Re:Finding Nemo tops Lion King in the box office.
on
Welcome To Planet Pixar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are [sic] now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
I have a few problems with this.
Pixar is (not "are" -- there is only one Pixar) not in direct competition with Disney. At least, not yet.
To date, Pixar has never released a major motion picture on its own. Toy Story, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, and Nemo were all joint production efforts between Disney and Pixar. Even the upcoming "The Incredibles" and "Cars" have Disney with top-billing for "production company".
Fact of the matter is that Disney had just as much to do with the production of every one of these films as Pixar did.
So perhaps a better phrasing of what you said would be: "Disney's Lion King has been knocked-off the box-office podium by Disney's/Pixar's Finding Nemo." Doesn't have quite the same punch though, does it....
Once Pixar actually is able to produce a full-length film on its own without the help and influence of a second production company, then maybe we can make predictions and the like about Disney v. Pixar. However, it hasn't happened yet and it won't happen until "Ratatouille" is released in late 2006.
hmm... that means you are not counting the bums on the street - or anyone else without a telephone, meaning anyone without a home or not being able to afford a telephone.
That's a wild conclusion you jumped to there... and very inaccurate. Actually... There were two sets of people doing interviews:
1. The telephone centers (Tucson, AZ and Hagerstown, MD) called the CATI team, or Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
2. a small army of surveyors with special laptops called the CAPI (Computer Assisted PERSONAL Interviewing) team who gathered those people that the telephone centers couldn't get to.
I, of course, was on the CATI team. But that doesn't mean we were the ONLY ones collecting the data. You shouldn't jump to conclusions like that.
Are you aware that the unemployment rate here in the US does not count those who's unemployment benifits ran out and who are still jobless?
Wrong.
The US Census Bureau (on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics) determines the unemployment rate using a survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS). The definition of unemployed is:
1) Not currently employed. 2) Available to get a job. 3) Actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
There is nothing about unemployment benefits in here at all. This definition of unemployment is used around the world including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. Therefore, these numbers are also good for international comparisons.
During my college days, I worked as a surveyor for the USCB at the Tucson Telephone Center. I lived and breathed the CPS for a full week every month as we tried to get through our share of 50,000 surveys. A lot of fun, lemme tell ya.:)
Implication: all of the intangible value in the US is in closed-source software.
So, that patent you won for the super-duper toaster? Linux will kill that RIGHT off. The license you have to make T-shirts with NASCAR's logo on them? Open Source software will destroy that too. What?
Regarding arrow keys
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
(Regarding arrow keys): The reason for this is that vi was invented and was popular before arrow keys were a standard thing on all keyboards.
I'm going to expand on this a little because you missed an important point on why vi behaves as it does. The reason why arrow keys "mess up" documents is that vi is a character mode editor. That is, it reads one character at a time and interprets it as a command as if it was typed.
On the VT-100 series of terminals, the arrow keys map out to: ESC + [ + (A|B|C|D) where A is up, B is down, C is left, and D is right. So when a person is in edit mode in vi and they hit, say, the right arrow, they end the insert (ESC), get a beep for an invalid command ([), then get the remainder of the line hacked off (D). Combine that with the other arrow key sequences and you can get a real mess in a hurry.
First of all, what does Java, Sun's Gosling, and Stallman have to do with SCO, its lawsuits, Linux, or the law? Not a damned thing. However, reading PJ's editorial is most enlightening on her slanted nature. Two responses which I completely agreed with can be found here and here.
Again, nothing at all to do with "Grokking the Law" or SCO. However, PJ uses this article to subtly slam non-GPL open source licenses, in this case, IBM's Common Public License (which is used to distribute Eclipse). This illicited this wonderful response and this even better one. Could it be that PJ was actually twisting the issue too?
PJ's Mission Statement:
IANAL. I am a paralegal, so if you have a legal problem and want advice, this isn't the place. Hire an attorney instead. Research is, however, what paras do, so here I am sharing things I have found in my research.
What legal research? What law at all? Groklaw has completely lost its focus and turned into a GPL zealot platform.
They didn't hire Groklaw, they hired the editor of Groklaw, PJ. She was doing Groklaw in her spare time anyways, so probably it will continue to be independent. Her expertise from Groklaw will certainly help, but you are making it seem like a company now controls Groklaw.
Well.. I will say this. Ever since PJ was hired by this firm, Groklaw's focus has changed dramatically. Early on it was "just the facts" about the case. Lately it has become more and more of a GPL zealot site, that tends to attack anyone and anything that is not wild about the GPL, including non-GPL open source!
PJ and Groklaw (and they are one and the same to me, since she maintains absolute control over the content there) have lost all credibility with me, since I can no longer trust her to be objective anymore -- even with SCO v. IBM.
I don't know if these two things are truly "cause-and-effect", but I certainly think that there is at least SOME influence there.
I understand your point of view completely and I respect it.
However, I see a resolution as an expression of an opinion and not "punishment". It certainly is NOT a law (which I believe is the all important fifth word of the 1st Amendment).
It hasn't limited speech in any way whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Chicks from saying what they said all over again... and again.. and again. It may tick off the Legislature and they may pass a hundred more resolutions saying the Chicks are rotten and terrible people, but the net effect on free speech is zero.
So, let me ask you: If it doesn't limit free speech and could never limit free speech (because resolutions are not at all binding), why are you saying that it was trying to do something it didn't and couldn't do?
I honestly believe the legislature was simply expressing their opinion (which is what resolutions are FOR) not trying to restrict anyone's right to free speech.
i.e. the government, then it becomes a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment which expressly prohibits the government from placing limitations on the freedom of speech.
Okay... what was the limitation? The Chicks were not and are not prevented from saying or doing anything. They were not gagged, censored, or even threatened. They were called a few names and asked to apologize.
Condemning others' speech is a FORM of free speech... and must be protected as much as any other form of free speech. The legislature has the right to free speech as well.
As long as the HoR didn't attempt to restrict speech (and they didn't -- they just called what Natalie said to be unpatriotic which was their opinion), they didn't violate the first. Its that simple.
but actually caused financial harm to the Dixie Chicks by forcing them to perform a concert for the US armed forces at no charge.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a Resolution. A Resolution is not legally binding in any way. It is simply a means for them to express an opinion as a whole -- a kind of "open letter", if you will, expressing the point of view of the majority of the legislative body.
The Chicks were not FORCED to do anything. All the HoR did was "demand" (and in this context, that means "strongly request") that they apologize and perform for the troops. However, no harm could come to them if they told the HoR to jump in a lake.
The South Carolina House of Representatives Again, they may have been wrong, but they didn't inhibit anyone's right to free speech.
I completely agree with this. There's no question that the Dixie Chicks were censured (that is, "told that they were naughty"), but they certainly weren't censored. In fact, this one item alone shows the hypocracy of this whole list.
The Jefferson center is censuring the SC HoR for exercising their freedom of speech in censuring the Chicks' anti-Bush speech. I guess they need to give themselves a Muzzle as well, if they are to be held to their own standard. Legislators have First Amendment rights too.
(Please note the difference between "censure" and "censor".)
Heh... I actually thought "Perhaps you are a moron" was rather insightful, considering the head of this thread was little more than random neural firings and tinhatted laments about the evils of the world -- supposedly because someone is making little tiny airplanes that have cameras on them.
making someone stop as an inconvenience is positive reinforcement. Sending them to bed without supper is negative reinforcement. It's based on application or witholding.
All depends on how you look at it. Are they "giving" a red light or "taking away" the green lights? I tend to think more the latter.
What is the difference? [...] we have a king [...] With little to none real power though.
You just answered your own question, claes.
A constitutional monarchy is considered a form of representative democracy, not a form of monarchy -- except in some very rare cases, such as Japan and Italy during World War II, where the constition was facist in nature. However, that's the exception, not the rule.
notice the smiley, but still it's just not true. Some of the most modern states of the world - Japan, Britain or almost entire Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) - are monarchies.
Actually, all of those you mentioned are "constitutional monarchies", which are very different things from "monarchies", even if they both share a common word. From your obvious knowledge of such things, I know that you know the difference between them. To intentionally confuse them was a tad dishonest of you.
The only remaining true monarchies in the world are Bhutan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland.
I do not see very many people calling for the DEATH of an entire country and all it's people in those threads.
Nor do I see very many people calling for the death of an entire country in this thread or any other... (although there was a reference to the untimely demise of Gates and Ballmer, who are richer than many entire countries). Sure, there might be a few trolls (and I suspect you are one as well), but that's nothing new either. There are trolls in every article.
However, none of this has anything to do with your original comment that a lot of people posting AC in threads that deal with Israel. A lot of people post AC in every article.
So, in short: What the hell are you smoking, man? Whatever it is, you should stop. It's gotten you paranoid.
Back in the day, if you had an IBM mainframe, any software you developed on it belonged to IBM. No joke.
No joke, because its BS. No company in their right mind would agree to turn over software they produced to IBM -- and the military and other government organizations, who still use IBM big iron to this very day, definately wouldn't.
Does anyone else think it's a bit "wrong" for IBM to be profiting from the work of well meaning volunteers?
Do you feel it is a bit "wrong" for you to be able to benefit from all the work that IBM has put into open source projects?
IBM has made a LOT of contributions to the Linux kernel (In fact, I think I might have something about a lawsuit that had something to do with this...)
IBM also has made many contributions to the Apache Web Server, Apache Jakarta projects, Apache XML projects, PHP, Mozilla.org, etc, etc.
Let's not forget Jikes, Eclipse, SWT, etc, etc.
A list of 82 open source projects that IBM is actively involved in can be found here. This is only a SUBSET of the open source projects IBM is working on.
Ummm.... where in the article, the letter, ANYWHERE did it say this?
Just because Dell techs aren't allowed to help callers remove spyware (probably to keep Gator and its ilk from suing the pants off of them), doesn't mean that Dell has installed spyware itself. That's a very big and reckless jump you made.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost ten years since Toy Story, Pixar are [sic] now in direct competition with Disney. Disney's The Lion King, praised for it's hand-drawn animations, has been knocked off the box-office podium by Pixar's Finding Nemo, 100% computer-generated.
I have a few problems with this.
Pixar is (not "are" -- there is only one Pixar) not in direct competition with Disney. At least, not yet.
To date, Pixar has never released a major motion picture on its own. Toy Story, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, and Nemo were all joint production efforts between Disney and Pixar. Even the upcoming "The Incredibles" and "Cars" have Disney with top-billing for "production company".
Fact of the matter is that Disney had just as much to do with the production of every one of these films as Pixar did.
So perhaps a better phrasing of what you said would be: "Disney's Lion King has been knocked-off the box-office podium by Disney's/Pixar's Finding Nemo." Doesn't have quite the same punch though, does it....
Once Pixar actually is able to produce a full-length film on its own without the help and influence of a second production company, then maybe we can make predictions and the like about Disney v. Pixar. However, it hasn't happened yet and it won't happen until "Ratatouille" is released in late 2006.
hmm... that means you are not counting the bums on the street - or anyone else without a telephone, meaning anyone without a home or not being able to afford a telephone.
That's a wild conclusion you jumped to there... and very inaccurate. Actually... There were two sets of people doing interviews:
1. The telephone centers (Tucson, AZ and Hagerstown, MD) called the CATI team, or Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
2. a small army of surveyors with special laptops called the CAPI (Computer Assisted PERSONAL Interviewing) team who gathered those people that the telephone centers couldn't get to.
I, of course, was on the CATI team. But that doesn't mean we were the ONLY ones collecting the data. You shouldn't jump to conclusions like that.
Are you aware that the unemployment rate here in the US does not count those who's unemployment benifits ran out and who are still jobless?
:)
Wrong.
The US Census Bureau (on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics) determines the unemployment rate using a survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS). The definition of unemployed is:
1) Not currently employed.
2) Available to get a job.
3) Actively looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
There is nothing about unemployment benefits in here at all. This definition of unemployment is used around the world including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. Therefore, these numbers are also good for international comparisons.
During my college days, I worked as a surveyor for the USCB at the Tucson Telephone Center. I lived and breathed the CPS for a full week every month as we tried to get through our share of 50,000 surveys. A lot of fun, lemme tell ya.
Excellent... But, you missed one:
Implication: all of the intangible value in the US is in closed-source software.
So, that patent you won for the super-duper toaster? Linux will kill that RIGHT off. The license you have to make T-shirts with NASCAR's logo on them? Open Source software will destroy that too. What?
It can be lucky, happy, prosperous, or a couple of other things.
So what they really want is Happy Product!
(Regarding arrow keys): The reason for this is that vi was invented and was popular before arrow keys were a standard thing on all keyboards.
I'm going to expand on this a little because you missed an important point on why vi behaves as it does. The reason why arrow keys "mess up" documents is that vi is a character mode editor. That is, it reads one character at a time and interprets it as a command as if it was typed.
On the VT-100 series of terminals, the arrow keys map out to: ESC + [ + (A|B|C|D) where A is up, B is down, C is left, and D is right. So when a person is in edit mode in vi and they hit, say, the right arrow, they end the insert (ESC), get a beep for an invalid command ([), then get the remainder of the line hacked off (D). Combine that with the other arrow key sequences and you can get a real mess in a hurry.
The mascot is simply amateurish.
Maybe because it was done by a child... I dunno.
In Solviet Russia, they used a pencil.
no. no. no. In Soviet Russia, a pencil used THEM!
Certainly.
First up is this one: Stallman and Gosling on Java and the GPL
First of all, what does Java, Sun's Gosling, and Stallman have to do with SCO, its lawsuits, Linux, or the law? Not a damned thing. However, reading PJ's editorial is most enlightening on her slanted nature. Two responses which I completely agreed with can be found here and here.
Second up is this one: Microsoft Wishes to Tempt Developers With Its Code
Again, nothing at all to do with "Grokking the Law" or SCO. However, PJ uses this article to subtly slam non-GPL open source licenses, in this case, IBM's Common Public License (which is used to distribute Eclipse). This illicited this wonderful response and this even better one. Could it be that PJ was actually twisting the issue too?
PJ's Mission Statement:
What legal research? What law at all? Groklaw has completely lost its focus and turned into a GPL zealot platform.
They didn't hire Groklaw, they hired the editor of Groklaw, PJ. She was doing Groklaw in her spare time anyways, so probably it will continue to be independent. Her expertise from Groklaw will certainly help, but you are making it seem like a company now controls Groklaw.
Well.. I will say this. Ever since PJ was hired by this firm, Groklaw's focus has changed dramatically. Early on it was "just the facts" about the case. Lately it has become more and more of a GPL zealot site, that tends to attack anyone and anything that is not wild about the GPL, including non-GPL open source!
PJ and Groklaw (and they are one and the same to me, since she maintains absolute control over the content there) have lost all credibility with me, since I can no longer trust her to be objective anymore -- even with SCO v. IBM.
I don't know if these two things are truly "cause-and-effect", but I certainly think that there is at least SOME influence there.
I understand your point of view completely and I respect it.
However, I see a resolution as an expression of an opinion and not "punishment". It certainly is NOT a law (which I believe is the all important fifth word of the 1st Amendment).
It hasn't limited speech in any way whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Chicks from saying what they said all over again... and again.. and again. It may tick off the Legislature and they may pass a hundred more resolutions saying the Chicks are rotten and terrible people, but the net effect on free speech is zero.
So, let me ask you: If it doesn't limit free speech and could never limit free speech (because resolutions are not at all binding), why are you saying that it was trying to do something it didn't and couldn't do?
I honestly believe the legislature was simply expressing their opinion (which is what resolutions are FOR) not trying to restrict anyone's right to free speech.
i.e. the government, then it becomes a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment which expressly prohibits the government from placing limitations on the freedom of speech.
Okay... what was the limitation? The Chicks were not and are not prevented from saying or doing anything. They were not gagged, censored, or even threatened. They were called a few names and asked to apologize.
Condemning others' speech is a FORM of free speech... and must be protected as much as any other form of free speech. The legislature has the right to free speech as well.
As long as the HoR didn't attempt to restrict speech (and they didn't -- they just called what Natalie said to be unpatriotic which was their opinion), they didn't violate the first. Its that simple.
but actually caused financial harm to the Dixie Chicks by forcing them to perform a concert for the US armed forces at no charge.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a Resolution. A Resolution is not legally binding in any way. It is simply a means for them to express an opinion as a whole -- a kind of "open letter", if you will, expressing the point of view of the majority of the legislative body.
The Chicks were not FORCED to do anything. All the HoR did was "demand" (and in this context, that means "strongly request") that they apologize and perform for the troops. However, no harm could come to them if they told the HoR to jump in a lake.
The South Carolina House of Representatives Again, they may have been wrong, but they didn't inhibit anyone's right to free speech.
I completely agree with this. There's no question that the Dixie Chicks were censured (that is, "told that they were naughty"), but they certainly weren't censored. In fact, this one item alone shows the hypocracy of this whole list.
The Jefferson center is censuring the SC HoR for exercising their freedom of speech in censuring the Chicks' anti-Bush speech. I guess they need to give themselves a Muzzle as well, if they are to be held to their own standard. Legislators have First Amendment rights too.
(Please note the difference between "censure" and "censor".)
Heh... I actually thought "Perhaps you are a moron" was rather insightful, considering the head of this thread was little more than random neural firings and tinhatted laments about the evils of the world -- supposedly because someone is making little tiny airplanes that have cameras on them.
making someone stop as an inconvenience is positive reinforcement. Sending them to bed without supper is negative reinforcement. It's based on application or witholding.
All depends on how you look at it. Are they "giving" a red light or "taking away" the green lights? I tend to think more the latter.
What is the difference? [...] we have a king [...] With little to none real power though.
You just answered your own question, claes.
A constitutional monarchy is considered a form of representative democracy, not a form of monarchy -- except in some very rare cases, such as Japan and Italy during World War II, where the constition was facist in nature. However, that's the exception, not the rule.
notice the smiley, but still it's just not true. Some of the most modern states of the world - Japan, Britain or almost entire Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) - are monarchies.
Actually, all of those you mentioned are "constitutional monarchies", which are very different things from "monarchies", even if they both share a common word. From your obvious knowledge of such things, I know that you know the difference between them. To intentionally confuse them was a tad dishonest of you.
The only remaining true monarchies in the world are Bhutan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland.
I do not see very many people calling for the DEATH of an entire country and all it's people in those threads.
Nor do I see very many people calling for the death of an entire country in this thread or any other... (although there was a reference to the untimely demise of Gates and Ballmer, who are richer than many entire countries). Sure, there might be a few trolls (and I suspect you are one as well), but that's nothing new either. There are trolls in every article.
However, none of this has anything to do with your original comment that a lot of people posting AC in threads that deal with Israel. A lot of people post AC in every article.
So, in short: What the hell are you smoking, man? Whatever it is, you should stop. It's gotten you paranoid.
And again we have people hiding behind the AC ID ... This happens quite a lot when Israel is brought up on this [...] webboard.
...also SCO! ...and Linux! ...and RedHat! ...and... air!
Wow.. that also happens a lot whenever Microsoft is brought up
What's your point?
Back in the day, if you had an IBM mainframe, any software you developed on it belonged to IBM. No joke.
No joke, because its BS. No company in their right mind would agree to turn over software they produced to IBM -- and the military and other government organizations, who still use IBM big iron to this very day, definately wouldn't.
Does anyone else think it's a bit "wrong" for IBM to be profiting from the work of well meaning volunteers?
Do you feel it is a bit "wrong" for you to be able to benefit from all the work that IBM has put into open source projects?
IBM has made a LOT of contributions to the Linux kernel (In fact, I think I might have something about a lawsuit that had something to do with this...)
IBM also has made many contributions to the Apache Web Server, Apache Jakarta projects, Apache XML projects, PHP, Mozilla.org, etc, etc.
Let's not forget Jikes, Eclipse, SWT, etc, etc.
A list of 82 open source projects that IBM is actively involved in can be found here. This is only a SUBSET of the open source projects IBM is working on.
That isn't even remotely funny. Jerk.
"You agree not to interfere with the function of the advertisement delivery software included with this Program."
Ummmm... So how does that work?
If you interfere with the program by getting rid of it, you've violated the EULA and no longer have license to use the software you got rid of?
(Yes, I know it applies to the bundled software, but I still thought it was funny.)
3) factory installed spyware.
Ummm.... where in the article, the letter, ANYWHERE did it say this?
Just because Dell techs aren't allowed to help callers remove spyware (probably to keep Gator and its ilk from suing the pants off of them), doesn't mean that Dell has installed spyware itself. That's a very big and reckless jump you made.