It will be the dollar soon enough. Europeans are so dumb they are so easily tricked by corporations. Just wait until American enginuity hits you. Oh wait, it did. It's called World War II and the Cold War. We should have just raised our American flag and skipped the whole politeness of acting like you're in control.
Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy.
Your theory would have merrit if we were close to the limit of economic productiog. But we aren't. We aren't even close. Much of the world is undeveloped and not optimised for maximum production efficiency; there is plenty of room for population growth in most parts of the world; and we have an abundance of raw minerals and energy on the earth and beyond.
The energy of Microsoft is based on the economy of it's customers. The economy of it's customers is fuelled by production. Production in is determined by the number of producers; the effeciency of the producer; and the raw materials availabilty to maintain effeciency and feed production.
Comparing MS's rate of growth against a snapshot of a present economy is flawed. You must also predict the economy of 2014 and the growth steps from here to there, which is nearly impossible without divine intervention. Also, it has to be assumed that' MS's growth rate will change depending on the size of the economy (which is the amount of production).
Finally, predicting the economy of 2014 is a pretty tough thing to do. It's feasable, but would take a lot more resources than just you because there are so many factors involved. It's pretty straight forward to predict the number of producers in 2014. Population predictions based on the current population are a dime a dozen, and they are fairly accurate minus siginfigant events (war, disease, famin). Next you would have to calculate the effeciency of the work force. That's very tuff. You not only have to consider ifrastructure changes that increase efficiency, but technological and methodical advances. There's lots of possible infrastructure changes to be done in 3rd world countries, for example. And who can accurately predict scientific breakthroughs in the next decade. But there are also some infrastructure changes that could take place in developed nations. In the past, efficiency in the United States was significantly increased with the development of centralized power and heating, for example. (Also, internet, computers, highways, combustion engines, farming methodologies, factory robots, AI, etc.). Finally, you would have to calculate the availabilty of resources for the products, producers, and effeciency systems. For example, an oil shortage would decrease effeciency in all kinds of siginficant ways, and wouldn't neccesarly be predictable. Also, what if all of a sudden food stops growing in half the world. That really blows your population estimates. Silicon becomes a scarce and computers are no longer available in mass quantities... etc.
In short, economic predictions over 10 years is like trying to predict the wheather 10 years from today. You can guess, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. But that doesn't matter in your theory any way, as you don't really consider that the production (ie, economy) will increase at a significant rate in the next 10 years, providing the prequesite energy for Bill Gates to reach a trillion dollar goal.
Buy a laser jet you goat raping ass fuck. But no, that would require you to TAKE SOME RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS. AND that would be too much to ask, now wouldn't it. But wait, I forgot. You are a fucking retard that needs his government to do all his thinking for him.
If you actually supported it, then you wouldn't have bought the printer with the chips in it. Your vote of the dollar (mark, frank whatever) is much more powerful than any other vote. And enough Europeans have voted for this business model with their wallet, that these companies keep operating. How do I know this? If people didn't buy into this business model, the companies would be a) out of business b) change their business model.
Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, IBM, Micro Center, Computer Success, The Computer Leppracahn, Best Buy, Wal Mart, Meijer. They all sell computers. You have choice. If you insist the printer is free, then you still have a choice to use up the 'free' ink and throw the printer away. And then buy a new one with cheaper cartridges. You have choice.
Let's assume the trash issue is real. I would support asking printer manufacturers to refill their cartridges and resell them, or even melt the plastic and re-use the chips. But this is more about altering a business model than it is recycling.
Yes American politicians try to do stupid shit like this. We call them Democrats. I don't vote for them.
Your were smart enough to know the printer you bought was cheaper than the others. You HAD to know that they use expendable ink cartridges. I'm sure the same store you bought the printer at also sells the ink cartridges. Are you to lazy to walk over to the next isle and find out what the cartridge cost? My god, are you so helpless? How wipes your ass after you shit in the morning.
You had the choice to buy a more expensive printer with cheaper/generic capable cartridges. But you didn't. Let the market choose (like you did when you bought the thing). Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses who have chosen to buy cheap printers with expensive cartridges?
When governments artificially interfere with capitalism, it always causes undesired consequences.
If I were a printer manufacturer, I would not sell printers or cartridges in that country. I would still sell them to bordering countries. Net affect... You still have to buy my printer, and you still have to buy my ink cartridge. It just costs you more because you have buy it someowhere else (ie, internet).
If I didn't go this route, and I decided to still try to compete, I would have to run two models of printers/ink cartridges. And I would be caucious of people in other countries exporting said printers. Also, I would no longer have revenue in ink. Therefore, rise my printer price as much as possible to a) discourage exports and b) still make some money off the deal. I would also have to add in the costs of running two business lines. So any savings in ink cartridges is almost certainly gone.
My third option would be to change all of my printers to this business model. However, in the rest of the world, do you really think Joe Consumer, looking at two printers with identical print quality and relability would buy a $500 printer over a $50 one? I know I wouldn't. Therefore, very quickly, this printer company would only be selling printers in that one country who has mandated this printer law. (Companies know this, and I'm sure they'll choose one of the other two options.)
What does this mean to the consumers of these government controlled printers? They're going to pay more money for their printing. Conclusion, Government regulation costs more money than it saves, and effeciency can be gained by removing government restrictions.
It's like when those bonehead politicians try to place maximum prices on Gas or Food. Net affect, you don't get any gas or food, but when you do get it, it's cheap. I'd rather pay market value for gas than have none at all. Same with food. That's why the Russian Communist system didn't work.
You really have to know someone to get into a job these days, so I'd suggest searching your midwest contacts.
Beyond that, Columbus, Ohio is a great place to work/live. Ohio State University is a great place to work, and they are always hiring. Besides that Naitionwide Insurance, Bank One, Verizon, and AEP are good places to start in Columbus. In Cincinnati, there are a couple of book places. GE is big in Cleveland. Better yet, find someone in CA that will let you telecommute. Nothing like a CA income and an Ohio cost of living.
Are you running your own business, or are you just guessing on this?
Actually, my first business was a MLM. I didn't like doing that. My second business was an attempt to go in with a buddy to sell PC's out of a store. I started that with less than $100. I had the store front rented for 3 months, signs made, store furniture bought, and was getting ready to buy inventory, all with less than $100 investment. (Partners suck, and I realized this before dropping 5k in inventory). HOwever, I payed for all of this from income from clients, and not out of my own pocket. $100 is about right, and none of my failed business ventures had anything to do with lack of capital. That's easy to get.
1) A lot of businesses that are started are never more than a job where you work for yourself. Make sure you have real expectations. Some businesses become mega businesses, just like some basketball players become NBA stars. But be realistic. Running a small businesses is more like a job than it is like being a pro basketball player. (You're going to work very hard and not see the riches for a long time, if ever. That's small business.)
2) No idea, no matter how great, has made someone wealthy on it's own. The determining factor is not the idea, but the hardwork and the commitment to winning. That sounds lame, but when you eat, sleep, dream, and breath your small business goals, you will realize them. New markets are very very hard to create. Try sticking to something standard.
3) I once hear someone say something to the affect, "It's easy to be a millionare today in America. There are manufacturers, and there are customers. Put yourself somewhere in between." I forget who it was, but he was pretty wealthy from doing just that.
4) Most small businesses you can start for very cheap and work it while you are working. At first when you don't have a lot of money but some extra time, focus on serviced based businesses. They require 0 financial investment. Use word of mouth, and you'll be servicing for money very soon.
5) If you want to be wealthy, very quickly turn your serviced based business into one of buying and selling. When you buy and sell, your profit is determined by how cheaply you can buy something and how inflated you can sell it. When you run a service based business, your profit is determined by how much service you can do. I'd rather be wealthy with lots of free time than wealthy working 80 hours per week. (Hint, buying labor to do service, and then selling the service is still buying and selling. But, employees suck. Avoid them until you have no other growth choices.)
6) Don't go into business with a partner. They'll want to do it their way. You're better off working alone. If you insist on doing a partnership, organize yourself in such a way that they are running their own business and you are running your own business, and you work togethor for a common goal. For example, if you know someone who can get cheap computers, buy them from him where he makes part of the profit, and on your own profit, and then sell the product. This way, he isn't telling you what to do, visa versa. And when he gets tired of working so hard, and he wants to quit to go play video games, you can replace him with another supplier without messing up your business. You avoide money problems too.
7) Most businesses don't require a huge amount of money investment. I would never spend more than $5000 in a business venture. You will fuck up your first 10 businesses, and it would suck to loose more than that. In fact, I would start your first 5 with no more than $100. You can run most businesses out of your garage with a phone, some business cards, and word of mouth.
8) Don't be afraid to charge what the successful business people are charging. If the standard rate for server work in your area is $125 an hour, charge $125 an hour. $125 an hour is what other business people have determed it takes to make doing that job worthwhile. Rely on their experience. Customers donot always pick the lowest rate person. They pick who they know and will pay a premium for personal assistance.
9) There is big money to be made in selling used stuff. Why do you think there are so many used car shops around? Buy low, sell high.
10) Seek and follow the advice of those who are doing the business you want to run. Don't be so cocky to think that you were born with the knowledge to do everything. Find someone who is doing well, and take their advice. It is priceless information.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
In [2] it's also pointed out that classics are classics because they are important to the development of the culture and literary classics. I have to say that I fail to see how MR will be helping the development of culture and future classics. Besides the obvious of "this movie sucks, don't do this".
I'm not arguing that Minority Report is a classic, but it shouldn't be eliminated from classic consideration just because it's aimed for the lowest common denominator. (ie, just because it has the characters/repeat the bloody thing 15 times over to make sure that even those in the audience with attention span measured in nanoseconds got it all/.)
Besides I don't agree with the assertion that if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good. I'd call 2001 : A space odyssey a good movie. (Though the first part is too long.) And I don't think anyone quite grasped the 3rd part without reading the book.
The truth of it is that if it's not easy for most people to get it, it probably won't survive that long. I argue that Minority Report has a better chance of classic-dom than AI because it is easier to understand, and you don't have to fill in the gaps by creating some kind of analytic bull crap.
My own conclusion is that if you want good SF you have to look for it in other places than "the big screen". Books are good naturally, almost all new bad SF movies are mangled versions of good SF books. TV series seem to fare a bit better than movies, at least they are not so obviously bad as the movie counterparts. My personal recommendation would be to look for good SF in anime, there's quite a lot of good stuff there.
Matrix and the Original Star Wars Trilogy to name a few. I like those and it can be easily argued that these make up significant parts of modern culture. Matrix raises lays a solid foundation for Des Cartes Meditations which most people haven't heard of or don't have the grey matter to grasp. (What if we are in a Matrix? Can we prove that we're not?) Lots of people in Great Britan declare there religion as Jedi (or something similar).
Some movies are important in the development of modern culture. Sometimes they happen to come out of sci-fi. Neither AI or Minority Reports will be one of them; however, I don't think simplicity of plot or targetting a film to the lowest common denominator will deminish a Movie's cultural importance. The social, philosophical, attitudal, or political shifts caused by a film will determine it's place in history, and most certainly it has to be popular in order cause such a shift.
Braveheart made everyone want to be Scottish. Wag the dog resembled Clinton's politics. Free Willy made kids want to free all the dolphins. But AI just pissed people off cause they wasted their money watching it.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
Just because AI doesn't make sense, and you have to fill in the gaps, doesn't make it a soffisticated film.
It's kind of like in Psychology 101. In an expirement, an instructor asked a group of human lab rats to do some tedious task (like watch AI or something). One group of subjects was given $50 to do the task, and the other group recieved no money.
The group that was given money complained about the task and said it was tedious, and they didn't like doing it. The second group said the task was enjoyable and reported they like doing it. It's kind of like AI. You watch it, and it sucks bad, but then you add value to it (like the subjects added value to the tedious task) because people a) want to feel things they do are worthwhile b) there is no b.
AI sucked and it was way too long, and there were way too many plot twists that didn't make any sense, no matter how long you sit around and analyze it.
Second point. Because the plot of a movie is fairly simple to follow (and I know some people who didn't get Minority Report, so it's not that simple) and a story is entertaining to the masses and the film looks good doesn't make it crap. Actually, it makes it a classic. If you look at some American book classics, like the works of Mark Twain (Huck Finn, etc.) or to kill a mockinbird, they are also simple plotted, entertaining, and fun to read. However, they are still important to the development of the culture and literary classics.
Therefore, Minority Report is a great flick and worthy of 'Classic' consideration. AI sucked, and if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good.
I bet you came to age in the sixties, and you were pot smoking tree hugger then. And now... your still a pot smoking tree hugger. People laugh at you. You are like a clown, but what's even funnier is that you don't even know it. ROTFLMAO, look at the clown in his tree. He thinks people care. HAHAHAHA
Compared to Grand Theft Auto, all RPG's suck. I guess you could say that GTA isn't really an RPG but a new genre, but nonetheless all RPG's bore me now.
The reason I play games is so that I can do things that I want to do in reality, but can't because a) they are immoral b) are illegal c) there are rammifications/risks associated that I don't want to deal with. For example, I want to run around and kill people, but that's immoral and illegal, and I don't want to take anyone's life in reality or deal with the consequences of that action. But running around and killing people is fun, in the fake world.
So, in an RPG the environment should be as real as possible and not use tricks to 'add to the game play' but still are fake. For example, animals in almost all games just appear out of now where or are spawned from some spawn thing. I want animals to come from the breading of two other animals, and to be hunted and eaten and the related things.
I want the characters to be where they are for a reason. For example, shops should only be open in the day, and when it is night, the shopkeeper should go have a beer or go see his girlfriend, and when he's tired he should walk back to his house and go to sleep. At night, when I go to a shop, I should find a locked door. And when I break in, I should find a shop keeper dashing for a weapon or sleeping. Not an empty bedroom. And when I see people on the street I should be seeing them because they are on their way somewhere, not because they are handing out the same mission over and over again.
And as far as missions go, they should be based on something and never repeated. Bar owner one asks you to kill the competition bar tender 'cause you look like the kind of person that would do it. He may repeat the mission to other people, but when the competitor is dead or something else happens, that mission should go away forever. A moving story spurred by real actions and human-like motivators. I mean, this can be pre-programmed but they should be based on an emotional need and picked out of a pool of possible solutions that fall in line with the NPC's character.
I always hear the excuse from coders that it's just not practical to code all this stuff in when it doesn't add to the game play. But it does affect the game play. The more transparent you mike the line between reality and game, the more fun I will have killing people or whatever it is I want to do. Things will start to appear that will be ultra cool that the programmers didn't even think of. For example, because animals like to drink, they will congragate around the water hole. Other patterns of reality will show themselves on accident as well that the player WILL recognize and will contribute to gameplay. (ie, the bar tenders daughter never goes out alone and is always escorted by a trusted guard, and there will be a frog plague because everyone killed off the snakes... )
true, true... Let's blaim it on the evil corporation Taco Bell, get a story about it on 60 minutes, recruit the reverand Jesse Jackson, and we now have a billion dollar industry.
Say no to Taco Bell and White Castle, save the world.
Corralational studies prove nothing but a corralation, not a causual relationship. However, for most news outlets, corralation is enough proof for a casual relationship. Therefore, try this logic out.
People in America are getting fatter. The Earth is warming. Because people are fatter, the Earth is warming!
If global warming isn't caused by humans, then the environmental wackos have nothing to make normal people listen to them. Global Warming is a political issue, not an ecological one.
I just don't see the benefit of a lease to an idividual.
There is a huge benefit if you are going to have a new car every 3 years. but... why do you need a new car every 3 years?
I do think banks make FHA loans to people they know they can't make the payments. They do that 2/1 buydown crap where they appeal to people with a $800 a month payment that in 2 years pops up to $1150. But with FHA, there is no risk in selling bad loans. The federal government reimburses the mortgage company for bed loads. FHA is a federally backed loan insurance. If the government is going to provide cheap inusurance on loans to encourage banks to make high-risk loans, they should also outlaw predatory loaning. (Loaning with intention of getting someone's name on an insurance policy, not loaning expected to get paid back). Else, they should stop FHA loans.
You watch too much TV. There's nothing I can say and no facts that I can show you to convince you that the Tyco exect is the exception, not the rule. I'll be the first to tell you that the things that the Tyco, Worldcom, and Enron exects have done are wrong. However, it does not change the fact that the owners of wealth should be compensated for the risks and investments they make. To the same degree that mishandling company money is wrong, denying the producers of significant financial rewards for significant risks is wrong.
You see, there are two kinds of people in the world. The first type knows without a doubt that there is a limited number of resources in the world, and if somebody has more resources than them, that's way to much. I don't know how much money you make, but I bet if you double that amount, you have argued that people that make more money than 2X make too much money. These type of people that make $10,000 a year swear that guys who make $20,000 a year are hording the money and live in too much luxury. Guys who make 20k, complain about those who make 40k. And those who make 50k complain about those who make 100k. The other type of person knows without a doubt that there is an abundant amount of resources in the world... there's plenty of money, food, gas, etc. for every person in the world. These people seek out ways to make money using the tools they have, and they spend there time in their own sphere of influence. They don't compare themselves to those who make more money, and they are generous to their families and charities.
I believe you may be the first type of person, and there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Self-made millionares are the other type of people. If you have an open mind, read, "The Millionare Next Door" or "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". It will show you a new way. If you're content blaiming your financial problems on the evil upper class, keep on going. It's a comfortable place to be, mentaly I suppose. You don't have to admit that you are responsable for your own financial sitution. It is an achievable thing to go from rags to riches. I know of people who have come from the desolate coal mines of West Virginia to come to know luxury and the spoils of wealth. They did it twice. But it's all about your outlook on life. Everyone is capable, as I've seen all races, religions, and backgrounds go from 0 to millions in one lifetime.
I distinctly remember when one even modest blue collar income was more than ample to support a family with home ownership, many children, a car, etc, now, this is not possible, it just isn't happening.
This just isn't true. Life is a lot better now than it was even 30 years ago, 40 years, or 50 years. It just is. Okay, people's expectations have gone up. They expect to have to have three cars, the luxary sedan, the sport utility, the jeep or the sports car. Come on. Bring the wife home, have only one car, lay off the electronics, stick to the basics, like what was the standar 30 years ago, and you will find that you have MORE expendable income than was available 30 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be the dollar soon enough. Europeans are so dumb they are so easily tricked by corporations. Just wait until American enginuity hits you. Oh wait, it did. It's called World War II and the Cold War. We should have just raised our American flag and skipped the whole politeness of acting like you're in control.
Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy.
Your theory would have merrit if we were close to the limit of economic productiog. But we aren't. We aren't even close. Much of the world is undeveloped and not optimised for maximum production efficiency; there is plenty of room for population growth in most parts of the world; and we have an abundance of raw minerals and energy on the earth and beyond.
The energy of Microsoft is based on the economy of it's customers. The economy of it's customers is fuelled by production. Production in is determined by the number of producers; the effeciency of the producer; and the raw materials availabilty to maintain effeciency and feed production.
Comparing MS's rate of growth against a snapshot of a present economy is flawed. You must also predict the economy of 2014 and the growth steps from here to there, which is nearly impossible without divine intervention. Also, it has to be assumed that' MS's growth rate will change depending on the size of the economy (which is the amount of production).
Finally, predicting the economy of 2014 is a pretty tough thing to do. It's feasable, but would take a lot more resources than just you because there are so many factors involved. It's pretty straight forward to predict the number of producers in 2014. Population predictions based on the current population are a dime a dozen, and they are fairly accurate minus siginfigant events (war, disease, famin). Next you would have to calculate the effeciency of the work force. That's very tuff. You not only have to consider ifrastructure changes that increase efficiency, but technological and methodical advances. There's lots of possible infrastructure changes to be done in 3rd world countries, for example. And who can accurately predict scientific breakthroughs in the next decade. But there are also some infrastructure changes that could take place in developed nations. In the past, efficiency in the United States was significantly increased with the development of centralized power and heating, for example. (Also, internet, computers, highways, combustion engines, farming methodologies, factory robots, AI, etc.). Finally, you would have to calculate the availabilty of resources for the products, producers, and effeciency systems. For example, an oil shortage would decrease effeciency in all kinds of siginficant ways, and wouldn't neccesarly be predictable. Also, what if all of a sudden food stops growing in half the world. That really blows your population estimates. Silicon becomes a scarce and computers are no longer available in mass quantities... etc.
In short, economic predictions over 10 years is like trying to predict the wheather 10 years from today. You can guess, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. But that doesn't matter in your theory any way, as you don't really consider that the production (ie, economy) will increase at a significant rate in the next 10 years, providing the prequesite energy for Bill Gates to reach a trillion dollar goal.
Buy a laser jet you goat raping ass fuck. But no, that would require you to TAKE SOME RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS. AND that would be too much to ask, now wouldn't it. But wait, I forgot. You are a fucking retard that needs his government to do all his thinking for him.
If you actually supported it, then you wouldn't have bought the printer with the chips in it. Your vote of the dollar (mark, frank whatever) is much more powerful than any other vote. And enough Europeans have voted for this business model with their wallet, that these companies keep operating. How do I know this? If people didn't buy into this business model, the companies would be a) out of business b) change their business model.
Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, IBM, Micro Center, Computer Success, The Computer Leppracahn, Best Buy, Wal Mart, Meijer. They all sell computers. You have choice. If you insist the printer is free, then you still have a choice to use up the 'free' ink and throw the printer away. And then buy a new one with cheaper cartridges. You have choice.
Let's assume the trash issue is real. I would support asking printer manufacturers to refill their cartridges and resell them, or even melt the plastic and re-use the chips. But this is more about altering a business model than it is recycling.
Yes American politicians try to do stupid shit like this. We call them Democrats. I don't vote for them.
Your were smart enough to know the printer you bought was cheaper than the others. You HAD to know that they use expendable ink cartridges. I'm sure the same store you bought the printer at also sells the ink cartridges. Are you to lazy to walk over to the next isle and find out what the cartridge cost? My god, are you so helpless? How wipes your ass after you shit in the morning.
You had the choice to buy a more expensive printer with cheaper/generic capable cartridges. But you didn't. Let the market choose (like you did when you bought the thing). Why should a few politicians outvoice the masses who have chosen to buy cheap printers with expensive cartridges?
When governments artificially interfere with capitalism, it always causes undesired consequences.
If I were a printer manufacturer, I would not sell printers or cartridges in that country. I would still sell them to bordering countries. Net affect... You still have to buy my printer, and you still have to buy my ink cartridge. It just costs you more because you have buy it someowhere else (ie, internet).
If I didn't go this route, and I decided to still try to compete, I would have to run two models of printers/ink cartridges. And I would be caucious of people in other countries exporting said printers. Also, I would no longer have revenue in ink. Therefore, rise my printer price as much as possible to a) discourage exports and b) still make some money off the deal. I would also have to add in the costs of running two business lines. So any savings in ink cartridges is almost certainly gone.
My third option would be to change all of my printers to this business model. However, in the rest of the world, do you really think Joe Consumer, looking at two printers with identical print quality and relability would buy a $500 printer over a $50 one? I know I wouldn't. Therefore, very quickly, this printer company would only be selling printers in that one country who has mandated this printer law. (Companies know this, and I'm sure they'll choose one of the other two options.)
What does this mean to the consumers of these government controlled printers? They're going to pay more money for their printing. Conclusion, Government regulation costs more money than it saves, and effeciency can be gained by removing government restrictions.
It's like when those bonehead politicians try to place maximum prices on Gas or Food. Net affect, you don't get any gas or food, but when you do get it, it's cheap. I'd rather pay market value for gas than have none at all. Same with food. That's why the Russian Communist system didn't work.
You really have to know someone to get into a job these days, so I'd suggest searching your midwest contacts.
Beyond that, Columbus, Ohio is a great place to work/live. Ohio State University is a great place to work, and they are always hiring. Besides that Naitionwide Insurance, Bank One, Verizon, and AEP are good places to start in Columbus. In Cincinnati, there are a couple of book places. GE is big in Cleveland. Better yet, find someone in CA that will let you telecommute. Nothing like a CA income and an Ohio cost of living.
I used to live in a trailer park, and I saw one about once a week. I'm kind of a regular on the local news circuits.
I think I see the gap. I'm 24. You must be about 35, cause most of the movies you mentioned were before my time.
Are you running your own business, or are you just guessing on this?
Actually, my first business was a MLM. I didn't like doing that. My second business was an attempt to go in with a buddy to sell PC's out of a store. I started that with less than $100. I had the store front rented for 3 months, signs made, store furniture bought, and was getting ready to buy inventory, all with less than $100 investment. (Partners suck, and I realized this before dropping 5k in inventory). HOwever, I payed for all of this from income from clients, and not out of my own pocket. $100 is about right, and none of my failed business ventures had anything to do with lack of capital. That's easy to get.
1) A lot of businesses that are started are never more than a job where you work for yourself. Make sure you have real expectations. Some businesses become mega businesses, just like some basketball players become NBA stars. But be realistic. Running a small businesses is more like a job than it is like being a pro basketball player. (You're going to work very hard and not see the riches for a long time, if ever. That's small business.)
2) No idea, no matter how great, has made someone wealthy on it's own. The determining factor is not the idea, but the hardwork and the commitment to winning. That sounds lame, but when you eat, sleep, dream, and breath your small business goals, you will realize them. New markets are very very hard to create. Try sticking to something standard.
3) I once hear someone say something to the affect, "It's easy to be a millionare today in America. There are manufacturers, and there are customers. Put yourself somewhere in between." I forget who it was, but he was pretty wealthy from doing just that.
4) Most small businesses you can start for very cheap and work it while you are working. At first when you don't have a lot of money but some extra time, focus on serviced based businesses. They require 0 financial investment. Use word of mouth, and you'll be servicing for money very soon.
5) If you want to be wealthy, very quickly turn your serviced based business into one of buying and selling. When you buy and sell, your profit is determined by how cheaply you can buy something and how inflated you can sell it. When you run a service based business, your profit is determined by how much service you can do. I'd rather be wealthy with lots of free time than wealthy working 80 hours per week. (Hint, buying labor to do service, and then selling the service is still buying and selling. But, employees suck. Avoid them until you have no other growth choices.)
6) Don't go into business with a partner. They'll want to do it their way. You're better off working alone. If you insist on doing a partnership, organize yourself in such a way that they are running their own business and you are running your own business, and you work togethor for a common goal. For example, if you know someone who can get cheap computers, buy them from him where he makes part of the profit, and on your own profit, and then sell the product. This way, he isn't telling you what to do, visa versa. And when he gets tired of working so hard, and he wants to quit to go play video games, you can replace him with another supplier without messing up your business. You avoide money problems too.
7) Most businesses don't require a huge amount of money investment. I would never spend more than $5000 in a business venture. You will fuck up your first 10 businesses, and it would suck to loose more than that. In fact, I would start your first 5 with no more than $100. You can run most businesses out of your garage with a phone, some business cards, and word of mouth.
8) Don't be afraid to charge what the successful business people are charging. If the standard rate for server work in your area is $125 an hour, charge $125 an hour. $125 an hour is what other business people have determed it takes to make doing that job worthwhile. Rely on their experience. Customers donot always pick the lowest rate person. They pick who they know and will pay a premium for personal assistance.
9) There is big money to be made in selling used stuff. Why do you think there are so many used car shops around? Buy low, sell high.
10) Seek and follow the advice of those who are doing the business you want to run. Don't be so cocky to think that you were born with the knowledge to do everything. Find someone who is doing well, and take their advice. It is priceless information.
In [2] it's also pointed out that classics are classics because they are important to the development of the culture and literary classics. I have to say that I fail to see how MR will be helping the development of culture and future classics. Besides the obvious of "this movie sucks, don't do this". /repeat the bloody thing 15 times over to make sure that even those in the audience with attention span measured in nanoseconds got it all/.)
I'm not arguing that Minority Report is a classic, but it shouldn't be eliminated from classic consideration just because it's aimed for the lowest common denominator. (ie, just because it has the characters
Besides I don't agree with the assertion that if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good. I'd call 2001 : A space odyssey a good movie. (Though the first part is too long.) And I don't think anyone quite grasped the 3rd part without reading the book.
The truth of it is that if it's not easy for most people to get it, it probably won't survive that long. I argue that Minority Report has a better chance of classic-dom than AI because it is easier to understand, and you don't have to fill in the gaps by creating some kind of analytic bull crap.
My own conclusion is that if you want good SF you have to look for it in other places than "the big screen". Books are good naturally, almost all new bad SF movies are mangled versions of good SF books. TV series seem to fare a bit better than movies, at least they are not so obviously bad as the movie counterparts. My personal recommendation would be to look for good SF in anime, there's quite a lot of good stuff there.
Matrix and the Original Star Wars Trilogy to name a few. I like those and it can be easily argued that these make up significant parts of modern culture. Matrix raises lays a solid foundation for Des Cartes Meditations which most people haven't heard of or don't have the grey matter to grasp. (What if we are in a Matrix? Can we prove that we're not?) Lots of people in Great Britan declare there religion as Jedi (or something similar).
Some movies are important in the development of modern culture. Sometimes they happen to come out of sci-fi. Neither AI or Minority Reports will be one of them; however, I don't think simplicity of plot or targetting a film to the lowest common denominator will deminish a Movie's cultural importance. The social, philosophical, attitudal, or political shifts caused by a film will determine it's place in history, and most certainly it has to be popular in order cause such a shift.
Braveheart made everyone want to be Scottish. Wag the dog resembled Clinton's politics. Free Willy made kids want to free all the dolphins. But AI just pissed people off cause they wasted their money watching it.
Just because AI doesn't make sense, and you have to fill in the gaps, doesn't make it a soffisticated film.
It's kind of like in Psychology 101. In an expirement, an instructor asked a group of human lab rats to do some tedious task (like watch AI or something). One group of subjects was given $50 to do the task, and the other group recieved no money.
The group that was given money complained about the task and said it was tedious, and they didn't like doing it. The second group said the task was enjoyable and reported they like doing it. It's kind of like AI. You watch it, and it sucks bad, but then you add value to it (like the subjects added value to the tedious task) because people a) want to feel things they do are worthwhile b) there is no b.
AI sucked and it was way too long, and there were way too many plot twists that didn't make any sense, no matter how long you sit around and analyze it.
Second point. Because the plot of a movie is fairly simple to follow (and I know some people who didn't get Minority Report, so it's not that simple) and a story is entertaining to the masses and the film looks good doesn't make it crap. Actually, it makes it a classic. If you look at some American book classics, like the works of Mark Twain (Huck Finn, etc.) or to kill a mockinbird, they are also simple plotted, entertaining, and fun to read. However, they are still important to the development of the culture and literary classics.
Therefore, Minority Report is a great flick and worthy of 'Classic' consideration. AI sucked, and if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good.
Only when you do it while hugging trees. It's part of the costume.
I bet you came to age in the sixties, and you were pot smoking tree hugger then. And now... your still a pot smoking tree hugger. People laugh at you. You are like a clown, but what's even funnier is that you don't even know it. ROTFLMAO, look at the clown in his tree. He thinks people care. HAHAHAHA
Compared to Grand Theft Auto, all RPG's suck. I guess you could say that GTA isn't really an RPG but a new genre, but nonetheless all RPG's bore me now.
The reason I play games is so that I can do things that I want to do in reality, but can't because a) they are immoral b) are illegal c) there are rammifications/risks associated that I don't want to deal with. For example, I want to run around and kill people, but that's immoral and illegal, and I don't want to take anyone's life in reality or deal with the consequences of that action. But running around and killing people is fun, in the fake world.
So, in an RPG the environment should be as real as possible and not use tricks to 'add to the game play' but still are fake. For example, animals in almost all games just appear out of now where or are spawned from some spawn thing. I want animals to come from the breading of two other animals, and to be hunted and eaten and the related things.
I want the characters to be where they are for a reason. For example, shops should only be open in the day, and when it is night, the shopkeeper should go have a beer or go see his girlfriend, and when he's tired he should walk back to his house and go to sleep. At night, when I go to a shop, I should find a locked door. And when I break in, I should find a shop keeper dashing for a weapon or sleeping. Not an empty bedroom. And when I see people on the street I should be seeing them because they are on their way somewhere, not because they are handing out the same mission over and over again.
And as far as missions go, they should be based on something and never repeated. Bar owner one asks you to kill the competition bar tender 'cause you look like the kind of person that would do it. He may repeat the mission to other people, but when the competitor is dead or something else happens, that mission should go away forever. A moving story spurred by real actions and human-like motivators. I mean, this can be pre-programmed but they should be based on an emotional need and picked out of a pool of possible solutions that fall in line with the NPC's character.
I always hear the excuse from coders that it's just not practical to code all this stuff in when it doesn't add to the game play. But it does affect the game play. The more transparent you mike the line between reality and game, the more fun I will have killing people or whatever it is I want to do. Things will start to appear that will be ultra cool that the programmers didn't even think of. For example, because animals like to drink, they will congragate around the water hole. Other patterns of reality will show themselves on accident as well that the player WILL recognize and will contribute to gameplay. (ie, the bar tenders daughter never goes out alone and is always escorted by a trusted guard, and there will be a frog plague because everyone killed off the snakes... )
Let's throw out all the bill of rights. Why do we have those any way? Wouldn't a government with complete and total control be more effecient?
true, true... Let's blaim it on the evil corporation Taco Bell, get a story about it on 60 minutes, recruit the reverand Jesse Jackson, and we now have a billion dollar industry.
Say no to Taco Bell and White Castle, save the world.
Corralational studies prove nothing but a corralation, not a causual relationship. However, for most news outlets, corralation is enough proof for a casual relationship. Therefore, try this logic out.
People in America are getting fatter. The Earth is warming. Because people are fatter, the Earth is warming!
If global warming isn't caused by humans, then the environmental wackos have nothing to make normal people listen to them. Global Warming is a political issue, not an ecological one.
I just don't see the benefit of a lease to an idividual.
There is a huge benefit if you are going to have a new car every 3 years. but... why do you need a new car every 3 years?
I do think banks make FHA loans to people they know they can't make the payments. They do that 2/1 buydown crap where they appeal to people with a $800 a month payment that in 2 years pops up to $1150. But with FHA, there is no risk in selling bad loans. The federal government reimburses the mortgage company for bed loads. FHA is a federally backed loan insurance. If the government is going to provide cheap inusurance on loans to encourage banks to make high-risk loans, they should also outlaw predatory loaning. (Loaning with intention of getting someone's name on an insurance policy, not loaning expected to get paid back). Else, they should stop FHA loans.
You watch too much TV. There's nothing I can say and no facts that I can show you to convince you that the Tyco exect is the exception, not the rule. I'll be the first to tell you that the things that the Tyco, Worldcom, and Enron exects have done are wrong. However, it does not change the fact that the owners of wealth should be compensated for the risks and investments they make. To the same degree that mishandling company money is wrong, denying the producers of significant financial rewards for significant risks is wrong.
You see, there are two kinds of people in the world. The first type knows without a doubt that there is a limited number of resources in the world, and if somebody has more resources than them, that's way to much. I don't know how much money you make, but I bet if you double that amount, you have argued that people that make more money than 2X make too much money. These type of people that make $10,000 a year swear that guys who make $20,000 a year are hording the money and live in too much luxury. Guys who make 20k, complain about those who make 40k. And those who make 50k complain about those who make 100k. The other type of person knows without a doubt that there is an abundant amount of resources in the world... there's plenty of money, food, gas, etc. for every person in the world. These people seek out ways to make money using the tools they have, and they spend there time in their own sphere of influence. They don't compare themselves to those who make more money, and they are generous to their families and charities.
I believe you may be the first type of person, and there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Self-made millionares are the other type of people. If you have an open mind, read, "The Millionare Next Door" or "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". It will show you a new way. If you're content blaiming your financial problems on the evil upper class, keep on going. It's a comfortable place to be, mentaly I suppose. You don't have to admit that you are responsable for your own financial sitution. It is an achievable thing to go from rags to riches. I know of people who have come from the desolate coal mines of West Virginia to come to know luxury and the spoils of wealth. They did it twice. But it's all about your outlook on life. Everyone is capable, as I've seen all races, religions, and backgrounds go from 0 to millions in one lifetime.
I distinctly remember when one even modest blue collar income was more than ample to support a family with home ownership, many children, a car, etc, now, this is not possible, it just isn't happening.
This just isn't true. Life is a lot better now than it was even 30 years ago, 40 years, or 50 years. It just is. Okay, people's expectations have gone up. They expect to have to have three cars, the luxary sedan, the sport utility, the jeep or the sports car. Come on. Bring the wife home, have only one car, lay off the electronics, stick to the basics, like what was the standar 30 years ago, and you will find that you have MORE expendable income than was available 30 years ago.