Instead of judging the movie by comparison to these big budget studios, watch it for what it is and enjoy the fact that it was made by some everyday, above-average joes.
What it is, is a movie. If it's a good movie, excellent, well done for getting round the limitations of film-making on a tiny budget. But if it's a bad movie, I don't care whether it's made by orphan kids dying of cancer, it's still a bad movie.
And that's in what way exactly different from Hollywood?
The main difference is that you now don't have to shell out 15 bucks for wooden acting, overblown special effects and scripts that fit on a bar napkin.
If you're paying to watch crappy Hollywood blockbusters you're an idiot. No one's forcing you. Take the time to read a few reviews and you can cut out 95% of movies almost straight away. In most years, there are probably only a handful of films actually worth watching, it's not like you have to go to the movies twice a week as some sort of religious or legal obligation.
No, you shouldn't support crap art just because it's not made by a big studio. Bad art is bad art. There are plenty of good low budget films to patronise.
it's now rare for even writers with multiple NYT best-sellers to make enough to quit their "day" job.
Most serious professional writers do have to earn extra money by doing lectures, journalism, or whatever. That does not mean they don't still spend most of their time writing. They're not working 60-80 hours a week as lawyers or programmers.
Well lucky you for already having a welll paid job so you don't have to bother about getting paid.
This was pretty much the situation with artists prior to the Nineteenth Century: they were either independently wealthy members of the upper class, or they got a patron to support them.
It's funny how everyone on slashdot is all for the free market, but when it comes to art, it's back to the fucking Middle Ages.
I think in this scenario, the display would need to be some sort of foldable or rollable electonic piece of paper. Once your computer is in a watch or a pair of glassses, you're not going to want to carry around a chunky, rigid plastic box in your pocket as well just to be able to actually see anything useful, as in that case you might just as well have the computer in a chunky, rigid plastic box to start with.
Imagine - you have your Txtr in your hand, or simply propped up on a little stand or laying on your lap as you read. To turn the page, you just give your wrist (the one your iWatch is on) a little flick, and the page turns.
I think it would quickly become known as the iWank. The body language would be too suggestive.
I've got a (relatively) old Sony book reader, and the battery only lasts a few days if you use it to actually do any serious reading (a couple of hours a day or more).
Anybody who thinks a tablet screen is a good replacement for an e-Ink screen has never seen an e-Ink screen or never read more than a few dozen pages at a time.
I agree, but don't forget that most people probably don't read more than a few dozen pages at a time, so it doesn't really matter. The main problem with reading on a tablet is if you try to do it outdoors, so a proper e-Ink book reader is still a much better bet if you want to take it on a beach holidy or something.
But in all honesty, I'd rather have an old fashioned chunky paperback to read outside anyway, as it doesn't really matter if it gets splashed, covered in sand or whatever.
Maybe they want us to invade so we will rebuild their country like we did in Iraq?
You spend tens of billions fighting a war and destroying stuff, then tens of billions more rebuilding it,then fuck off out of the country leaving a legacy of hatred and mistrust in the region that will last for generations. But the military-industrial complex got its gravy.
Ah, but wasn't the US just 'defending' itself in the Iraq war?
Well, the UK certainly was, Tony Blair told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ready to attack us at 20 minutes notice. And that's why we went to war with Iraq, right? Right?
Oh no, it was to save the Iraqi women and children from oppression, or was that Afghanistan? It gets so confusing.
No, you're quite wrong. MAD means Mutually Assured Destruction. If you start a war that will end up wiping my side out, I will retaliate equally so that you are wiped out too.
It doesn't apply to lower level threats. One nuke from NK would not justify obliterating the entire country with a thousand US nukes, in the same way that the 9/11 attacks didn't justify the US retaliating against Al Qaeda by transforming Saudi Arabia into a nice smooth glass plain.
Hating the fact that you have to work doesn't mean you have to hate your job.
That would only be true if it was simple to move jobs, there was more or less full employment and there were a majority of pleasant firms to work for. Especially in the current economic climate, if you've got a job (and aren't a slashdot superstar) you stick with it however much you hate it.
Part of being a good manager is knowing what the appropriate amount of work is for your employees. If you don't have any fucking clue at all how long a project you assign should take, you probably shouldn't be a manager in the first place.
Exactly.
If you tell an employee "you've got a year to do this project, just come back to me in 12 months time with it finished and I won't bother you at all before then" you have only yourself to blame if he can finish it in a couple of weeks and fuck off on holiday.
In today's complex "knowledge worker" (or pick your favorite buzzword) environment, employees tend to know more than their boss about the details of their work
Employees have always known more about the minute details of their job than their bosses. If you are in charge of even twenty people, you cannot literally do all their work. So you work by exception. If things are going well, you let the employees get on with it, and they come to you if something unusual/difficult/worrying comes up.
If you are being paid the salary of a software engineer, and you are only doing 20 hours of work a week, and literally cannot think of anything else to do to fill your time that is productive work, then you have a major problem, and you are probably vastly overpaid.
Uh, if somebody is able to do enough work to justify a full salary in 20 hours a week, then I'd say they have a great thing going. If they're not going to be paid more to do more, and they're able to justify their salaries on their current work output, then only an idiot would work more.
It doesn't fit in with the Protestant Work Ethic thing though, most people here seriously seem to think it's a Good Thing to work 60-80 hours a week.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of judging the movie by comparison to these big budget studios, watch it for what it is and enjoy the fact that it was made by some everyday, above-average joes.
What it is, is a movie. If it's a good movie, excellent, well done for getting round the limitations of film-making on a tiny budget. But if it's a bad movie, I don't care whether it's made by orphan kids dying of cancer, it's still a bad movie.
Prepare for howls of outrage that you didn't do it all on FOSS.
And that's in what way exactly different from Hollywood?
The main difference is that you now don't have to shell out 15 bucks for wooden acting, overblown special effects and scripts that fit on a bar napkin.
If you're paying to watch crappy Hollywood blockbusters you're an idiot. No one's forcing you. Take the time to read a few reviews and you can cut out 95% of movies almost straight away. In most years, there are probably only a handful of films actually worth watching, it's not like you have to go to the movies twice a week as some sort of religious or legal obligation.
No, you shouldn't support crap art just because it's not made by a big studio. Bad art is bad art. There are plenty of good low budget films to patronise.
Most of the commercial, professionally-made films are utter shit too.
Yes, but not all of them are. That's the difference between professional and amateur art.
it's now rare for even writers with multiple NYT best-sellers to make enough to quit their "day" job.
Most serious professional writers do have to earn extra money by doing lectures, journalism, or whatever. That does not mean they don't still spend most of their time writing. They're not working 60-80 hours a week as lawyers or programmers.
This was pretty much the situation with artists prior to the Nineteenth Century: they were either independently wealthy members of the upper class, or they got a patron to support them.
It's funny how everyone on slashdot is all for the free market, but when it comes to art, it's back to the fucking Middle Ages.
I suppose they're fun if you're a deaf, dumb and blind kid though
I know it is fashionable to blame patents for all the ills that plague humanity
No, no, on slashdot it's copyright which is to blame for all the ills that plague humanity.
I think in this scenario, the display would need to be some sort of foldable or rollable electonic piece of paper. Once your computer is in a watch or a pair of glassses, you're not going to want to carry around a chunky, rigid plastic box in your pocket as well just to be able to actually see anything useful, as in that case you might just as well have the computer in a chunky, rigid plastic box to start with.
Imagine - you have your Txtr in your hand, or simply propped up on a little stand or laying on your lap as you read. To turn the page, you just give your wrist (the one your iWatch is on) a little flick, and the page turns.
I think it would quickly become known as the iWank. The body language would be too suggestive.
I've got a (relatively) old Sony book reader, and the battery only lasts a few days if you use it to actually do any serious reading (a couple of hours a day or more).
A good e-reader only needs to be charged every month or two
Yes, if you don't use it.
Anybody who thinks a tablet screen is a good replacement for an e-Ink screen has never seen an e-Ink screen or never read more than a few dozen pages at a time.
I agree, but don't forget that most people probably don't read more than a few dozen pages at a time, so it doesn't really matter. The main problem with reading on a tablet is if you try to do it outdoors, so a proper e-Ink book reader is still a much better bet if you want to take it on a beach holidy or something.
But in all honesty, I'd rather have an old fashioned chunky paperback to read outside anyway, as it doesn't really matter if it gets splashed, covered in sand or whatever.
To paraphrase an old saying, it's the victors who get to decide what an atrocity or war crime is.
Maybe they want us to invade so we will rebuild their country like we did in Iraq?
You spend tens of billions fighting a war and destroying stuff, then tens of billions more rebuilding it,then fuck off out of the country leaving a legacy of hatred and mistrust in the region that will last for generations. But the military-industrial complex got its gravy.
Ah, but wasn't the US just 'defending' itself in the Iraq war?
Well, the UK certainly was, Tony Blair told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ready to attack us at 20 minutes notice. And that's why we went to war with Iraq, right? Right?
Oh no, it was to save the Iraqi women and children from oppression, or was that Afghanistan? It gets so confusing.
Shouldn't that be Deal Reader if you're going Team America?
It doesn't apply to lower level threats. One nuke from NK would not justify obliterating the entire country with a thousand US nukes, in the same way that the 9/11 attacks didn't justify the US retaliating against Al Qaeda by transforming Saudi Arabia into a nice smooth glass plain.
Hating the fact that you have to work doesn't mean you have to hate your job.
That would only be true if it was simple to move jobs, there was more or less full employment and there were a majority of pleasant firms to work for. Especially in the current economic climate, if you've got a job (and aren't a slashdot superstar) you stick with it however much you hate it.
"I bet most of the posters right now are in the office. People will slack off no matter what."
Only if you are a government employee (if in the U.S.) or live outside the U.S. time zones.
Then US workers in private industry have swallowed the Kapitalist Kool Aid.
In fact, as it's union, his termination was being fought against years hence (and I left there many years ago, it may still be ongoing).
What bollocks, you clearly have no idea how unions, lawyers, employers or HR work.
Part of being a good manager is knowing what the appropriate amount of work is for your employees. If you don't have any fucking clue at all how long a project you assign should take, you probably shouldn't be a manager in the first place.
Exactly.
If you tell an employee "you've got a year to do this project, just come back to me in 12 months time with it finished and I won't bother you at all before then" you have only yourself to blame if he can finish it in a couple of weeks and fuck off on holiday.
In today's complex "knowledge worker" (or pick your favorite buzzword) environment, employees tend to know more than their boss about the details of their work
Employees have always known more about the minute details of their job than their bosses. If you are in charge of even twenty people, you cannot literally do all their work. So you work by exception. If things are going well, you let the employees get on with it, and they come to you if something unusual/difficult/worrying comes up.
If you are being paid the salary of a software engineer, and you are only doing 20 hours of work a week, and literally cannot think of anything else to do to fill your time that is productive work, then you have a major problem, and you are probably vastly overpaid.
Uh, if somebody is able to do enough work to justify a full salary in 20 hours a week, then I'd say they have a great thing going. If they're not going to be paid more to do more, and they're able to justify their salaries on their current work output, then only an idiot would work more.
It doesn't fit in with the Protestant Work Ethic thing though, most people here seriously seem to think it's a Good Thing to work 60-80 hours a week.