When was the last time in America that money didn't control an election? Have you heard of a poor Presidential candidate in the last 50 years? I know that in a few municipal elections money may not control the outcome. However, no matter which candidates run for national office, they are all well-funded and backed by serious money. Otherwise they can't get in the club. Presidential elections in this country boil down to either: 1. A White, middle-aged, ivy-league graduate and secret society member with a shitload of money OR 2. A White, middle-aged, ivy-league graduate and secret society member with a shitload of money
It would if it were actually fish. Unfortunately, they can *call* it the 'Fillet O' Fish' even though it isn't a fillet and it's actually made from petroleum.
So wouldn't this lead to some new 'dirty tricks'? Such as setting up a huge web presence with fuckloads of links to your opposition's website...sending out spam promoting your opponent....tallying all the personal web pages which mention your opposition's name and mailing the list to the FEC...etc. Thing is, this legislation includes sites of which the candidate is not aware and which that candidate may not even support. It's directly designed to shut down grassroots movements and limit speech. What's next? Will you be charged money for linking to your favorite product's website? Will your favorite product be forced to pay tax on 'ad revenue' if you link to them? How does this affect sites hosted in other countries, hosted by non-US citizens? This legislation is so unworkable that it would be laughable...if the intent wasn't so fucking scary.
One thing you're missing is that they've yet to release dollar amounts for links, etc. It could very well be that they arbitrarily determine a link to be 'worth' $100. They could make a sentence 'worth' $1000. Also, even if a link is valued at $.50, if you've contributed the limit in actual cash then one link is enough to land you in Federal hot water. I'm throwing numbers around, of course, but since the point of this legislation is to limit speech, and since that's already in direct confrontation with the law, I don't see why they'd balk at over-valuing links and such in order to make the cost prohibitive. The very fact that they're trying anything like this at all indicates to me the esteem in which the Constitution is held in Washington, D.C. these days. It's fucking sickening. I'm surprised the founding fathers haven't popped through the ground in China yet with all the grave-spinning they must have been doing these last hundred years or so.
Democracy is coming to the US, I fear, but it isn't here yet. What the GP meant, I believe, is the decline of the constitutional republic in the United States. Democracy = mob rule != the US's system of government. Of course, that word has been thrown around so much in connection with the US that I don't blame the GP for making that mistake. It's an extremely common one that even elected officials either play up or fall victim to. We've been an oligarchy in effect for a while now, at least in my opinion, but the official form of government is constitutional republic.
I'm glad you've interviewed every person in every country where slashdot is read. How did you find the time? Perhaps you are simply talking out of your ass, as so many do on this site. So many baseless assertions for such a small post.
Elitist much? The fact that you think fighting and sports are devoid of strategy says more about you than anything you could post. You should stick to pontificating about that which you understand. I'm sure that your lack of skill combined with a 'sour grapes' mentality has actually convinced you that there is no strategy in sports or fighting games. In other words, I don't doubt that you actually believe what you said, you're simply wrong. I don't happen to enjoy hex-based wargames, but that doesn't mean that I think they're invalid as games, or that people who play them are brain-dead. Of course, I did actually *try* them before I made up my mind. You might want to do that sometime. Then again, given your attitude, I doubt you'll bother. It's much easier to ridicule that which is unknown than to learn about it. I'm going to speculate a bit: you were picked last for team sports in school and you also probably got bullied. Buck up, little camper. It's time to get over it and move on.
Re:That's great, now count me out.
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 1
uhhh. Do you even read what you reply to? Where did I ever *endorse* the early-adopter mentality? I think it's retarded. However, regardless of the way you or I may feel about early adopters, to pretend that they have no effect on the market is stupid at best. In the same way, I think people who slurp up the insipid pablum that's passed off as 'popular music' these days are also retarded. However, I don't claim that they've no impact whatsoever on the music industry. Dude.
Re:That's great, now count me out.
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 1
Whatever, dude. I'm sure the constant need of early adopters for a bigger e-penis had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the endless push-me-pull-you relationship blah blah can't be bothered finishing. Stop looking for conspiracies where good ol' human nature provides adequate explanation. Intel would drop Windows in a hot second if they had a viable internally developed alternative. The main reason most hardware makers kowtow to MS is because of MS's market share, not because they're getting kickbacks. Apply Occam's Razor, and stop believing in these far-fetched conspiracy theories.
Re:That's great, now count me out.
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 1
Uhh...nice rant, there. You *did* know, didn't you, that this is Nvidia's technology, right? That Microsoft has nothing to do with driving this tech? That Microsoft doesn't make much money off motherboard and video card sales?* That Windows does not now require SLI and is extremely, extremely unlikely to require it in the future? Okay, I thought you knew all that. Just checking.
*Sure, now and then people might lose their CD-key and have to re-purchase Windows if they need to reinstall it. Of course, that applies to just about any hardware upgrade, and is less likely to happen with a video card upgrade than with, say, hard drive replacements.
Have you ever had to print a bunch of color copies on a normal printer? 5-7PPM and you're *lucky*. I'd pay for some way to double my laser printer's speed. In fact, I'd be much more likely to pay for that than this snake oil video card stuff. Sure, it may work well and provide benefits in the future, but right now you might as well stick with one video card. ROI is much greater that way.
Hmm. You're throwing quite a few babies out with the bathwater, friend. There are some truly great games on consoles. For example, GTAIII, GTA:VC, GTA: SA all debuted on consoles, and SA is still PS2-exclusive. Ninja Gaiden is a fantastic game, and cannot be found on PC. Most sports games don't play well on the PC. The SSX series is also fantastic. My solution is to have consoles *and* a PC. That way, I can play pretty much any game, and can sometimes choose the best version, instead of being forced to buy only PC games or only console games. Sure, it costs a little bit, but I can buy all three currently available consoles for the price of one high-end video card, much less two. Anyone who claims that good games *only* exist for PC or *only* exist for consoles is just wrong.
If other enthusiasts blow their money on penis-extending toys its their own friggin problem.
You're wasting your time. I've used this argument before, from everything from computers to drugs to gun ownership to car stereos. Problem is, a lot of people seem to feel that their positions on certain issues are so damn valid that they must apply to everyone else as well. Stupid busybody jerkoffs.
Re:PC vs Console - TCO
on
SLI Primer
·
· Score: 2, Informative
consoles just don't cut the muster
Did you intentionally mix this metaphor? If not, you probably meant 'pass muster'. Alternatively, you might have meant 'cut the mustard'. Either way, you don't 'cut the muster'.
Well, there went the shred of credibility you'd built up. Oh well. You were doing so well, too.
Desperate attempt to remain on-topic: Some blogs are good. Some blogs are bad. Some are in between. Just like books. The only difference is that you don't have to pay $26.50 for a crappy blog.
It is financed by current movie sales, unless investors are dumping cash into the company or the company is borrowing lots of money (which is paid back through said revenue)
Yep. And if people aren't going to buy the movie anyway, I don't see why it matters if they see it or not. At least, not as far as the grips, etc. are concerned. It isn't like their jobs are in any sort of jeopardy.
After. Why does this matter?
Because all the people you're talking about are already paid then.
Why are you asking me?:)
Because you're on the side which says that 'piracy' hurts people in the industry. It's pretty hard to see, when revenue keeps going up. It seems relevant to me.
How many of the thousands of people who work on it get cuts of the distribution? Not many. Please leave all of the people out who are paid once, when the movie is being made, and who then have no interest in its further profits. Thank you. (You argued against ad hominem attacks in another post. The least you could do is have the decency to avoid straw man arguments.)
I had mono once...damn, it sucked. I'm glad to see there's been progress in fighting this disea...erm, whoops. Terribly sorry. I was thinking of something different.
Know what I'd like to make a wise-ass reference to? That bad-ass Lucas from The Wizard. No one, and I mean no one ever worked a Power Glove like that guy did. His even made sounds! I mean, sure, I was 14 or 15 when that movie came out, so I could have easily kicked his ass, but I doubt I could have beat him at SMB 3....
You've misused the word 'myself'. You meant: "Do you have any information on games that I can play?" You could also have said '...games that can be played by me', but it sounds awkward, which is why you changed it to 'myself', I believe. However, 'myself' is an oft-misused word. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, just letting you know. You're free to use or disregard my information.
Just because you'd trust *your* life to such assumptions, why on Earth does that mean that *I* must, as well? You want to take chances, don't carry a gun. Why does it matter to you if I carry one or not, unless you plan on robbing or assaulting me...in which cases your wishes are of even less concern to me. If I'm the Rambo type who just wants to pop someone, chances are a regulatory statute isn't going to bother me much. However, if I'm a law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be able to protect myself, even if you choose not to?
I would agree with you, if the police could provide adequate protection. However, as Mr. Martin was repeatedly robbed, apparently by the same people, that obviously wasn't the case. If no protection is available, the homeowner has no recourse. You'll notice he didn't shoot anyone the first (or even the second) time he was robbed. How many times must one be robbed before one can, in your view, use force? Do I support shooting robbers in the back? No, I do not. However, I'd have a much dimmer view if it was the first time he'd been robbed. To look at it another way: if the police had locked these robbers up after their first robbery, they wouldn't have been shot either.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I didn't realize he was running for office again. Or do you not know what a 'campaign' is, when talking about politics?
When was the last time in America that money didn't control an election? Have you heard of a poor Presidential candidate in the last 50 years? I know that in a few municipal elections money may not control the outcome. However, no matter which candidates run for national office, they are all well-funded and backed by serious money. Otherwise they can't get in the club. Presidential elections in this country boil down to either:
1. A White, middle-aged, ivy-league graduate and secret society member with a shitload of money
OR
2. A White, middle-aged, ivy-league graduate and secret society member with a shitload of money
It's so nice to have choices.
It would if it were actually fish. Unfortunately, they can *call* it the 'Fillet O' Fish' even though it isn't a fillet and it's actually made from petroleum.
So wouldn't this lead to some new 'dirty tricks'? Such as setting up a huge web presence with fuckloads of links to your opposition's website...sending out spam promoting your opponent....tallying all the personal web pages which mention your opposition's name and mailing the list to the FEC...etc. Thing is, this legislation includes sites of which the candidate is not aware and which that candidate may not even support. It's directly designed to shut down grassroots movements and limit speech. What's next? Will you be charged money for linking to your favorite product's website? Will your favorite product be forced to pay tax on 'ad revenue' if you link to them? How does this affect sites hosted in other countries, hosted by non-US citizens? This legislation is so unworkable that it would be laughable...if the intent wasn't so fucking scary.
One thing you're missing is that they've yet to release dollar amounts for links, etc. It could very well be that they arbitrarily determine a link to be 'worth' $100. They could make a sentence 'worth' $1000. Also, even if a link is valued at $.50, if you've contributed the limit in actual cash then one link is enough to land you in Federal hot water. I'm throwing numbers around, of course, but since the point of this legislation is to limit speech, and since that's already in direct confrontation with the law, I don't see why they'd balk at over-valuing links and such in order to make the cost prohibitive. The very fact that they're trying anything like this at all indicates to me the esteem in which the Constitution is held in Washington, D.C. these days. It's fucking sickening. I'm surprised the founding fathers haven't popped through the ground in China yet with all the grave-spinning they must have been doing these last hundred years or so.
Democracy is coming to the US, I fear, but it isn't here yet. What the GP meant, I believe, is the decline of the constitutional republic in the United States. Democracy = mob rule != the US's system of government. Of course, that word has been thrown around so much in connection with the US that I don't blame the GP for making that mistake. It's an extremely common one that even elected officials either play up or fall victim to. We've been an oligarchy in effect for a while now, at least in my opinion, but the official form of government is constitutional republic.
I'm glad you've interviewed every person in every country where slashdot is read. How did you find the time? Perhaps you are simply talking out of your ass, as so many do on this site. So many baseless assertions for such a small post.
Elitist much? The fact that you think fighting and sports are devoid of strategy says more about you than anything you could post. You should stick to pontificating about that which you understand. I'm sure that your lack of skill combined with a 'sour grapes' mentality has actually convinced you that there is no strategy in sports or fighting games. In other words, I don't doubt that you actually believe what you said, you're simply wrong. I don't happen to enjoy hex-based wargames, but that doesn't mean that I think they're invalid as games, or that people who play them are brain-dead. Of course, I did actually *try* them before I made up my mind. You might want to do that sometime. Then again, given your attitude, I doubt you'll bother. It's much easier to ridicule that which is unknown than to learn about it. I'm going to speculate a bit: you were picked last for team sports in school and you also probably got bullied. Buck up, little camper. It's time to get over it and move on.
uhhh. Do you even read what you reply to? Where did I ever *endorse* the early-adopter mentality? I think it's retarded. However, regardless of the way you or I may feel about early adopters, to pretend that they have no effect on the market is stupid at best. In the same way, I think people who slurp up the insipid pablum that's passed off as 'popular music' these days are also retarded. However, I don't claim that they've no impact whatsoever on the music industry. Dude.
Whatever, dude. I'm sure the constant need of early adopters for a bigger e-penis had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the endless push-me-pull-you relationship blah blah can't be bothered finishing. Stop looking for conspiracies where good ol' human nature provides adequate explanation. Intel would drop Windows in a hot second if they had a viable internally developed alternative. The main reason most hardware makers kowtow to MS is because of MS's market share, not because they're getting kickbacks. Apply Occam's Razor, and stop believing in these far-fetched conspiracy theories.
Uhh...nice rant, there. You *did* know, didn't you, that this is Nvidia's technology, right? That Microsoft has nothing to do with driving this tech? That Microsoft doesn't make much money off motherboard and video card sales?* That Windows does not now require SLI and is extremely, extremely unlikely to require it in the future? Okay, I thought you knew all that. Just checking.
*Sure, now and then people might lose their CD-key and have to re-purchase Windows if they need to reinstall it. Of course, that applies to just about any hardware upgrade, and is less likely to happen with a video card upgrade than with, say, hard drive replacements.
Have you ever had to print a bunch of color copies on a normal printer? 5-7PPM and you're *lucky*. I'd pay for some way to double my laser printer's speed. In fact, I'd be much more likely to pay for that than this snake oil video card stuff. Sure, it may work well and provide benefits in the future, but right now you might as well stick with one video card. ROI is much greater that way.
Hmm. You're throwing quite a few babies out with the bathwater, friend. There are some truly great games on consoles. For example, GTAIII, GTA:VC, GTA: SA all debuted on consoles, and SA is still PS2-exclusive. Ninja Gaiden is a fantastic game, and cannot be found on PC. Most sports games don't play well on the PC. The SSX series is also fantastic. My solution is to have consoles *and* a PC. That way, I can play pretty much any game, and can sometimes choose the best version, instead of being forced to buy only PC games or only console games. Sure, it costs a little bit, but I can buy all three currently available consoles for the price of one high-end video card, much less two.
Anyone who claims that good games *only* exist for PC or *only* exist for consoles is just wrong.
If other enthusiasts blow their money on penis-extending toys its their own friggin problem.
You're wasting your time. I've used this argument before, from everything from computers to drugs to gun ownership to car stereos. Problem is, a lot of people seem to feel that their positions on certain issues are so damn valid that they must apply to everyone else as well. Stupid busybody jerkoffs.
consoles just don't cut the muster
Did you intentionally mix this metaphor? If not, you probably meant 'pass muster'. Alternatively, you might have meant 'cut the mustard'. Either way, you don't 'cut the muster'.
Cut the mustard
Pass Muster
Please don't flame me. I'm just trying to help; I'm not intending any disparagement whatsoever. You are, of course, free to ignore my advice entirely.
i don't think strongbad is funny,
Well, there went the shred of credibility you'd built up. Oh well. You were doing so well, too.
Desperate attempt to remain on-topic:
Some blogs are good. Some blogs are bad. Some are in between. Just like books. The only difference is that you don't have to pay $26.50 for a crappy blog.
It is financed by current movie sales, unless investors are dumping cash into the company or the company is borrowing lots of money (which is paid back through said revenue)
:)
Yep. And if people aren't going to buy the movie anyway, I don't see why it matters if they see it or not. At least, not as far as the grips, etc. are concerned. It isn't like their jobs are in any sort of jeopardy.
After. Why does this matter?
Because all the people you're talking about are already paid then.
Why are you asking me?
Because you're on the side which says that 'piracy' hurts people in the industry. It's pretty hard to see, when revenue keeps going up. It seems relevant to me.
To answer your question with more questions:
Is the revenue used to pay grips, techs, editors, craft services, etc, raised before or after the movie is sent to distributors?
Does movie 'piracy' occur before or after the movie is sent to distributors?
Has gross revenue in Hollywood been up or down lately?
What factors, in your opinion, are responsible?
How many of the thousands of people who work on it get cuts of the distribution? Not many. Please leave all of the people out who are paid once, when the movie is being made, and who then have no interest in its further profits. Thank you. (You argued against ad hominem attacks in another post. The least you could do is have the decency to avoid straw man arguments.)
Yeah well...I hear that Open Source is a total whore. Anyone who wants to can 'get in'. Bill shoulda known better.
I had mono once...damn, it sucked. I'm glad to see there's been progress in fighting this disea...erm, whoops. Terribly sorry. I was thinking of something different.
Know what I'd like to make a wise-ass reference to? That bad-ass Lucas from The Wizard. No one, and I mean no one ever worked a Power Glove like that guy did. His even made sounds! I mean, sure, I was 14 or 15 when that movie came out, so I could have easily kicked his ass, but I doubt I could have beat him at SMB 3....
You've misused the word 'myself'. You meant: "Do you have any information on games that I can play?" You could also have said '...games that can be played by me', but it sounds awkward, which is why you changed it to 'myself', I believe. However, 'myself' is an oft-misused word. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, just letting you know. You're free to use or disregard my information.
Just because you'd trust *your* life to such assumptions, why on Earth does that mean that *I* must, as well? You want to take chances, don't carry a gun. Why does it matter to you if I carry one or not, unless you plan on robbing or assaulting me...in which cases your wishes are of even less concern to me. If I'm the Rambo type who just wants to pop someone, chances are a regulatory statute isn't going to bother me much. However, if I'm a law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be able to protect myself, even if you choose not to?
I would agree with you, if the police could provide adequate protection. However, as Mr. Martin was repeatedly robbed, apparently by the same people, that obviously wasn't the case. If no protection is available, the homeowner has no recourse. You'll notice he didn't shoot anyone the first (or even the second) time he was robbed. How many times must one be robbed before one can, in your view, use force? Do I support shooting robbers in the back? No, I do not. However, I'd have a much dimmer view if it was the first time he'd been robbed. To look at it another way: if the police had locked these robbers up after their first robbery, they wouldn't have been shot either.