I suppose it bothers me because I will be compelled to view. It's another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket. I also feel compelled to bitch about it, because that's what we do.
Actually, America was gearing up to join the war just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They also contributed very significantly previously to that from a resources standpoint.
This was recently corrected with the Mountain Dew Diet Energy Drink...caffeinated and delicious, for Canadians. This has been the only bad thing about living in Canada for all of these years, and was just fixed.
I definitely agree that Miller is the master when it comes to Batman. From what I've read, a lot of the story in the movie is the stuff leading up to the beginning of 'Batman: Year One'...which I loved, and apparently the rest of it is by no means 100% faithful to Miller's work. That said, Chris Nolan is apparently a co-writer, and he has definitely proven himself in the past. I'm hopeful.
Hell, I just read Kevin Smith's review of Revenge of the Sith and now I'm a little hopeful about that one too. Don't click that link if you're not prepared for major spoilers. BTW, his verdict is very good, and he describes the film as "dark, dark, dark".
I know it's bound to happen at some point, but I would really rather not see anything done in the style of 'Sin City' anytime soon. It would take away from the uniqueness of the work. Frank Miller's directorial influence on 'Sin City' isn't something that we'll see happen again without it being under very special circumstances...Miller is a nazi about interpretations of his work. That's a good thing, imo.
I'm glad to see an interpretation of Batman: Year One, but I don't expect it to be nearly as comic-booky as 'Sin City' or 'Constantine'...which in my opinion was a wonderful adaptation, just not a truly saleable movie.
Good Director? - Check. (not that Burton wasn't..it just went wrong somewhere) You might remember Chris Nolan from Memento, Insomnia, and Following (good, but under-budgeted and not quite flash enough). He's definitely the kind of director that gets entirely inside the head of his characters.
Good Writer? - Unsure. David Goyer has spawned such pap as the three Blade movies and the sequel to The Crow...no way to call if he can pull it off. Then again, he did write 'Dark City', so he's had his moments.
Christian Bale? - No comment...we'll see.
This has the potential to be the creepiest Batman yet. I've always considered 'the bat' to be someone that everyone should be a little unsure about, not just a someone that kicks ass.
I agree with you entirely. It strikes me as ridiculous that they should be able to have any say, or throw any support behind a bill such as this. It's not the place of corporations to start exercising any kind of opinion on any social issue. Whether a company is on the right or wrong side of something like this I don't think they should have any say...this is the kind of thing that scares me when thinking about how corporations exercise control over government.
Actually I was reccomending it to the grandparent poster for a deeper understanding of how capitalism should/could work. If you read the first sentence that you quoted I explained exactly why I was reccomending it. The last sentence of my response, which you also quoted, was added incidentally and really had nothing to do with the book, but rather was a response to the general tone of the grandparent post.
Such as it is, I feel that one of us certainly does have a reading comprehension problem, though at the moment my only issue is that I'm responding to a snarky comment made by an AC.
Not only is it a great read, but it gives you an idea of the ideal that capitalism is when taken to extremes. It is, of course, a work of fiction, and shouldn't be taken as anything other than an idea of how things could be.
I agree with you and would have Canada be a more socialist Canada if that were possible currently. Sadly we're about to have a national election called and I don't see it happening.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally I'm quite glad to see things like this being done with our tax dollars. It's a very solid investment in the future of the nation as a whole.
I don't see how their could be a lower per capita cost for connecting people that are farther apart and less densely populated. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that smaller communities make for less money to be made by hooking them up to broadband. Running more cable costs more. Period.
The truth of the matter is that the Canadian government created the network infrastructure in Canada, rather than the corporations, who now use it to sell us our broadband and that's why it's cheaper to connect people here.
Aye, but the government in Canada paid for the backbone to be put across the country. Different from the states where such things are done by corporate interests. A consortium of business, educational, and governmental interests worked on the project which brought about the world's first national optical Internet research and education network. This has blossomed into CA*net4, which is our current backbone.
Government interest in broadening communications abilities in Canada has always been viewed as culturally and economically important. A country laid out as we are couldn't possibly survive or thrive without such an interest. Canada paid a lot of attention to the establishment of the national telephone network, a great deal of funding is pumped into the cbc to guarantee that every community has access to it, and now.
I'm pretty sure that very little, if any of your taxes went to helping out the communications sector. You have cheap broadband because that sector of industry is given tax breaks, and encouraged to thrive. This is not a bad thing, it's probably why you make so much money (just a guess).
You should seek out a decent accountant and get some advice on how to manage your finances so that you don't have to pay so much tax. There are ways of making as much as you do and not putting it all in the pot.
It's actually the great distances that are between major Canadian cities that causes Canada to be a leader in communications globally. One of the major things that we've had to do as a country is to enable communication and cultural solidarity across sparsely populated areas. Innovation in the communication sector is something that has always been an important issue to Canadians, and to the Canadian Government. The mandate of Industry Canada is to help make Canadians more productive and competitive in the knowledge-based economy. Broadband being cheap and everywhere is a bit part of that, and has been for a decade.
Slashdot Mirror
You're taking this all too seriously. Everything's cool.
I suppose it bothers me because I will be compelled to view. It's another couple hundred bucks out of my pocket. I also feel compelled to bitch about it, because that's what we do.
Fuck you, George Lucas. Fuck you.
Actually, America was gearing up to join the war just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They also contributed very significantly previously to that from a resources standpoint.
Same deal here....I was going in for a quick Macgyver fix, perhaps some things are best left to memory.
Wait, maybe with some bubble-gum, a proxy, and my shoelace.....ahhhhhhh, that's it. Yes, it's as bad as I remember.
Johnny Mac never called my mother a cunt-rag.
Awww, and you misspelled something too...
People must actually care about their cats.
This was recently corrected with the Mountain Dew Diet Energy Drink...caffeinated and delicious, for Canadians. This has been the only bad thing about living in Canada for all of these years, and was just fixed.
I'm paranoid in the level of research that I put into hardware purchases. Hell, that's probably the only reason I'm reading this thread.
I definitely agree that Miller is the master when it comes to Batman. From what I've read, a lot of the story in the movie is the stuff leading up to the beginning of 'Batman: Year One'...which I loved, and apparently the rest of it is by no means 100% faithful to Miller's work. That said, Chris Nolan is apparently a co-writer, and he has definitely proven himself in the past. I'm hopeful.
Hell, I just read Kevin Smith's review of Revenge of the Sith and now I'm a little hopeful about that one too. Don't click that link if you're not prepared for major spoilers. BTW, his verdict is very good, and he describes the film as "dark, dark, dark".
I saw it years ago, can't remember if it was a bad movie or a bad performance...didn't want to comment on something and be talking out my ass.
I know it's bound to happen at some point, but I would really rather not see anything done in the style of 'Sin City' anytime soon. It would take away from the uniqueness of the work. Frank Miller's directorial influence on 'Sin City' isn't something that we'll see happen again without it being under very special circumstances...Miller is a nazi about interpretations of his work. That's a good thing, imo.
I'm glad to see an interpretation of Batman: Year One, but I don't expect it to be nearly as comic-booky as 'Sin City' or 'Constantine'...which in my opinion was a wonderful adaptation, just not a truly saleable movie.
Dark? - Check.
Good Director? - Check. (not that Burton wasn't..it just went wrong somewhere) You might remember Chris Nolan from Memento, Insomnia, and Following (good, but under-budgeted and not quite flash enough). He's definitely the kind of director that gets entirely inside the head of his characters.
Good Writer? - Unsure. David Goyer has spawned such pap as the three Blade movies and the sequel to The Crow...no way to call if he can pull it off. Then again, he did write 'Dark City', so he's had his moments.
Christian Bale? - No comment...we'll see.
This has the potential to be the creepiest Batman yet. I've always considered 'the bat' to be someone that everyone should be a little unsure about, not just a someone that kicks ass.
I agree with you entirely. It strikes me as ridiculous that they should be able to have any say, or throw any support behind a bill such as this. It's not the place of corporations to start exercising any kind of opinion on any social issue. Whether a company is on the right or wrong side of something like this I don't think they should have any say...this is the kind of thing that scares me when thinking about how corporations exercise control over government.
Actually I was reccomending it to the grandparent poster for a deeper understanding of how capitalism should/could work. If you read the first sentence that you quoted I explained exactly why I was reccomending it. The last sentence of my response, which you also quoted, was added incidentally and really had nothing to do with the book, but rather was a response to the general tone of the grandparent post.
Such as it is, I feel that one of us certainly does have a reading comprehension problem, though at the moment my only issue is that I'm responding to a snarky comment made by an AC.
Yep, that's the difference that I was pointing out. I figured I could spare everyone the ARPANET history.
I would reccomend that you read Atlas Shrugged.
Not only is it a great read, but it gives you an idea of the ideal that capitalism is when taken to extremes. It is, of course, a work of fiction, and shouldn't be taken as anything other than an idea of how things could be.
I agree with you and would have Canada be a more socialist Canada if that were possible currently. Sadly we're about to have a national election called and I don't see it happening.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally I'm quite glad to see things like this being done with our tax dollars. It's a very solid investment in the future of the nation as a whole.
I don't see how their could be a lower per capita cost for connecting people that are farther apart and less densely populated. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but it seems to me that smaller communities make for less money to be made by hooking them up to broadband. Running more cable costs more. Period.
The truth of the matter is that the Canadian government created the network infrastructure in Canada, rather than the corporations, who now use it to sell us our broadband and that's why it's cheaper to connect people here.
Aye, but the government in Canada paid for the backbone to be put across the country. Different from the states where such things are done by corporate interests. A consortium of business, educational, and governmental interests worked on the project which brought about the world's first national optical Internet research and education network. This has blossomed into CA*net4, which is our current backbone.
.
Government interest in broadening communications abilities in Canada has always been viewed as culturally and economically important. A country laid out as we are couldn't possibly survive or thrive without such an interest. Canada paid a lot of attention to the establishment of the national telephone network, a great deal of funding is pumped into the cbc to guarantee that every community has access to it, and now
Agreed.
I'm pretty sure that very little, if any of your taxes went to helping out the communications sector. You have cheap broadband because that sector of industry is given tax breaks, and encouraged to thrive. This is not a bad thing, it's probably why you make so much money (just a guess).
You should seek out a decent accountant and get some advice on how to manage your finances so that you don't have to pay so much tax. There are ways of making as much as you do and not putting it all in the pot.
It's actually the great distances that are between major Canadian cities that causes Canada to be a leader in communications globally. One of the major things that we've had to do as a country is to enable communication and cultural solidarity across sparsely populated areas. Innovation in the communication sector is something that has always been an important issue to Canadians, and to the Canadian Government. The mandate of Industry Canada is to help make Canadians more productive and competitive in the knowledge-based economy. Broadband being cheap and everywhere is a bit part of that, and has been for a decade.
Now, what's really funny is that not only did I post the wrong link, but I posted a link to something that is definitely questionable content.
Here is the right link. For bearing with me, I offer you a funny Mr. T video