fired by doing something blatant and intentionally damaging. Clicking on an email attachment is just dumb.
excellent point. :-)
But then, why did the designers also put this port at the end of a long trench, lined with defensive turbolasters? Seems like they did anticipate that smaller craft might come close to the surface enough to put guns all along?
Another thing, why such a tiny (2 meters) port? Something as large as the Death Star must have a colossal reactor core and generate a huge amount of heat. We're supposed to beleive that all the excess heat is exhausted to the surface by a thermal port only 2 meters wide?
Also, why did the torpedoes make a 90 degree turn on ther way into the exhaust port?
Also, why am I trying to poke plot holes into a movie 25 years old that was basically just a lot of fun to watch?
You obviously didn't see "Thumb Wars"?
>Of course, I'd want the first one, as we all know the second one is not yet fully operational.
(tongue inserted firmly in cheek) No way. That first one had that clearly-labelled 'self destruct' button on it. Version 2.0 eliminated this design flaw, the subsequent failure of ground-based security through gross management incompetance was the only reason for its destruction.
This new weapon system represents the most awesome destructive power in the universe. Fortunately, they put a button right here that will blow the whole thing up!
How will we find this button, sir?
That's the best part! They built a trench that leads right to it. Just drop in, fly to the button and fire. You can't miss!
But why would they build something like that?
Beats me! Isn't is great, though?
>Did you even look at the links?)
uh, yeah... eventually
thanks
More like "I was installing a service pack" from the looks of the screenshot?
I *said* it was funny, I understand it was a joke.
Go soak your head or something.
That page is pretty funny, I saw it earlier today linked off bluesnews. My favorite part was where they claimed "Lunix" was an illegal hacker operating system written by Torvalds (or some variation), who was working for the Soviet Union.
That leads me to the next question, then
What is the long-term interest/feasibility in colonizing or otherwise usefully exploiting Mars? Again, going back to total recall, sounds like everyone would have to live in domes to provide a pressurized, breathable atmosphere and to protect them from solar radiation. Any crops grown would also have to be indoors, no?
I'm having a hard time imagining how this situation would provide meaningful advantage over constructing habitation domes here on earth in what we currently consider uninhabitable regions? (the assumption being you have run out of room for people to live on earth and you want to start colonizing mars in order to have somewhere to live and new resources to exploit).
There must be some other factor I'm missing that would make Mars attractive to anyone other than NASA?
Isn't atmospheric pressure also an issue, though? Even if Mars could sustain plant live and eventually produce enough oxygen to make the atmosphere technically 'breathable', what else would you have to (could you) do to make things hospitable enough so humans don't need a pressure suit*?
:-)
Aside from converting CO2 to oxygen, don't you have to increase the overall 'amount' of atmospheric gasses in order to get something close to an Earth-like atmospheric pressure?
*although, I'm basing this question from assumptions taken from 'Total Recall'
It's those damn martians and their indiscriminate use of freon air-conditioners and styrofoam coffee cups and aerosol hairspray that is depleting the martian ozone layer and causing this potential environmental catastrophe.
They must take immediate action to save mother Mars, otherwise their entire existance will be threatened! Think of the children!
....oh, wait
Their FAQ doesn't even mention the possibility of obtaining formal authorization to link to their site:
We would like to set up a link to your website. What is the process?
KPMG does not authorize links to or from its site.
Boy, now *that's* really demonstrating some savvy!
That's funny as hell, liked the tach redlining as the spedo strained to read 89mph.
Reminded me of the rice boy page.
>Probably the end result of that would be another Big Bang.
so its possible that the universe has banged, expanded, collapsed in on itself and banged again multiple times already, right? (in fact, you can give yourself a serious headache by pondering the implications that this sequence of events is repeated infinitely, that there was never a 'first' time and there will never be a last).
>et VIOLA!...
Ah yes, the most-often overlooked of stringed instruments! Mind you, I like a nice cello, myself.
You know, I'd love to know some of the details of this transaction (although that would take away some of the fun of wild speculation).
I'm really scratching my head about what, if any, strings Larry was able to put on this 'gift'. Doesn't seem to likely he would be able to steer the way this goes by putting conditions on his donation.
"Here, I'm granting a 'special-use' license to the US Federal Government for unlimited instances of Oracle9i. Now, you can use these any way you see fit for the national id card project, with just a few 'provisoes'. First, you can't ever run it on or with any Microsoft software. Next, blah blah blah...."
"Um, okay. Gee thanks."
I'd have to guess Oracle would have to gift this software with no strings, other than stuff to cover their butt.
urgh, hate it when I find something I should have put in my post.
Attorneys for Excite@Home bondholders, the largest and most vocal group of creditors, said the cable companies should pay at least $50 a month per subscriber for nine months. Excite@Home was losing about $6 million per week because of the contracts, according to bondholders' lawyers.
Wish I could go back and ammend a post instead of replying to myself. Guess that opens too many problems for abuse though.
>Aren't Excite's shareholders the biggest losers for rejecting AT&T's offer
I thought it was the bondholders (people who lent money?), not the stockholders (those that bought equity) who went to court? What I remember hearing was that AT&T's offer wouldn't cover the debt. This dosn't make much sense to me since the idea was to buy out the company and keep it running, not cash-out the bonds?
Yeah, not very good strategy on their part.
Yeah, well show them. We'll cut off their service and then they'll *have* to come crawling back with more money. I mean, what are they going to do? Convert almost a million users over to a brand-new network?! HAH!"
"What? They DID?!"
apparently hemos can't/doesn't read. the press release announces AT&T customers being migrated to a new network run by AT&T, NOT turning @Home back on.
AT&T Broadband has moved about 86,000 customers in Oregon and the Vancouver area of Washington from the Excite@Home network to the new AT&T Broadband Internet network
The deal is between Comcast, Cox and @Home. Those subs didn't even lose service, did they?
Here in Chicago, the modem light went on about 10:30 but no service yet (well, can't even get DHCP yet). We are still being told we will be moved to attbi, and in Chicago we can expect service today.
The headline implies that AT&T struck a deal with excite, the linked articles do not say this and all other evidence continues to be that AT&T is moving its customers to a new network.
Am I reading this wrong? We've just gotten back online here in Chicago, and it sure ain't @home service!
about running a server, att seems to have some mixed signals on their website, the service agreement obviously being the definitive resource:
FAQ: can I run a server?
AT&T Broadband does not allow servers to be connected to the cable modem. This means that no computer in a personal network can be used as a server.
What the hell does this mean? I can't have a file/print server within my home network? Or are they tring to say the machine(s) connected directly to the modem can't be servers?
No one is saying anything about email? I'm in Chicago and I'm not back online yet. I'm getting calls from my friends and family telling me their email to me is bouncing back with cryptic error codes.
I'm assuming that AT&T is (rightfully) concentrating on getting everyone back online first, then email and personal webspace will follow - but I'm curious about how long this will take. I'm not looking forward to changing everything over (again) and letting everyone know what my new address is (we were just moved from mediaone.net in October, and yes, I do have a webmail account - call me old-fashioned, but I do prefer to have real email)
>switching current customers to a new network will take about 2 weeks
...it has already moved to its own high-speed Internet network nearly 40 percent of the 850,000 customers who lost service this weekend...
What is the source for this? AT&T has said 7 -10 days fairly consistently. Over 40% of customers are already on attbi. AT&T said they will have 600,000 subs moved over by the end of the day Monday, with the rest back up by Friday.
according to reuters:
About 330,000 subscribers in Oregon, Washington and the Dallas area have been moved to the new AT&T Broadband network, the company said in a statement. Customers in San Francisco and Illinois are scheduled to be moved during the day on Monday, and by day's end it expects to have switched 657,000 subscribers to its network.
The balance of its affected customers will be switched by Friday, it said
and here, from an AT&T press release:
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. - AT&T Broadband moved about 330,000 cable Internet customers to its new high speed Internet network as of Monday morning, Dec. 3, less than 48 hours after the At Home Corporation shut off service for more than 850,000 AT&T customers. The At Home Corporation's action followed a decision in U. S. Bankruptcy Court to cancel cable company distribution agreements with At Home.
The customers moved to the new AT&T network so far reside in Oregon, Washington, and metro Dallas. Customers in San Francisco and Illinois are scheduled to be moved today and tomorrow, bringing the total added to the new network to about 657,000.
There are lots of other details in the AT&T press release, including what will happen to customers still on the MediaOne network in Ann Arbor, Mich.; Atlanta; Jacksonville; Los Angeles; the Stockton and Fresno areas of Central California; New England; Richmond, Va.; and St. Paul, Minn.
Customers formerly served by MediaOne are remaining on a separately operated network
...
For the group of customers in the markets being served by this separately operated network, the service will be re-branded as AT&T Broadband Internet. For the majority of customers in these markets, the network, Internet service connectivity, email domain names, and data transmission speed won't be affected. The only change these customers will see is new content provided by Yahoo! To access this new content, customers can direct their browsers to http://home.attbroadband.com/.