Mickey E. Suttle is a controversial and infamous self-proclaimed Star Wars fan who posts so-called Star Wars news, images and FAQs on his website, supershadow.com almost every day, using the nickname of SuperShadow. Many of his claims, most notably that he is friends with George Lucas and possesses advanced copies of screenplays, have made him a controversial figure among Star Wars fans.
The Whois service reveals that supershadow.com is owned by Mickey Suttle, of Hickory, North Carolina, who also appears to own a law firm. His location is also stated on FindLaw. [source?] The owner of the SuperShadow.com domain also owns MickeySuttle.com...
I got pretty lucky early on when I mapped out my strategy ten years ago. Many small organizations post member names these days because it makes them feel "with it". Your name can pop up all over now - maybe a paintball tourney, some civics group you attended for a year, etc.
I'd rather know ahead of time that someone is planning a Net search so that my second round answers will be sensible, rather than getting decked with some loaded question like "So, been to any Birch meetings lately?"
On one activity that I felt would one year show up in an employer question, I tagged my real name onto it. Random recreations are under an alias for a reason. If an employer went through the modest amount of work to figure it out, then a previous poster is right - it's a bad sign for the employer as a snoop.
A profound clash on the net is between "goofing off" and building net credibility. For the occasional snark comment, that's what AC is for. I have put a fair amount of effort into this "brand name" to ensure that it's reasonably respected.
However, I still wouldn't actively disclose it to any employer. I consider it in the realm of private research mixed with entertainment. If an employer needs to know what my successes at work are - let's have them talk to a previous employer! A former manager who liked you is a far better reference than miscellanea on the net.
While WinMe was worse for a horror in itself, now we have a wasteland.
I thought I saw pre-articles about Windows 7 as being *less* bundled (as a desperate attempt to save what hasn't rotted yet and quarrantine the disaster code.)
They're riding on inertia, but that inertia will take them a very long way before they truly collapse.
I thought casting Hayden Christensen is on this list. The original Vader was played by a fellow who was nearly 6' 7" / 250lbs and a former champion-contender level bodybuilder who has remained committed to his work ever since. The voice was provided by the most iconic voice actor of the last century.
His replacement is about 6' 1" / 190lbs, needed a special effects suit to fake the transformation, and at one point decided "Hollywood no longer interested him" after being handed the role of the decade over some 400 other applicants. (Though IMDB reports he's been involved in a few things since.)
Purchases are for whatever you'd like to do with them. (Some uses more creative than others as seen on YouTube.)
I've definitely gotten "days" worth of enjoyment out of certain songs, because it made some other experience that much fuller. "Gee. I could play with this shareware. Or, I could play with the shareware with tunes going full tilt for the same four hours."
The short duration of enjoyment is a problem that began to kill the arcades and certain restaurants.
Why is there a big rectangle around parent's post? I don't recall that feature more than a month ago and I can't begin to figure out what FAQ it is under.
There are horrible blends of statistical fallacies here. It's like taking a simple average of peaks & valleys.
Group 1: Young People able to remember phone numbers: These are the "Connected youngsters" talked about in conjunction with the rise of Web 2.0 and later, business networking. Someone constantly telling people to "call me on my cell"... will remember their cell number.
Group 2: Older People unable to remember phone numbers: Watch what happens when such a person is either not used to their cell, or moves to a new city and can't rely on the memory aid of the same area code. If they're unlucky enough not to get an easily memorable phone number, I've seen it take them months to learn it.
As for relative birthdays, it might depend on the cultural connectedness of the family. I may not remember Aunt Mabel's birthday because I never see her, but a young member of a family who "always has the family dinner every week" probably would because it would be about a "person in everyday life" and not a random factoid only needed once a year.
I touched on the pitfalls of valuing the subjective impressions of the creation process. I am certainly in favor of less restrictive copyrights!
Were a legislative body to consider the issue, my recommendation was not to consider the full cost of the creation negative across all types of copyrighted works. Instead, acknowledge the cost of creation, but then find the point that the social value of public domain proves to be of greater overall value.
Movies are the toughest test case. They take far longer to properly develop, thus testing the limits of those who advocate very short copyright terms. Even a "small" movie budget of 25 Million US Dollars is difficult to cover from the very diffuse "social benefits" cycle.
The social utility theory is that we need access to materials to build our next works upon. My understanding is that Transformers achieved groundbreaking levels of animation effects. Yet - both the labor and materials costs of that movie were astronomical.
I would be content with an even 60 years of protection. By 2010 the works from 1950 become unlocked, and creative groups setting their sights on a particular work to study can begin pre-prep now.
Examples of the timeline:
The definitive recent movie editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy have been made, and the studio can continue to enjoy protected sales until 2014. By then I would expect those to feel like "old movies", and the underlying book work from 1954 would become available for interpretations of all kinds. The movie itself is protected for "two generations to come".
The pantheon of 1960's materials would become accessible in the 2020's. That's the golden decade everyone wants access to, and 2025 is yet far enough away that we won't benefit from it. But our children will.
Exempt Disney's Mouse & Friends. Then that conmpany won't bludgeon Congress into extending the law. It's not fertile study material anyway.
Fascinating theory. I'll try this as the key section.
"I truly believe that even new goods have no intrinsic cost unless such cost is applied or assumed by the creator of the goods (or services). Not all creators of goods or services place an inherent cost to creation."
Since the whole economic discussion must encompass goods of any kind, I will presume that any materials necessary become an "instant cost assumed by the creator". Your theory focuses on the valuation of labor.
Using nice round numbers, there are 168 hours per week. Of these, only about 75 per week are sustainable to most people.
There IS a cost - the cyclical costs of living. Unless someone has a prepaid expense trust of some kind, the pure basics of Home, Car, & Food must be paid out. Using $1500/Month as an example expense, each of those work hours has to achieve $5. Any hour that "doesn't pull its weight" forces the others to a higher billable rate.
You are subsidizing your content creation based on your other source of income/wealth. You may then rate the enjoyment received high enough to bring the subjective cost to zero or below. However, professional content creators cannot do this. We can discuss how efficient the overhead costs are, but eventually someone has to cut a rent/mortgage check and buy dinner.
--------
I am quite glad you are choosing to grant your work for free. The classical concern has been whether any other entity then usurps your "inherent copyleft rights" and bullies you out of them. Would you then stand up and assert your ownership? If so, you are edging towards an implicit license of some kind.
If even that does not bother you, then you have made peace with yourself and any possible results. Each creator can make this kind of decision to waive protection, but at a policy creation level, this cannot be the standard premise.
"Initially, for Windows 95 Users were given the opportunity to use three browsers: Netscape, Opera, and Internet Explorer.
Once preference for Netscape was established, a subsequent choice made Netscape unavailable. Users were then presented only with Internet Explorer and Opera.
Once the flaws of Internet Explorer were discovered, it was downgraded. Later, when Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera were once again presented, Internet Explorer was no longer given an equal preference."
Slashdot Mirror
That will probably get me modded up, thank you.
You mean this guy?
...
Mickey E. Suttle is a controversial and infamous self-proclaimed Star Wars fan who posts so-called Star Wars news, images and FAQs on his website, supershadow.com almost every day, using the nickname of SuperShadow. Many of his claims, most notably that he is friends with George Lucas and possesses advanced copies of screenplays, have made him a controversial figure among Star Wars fans.
The Whois service reveals that supershadow.com is owned by Mickey Suttle, of Hickory, North Carolina, who also appears to own a law firm. His location is also stated on FindLaw. [source?] The owner of the SuperShadow.com domain also owns MickeySuttle.com
I got pretty lucky early on when I mapped out my strategy ten years ago. Many small organizations post member names these days because it makes them feel "with it". Your name can pop up all over now - maybe a paintball tourney, some civics group you attended for a year, etc.
I'd rather know ahead of time that someone is planning a Net search so that my second round answers will be sensible, rather than getting decked with some loaded question like "So, been to any Birch meetings lately?"
On one activity that I felt would one year show up in an employer question, I tagged my real name onto it. Random recreations are under an alias for a reason. If an employer went through the modest amount of work to figure it out, then a previous poster is right - it's a bad sign for the employer as a snoop.
Unique is good.
A profound clash on the net is between "goofing off" and building net credibility. For the occasional snark comment, that's what AC is for. I have put a fair amount of effort into this "brand name" to ensure that it's reasonably respected.
However, I still wouldn't actively disclose it to any employer. I consider it in the realm of private research mixed with entertainment. If an employer needs to know what my successes at work are - let's have them talk to a previous employer! A former manager who liked you is a far better reference than miscellanea on the net.
Did MS Jump the Shark?
While WinMe was worse for a horror in itself, now we have a wasteland.
I thought I saw pre-articles about Windows 7 as being *less* bundled (as a desperate attempt to save what hasn't rotted yet and quarrantine the disaster code.)
They're riding on inertia, but that inertia will take them a very long way before they truly collapse.
Charles Sheffield has provided some insight into this topic.
http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook487.htm?cache
Story "Out of Copyright" from the book "Dancing With Myself"
I thought casting Hayden Christensen is on this list. The original Vader was played by a fellow who was nearly 6' 7" / 250lbs and a former champion-contender level bodybuilder who has remained committed to his work ever since. The voice was provided by the most iconic voice actor of the last century.
His replacement is about 6' 1" / 190lbs, needed a special effects suit to fake the transformation, and at one point decided "Hollywood no longer interested him" after being handed the role of the decade over some 400 other applicants. (Though IMDB reports he's been involved in a few things since.)
http://www.askmen.com/gossip/hayden-christensen/hayden-christensen-to-quit-acting.html
Considering the nature of the +4 comment, I'd agree with you.
Purchases are for whatever you'd like to do with them. (Some uses more creative than others as seen on YouTube .)
I've definitely gotten "days" worth of enjoyment out of certain songs, because it made some other experience that much fuller. "Gee. I could play with this shareware. Or, I could play with the shareware with tunes going full tilt for the same four hours."
The short duration of enjoyment is a problem that began to kill the arcades and certain restaurants.
If my memory holds, this is called the discussion about a Line Item Veto.
Presidents and Music Buyers want it, Congress and Record OldGuard don't so they can jam stuff you don't want into packages with stuff you do want.
Last I understood, no one was fooled the last time.
... but it sits on a shelf actually in front of a real shopper.
Microsoft may have invented an entirely new form of advertising, called "Eye-Ware".
They know perfectly well their 0.1 release of something is garbage
Then their 3rd revision becomes mostly usable, at which point their FUD campaign may have had time to work.
So tell us the barest form of the joke in a truly ugly form factor.
Then you can refine it much later after this story is no longer news. : )
So put him on the Lorenz team and watch him code some weird version of German Mountain slang.
Or worse.
No.
I rather tend to be accused of creating similar sentences that make Rudolf Flesch spin in his grave.
In a Moebius strip kind of way, this is on topic.
Why is there a big rectangle around parent's post? I don't recall that feature more than a month ago and I can't begin to figure out what FAQ it is under.
Bingo.
Someone post the 5 nastiest links of information abuse so we can mod them +6 Informative and shut this thread down and go to the next story.
Given what they could do with
Steve Ballmer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug4c2mqlE_0
this is music to the spheres.
Vote , aka 2215205 occurs at position 29,167,128.
Obama, aka string 1521131 occurs at position 10,015,199.
Romney, aka 18151314525, is not anywhere in the early parts of Pi.
There are horrible blends of statistical fallacies here. It's like taking a simple average of peaks & valleys.
... will remember their cell number.
Group 1: Young People able to remember phone numbers:
These are the "Connected youngsters" talked about in conjunction with the rise of Web 2.0 and later, business networking. Someone constantly telling people to "call me on my cell"
Group 2: Older People unable to remember phone numbers:
Watch what happens when such a person is either not used to their cell, or moves to a new city and can't rely on the memory aid of the same area code. If they're unlucky enough not to get an easily memorable phone number, I've seen it take them months to learn it.
As for relative birthdays, it might depend on the cultural connectedness of the family. I may not remember Aunt Mabel's birthday because I never see her, but a young member of a family who "always has the family dinner every week" probably would because it would be about a "person in everyday life" and not a random factoid only needed once a year.
I touched on the pitfalls of valuing the subjective impressions of the creation process. I am certainly in favor of less restrictive copyrights!
Were a legislative body to consider the issue, my recommendation was not to consider the full cost of the creation negative across all types of copyrighted works. Instead, acknowledge the cost of creation, but then find the point that the social value of public domain proves to be of greater overall value.
Movies are the toughest test case. They take far longer to properly develop, thus testing the limits of those who advocate very short copyright terms. Even a "small" movie budget of 25 Million US Dollars is difficult to cover from the very diffuse "social benefits" cycle.
The social utility theory is that we need access to materials to build our next works upon. My understanding is that Transformers achieved groundbreaking levels of animation effects. Yet - both the labor and materials costs of that movie were astronomical.
I would be content with an even 60 years of protection. By 2010 the works from 1950 become unlocked, and creative groups setting their sights on a particular work to study can begin pre-prep now.
Examples of the timeline:
The definitive recent movie editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy have been made, and the studio can continue to enjoy protected sales until 2014. By then I would expect those to feel like "old movies", and the underlying book work from 1954 would become available for interpretations of all kinds. The movie itself is protected for "two generations to come".
The pantheon of 1960's materials would become accessible in the 2020's. That's the golden decade everyone wants access to, and 2025 is yet far enough away that we won't benefit from it. But our children will.
Exempt Disney's Mouse & Friends. Then that conmpany won't bludgeon Congress into extending the law. It's not fertile study material anyway.
Fascinating theory. I'll try this as the key section.
"I truly believe that even new goods have no intrinsic cost unless such cost is applied or assumed by the creator of the goods (or services). Not all creators of goods or services place an inherent cost to creation."
Since the whole economic discussion must encompass goods of any kind, I will presume that any materials necessary become an "instant cost assumed by the creator". Your theory focuses on the valuation of labor.
Using nice round numbers, there are 168 hours per week. Of these, only about 75 per week are sustainable to most people.
There IS a cost - the cyclical costs of living. Unless someone has a prepaid expense trust of some kind, the pure basics of Home, Car, & Food must be paid out. Using $1500/Month as an example expense, each of those work hours has to achieve $5. Any hour that "doesn't pull its weight" forces the others to a higher billable rate.
You are subsidizing your content creation based on your other source of income/wealth. You may then rate the enjoyment received high enough to bring the subjective cost to zero or below. However, professional content creators cannot do this. We can discuss how efficient the overhead costs are, but eventually someone has to cut a rent/mortgage check and buy dinner.
--------
I am quite glad you are choosing to grant your work for free. The classical concern has been whether any other entity then usurps your "inherent copyleft rights" and bullies you out of them. Would you then stand up and assert your ownership? If so, you are edging towards an implicit license of some kind.
If even that does not bother you, then you have made peace with yourself and any possible results. Each creator can make this kind of decision to waive protection, but at a policy creation level, this cannot be the standard premise.
Yes.
Copy the Luke Johnson Phone Experiment.
"Initially, for Windows 95 Users were given the opportunity to use three browsers: Netscape, Opera, and Internet Explorer.
Once preference for Netscape was established, a subsequent choice made Netscape unavailable. Users were then presented only with Internet Explorer and Opera.
Once the flaws of Internet Explorer were discovered, it was downgraded. Later, when Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera were once again presented, Internet Explorer was no longer given an equal preference."
You mean they don't speed the video up 170% first?
Oh right, that's only on YouTube.
This is why I run the page in the background and refresh every half hour.
"Look. An inning went by."
The Captcha is "bloody". Go Schilling!
Apparently not.
Every post I see that says "I will get modded down" gets modded Funny.