I find it ironic that a movie that touches, albiet lightly, on corporate culture should be released in the format of corporate control. DVDs from the big movie industry players are pure economic poison, regardless of their content -- not unlike an toxin-infused envelope. This movie may be marketed as Tron, but it should carry a warning that it's really a vote against freedom, a vote for the DMCA, and, by association, a vote to keep Dimitry in prison.
Standing up to these megalomanaics is worthy of a movie in and of itself, but if we don't, we could all find ourselves against the powerful systems, both legal and computer, of the MIAA and its allies.
Besides, do you really want to support these people in their quest to make Tron 2.0, which has "An ambitious hacker transports himself into cyberspace to pull off the ultimate hack." for a tagline? Even if nothing else written here convinces you to boycott the release of Tron on DVD, that almost certainly should. Yuck, awful -- just what we need, another bad "hacker flick" (almost certainly what's intended, given today's climate).
So -- no treason has taken place by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry, although I wouldn't mind seeing the people responsible for this mess charged with such a serious crime.
Of course, if we could get the US government to declare war on the entertainment industry... than that would be a different matter.
The CNN article quotes Ron Baalke as saying "It could have been as small as a baseball." I realize the local Fox news is a different source, but this is quite a differance.
What's the word on what actually hit? Were there multiple small meteors, or a single large one? Did whatever it is burn up in the atmosphere? And why is the CNN article so whacked out?
Common Cyborg complaint in the future: "Aw man, my credit implant is almost max'ed out. I guess I have to stop thinking for a while."
Of course, this will be no big deal for most people, as they don't think very often to begin with.:D
It's all nice and great to be concerned about the possible effects which may or may not exist, but it's a heck of a whole lot easier to look at the simple, verifiable things and go from there. Landfills are filling up, and this has been a fairly serious and highly observable problem for quite some time; therefore, recycling, which in some cases can actually generate small amounts of income, is a good and viable partial solution, as well as reducing waste which in many cases reduces costs as well. As discussed in the Nuclear NASA Story, coal-burning power plants emit all sorts of toxic chemicals, therefore, more efficient plants should be identified and built, hopefully reducing the cost of electricy while simultaniously reducing emissions. And while some people can yarp up a tree all they want about fuel emissions, the argument that will ultimately convince consumers to invest in more fuel efficient and alternatively-powered cars is a reduction in the cost of ownership (read: fuel).
Enviromental and economic issues need not be in conflict, if organizations, companies, and individuals are simply willing to put in a little R&D cash to provide solutions which clearly satisfy both needs. A "green" solution which will pay for itself and start making money after some amount of time is much more attractive than one that costs money and continues to cost money.
It may cause companies to get a clue, or, as the RIAA, MIAA, and various software companies have demonstrated time and time again, it could cause them to start claiming everyone who doesn't step to their beat is a criminal.
First and foremost, if we each told 1 non-technical person a day, we'd have a huge amount of overlap. We'd end up with nowhere near the ~36 million people you've estimated, unless we created a database to keep track of who's been "preached" to. This would be extremely difficult at best.:)
I wholeheartedly agree that this is nothing more than a trick on MS's part. But it was Scott Adams who identified human stupidity as the most powerful force in the universe. I expect most people will smile, nod, and completely ignore anything we say, internally countering with one of the following ideas -
A - Microsoft's logo is everywhere. Everyone else likes them, they must be good. (Bandwagon)
B - Microsoft is being unfairly prosecuted due to its success.
C - "Microwhatsit? Hi-y'all-storm? What's that? This doesn't affect me."
D - "Microsoft finally embraces different operating systems, and these guys are complaining!"
Let's assume we get half of the people you'd expect with no overlap. If we convince even half of those people to go "against the flow", that's only 9 million people. If we're lucky, maybe we'll get some exponential growth, and the people we convince will convince others, but most likely not. 9 million people will not make a difference if Microsoft gets the power it wants over everyone; 9 million people in the United States would not be enough.
Speaking from a U.S. perspective, I cannot help but wonder if it's fair for a movie industry that seems to oppose individual freedom to benefit from the stories of those who are reputed to have fought for it.
Indeed, I think the argument can be made that the injection of the "romance-subplot" into the story of Pearl Harbor cheapens the events that actually took place there, and therefore also lessens historical respect for the events of WWII. I can also see an argument for the romantic subplot adding a human dimension to the those events.
No, actually high energy taxes would do nothing but encourage more governmental growth -- the last thing we need in the United States, and probably a bad idea for any other developed nations as well.
IIRC, the demand curve for fuel, gasoline, and the like are inelastic; that is, people will buy almost as much at a high price as at a low price. The reason for this is obvious: if a person does not have public transportation and must travel from his or her home to work/school/where-ever every day, they will do so as long as the benefit of traveling outweighs the cost. Increasing the cost to a truly prohibitive level is just not a good idea, as it will lead to widespread inflation.
To summazize:
High energy taxes = higher cost of everything = runaway inflation = bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Standing up to these megalomanaics is worthy of a movie in and of itself, but if we don't, we could all find ourselves against the powerful systems, both legal and computer, of the MIAA and its allies.
Besides, do you really want to support these people in their quest to make Tron 2.0, which has "An ambitious hacker transports himself into cyberspace to pull off the ultimate hack." for a tagline? Even if nothing else written here convinces you to boycott the release of Tron on DVD, that almost certainly should. Yuck, awful -- just what we need, another bad "hacker flick" (almost certainly what's intended, given today's climate).
Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
-http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/ constitution.html
So -- no treason has taken place by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry, although I wouldn't mind seeing the people responsible for this mess charged with such a serious crime.
Of course, if we could get the US government to declare war on the entertainment industry... than that would be a different matter.
What's the word on what actually hit? Were there multiple small meteors, or a single large one? Did whatever it is burn up in the atmosphere? And why is the CNN article so whacked out?
Ah, I can see the future now...
:D
Common Cyborg complaint in the future: "Aw man, my credit implant is almost max'ed out. I guess I have to stop thinking for a while."
Of course, this will be no big deal for most people, as they don't think very often to begin with.
It's all nice and great to be concerned about the possible effects which may or may not exist, but it's a heck of a whole lot easier to look at the simple, verifiable things and go from there. Landfills are filling up, and this has been a fairly serious and highly observable problem for quite some time; therefore, recycling, which in some cases can actually generate small amounts of income, is a good and viable partial solution, as well as reducing waste which in many cases reduces costs as well. As discussed in the Nuclear NASA Story, coal-burning power plants emit all sorts of toxic chemicals, therefore, more efficient plants should be identified and built, hopefully reducing the cost of electricy while simultaniously reducing emissions. And while some people can yarp up a tree all they want about fuel emissions, the argument that will ultimately convince consumers to invest in more fuel efficient and alternatively-powered cars is a reduction in the cost of ownership (read: fuel).
Enviromental and economic issues need not be in conflict, if organizations, companies, and individuals are simply willing to put in a little R&D cash to provide solutions which clearly satisfy both needs. A "green" solution which will pay for itself and start making money after some amount of time is much more attractive than one that costs money and continues to cost money.
It may cause companies to get a clue, or, as the RIAA, MIAA, and various software companies have demonstrated time and time again, it could cause them to start claiming everyone who doesn't step to their beat is a criminal.
Food for thought, don't you think?
It won't work.
:)
First and foremost, if we each told 1 non-technical person a day, we'd have a huge amount of overlap. We'd end up with nowhere near the ~36 million people you've estimated, unless we created a database to keep track of who's been "preached" to. This would be extremely difficult at best.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is nothing more than a trick on MS's part. But it was Scott Adams who identified human stupidity as the most powerful force in the universe. I expect most people will smile, nod, and completely ignore anything we say, internally countering with one of the following ideas -
A - Microsoft's logo is everywhere. Everyone else likes them, they must be good. (Bandwagon)
B - Microsoft is being unfairly prosecuted due to its success.
C - "Microwhatsit? Hi-y'all-storm? What's that? This doesn't affect me."
D - "Microsoft finally embraces different operating systems, and these guys are complaining!"
Let's assume we get half of the people you'd expect with no overlap. If we convince even half of those people to go "against the flow", that's only 9 million people. If we're lucky, maybe we'll get some exponential growth, and the people we convince will convince others, but most likely not. 9 million people will not make a difference if Microsoft gets the power it wants over everyone; 9 million people in the United States would not be enough.
Speaking from a U.S. perspective, I cannot help but wonder if it's fair for a movie industry that seems to oppose individual freedom to benefit from the stories of those who are reputed to have fought for it.
Indeed, I think the argument can be made that the injection of the "romance-subplot" into the story of Pearl Harbor cheapens the events that actually took place there, and therefore also lessens historical respect for the events of WWII. I can also see an argument for the romantic subplot adding a human dimension to the those events.
IIRC, the demand curve for fuel, gasoline, and the like are inelastic; that is, people will buy almost as much at a high price as at a low price. The reason for this is obvious: if a person does not have public transportation and must travel from his or her home to work/school/where-ever every day, they will do so as long as the benefit of traveling outweighs the cost. Increasing the cost to a truly prohibitive level is just not a good idea, as it will lead to widespread inflation.
To summazize:
High energy taxes = higher cost of everything = runaway inflation = bad idea.