This would be the first thing Bush has done I would agree with. If he's serious, I could almost forgive him. If he *means* it, and we go, and we establish and maintain a manned lunar base... I just might.
As an avid Googler, I would prefer blogs be excluded from searches. Because I feel blogs are irrelevant or less?
No, because I want 'prepared' web pages as results when I do searches. Not someone's personal journal rambling on about whatever subject I was looking up at the time. I use Google the way libraries used to be employed; to find relevant data on a subject. Blogs are great, but they're a lot more 'off the cuff' than I prefer most of the time. Wading past blog links to find pages that have put together more comprehensive coverage of my current subject gets pretty old.
The theaters could have resisted the shift in splits to front load them, but they didn't. Now it's too late. They have let the new economics of movies overtake them, and are struggling to keep up. Studios greedily sought to structure the deals favorably to them; understandable even if short sighted.
The Regal Theaters in my area start the movies on time, on the time printed on my ticket. That's what I require. If they show commericals prior to that time on the screen, well okay (I guess). But trailers start when my ticket says, and that's the minimum this consumer will accept.
I would suggest people simply demand the same from their theater chains. And it wouldn't hurt to buy a drink or box of candy when you go either, unless you don't like going to the theater. Of course, with DVD, theaters are irrelevant for a certain percentage of the audience that doesn't mind waiting the extra 6-12 months to see 'new' material.
It all comes down to how you choose to tap into the stream of new content. Worst case, DVD makes it available to you for ~US$20 on your own TV and you can bring in whatever you like when you watch.
---quote--- He likely would not have liked Pixar's pushy behaviour, however. -endquote---
Walt likely wouldn't have treated Pixar so incredibly poorly, as Eisner has.
After Toy Story 2 was produced by Pixar as a full-feature, at Disney's insistence, Eisner then shoved the terms of the contract down Pixar's throat (long-story shortened, Disney assumed any sequels to Pixar films would be Disney type sequels, which are always low budget direct-to-video and usually considered crap by the film market; for this reason apparently, the contract specifies sequels do not count towards the five pictures Pixar is contracted to deliver under the current deal).
Of course, Eisner took Disney's full cut for Toy Story 2, even though it "didn't count". Eisner further thumbed his nose by pointing out Disney could produce a third Toy Story film whenever it (Disney) liked.
I dearly, very dearly, hope Pixar walks after the way Disney's treated them. I hate seeing Disney's name on Pixar's work. It further infuriates me so many mundane folks don't understand Toy Story and Finding Nemo are *PIXAR* movies, not Disney movies.
I very much want Pixar to emulate Dreamworks (or Lucas with Fox if you like); production but cutting straight distribution deals with existing studio distribution muscle. Aside from the money, Pixar's storytellers *deserve* to own the stories and characters they've breathed life in so brilliantly. That Disney has ownership over Buzz Lightyear, Dorrie the Blue Fish, Flick the Ant, and even Sully the Monster is a creative travesty.
Any way you want to spin the story, the facts remain the same. Disney can't put a picture together since Katzenburg left, and Pixar hasn't hit less than a homerun yet. Pixar doesn't need Disney, and should walk just to show they're not going to reward those who treat them so poorly.
Other References: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/d nflash/sep200 1/nf20010928_5607.htm http://www.macdirectory.com /ntrvu/Eisner/Index.htm l http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/columnist/l ieb erman/2003-02-09-pixar_x.htm
Medical research receives millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars a year. Private charities donate, universities donate research in the form of science and laboratory labor, the government funds research and offers grants, and private individuals who've had a personal interaction with a particular disease strike up their drum bands to thump for whatever cause is now very near and dear to their heart due to the affliction of a loved one.
SETI has to fight and claw for resources. Space in general is very not in vogue in the US; other countries are leapfrogging ahead of us. The US' best chance for space these days is private ventures such as the XPrize teams. And of Space ventures, SETI is the recipient of endless eye rolling and 'funny' comments that liken it to a waste of time. None of the eye rolling bothered me all that much as long as SETI@Home was in operation, because I knew it was making a very real amount of progress in the search.
This change in SETI@Home upsets me very much. I was interested in donating to SETI@Home, that the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Not the other searches, THIS search. The other searches have quite a bit of help and resources; SETI has very little. It very much confuses me why the SETI@Home team, which has done amazing and ground breaking work in not only the SETI field, but also in distributed computing, would choose to splinter and fritter away their computational resources like this. Opening the SETI network up to other projects does nothing but subtract resources from an already strapped scientific endeavor.
To put it bluntly, let the other projects go back to their wells to get resources; there is no well for SETI. And now what well we have is being pissed away.
This is not a good change. This is bad for SETI@Home, and is a serious setback for the project. Every computer that shifts from a SETI work unit to something else that's part of a well funded area of research is a waste.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be the first thing Bush has done I would agree with. If he's serious, I could almost forgive him. If he *means* it, and we go, and we establish and maintain a manned lunar base ... I just might.
As an avid Googler, I would prefer blogs be excluded from searches. Because I feel blogs are irrelevant or less? No, because I want 'prepared' web pages as results when I do searches. Not someone's personal journal rambling on about whatever subject I was looking up at the time. I use Google the way libraries used to be employed; to find relevant data on a subject. Blogs are great, but they're a lot more 'off the cuff' than I prefer most of the time. Wading past blog links to find pages that have put together more comprehensive coverage of my current subject gets pretty old.
The theaters could have resisted the shift in splits to front load them, but they didn't. Now it's too late. They have let the new economics of movies overtake them, and are struggling to keep up. Studios greedily sought to structure the deals favorably to them; understandable even if short sighted. The Regal Theaters in my area start the movies on time, on the time printed on my ticket. That's what I require. If they show commericals prior to that time on the screen, well okay (I guess). But trailers start when my ticket says, and that's the minimum this consumer will accept. I would suggest people simply demand the same from their theater chains. And it wouldn't hurt to buy a drink or box of candy when you go either, unless you don't like going to the theater. Of course, with DVD, theaters are irrelevant for a certain percentage of the audience that doesn't mind waiting the extra 6-12 months to see 'new' material. It all comes down to how you choose to tap into the stream of new content. Worst case, DVD makes it available to you for ~US$20 on your own TV and you can bring in whatever you like when you watch.
---quote---
h tm l?fromint=1
d nflash/sep200 1/nf20010928_5607.htmm /ntrvu/Eisner/Index.htm ll ieb erman/2003-02-09-pixar_x.htm
He likely would not have liked Pixar's pushy behaviour, however.
-endquote---
Walt likely wouldn't have treated Pixar so incredibly poorly, as Eisner has.
After Toy Story 2 was produced by Pixar as a full-feature, at Disney's insistence, Eisner then shoved the terms of the contract down Pixar's throat (long-story shortened, Disney assumed any sequels to Pixar films would be Disney type sequels, which are always low budget direct-to-video and usually considered crap by the film market; for this reason apparently, the contract specifies sequels do not count towards the five pictures Pixar is contracted to deliver under the current deal).
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/302/302352p1.
Of course, Eisner took Disney's full cut for Toy Story 2, even though it "didn't count". Eisner further thumbed his nose by pointing out Disney could produce a third Toy Story film whenever it (Disney) liked.
I dearly, very dearly, hope Pixar walks after the way Disney's treated them. I hate seeing Disney's name on Pixar's work. It further infuriates me so many mundane folks don't understand Toy Story and Finding Nemo are *PIXAR* movies, not Disney movies.
I very much want Pixar to emulate Dreamworks (or Lucas with Fox if you like); production but cutting straight distribution deals with existing studio distribution muscle. Aside from the money, Pixar's storytellers *deserve* to own the stories and characters they've breathed life in so brilliantly. That Disney has ownership over Buzz Lightyear, Dorrie the Blue Fish, Flick the Ant, and even Sully the Monster is a creative travesty.
Any way you want to spin the story, the facts remain the same. Disney can't put a picture together since Katzenburg left, and Pixar hasn't hit less than a homerun yet. Pixar doesn't need Disney, and should walk just to show they're not going to reward those who treat them so poorly.
Other References:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/
http://www.macdirectory.co
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/columnist/
Medical research receives millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars a year. Private charities donate, universities donate research in the form of science and laboratory labor, the government funds research and offers grants, and private individuals who've had a personal interaction with a particular disease strike up their drum bands to thump for whatever cause is now very near and dear to their heart due to the affliction of a loved one.
SETI has to fight and claw for resources. Space in general is very not in vogue in the US; other countries are leapfrogging ahead of us. The US' best chance for space these days is private ventures such as the XPrize teams. And of Space ventures, SETI is the recipient of endless eye rolling and 'funny' comments that liken it to a waste of time. None of the eye rolling bothered me all that much as long as SETI@Home was in operation, because I knew it was making a very real amount of progress in the search.
This change in SETI@Home upsets me very much. I was interested in donating to SETI@Home, that the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Not the other searches, THIS search. The other searches have quite a bit of help and resources; SETI has very little. It very much confuses me why the SETI@Home team, which has done amazing and ground breaking work in not only the SETI field, but also in distributed computing, would choose to splinter and fritter away their computational resources like this. Opening the SETI network up to other projects does nothing but subtract resources from an already strapped scientific endeavor.
To put it bluntly, let the other projects go back to their wells to get resources; there is no well for SETI. And now what well we have is being pissed away.
This is not a good change. This is bad for SETI@Home, and is a serious setback for the project. Every computer that shifts from a SETI work unit to something else that's part of a well funded area of research is a waste.