given that this article postulates that cancer cells have apparently been the default mode of cellular division for perhaps billions of years, and personal computers have only been around for 30 years, it would be more appropriate to say you sometimes need to boot your computer into cancer mode. that's a more appropriate analogy
died from death? this death as cause of death you speak of, is it always fatal? or can you live with sort of a low grade controllable form of death? because i'll tell you, if i die, i don't want to die from death!
uranium gets used up, you switch to thorium. lots of that. enough for a century or two. by then, if we haven't figured out fusion, which marks the end of energy problems, then we deserve what we get
solar is wonderful, and should be used. but the infrastructure investment to get the energy tapped is HUGE. for example, arizona covered in solar panels would power the usa just fine. great! now you tell me how much it costs to cover arizona in solar panels
we need german pebble bed reactors all over the place. i agree with you 100%. modern nuclear tech doesn't go china syndrome, you can walk away from a pebble bed reactor and nothing bad will happen. pebble bed reactors are passively safe, they require no human intervention to keep things safe, so things don't get out of hand. you would have to be a terrorist intent on breaking the pebbles or stealing them to do harm (so yes, your security does need to be good). but your average bart simpson nuclear tech just cannot make something melt down with pebble bed reactors, no matter how hard he tried to be a complete screw up. and pebble bed reactors are air cooled: no need to festoon our waterways with nuclear plants and keep our fish in saunas all year long. fear of nuclear power is from 1960s era nuclear tech
and we need breeder reactors so we produce 1/10th the quantity of waste with a half life on the span of decades rather than millennia. but of course, breeders produces plutonium, which is what scares people about breeders. so just have good security, and burn up the plutonium too. 10x the nuclear waste with 10,000x the half life... or produce plutonium, which you can use as fuel. i'm afraid of the nuclear waste more than the plutonium produced, myself
and when we run out of DOMESTIC uranium, switch to thorium, and we should be set for a couple of centuries. in which time, we figure out fusion, which solves energy problems once and for all
i'm certain we can eke out some extra bits of oil here and there with some shiny new tech. meanwhile, china, brazil, india, are growing economically. it's simple economics: increased demand, and harder to get supply = price levels that make petroleum as a fuel source unpalatable
it just begs the question: what does it take to convince some people that the era of digging petroleum out of the ground is over, and you need to look at alternatives?
because when i read posts like yours, i just see denial
no i agree. government involvement is a pandora's box of problems. however, it's still better than nothing at all (example: haiti)
we have people in the usa, who genuinely believe that if you don't have health insurance, you should be turned away from the hospital if you can't pay. this is barbaric and cruel, like sharia law. its social darwinism, and its evil
while brazilian public healthcare may suck, as you say, its still better than no healthcare at all. its also proof that at least brazilians have enough simple human morality and simple human decency that they agree everyone should have healthcare, even though the execution of the idea sucks. you don't have in your country this potent ignorant vile force that thinks "hurry up and die already" is a valid political philosophy for the poor. it's a disgusting and shameful aspect of my country that so many assholes in my country believe this evil:
no. because the government of iran is illegitimate. the government if the usa is legitimate, meanwhile. only democracies in this world are legitimate and are to be respected. i do not respect the government of iran and i grant them no right of authority over anything. why? because the government of iran does not respect its own people. on that logical basis alone. as such, in solidarity with the iranian people, i do not respect anything the government of iran wants. the same is true with china. if your government is not a democracy, i stand with you against your government. meanwhile, if china or iran became democracies, at that point in time i would respect what those governments say. until then, i grant those governments no right of authority in my mind, even within that country's borders. democracy or fuck off
"Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat."
i stopped reading there
you are certain the movie sucks. good for you. i saw the movie. it was entertaining on a flash and fury level, not an intellectual level
but on what basis is shallow entertainment inferior to deep entertainment? i also saw the shawshank redemption. excellent movie on a deep level
i appreciate both movies for what they are, in separate niches of entertainment. i have no need to criticize shawshank's lack of cgi awesomeness, i have no need to criticize transformer's lack of moving introspection
is "wall-e" a poor movie because it doesn't scare you? is "the ring" a poor movie because kids can't watch it? no, both movies are good, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. the same is true of shawshank, the same is true of transformers. the error you make is saying all movies have to be deep intellectual odysseys. no, bullshit. there is a valid place for empty eye candy, and it is just as valid a form of entertainment as shawshank
if you were a horror movie buff, how would you criticize wall-e? if you were a children's movie buff, how would you criticize the ring? you would do neither. meanwhile, if you were a cosmopolitan person who realized not one type of movie satisfies everyone, you would realize there is a valid place for horror, kid's movies, empty eye candy, and moving intellectual fare in the cinema house, all at the same time. and to criticize all movies from the point of view of only one subgenre would be ignorant. that's you
i can simply appreciate ALL TYPES of movies for what they are: good movies, in their own right, so says the movie going public, according to their financial outlays, which is the only objective measure of value possible, completely sweeping aside your subjective bullshit
i'm sorry meanwhile that you are so narrow minded that you think your appreciation for your subculture is the only valid point of view to critique art. nope, you fail except in the realm of arrogance, where you think your private opinions are superior to everyone' elses opinions, according to their pocketbooks. elitism is defeated by populism. sorry
that's why i qualified my comment with "not saying those places are more infrastructure friendly than the usa, but those places do know that infrastructure means business"
and, as your comment says, you do know that no rail infrastructure hurts business and quality of life in belo horizonte, and that someone in brazil is thinking about getting rail in belo horizonte, to improve business and quality of life. and that planner knows that to be a good thing, and you know it to be good thing
see i'm not using belo horizonte as a comparison to how it is in the usa in terms of actual infrastructure, but in terms of ATTITUDE towards infrastructure improvement. we have a bizarre poltical strain in the usa that thinks anything the government does is always communism, and therefore evil. they see large government capital spent on infrastructure projects as a waste of their tax payer dollars. i know, insane, right?
the simple truth is what you and i know: you invest in infrastructure, quality of life and business blossoms. and other cities outside the usa, like belo horizonte, know this to be true (because you don't have this mutant political strain running roughshod over your country)
then what happens is business gets sick of traffic jams in the usa, and moves to another country... like moving to belo horizonte, should you improve your infrastructure
sound infrastructure is a capitalist investment that pays dividends. it is solid capitalism. but not according to some morons in my country who will not be happy until our air is choking, our water is poisoned, and our food is unsafe, because government and regulation is an evil waste of money and destroys our freedoms while corporations can do no wrong. according to the tea party, it would be better for the usa to have the infrastructure of haiti, than do the ultimate evil thing of government investment in healthcare or high speed rail
and i'm not even smearing the tea party. we just had a republican governor in new jersey cancel a major rail tunnel to manhattan. because apparently his constituents like sitting in gridlock outside the lincoln tunnel or waiting in their trains because there is only one tiny tunnel between new jersey and manhattan. these tea party morons really believe this quasireligious idiocy:
i said "money talks, bullshit walks". in the realm of the cinema house, that's box office receipts. in the larger realm, there are a number of ways money shows objective patronage, from art auctions to record or concert ticket sales, to dvd sales
so why do you think you contradict me when you only broaden and strengthen what i am saying?
my thesis here is that financial performance is the only true objective measure of quality. you've supported that assertion by pointing to dvd profits from the 1990s. i thank you for furthering my argument
the difference between myself and say the asshole who has an ego problem and must tell everyone how much "avatar" sucks is that i know my tastes are my own and bear no relation to anyone else's tastes. the films that i like i know mean nothing to you, and i expect them to mean nothing to you. my subjective grade of quality means nothing to you, and i don't expect it to. that's honesty
meanwhile, i have a very serious problem with people who have a need to insist their subjective grades must be known by all. its a character weakness. its elitism. its not honest. its contrived if it is so shallow an experience for you it must be broadcast to the world. a movie that truly effects someone deeply, that is something private, it is not broadcast
i trust the common man. i do not trust aesthetes, feeling superior based on nothing but feedback from others like them who have a need to feel superior based on arbitrary reasons. its a subculture, an echo chamber. its not about real quality, its about trendiness based on nothing "the emperor's new clothes" scenarios
the common man is humble. his tastes are honest and real. lack of humility in your tastes only signals to me that i am wasting my time talking to you, because the conversation is about you feeling good about yourself for your "superior tastes". i don't want to talk you, and i have already discounted your opinions
so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me
it's a function of population density. livability and quality of life go up exponentially if you don't have to deal with traffic and parking in an urban to suburban environments. people often look forlornly at the usa's lagging behind say, south korea for internet connectivity or china for high speed rail. but those things work there not because those countries are necessarily more forward thinking than the usa, but because they are just more densely populated
having said that, the west coast and the east coast need high speed rail on the order of china, asap. going from DOWNTOWN boston to DOWNTOWN washington dc on high speed rail is obiviously superior to driving or airplane. it's a simple function of productivity and business friendliness. people won't do business in the usa anymore if genuinely more forward looking areas that focus on infrastructure like belo horizonte or frankfurt or new dehli do (not saying those places are more infrastructure friendly than the usa, but those places do know that infrastructure means business). it's about simple business competitiveness: make sure your infrastructure is sound and business will prosper and quality of life will improve
as for freight: you want trucks transporting garbage and coal?! come on, get real, its a function of simple business expedience that trains make more sense than cars and trucks in many situations
yes, and this has been true since the 1950s with tv. and yet cinema is not dead. i'm glad you don't go to the cinema house anymore, but you have to accept that, even with the choices you cite that have been around for 60 years, people are still going to the cinema
art is judged by sales figures, sales figures is the only opinion that matters
everything else is subjective, and therefore pointless. sales figures is the only valid means we have of judging quality objectively. any other discussion we could have on the topic is my opinion versus your opinion. in fact, that's what every single discussion about movie quality amounts to, subjectively: a pissing contest
therefore, how do you judge movie quality objectively? and there is only one way to do that: money talks, bullshit walks. sales figures. if people are willing to pony up cash to plant their butts in seats, then you have the only objective measure of movie quality available. everything else is subjective bullshit
i agree with you. the movie making machine gets large enough, it starts looking at us and trying to alter our behavior and the laws of the land in order to guarantee profit. its complete bullshit but its also inevitable and typical. its called "rent seeking behavior" and its a common failure of all large corporate structures:
basically the mpaa needs to be shut down as a mafia like squad of legal goons engaging in rent seeking behavior rather than clean honest business efforts
you know what? every single movie, book, or play ever made can be described as derivative of something that came before. even going back to shakespeare: he was "ripping off" the ancient greeks. everything is derivative of everything else, so all you are demonstrating is that you don't know what "original" really means. "original" means a well told story, a story that has similarities to hundreds of other stories similar to it
but i'm not going to place my word against your word, because you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with sales figures and one of the most successful directors in the history of cinema. who the hell are you? just another easily negative self-appointed expert on the internet. you're a dime a dozen. whenever someone experiences success, the haters come out of the woodwork. typical, pointless. so i'm glad you didn't like avatar. who fucking cares? sales figures say otherwise, and sales figures rule. sorry
if they released a movie, for free, on the internet, at the same time as they released it in theatres, they would still make a huge profit in theatres, because the experience of watching at home is simply not the same. of course it would hurt sales, so they won't do that, but you understand my point (or at least i hope you do): the cinema house is not going away. it is part of the movie enjoying experience. you may not appreciate that, but tv, vhs, and internet has not killed the cinema yet, so maybe that simple fact means something to you. i don't care how much you've gussied up your home theatre system, it can't compete with imax
do you know how much they spent to make avatar? and they made a huge profit
someone, the producers and investors, have to put up a lot of money to make a movie, you are correct. but that's their risk, not mine. if the movie does good, they reap a windfall of profit. good for them. if the movie bombs, well too bad, i owe them nothing, and there's no valid argument where we owe them anything. if they think they can reduce their risk by destroying the internet, fuck them
a business is a business is a business: you invest, and reap a reward, or you don't. that's the business of movie making, and it should not in anyway be anything but exactly that sort of speculative endeavour. fucking with how the internet works in order to guarantee them a profit? for movies that might be bad? no, no fucking way
you are not guaranteed anything just because you tried to make a movie
Slashdot Mirror
you can shut down youtube with a DOS attack? silly me, here i was thinking you needed a distributed denial of service
how do you do it with a DOS attack?
format a: /q:youtube ?
deltree c:\windows\youtube ?
ipconfig /flushdns /youtube?
given that this article postulates that cancer cells have apparently been the default mode of cellular division for perhaps billions of years, and personal computers have only been around for 30 years, it would be more appropriate to say you sometimes need to boot your computer into cancer mode. that's a more appropriate analogy
died from death? this death as cause of death you speak of, is it always fatal? or can you live with sort of a low grade controllable form of death? because i'll tell you, if i die, i don't want to die from death!
uranium gets used up, you switch to thorium. lots of that. enough for a century or two. by then, if we haven't figured out fusion, which marks the end of energy problems, then we deserve what we get
solar is wonderful, and should be used. but the infrastructure investment to get the energy tapped is HUGE. for example, arizona covered in solar panels would power the usa just fine. great! now you tell me how much it costs to cover arizona in solar panels
we need german pebble bed reactors all over the place. i agree with you 100%. modern nuclear tech doesn't go china syndrome, you can walk away from a pebble bed reactor and nothing bad will happen. pebble bed reactors are passively safe, they require no human intervention to keep things safe, so things don't get out of hand. you would have to be a terrorist intent on breaking the pebbles or stealing them to do harm (so yes, your security does need to be good). but your average bart simpson nuclear tech just cannot make something melt down with pebble bed reactors, no matter how hard he tried to be a complete screw up. and pebble bed reactors are air cooled: no need to festoon our waterways with nuclear plants and keep our fish in saunas all year long. fear of nuclear power is from 1960s era nuclear tech
and we need breeder reactors so we produce 1/10th the quantity of waste with a half life on the span of decades rather than millennia. but of course, breeders produces plutonium, which is what scares people about breeders. so just have good security, and burn up the plutonium too. 10x the nuclear waste with 10,000x the half life... or produce plutonium, which you can use as fuel. i'm afraid of the nuclear waste more than the plutonium produced, myself
and when we run out of DOMESTIC uranium, switch to thorium, and we should be set for a couple of centuries. in which time, we figure out fusion, which solves energy problems once and for all
i'm certain we can eke out some extra bits of oil here and there with some shiny new tech. meanwhile, china, brazil, india, are growing economically. it's simple economics: increased demand, and harder to get supply = price levels that make petroleum as a fuel source unpalatable
it just begs the question: what does it take to convince some people that the era of digging petroleum out of the ground is over, and you need to look at alternatives?
because when i read posts like yours, i just see denial
no i agree. government involvement is a pandora's box of problems. however, it's still better than nothing at all (example: haiti)
we have people in the usa, who genuinely believe that if you don't have health insurance, you should be turned away from the hospital if you can't pay. this is barbaric and cruel, like sharia law. its social darwinism, and its evil
while brazilian public healthcare may suck, as you say, its still better than no healthcare at all. its also proof that at least brazilians have enough simple human morality and simple human decency that they agree everyone should have healthcare, even though the execution of the idea sucks. you don't have in your country this potent ignorant vile force that thinks "hurry up and die already" is a valid political philosophy for the poor. it's a disgusting and shameful aspect of my country that so many assholes in my country believe this evil:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/News/arizona-transplant-deaths/story?id=12559369
no. because the government of iran is illegitimate. the government if the usa is legitimate, meanwhile. only democracies in this world are legitimate and are to be respected. i do not respect the government of iran and i grant them no right of authority over anything. why? because the government of iran does not respect its own people. on that logical basis alone. as such, in solidarity with the iranian people, i do not respect anything the government of iran wants. the same is true with china. if your government is not a democracy, i stand with you against your government. meanwhile, if china or iran became democracies, at that point in time i would respect what those governments say. until then, i grant those governments no right of authority in my mind, even within that country's borders. democracy or fuck off
"Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat."
i stopped reading there
you are certain the movie sucks. good for you. i saw the movie. it was entertaining on a flash and fury level, not an intellectual level
but on what basis is shallow entertainment inferior to deep entertainment? i also saw the shawshank redemption. excellent movie on a deep level
i appreciate both movies for what they are, in separate niches of entertainment. i have no need to criticize shawshank's lack of cgi awesomeness, i have no need to criticize transformer's lack of moving introspection
is "wall-e" a poor movie because it doesn't scare you? is "the ring" a poor movie because kids can't watch it? no, both movies are good, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. the same is true of shawshank, the same is true of transformers. the error you make is saying all movies have to be deep intellectual odysseys. no, bullshit. there is a valid place for empty eye candy, and it is just as valid a form of entertainment as shawshank
if you were a horror movie buff, how would you criticize wall-e? if you were a children's movie buff, how would you criticize the ring? you would do neither. meanwhile, if you were a cosmopolitan person who realized not one type of movie satisfies everyone, you would realize there is a valid place for horror, kid's movies, empty eye candy, and moving intellectual fare in the cinema house, all at the same time. and to criticize all movies from the point of view of only one subgenre would be ignorant. that's you
i can simply appreciate ALL TYPES of movies for what they are: good movies, in their own right, so says the movie going public, according to their financial outlays, which is the only objective measure of value possible, completely sweeping aside your subjective bullshit
i'm sorry meanwhile that you are so narrow minded that you think your appreciation for your subculture is the only valid point of view to critique art. nope, you fail except in the realm of arrogance, where you think your private opinions are superior to everyone' elses opinions, according to their pocketbooks. elitism is defeated by populism. sorry
money talks, bullshit walks
Germany, Costa Rica, Mozambique, or any other country to veto any domain they want... within the borders of their own country, not outside them
that's why i qualified my comment with "not saying those places are more infrastructure friendly than the usa, but those places do know that infrastructure means business"
and, as your comment says, you do know that no rail infrastructure hurts business and quality of life in belo horizonte, and that someone in brazil is thinking about getting rail in belo horizonte, to improve business and quality of life. and that planner knows that to be a good thing, and you know it to be good thing
see i'm not using belo horizonte as a comparison to how it is in the usa in terms of actual infrastructure, but in terms of ATTITUDE towards infrastructure improvement. we have a bizarre poltical strain in the usa that thinks anything the government does is always communism, and therefore evil. they see large government capital spent on infrastructure projects as a waste of their tax payer dollars. i know, insane, right?
the simple truth is what you and i know: you invest in infrastructure, quality of life and business blossoms. and other cities outside the usa, like belo horizonte, know this to be true (because you don't have this mutant political strain running roughshod over your country)
then what happens is business gets sick of traffic jams in the usa, and moves to another country... like moving to belo horizonte, should you improve your infrastructure
sound infrastructure is a capitalist investment that pays dividends. it is solid capitalism. but not according to some morons in my country who will not be happy until our air is choking, our water is poisoned, and our food is unsafe, because government and regulation is an evil waste of money and destroys our freedoms while corporations can do no wrong. according to the tea party, it would be better for the usa to have the infrastructure of haiti, than do the ultimate evil thing of government investment in healthcare or high speed rail
and i'm not even smearing the tea party. we just had a republican governor in new jersey cancel a major rail tunnel to manhattan. because apparently his constituents like sitting in gridlock outside the lincoln tunnel or waiting in their trains because there is only one tiny tunnel between new jersey and manhattan. these tea party morons really believe this quasireligious idiocy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/362107;_ylt=AvYzYYjVzKg23lvFrwT1UctzfNdF
it is a serious psychological and sociological force in the world. al qaeda does it. fox news does it. its a part of our reality
LOL
mod parent up. excellent use of sarcasm
i said "money talks, bullshit walks". in the realm of the cinema house, that's box office receipts. in the larger realm, there are a number of ways money shows objective patronage, from art auctions to record or concert ticket sales, to dvd sales
so why do you think you contradict me when you only broaden and strengthen what i am saying?
my thesis here is that financial performance is the only true objective measure of quality. you've supported that assertion by pointing to dvd profits from the 1990s. i thank you for furthering my argument
the difference between myself and say the asshole who has an ego problem and must tell everyone how much "avatar" sucks is that i know my tastes are my own and bear no relation to anyone else's tastes. the films that i like i know mean nothing to you, and i expect them to mean nothing to you. my subjective grade of quality means nothing to you, and i don't expect it to. that's honesty
meanwhile, i have a very serious problem with people who have a need to insist their subjective grades must be known by all. its a character weakness. its elitism. its not honest. its contrived if it is so shallow an experience for you it must be broadcast to the world. a movie that truly effects someone deeply, that is something private, it is not broadcast
i trust the common man. i do not trust aesthetes, feeling superior based on nothing but feedback from others like them who have a need to feel superior based on arbitrary reasons. its a subculture, an echo chamber. its not about real quality, its about trendiness based on nothing "the emperor's new clothes" scenarios
the common man is humble. his tastes are honest and real. lack of humility in your tastes only signals to me that i am wasting my time talking to you, because the conversation is about you feeling good about yourself for your "superior tastes". i don't want to talk you, and i have already discounted your opinions
so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me
it's a function of population density. livability and quality of life go up exponentially if you don't have to deal with traffic and parking in an urban to suburban environments. people often look forlornly at the usa's lagging behind say, south korea for internet connectivity or china for high speed rail. but those things work there not because those countries are necessarily more forward thinking than the usa, but because they are just more densely populated
having said that, the west coast and the east coast need high speed rail on the order of china, asap. going from DOWNTOWN boston to DOWNTOWN washington dc on high speed rail is obiviously superior to driving or airplane. it's a simple function of productivity and business friendliness. people won't do business in the usa anymore if genuinely more forward looking areas that focus on infrastructure like belo horizonte or frankfurt or new dehli do (not saying those places are more infrastructure friendly than the usa, but those places do know that infrastructure means business). it's about simple business competitiveness: make sure your infrastructure is sound and business will prosper and quality of life will improve
as for freight: you want trucks transporting garbage and coal?! come on, get real, its a function of simple business expedience that trains make more sense than cars and trucks in many situations
no man. weird hair sex with a sentient soul tree (fap fap fap fap fap...)
yes, and this has been true since the 1950s with tv. and yet cinema is not dead. i'm glad you don't go to the cinema house anymore, but you have to accept that, even with the choices you cite that have been around for 60 years, people are still going to the cinema
art is judged by sales figures, sales figures is the only opinion that matters
everything else is subjective, and therefore pointless. sales figures is the only valid means we have of judging quality objectively. any other discussion we could have on the topic is my opinion versus your opinion. in fact, that's what every single discussion about movie quality amounts to, subjectively: a pissing contest
therefore, how do you judge movie quality objectively? and there is only one way to do that: money talks, bullshit walks. sales figures. if people are willing to pony up cash to plant their butts in seats, then you have the only objective measure of movie quality available. everything else is subjective bullshit
i agree with you. the movie making machine gets large enough, it starts looking at us and trying to alter our behavior and the laws of the land in order to guarantee profit. its complete bullshit but its also inevitable and typical. its called "rent seeking behavior" and its a common failure of all large corporate structures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
basically the mpaa needs to be shut down as a mafia like squad of legal goons engaging in rent seeking behavior rather than clean honest business efforts
you know what? every single movie, book, or play ever made can be described as derivative of something that came before. even going back to shakespeare: he was "ripping off" the ancient greeks. everything is derivative of everything else, so all you are demonstrating is that you don't know what "original" really means. "original" means a well told story, a story that has similarities to hundreds of other stories similar to it
but i'm not going to place my word against your word, because you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with sales figures and one of the most successful directors in the history of cinema. who the hell are you? just another easily negative self-appointed expert on the internet. you're a dime a dozen. whenever someone experiences success, the haters come out of the woodwork. typical, pointless. so i'm glad you didn't like avatar. who fucking cares? sales figures say otherwise, and sales figures rule. sorry
i'm glad for you and the 3 other hobbyists who will try that. but my comments have to do with the other 99.9999% of movie goers
let's put it this way:
if they released a movie, for free, on the internet, at the same time as they released it in theatres, they would still make a huge profit in theatres, because the experience of watching at home is simply not the same. of course it would hurt sales, so they won't do that, but you understand my point (or at least i hope you do): the cinema house is not going away. it is part of the movie enjoying experience. you may not appreciate that, but tv, vhs, and internet has not killed the cinema yet, so maybe that simple fact means something to you. i don't care how much you've gussied up your home theatre system, it can't compete with imax
do you know how much they spent to make avatar? and they made a huge profit
someone, the producers and investors, have to put up a lot of money to make a movie, you are correct. but that's their risk, not mine. if the movie does good, they reap a windfall of profit. good for them. if the movie bombs, well too bad, i owe them nothing, and there's no valid argument where we owe them anything. if they think they can reduce their risk by destroying the internet, fuck them
a business is a business is a business: you invest, and reap a reward, or you don't. that's the business of movie making, and it should not in anyway be anything but exactly that sort of speculative endeavour. fucking with how the internet works in order to guarantee them a profit? for movies that might be bad? no, no fucking way
you are not guaranteed anything just because you tried to make a movie
you are referring to hollywood accounting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
and i agree, i don't understand why that racket hasn't been broken up
the mpaa is just a mafia like goon squad of lawyers, a subset of hollywood accounting. bust the racket up, shut down these assholes