In the first week. I seem to remember it falling off pretty quickly after that. At the price of tickets these days, a seemingly big number doesn't translate into as many viewers as it used to, and as expensive as the production & marketing of a big modern summer movie is, I bet it won't be nearly as profitable as, say, "A Mighty Wind".
You are correct. It feel over 50% in the second week, and the third week... just like every movie that's come out this summer and opened at #1. I can't find a website that references the adjusted-dollar list of the top movies, but I do know Matrix Reloaded is in the top 75, at the very least. I also found out that it's already hit $700,000,000 worldwide... it's currently #13 on the all-time actual dollar amounts.
Not that profit is everything of course, but in this case I think there's a lot to be said for the smaller, more nuanced, and yes probably more profitable movie than the big summer "tits & explosions" kind of movie like Matrix or XXX.
I agree, as long as they're worthwhile. I enjoyed My Big Fat Greek Wedding just as much as almost everyone else did... because it was well-done, and didn't feel like a bottom-rung budget movie. In my opinion, most movies that don't have much of a budget LOOK like they don't have much of a budget. When I watch a movie and think "Hey, I know a friend who did that same shot with his $200 digital camera", it takes me out of the movie experience, and I don't enjoy it as much... but there are low-budget exceptions.
Besides, what's wrong with tits and explosions (besides Charlie's Angels 2)?
YMMV of course, but then given your username, you might be slightly biased...:-)
It's not stupid to buy this DVD if it allows you to watch the first and second movie just before the third one comes out.
I tend to think they'll do the same with this one as they did with the first... release the DVD, then release a companion DVD with a lot more special features. Then you don't waste any money, you get to watch the movie immediately, and you also get the features that everyone else seems to be waiting for.
What I think is stupid is to call other people stupid.
And yet you did, with your ranting about cigarettes, junk food, and SUV's. What if I don't care about my health, enjoy being fat, and don't believe SUV's have any effect on the environment? Then you just effectively called me stupid... I don't smoke, but I do eat a lot of junk food and drive an SUV. I eat junk food because it tastes good, and I'm as healthy as anyone I've ever seen (I'm skinny, like my parents, and don't expect to ever have a weight problem). I drive an SUV because it's more comfortable for me to step up into a vehicle than slouch down to get into one. It gets better gas mileage than my old Ford Escort, and I can put more of my cigarettes, junk food, and DVD's in it too.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the movie more or less tanked in theatres.
Tanked? It's number 19 on the ALL-TIME BOX OFFICE with over $270,000,000, not including overseas. Worldwide, before all is said and done, it'll probably make $600,000,000. Hell, if that's doing terribly, sign me up.
why?? I refuse to buy any movie twice.. I waited for the real special edition for LOTR and refused to buy the rushed out regular crap... same as for TTT, I ain't buyin it until they release the REAL one.
Begin kicking yourself in the ass now. The special features on the "regular" DVD for LOTR are COMPLETELY different than the ones that come with the special edition that was released (and will be released) 2 months after the initial one. I bought them both, knowing full well that I'd be spending another $65 (gift set) in November.
Matrix? Dont own the first one yet.. as the real "special edition" isn't out yet... and wont be until they are ready to wring the last dime out with the 3 disc set super duper special edition with Free 60000 hours of AOL!
Yes, they double-dip too many movies. Yes, it's annoying. Although with your attitude, you'll never own a DVD for fear that in 6 months, they might come out with a better one. I have 3 copies of Terminator 2 right now. They might come out with a box set after Terminator 14 (yes, fourteen) comes out in June 2058. Am I really worried about it? No. In the meantime, if I feel like it, I can watch Arnold kick some ass anytime I want, which is, don't forget, the primary purpose of owning a movie... not the special features.
As far as buying "REAL" DVD's, how many do you own? What's your favorite one?
The ends-justify-the-means argument, which can go on forever.
I honestly didn't realize it was that much of an argument. As far as I knew, everyone had come to the realization that the ends generally do not justify the means, with few and infrequent exceptions.
But sitting alone with your conscience is a consequence of all actions you choose, isn't it?
That's assuming someone has a conscience... and unfortunately, I know quite a few people in positions of power that don't.
I would write a statement with my stance, to protect myself, and do what my boss tells me. He is the one who controls my actions while at work. It's wrong to put my personal opinions above those who are in charge of me.
I may not have drawn the scenario quite as well as I wanted, but if the situation called specifically for either a stance based on your morals and ethics, as opposed to someone else's, which would you choose? In the scenario I described, my boss told me to do several things that were blatantly unethical, and eventually, I refused. I was fired, but I was better off after I got a job at a better place earning more money with better benefits, etc. He's still doing his version of business, and from what I hear, he's the subject of many, many lawsuits.
As my mother taught me, and I really took it to hard (and have scars to prove it) -- "There is no right or wrong in life, only consequences."
Two things, first, I think you meant "I took it to heart", meaning that the statement is "near and dear" to you.
Second, saying that there is no right and wrong in life is a cop-out. It helps you justify your actions or inactions based solely on their outcome. A right decision made for the wrong reasons can be a wrong decision... just like a wrong decision made for right reasons can be a right decision (although unlikely). Wrong decisions are much easier to make than right ones, simply because the number of wrong decisions is so much higher than the number of right ones. If you make a bad decision that doesn't directly affect you, is it still a bad decision, as far as you're concerned? If your boss tells you that you'll be fired unless you agree to prematurally ship a piece of software, that could result in hundreds of computers nation-wide to be vulnerable to security breakins by script-kiddies, what do you do? Ship the software (no direct consequences for you), or hold to your "quality software" stance?
The spread of AIDS in the early years was an exponential function. Had the government made some effort to prevent its spread, the "epidemic" would have turned into nothing of the kind.
What would you suggest? Government-sponsored surgically overlaying condoms on your penis, so when you go bang a hooker, you won't get AIDS?
What is so great right our country right now that we should be the bellweather of what is considered great?
Our country is great simply because we're better than any other country. The example you gave, France, is definitely not a great example of how a country can operate. They have much higher unemployment, a higher national debt, lower average wages, lower average intelligence, and no power or authority to change anything in the course of history. The same things apply to most of the other countries in the world at the moment.
We have been reduced to rich bullies that play the role of police officer for the world.
Just to be clear, are you advocating a hands-off approach to foreign relations? That's a perfectly acceptable point of view, and one that I happen to agree with, but I can see how many, many people wouldn't. They see it as the duty and responsibility of the United States to patrol the world, looking for bad guys. What other reason did we go into Iraq, or Somalia, or any other wars in the past 50 years? What other reason might we go into Liberia, other than to fix the problems that others have created? I tend to think we have enough problems at home to deal with before running off to fight wars for the UN. In my opinion, if the UN never does anything for us, we should never do anything for them (and what have they EVER done for us?).
If you want to pick nits... most of the Amendments of the last 100 years have been due to popular public opinion. Just ask any woman or minority. These Amendments went straight against the original intent of the founding documents of this country. Women can't vote, blacks don't count as a person (only 3/5), abortion as usage of modern science, etc etc.
Amendments are one thing... the Supreme Court is something else. I see what you're saying though. Most of the amendments that have been passed are only because of the protests and "persuasion" of Congress. As an argument I was having with someone else just a few days ago, "how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional". The answer, which he never saw, was that it was brought about by Un-Constitutional, and illegal methods, and should never have been voted for in the first place. I'm not a racist or a sexist, but many of the amendments are just plain stupid (I think of the Income Tax as one). It directly contradicted the established Constitution, and was voted for because people were only thinking about their own personal agendas, not for the good of the country. I think the Supreme Court should have stopped that amendment as soon as it was proposed. After all, "Amendment" does NOT mean "Revision"...
The first time a Justice dissents, and it is all over.
I can understand certain ways of dissention, but the arguments used for many of them today are not based on the Constitution. They're based on political or personal agendas, and that's where it goes wrong. Fortunately, there are still enough SCJ's to rule in favor of the Constitution most of the time.
Education is a problem, but for a different reason I think. Up until 30 years ago, teaching was a highly respectable endeavor. Now it has been reduced to "those that can't, teach." Until teachers are treated as most honorable shapers of the future (which is what they are), the effort put into the system will continue to scale down. This effort is not just from the teachers, but the students as well. For a nice example of what I am referring to, go to Japan.
I think teaching will become a respectable position when the teaching is done by those who want to do it, enjoy it, and are good at it. Teaching should be considered Civil Service, not a job. If I told people that I volunteered my time to teach, they'd be impressed. If I told them I taught for a living, they wouldn't. I'm not saying teachers should be volunteers... I think they should receive a salary, but that shouldn't be the primary reason they're a teacher. While we're at it, get rid of tenured profes
I actually do know what the fundamental laws of physics are... and, not to be rude or anything, but they broke most of the laws of aerodynamics to create the stealth bomber.
None of these other universes would be anything we could interact with, yet they determine (by the particular combination of laws that they don't contain) the fundamental laws of our universe.
That hurts my head just thinking about it. So let me ask you this, if we discover it's theoretically possible to break one of the fundamental laws of physics, and do so, does the parallel universe spiral into oblivion (as we probably would also)?
My basic fear is; this country is going straight into the shitter.... MLK Jr must be rolling over in his grave.
I absolutely couldn't agree with you more. I think the biggest "concern" that the "minorities" have is what they like to call "diversity", which is gradually turning into the source for a good number of problems, including the dumbing down of our nation's children, discrimination against "non-minorities", etc. At some point, the general public will realize this is what's happening... which is why you and I are here.:-) It's nice to be needed...
The political system of the USA can not stand much longer only representing 2 points of view. Countries the size of Texas (France for one) have 7 or even more major political parties.
While I agree, I must ask you this: Are we judging our country by the standards set by other countries? I think it should be the other way around. Other countries should judge their greatness by our standard. However, I do agree that 2 political parties simply isn't enough.
what party is for someone who is pro-choice and also pro gun?
The party I've chosen is both pro-choice and pro-gun... the Libertarian party. Essentially, I believe the government screws up almost anything it touches, and thus should be as small as possible, affecting as few people, their choices, and their wallots, as possible.
At the top, we are being "represented" by something that does not resemble the current situation.
If by that statement you're referring to the Supreme Court, I have to agree, but disagree with changing it. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent long-term values, so the popular trends don't get made into permanent law if they contradict the Constitution. That's why they have life-time appointments. If they started voting for whatever the public wants, or thinks they want, the Supreme Court would become just as corrupt as the rest of the government already is. The only difference is that since they're lifetime appointments, it takes longer for them to become corrupt... even though some people (I won't mention any names) are trying to do so anyway.
And I really think most people today are stuck in the same old rut that screwed over people throughout history; complacency and the status quo.
Definitely. There are things being done in our collective names that would have most people want to move to another country. The only way things are going to change, in my very humble opinion, is to start at the beginning... education. We need to get rid of the teacher's unions and get teachers in there that WANT to teach, not that look at it as a job. Then get rid of all these stupid politically correct tests that only prove that the children aren't learning anything. Over time, our children will actually know what year our country was founded, or what country we had to fight to earn out independence (ironic how we fought for dependence from England, yet now are dependent on our own government, eh?). Once our children start to become more intelligent than our adults, and not the other way around, we can have some hope in the future.
Re:this better not replace what's already at museu
on
Real-World Hyperlinks
·
· Score: 1
Will this hinder museums from adding both visual and audio cues to their exhibits?
Unfortunately, most people never go to a museum anyway, so I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend an extraordinary amount of money updating a museum that only a very few enlightened souls will see.
I personally think that cell phones should be banned in public places such as museums and this will just encourage Joe to hop on his cell phone and chat with Mary while I am trying to enjoy some peace and quiet.
Who said you had a right to peace and quiet? Are you trying to take away Joe's right to talk to Mary? Are you trying to take away Mary's right to hear Joe's description of the sculptures and paintings, since Mary's at home taking care of the kids?
Generally, public places are pretty big. If Joe is bothering you that much, you can most likely go somewhere you can't hear him, and enjoy the peace and quiet... or, if you're the kind that thinks everyone else should respect your rights, and not the other way around, you could ask (or tell) Joe to go somewhere else while he talks to Mary. Either way, in the end both parties get what they want, and everyone is generally happy.
I saw some really interesting usages of computers in museums...
Ironically, I think computers are the primary reason museums aren't popular (if they ever were) anymore. With computers comes The Internet. People can look at their favorite works of art on the internet (as you have ironically demonstrated) rather than expend the time and energy it takes to visit them in person (especially since you can't touch a lot of the higher-end pieces). Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing some cutting-edge 3-D holographic pictures in a museum either...
Ten years from now, you won't be able to walk down a city street without a bombardment of media messages.
Hey, I saw that movie! It was pretty good. Tom Cruise is always good, but he was particularly good in that flick. Unfortunately, I found a couple of the scenes to be just slightly unrealistic. And Colin Farrell didn't have enough on-screen time.
I think he was pointing out the irony of how preteen sex is legal in Thailand, you just can't read about it. I could be wrong, but from the movies I've seen ("Me love you long time for 5 dollars!"), it's probably true.
I think the terms should be limited to something like 7 years. This way you can not have anyone there for 2 full presidential terms.
But that's defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for a long time, relatively speaking. Their opinions on how the law should be interpretted aren't supposed to be dictated by popular opinion. Most of the time, popular opinion would remember something that happened 8 or 9 years ago (remember Gulf War I? see, I'm right). If a SCJ rules against something that the public thinks is wrong, even if the SCJ ruled in accordance with established laws, even the Constitution, the public outlash could remove him/her from their seat, even though they did their job exactly as they were supposed to.
You do bring up valid points. Judges do have a tendency to vote on party lines, which has the appearance of being politically based. I see the problem as being that the judges aren't doing their jobs as they should, and instead, entering their personal feelings or opinions in their rulings. I won't take any examples, but pick any "contraversial" rulings, and you'll certainly find at least one judge entering in their decision one opinion or another, when all they should be saying is "Yes, that's in accordance with the Constitution" or "No, that's not what I think the Founding Fathers meant". Instead, we have judges citing "precidents" like diversity and individual privacy, neither of which appear anywhere in any documents describing how this nation should operate.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, because this isn't something most people think about, and certainly don't know much about. The issue does need to be addressed, but I'm not sure that term limits is the answer.
I'm sorry... this is just a pet peeve of mine. "Agreeance", while being an obsolete word, isn't a word in common usage, and thus shouldn't be used. We have invented a "replaceanced" word called "Agreement". Please, please use it... It's a good word.
As far as the content of your post, I agree... the American Legal System is a wreck and needs to be seriously rethought from the beginning. Then again, so does the American government.
Not much can change though until the Supreme Court is no longer a lifetime appointment.
In one way I agree. The Supreme Court might be better if it was a 30-year appointment. It makes sense, since the average lifespan in the Founding Fathers' time was 60 or so... they probably never expected people to live to be 95. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to represent the people. They're simply supposed to examine the laws and previous court cases, as written and decided, and determine if they are Constitutional or not. Limiting them to a term length similar to President or Senators would effectively make the Supreme Court as corrupt an institution as the Senate or the House. (Explanation: If the Supreme Court has to answer to their constituents every X number of years, they'll base their decisions not on the law, but rather on their constituents opinions, which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the Supreme Court to begin with.)
Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.
I have a better idea. How about making the drinking age 12? That way they can go out and get drunk when they're very young and get it "out of their system" (that's a figure of speech). Then when they learn to drive, "Big Brother" will know which ones to watch, since they'll already be known alcoholics. Crazy idea, I know, but just crazy enough to work.
I just simply don't have time to respond to all your rantings, but quite clearly, you're going to see Bush as being an evil man, no matter what evidence or proof is shown to you. So, it's a complete waste of my time and energy to try to convince you otherwise. To me, the fact that Saddam had the weapons, used them against his own people, then couldn't and wouldn't prove that he had gotten rid of them is evidence enough to convict. If I'm a convicted murder, and I get married, and my wife appears dead in my house with a knife in her chest with my neighbors saying that they saw me with the knife around the same time she died, I'd be convicted too. So, I apologize for taking up your time, and I hope at some point in the near future, you can look at things in an objective light to see the truth that seems to be escaping you.
I can't find anything definitive, but you might want to look at the Salary Surveys from SAGE. It seems fairly clear that there are more System Administrators that work with *nix than Windows. As of 2000, 69.7% worked with Solaris, while 66.6% (666? a sign, maybe?) worked with Windows NT. Linux was just a bit below that, at 62.8%, while Windows 2000, having just come out that year, was behind at 45.1%.
Of course, that WAS 3 years ago, and I don't have a membership to SAGE, so I can't tell what 2001 looked like... But it seems that there's more Sys Admins out there working with *nix than with Windows... hmmmmm.
Even at $30 a pop, that's 7 expansions, and the original game, plus The Sims Online, which carries a $10 monthly fee. If you buy the game, all the addons, and The Sims Online, you're up to $380, plus another $10 per month. That's a bit much. $400 for ANY game is too much. For that kind of money, I think they should give you a certificate for The Sims 2 for FREE, provided that you bought The Sims, and at least 5 of the addons.
By "Operating Costs" does that include the salary of the admins? Windows admins make a lot less than *nix admins (rightly so), so is paying more to the Linux admins included in their estimates?
Aside from that point, I don't know who would trust Microsoft enough to put their confidential financial information, especially payroll, on Windows...
My point was that the vulnerability already exists, and if you want to use them for those purposes, you should make sure that they really haven't been tampered with. You said "deal with the problem". That's exactly what I meant.There are probably off-the shelf apps that can compare two PDFs (there is one built in, but it could be better). If the only difference is the signature, then you're fine. Of course, it'd be much simpler if you just used ASCII -- and I don't see why not.
That's the point. PDF is useful only because it's a standard that has security so other people can't mess with it. If they can mess with the file, there's no point to have PDF anymore. I shouldn't HAVE TO compare what I send out with what I get back if the company making the product guarantees that it's secure. THAT is the problem, and THAT is what needs to be fixed. Again, you're not dealing with the problem, you're suggesting a work-around. Adobe should fix the vulnerability and make PDF a secure format again. If you don't want to use it, use something else. There's plenty of formats that aren't secure.
Slashdot Mirror
In the first week. I seem to remember it falling off pretty quickly after that. At the price of tickets these days, a seemingly big number doesn't translate into as many viewers as it used to, and as expensive as the production & marketing of a big modern summer movie is, I bet it won't be nearly as profitable as, say, "A Mighty Wind".
:-)
You are correct. It feel over 50% in the second week, and the third week... just like every movie that's come out this summer and opened at #1. I can't find a website that references the adjusted-dollar list of the top movies, but I do know Matrix Reloaded is in the top 75, at the very least. I also found out that it's already hit $700,000,000 worldwide... it's currently #13 on the all-time actual dollar amounts.
Not that profit is everything of course, but in this case I think there's a lot to be said for the smaller, more nuanced, and yes probably more profitable movie than the big summer "tits & explosions" kind of movie like Matrix or XXX.
I agree, as long as they're worthwhile. I enjoyed My Big Fat Greek Wedding just as much as almost everyone else did... because it was well-done, and didn't feel like a bottom-rung budget movie. In my opinion, most movies that don't have much of a budget LOOK like they don't have much of a budget. When I watch a movie and think "Hey, I know a friend who did that same shot with his $200 digital camera", it takes me out of the movie experience, and I don't enjoy it as much... but there are low-budget exceptions.
Besides, what's wrong with tits and explosions (besides Charlie's Angels 2)?
YMMV of course, but then given your username, you might be slightly biased...
Well, yeah... of course there's always THAT...
It's not stupid to buy this DVD if it allows you to watch the first and second movie just before the third one comes out.
I tend to think they'll do the same with this one as they did with the first... release the DVD, then release a companion DVD with a lot more special features. Then you don't waste any money, you get to watch the movie immediately, and you also get the features that everyone else seems to be waiting for.
What I think is stupid is to call other people stupid.
And yet you did, with your ranting about cigarettes, junk food, and SUV's. What if I don't care about my health, enjoy being fat, and don't believe SUV's have any effect on the environment? Then you just effectively called me stupid... I don't smoke, but I do eat a lot of junk food and drive an SUV. I eat junk food because it tastes good, and I'm as healthy as anyone I've ever seen (I'm skinny, like my parents, and don't expect to ever have a weight problem). I drive an SUV because it's more comfortable for me to step up into a vehicle than slouch down to get into one. It gets better gas mileage than my old Ford Escort, and I can put more of my cigarettes, junk food, and DVD's in it too.
you are aware you can rent DVD's now ... right?
Sure, for about $5. Or I can spend $15 and own it... I'm sure I'll watch it more than 3 times.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the movie more or less tanked in theatres.
Tanked? It's number 19 on the ALL-TIME BOX OFFICE with over $270,000,000, not including overseas. Worldwide, before all is said and done, it'll probably make $600,000,000. Hell, if that's doing terribly, sign me up.
why?? I refuse to buy any movie twice.. I waited for the real special edition for LOTR and refused to buy the rushed out regular crap... same as for TTT, I ain't buyin it until they release the REAL one.
Begin kicking yourself in the ass now. The special features on the "regular" DVD for LOTR are COMPLETELY different than the ones that come with the special edition that was released (and will be released) 2 months after the initial one. I bought them both, knowing full well that I'd be spending another $65 (gift set) in November.
Matrix? Dont own the first one yet.. as the real "special edition" isn't out yet... and wont be until they are ready to wring the last dime out with the 3 disc set super duper special edition with Free 60000 hours of AOL!
Yes, they double-dip too many movies. Yes, it's annoying. Although with your attitude, you'll never own a DVD for fear that in 6 months, they might come out with a better one. I have 3 copies of Terminator 2 right now. They might come out with a box set after Terminator 14 (yes, fourteen) comes out in June 2058. Am I really worried about it? No. In the meantime, if I feel like it, I can watch Arnold kick some ass anytime I want, which is, don't forget, the primary purpose of owning a movie... not the special features.
As far as buying "REAL" DVD's, how many do you own? What's your favorite one?
The ends-justify-the-means argument, which can go on forever.
I honestly didn't realize it was that much of an argument. As far as I knew, everyone had come to the realization that the ends generally do not justify the means, with few and infrequent exceptions.
But sitting alone with your conscience is a consequence of all actions you choose, isn't it?
That's assuming someone has a conscience... and unfortunately, I know quite a few people in positions of power that don't.
I would write a statement with my stance, to protect myself, and do what my boss tells me. He is the one who controls my actions while at work. It's wrong to put my personal opinions above those who are in charge of me.
I may not have drawn the scenario quite as well as I wanted, but if the situation called specifically for either a stance based on your morals and ethics, as opposed to someone else's, which would you choose? In the scenario I described, my boss told me to do several things that were blatantly unethical, and eventually, I refused. I was fired, but I was better off after I got a job at a better place earning more money with better benefits, etc. He's still doing his version of business, and from what I hear, he's the subject of many, many lawsuits.
As my mother taught me, and I really took it to hard (and have scars to prove it) -- "There is no right or wrong in life, only consequences."
Two things, first, I think you meant "I took it to heart", meaning that the statement is "near and dear" to you.
Second, saying that there is no right and wrong in life is a cop-out. It helps you justify your actions or inactions based solely on their outcome. A right decision made for the wrong reasons can be a wrong decision... just like a wrong decision made for right reasons can be a right decision (although unlikely). Wrong decisions are much easier to make than right ones, simply because the number of wrong decisions is so much higher than the number of right ones. If you make a bad decision that doesn't directly affect you, is it still a bad decision, as far as you're concerned? If your boss tells you that you'll be fired unless you agree to prematurally ship a piece of software, that could result in hundreds of computers nation-wide to be vulnerable to security breakins by script-kiddies, what do you do? Ship the software (no direct consequences for you), or hold to your "quality software" stance?
The spread of AIDS in the early years was an exponential function. Had the government made some effort to prevent its spread, the "epidemic" would have turned into nothing of the kind.
What would you suggest? Government-sponsored surgically overlaying condoms on your penis, so when you go bang a hooker, you won't get AIDS?
Not to split hairs, but it worked, didn't it?
What is so great right our country right now that we should be the bellweather of what is considered great?
Our country is great simply because we're better than any other country. The example you gave, France, is definitely not a great example of how a country can operate. They have much higher unemployment, a higher national debt, lower average wages, lower average intelligence, and no power or authority to change anything in the course of history. The same things apply to most of the other countries in the world at the moment.
We have been reduced to rich bullies that play the role of police officer for the world.
Just to be clear, are you advocating a hands-off approach to foreign relations? That's a perfectly acceptable point of view, and one that I happen to agree with, but I can see how many, many people wouldn't. They see it as the duty and responsibility of the United States to patrol the world, looking for bad guys. What other reason did we go into Iraq, or Somalia, or any other wars in the past 50 years? What other reason might we go into Liberia, other than to fix the problems that others have created? I tend to think we have enough problems at home to deal with before running off to fight wars for the UN. In my opinion, if the UN never does anything for us, we should never do anything for them (and what have they EVER done for us?).
If you want to pick nits... most of the Amendments of the last 100 years have been due to popular public opinion. Just ask any woman or minority. These Amendments went straight against the original intent of the founding documents of this country. Women can't vote, blacks don't count as a person (only 3/5), abortion as usage of modern science, etc etc.
Amendments are one thing... the Supreme Court is something else. I see what you're saying though. Most of the amendments that have been passed are only because of the protests and "persuasion" of Congress. As an argument I was having with someone else just a few days ago, "how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional". The answer, which he never saw, was that it was brought about by Un-Constitutional, and illegal methods, and should never have been voted for in the first place. I'm not a racist or a sexist, but many of the amendments are just plain stupid (I think of the Income Tax as one). It directly contradicted the established Constitution, and was voted for because people were only thinking about their own personal agendas, not for the good of the country. I think the Supreme Court should have stopped that amendment as soon as it was proposed. After all, "Amendment" does NOT mean "Revision"...
The first time a Justice dissents, and it is all over.
I can understand certain ways of dissention, but the arguments used for many of them today are not based on the Constitution. They're based on political or personal agendas, and that's where it goes wrong. Fortunately, there are still enough SCJ's to rule in favor of the Constitution most of the time.
Education is a problem, but for a different reason I think. Up until 30 years ago, teaching was a highly respectable endeavor. Now it has been reduced to "those that can't, teach." Until teachers are treated as most honorable shapers of the future (which is what they are), the effort put into the system will continue to scale down. This effort is not just from the teachers, but the students as well. For a nice example of what I am referring to, go to Japan.
I think teaching will become a respectable position when the teaching is done by those who want to do it, enjoy it, and are good at it. Teaching should be considered Civil Service, not a job. If I told people that I volunteered my time to teach, they'd be impressed. If I told them I taught for a living, they wouldn't. I'm not saying teachers should be volunteers... I think they should receive a salary, but that shouldn't be the primary reason they're a teacher. While we're at it, get rid of tenured profes
I actually do know what the fundamental laws of physics are... and, not to be rude or anything, but they broke most of the laws of aerodynamics to create the stealth bomber.
None of these other universes would be anything we could interact with, yet they determine (by the particular combination of laws that they don't contain) the fundamental laws of our universe.
That hurts my head just thinking about it. So let me ask you this, if we discover it's theoretically possible to break one of the fundamental laws of physics, and do so, does the parallel universe spiral into oblivion (as we probably would also)?
an altitude of 132,000ft, or about 25 miles.
Man, I'd have to be REALLY HIGH to get that high.
My basic fear is; this country is going straight into the shitter. ... MLK Jr must be rolling over in his grave.
:-) It's nice to be needed...
I absolutely couldn't agree with you more. I think the biggest "concern" that the "minorities" have is what they like to call "diversity", which is gradually turning into the source for a good number of problems, including the dumbing down of our nation's children, discrimination against "non-minorities", etc. At some point, the general public will realize this is what's happening... which is why you and I are here.
The political system of the USA can not stand much longer only representing 2 points of view. Countries the size of Texas (France for one) have 7 or even more major political parties.
While I agree, I must ask you this: Are we judging our country by the standards set by other countries? I think it should be the other way around. Other countries should judge their greatness by our standard. However, I do agree that 2 political parties simply isn't enough.
what party is for someone who is pro-choice and also pro gun?
The party I've chosen is both pro-choice and pro-gun... the Libertarian party. Essentially, I believe the government screws up almost anything it touches, and thus should be as small as possible, affecting as few people, their choices, and their wallots, as possible.
At the top, we are being "represented" by something that does not resemble the current situation.
If by that statement you're referring to the Supreme Court, I have to agree, but disagree with changing it. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent long-term values, so the popular trends don't get made into permanent law if they contradict the Constitution. That's why they have life-time appointments. If they started voting for whatever the public wants, or thinks they want, the Supreme Court would become just as corrupt as the rest of the government already is. The only difference is that since they're lifetime appointments, it takes longer for them to become corrupt... even though some people (I won't mention any names) are trying to do so anyway.
And I really think most people today are stuck in the same old rut that screwed over people throughout history; complacency and the status quo.
Definitely. There are things being done in our collective names that would have most people want to move to another country. The only way things are going to change, in my very humble opinion, is to start at the beginning... education. We need to get rid of the teacher's unions and get teachers in there that WANT to teach, not that look at it as a job. Then get rid of all these stupid politically correct tests that only prove that the children aren't learning anything. Over time, our children will actually know what year our country was founded, or what country we had to fight to earn out independence (ironic how we fought for dependence from England, yet now are dependent on our own government, eh?). Once our children start to become more intelligent than our adults, and not the other way around, we can have some hope in the future.
Will this hinder museums from adding both visual and audio cues to their exhibits?
Unfortunately, most people never go to a museum anyway, so I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend an extraordinary amount of money updating a museum that only a very few enlightened souls will see.
I personally think that cell phones should be banned in public places such as museums and this will just encourage Joe to hop on his cell phone and chat with Mary while I am trying to enjoy some peace and quiet.
Who said you had a right to peace and quiet? Are you trying to take away Joe's right to talk to Mary? Are you trying to take away Mary's right to hear Joe's description of the sculptures and paintings, since Mary's at home taking care of the kids?
Generally, public places are pretty big. If Joe is bothering you that much, you can most likely go somewhere you can't hear him, and enjoy the peace and quiet... or, if you're the kind that thinks everyone else should respect your rights, and not the other way around, you could ask (or tell) Joe to go somewhere else while he talks to Mary. Either way, in the end both parties get what they want, and everyone is generally happy.
I saw some really interesting usages of computers in museums...
Ironically, I think computers are the primary reason museums aren't popular (if they ever were) anymore. With computers comes The Internet. People can look at their favorite works of art on the internet (as you have ironically demonstrated) rather than expend the time and energy it takes to visit them in person (especially since you can't touch a lot of the higher-end pieces). Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing some cutting-edge 3-D holographic pictures in a museum either...
Ten years from now, you won't be able to walk down a city street without a bombardment of media messages.
Hey, I saw that movie! It was pretty good. Tom Cruise is always good, but he was particularly good in that flick. Unfortunately, I found a couple of the scenes to be just slightly unrealistic. And Colin Farrell didn't have enough on-screen time.
I think he was pointing out the irony of how preteen sex is legal in Thailand, you just can't read about it. I could be wrong, but from the movies I've seen ("Me love you long time for 5 dollars!"), it's probably true.
I think the terms should be limited to something like 7 years. This way you can not have anyone there for 2 full presidential terms.
But that's defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be there for a long time, relatively speaking. Their opinions on how the law should be interpretted aren't supposed to be dictated by popular opinion. Most of the time, popular opinion would remember something that happened 8 or 9 years ago (remember Gulf War I? see, I'm right). If a SCJ rules against something that the public thinks is wrong, even if the SCJ ruled in accordance with established laws, even the Constitution, the public outlash could remove him/her from their seat, even though they did their job exactly as they were supposed to.
You do bring up valid points. Judges do have a tendency to vote on party lines, which has the appearance of being politically based. I see the problem as being that the judges aren't doing their jobs as they should, and instead, entering their personal feelings or opinions in their rulings. I won't take any examples, but pick any "contraversial" rulings, and you'll certainly find at least one judge entering in their decision one opinion or another, when all they should be saying is "Yes, that's in accordance with the Constitution" or "No, that's not what I think the Founding Fathers meant". Instead, we have judges citing "precidents" like diversity and individual privacy, neither of which appear anywhere in any documents describing how this nation should operate.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, because this isn't something most people think about, and certainly don't know much about. The issue does need to be addressed, but I'm not sure that term limits is the answer.
I think we are both in agreeance...
I'm sorry... this is just a pet peeve of mine. "Agreeance", while being an obsolete word, isn't a word in common usage, and thus shouldn't be used. We have invented a "replaceanced" word called "Agreement". Please, please use it... It's a good word.
As far as the content of your post, I agree... the American Legal System is a wreck and needs to be seriously rethought from the beginning. Then again, so does the American government.
Not much can change though until the Supreme Court is no longer a lifetime appointment.
In one way I agree. The Supreme Court might be better if it was a 30-year appointment. It makes sense, since the average lifespan in the Founding Fathers' time was 60 or so... they probably never expected people to live to be 95. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to represent the people. They're simply supposed to examine the laws and previous court cases, as written and decided, and determine if they are Constitutional or not. Limiting them to a term length similar to President or Senators would effectively make the Supreme Court as corrupt an institution as the Senate or the House. (Explanation: If the Supreme Court has to answer to their constituents every X number of years, they'll base their decisions not on the law, but rather on their constituents opinions, which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the Supreme Court to begin with.)
Make the drinking age 21 or High School graduation.
I have a better idea. How about making the drinking age 12? That way they can go out and get drunk when they're very young and get it "out of their system" (that's a figure of speech). Then when they learn to drive, "Big Brother" will know which ones to watch, since they'll already be known alcoholics. Crazy idea, I know, but just crazy enough to work.
I just simply don't have time to respond to all your rantings, but quite clearly, you're going to see Bush as being an evil man, no matter what evidence or proof is shown to you. So, it's a complete waste of my time and energy to try to convince you otherwise. To me, the fact that Saddam had the weapons, used them against his own people, then couldn't and wouldn't prove that he had gotten rid of them is evidence enough to convict. If I'm a convicted murder, and I get married, and my wife appears dead in my house with a knife in her chest with my neighbors saying that they saw me with the knife around the same time she died, I'd be convicted too. So, I apologize for taking up your time, and I hope at some point in the near future, you can look at things in an objective light to see the truth that seems to be escaping you.
I can't find anything definitive, but you might want to look at the Salary Surveys from SAGE. It seems fairly clear that there are more System Administrators that work with *nix than Windows. As of 2000, 69.7% worked with Solaris, while 66.6% (666? a sign, maybe?) worked with Windows NT. Linux was just a bit below that, at 62.8%, while Windows 2000, having just come out that year, was behind at 45.1%.
Of course, that WAS 3 years ago, and I don't have a membership to SAGE, so I can't tell what 2001 looked like... But it seems that there's more Sys Admins out there working with *nix than with Windows... hmmmmm.
Even at $30 a pop, that's 7 expansions, and the original game, plus The Sims Online, which carries a $10 monthly fee. If you buy the game, all the addons, and The Sims Online, you're up to $380, plus another $10 per month. That's a bit much. $400 for ANY game is too much. For that kind of money, I think they should give you a certificate for The Sims 2 for FREE, provided that you bought The Sims, and at least 5 of the addons.
By "Operating Costs" does that include the salary of the admins? Windows admins make a lot less than *nix admins (rightly so), so is paying more to the Linux admins included in their estimates?
Aside from that point, I don't know who would trust Microsoft enough to put their confidential financial information, especially payroll, on Windows...
My point was that the vulnerability already exists, and if you want to use them for those purposes, you should make sure that they really haven't been tampered with. You said "deal with the problem". That's exactly what I meant.There are probably off-the shelf apps that can compare two PDFs (there is one built in, but it could be better). If the only difference is the signature, then you're fine. Of course, it'd be much simpler if you just used ASCII -- and I don't see why not.
That's the point. PDF is useful only because it's a standard that has security so other people can't mess with it. If they can mess with the file, there's no point to have PDF anymore. I shouldn't HAVE TO compare what I send out with what I get back if the company making the product guarantees that it's secure. THAT is the problem, and THAT is what needs to be fixed. Again, you're not dealing with the problem, you're suggesting a work-around. Adobe should fix the vulnerability and make PDF a secure format again. If you don't want to use it, use something else. There's plenty of formats that aren't secure.