First, time doesn't move backwards, so comparing box office receipts of "Gone with the Wind" to something like Transformers is kind of pointless. Would it still be the top grossing performer of all time if it were released in 2009? Would it even still be ranked a "G"? I doubt it.
Second, the secondary market being Pixar's primary focus is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Except replace "Shiny Plastic Disk" with "Anything they can stamp their logo on" and you've got it right.
#1: Titanic (PG-13) #2: LOTR:ROTK (PG-13) #3: POTC:DMC (PG-13) #4: The Dark Knight (PG-13) #5: Harry Potter TPS (PG) #6: POTC: AWE (PG-13) #7: Harry Potter OOTF (PG-13) #8: LOTR: TTT (PG-13) #9: Star Wars TPM (PG) #10: Shrek 2 (PG)
PG-13 seems to be the most profitable ranking, and even the Harry Potter franchise has flirted with it until their latest movie. Pixar doesn't even hit the list until #17, Finding Nemo. By their second at #40 (The Incredibles), Dreamworks SKG already has Shrek 2 (#10), Shrek the Third (#22) and Kung Fu Panda (#39) and Fox has both Ice Age movies (#25 and #36).
But as I said before, this is all secondary to Pixar's primary goal: moving merch.
Unless they're giving it away for free, I'm not interested in Yet Another Netbook until they can make it do something other than webmail. My baseline is Hulu HD. Anything less is a PDA.
Honestly, I doubt it. Their entire catalog is skewed towards a younger demographic, and their recent announcements have indicated a trend towards sequelitis. I think the tougher question is why they've never taken it upon themselves to take a chance with a more mature (PG-13 to R rated) offering. Most of their profits are realized through merchandizing, so anything they can't stick on a lunchbox, backpack, bedspread, or turn into little plastic figurine is off the table. The most Avatar can hope for is some blacklight posters sold at Spencers.
The real reason Apple doesn't want another VOIP app is that it would have the potential to turn the iPod Touch into a viable competitor to their own iPhone.
Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it gets never cut out, Apple is also building a huge datacenter to â" they guess â" take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services.
As Ned Ryerson, the Insurance Salesman from the movie "Groundhog Day" famously exclaimed:
Forced to the brink of extinction, scientists somehow found a way to fight back against the scourge...... but they underestimated their foe, and will now pay the PRICE for their DEFIANCE...
The observation that there is an attractive force between two masses was made a long time ago. We've gone through several theories, and none seem to perfectly match experimental data. This is yet another in a long string of attempts to explain the original observation.
There are many issues that affect voter turnout. Anything from weather to health to coercion can keep people from casting their vote. The problem isn't that people don't want to vote, it's that the bar is still too high to encourage 100% participation. I know people who didn't register because they thought they had to sign up for "Selective Service" (ie, the Draft). I know of people who didn't vote because they thought their candidate was already a shoe-in and it didn't matter. I know of people who didn't vote because their registration cards were mailed to the wrong address, or were redistricted and would have to travel a long distance to get to their new polling location.
If you compared the presidential election to the finals of American Idol, for example, I'm betting there's a huge percentage (50% or more) who voted for the phone-in contest but not the one you have to register for. The issue isn't so much the party system as it is the voting system.
Anyone who has a social security number and a registered phone number should be able to vote without leaving their home. There are technical challenges that would have to be addressed, but those are small compared to the benefits of having a more democratic society.
Actually, the difference between the founding fathers and the current state of politics is time frame.
When drafting documents like a constitution, they weren't trying to deal with issues on a 4-year election cycle -- they had to find solutions that would last for centuries. The current political atmosphere is one of a permanent campaign. If a senator thinks they stand a better chance of getting reelected if they delay on tough environmental or financial issues that won't hit critical mass for years, they won't think twice about it.
Anything that could potentially damage a candidate's reelection campaign is subject to compromise. Until something becomes a major issue (and even then, only if it's affecting THEIR voters), there isn't a chance in hell of getting a long-term solution.
Those "submersion detectors" it work really well, right up until the local weather calls for 100% relative humidity. I've seen RIM deny multiple replacement requests due to triggered sensors.
The last time I went into a Radio Shack, the only thing they sold were batteries and cellphones. Both salesmen looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked for a ferrite choke core.
I'm just glad to see they're picking a name that accurately reflects their current state.
They've had no problems oppressing organized groups of exercisers, organized groups of students, organized groups of monks, even organized groups of athletes.
I think it's the "organized group" part they have the problem with.
It's to my credit then that I choose not to partake of Guns that glorify criminality. I'm glad I live in a country that has no such wholesale banning of such material, and would hope that people would--of their own free will--avoid such influences on their own. It is a weak mind that has to depend on brutality for entertainment, but I'd rather that the weak minds have that option than to have it mandated otherwise. In a way by banning it, the people themselves never get to build the character to avoid such indulgent and gratuitous diversions. Of course with that said, it's a sad thing to note just how popular some of these Guns are in our "free world". While I don't think such should be banned, I do wish a few more conscientious adults would stand up and say, "This stuff is garbage" and set an example of avoiding them. If Guns were not nearly as popular as they are, perhaps the issue would never even be necessary. I've often wondered why choosing activities that uplift and edify seems to be less thrilling (when we all know it's right) than the alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
First, time doesn't move backwards, so comparing box office receipts of "Gone with the Wind" to something like Transformers is kind of pointless. Would it still be the top grossing performer of all time if it were released in 2009? Would it even still be ranked a "G"? I doubt it.
Second, the secondary market being Pixar's primary focus is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Except replace "Shiny Plastic Disk" with "Anything they can stamp their logo on" and you've got it right.
Higest Grossing Films (before inflation)
#1: Titanic (PG-13)
#2: LOTR:ROTK (PG-13)
#3: POTC:DMC (PG-13)
#4: The Dark Knight (PG-13)
#5: Harry Potter TPS (PG)
#6: POTC: AWE (PG-13)
#7: Harry Potter OOTF (PG-13)
#8: LOTR: TTT (PG-13)
#9: Star Wars TPM (PG)
#10: Shrek 2 (PG)
PG-13 seems to be the most profitable ranking, and even the Harry Potter franchise has flirted with it until their latest movie. Pixar doesn't even hit the list until #17, Finding Nemo. By their second at #40 (The Incredibles), Dreamworks SKG already has Shrek 2 (#10), Shrek the Third (#22) and Kung Fu Panda (#39) and Fox has both Ice Age movies (#25 and #36).
But as I said before, this is all secondary to Pixar's primary goal: moving merch.
Unless they're giving it away for free, I'm not interested in Yet Another Netbook until they can make it do something other than webmail. My baseline is Hulu HD. Anything less is a PDA.
Honestly, I doubt it. Their entire catalog is skewed towards a younger demographic, and their recent announcements have indicated a trend towards sequelitis.
I think the tougher question is why they've never taken it upon themselves to take a chance with a more mature (PG-13 to R rated) offering. Most of their profits are realized through merchandizing, so anything they can't stick on a lunchbox, backpack, bedspread, or turn into little plastic figurine is off the table. The most Avatar can hope for is some blacklight posters sold at Spencers.
And, may I add, perfectly...
The word you're looking for here is "Cromulent"
The real reason Apple doesn't want another VOIP app is that it would have the potential to turn the iPod Touch into a viable competitor to their own iPhone.
Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it gets never cut out, Apple is also building a huge datacenter to â" they guess â" take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services.
As Ned Ryerson, the Insurance Salesman from the movie "Groundhog Day" famously exclaimed:
Bing Again!
Forced to the brink of extinction, scientists somehow found a way to fight back against the scourge ... ... but they underestimated their foe, and will now pay the PRICE for their DEFIANCE...
FORGED DNA 2: REVENGE OF THE CLONES!
The observation that there is an attractive force between two masses was made a long time ago. We've gone through several theories, and none seem to perfectly match experimental data. This is yet another in a long string of attempts to explain the original observation.
Pulsars are very green. They rely almost entirely on Solar power!
No! No! You have to Invert the Tachyon Beam!
To quote the man himself,
"This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
This article by Chaum is the one I always point to when people ask for a less technical explanation:
There are many issues that affect voter turnout. Anything from weather to health to coercion can keep people from casting their vote. The problem isn't that people don't want to vote, it's that the bar is still too high to encourage 100% participation. I know people who didn't register because they thought they had to sign up for "Selective Service" (ie, the Draft). I know of people who didn't vote because they thought their candidate was already a shoe-in and it didn't matter. I know of people who didn't vote because their registration cards were mailed to the wrong address, or were redistricted and would have to travel a long distance to get to their new polling location.
If you compared the presidential election to the finals of American Idol, for example, I'm betting there's a huge percentage (50% or more) who voted for the phone-in contest but not the one you have to register for. The issue isn't so much the party system as it is the voting system.
Anyone who has a social security number and a registered phone number should be able to vote without leaving their home. There are technical challenges that would have to be addressed, but those are small compared to the benefits of having a more democratic society.
Actually, the difference between the founding fathers and the current state of politics is time frame.
When drafting documents like a constitution, they weren't trying to deal with issues on a 4-year election cycle -- they had to find solutions that would last for centuries. The current political atmosphere is one of a permanent campaign. If a senator thinks they stand a better chance of getting reelected if they delay on tough environmental or financial issues that won't hit critical mass for years, they won't think twice about it.
Anything that could potentially damage a candidate's reelection campaign is subject to compromise. Until something becomes a major issue (and even then, only if it's affecting THEIR voters), there isn't a chance in hell of getting a long-term solution.
Those "submersion detectors" it work really well, right up until the local weather calls for 100% relative humidity. I've seen RIM deny multiple replacement requests due to triggered sensors.
Who cares? Everyone knows that he's on the Geuse anyway.
Ban a-Steroids!
You try living without the internet for 90 days. Then we'll talk about how much it's worth to you.
Free medical care is the best health care money can buy!
The last time I went into a Radio Shack, the only thing they sold were batteries and cellphones. Both salesmen looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked for a ferrite choke core.
I'm just glad to see they're picking a name that accurately reflects their current state.
Verizon just better hope that they don't get a judge who's actually used their service.
Talk about a hostile witness!
If ((MovieReleaseDate > 2000) OR (MovieProducer = "Bay, Michael")) AND (CustomerAge > 20) Then .5
Score = Score *
If (MovieFABRating = "Nudity") AND (MovieLeadActor != "Cohen, Sasha Baron")
Score = Score * 10
They've had no problems oppressing organized groups of exercisers, organized groups of students, organized groups of monks, even organized groups of athletes.
I think it's the "organized group" part they have the problem with.
It's to my credit then that I choose not to partake of Guns that glorify criminality. I'm glad I live in a country that has no such wholesale banning of such material, and would hope that people would--of their own free will--avoid such influences on their own. It is a weak mind that has to depend on brutality for entertainment, but I'd rather that the weak minds have that option than to have it mandated otherwise. In a way by banning it, the people themselves never get to build the character to avoid such indulgent and gratuitous diversions. Of course with that said, it's a sad thing to note just how popular some of these Guns are in our "free world". While I don't think such should be banned, I do wish a few more conscientious adults would stand up and say, "This stuff is garbage" and set an example of avoiding them. If Guns were not nearly as popular as they are, perhaps the issue would never even be necessary. I've often wondered why choosing activities that uplift and edify seems to be less thrilling (when we all know it's right) than the alternatives.