"City of God"? "Finding Nemo"? Will people really still be watching these movies in 10 years? "City of God" is overrated as it's basically just another gangster film, but set in an exotic, but poor, locale, so people praised it. I was bored in 15 minutes. "Finding Nemo" is a well done kid's flick, but there are dozens that are just as good.
Films like these get put on a list because it's the hip thing to do. If someone really wanted to make as objective a list as possible, they should limit the films by release date. Five years is a good number, but ten is better. If it's less than that, you can't consider it. Films take time to be come truly great.
There are several films in the last few years that I love, but I am not sure I'll still be popping them in my DVD player in five years. Among them: Lost in Translation, Before Sunset, Solaris, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, Mulholland Drive. There are many films that I know I'll still be watcthing in five years because I've been watching them regularly for five years or more: Dr. Strangelove, Casablanca, When Harry Met Sally, Barton Fink, Rushmore, Goodfellas, The Princess Bride. These are the great movies for me.
I might say that "Lost in Translation" is one of my favorite movies right now, but if you asked me to make a Greatest 100 (or 10 or whatever) list, it wouldn't be on it. I wouldn't dishonor great films by doing that.
if you are a billionary it is your f***ing duty !!
Why is it his duty to give up any of the money he earned? And at what point does it become someone's duty to give away money to people who haven't earned it? $1,000,000 net worth? $1,000,000,000? $4,829,641? Who gets to decide that?
In short, they want to build "buzz". I worked as a manager in movie theaters for a number of years, and while five months early is a bit extreme, many movies had early screenings to build buzz. There have been several movies that I can remember screenings of that really helped. When "When Harry Met Sally" came out, there were some early screenings and everyone was talking about the orgasm scene. People called us weeks in advance to find out when we were playing it. It sold out every weekend for several weeks.
If "Serenity" is good, and there's no reason to think it won't be, why not create some buzz and pay for the screenings at the same time? The distributors know that the rabid fans will pay to see this movie early, and they're hoping that they'll tell all their friends about it. If you can create a buzz going into summer, people will look forward to it even while being bomabrded with the usual summer blockbusters.
I think this is a brilliant move on the distributor's part, and I hope they have a few more between now and September to keep the buzz going.
I think you have the fact/assumption logic reversed. Something had to create the universe. It hasn't always been there and it didn't spontaneously appear out of nothing, therefore some external force created it.
Claiming that God "must" have created the universe, but then not investigating what caused God because that is beyond comprehension is no different than simply saying that we cannot possible know what created the universe in the first place.
Thanks for making my point. Something created it, and we don't understand it. This is what I am referring to when I say "God". I specifially said I wasn't referring to a specific God of a specific religion. And I never said we shouldn't investigate, just that we don't understand God right now. We may find proof tomorrow or never, but it doesn't change the fact that something created our universe, caused the Big Bang, or carefully placed millions of fossils for us to find and ponder.
No, the stupidy comes in when you're paying for someone to build you a DARTH VADER COMPUTER.
That's not stupidity, that's taste. Stupidity is posting for the world to see that you're ignorant. Ignorance is not knowing what certain words mean or how to spell them, like 'stupidity'.
That's like saying "Paying a landscaping company to plant trees and flowers and maintain your lawn is the stupid person's way to 'customize' their yard" or a thousand different time-consuming activities.
They're not necessarily stupid, they're just lazy or have better things to do with the time that it would take. I would never take the time to do lots of things (yard work, fix my refrigerator, drive several hours when a flight will get me there in two hours, etc..). Paying people saves me time and effort - it has nothing to do with stupidity.
Most people think of "God" as the deity of a religion, and I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case. I'm saying that some force bigger and/or more powerful than our universe created our universe. If it was a "hiccup" in another universe, then God created that universe, or the one before, etc... God has always been there - it has to have always been there. It's something we'll probably never comprehend, and maybe we're not supposed to. Who knows? We may all be in a globe around a cat's neck... but something put it there.
The analogy you present is flawed. We have observed poodles. We know they are (usually) not purple, they cannot fly, and cannot communicate to humans any psychic knowledge that they may have. Proving that you have this type of poodle is as simple as showing us. We have never observed God, so we don't know how to prove that there is one.
I believe that there is a God because there has to be. The Big Bang (or whatever started this universe) didn't just happen out of nothing. Some entity that we don't understand and haven't observed set everything in motion. I'm not demanding that you believe that the Creation of the Bible is correct. I'm just saying that if you're using your analogy, atheists are the ones that have to prove that there is no God because God not existing is the more fantastic claim by far.
And understand that I am separating God from religion here. The God that "created" the universe could be the Christian God, Allah, C3PO, a combination of all three, or something completely different.
Carousels already handle this many passengers at peak times. I usually see 3-4 flights at once listed, and people standing three deep. Checking luggage is already a nightmare, I don't think this will make it worse. Plus, most airlines will use the ~550 seat configuration, and the 747-400 seats 416-560 typically, so the difference is not that great.
It isn't usually a financially sound investment to try and copy an idea without violating copyright laws
You can't copyright an idea. If you make a product that reads JPEGs and displays them, I can copy that idea as long as I don't copy the name of your program, exact look and feel, etc...
My company uses an OS library to read a certain file format. We wrote a GUI for it and now sell the whole package. We are also paying the company that owns the copyright to the code to modify it to fit our needs. Both of us are making money off of an Open Source project.
Since there are easily 300 million analog sets in the U.S. now, and most figures I've seen is that a converter should cost around $30, the value of auctioning the VHF and UHF TV bands off better exceed 9 billion dollars just to cover TVs.
I don't think you understand that not every analog tv will need to have the converter. Only those receiving over the air only. If you have a cable box or get satellite, you don't need the converter. The most common figure I have seen is that 85% of households have cable (I'm not sure if that includes satellite), so only 15% of those tvs will need the converter, and many will upgrade to a digital tv just because they want to when the switchover happens. Your $9 billion figure is way off. As far as the auction needing to raise that much goes, TV is not a necessity. The government doesn't need to reimburse anyone for a luxury.
Isn't Office called Office for a reason? It's designed for an office environment that can get full use of the product. Mom and Pop don't need that - they can use Wordpad, which comes with Windows, for writing letters, etc...
For me, it was the Unique Jumps in Vice City. I was obsessed with completing all of them - and it took a while. I found that when I was driving around in real life, I was looking at every incline (big or little) saying to myself, "I could jump that" in my '95 Nissan pickup.
No, it doesn't matter what you think of a company's tactics. If Apple had been the company to become the PC standard in the 80s instead of MS, chances are we'd be talking about Apple's questionable tactics to secure market share. Fact is, companies will do almost anything to grow and survive, even if they dominate their market. The more power they have, the more they will use it. MS used its position to further secure its position, and any company would do virtually the same thing. On a related note, why isn't Apple letting other DRM formats (i.e Real) on their iPod? A: Because they want to dominate that market.
It is amazing when its Apple but evil when its Microsoft?
Yep. Because when Apple does it, the end user sees a benefit. When Microsoft does it, their market share increases.
EVERYTHING Apple does (and any other for-profit company, for that matter) is done to increase profit and market share. If that's not the goal, the company won't survive very long. So if the user benefits from something Apple does, hopefully their market share will increase. A great example is the iPod. Before the 4G iPod, I didn't like Apple's products. Now I own an iPod and some accessories. If they ever make the UI of OS X more user-friendly, I might even buy a computer from them, thus increasing their market share and profit. And if MS comes out with a better MP3 player, I'll buy theirs.
Doesn't matter what you think about a company's motivation. They're all in it to make as much money as possible. They do that by satisfying the customer. MS seems to have a pretty good handle on that, regardless of bugs/security problems. People want cheap and easy to use software and are willing to put up with some inconvenience to get that.
Slashdot Mirror
Films like these get put on a list because it's the hip thing to do. If someone really wanted to make as objective a list as possible, they should limit the films by release date. Five years is a good number, but ten is better. If it's less than that, you can't consider it. Films take time to be come truly great.
There are several films in the last few years that I love, but I am not sure I'll still be popping them in my DVD player in five years. Among them: Lost in Translation, Before Sunset, Solaris, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko, Mulholland Drive. There are many films that I know I'll still be watcthing in five years because I've been watching them regularly for five years or more: Dr. Strangelove, Casablanca, When Harry Met Sally, Barton Fink, Rushmore, Goodfellas, The Princess Bride. These are the great movies for me.
I might say that "Lost in Translation" is one of my favorite movies right now, but if you asked me to make a Greatest 100 (or 10 or whatever) list, it wouldn't be on it. I wouldn't dishonor great films by doing that.
If "Serenity" is good, and there's no reason to think it won't be, why not create some buzz and pay for the screenings at the same time? The distributors know that the rabid fans will pay to see this movie early, and they're hoping that they'll tell all their friends about it. If you can create a buzz going into summer, people will look forward to it even while being bomabrded with the usual summer blockbusters.
I think this is a brilliant move on the distributor's part, and I hope they have a few more between now and September to keep the buzz going.
I think you have the fact/assumption logic reversed. Something had to create the universe. It hasn't always been there and it didn't spontaneously appear out of nothing, therefore some external force created it.
They're not necessarily stupid, they're just lazy or have better things to do with the time that it would take. I would never take the time to do lots of things (yard work, fix my refrigerator, drive several hours when a flight will get me there in two hours, etc..). Paying people saves me time and effort - it has nothing to do with stupidity.
Most people think of "God" as the deity of a religion, and I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case. I'm saying that some force bigger and/or more powerful than our universe created our universe. If it was a "hiccup" in another universe, then God created that universe, or the one before, etc... God has always been there - it has to have always been there. It's something we'll probably never comprehend, and maybe we're not supposed to. Who knows? We may all be in a globe around a cat's neck... but something put it there.
I believe that there is a God because there has to be. The Big Bang (or whatever started this universe) didn't just happen out of nothing. Some entity that we don't understand and haven't observed set everything in motion. I'm not demanding that you believe that the Creation of the Bible is correct. I'm just saying that if you're using your analogy, atheists are the ones that have to prove that there is no God because God not existing is the more fantastic claim by far.
And understand that I am separating God from religion here. The God that "created" the universe could be the Christian God, Allah, C3PO, a combination of all three, or something completely different.
Carousels already handle this many passengers at peak times. I usually see 3-4 flights at once listed, and people standing three deep. Checking luggage is already a nightmare, I don't think this will make it worse. Plus, most airlines will use the ~550 seat configuration, and the 747-400 seats 416-560 typically, so the difference is not that great.
Dish Network bought the Voom satellite, so you may be able to get those channels on Dish soon.
My company uses an OS library to read a certain file format. We wrote a GUI for it and now sell the whole package. We are also paying the company that owns the copyright to the code to modify it to fit our needs. Both of us are making money off of an Open Source project.
"I have people skills. I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
How can they sue? You can't patent "small, rectangular, with a slot-drive". Is Intel planning on putting the Apple Logo on the thing?
Isn't Office called Office for a reason? It's designed for an office environment that can get full use of the product. Mom and Pop don't need that - they can use Wordpad, which comes with Windows, for writing letters, etc...
I am a gamer and most certainly a "single-minded loafer".
For me, it was the Unique Jumps in Vice City. I was obsessed with completing all of them - and it took a while. I found that when I was driving around in real life, I was looking at every incline (big or little) saying to myself, "I could jump that" in my '95 Nissan pickup.
No, it doesn't matter what you think of a company's tactics. If Apple had been the company to become the PC standard in the 80s instead of MS, chances are we'd be talking about Apple's questionable tactics to secure market share. Fact is, companies will do almost anything to grow and survive, even if they dominate their market. The more power they have, the more they will use it. MS used its position to further secure its position, and any company would do virtually the same thing. On a related note, why isn't Apple letting other DRM formats (i.e Real) on their iPod? A: Because they want to dominate that market.
EVERYTHING Apple does (and any other for-profit company, for that matter) is done to increase profit and market share. If that's not the goal, the company won't survive very long. So if the user benefits from something Apple does, hopefully their market share will increase. A great example is the iPod. Before the 4G iPod, I didn't like Apple's products. Now I own an iPod and some accessories. If they ever make the UI of OS X more user-friendly, I might even buy a computer from them, thus increasing their market share and profit. And if MS comes out with a better MP3 player, I'll buy theirs.
Doesn't matter what you think about a company's motivation. They're all in it to make as much money as possible. They do that by satisfying the customer. MS seems to have a pretty good handle on that, regardless of bugs/security problems. People want cheap and easy to use software and are willing to put up with some inconvenience to get that.