Niche channels are a really good idea, the reason they're so rarely successful in the US is the herd mentality the programming companies have. The minute a niche channel starts building up steam every other niche channel switches niches to copy them, and their parent company pulls the shows to put them on their main channel where they wind up getting lost in the shuffle.
The problem is the niche viewer keeps getting alienated. I can think of half a dozen theoretically niche channels on my current cable that have radically changed formats more than once in the last five years. In the end all of them wound up running pretty similar shows (low end reality shows, network castoffs, syndicated stuff nobody cares about).
There might be 500 channels on the average US cable plan someday, but I'll bet they all have essentially the same thing on.
Nevertheless it is a valid point that people should not be attacking a film they've never seen, and know absolutely nothing about.
If the original poster wants to be critical of untruths in this film (entirely possible, given Moore's past work) it is not unfair to expect him to point out what those untruths are.
So we're left with the officer being encouraged to place people in a state of legal limbo. Don't officially arrest him and you can do what you want to him.
You have the right to leave, but he can keep asking questions ad infinitum, haul you downtown for questions, etc.
That is, incidentally, why there are so many people presently in 'detaining facilities' where they aren't charged with actual crimes but are denied the right to leave and legal counsel.
1. People who don't wish to be tracked by the state are considered extremely dangerous to society. The man refusing to give his name could be said to be an "enemy of the state", not to mention refusing the cooperate with the war on terrorism. Frankly, either would be sufficient for most people to accept the notion of executing him, no matter what he actually did.
2. "More serious crimes" is a vague concept with broad range for interpretation. Killing a cop is considered much more serious than killing a priest. Would it be impossible to imagine lying to a cop is as serious as killing a priest?
3. This is useful only so long as most jurisdictions don't do it.
Nontheless, this isn't 'testifying in court'. Cops don't (indeed can't) ask for this information unless they consider you a suspect. At that point, anything you say can and will be used against you.
Oh, but that whole "right to remain silent" just became arrestable. Oh well
That's not how that portion of the constitution works at all.
A cruel or unusual punishment is not related to the crime commited. If life in prison is ruled too cruel (its damned sure not unusual) it would become unusable for any reason.
Still, we're faced with the unappealing prospect of the court deciding when we can have a "reasonable belief" something is self-incriminating.
Before today, when in US history did the individual suspect pleading the 5th have to justify it? When did the court get to decide that you do have to testify against yourself in some limited fashion just because they don't feel your belief is reasonable?
The punishment for the crime is immaterial. Now that its been upheld by the court as a legitimate law, they could change the punishment to whatever they want, life in prison, summary execution, whatever.
The Supreme Court doesn't have any say in sentencing guidelines, that's a state matter.
I'm at the point now where I'm glad if they don't draw their gun. I had one almost break my the back window of my friend's car with his nightstick when I told him I didn't have a driver's license.
The Xbox is narrowly outselling the Gamecube in the US, but worldwide its not that close.
There really are plenty of games for the 18-24 year old (though I think you'll find that's not a very cohesive market, 14-21 is really distinct from 22-30).
Nintendo hasn't successfully marketed the Gamecube to the 14-21 market, but its actually sold relatively well in the 22+ market, which cares a lot less about every game they play having a "M for Mature" rating.
When we see how expensive a market that is to tap and how little money is actually to be made off of them (ala Microsoft), its no wonder Nintendo has stayed with the 'under' and 'over' approach. Its served them well for a long time now.
I think Microsoft is really underscoring how games like Halo and GTA really can only get you so far. Sure, they're doing quite well in the narrow market they're targetted at, but its been done at the expense of profitability.
I'd much rather be in Nintendo's position, not just because the GBA is worldwide the #1 selling system on the market, but because they actually make a profit on the stuff they sell.
No it isn't, but are they selling more units than Nintendo because of it? Yes they are.
No, they're not. Not even close. Even if we're only counting Gamecubes and not Gameboys Nintendo has the lead.
But seriously, Microsoft is doing it right? Microsoft is losing hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing online gaming for what is basically a trivial percentage of their already trivial market share.
I know a lot of people believe Halo and GTA are the entire video game market, but they just aren't. Here's the thing: in the United States, right now, how many Pokemon titles have outsold Halo?
I don't know exactly, but its a minimum of 5, probably more like 8.
The video game market is a lot more than the 14-16 year old crowd. In fact, they're the worst market to target since that particular market is already so oversaturated.
Memory gets bigger and cheaper over time and the prices of the smaller ones go down... is that something shocking that Nintendo just made up over the last couple years?
Consider yourself lucky. I bought an Interact card the day it launched (before the Memory Card 251 was out and the Interact card was the only way to play Allstar Baseball 2003) and have lost literally dozens of things on it. I'm at the point now where I make two copies of everything on the card, just in case.
The problem is Zelda games are time consuming to make. The brand needs a lot more handholding from the big name Nintendo developers and at best they can produce 1-2 titles a year.
Even then a top notch title like Wind Waker did not sell as many copies as Pokemon Colosseum, and both are dwarfed by the handheld RPGs.
In fact, in the 8 years since Pokemon arrived on the scene, there has not once been a year in which a Zelda title was not outsold by some Pokemon title.
Even Ocarina of Time, the breakout Zelda title of the last decade, was outsold in Japan in its year of launch by the two year old original Pokemon RPG. Not just by a little either, it was a two to one margin.
Pokemon is the 800-lb gorilla of the video game industry. Nothing else comes close, not Grand Theft Auto, not Final Fantasy...
The original Mario Bros. came out in 1983. Pokemon Red and Green debuted in Japan in 1996.
Having been around nearly three times as long as Pokemon, Mario has only sold about twice as many games. And that's without counting Pokemon console titles which, despite IGN's protestation that they aren't really significant, really are.
Pokemon Col. is driving Gamecube sales in Europe right now, its one of the better selling games in the past few months.
The various N64 Stadium games all sold well, particularly in Japan... even the gimmicky Pokemon Snap was a million seller.
And that's not even counting Pokemon Channel for the Gamecube or Hey, You, Pikachu! for the N64.
I also have to wonder if either franchise got credit for Super Smash Bros.
In all fairness the Zelda series doesn't have nearly the number of titles released the others do. You get maybe one or two per system, whereas Pokemon for the GBA already has 5 (Sapphire, Ruby, S/R Pinball, Leaf Green, Fire Red). For personal favorite I'm going to go out on a limb and say Majora's Mask.
Slashdot Mirror
This is next to meaningless for eBay (who owns Paypal). They paid a billion dollars for Paypal, what's an extra measely $9 million?
Indeed, Clinton killed plenty of people over them and didn't make any excuses one way or another.
Niche channels are a really good idea, the reason they're so rarely successful in the US is the herd mentality the programming companies have. The minute a niche channel starts building up steam every other niche channel switches niches to copy them, and their parent company pulls the shows to put them on their main channel where they wind up getting lost in the shuffle.
The problem is the niche viewer keeps getting alienated. I can think of half a dozen theoretically niche channels on my current cable that have radically changed formats more than once in the last five years. In the end all of them wound up running pretty similar shows (low end reality shows, network castoffs, syndicated stuff nobody cares about).
There might be 500 channels on the average US cable plan someday, but I'll bet they all have essentially the same thing on.
as distasteful as I've found some of his prior work, its hard to view ad hominem attacks on him as legitimate problems with the movie.
Even if he is known to stretch the truth (read: lie) a lot, that doesn't mean he's neccesarily lying now.
You're confusing money stolen from you being used to pay for something with paying for that something yourself.
If a pickpocket uses money from my wallet to pay for an all-you-can-eat buffet, that doesn't mean I should get to eat there too.
Nevertheless it is a valid point that people should not be attacking a film they've never seen, and know absolutely nothing about.
If the original poster wants to be critical of untruths in this film (entirely possible, given Moore's past work) it is not unfair to expect him to point out what those untruths are.
Two citizens (that we know of) and at least a few hundred legal and illegal immigrants are presently being held incommunicado.
So we're left with the officer being encouraged to place people in a state of legal limbo. Don't officially arrest him and you can do what you want to him.
You have the right to leave, but he can keep asking questions ad infinitum, haul you downtown for questions, etc.
That is, incidentally, why there are so many people presently in 'detaining facilities' where they aren't charged with actual crimes but are denied the right to leave and legal counsel.
Problems:
1. People who don't wish to be tracked by the state are considered extremely dangerous to society. The man refusing to give his name could be said to be an "enemy of the state", not to mention refusing the cooperate with the war on terrorism. Frankly, either would be sufficient for most people to accept the notion of executing him, no matter what he actually did.
2. "More serious crimes" is a vague concept with broad range for interpretation. Killing a cop is considered much more serious than killing a priest. Would it be impossible to imagine lying to a cop is as serious as killing a priest?
3. This is useful only so long as most jurisdictions don't do it.
Nontheless, this isn't 'testifying in court'. Cops don't (indeed can't) ask for this information unless they consider you a suspect. At that point, anything you say can and will be used against you.
Oh, but that whole "right to remain silent" just became arrestable. Oh well
That's not how that portion of the constitution works at all.
A cruel or unusual punishment is not related to the crime commited. If life in prison is ruled too cruel (its damned sure not unusual) it would become unusable for any reason.
Still, we're faced with the unappealing prospect of the court deciding when we can have a "reasonable belief" something is self-incriminating.
Before today, when in US history did the individual suspect pleading the 5th have to justify it? When did the court get to decide that you do have to testify against yourself in some limited fashion just because they don't feel your belief is reasonable?
The punishment for the crime is immaterial. Now that its been upheld by the court as a legitimate law, they could change the punishment to whatever they want, life in prison, summary execution, whatever.
The Supreme Court doesn't have any say in sentencing guidelines, that's a state matter.
I'm at the point now where I'm glad if they don't draw their gun. I had one almost break my the back window of my friend's car with his nightstick when I told him I didn't have a driver's license.
And I was riding in the back seat.
If the individual doesn't get to decide himself what is potentially incriminating the 5th ammendment is totally pointless.
"I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me"
"We'll be the judge of that, answer the question"
The Xbox is narrowly outselling the Gamecube in the US, but worldwide its not that close.
There really are plenty of games for the 18-24 year old (though I think you'll find that's not a very cohesive market, 14-21 is really distinct from 22-30).
Nintendo hasn't successfully marketed the Gamecube to the 14-21 market, but its actually sold relatively well in the 22+ market, which cares a lot less about every game they play having a "M for Mature" rating.
When we see how expensive a market that is to tap and how little money is actually to be made off of them (ala Microsoft), its no wonder Nintendo has stayed with the 'under' and 'over' approach. Its served them well for a long time now.
I think Microsoft is really underscoring how games like Halo and GTA really can only get you so far. Sure, they're doing quite well in the narrow market they're targetted at, but its been done at the expense of profitability.
I'd much rather be in Nintendo's position, not just because the GBA is worldwide the #1 selling system on the market, but because they actually make a profit on the stuff they sell.
No it isn't, but are they selling more units than Nintendo because of it? Yes they are.
No, they're not. Not even close. Even if we're only counting Gamecubes and not Gameboys Nintendo has the lead.
But seriously, Microsoft is doing it right? Microsoft is losing hundreds of millions of dollars subsidizing online gaming for what is basically a trivial percentage of their already trivial market share.
I know a lot of people believe Halo and GTA are the entire video game market, but they just aren't. Here's the thing: in the United States, right now, how many Pokemon titles have outsold Halo?
I don't know exactly, but its a minimum of 5, probably more like 8.
The video game market is a lot more than the 14-16 year old crowd. In fact, they're the worst market to target since that particular market is already so oversaturated.
Ignoring the tiny online gaming market because neither competitor is able to successfully make a profit on it is doing pretty well.
Being able to drop the price lower than either competitor and still make a profit on the system is doing pretty well.
Supporting HDTV (Which yes, it can do) is doing pretty well.
You want a game to move consoles? Try Pokemon Colosseum. That singlehandedly doubled Nintendo's market share in the UK.
Memory gets bigger and cheaper over time and the prices of the smaller ones go down... is that something shocking that Nintendo just made up over the last couple years?
Consider yourself lucky. I bought an Interact card the day it launched (before the Memory Card 251 was out and the Interact card was the only way to play Allstar Baseball 2003) and have lost literally dozens of things on it. I'm at the point now where I make two copies of everything on the card, just in case.
The problem is Zelda games are time consuming to make. The brand needs a lot more handholding from the big name Nintendo developers and at best they can produce 1-2 titles a year.
Even then a top notch title like Wind Waker did not sell as many copies as Pokemon Colosseum, and both are dwarfed by the handheld RPGs.
In fact, in the 8 years since Pokemon arrived on the scene, there has not once been a year in which a Zelda title was not outsold by some Pokemon title.
Even Ocarina of Time, the breakout Zelda title of the last decade, was outsold in Japan in its year of launch by the two year old original Pokemon RPG. Not just by a little either, it was a two to one margin.
Pokemon is the 800-lb gorilla of the video game industry. Nothing else comes close, not Grand Theft Auto, not Final Fantasy...
The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist
Sure you don't want to rephrase that?
Id argue that the most valuable commodity Nintendo has at the moment is the Pokemon franchise.
The original Mario Bros. came out in 1983. Pokemon Red and Green debuted in Japan in 1996.
Having been around nearly three times as long as Pokemon, Mario has only sold about twice as many games. And that's without counting Pokemon console titles which, despite IGN's protestation that they aren't really significant, really are.
Pokemon Col. is driving Gamecube sales in Europe right now, its one of the better selling games in the past few months.
The various N64 Stadium games all sold well, particularly in Japan... even the gimmicky Pokemon Snap was a million seller.
And that's not even counting Pokemon Channel for the Gamecube or Hey, You, Pikachu! for the N64.
I also have to wonder if either franchise got credit for Super Smash Bros.
In all fairness the Zelda series doesn't have nearly the number of titles released the others do. You get maybe one or two per system, whereas Pokemon for the GBA already has 5 (Sapphire, Ruby, S/R Pinball, Leaf Green, Fire Red). For personal favorite I'm going to go out on a limb and say Majora's Mask.