If you want to see the bills you will. I recently had a CT scan, the average global price for this variety anywhere not in the USA (without dye, which is evidently much more expensive) is something like $500. The place billed by insurance for $15,000. My insurance paid the (evidently badly) negotiated price of $7500. I paid $1,500 out of pocket.
Lots of people are incapable of thinking like the owner of a business,
If we did that the most ethically sound decision would be to kill ourselves. The sort of thinking those people engage in, while it makes sense from a very narrow perspective, either leads to sociopathy or depression. That humanity still exists is due largely to the fact that most people refuse to think like their leaders.
It's not just your company. This is a trend on the internet too. It used to be you could google for a term and get a list of steps to do. Now you get a 30 minute video (subscribe please!) with a lot of fluff and chat.
Dry technical manuals have their place, and they're very useful at what they do. But you don't normally read them cover to cover.
Trying to decide if I'd ignore all her voice mails because I don't have time to listen to everything she said and can't scan for important things, or I'd ignore her voice mails because clearly she is full of bad ideas.
Probably both. If anyone sent me an email that took 10 minutes to read, I would ignore it after glancing.
Yes. For municipal infrastructure, that someone is called the "taxpayer". Everyone who pays taxes in that municipality. That's how municipal bond measures work. The municipality promises money, from the taxpayer, to an investment company in exchange for them selling bonds to investors and the expected payback of that money, with interest, to those investors. At the base of the system is a promise that the taxpayers will cover any costs not otherwise covered. And when you wind up with a large number of people getting free service until they die or move away, there are going to be a lot of costs that won't be covered by the customer.
Or, perhaps you divide your big hunk of debt into many little chunks, and you put it on the end-user to pay. Yes, taxes can do this, but taxes have the problem of Mayor and Representatives. They take that tax money and squander it, sometimes embezzle it. Then there's assessment (income, property, sales, etc) which people throw a fit over, but in this model is most like "flat tax". At least that is the general consensus amongst people who are against big government, I personally think it works just fine provided citizens are awake, in control and do not spend undue amounts of time worry about what other people do. However if we have this independent, not for profit entity that owes $1B to bondholders, accountable to the public, and is being paid $100K by 10000 people, neglecting interest due, you have an arrangement that manages to be independent of the government that serves the public need and pays off the people who put up the initial investment.
You seem to be turning the entire municipal bond system on its head
Maybe, I didn't invent this. It's used for some HOAs. You do not buy a bond, you are assigned debt that you must pay off. The big muni is chipped into bits. Once you pay your debt, you are entitled to its use for the remainder of your time there.
I've seen too many ISPs come and go under the existing cable franchise system to believe that you would not see it "change" were you to look about you
I haven't. I've lived in ten different cities in the US, I have had two choices for internet in the past 15 years: cable or DSL, with one noticeable exception during Clinton I, when he opened the central offices to competitive ISPs and it was far and away the best time for me, as a consumer to get internet. That went under almost immediately after Bush II changed that rule. Since then it's either the phone company or the cable company, service has gradually been de-featured, redefined and become less reliable.
No, they will race to your house if they can be guaranteed of a profit. Domination isn't necessary. Competition eats away at profits.
Not my problem to solve. The problem I seek to solve is the investment factor on the provider end, and distrust of the provider on the consumer end. If there are a dozen service providers all charging X, then very likely that is the cost of the service, the funding model will work. That is not what is happening.
These upgrades are installed by unicorns and the fibers are made out of pixie dust. I note the scare quotes around "free" to indicate that you know it won't really be free
I never said anything was free. Someone will need to take out a large bond to build the infrastructure, maintain it, and upgrade it. They will issue bonds corresponding to the portion of the infrastructure consumed to residents. What that portion is and how much can be subject of public debate, dictatorial fiat or something in between. It will however cover the debt or it collapses. In my established neighborhood I would assert it as opt-in for current dwellers, but require it as a title lien for future sales, I believe that would pass easily provided assurances about how this municipal entity were controlled were given.
All or none. A good way to get Internet to all.
Not the problem I'm looking to solve. It is a problem, but it requires a different solution.
It appears you are using "bond" in an unusual way in the context of a municipally-owned infrastructure. Such bonds are always transferrable.
For the people who bought the municipal bond absolutely it is a traditional bond and risk can be assessed with full knowledge of the funding model, can be transferred etc. The people who are bonded would have different terms. They would be released from debt if they die, move away or pay their bond. But they would be required to pay their debt on a schedule.
Ahh. A Ponzi scheme. Service for existing customers is paid for by new "bondholders", and their service will be paid for by later bondholders.
No it's not a Ponzi scheme. You will pay at least what you yourself owe, if not more, debts will be repaid with whatever interest was owed. It solves the problem of that large initial investment, it allows for services to be provided by traditional corporations in an economic model that fits our cultural values (i.e. rabid stupid capitalism), doesn't incur "taxes" which have a bad rap for being abused by governments and rerouted by politicians, but does create a problem: it probably is more expensive than the bare bones system a potential monopolist would create; but that's ok because they will overcharge for their much cheaper installation anyway, refuse to upgrade, and continue to profit on it long after it has been paid for.
. Nobody's soul is encumbered by an "eternal monopoly".
This is an equivocation. In many places in the US laws rabidly protect the entrenched monopolies. It is quite difficult to create alternatives, which google has found out in a few places they entered. While "eternal" does imply an indefinite time period that I cannot prove exists, it seems unlikely to change in my life-span given prevailing laws and government protections.
Many/most of us would probably be willing to pay for the last mile infrastructure, we just do not want AT&T/Google/Comcrap/TWC/Charter to own it. The natural monopoly is primarily because of a bad funding model. These guys will all race to your house if they can be sure of perpetual domination, but are slow if there's competition.
I like the idea of people taking out a bond for last mile telecom. The bond will cover the costs of installation and service of the best your city has to offer, you can choose your own provider, and once you pay off your bond you never pay another dime as long as you live there, so future upgrades are "free". Your infrastructure will be upgraded on a schedule as long as you are in good standing. Once you pay off your bond, you continue to get upgrades and service until you die or leave.
My parents have a similar arrangement where they live, and it seems to work amongst people who have heart attacks at the word "tax" but also like to have nice things. You can break the horrid monopoly who is renting you wires but makes more money with lousy service, by forcing them to own the service instead. If you don't want this service, then you don't have to take out the bond, and if not enough people are interested then it doesn't happen. The bond is non-transferrable (except perhaps to a spouse), so if you sell then someone else takes out a new bond. In this way it is eternally paid for. It's not perfect: you have to examine how the "central office" will be owned and maintained, what the bidding process is for upgrade and service and generally be good citizens keeping an eye on the utility. But it isn't a tax, it is voluntary, the government can't necessarily raid its budget, it breaks the monopoly and pays for itself.
Of course this is impossible in places where our ancestors sold their souls to AT&T, etc. for eternal monopolies.
You have given away that you are going to the supermarket and that you are going to buy milk. This can be used and/or exploited in a number of ways you may not wish, and in some cases may actually be dangerous (if say, you recently won the lottery).
It really doesn't matter, if you are a private and paranoid person, you should have the ability to keep your shit private. I don't particularly want to live in such a paranoid society that we let the government do whatever it wishes just because terrorists. Let's not forget that terrorists may be a good thing in some cases, it's just that most of the western world doesn't give two shits about Islam or its religion that these particular types aren't well liked.
obviously that just smacks of a bronze/iron age monotheistic world view that has no place in the 21st century.
You you would replace monotheism with some form of nature god or new spiritualism that can't be defined but we all feel, far out brother? It's all shit. I do not care much about inanimate objects beyond their value to me. I have absolutely no idea where you are going with this argument, but it sounds like we should get our drums and form a circle.
We exist, we have the capacity and intellect to put our resources to work, and we should do it. We should not consume more than we can sustain, that is where I draw the line, and I do believe on the preponderance of evidence that we are presently consuming more than we can sustain. But I can also understand where people who read articles like this have the strong urge to vomit, and reject even what few actual facts may be presented herein.
A lot of us never trust activists of any kind because they can't help but make themselves untrustworthy. This article is an example of that kind of hysteria. The verbiage used sometimes tends to anthropomorphize consumable resources in a way that begets images of hippies in a drum circle. For example "humanity's demands on nature" conjures images of a haggard old lady being asked for her second kidney because she soon won't need it anymore. That's not science, that's an emotional appeal. From my standpoint the earth is here to be consumed as we see fit, but as we lack a suitable alternative, we probably shouldn't destroy it just yet.
Couple this to some phony attempts to contextualize our ecological disaster in economic terms, which is a stretch at best, makes me want to ignore this entirely.
Not that I disbelieve that we are over-consuming and over-polluting in the slightest. I'm just pointing out why this sort of reporting makes the problem worst, not better and why when people who haven't come around to your point of view, and also do not speak precisely, may try to distinguish "science" from "terrible reporting".
Then of course we have design by committee emoji's, each trying to reflecting a political interpretation of the emoji, justified by possible idiot interpretations of a pictograph. These people must live in some pretty sheltered places, because they have apparently not yet conceived of idiots powerful enough to misinterpret just about any emoji in a fatally mistaken way. We know these idiots exist, we see them every day. Usually in traffic.
I think we should simply remove weapons and weapon words from the english language. This should surely create a safer society.
FWIW my Honda's have been pretty good. I've heard quality on the newer models has declined, but my 2006 accord hybrid is still going strong with less problems in 10 years than either of my Ford's had their first 3.
But I do want a Tesla, I'm just not ready to throw my money at something sight unseen.
In fact on that website the buy, don't buy, neutral opinions are based on expectations of refresh and availability to help people figure out if now is a good time to buy. Apple is old-school marketing, they don't talk about tomorrow's product until it is today's product. Customers don't want to buy something that will be updated immediately after purchasing it, so that's where that website comes in to play. That website helps predict future products and advices based on predictions (and is often wrong!), it is not associated with Apple in any way and I would imagine Apple doesn't particularly like it.
As someone who is physically holding a newer than 2012 corporate issued macbook pro retina, I can attest that there are newer products than the 2012 version. Mine has an i7, nVidia graphics and an SSD. I am pretty disappointed with their choice to use AMD graphics in newer models, and am reluctant to buy, but work issued shit is work issued. It is faster than my personal 2012 Macbook Pro primarily due to SSD performance, processor speed means very little in a laptop for most people (and I question why you wouldn't just use a desktop if you really care, for say games or compute heavy workloads).
I'm not even sure if you go to macrumors and come away with those sorts of opinions if you meet the IQ threshold to own a computer of any sort. Similarly if you want a company to stop selling an older product based purely on your own internal feelings about how useful that product might be to others, I'm pretty sure you have exhibited all the requirements for a seat in Congress or even The White House, but probably should avoid technology as a career choice.
I won't hazard a guess as to what is unacceptable to him, but if our scarecrow model is Average American that's about 25.5 miles, times 2 (one to go, one to come back). We may have fantasies about our weekends, but on average that's also about as much as we drive on weekends too based on the model I have.
I will admit, I wouldn't buy another Ford if I were paid to do so.
If your point is that it is derivative...ok. Acerbic wit? Not remotely witty. But assuming he actually saw the movie, the review tells me some useful things: Will Smith and Margot Whoever were good, the script sucked, it's likely going to be corporate junkfood rather than something with some substance (Netflix's Daredevil comes to mind), and I probably don't want to bring my young kids there. That last is important, too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share, but I'd like to have guidance. As an adult you may not care at all, or perhaps wish they'd just go R like Deadpool. This all seems to be really good stuff I want to see in more reviews. Given that I personally may see only 3 movies in the theater this year, this won't be one I pick. The Vanity Fair review the other commenter linked I found to be a better quality review (if we're going to review reviews), but I get a strong "this is a terrible movie" vibe.
So I guess do you think these people are trying to give negative reviews for fun? Are they being paid to do it? Is this some strange geeky marvel vs. dc comic fanboi'ism? I'm not seeing it. From a meta-moderation sense, in my experience this summer I've found reviews to be too POSITIVE, the new Star Trek movie had a high tomato rating but I thought was dull although I admit to liking the re-imagined special effects, and "Light's Out" had a moderately high rating but was just your run of the mill startle-fest.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to see the bills you will. I recently had a CT scan, the average global price for this variety anywhere not in the USA (without dye, which is evidently much more expensive) is something like $500. The place billed by insurance for $15,000. My insurance paid the (evidently badly) negotiated price of $7500. I paid $1,500 out of pocket.
I just can't even.
Lots of people are incapable of thinking like the owner of a business,
If we did that the most ethically sound decision would be to kill ourselves. The sort of thinking those people engage in, while it makes sense from a very narrow perspective, either leads to sociopathy or depression. That humanity still exists is due largely to the fact that most people refuse to think like their leaders.
It's better to live in delusion.
Has it? I can't remember...
It's not just your company. This is a trend on the internet too. It used to be you could google for a term and get a list of steps to do. Now you get a 30 minute video (subscribe please!) with a lot of fluff and chat.
Dry technical manuals have their place, and they're very useful at what they do. But you don't normally read them cover to cover.
Trying to decide if I'd ignore all her voice mails because I don't have time to listen to everything she said and can't scan for important things, or I'd ignore her voice mails because clearly she is full of bad ideas.
Probably both. If anyone sent me an email that took 10 minutes to read, I would ignore it after glancing.
Solutions to problems no one except windows admins are having. I don't think I'll lose much sleep.
Here is the smallest violin I could find on short notice. Hopefully if enough of us play, it will drown out Oracle's wailing.
Yes. For municipal infrastructure, that someone is called the "taxpayer". Everyone who pays taxes in that municipality. That's how municipal bond measures work. The municipality promises money, from the taxpayer, to an investment company in exchange for them selling bonds to investors and the expected payback of that money, with interest, to those investors. At the base of the system is a promise that the taxpayers will cover any costs not otherwise covered. And when you wind up with a large number of people getting free service until they die or move away, there are going to be a lot of costs that won't be covered by the customer.
Or, perhaps you divide your big hunk of debt into many little chunks, and you put it on the end-user to pay. Yes, taxes can do this, but taxes have the problem of Mayor and Representatives. They take that tax money and squander it, sometimes embezzle it. Then there's assessment (income, property, sales, etc) which people throw a fit over, but in this model is most like "flat tax". At least that is the general consensus amongst people who are against big government, I personally think it works just fine provided citizens are awake, in control and do not spend undue amounts of time worry about what other people do. However if we have this independent, not for profit entity that owes $1B to bondholders, accountable to the public, and is being paid $100K by 10000 people, neglecting interest due, you have an arrangement that manages to be independent of the government that serves the public need and pays off the people who put up the initial investment.
You seem to be turning the entire municipal bond system on its head
Maybe, I didn't invent this. It's used for some HOAs. You do not buy a bond, you are assigned debt that you must pay off. The big muni is chipped into bits. Once you pay your debt, you are entitled to its use for the remainder of your time there.
I've seen too many ISPs come and go under the existing cable franchise system to believe that you would not see it "change" were you to look about you
I haven't. I've lived in ten different cities in the US, I have had two choices for internet in the past 15 years: cable or DSL, with one noticeable exception during Clinton I, when he opened the central offices to competitive ISPs and it was far and away the best time for me, as a consumer to get internet. That went under almost immediately after Bush II changed that rule. Since then it's either the phone company or the cable company, service has gradually been de-featured, redefined and become less reliable.
No, they will race to your house if they can be guaranteed of a profit. Domination isn't necessary. Competition eats away at profits.
Not my problem to solve. The problem I seek to solve is the investment factor on the provider end, and distrust of the provider on the consumer end. If there are a dozen service providers all charging X, then very likely that is the cost of the service, the funding model will work. That is not what is happening.
These upgrades are installed by unicorns and the fibers are made out of pixie dust. I note the scare quotes around "free" to indicate that you know it won't really be free
I never said anything was free. Someone will need to take out a large bond to build the infrastructure, maintain it, and upgrade it. They will issue bonds corresponding to the portion of the infrastructure consumed to residents. What that portion is and how much can be subject of public debate, dictatorial fiat or something in between. It will however cover the debt or it collapses. In my established neighborhood I would assert it as opt-in for current dwellers, but require it as a title lien for future sales, I believe that would pass easily provided assurances about how this municipal entity were controlled were given.
All or none. A good way to get Internet to all.
Not the problem I'm looking to solve. It is a problem, but it requires a different solution.
It appears you are using "bond" in an unusual way in the context of a municipally-owned infrastructure. Such bonds are always transferrable.
For the people who bought the municipal bond absolutely it is a traditional bond and risk can be assessed with full knowledge of the funding model, can be transferred etc. The people who are bonded would have different terms. They would be released from debt if they die, move away or pay their bond. But they would be required to pay their debt on a schedule.
Ahh. A Ponzi scheme. Service for existing customers is paid for by new "bondholders", and their service will be paid for by later bondholders.
No it's not a Ponzi scheme. You will pay at least what you yourself owe, if not more, debts will be repaid with whatever interest was owed. It solves the problem of that large initial investment, it allows for services to be provided by traditional corporations in an economic model that fits our cultural values (i.e. rabid stupid capitalism), doesn't incur "taxes" which have a bad rap for being abused by governments and rerouted by politicians, but does create a problem: it probably is more expensive than the bare bones system a potential monopolist would create; but that's ok because they will overcharge for their much cheaper installation anyway, refuse to upgrade, and continue to profit on it long after it has been paid for.
. Nobody's soul is encumbered by an "eternal monopoly".
This is an equivocation. In many places in the US laws rabidly protect the entrenched monopolies. It is quite difficult to create alternatives, which google has found out in a few places they entered. While "eternal" does imply an indefinite time period that I cannot prove exists, it seems unlikely to change in my life-span given prevailing laws and government protections.
Not necessarily a solution, in many places those utility poles are also regulated by the same corrupt laws that block digging.
Also, while where I live in texas it's mostly below ground, but in places like NYC and the suburbs of Portland, OR it might work.
Many/most of us would probably be willing to pay for the last mile infrastructure, we just do not want AT&T/Google/Comcrap/TWC/Charter to own it. The natural monopoly is primarily because of a bad funding model. These guys will all race to your house if they can be sure of perpetual domination, but are slow if there's competition.
I like the idea of people taking out a bond for last mile telecom. The bond will cover the costs of installation and service of the best your city has to offer, you can choose your own provider, and once you pay off your bond you never pay another dime as long as you live there, so future upgrades are "free". Your infrastructure will be upgraded on a schedule as long as you are in good standing. Once you pay off your bond, you continue to get upgrades and service until you die or leave.
My parents have a similar arrangement where they live, and it seems to work amongst people who have heart attacks at the word "tax" but also like to have nice things. You can break the horrid monopoly who is renting you wires but makes more money with lousy service, by forcing them to own the service instead. If you don't want this service, then you don't have to take out the bond, and if not enough people are interested then it doesn't happen. The bond is non-transferrable (except perhaps to a spouse), so if you sell then someone else takes out a new bond. In this way it is eternally paid for. It's not perfect: you have to examine how the "central office" will be owned and maintained, what the bidding process is for upgrade and service and generally be good citizens keeping an eye on the utility. But it isn't a tax, it is voluntary, the government can't necessarily raid its budget, it breaks the monopoly and pays for itself.
Of course this is impossible in places where our ancestors sold their souls to AT&T, etc. for eternal monopolies.
to anti government, anti-Microsoft, etc
ftfy. The burden is definitely on you to prove you are not an MS shill, particularly when commenting on stories that are clearly posted by MS shills.
You have given away that you are going to the supermarket and that you are going to buy milk. This can be used and/or exploited in a number of ways you may not wish, and in some cases may actually be dangerous (if say, you recently won the lottery).
It really doesn't matter, if you are a private and paranoid person, you should have the ability to keep your shit private. I don't particularly want to live in such a paranoid society that we let the government do whatever it wishes just because terrorists. Let's not forget that terrorists may be a good thing in some cases, it's just that most of the western world doesn't give two shits about Islam or its religion that these particular types aren't well liked.
obviously that just smacks of a bronze/iron age monotheistic world view that has no place in the 21st century.
You you would replace monotheism with some form of nature god or new spiritualism that can't be defined but we all feel, far out brother? It's all shit. I do not care much about inanimate objects beyond their value to me. I have absolutely no idea where you are going with this argument, but it sounds like we should get our drums and form a circle.
We exist, we have the capacity and intellect to put our resources to work, and we should do it. We should not consume more than we can sustain, that is where I draw the line, and I do believe on the preponderance of evidence that we are presently consuming more than we can sustain. But I can also understand where people who read articles like this have the strong urge to vomit, and reject even what few actual facts may be presented herein.
"climate activism"
A lot of us never trust activists of any kind because they can't help but make themselves untrustworthy. This article is an example of that kind of hysteria. The verbiage used sometimes tends to anthropomorphize consumable resources in a way that begets images of hippies in a drum circle. For example "humanity's demands on nature" conjures images of a haggard old lady being asked for her second kidney because she soon won't need it anymore. That's not science, that's an emotional appeal. From my standpoint the earth is here to be consumed as we see fit, but as we lack a suitable alternative, we probably shouldn't destroy it just yet.
Couple this to some phony attempts to contextualize our ecological disaster in economic terms, which is a stretch at best, makes me want to ignore this entirely.
Not that I disbelieve that we are over-consuming and over-polluting in the slightest. I'm just pointing out why this sort of reporting makes the problem worst, not better and why when people who haven't come around to your point of view, and also do not speak precisely, may try to distinguish "science" from "terrible reporting".
Speak for yourselves, when I get a text from my G's and I bring a water pistol to a gun fight, I'm going to briefly be pretty damn mad.
They definitely should be!
Then of course we have design by committee emoji's, each trying to reflecting a political interpretation of the emoji, justified by possible idiot interpretations of a pictograph. These people must live in some pretty sheltered places, because they have apparently not yet conceived of idiots powerful enough to misinterpret just about any emoji in a fatally mistaken way. We know these idiots exist, we see them every day. Usually in traffic.
I think we should simply remove weapons and weapon words from the english language. This should surely create a safer society.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Actually, the truth is we spend those extra brain-years thinking about food, so...
Nope, we're obese, we spend those extra brain-years savoring the food.
It was briefly bad for AT&T, but they recovered nicely. By which I mean they're doing just fine, we're suffering under their thumb again.
FWIW my Honda's have been pretty good. I've heard quality on the newer models has declined, but my 2006 accord hybrid is still going strong with less problems in 10 years than either of my Ford's had their first 3.
But I do want a Tesla, I'm just not ready to throw my money at something sight unseen.
In fact on that website the buy, don't buy, neutral opinions are based on expectations of refresh and availability to help people figure out if now is a good time to buy. Apple is old-school marketing, they don't talk about tomorrow's product until it is today's product. Customers don't want to buy something that will be updated immediately after purchasing it, so that's where that website comes in to play. That website helps predict future products and advices based on predictions (and is often wrong!), it is not associated with Apple in any way and I would imagine Apple doesn't particularly like it.
As someone who is physically holding a newer than 2012 corporate issued macbook pro retina, I can attest that there are newer products than the 2012 version. Mine has an i7, nVidia graphics and an SSD. I am pretty disappointed with their choice to use AMD graphics in newer models, and am reluctant to buy, but work issued shit is work issued. It is faster than my personal 2012 Macbook Pro primarily due to SSD performance, processor speed means very little in a laptop for most people (and I question why you wouldn't just use a desktop if you really care, for say games or compute heavy workloads).
I'm not even sure if you go to macrumors and come away with those sorts of opinions if you meet the IQ threshold to own a computer of any sort. Similarly if you want a company to stop selling an older product based purely on your own internal feelings about how useful that product might be to others, I'm pretty sure you have exhibited all the requirements for a seat in Congress or even The White House, but probably should avoid technology as a career choice.
I won't hazard a guess as to what is unacceptable to him, but if our scarecrow model is Average American that's about 25.5 miles, times 2 (one to go, one to come back). We may have fantasies about our weekends, but on average that's also about as much as we drive on weekends too based on the model I have.
I will admit, I wouldn't buy another Ford if I were paid to do so.
If your point is that it is derivative...ok. Acerbic wit? Not remotely witty. But assuming he actually saw the movie, the review tells me some useful things: Will Smith and Margot Whoever were good, the script sucked, it's likely going to be corporate junkfood rather than something with some substance (Netflix's Daredevil comes to mind), and I probably don't want to bring my young kids there. That last is important, too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share, but I'd like to have guidance. As an adult you may not care at all, or perhaps wish they'd just go R like Deadpool. This all seems to be really good stuff I want to see in more reviews. Given that I personally may see only 3 movies in the theater this year, this won't be one I pick. The Vanity Fair review the other commenter linked I found to be a better quality review (if we're going to review reviews), but I get a strong "this is a terrible movie" vibe.
So I guess do you think these people are trying to give negative reviews for fun? Are they being paid to do it? Is this some strange geeky marvel vs. dc comic fanboi'ism? I'm not seeing it. From a meta-moderation sense, in my experience this summer I've found reviews to be too POSITIVE, the new Star Trek movie had a high tomato rating but I thought was dull although I admit to liking the re-imagined special effects, and "Light's Out" had a moderately high rating but was just your run of the mill startle-fest.