Wait, wait, wait - backup for a minute. You mean that some Walmart shoppers actually know how to operate computers??? I think you just blew my mind a little...
"there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable. it leaves open wide interpretation and would open businesses to frivolous lawsuits based on someone's ill-informed position on a game. "oh well, I find that Mario portrays violent acts of an offensive nature"
Exactly. So the 19 year old kid working at EBGames can now add "interpret the law" into his job description??? Maybe a set of defined "offenses" and some sort of rating system would be more appropriate...Oh wait, we already have that...
I'll even go you one further. I don't download fre music becuase of civil disobedience, nor do I try to justify the fact with the cost of CDs. I'm just a straight up thief who doesn't want to pay sometimes...
The good thing is the **AA is on the same page with me on this - and they view all of the "high price of CDs" justifiers and you "civil disobedience" as being in the same boat as me no matter what your convitions/reasons are..
Sensormatic tags?? Why would the band care about that crap?? That protects the retail store selling them, not the band. If store X buys 50 CDs, and all 50 are stolen, guess what?? They already paid the band for the CDs. Now if you are selling on commission, it may be an issue. But usually the commission works like so - we give you 20 CDs, you give us either the $ for 20 CDs or $ of X CDs and then return X CDs back to band. Either way if they are stolen, we get paid. The less than $1 price also does include the UPC coding..
My point was if a small band can get CDs made for just under a buck, the major producers are paying nowhere near that much.. Individual CDs may come out in batches of thousands, but when you have hundreds of bands coming out with CDs, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of CDs being pressed - not necessarily the same band, but the same label - and you better believe they demand big discounts for big orders.
The band I manage can buy finished, shrink-wrapped, commercially pressed CDs, with artwork, for just under $1 when buying 2000 or more. I seriously doubt that the big boys doing runs of hundreds of thousands of CDs are paying any more than 50 cents per CD for production - and probably even less than that...
"You've probably never heard of him. His original music doesnt have raw mainstream appeal"
See the first line of your post for the reason why this is true.
"But in the real world it takes losts of advertising, promotion and wheel-greasing to create a snger/band/TV show worth anything."
This is true if you want to make it to a major label and have a shot at having your work appreciated by bigger audiences. Unless you are already independently wealthy, most artists don't have the capital to do these things for themselves (and working full time can really put a damper on the creativity levels). If you are not a moron, and do the smart thing of hiring a contract lawyer before signing with a label, it isn't that difficult to not get completely screwed. The horror stories of bad contracts you hear are from the coked-up, dumbass "rock star" who will sign any thing you put in front of him without reading it - just dangle a big advance in front of them. If you realize that record labels never give you money - that they give you an interest free loan until they recoop all expenses - it makes things a lot easier to understand from the get go. Can an artist make it sucessfully without record label money? Sure, but it really depends on your definition of "successful". Is signing with a label always "selling out" for an artist?? Hell no, unless if by "selling out" you mean having your art appreciated by a larger audience.
"Remember that really cool show you used to watch as a kid - The one that few others even remember and, at times, you wondered if you had ever actually seen it or just made it up?
Guess what - Not only won't its creators ever release it on DVD due to lack of a sufficient market, but when it flopped after four episodes, they just chucked every existing copy in the incinerator.
You have thusly had a small part of your culture taken away from you as part of this war. The creator of that show would rather watch it burn than give it away for nothing to the few fans it had."
Isn't it the creator's right to do what they want with what they have created?? You are not automatically entitled to something just because it was released. If the BBC owns the rights to Dr. Who, and decides to chuck them all out, why shouldn't they be able to?
IANA(.se)L, but I wonder.. let's say I was using Joe's CrackHouse to sell some cookies I had full legal right to. With Joe's CrackHouse shut down, would people like me be able to file some sort of legal grudge against the police?
Nope, can't remeber the exact source - it was quite a while ago - may have been like Omni or some other science mag in the mid 80s. But it was Ridley Scott who claimed this was unintentional - but that was back when he wasn't saying that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant. He said it was not special effects, and that it had happened naturally - lighting reflecting off the back of the retina (similar to the "satan eyes" effect with a strobe flash). Probably for reasons I brought up earlier about the Voight-Kampf test being unnecessary if all you need to do is shine light in the eyes to tell replicants from humans.
Technically, Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman wrote the story. The story was much cooler, taking place over the entire United States, and not on some crappy game show set...
it didn't do well in the theater because the studio tried to market it as a "sci-fi/action" film. After the few initial folks went and saw it looking for the next "Star Wars", and realized it wasn't, the bad reviews/press started up full force. But luckily it does withstand the test of time; screw the marketing department...
"Also, on a slightly different note there's a pretty easy to discern that Deckard is a replicant: all replicants have "animal eyes" (the way eyes reflect at night or with a flash of light), and Deckard's eyes get shown a few times like that in the Director's cut."
If this is the case and it is easy to tell replicants from humans by shining light in their eyes, why all the need for the Voight-Kampf testing? I have read that the light reflections were unintentional - a result of lights and camera angle - and was not supposed to be "proof" of Deckard being a replicant. I have always thought that the movie would make much less sense if Deckard was a replicant - who cares about a story involving robots having sympathy for robots? You need a human to be able to relate to.
To me, the theme of the story was about what makes a human a human - emotions, empathy, memories - and what you call something that isn't biologically human, but is capable of these things...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should invest in a lighning rod - much cheaper than 3 systems, 3 UPS, and network gear...
..now they'll have to go back to getting them the old way - illegally downloading them using Bittorrent (just not from Pirate Bay!)
last time I downloaded a game rated "M" I don't recall having to show any ID..
"walmart won't carry unrated titles"
Wait, wait, wait - backup for a minute. You mean that some Walmart shoppers actually know how to operate computers??? I think you just blew my mind a little...
"there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable. it leaves open wide interpretation and would open businesses to frivolous lawsuits based on someone's ill-informed position on a game. "oh well, I find that Mario portrays violent acts of an offensive nature"
Exactly. So the 19 year old kid working at EBGames can now add "interpret the law" into his job description??? Maybe a set of defined "offenses" and some sort of rating system would be more appropriate...Oh wait, we already have that...
Some call it Darwinism at work, I call it Job Security (TM)...
And his record with dealing with disasters, natural or otherwise, is completely untarnished. Keep up the good work, the program is working!
Yep Congress makes the laws, then the President ignores them...
I'll even go you one further. I don't download fre music becuase of civil disobedience, nor do I try to justify the fact with the cost of CDs. I'm just a straight up thief who doesn't want to pay sometimes...
The good thing is the **AA is on the same page with me on this - and they view all of the "high price of CDs" justifiers and you "civil disobedience" as being in the same boat as me no matter what your convitions/reasons are..
Sensormatic tags?? Why would the band care about that crap?? That protects the retail store selling them, not the band. If store X buys 50 CDs, and all 50 are stolen, guess what?? They already paid the band for the CDs. Now if you are selling on commission, it may be an issue. But usually the commission works like so - we give you 20 CDs, you give us either the $ for 20 CDs or $ of X CDs and then return X CDs back to band. Either way if they are stolen, we get paid. The less than $1 price also does include the UPC coding..
My point was if a small band can get CDs made for just under a buck, the major producers are paying nowhere near that much.. Individual CDs may come out in batches of thousands, but when you have hundreds of bands coming out with CDs, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of CDs being pressed - not necessarily the same band, but the same label - and you better believe they demand big discounts for big orders.
The band I manage can buy finished, shrink-wrapped, commercially pressed CDs, with artwork, for just under $1 when buying 2000 or more. I seriously doubt that the big boys doing runs of hundreds of thousands of CDs are paying any more than 50 cents per CD for production - and probably even less than that...
"You've probably never heard of him. His original music doesnt have raw mainstream appeal"
See the first line of your post for the reason why this is true.
"But in the real world it takes losts of advertising, promotion and wheel-greasing to create a snger/band/TV show worth anything."
This is true if you want to make it to a major label and have a shot at having your work appreciated by bigger audiences. Unless you are already independently wealthy, most artists don't have the capital to do these things for themselves (and working full time can really put a damper on the creativity levels). If you are not a moron, and do the smart thing of hiring a contract lawyer before signing with a label, it isn't that difficult to not get completely screwed. The horror stories of bad contracts you hear are from the coked-up, dumbass "rock star" who will sign any thing you put in front of him without reading it - just dangle a big advance in front of them. If you realize that record labels never give you money - that they give you an interest free loan until they recoop all expenses - it makes things a lot easier to understand from the get go. Can an artist make it sucessfully without record label money? Sure, but it really depends on your definition of "successful". Is signing with a label always "selling out" for an artist?? Hell no, unless if by "selling out" you mean having your art appreciated by a larger audience.
"Remember that really cool show you used to watch as a kid - The one that few others even remember and, at times, you wondered if you had ever actually seen it or just made it up?
Guess what - Not only won't its creators ever release it on DVD due to lack of a sufficient market, but when it flopped after four episodes, they just chucked every existing copy in the incinerator.
You have thusly had a small part of your culture taken away from you as part of this war. The creator of that show would rather watch it burn than give it away for nothing to the few fans it had."
Isn't it the creator's right to do what they want with what they have created?? You are not automatically entitled to something just because it was released. If the BBC owns the rights to Dr. Who, and decides to chuck them all out, why shouldn't they be able to?
Yeah, everybody knows security through obscurity is the safest and most effective method...
IANA(.se)L, but I wonder.. let's say I was using Joe's CrackHouse to sell some cookies I had full legal right to. With Joe's CrackHouse shut down, would people like me be able to file some sort of legal grudge against the police?
Seems pretty clear in this light, no?
"dude, zonk took time to state that something should be taken literally -- when the statement is clearly was meant to be taken figuratively.
d =Mozilla-search&va=staggering
Or perhaps you belive that the information was having trouble walking??
Moron"
I am pretty sure Zonk was using this meaning for "staggering" -
transitive senses
1 : to cause to doubt or hesitate : PERPLEX
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei
Isn't it hard to see the ground up there on your high horse???
Nope, can't remeber the exact source - it was quite a while ago - may have been like Omni or some other science mag in the mid 80s. But it was Ridley Scott who claimed this was unintentional - but that was back when he wasn't saying that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant. He said it was not special effects, and that it had happened naturally - lighting reflecting off the back of the retina (similar to the "satan eyes" effect with a strobe flash). Probably for reasons I brought up earlier about the Voight-Kampf test being unnecessary if all you need to do is shine light in the eyes to tell replicants from humans.
Technically, Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman wrote the story. The story was much cooler, taking place over the entire United States, and not on some crappy game show set...
The guys from Heavy Metal were also drawing heavily on the 1927 Fritz Lang film "Metropolis" for visuals...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017136/
Ask and ye shall receive...
http://www.viewaskew.com/tv/leno/flyingcar.html
"I find it hillarious that the movie was portraying the future, 2019, as totally different and disturbing than the year it was made which was 1982."
Apparently you aren't old enough to remember the 80s... Talk about different and disturbing...
it didn't do well in the theater because the studio tried to market it as a "sci-fi/action" film. After the few initial folks went and saw it looking for the next "Star Wars", and realized it wasn't, the bad reviews/press started up full force. But luckily it does withstand the test of time; screw the marketing department...
"Also, on a slightly different note there's a pretty easy to discern that Deckard is a replicant: all replicants have "animal eyes" (the way eyes reflect at night or with a flash of light), and Deckard's eyes get shown a few times like that in the Director's cut."
If this is the case and it is easy to tell replicants from humans by shining light in their eyes, why all the need for the Voight-Kampf testing? I have read that the light reflections were unintentional - a result of lights and camera angle - and was not supposed to be "proof" of Deckard being a replicant. I have always thought that the movie would make much less sense if Deckard was a replicant - who cares about a story involving robots having sympathy for robots? You need a human to be able to relate to.
To me, the theme of the story was about what makes a human a human - emotions, empathy, memories - and what you call something that isn't biologically human, but is capable of these things...
So when were Mitch and Chris planning on sneaking Kent's car into his dorm room? Or freezing the floors into ice?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/
Yeah, rohypnols work much quicker... Alcohol is for "state college" amatuers...
Didn't Blue Security go out of business??
2 2258&from=rss
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/13