They spend money on Athletics because Athletics makes money... at least football and basketball do, and at least at big sport schools.
This is definitely not the norm. At most schools, none of the sports make money, even at a high level of competition. At places with big-time football or men's basketball (occasionally some other sport), those sports *may* break even. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I think there are only 20-30 Division I football programs that bring in more money than they spend, and even then it is variable from season to season depending on which bowl games you and other conference members are invited to.
But athletics can have a positive effect on academics, too. Schools like Gonzaga and Duke have actually become better schools because of their basketball programs. Young people (men in particular) love sports, and a great sports team is a way to get your name out there. I don't know if you can quantify this, but schools like Texas, Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, etc. surely have more loyal and involved alumni than state schools of comparable size without elite sports programs.
Sorry if I came of touchy, but it's really irritating to hear the same thing over and over from someone outside the culture. If you don't care about hip hop, that's fine, but don't try and make dramatic, overreaching statements about a genre that is *incredibly* diverse. If you're interested in hearing a few hip hop songs outside what you may have experienced (in the interest of sharing), here's a few great tracks off the top of my head:
People like you make me very angry. You claim to be generally unfamiliar with popular music and rap made in the last fifteen years, and yet you somehow still think you're fit to discuss the music critically. What gives you the idea that you can speak intelligently about something you admittedly don't know a goddamn thing about?
If you actually did pay attention, and did know what you were talking about, you would know that there is a wide range of styles and traditions in hip hop. Some are quite thoughtful and intelligent, other aren't. I'm not saying you have to like hip hop, but your logic is ridiculous. Would you dismiss rock music entirely because you heard a bad Limp Bizkit song? No more soul music because of Robin Thicke?
Stop spreading ignorant trash about a culture you obviously don't understand. You are attacking a stereotype, one that exists pretty much exclusively in bitter old people. It sure makes you look like an asshole to all of us who do understand hip hop culture.
The logic used to state, with a straight face no less, that 2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect. Just as much proof exists to say that they, at the very least, could have evolved from separate organisms. Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
OK, I'll bite. Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait. It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory. And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.
Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda." Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.
Before computer geeks started using "rig" to refer to their computers, the only commonly used meaning was large trucks, e.g., 18-wheelers.
No, it actually comes from sailing. The rigging is the combination of all the sails, spars, and cordage that make the boat move. It's been a general term for much longer than big rigs have existed. It's not posing, that's the way language works.
But I don't understand the reasoning that leads to, they "were never on their way to being born".
Let me give you a rundown of that reasoning. In fertility clinics, eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized in vitro. Usually, more eggs are fertilized (becoming embryos) than are needed. These embryos haven't attached to the walls of the uterus, they haven't even been inside the human body. If they are not used for research, they will simply be destroyed. At no point is there even the slightest possibility that these embryos will become humans.
That's a pretty big stretch comparing it to an infant left in the woods to die.
Well-put. People need to calm down with the overreaction. Does anybody really think the hospital would leave people with no other option, or turn away someone a person who needed immediate care?
This is an interesting example for people who care about health care IT, but this is not a story with anything deep to say about our health care system or politics. The hospital acted appropriately.
The solution is to ignore US News & World Report rankings. Even if schools didn't try and game the results, it's still a ridiculous way to gauge the quality of education you will receive at a university.
My uni regularly gets knocked down in the rankings because the average graduation time is a little less than six years. But the majority of students work full time! If you want to work and gain experience on the job and money while attending, we're better situated than 95% of schools, but that isn't taken into account.
There are just way too many factors to take into account, and personal preference should guide the decision, not the weird criterion that US News & World Report uses.
The Wii is targeted toward a casual audience. How many people can be expected to buy a separate SD card to save downloaded content? You can't base a business model around that, whereas Microsoft can build XBox Live around downloaded movies, TV shows, games, demos, etc. They know everybody has a hard drive, most of them 60GB. With the Wii, they have to assume that most users only have 512MB.
I think the important issue from GP post is that GM is merely a side effect of more general problem US (and to less extent UK) economy has...
But that was my point. GM is not merely a side effect of a more general problem in the US. The financial crisis has finished off GM, but they were already losing money before the economy dropped off a cliff. They didn't go bankrupt because the economy collapsed, they went bankrupt because they were mismanaged. They couldn't afford to stay in business, even with the government giving them billions of dollars a month. Somehow Ford, the European automakers, and the Japanese automakers all managed to stay solvent in the same market.
Sorry, I was mixing my criticisms and not being clear. I meant two things from that. One is that the Wii limits the potential of the console as a platform, because they only have 512MB storage, so you can't do some of the cool things that are possible with downloadable content on the larger hard disks of the 360 and PS3.
Second thing was the DVD discs. DVD's just don't have the capacity needed to make certain types of games. Games with massive amounts of content don't come out on the Wii, but the 360 is already putting out high profile multi-disc games. I assume that means there are already companies cutting content because of space constraints on that console. This is going to be a huge advantage for the PS3 in the next few years.
Hold on a second buddy, the language you use make me hesitant to agree with you. I don't mean to make it sound like I don't believe there are women's issues out there. I consider myself a feminist, and there are still some massive problems with gender inequity in this country, including women making less money than men for equal work. That is still an issue, even if it's not the massive problem it was 20-30 years ago.
I just feel that we need to give the same consideration for men's issues, especially in an academic setting. These are very troubling trends, and I don't think they are given the same weight and importance from academics as a similar trend among women would.
People bought GM just fine, the issue became the $4/gal($8/gal Canada) for fuel, and then the massive credit collapse.
They should have seen $4 gasoline coming, and even before the credit collapse they were losing massive amounts of money. GM's entire philosophy over the last fifteen years was to make large profits selling luxury trucks and SUV's, and they declined to invest in the future or diversify their products. Toyota and Honda spent that same period of time investing in hybrid technology and fuel efficiency while at the same time making trucks and SUV's, and now they are in a significantly more competitive position.
At the very least, they could've seen the writing on the wall a couple years ago like Ford, and pre-emptively reorganized their company. They did *nothing*, it is entirely their fault, and they deserve to fail.
Almost nobody actually needs a vehicle with that much clearance. I lived at the end of a 12 mile county dirt road in Oregon, in an area with essentially no public services in the winter, and we would routinely get 5-6" snowstorms, sometimes up to three or four feet. What vehicle did we drive most? A Chrysler van with about 3-4" of clearance when it was loaded. And it was just fine.
My parents run a land surveying company in a small town in Western Colorado, which routinely requires us to drive off-road, all their vehicles have about 9-12" clearance. I own a '95 4Runner which has a ground clearance of about 11" with everything standard. I actually drive mine off-road in some interesting terrain and even in bad conditions or climbing up rocky mountain roads 12" of ground clearance is *never* required. The only people that need that much clearance are rock crawlers, and they aren't going to buy an H2.
And this isn't even taking into account the fact that 95% of SUV's never even leave paved road surfaces, let alone go off road. Most SUV owners are just stupid people that like to drive unnecessarily (and dangerously) large vehicles, because of status and misperceived safety.
Other then for cut scenes/graphics the games really don't *need* the extra power.
Even ignoring the fact that graphics are a major factor for most gamers' enjoyment (it's inexcusable that the Wii doesn't have HD), you really do need extra power. The Wii really limits what you can do with a game, because there is just not the processing power or storage that you need for modern, sophisticated games. This is the main reason why you don't see ports on the Wii, otherwise every developer would love to make Wii games. But they've ensured that only a certain type of game can be made on the Wii, and that will certainly have negative consequences in the future as the PS3 and 360 are taken to their full potential.
FWIW, since this is a relatively recent development, I think it's fine... it'll help undo centuries/millenia of male domination in Western culture.
No, you are wrong. This is a terribly serious problem.
This isn't simply a case of more women getting degrees. It's also that fewer males are getting degrees. Look at the dropout rates in high school for men vs. women, particularly among inner city kids and many ethnic minorities. It's absolutely devastating.
And this isn't about jobs, this is about education. The solution to "centuries/millenia of male domination in Western culture" isn't to make all the men uneducated idiots. That solves nothing, and I think it's reasonable to expect it to make the problem worse.
We need a serious men's education movement in this country. How many sociologists are doing gender-based research on men's issues vs. the number of them who research women's issues? I know they're out there, but from my experience in college and my (admittedly limited) experience with the field, I see the numbers are massively skewed towards women's issues. And I don't mean this in a Rush Limbaugh reverse-racism reverse-sexism sort of way. But how many universities or colleges have a men's studies department?
We need to have an honest and frank dicussion about the existence of these problems in order to understand how to reverse these trends.
But you aren't the community PC guy, are you? You are being/used/. Not even mentioning your privacy or possibility of OS infection, what if someone simply drops the machine? I suspect you won't be able to get anyone to pay for the repair or replacement, as they are unwilling to get their own. If this keeps going on, you are going to have a broken computer/and/ a lot of resentment aimed at your so-called friends. This might sound harsh to you, but it is reality.
There is a solution to this, however. If your group is cohesive enough, maybe each can contribute to the acquisition of a "group computer." This is how the real world works,
No, that's not how the real world works. You generally let your friends/classmates use your laptop if you're around, because it's a nice thing to do. Maybe take a few precautions by having a guest login and remind them to be careful. If you don't like or trust the person, don't let them use the laptop. You don't have to be rude about it, either make up some excuse that you need to use it or tell them politely you don't want to do it.
Use your laptop power to meet a cute girl or guy and ask her/him to hang out. Start conversations with interesting people. Try to get laid. Don't listen to all these stuffy nerds about social niceties.
Since most power plants in the US (and many other countries too) burn coal, which contains mercury, these slightly-more-efficient incandescent lights will most likely end up dumping more mercury straight into the atmosphere (and then into the waterways with rain) over their lifetime than CFLs, which contain the mercury within the bulbs.
And how are the CFL's powered? Pixie dust and prayers? Unless there is significantly more mercury in CFL's than I understand, both are proportionally insignificant compared with pollutants from coal plants. Whichever technology is the most energy efficient should be used, and this shows why the ban on incandescent bulbs is short-sighted and potentially harmful.
Rush Limbaugh does sound like a doofus when he tries to talk about science, but he is no racist.
Here are a few of Rush's "non-racist" comments that he's made. My favorite: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King). We miss you, James. Godspeed."
The man is an idiot blowhard. He has repeatedly shown that he is a ratings whore that will say anything to get people angry, and seems to have no grasp of complexity or subtlety in any form. His audience is mostly working class and middle-class whites, and he knows that he can use racially loaded comments to exploit racial stereotypes and fears that are latent within a substantial portion of that population. Just because he occasionally interviews a black guy doesn't absolve him from the idiotic and hurtful comments he has made over the years.
Not really, it actually emphasizes my point about why race is extremely interesting in sports. 20-30 years ago China was producing almost no world class athletes (at least competitively), and people could have used the argument that they were simply inferior athletes. I would think that the genetic makeup of China is pretty much the same now as then, so something changed. Indonesia, Pakistan, and India had almost no Olympic medals last year, but they make up over 25% of the world's population. Would it be possible to make the same change as we saw in China in those countries? Probably, but there certainly are genetic differences between those populations and that could represent itself in interesting ways.
Racism in both 'negative' (hate, denying people a job, etc) and 'positive' (slave reparations, affirmative action, etc) ways are still bad in that they take race into account at all. As long as people MAKE race an issue, it will be one. Saying someone is different because they are white or black or red or yellow is the same as saying my car is different from yours, or performs better, or is more reliable, because it's a different colour. It makes no sense.
Many people think this way, and I believe it to be an honest and even admirable feeling, but you are being unbelievably naive by saying that acknowledging and understanding racial differences, or even speaking about race is a bad idea.
First of all, there are differences between different races. Small, maybe, but they do exist. Is it not valid to think of ancestry in the field of medicine? How about athletics? Why are all the best basketball players black? Why are all the best runners black? Why do Asians make up a very small percentage of great athletes in the world when, by population, they should have an overwhelming advantage? These are very interesting social questions, and impossible to talk about without taking race into account.
There are significant and often *massive* cultural differences between different races which, although maybe not tied to any definable genetic differences, are still realities. (Speaking in US-centric mode) Jewish and asian people tend to be more successful and better-educated than the general population. Blacks and hispanics tend to be poorer, and much less educated. These are real differences, and whether they are based on race or a combination of culture and historical enequity, they are still real differences that need to be acknowledged and discussed.
I didn't mean to sound disparaging towards Bill Murray. I *wish* I was in the position that I could make a Garfield movie. But Garfield was a crappy movie, kids movie or not. I'd ruin the Pink Panther franchise quicker than Steve Martin if given the opportunity, but they're still shitty movies. The idea that Bill Murray is above taking a fat paycheck to make a movie that isn't good is laughable. He likes money as much as anybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
This is definitely not the norm. At most schools, none of the sports make money, even at a high level of competition. At places with big-time football or men's basketball (occasionally some other sport), those sports *may* break even. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I think there are only 20-30 Division I football programs that bring in more money than they spend, and even then it is variable from season to season depending on which bowl games you and other conference members are invited to.
But athletics can have a positive effect on academics, too. Schools like Gonzaga and Duke have actually become better schools because of their basketball programs. Young people (men in particular) love sports, and a great sports team is a way to get your name out there. I don't know if you can quantify this, but schools like Texas, Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, etc. surely have more loyal and involved alumni than state schools of comparable size without elite sports programs.
Sorry if I came of touchy, but it's really irritating to hear the same thing over and over from someone outside the culture. If you don't care about hip hop, that's fine, but don't try and make dramatic, overreaching statements about a genre that is *incredibly* diverse. If you're interested in hearing a few hip hop songs outside what you may have experienced (in the interest of sharing), here's a few great tracks off the top of my head:
Tribe Called Quest - Award Tour
Black Star - Definition
DangerDoom - Sofa King
And then a couple you might not even realize are hip hop:
DJ Shadow - Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Massive Attack - Risingson
Blockhead - Expiration Date
People like you make me very angry. You claim to be generally unfamiliar with popular music and rap made in the last fifteen years, and yet you somehow still think you're fit to discuss the music critically. What gives you the idea that you can speak intelligently about something you admittedly don't know a goddamn thing about?
If you actually did pay attention, and did know what you were talking about, you would know that there is a wide range of styles and traditions in hip hop. Some are quite thoughtful and intelligent, other aren't. I'm not saying you have to like hip hop, but your logic is ridiculous. Would you dismiss rock music entirely because you heard a bad Limp Bizkit song? No more soul music because of Robin Thicke?
Stop spreading ignorant trash about a culture you obviously don't understand. You are attacking a stereotype, one that exists pretty much exclusively in bitter old people. It sure makes you look like an asshole to all of us who do understand hip hop culture.
Umm....citation please?
OK, I'll bite. Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait. It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory. And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.
Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda." Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.
No, it actually comes from sailing. The rigging is the combination of all the sails, spars, and cordage that make the boat move. It's been a general term for much longer than big rigs have existed. It's not posing, that's the way language works.
Let me give you a rundown of that reasoning. In fertility clinics, eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized in vitro. Usually, more eggs are fertilized (becoming embryos) than are needed. These embryos haven't attached to the walls of the uterus, they haven't even been inside the human body. If they are not used for research, they will simply be destroyed. At no point is there even the slightest possibility that these embryos will become humans.
That's a pretty big stretch comparing it to an infant left in the woods to die.
Well-put. People need to calm down with the overreaction. Does anybody really think the hospital would leave people with no other option, or turn away someone a person who needed immediate care?
This is an interesting example for people who care about health care IT, but this is not a story with anything deep to say about our health care system or politics. The hospital acted appropriately.
It's not twisting the terminology. It's using the terminology.
A baby is not the same thing as a fetus. A fetus is not the same thing as an embryo. You're the one manipulating language.
The solution is to ignore US News & World Report rankings. Even if schools didn't try and game the results, it's still a ridiculous way to gauge the quality of education you will receive at a university.
My uni regularly gets knocked down in the rankings because the average graduation time is a little less than six years. But the majority of students work full time! If you want to work and gain experience on the job and money while attending, we're better situated than 95% of schools, but that isn't taken into account.
There are just way too many factors to take into account, and personal preference should guide the decision, not the weird criterion that US News & World Report uses.
The Wii is targeted toward a casual audience. How many people can be expected to buy a separate SD card to save downloaded content? You can't base a business model around that, whereas Microsoft can build XBox Live around downloaded movies, TV shows, games, demos, etc. They know everybody has a hard drive, most of them 60GB. With the Wii, they have to assume that most users only have 512MB.
But that was my point. GM is not merely a side effect of a more general problem in the US. The financial crisis has finished off GM, but they were already losing money before the economy dropped off a cliff. They didn't go bankrupt because the economy collapsed, they went bankrupt because they were mismanaged. They couldn't afford to stay in business, even with the government giving them billions of dollars a month. Somehow Ford, the European automakers, and the Japanese automakers all managed to stay solvent in the same market.
Sorry, I was mixing my criticisms and not being clear. I meant two things from that. One is that the Wii limits the potential of the console as a platform, because they only have 512MB storage, so you can't do some of the cool things that are possible with downloadable content on the larger hard disks of the 360 and PS3.
Second thing was the DVD discs. DVD's just don't have the capacity needed to make certain types of games. Games with massive amounts of content don't come out on the Wii, but the 360 is already putting out high profile multi-disc games. I assume that means there are already companies cutting content because of space constraints on that console. This is going to be a huge advantage for the PS3 in the next few years.
Hold on a second buddy, the language you use make me hesitant to agree with you. I don't mean to make it sound like I don't believe there are women's issues out there. I consider myself a feminist, and there are still some massive problems with gender inequity in this country, including women making less money than men for equal work. That is still an issue, even if it's not the massive problem it was 20-30 years ago.
I just feel that we need to give the same consideration for men's issues, especially in an academic setting. These are very troubling trends, and I don't think they are given the same weight and importance from academics as a similar trend among women would.
They should have seen $4 gasoline coming, and even before the credit collapse they were losing massive amounts of money. GM's entire philosophy over the last fifteen years was to make large profits selling luxury trucks and SUV's, and they declined to invest in the future or diversify their products. Toyota and Honda spent that same period of time investing in hybrid technology and fuel efficiency while at the same time making trucks and SUV's, and now they are in a significantly more competitive position.
At the very least, they could've seen the writing on the wall a couple years ago like Ford, and pre-emptively reorganized their company. They did *nothing*, it is entirely their fault, and they deserve to fail.
Almost nobody actually needs a vehicle with that much clearance. I lived at the end of a 12 mile county dirt road in Oregon, in an area with essentially no public services in the winter, and we would routinely get 5-6" snowstorms, sometimes up to three or four feet. What vehicle did we drive most? A Chrysler van with about 3-4" of clearance when it was loaded. And it was just fine.
My parents run a land surveying company in a small town in Western Colorado, which routinely requires us to drive off-road, all their vehicles have about 9-12" clearance. I own a '95 4Runner which has a ground clearance of about 11" with everything standard. I actually drive mine off-road in some interesting terrain and even in bad conditions or climbing up rocky mountain roads 12" of ground clearance is *never* required. The only people that need that much clearance are rock crawlers, and they aren't going to buy an H2.
And this isn't even taking into account the fact that 95% of SUV's never even leave paved road surfaces, let alone go off road. Most SUV owners are just stupid people that like to drive unnecessarily (and dangerously) large vehicles, because of status and misperceived safety.
Even ignoring the fact that graphics are a major factor for most gamers' enjoyment (it's inexcusable that the Wii doesn't have HD), you really do need extra power. The Wii really limits what you can do with a game, because there is just not the processing power or storage that you need for modern, sophisticated games. This is the main reason why you don't see ports on the Wii, otherwise every developer would love to make Wii games. But they've ensured that only a certain type of game can be made on the Wii, and that will certainly have negative consequences in the future as the PS3 and 360 are taken to their full potential.
No, you are wrong. This is a terribly serious problem.
This isn't simply a case of more women getting degrees. It's also that fewer males are getting degrees. Look at the dropout rates in high school for men vs. women, particularly among inner city kids and many ethnic minorities. It's absolutely devastating.
And this isn't about jobs, this is about education. The solution to "centuries/millenia of male domination in Western culture" isn't to make all the men uneducated idiots. That solves nothing, and I think it's reasonable to expect it to make the problem worse.
We need a serious men's education movement in this country. How many sociologists are doing gender-based research on men's issues vs. the number of them who research women's issues? I know they're out there, but from my experience in college and my (admittedly limited) experience with the field, I see the numbers are massively skewed towards women's issues. And I don't mean this in a Rush Limbaugh reverse-racism reverse-sexism sort of way. But how many universities or colleges have a men's studies department?
We need to have an honest and frank dicussion about the existence of these problems in order to understand how to reverse these trends.
No, that's not how the real world works. You generally let your friends/classmates use your laptop if you're around, because it's a nice thing to do. Maybe take a few precautions by having a guest login and remind them to be careful. If you don't like or trust the person, don't let them use the laptop. You don't have to be rude about it, either make up some excuse that you need to use it or tell them politely you don't want to do it.
Use your laptop power to meet a cute girl or guy and ask her/him to hang out. Start conversations with interesting people. Try to get laid. Don't listen to all these stuffy nerds about social niceties.
And how are the CFL's powered? Pixie dust and prayers? Unless there is significantly more mercury in CFL's than I understand, both are proportionally insignificant compared with pollutants from coal plants. Whichever technology is the most energy efficient should be used, and this shows why the ban on incandescent bulbs is short-sighted and potentially harmful.
Here are a few of Rush's "non-racist" comments that he's made. My favorite: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King). We miss you, James. Godspeed."
The man is an idiot blowhard. He has repeatedly shown that he is a ratings whore that will say anything to get people angry, and seems to have no grasp of complexity or subtlety in any form. His audience is mostly working class and middle-class whites, and he knows that he can use racially loaded comments to exploit racial stereotypes and fears that are latent within a substantial portion of that population. Just because he occasionally interviews a black guy doesn't absolve him from the idiotic and hurtful comments he has made over the years.
Not really, it actually emphasizes my point about why race is extremely interesting in sports. 20-30 years ago China was producing almost no world class athletes (at least competitively), and people could have used the argument that they were simply inferior athletes. I would think that the genetic makeup of China is pretty much the same now as then, so something changed. Indonesia, Pakistan, and India had almost no Olympic medals last year, but they make up over 25% of the world's population. Would it be possible to make the same change as we saw in China in those countries? Probably, but there certainly are genetic differences between those populations and that could represent itself in interesting ways.
Many people think this way, and I believe it to be an honest and even admirable feeling, but you are being unbelievably naive by saying that acknowledging and understanding racial differences, or even speaking about race is a bad idea.
First of all, there are differences between different races. Small, maybe, but they do exist. Is it not valid to think of ancestry in the field of medicine? How about athletics? Why are all the best basketball players black? Why are all the best runners black? Why do Asians make up a very small percentage of great athletes in the world when, by population, they should have an overwhelming advantage? These are very interesting social questions, and impossible to talk about without taking race into account.
There are significant and often *massive* cultural differences between different races which, although maybe not tied to any definable genetic differences, are still realities. (Speaking in US-centric mode) Jewish and asian people tend to be more successful and better-educated than the general population. Blacks and hispanics tend to be poorer, and much less educated. These are real differences, and whether they are based on race or a combination of culture and historical enequity, they are still real differences that need to be acknowledged and discussed.
Where in the hell did you get that crazy idea?
I didn't mean to sound disparaging towards Bill Murray. I *wish* I was in the position that I could make a Garfield movie. But Garfield was a crappy movie, kids movie or not. I'd ruin the Pink Panther franchise quicker than Steve Martin if given the opportunity, but they're still shitty movies. The idea that Bill Murray is above taking a fat paycheck to make a movie that isn't good is laughable. He likes money as much as anybody else.