I saw an article a few weeks ago about how overpriced actors aren't worth the money anymore - none of the movies Jim Carrey, Tom Cruise, oh who else, have done recently, have done very well. Oh, they've made back their money but none of them were the blockbusters they were supposed to be.
The studios are starting to wise up to the fact that their 'old faithfuls' aren't really big money makers anymore.
I kinda wonder what will happen to the market once they finally start getting some fresh talent.. if, of course, they ever do.
One of my very favorite movies actually came out in 2003, surprisingly; but it was independently written, directed, and produced: The Big Empty.
It actually had a couple of big name actors in it: Jon Favreau, Rachael Leigh Cook, Kelsey Grammer.
Despite that, the total production cost of the movie was something like $100k (I forget the exact number, it's in the DVD extras). That's alot for an indie film, but not much compared to a typical Hollywood budget.
Frankly, you live in a dream world - one where that art and passion existed in the first place. Contrary to what most people seem to believe - Hollywood is, and always has been, about making money.
I don't think this is a fair characterization of what has happened to the movie industry.
I would say the same thing has happened to the video game industry: stagnation due to remakes of the same themes, because nobody wants to do anything really original, for fear it won't be profitable. That is a slow and often unnoticeable process, a process which REQUIRES there actually being original thought at the beginning.
I don't think the decline has been as recent as the past 4-5 years; it's probably been happening for much longer. It just seems like we don't really NOTICE these declines until they get really, really bad... which I think is where we're at now.
I've seen some really moving, really original movies lately though... online. Not a one at the theater. Funny how people who have no budget, but alot of heart, can make a better movie than people with a $300 million budget.
Take some multiple say 100 or 1000 and every percentage the ceo and other execs make over that for the lowest paid fulltime employee raise their taxes. And don't allow the the corporation to write it off. If an exec wants more pay then they have to pay their employees more.
That sounds like a workable idea. Especially because the only people that will scream and shout about it is the people who need the least help, i.e. the people with 47 cars, 8 beach houses and a private jet.
More reasonably, I like the idea because it restores the CEO income/average worker income ratio that existed 20+ years ago. I forget the research now so it's hard to look up, but it was once the case that CEO's earned on average, 4-10x that of the average worker.
That number now is around 400-500x, while real wages for the average worker have barely risen at all.
And anyone who thinks that is fair or acceptable for any reason needs to be shot. Society doesn't exist as a teat for the wealthy, it exists to benefit everyone (not in the socialist or communist sense, but in the sense that we'd all be born without the need for a mother if that weren't true).
The sad fact is that here, in the US, more teenagers believe they're going to be a major league football player or famous singer or actor, and/or win American Idol, than are willing to do the work to gain marketable skills, education, and knowledge. With predictable results.
Well, they wouldn't believe such things if we didn't so foolishly instill those beliefs in them.
"You can be anything you want to be honey!"
Instead of the harsher, yet more practical:
"Feh. You're not going to get anywhere with THAT attitude, sonny. Now get to work."
Whoops - don't go there, bro. Reminding people that our civilization is NOT the wonderful utopia we're supposed to be convinced it is, could be very bad for your health.
We like to tell ourselves that 'live is so much easier for us than it was for our brutish ancestors!' simply because it would destabilize our civilization to believe otherwise.
But if you compare today with "pre-westernized" America, then life now seems much more difficult that it used to be. No 60 hour work weeks doing the same pointless tasks. No bills, cars, credit cards to worry about. Daily work consisted of feeding the family. There was much more free time, and I would think there was more "living" back then, even with shorter lifespans.
It actually required far less effort to go out and hunt, and gather fruits and nuts, and tend a small garden, than the stressful, neverending, caffiene-infused daily life we live now. The stress level required for the average living is now much higher than it ever was for our tribal ancestors.
We just like to say that life is easier now, because if we were to realize otherwise, it would destabilize civilization.
The point being, it's entirely possible that the drive for war exists precisely because we evolved to wage war as a way of periodically spreading and mixing different gene pools. Just something to think about.
Our ancestors fought, but never waged war - that's something only a culture with near-unlimited resources (food, material, and human) can do. But, you are partially correct - periodic skirmishes presented an opportunity to take captives from other tribes and villages and thereby refresh the gene pool.
There's another reason our ancestors never waged war though, and wouldn't have even if they had had the resources - they didn't find it necessary to control everything to feel secure. Massive wars are something only our culture does because we need to control everything we touch.
I sometimes wish others saw the issue as you did, whether they agree with that view or not, for one very simple reason, the same reason you stated: We are afraid to know how far we are falling, so we won't ask.
We believe our culture to be the height of civilization, that our evolution has been a steady process of improvement, that we have gone from single-celled organisms, to brutish beasts, to intelligent beings, and only the higher from there, well, one day maybe we'll ascend and become gods ourselves!
Because of course, we're already gods of THIS planet - WE decide who lives, who dies, WE are the masters of this domain and look how wonderfully well we've done with it.
Gone are the days of our brutish tribal ancestors, the ones who worked less than we do and lived more than we do. Look back in disdain on our tribal ancestors, because they didn't have governments of billions controlling every aspect of their lives; they didn't have pollution and toxins greater than any measure in the history of the planet. No, we've done wonderfully well on the path we're on. We work harder, stress more, enjoy less, but by god we have it easier than any humans in history!
Life for the sake of life - as in, extending the length and general health of life - without purpose, is meaningless.
Only if we give ourselves a world worth living in, does any of that matter. And we are hell bent on never doing so.
We are what Daniel Quinn calls "The Takers," a people who believes it owns the world, that it is above the natural laws that kept this planet in ecological balance for millions of years, that doesn't have to participate in the natural order of the world - no, we usurp it for our own uses, destroy every habitat we find necessary in our constant, neverending goal of colonization of every square inch of livable land on the planet. Forests fall before the might of our totalitarian agriculture; whole peoples die before the might of our destiny to 'civilize' the planet.
A man can jump off a cliff and flap his arms and convince himself he is flying.. until he hits the ground.
We are a foot off the ground, and when we hit, it won't only be us to die.. no, we're hell bent on taking the entire planet with us.
We are a pathetic, deluded little culture who thinks it is God on earth. How wonderful will the day be when those illusions come crashing down.
information is not power --- money is power and information is control of that power....
If you want to get right down to it, money is only a means to an end.. power is an end in itself.
The word 'knowledge' is chosen very specifically; knowledge and information are different things. Information is the quantization of knowledge and while it may be 'information' that enables power, it is knowledge that gives information any power in the first place.
But all of that is beside the point of the quote. The point of the quote is that the smarter the human race becomes, the closer to the brink of our own destruction we become. A misplaced bomb, a little misplaced power, and the world can be annihilated with a single word and the touch of a button. It is knowlege that has enabled this kind of destructive power over the world, and there are some who think we're too young to know as much as we know.
We're a precocious race and it remains to be seen whether that will be our undoing.
Like my homeless sister who was kicked off a public library computer because she was using it to talk to my mom and had no other way to do so. Cause you know, using IM to talk to your family when you're homeless is unacceptable use of a public terminal.
Like my homeless sister who was using it to try to submit resume's to different places and got kicked off for someone else who needed to do 'research.'
Like my homeless sister who needed to be able to check her email in order to see if anyone replied to her resume'.. yep, she should get kicked off because she's not doing 'legitimate work' or looking at some 'dumb website.'
I'm not picking you out specifically, but, I think that your post is pretty much the reasoning that most Congressmen used to justify this bill. And sorry, it just doesn't work.
Before you reply saying that my sister can just as easily ask for those websites to be unblocked, no she really couldn't - it was hard enough for her to get use of the computers for as long as she did, because the library staff were constantly trying to get her to leave.
I think they'd be more likely to tell her 'No, go away, smelly homeless person' than to actually comprehend that she's a human too and has no computer of her own with which to carry out her business.
Careful, you're espousing an extremely unpopular and completely useless idea there: Kids can think for themselves!
Whoops, "Think of the children" is now just a meaningless slogan designed to divide and conquer the masses!
Whoops, now we actually have to treat children the way we - God forbid! - would want to be treated - with respect!
Dammit all to hell, now who do we get to strawman for the purpose of control?
Seriously though...
A couple years back, when my stepsister was 12 and I was home for Christmas, my Mom told me that my stepsister had told her something very interesting...
She told my mom that she always tried to do better and be a better person because I always treated her like she could be.
Fancy that. A 12 year old understanding that treating someone with respect and intelligence actually results in them earning that respect and being intelligent...
A wisdom that apparently not one of our Congressman understands.
Hell, when my sister was homeless a few years ago, the only way she was ever able to talk with my mom and me was through IM, sitting at a desk at the back of the library.
When my sister was homeless, the library staff treated her like shit. Good luck getting them to pay enough attention to someone who is dressed like crap and smells like it too, to give them access to sites that a consenting adult should already have access to.
While I would like to see some measures taken to protect children online, I think those 'measures' rest more on the shoulders of parents than on retarded legislation like this. I agree with another poster who mentioned that it is the communities running these libraries that should make these decisions, not the far away and oft-indifferent Federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw an article a few weeks ago about how overpriced actors aren't worth the money anymore - none of the movies Jim Carrey, Tom Cruise, oh who else, have done recently, have done very well. Oh, they've made back their money but none of them were the blockbusters they were supposed to be.
The studios are starting to wise up to the fact that their 'old faithfuls' aren't really big money makers anymore.
I kinda wonder what will happen to the market once they finally start getting some fresh talent.. if, of course, they ever do.
One of my very favorite movies actually came out in 2003, surprisingly; but it was independently written, directed, and produced: The Big Empty.
It actually had a couple of big name actors in it: Jon Favreau, Rachael Leigh Cook, Kelsey Grammer.
Despite that, the total production cost of the movie was something like $100k (I forget the exact number, it's in the DVD extras). That's alot for an indie film, but not much compared to a typical Hollywood budget.
I would say the same thing has happened to the video game industry: stagnation due to remakes of the same themes, because nobody wants to do anything really original, for fear it won't be profitable. That is a slow and often unnoticeable process, a process which REQUIRES there actually being original thought at the beginning.
I don't think the decline has been as recent as the past 4-5 years; it's probably been happening for much longer. It just seems like we don't really NOTICE these declines until they get really, really bad... which I think is where we're at now.
I've seen some really moving, really original movies lately though... online. Not a one at the theater. Funny how people who have no budget, but alot of heart, can make a better movie than people with a $300 million budget.
Nah. Never used one spec of black makeup, and don't own a single dark piece of clothing.
I'm usually very easy to pick out in a crowd, however, for reasons I still do not understand. Maybe the blonde hair.
More reasonably, I like the idea because it restores the CEO income/average worker income ratio that existed 20+ years ago. I forget the research now so it's hard to look up, but it was once the case that CEO's earned on average, 4-10x that of the average worker.
That number now is around 400-500x, while real wages for the average worker have barely risen at all.
And anyone who thinks that is fair or acceptable for any reason needs to be shot. Society doesn't exist as a teat for the wealthy, it exists to benefit everyone (not in the socialist or communist sense, but in the sense that we'd all be born without the need for a mother if that weren't true).
"You can be anything you want to be honey!"
Instead of the harsher, yet more practical:
"Feh. You're not going to get anywhere with THAT attitude, sonny. Now get to work."
Whoops - don't go there, bro. Reminding people that our civilization is NOT the wonderful utopia we're supposed to be convinced it is, could be very bad for your health. We like to tell ourselves that 'live is so much easier for us than it was for our brutish ancestors!' simply because it would destabilize our civilization to believe otherwise.
The insanity of a people who think they can subdue the ecosystem of an entire planet and live to tell about it, simply boggles my mind.
It actually required far less effort to go out and hunt, and gather fruits and nuts, and tend a small garden, than the stressful, neverending, caffiene-infused daily life we live now. The stress level required for the average living is now much higher than it ever was for our tribal ancestors.
We just like to say that life is easier now, because if we were to realize otherwise, it would destabilize civilization.
There's another reason our ancestors never waged war though, and wouldn't have even if they had had the resources - they didn't find it necessary to control everything to feel secure. Massive wars are something only our culture does because we need to control everything we touch.
I sometimes wish others saw the issue as you did, whether they agree with that view or not, for one very simple reason, the same reason you stated: We are afraid to know how far we are falling, so we won't ask.
We believe our culture to be the height of civilization, that our evolution has been a steady process of improvement, that we have gone from single-celled organisms, to brutish beasts, to intelligent beings, and only the higher from there, well, one day maybe we'll ascend and become gods ourselves!
Because of course, we're already gods of THIS planet - WE decide who lives, who dies, WE are the masters of this domain and look how wonderfully well we've done with it.
Gone are the days of our brutish tribal ancestors, the ones who worked less than we do and lived more than we do. Look back in disdain on our tribal ancestors, because they didn't have governments of billions controlling every aspect of their lives; they didn't have pollution and toxins greater than any measure in the history of the planet. No, we've done wonderfully well on the path we're on. We work harder, stress more, enjoy less, but by god we have it easier than any humans in history!
Life for the sake of life - as in, extending the length and general health of life - without purpose, is meaningless.
Only if we give ourselves a world worth living in, does any of that matter. And we are hell bent on never doing so.
We are what Daniel Quinn calls "The Takers," a people who believes it owns the world, that it is above the natural laws that kept this planet in ecological balance for millions of years, that doesn't have to participate in the natural order of the world - no, we usurp it for our own uses, destroy every habitat we find necessary in our constant, neverending goal of colonization of every square inch of livable land on the planet. Forests fall before the might of our totalitarian agriculture; whole peoples die before the might of our destiny to 'civilize' the planet.
A man can jump off a cliff and flap his arms and convince himself he is flying.. until he hits the ground.
We are a foot off the ground, and when we hit, it won't only be us to die.. no, we're hell bent on taking the entire planet with us.
We are a pathetic, deluded little culture who thinks it is God on earth. How wonderful will the day be when those illusions come crashing down.
A man who jumps off a cliff and flaps his arms can convince himself he is flying.. until he hits the ground.
Never take the appearance of the status quo at face value.
Thank you.
The only end effect of this increased health is to increase the length of time we toil. Nothing more.
They can. It just takes guts.
And alot of guns.
The word 'knowledge' is chosen very specifically; knowledge and information are different things. Information is the quantization of knowledge and while it may be 'information' that enables power, it is knowledge that gives information any power in the first place.
Dictionary.com has a nice explication of the difference
But all of that is beside the point of the quote. The point of the quote is that the smarter the human race becomes, the closer to the brink of our own destruction we become. A misplaced bomb, a little misplaced power, and the world can be annihilated with a single word and the touch of a button. It is knowlege that has enabled this kind of destructive power over the world, and there are some who think we're too young to know as much as we know.
We're a precocious race and it remains to be seen whether that will be our undoing.
That makes sense. In that case, I agree!
Like my homeless sister who was kicked off a public library computer because she was using it to talk to my mom and had no other way to do so. Cause you know, using IM to talk to your family when you're homeless is unacceptable use of a public terminal.
Like my homeless sister who was using it to try to submit resume's to different places and got kicked off for someone else who needed to do 'research.'
Like my homeless sister who needed to be able to check her email in order to see if anyone replied to her resume'.. yep, she should get kicked off because she's not doing 'legitimate work' or looking at some 'dumb website.'
I'm not picking you out specifically, but, I think that your post is pretty much the reasoning that most Congressmen used to justify this bill. And sorry, it just doesn't work.
Before you reply saying that my sister can just as easily ask for those websites to be unblocked, no she really couldn't - it was hard enough for her to get use of the computers for as long as she did, because the library staff were constantly trying to get her to leave.
I think they'd be more likely to tell her 'No, go away, smelly homeless person' than to actually comprehend that she's a human too and has no computer of her own with which to carry out her business.
Careful, you're espousing an extremely unpopular and completely useless idea there: Kids can think for themselves!
Whoops, "Think of the children" is now just a meaningless slogan designed to divide and conquer the masses!
Whoops, now we actually have to treat children the way we - God forbid! - would want to be treated - with respect!
Dammit all to hell, now who do we get to strawman for the purpose of control?
Seriously though...
A couple years back, when my stepsister was 12 and I was home for Christmas, my Mom told me that my stepsister had told her something very interesting...
She told my mom that she always tried to do better and be a better person because I always treated her like she could be.
Fancy that. A 12 year old understanding that treating someone with respect and intelligence actually results in them earning that respect and being intelligent...
A wisdom that apparently not one of our Congressman understands.
Oh I dunno..
The wholly human act of 'socializing', maybe?
Hell, when my sister was homeless a few years ago, the only way she was ever able to talk with my mom and me was through IM, sitting at a desk at the back of the library.
When my sister was homeless, the library staff treated her like shit. Good luck getting them to pay enough attention to someone who is dressed like crap and smells like it too, to give them access to sites that a consenting adult should already have access to.
While I would like to see some measures taken to protect children online, I think those 'measures' rest more on the shoulders of parents than on retarded legislation like this. I agree with another poster who mentioned that it is the communities running these libraries that should make these decisions, not the far away and oft-indifferent Federal government.
My name is Inyego Montoya. You killed my language. Prepare to die!
You mean... some kind of Super Friend?!
[/bad joke]
Ugh... sickening to think of it like that but you're probably right. They'll call it a 'settlement charge'. The bill will look like this:
Settlement amount: $100 million
- Legal costs: $12 million
- Administrative costs: $90 million
You owe us $2 million, sucker.