I have reached the conclusion that more than anything people involved in it view it as an ego trip and a playground. If they really cared about making money, they'd make a lot more stuff like Gone in 60 Seconds, comedies or low budget movies. Or, they'd make the movies they make for a lot less money.
How much money did Disney make on Lion King 1 1/2? My guess is that it made a boatload of cash. Maybe it's a critical failure, but I'd guess it was a financial success.
Your thinking is wrong way around. The Nazis wanted to rearm Germany, and brought the arms dealers on side for support. Your thinking (the way I read it) is that the arms dealers influenced the Nazis to become a party of rearmament and war, where actually the Nazis planned to rearm before the arms dealers started supporting them.
Gustav Krupp was initially hostile to the Nazi party. The fact they were going to destroy trade unions and rearm, they got support from him as well as other industrialists.
What war has ever happened because defence contractors can profit from it?
As for Hiroshima, there's a genuine debate about whether the atomic bomb was a necessary thing. It may or may not have shortened the war (this also has to consider not what we know now, but what was known then). The same debate isn't ongoing about nazi atrocities.
Sometimes war is necessary. At that point, defence contractors are rather useful.
I think the shedding is nearly over. I've seen a lot of people quitting to do other things, and a lot of genuine folks enduring the bad wages because IT is what they want to do.
I help family and friends. Friends of family and friends I'm much more picky about, and mostly will send people an hourly rate. I've even stopped doing it as a loss-leader/promotional exercise because I've never had a return on it.
I'm also reluctant to help friends and family out with something to do with their PCs at their place of work, unless they're going to get in some deep shit if I don't. If their paid-for IT support can't solve it, the paid-for IT support can hire me to do it.
There's a whole lot of ways to deal with the demand rather than the supply, often much cheaper than building a billion wind farms.
Take a bike to work. Not only environmentally friendly, but you save money on fuel, and get fit at the same time (and save time because you don't need to go to a gym later).
Drive a diesel or hybrid. Save considerable amounts of fuel.
Take the bus.
Get your home properly insulated.
Get energy efficient appliances for the home.
Switch off things that aren't in use.
Buy more food from local sources, saving wasted "food miles".
Car share.
Walk
Combine journeys (like plan ahead).
A lot of these things aren't just good from a perspective of saving fuel/the planet, they can also make a big difference to your wallet and quality of life.
I see this as quite a problem for Microsoft. If they end support for an OS, there's a massive risk of a switch to Linux. If they add features now, people won't bother to upgrade.
So, you are building a commercial site and not worried about losing 10% of your customers?
I've been to sites that basically say "you can't use this site without IE". My response is "well, I'll take my business elsewhere".
Competition is too tight to lose customers. How much does it cost to build in FF stylesheet support? Probably not much more than losing 2 or 3 car sales.
I'd also like to know about the demographics of non-IE users. Safari users are Mac users, and most Mac users I know are bright and have disposable income. Firefox users are possibly students and techs, again, often people with either income now, or income in the future.
There's a number of ways of looking at each of these.
1. Range can be approximately 50 miles. A lot of people can cope with 50 miles. Particularly things like 2nd cars.
2. If it will do a certain range in a day and charge overnight, I'm sure many people will be happy.
3. The cost has to be about as much per mile as a traditional car. If the fuel is cheaper, though, that can be factored in.
4. Emissions are less of an issue with central generation because those big generators waste less. Cars are a very inefficient way of turning fossil fuel into motion.
5. Dunno. We don't need A/C much in England (if only);)
Everything I've heard about Electric Vehicles suggests that all experiments into EVs have had massive satisfaction from people involved in the experiments, and that they have often been quite sad when the trials finished.
Also, that people were very interested in hiring them.
I don't know where the $30,000 figure came from, but I can't believe that if they were manufactured in sufficient volume that they would be that much.
We can talk about equivalents, but a high-speed internet is to the desktop what the motor car was to the horse and cart.
There are already desktop-killing applications out there. The IMDB wiped out certain CD based movie databases. There are route finders that mean I don't have to have autoroute installed. There are CRM systems where you use a web interface and rent the service.
I'm using Gmail, and I can search for messages as quickly as I can search messages locally.
This is all the result of more users and faster networks. There's some nervousness still about "my data is online" but it's going to change. People will just do it because the benefits outweigh the risks.
As 3G grows, hi-speed will be accessible almost anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I've not seen Tomb Raider, but every other one I've cast eyes on has made me want to turn it off very quickly.
I have reached the conclusion that more than anything people involved in it view it as an ego trip and a playground. If they really cared about making money, they'd make a lot more stuff like Gone in 60 Seconds, comedies or low budget movies. Or, they'd make the movies they make for a lot less money.
How much money did Disney make on Lion King 1 1/2? My guess is that it made a boatload of cash. Maybe it's a critical failure, but I'd guess it was a financial success.
Did she "choose" not to pick Spielberg? Or was he not available?
Connery is an ex-bodybuilder turned actor, he's not classically trained.
Personally, I quite like him in some films. He has what might be termed "presence".
Patrick Stewart is ex-RSC IIRC, so is classically trained.
Gustav Krupp was initially hostile to the Nazi party. The fact they were going to destroy trade unions and rearm, they got support from him as well as other industrialists.
You have anything to back up any of those statements?
What war has ever happened because defence contractors can profit from it?
As for Hiroshima, there's a genuine debate about whether the atomic bomb was a necessary thing. It may or may not have shortened the war (this also has to consider not what we know now, but what was known then). The same debate isn't ongoing about nazi atrocities.
Sometimes war is necessary. At that point, defence contractors are rather useful.
Could come in handy...
All scream out the purpose of their companies, don't they?
If anything, the converse is true. Call yourself "Joe's Bookstore", and it just doesn't stand out from the rest of the same market.
You think there's going to be anything left of SCO if IBM wins?
I think the shedding is nearly over. I've seen a lot of people quitting to do other things, and a lot of genuine folks enduring the bad wages because IT is what they want to do.
I help family and friends. Friends of family and friends I'm much more picky about, and mostly will send people an hourly rate. I've even stopped doing it as a loss-leader/promotional exercise because I've never had a return on it.
I'm also reluctant to help friends and family out with something to do with their PCs at their place of work, unless they're going to get in some deep shit if I don't. If their paid-for IT support can't solve it, the paid-for IT support can hire me to do it.
Any country that is known for it's chocolate, beer and chips seems to have it's priorities right.
Take a bike to work. Not only environmentally friendly, but you save money on fuel, and get fit at the same time (and save time because you don't need to go to a gym later).
Drive a diesel or hybrid. Save considerable amounts of fuel.
Take the bus.
Get your home properly insulated.
Get energy efficient appliances for the home.
Switch off things that aren't in use.
Buy more food from local sources, saving wasted "food miles".
Car share.
Walk
Combine journeys (like plan ahead).
A lot of these things aren't just good from a perspective of saving fuel/the planet, they can also make a big difference to your wallet and quality of life.
The debate isn't whether it's better or worse. It's whether it's following a "cathedral" or a "bazaar" model.
Not forgetting the photo organiser - because you can't just get one of those for free ;)
People are just "happy enough".
I see this as quite a problem for Microsoft. If they end support for an OS, there's a massive risk of a switch to Linux. If they add features now, people won't bother to upgrade.
I've been to sites that basically say "you can't use this site without IE". My response is "well, I'll take my business elsewhere".
Competition is too tight to lose customers. How much does it cost to build in FF stylesheet support? Probably not much more than losing 2 or 3 car sales.
I'd also like to know about the demographics of non-IE users. Safari users are Mac users, and most Mac users I know are bright and have disposable income. Firefox users are possibly students and techs, again, often people with either income now, or income in the future.
Oh, and that I won't trade with them until they do. Two car companies, one car dealership and one utility company have so far all been passed by.
Do likewise and maybe we'll get some compliance.
1. Range can be approximately 50 miles. A lot of people can cope with 50 miles. Particularly things like 2nd cars.
2. If it will do a certain range in a day and charge overnight, I'm sure many people will be happy.
3. The cost has to be about as much per mile as a traditional car. If the fuel is cheaper, though, that can be factored in.
4. Emissions are less of an issue with central generation because those big generators waste less. Cars are a very inefficient way of turning fossil fuel into motion.
5. Dunno. We don't need A/C much in England (if only) ;)
Also, that people were very interested in hiring them.
I don't know where the $30,000 figure came from, but I can't believe that if they were manufactured in sufficient volume that they would be that much.
(Briton just enjoying the spectacle of the USA falling apart).
There are already desktop-killing applications out there. The IMDB wiped out certain CD based movie databases. There are route finders that mean I don't have to have autoroute installed. There are CRM systems where you use a web interface and rent the service.
I'm using Gmail, and I can search for messages as quickly as I can search messages locally.
This is all the result of more users and faster networks. There's some nervousness still about "my data is online" but it's going to change. People will just do it because the benefits outweigh the risks.
As 3G grows, hi-speed will be accessible almost anywhere.