They're still at it.. Remember Jonathan Schwartz trying to convice Apple to save Solaris from the ash heap of history a couple of months back?
-jcr
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now?
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
"A Bug's Life" was a knock-off of "Antz"!
Guess again.
Bug's life was in production for several years before Katzenberg decided he had to do a bug movie, too.
-jcr
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now?
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I should say that the golden age of CG movies are now over.
That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.
They're already here.. Didn't you hear about "Antz", the knock-off of "A Bug's Life"?
CGI is new tool. Some great movies will be made with it, and a probably a lot of crap, too. Take a look at some of the lesser movies that were being made at the same time as Citizen Kane. Did they keep Orson Wells from making his masterpiece?
-jcr
Re:Good luck to Steve J...
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If it looks like Disney's paying attention to what the Pixar people tell them, then I'll be buying Disney shares this summer. The real key for Disney Animation is John Lasseter. If they put him in charge, expect great movies.
As for the business side of things, I hope this means we'll see ALL of the Disney archives available on line. I'll pay two bucks for Steamboat Willie on my iPod, and there's a whole lot of other classics I'd love to see again.
One of the reasons that Pixar does so well is the culture of the shop, developed by Jobs and run by Jobs.
Umm.. Acording the people I know there, Steve is the banker, Ed Catmull runs the company, and John Lasseter is the man in charge of the movies. Pixar works very, very well, because they recruit the best people they can find, and they let them do their jobs.
but what happens when private property owners interfere with each other's rights?
Then you litigate the issue.
The notion of government not being a part of the market is ridiculous.
You seem to have a habit of arguing against things that haven't been said.
Why is it that Libertarians never deal with these issues, and just say that the free market is everything?
Nonsense. Libertarians deal with these issues all the time, much more so than the parties of the status quo. I've never heard any Libertarian say that the "free market is everything". The market is just something that emerges when people are free to exchange goods and services. What Libertarians say is that if you want to impose a limit on freedom, you're the one who has to prove the need to do so.
In some cases, the need is simple and obvious, such as the law of nuisance that prohibits you from dumping your garbage on my lawn. In other cases, such as the "community service" requirement that some states have lately imposed on high school students as a graduation requirement, that need is highly suspect.
I've also heard that vultures and other scavenging birds have incredibly effective immune systems. They must be exposed to all kinds of nasty bugs, eating decaying carcasses as they do.
Since most of the antibiotics are related to secretions from molds like penicillin, soil bacteria probably encounter them much more than parasitic bacteria in animals would.
I'm talking about the "free market" in the Libertarian sense - the idea that economics and property rights should trump all else
You have no understanding at all of the Libertarian position, apparently.
Libertarians consider the free market to be a consequence of liberty itself: it's what happens when government doesn't intrude on the economic decisions of private parties. Liberty requires no justification: when you propose to interfere with someone's choices, the burden of proof is on the government to show the necessity of that interference.
Doesn't this starkly expose the futility and dysfunctionality of the stock market system, and discredit the idea that "the free market" has some sort of guiding hand that will give the best results?
In a word, no.
Nobody ever promised that liberty produces the best results at all times, it's just that all attempts to centrally plan an economy have been dismal failures, often accompanied by appalling loss of millions of lives.
The whole market's taking a hit from the Nikkei scare, and the oil prices. I doubt that most of GOOG's investors even know that there's any issue with the DoJ's unreasonable demands on Google.
There is no doubt that FDR knew about the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor from hundreds if not thousands of monitored Japanese communications as well as highly placed sources from several different countries.
The surprise was that the attack occured before a declaration of war. That's why the USA was so determined to defeat Japan utterly.
The myth that the Japanese could've conquered the United States, is at best, a laughable one.
The reason why Japan needed to be defeated and remade as a free country, was not just the danger they posed to the USA, but the horriffic damage they inflicted on the rest of Asia. Try telling someone in China, Indonesia, the Phillippines or Singapore that the Japanese should have been ignored by the USA after the Pearl Harbor attack.
There are plenty of people who argue that Churchill (at least) and possibly FDR knew perfectly well about the impending attack and did nothing, in order to draw America into the war.
As much as I dislike FDR, I give that conspiracy theory no credence whatsoever.
Ron Paul tried to amend the measure authorizing the initial funding for the second Iraq war to include a formal declaration of war, and he was shouted down by both wings of the Ruling Party. It really was a fascinating episode.
And what was your plan? Surrender to the Japanese?
Oooh! Nice straw man there. Since we didn't lock up all the German and Italian Americans, does that mean we surrendered to Germany and Italy?
Of course, I wasn't around at the time, but it's pretty clear to me, as it was to J. Edgar Hoover[1] that locking people up for their ethnicity was not only illegal, but utterly unprecendented in the history of the United States. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but even he didn't go as far as locking up any and all people from the southern states, whether or not they were suspected of espionage or any other crime.
-jcr
[1] Hoover the Scumbag went ahead and participated in this illegal activity, but he did raise the objection. Surprised the hell out of me when I read about that.
where, precisely, does the Constitution give the President the authority to override the Bill of Rights?
It doesn't.
Article 2 lays out the powers of the president, and they're rather extensive in time of war or insurrection (which is why Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus). The fact that the last war that was actually declared by the congress as the consitution requires was WW 2, places any claim of wartime power on rather tenuous grounds. There's a reason why the constitution reserves the power to declare war to the congress: it's supposed to be very difficult to do.
Hell, it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and that amendment has been repealed. Where's the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana? Why are my federal tax dollars spent harassing cancer patients in California, where we've voted to allow them to smoke pot?
The long and short of it is, the constitution is nothing more than a statement of intentions. Whether it's followed or ignored depends entirely on the willingness of the people to tolerate or fight against encroachments on our liberty by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
They're still at it.. Remember Jonathan Schwartz trying to convice Apple to save Solaris from the ash heap of history a couple of months back?
-jcr
"A Bug's Life" was a knock-off of "Antz"!
Guess again.
Bug's life was in production for several years before Katzenberg decided he had to do a bug movie, too.
-jcr
I should say that the golden age of CG movies are now over.
That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.
They're already here.. Didn't you hear about "Antz", the knock-off of "A Bug's Life"?
CGI is new tool. Some great movies will be made with it, and a probably a lot of crap, too. Take a look at some of the lesser movies that were being made at the same time as Citizen Kane. Did they keep Orson Wells from making his masterpiece?
-jcr
If it looks like Disney's paying attention to what the Pixar people tell them, then I'll be buying Disney shares this summer. The real key for Disney Animation is John Lasseter. If they put him in charge, expect great movies.
As for the business side of things, I hope this means we'll see ALL of the Disney archives available on line. I'll pay two bucks for Steamboat Willie on my iPod, and there's a whole lot of other classics I'd love to see again.
-jcr
It's a doctrine of copyright law, which the RIAA and its predecessors have always fought against.
-jcr
The Apple/Next fiasco
Fiasco? It's one of the greatest turnaround stories in the history of American business.
-jcr
Pixar is all about art that is profitable.
The mantra at Pixar is, "story, story, story". They're all about the story, and that's why they're profitable.
-jcr
One of the reasons that Pixar does so well is the culture of the shop, developed by Jobs and run by Jobs.
Umm.. Acording the people I know there, Steve is the banker, Ed Catmull runs the company, and John Lasseter is the man in charge of the movies. Pixar works very, very well, because they recruit the best people they can find, and they let them do their jobs.
-jcr
but what happens when private property owners interfere with each other's rights?
Then you litigate the issue.
The notion of government not being a part of the market is ridiculous.
You seem to have a habit of arguing against things that haven't been said.
Why is it that Libertarians never deal with these issues, and just say that the free market is everything?
Nonsense. Libertarians deal with these issues all the time, much more so than the parties of the status quo. I've never heard any Libertarian say that the "free market is everything". The market is just something that emerges when people are free to exchange goods and services. What Libertarians say is that if you want to impose a limit on freedom, you're the one who has to prove the need to do so.
In some cases, the need is simple and obvious, such as the law of nuisance that prohibits you from dumping your garbage on my lawn. In other cases, such as the "community service" requirement that some states have lately imposed on high school students as a graduation requirement, that need is highly suspect.
-jcr
I've also heard that vultures and other scavenging birds have incredibly effective immune systems. They must be exposed to all kinds of nasty bugs, eating decaying carcasses as they do.
-jcr
Since most of the antibiotics are related to secretions from molds like penicillin, soil bacteria probably encounter them much more than parasitic bacteria in animals would.
-jcr
I'm talking about the "free market" in the Libertarian sense - the idea that economics and property rights should trump all else
You have no understanding at all of the Libertarian position, apparently.
Libertarians consider the free market to be a consequence of liberty itself: it's what happens when government doesn't intrude on the economic decisions of private parties. Liberty requires no justification: when you propose to interfere with someone's choices, the burden of proof is on the government to show the necessity of that interference.
-jcr
IMHO, AMD is the better one.
Not for a company that's trying meet high-volume demand, it's not.
-jcr
Doesn't this starkly expose the futility and dysfunctionality of the stock market system, and discredit the idea that "the free market" has some sort of guiding hand that will give the best results?
In a word, no.
Nobody ever promised that liberty produces the best results at all times, it's just that all attempts to centrally plan an economy have been dismal failures, often accompanied by appalling loss of millions of lives.
-jcr
The whole market's taking a hit from the Nikkei scare, and the oil prices. I doubt that most of GOOG's investors even know that there's any issue with the DoJ's unreasonable demands on Google.
-jcr
There is no doubt that FDR knew about the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor from hundreds if not thousands of monitored Japanese communications as well as highly placed sources from several different countries.
The surprise was that the attack occured before a declaration of war. That's why the USA was so determined to defeat Japan utterly.
-jcr
The myth that the Japanese could've conquered the United States, is at best, a laughable one.
The reason why Japan needed to be defeated and remade as a free country, was not just the danger they posed to the USA, but the horriffic damage they inflicted on the rest of Asia. Try telling someone in China, Indonesia, the Phillippines or Singapore that the Japanese should have been ignored by the USA after the Pearl Harbor attack.
-jcr
There are plenty of people who argue that Churchill (at least) and possibly FDR knew perfectly well about the impending attack and did nothing, in order to draw America into the war.
As much as I dislike FDR, I give that conspiracy theory no credence whatsoever.
-jcr
If President Kennedy was alive today, the state of current American politics would bring him to tears
Oh, he was a great one for rehtoric all right, but when the chips were down he abandoned Cuba's last chance to topple Castro.
-jcr
First of all, you spelled "apoligised" completely wrong.
So did you.
-jcr
Ron Paul tried to amend the measure authorizing the initial funding for the second Iraq war to include a formal declaration of war, and he was shouted down by both wings of the Ruling Party. It really was a fascinating episode.
-jcr
YES, McCarthy and Hitler were exactly at the same level of scum.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on McCarthy's plan to 1) conquer the world, or 2) exterminate a race of people?
That's OK, we can wait.
-jcr
And what was your plan? Surrender to the Japanese?
Oooh! Nice straw man there. Since we didn't lock up all the German and Italian Americans, does that mean we surrendered to Germany and Italy?
Of course, I wasn't around at the time, but it's pretty clear to me, as it was to J. Edgar Hoover[1] that locking people up for their ethnicity was not only illegal, but utterly unprecendented in the history of the United States. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but even he didn't go as far as locking up any and all people from the southern states, whether or not they were suspected of espionage or any other crime.
-jcr
[1] Hoover the Scumbag went ahead and participated in this illegal activity, but he did raise the objection. Surprised the hell out of me when I read about that.
Ah well, please go back to your fox induced reality,
Well, you said you weren't going to debate him, and I see that you're keeping your word.
-jcr
where, precisely, does the Constitution give the President the authority to override the Bill of Rights?
It doesn't.
Article 2 lays out the powers of the president, and they're rather extensive in time of war or insurrection (which is why Lincoln was able to suspend Habeas Corpus). The fact that the last war that was actually declared by the congress as the consitution requires was WW 2, places any claim of wartime power on rather tenuous grounds. There's a reason why the constitution reserves the power to declare war to the congress: it's supposed to be very difficult to do.
Hell, it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and that amendment has been repealed. Where's the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana? Why are my federal tax dollars spent harassing cancer patients in California, where we've voted to allow them to smoke pot?
The long and short of it is, the constitution is nothing more than a statement of intentions. Whether it's followed or ignored depends entirely on the willingness of the people to tolerate or fight against encroachments on our liberty by the government.
-jcr