...and this is why I wouldn't even consider buying the game.
Besides, just 10 more days until WoW.
YEAH! Let's boycott a game because you can't play it offline and because it is published by the evil Vivendi. Oh wait...I guess that would mean boycotting World of Warcraft too...
People who are going to buy HL2 are going to buy HL2.
That may or may not be true. The real point is that Vivendi wants to book it in the 4th quarter because they have been having financial troubles. Booking it in the 4th quarter means that they can reasonably say to their stakeholders that they are turning things around.
Except that VHS could hold 2 hours of programming and Betamax was limited to 90 minutes at high quality. The ability to put a 2 hour movie on 1 tape was the "killer app" for VHS.
Here is a website that tries to list all of "The Wilhelm" occurrences in films.
They claim "A series of short painful screams performed by an actor were recorded in 1951 for the Warner Brother's film "Distant Drums." They were used for a scene where a man is bitten and dragged underwater by an alligator. The recording was archived into the studio's sound effects library -- and it was used in many of their films since.
"Star Wars" Sound Designer Ben Burtt tracked down the scream recording - which he named "Wilhelm" after a character who let out the same scream in the film "Charge at Feather River." Ben has adopted the scream as sort of a personal sound signature, and has included it in many of the films he has worked on. He and a small circle of sound effects people, including myself and Richard Anderson, continue the crusade to keep Wilhelm alive. The Wilhelm Scream continues to be heard in new films every year."
Speaking of quickly the bill passed at 5:50 PM EST.
Here is the text of the bill that is now headed to the President:
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry. (Introduced in House)
HR 3161 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3161
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 24, 2003
Mr. TAUZIN (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. UPTON, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY.
(a) AUTHORITY- The Federal Trade Commission is authorized under section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry.
(b) RATIFICATION- The do-not-call registry provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.
"If you live in a state west of the Mississippi River (including Minnesota or Louisiana), you can call toll-free, 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236), from the number you wish to register." -- From the FTC's web site
'Give the wookie what he wants!' as Han Solo said so memorably in the first 'Star Wars' movie.
Is a far cry from...
THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
THREEPIO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
HAN: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket
when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
THREEPIO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let
the Wookiee win.
Another point that the article fails to mention is that, for the most part, every politician who sends political spam is going to piss off far more voters than he will win over. At this point it becomes another example of nature weeding out the stupid. Assuming they run the rest of their campaign the way they run the email portion, they will lose and we won't get any more email from those jerks.
That's the difference between the two--commercial spam pays, political spam doesn't.
That reminds me a lot of the cool "Food Cooling System" that Time magazine named one of the best inventions of 2001. Put them both together and you almost have a kitchen!:)
I'm sorry, but doesn't anyone have the balls to say, "George...that sucks. Come up with a better idea." I mean, sure he made some kick butt films, but that was when he was still hungry. These days everybody that works for him just tells him what he wants to hear! I can picture the production meetings...George walks in, tells everyone his "great ideas," and leaves. Later an artist can be overheard saying, "Right, and then George told me that he wanted Jar Jar's ears to be really floppy. And I told him, 'George you are PURE GOLD!'"
I am a staunch Democrat and always have been, but on this issue I must agree with the "fair and balanced" Fox news and I bet that most other Democrats would also. On most issues Democrats consistently come out in favor of consumer's rights. You only have to look at historical examples ranging from automobile safety to the breakup of AT&T to realize that the precedent strongly favors the Dems. For the most part we are in favor of government assistance in balancing the playing field (mostly by trying to check the interests of big corporations). The Microsoft trial is a great example. The case was vigorously pursued by the Clinton administration and it looks like the Bush administration is basically giving up on it.
That's why the SSSCA is such an interesting case. It looks and smells very bad indeed when you have prominent Democratic leaders like Hollings, Boxer and Kerry falling in line with the people who gave them huge amounts of money.
The author also tries to compare this to the Enron debacle--please...how many people lost their life savings here... But I do think that they have one thing in common. They are both fabulous examples of why we need meaningful campaign finance reform.
I'm guessing that for the majority of viewers the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
I think that's total hogwash! There are many media business models that self-support without advertising support. You just have to look at the book industry, the video game industry and the motion picture industry to realize that people will pay for quality entertainment without commercials. We shouldn't be asked to subsidize outdated business models by legislating digital rights management.
I think the questioner was asking if she will rely on only these responses to make her decision. The answer is contained in the story:
"The department has said it received about 30,000 comments, mostly via e-mail. The rest of the letters will be published on the Internet and on CD-ROMs."
It looks to me like they all will be considered, but only a select few are available on the web.
There is really very little on television worth wading through the torrent of commercials. >br> Back when the broadcasters were still considered public servants, the NAB self-limited their members to 4 commercials per break and one break per 15 minutes. Today we're lucky if the total time of the commericals doesn't exceed the program time. (The Olympics for example)
from the article:
I asked Steven Brown, the FAA official in charge of airspace, why Boston? Because the planes that hit New York took off there? He said, essentially, If you knew what we know, you'd understand. What he actually said was "The vulnerabilities in Boston, those known to the public and others, are unique." Until we do know what he knows, there's no choice but to take it on faith. Maybe this is where Dick Cheney has been.
I realize there are a lot of government jobs in the Big Dig...
Seriously, does anyone know what is so important about the Boston airspace?
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making something for $1 and then selling it for $10... if people are willing to pay $10 for it. I also have nothing against making something for $1 and selling it for $10,000.
Neither do I, mainly because if you can make something for $1.00 and sell it for $10.00, it's very likely that someone else will also be able to make that something for $1 and be willing to sell it for $2 (or less). For the most part the market is self correcting.
The Ford Motor Company stockholders meeting will be held on May 9th, 2002. Perhaps a few of us should show up and ask why Ford is wasting so much money on a suit like this. Clearly they could block all referals from any site they wish (much cheaper than a lawsuit).
This is not how I would want my publicly held company to behave.
Slashdot Mirror
...and this is why I wouldn't even consider buying the game.
Besides, just 10 more days until WoW.
YEAH! Let's boycott a game because you can't play it offline and because it is published by the evil Vivendi. Oh wait...I guess that would mean boycotting World of Warcraft too...
People who are going to buy HL2 are going to buy HL2.
That may or may not be true. The real point is that Vivendi wants to book it in the 4th quarter because they have been having financial troubles. Booking it in the 4th quarter means that they can reasonably say to their stakeholders that they are turning things around.
Except that VHS could hold 2 hours of programming and Betamax was limited to 90 minutes at high quality. The ability to put a 2 hour movie on 1 tape was the "killer app" for VHS.
Here is a website that tries to list all of "The Wilhelm" occurrences in films.
They claim "A series of short painful screams performed by an actor were recorded in 1951 for the Warner Brother's film "Distant Drums." They were used for a scene where a man is bitten and dragged underwater by an alligator. The recording was archived into the studio's sound effects library -- and it was used in many of their films since.
"Star Wars" Sound Designer Ben Burtt tracked down the scream recording - which he named "Wilhelm" after a character who let out the same scream in the film "Charge at Feather River." Ben has adopted the scream as sort of a personal sound signature, and has included it in many of the films he has worked on. He and a small circle of sound effects people, including myself and Richard Anderson, continue the crusade to keep Wilhelm alive. The Wilhelm Scream continues to be heard in new films every year."
Here is the text of the bill that is now headed to the President:
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry. (Introduced in House)
HR 3161 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3161
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 24, 2003
Mr. TAUZIN (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. UPTON, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY.
(a) AUTHORITY- The Federal Trade Commission is authorized under section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry.
(b) RATIFICATION- The do-not-call registry provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.
"If you live in a state west of the Mississippi River (including Minnesota or Louisiana), you can call toll-free, 1-888-382-1222 (TTY 1-866-290-4236), from the number you wish to register." -- From the FTC's web site
GET IT RIGHT!!!
'Give the wookie what he wants!' as Han Solo said so memorably in the first 'Star Wars' movie.
Is a far cry from...
THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
THREEPIO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
HAN: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
THREEPIO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee win.
(I have a lot of free time...)
Another point that the article fails to mention is that, for the most part, every politician who sends political spam is going to piss off far more voters than he will win over. At this point it becomes another example of nature weeding out the stupid. Assuming they run the rest of their campaign the way they run the email portion, they will lose and we won't get any more email from those jerks. That's the difference between the two--commercial spam pays, political spam doesn't.
That reminds me a lot of the cool "Food Cooling System" that Time magazine named one of the best inventions of 2001. Put them both together and you almost have a kitchen! :)
...bigfartingfatguy.
I'm sorry, but doesn't anyone have the balls to say, "George...that sucks. Come up with a better idea." I mean, sure he made some kick butt films, but that was when he was still hungry. These days everybody that works for him just tells him what he wants to hear! I can picture the production meetings...George walks in, tells everyone his "great ideas," and leaves. Later an artist can be overheard saying, "Right, and then George told me that he wanted Jar Jar's ears to be really floppy. And I told him, 'George you are PURE GOLD!'"
...this article with a bit more detail.
...Netscape isn't in a position where they are free to lose money.
As far as I'm concerned, AOL Time Warner is in a great postion to lose money. The more the better!
I am a staunch Democrat and always have been, but on this issue I must agree with the "fair and balanced" Fox news and I bet that most other Democrats would also. On most issues Democrats consistently come out in favor of consumer's rights. You only have to look at historical examples ranging from automobile safety to the breakup of AT&T to realize that the precedent strongly favors the Dems. For the most part we are in favor of government assistance in balancing the playing field (mostly by trying to check the interests of big corporations). The Microsoft trial is a great example. The case was vigorously pursued by the Clinton administration and it looks like the Bush administration is basically giving up on it.
That's why the SSSCA is such an interesting case. It looks and smells very bad indeed when you have prominent Democratic leaders like Hollings, Boxer and Kerry falling in line with the people who gave them huge amounts of money.
The author also tries to compare this to the Enron debacle--please...how many people lost their life savings here... But I do think that they have one thing in common. They are both fabulous examples of why we need meaningful campaign finance reform.
The Correct URL
I'm guessing that for the majority of viewers the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"
I think that's total hogwash! There are many media business models that self-support without advertising support. You just have to look at the book industry, the video game industry and the motion picture industry to realize that people will pay for quality entertainment without commercials. We shouldn't be asked to subsidize outdated business models by legislating digital rights management.
That's exactly what I meant (and said). I'm sure that eventually they will all be available on the web--even the spam.
I think the questioner was asking if she will rely on only these responses to make her decision. The answer is contained in the story:
"The department has said it received about 30,000 comments, mostly via e-mail. The rest of the letters will be published on the Internet and on CD-ROMs."
It looks to me like they all will be considered, but only a select few are available on the web.
There is really very little on television worth wading through the torrent of commercials. >br>
Back when the broadcasters were still considered public servants, the NAB self-limited their members to 4 commercials per break and one break per 15 minutes. Today we're lucky if the total time of the commericals doesn't exceed the program time. (The Olympics for example)
The New York State Office of the Attorney General has made public a pdf file with the full text of the petition. Makes for some interesting reading.
The Register is running this article further describing the situation.
from the article: I asked Steven Brown, the FAA official in charge of airspace, why Boston? Because the planes that hit New York took off there? He said, essentially, If you knew what we know, you'd understand. What he actually said was "The vulnerabilities in Boston, those known to the public and others, are unique." Until we do know what he knows, there's no choice but to take it on faith. Maybe this is where Dick Cheney has been.
I realize there are a lot of government jobs in the Big Dig...
Seriously, does anyone know what is so important about the Boston airspace?
Commercials just make me sick.
I'm writing this I watch the Super Bowl. I do love the Super Bowl because they have the best commercials!
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making something for $1 and then selling it for $10... if people are willing to pay $10 for it. I also have nothing against making something for $1 and selling it for $10,000.
Neither do I, mainly because if you can make something for $1.00 and sell it for $10.00, it's very likely that someone else will also be able to make that something for $1 and be willing to sell it for $2 (or less). For the most part the market is self correcting.
The Ford Motor Company stockholders meeting will be held on May 9th, 2002. Perhaps a few of us should show up and ask why Ford is wasting so much money on a suit like this. Clearly they could block all referals from any site they wish (much cheaper than a lawsuit).
This is not how I would want my publicly held company to behave.