The next big battle

[audio amateur]

And lets not forget LG and their new projector fone, projects a 40" pic onto the wall.

I heard about that but it was a photo camera, not a phone. It's pretty crazy what they can do now

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder how good the picture is from the LG. Maybe some day a projector will be small enoug to hardly be noticed in the living room.

[Woochifer]

I think that's the crux of the whole thing. Hand held devices provide a mobility to video. On a long trip, plane or train, I could see some one watching a movie on a small screen. It makes time fly and small screen is better than no screen. The young find time and places to watch video we couldn't imagine.

Yep, and that's why I point out that mobile video is well suited to viewing clips and short form programs. It's for that bloc of time when people are on the go. But, for the most part, people are home bodies and couch potatoes. That's why the TV represents the immovable object in this whole scenario. My opinion would be swayed if the viewing time for TV actually declined in sync with the increase of available portable viewing options. But, that has not happened, and in fact, the Nielson surveys show that the total mobile video viewing time is actually less than just the year-to-year growth in TV viewing time.

And in North America at least, the vast majority of travel is done by cars with solo drivers and no passengers. That's well suited to iPods, but not for portable video viewing. Having a portable DVD player is a godsend for traveling with a two year old. But, we use it only about every other month when we have a long car ride or plane trip. Otherwise, the rest of our daughter's viewing takes place at home on a TV.

[pixelthis]

I heard about that but it was a photo camera, not a phone. It's pretty crazy what they can do now

NOPE, a fone, although I am sure they have both available.
But teh one on the commercial was a fone.

[nightflier]

Lil't, did it ever occur to you that you are railing against an entire industry, of which my company is just a small part? You're asking me to defend (not that I have, or intend to) all the corporate practices of companies I don't even work for. In contrast, I am describing the company YOU work for: Disney. This is a company that has hired former Nazi war criminals (no one is disputing that fact, although you're doing a pretty piss-poor job of whitewashing it), and is still using their "expertise" in its current product.

We can go on about how Disney uses Nazi-inspired symbolism to promote its corporate ends (The Incredibles comes to mind), but it's becoming clear you're not going to accept any of it. While it's been discussed at length in academic and scientific circles already, it's clear that you consider such sources irrelevant in face of your precious market forces. So this discussion is going no where - you can't argue with a mule, as they say. Let me just conclude my points on this with a few corrections before you vilify everything I've said, once again.

(1) I didn't purchase Tinkerbell, it was a x-mas gift, and I wasn't about to pry it from my daughter's hands once she had unwrapped it. We've had other Disney/Pixar movies in the house that friends had brought over, so we've seen our share, but that doesn't mean I like it or endorse it - I actually try and educate my children about what is wrong with this material.

(2) An advertisement for the Army is entirely out of place on this disk, just as it is on so many other Disney children's films. What kind of sick & twisted thinking when into that decision? How do I explain that to a 2-year old? So it's not OK to show guns or violence in the G-rated movie, but Disney'll make up for that kind of government meddling by putting plenty of it in the previews? Even you can see the hypocrisy in that... I hope.

(3) The objectification of women, the ridiculing of minorities, the glorification of violence, and the ideal of the colonial ethic (a Manifest Destiny of sorts) in these movies is also completely out of place. It teaches a certain core set of values that build expectations in the mindset of children that they will carry with them into adulthood. Yes, I know you ridicule this as insignificant, but let's remember that this is exactly the response people had for Disney movies that today are considered completely inappropriate - time will catch up with you on that.

(4) "Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, Old Yeller, One Hundred and One Dalmations," all have questionable content that has been critiqued in various sources: overly sexualized characterization, the use of darker skin color and Asian phenotypes to depict negative characters, the expectant roles of different groups of people and women, the list goes on. Fantasia notoriously had a scene removed that even Disney's editors considered too offensive, or did you forget that? By the way, it's spelled "Dalmatian."

Now I find it quite striking that someone in your position can't see the hypocrisy in your own posts - you are either too wrapped up in your own ideology, or just plain dumb. Let's remember, I'm not defending my whole industry, just my own company and people in my industry who I believe do good work. In contrast, my comments to you are about your specific company. And despite your left-leaning posts elsewhere on this forum, it's clear to me from your defense of Disney, your derision of things you can't control, your constant hatred for anything Chinese, and your dogmatic and black-and-white approach to discussion, that you are an arch conservative underneath it all. You loathe anything you can't control, and that includes my comments, Chinese youth, foreign governments (who do the same things our government does, BTW), computer geeks, cell phone users, and pretty much the whole Internet. You're a control freak who's managed to give himself a podium in a public forum - kind of like Rush Limbaugh - and I'm wondering why you're still there. So yes, your comments here are pure hypocrisy because they don't gel with your other posts just like Disney doesn't gel with Children's entertainment.

************

Regarding the next big battle, you continually rail against small screens as insignificant because of market-share, when I've repeatedly pointed out that sales figures don't tell the whole story. Of course TVs selling for thousands have a bigger market impact than $200 devices, but it's all how you parse the numbers. The bigger story is that these smaller screens, whether on laptops, phones, or everything else in between, are selling faster, have a higher turn-over rate, and are more ubiquitous that you are willing to admit.

Your examples are also based in a North American mindset, when it's clear that this says nothing about the world at large - our commuters here are not like commuters abroad, as has been pointed out already, but the thought that we here will have to become more like them (even those dreaded Chinese), is so disturbing to you, that you can't fathom a world where we will actually on day have more people riding buses/trains than in cars. Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we are not the most technologically advanced society anymore, and that our way of life is not sustainable in a global economy?

More to the point, unlike your railing against small screens, I don't try and claim that TVs are insignificant. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out repeatedly that they will continue to be there. My point is that smaller screens are a significant and growing factor. I guess in that way, my perspective suggests that there's room for both in this discussion, but you can't deal with that - it's all your way, or no way at all, right? Typical, and yes, also hypocritical.

[nightflier]

I guess I'm confused by comments made by both of you concerning cell phones:

NF: "You're missing the point. Your sales figures don't include cell phones. Those are also screens, and in the very near future, they will be used to watch everything from broadcast TV to full-length movies. The number of smart phones out there is staggering in comparison to TV sets."

As I mentioned above, I was wrong about the number of cell phones compared to the number of TVs. Even the number of cell phone screens + laptop screens + everything else in between probably doesn't amount to more than the number of TV screens out there. That said, small screens are replaced far more often, so change there happens much faster. What may just be a smaller market because of overall sales figures, could be a whole different beast in as little as six months.

My belief is that that there is something happening on small screens, that is being underrepresented here, and sales figures don't address that. I realize that portable video this has been lauded since the the early days of V-cast, but I think this is different. It is happening matter-of-factly, without much media fanfare. People are just expecting their small devices to include it as standard. The big question is will cell phone providers be able to control it?

If the video content becomes part of the internet, then my guess is that they won't. But if it becomes part of a private cellular-wireless internet where net neutrality does not apply, then it could even become a threat to the Internet itself. That is the next big battle, IMO. Now that's not the opinion of others here, but let's be honest, who are we? Many of us have spent thousands, tens of thousands, some of us even hundreds of thousands on gear that is directly threatened by this technology. Are we really that representative of what the next generation will be spending their money on?

[audio amateur]

NOPE, a fone, although I am sure they have both available.
But teh one on the commercial was a fone.

I wasn't doubting it, just saying I saw the same thing about a camera

[Feanor]

....

We can go on about how Disney uses Nazi-inspired symbolism to promote its corporate ends (The Incredibles comes to mind), but it's becoming clear you're not going to accept any of it. While it's been discussed at length in academic and scientific circles already, it's clear that you consider such sources irrelevant in face of your precious market forces. So this discussion is going no where - you can't argue with a mule, as they say. Let me just conclude my points on this with a few corrections before you vilify everything I've said, once again.
...
....

'Flier, I wonder if you don't have some serious paranoia going on here? Apart from the actuality of whether Disney hired ex-Nazis, the issue of the use of Nazi symbolism is bunk. Once you get into non-explicit "symbolism", the whole subject becomes too subjective to be worth a damn.

As for ex-Nazis working for Disney, does the former Nazi who's done his time deserve less of a break than any other criminal who's served his time? Is the former Nazi who wasn't convicted, or was never indicted, any less "not guilty" than any other suspect? Von Baun does come to mind, of course.

One thing I've learned from reading many books on the Nazi era is that most of the Nazis, even the worst the leaders, were not psychopathic monsters. The demonization of Nazis (even frivolously as in Inglorious Basterds), is hypocritcal and potentially dangerous. Most Nazis were people motivated by relatively routine personal bigotries plus a desire for advancement. The evil-doing of the typical Nazi Party member was mainly a reaction to the particular place & time. Rather than cry, "Arrg! Nazi, Nazi", the rest of us would do well watch out that we don't succumb to the same vices under comparable circumstances.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lil't, did it ever occur to you that you are railing against an entire industry, of which my company is just a small part? You're asking me to defend (not that I have, or intend to) all the corporate practices of companies I don't even work for. In contrast, I am describing the company YOU work for: Disney. This is a company that has hired former Nazi war criminals (no one is disputing that fact, although you're doing a pretty piss-poor job of whitewashing it), and is still using their "expertise" in its current product.

Man you are full of it. The stench in this post is overwhelming. If what you state is fact(and I doubt it) then you are talking about something that happened in the 1930's. Can you tell me(without the overwhelming paranoia) how that is relevant today? I can tell you this, today I cannot order a laptop or PC without windows. That equal monopoly.I am forced to support software that hackers can use against me, and I have no choice in removing it without decreasing the functionality of the computer itself. I can only use Itunes on my ipod. That equals monopoly. Why can't I just load any MP3 I buy or rip directly to my ipod? This is today, TODAY, not 70 years ago.

We can go on about how Disney uses Nazi-inspired symbolism to promote its corporate ends (The Incredibles comes to mind), but it's becoming clear you're not going to accept any of it. While it's been discussed at length in academic and scientific circles already, it's clear that you consider such sources irrelevant in face of your precious market forces. So this discussion is going no where - you can't argue with a mule, as they say. Let me just conclude my points on this with a few corrections before you vilify everything I've said, once again.

I am not going to accept it because it is based on paranoia. I asked my kids if they see nazi influences in their Disney movies, and the answer was a resounding NO! I asked my neighbor kids do they see Nazi's in their Disney movie collection, and the answer was a resounding NO! With a paranoia filter in full force, you can see all kinds of conspiracies that you want to see.

(1) I didn't purchase Tinkerbell, it was a x-mas gift, and I wasn't about to pry it from my daughter's hands once she had unwrapped it. We've had other Disney/Pixar movies in the house that friends had brought over, so we've seen our share, but that doesn't mean I like it or endorse it - I actually try and educate my children about what is wrong with this material.

This is no excuse. If I had the objections you have about the content, then she would not get it no matter what. So the only thing you are telling me is that you are a bad father AND a hypocrite. You tell your kids about what is wrong with it, then you let them watch it anyway. That makes you nothing more than a spineless HYPOCRITE!!!

(2) An advertisement for the Army is entirely out of place on this disk, just as it is on so many other Disney children's films. What kind of sick & twisted thinking when into that decision? How do I explain that to a 2-year old? So it's not OK to show guns or violence in the G-rated movie, but Disney'll make up for that kind of government meddling by putting plenty of it in the previews? Even you can see the hypocrisy in that... I hope.

If you don't like it, don't let them view it HYPOCRITE!

(3) The objectification of women, the ridiculing of minorities, the glorification of violence, and the ideal of the colonial ethic (a Manifest Destiny of sorts) in these movies is also completely out of place. It teaches a certain core set of values that build expectations in the mindset of children that they will carry with them into adulthood. Yes, I know you ridicule this as insignificant, but let's remember that this is exactly the response people had for Disney movies that today are considered completely inappropriate - time will catch up with you on that.

This is pure paranoia. Do you think your kids look at the movies and see this? I think not HYPOCRITE!

(4) "Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, Old Yeller, One Hundred and One Dalmations," all have questionable content that has been critiqued in various sources: overly sexualized characterization, the use of darker skin color and Asian phenotypes to depict negative characters, the expectant roles of different groups of people and women, the list goes on. Fantasia notoriously had a scene removed that even Disney's editors considered too offensive, or did you forget that? By the way, it's spelled "Dalmatian."

Once again, the computer industry has no respect for women or people with dark skin, or there would be more of the running computer companies and sitting in the board rooms of them as well. Look in your own backyard, there is enough misalignment there to keep you too busy to notice what happens in Disney movies.

Now I find it quite striking that someone in your position can't see the hypocrisy in your own posts - you are either too wrapped up in your own ideology, or just plain dumb. Let's remember, I'm not defending my whole industry, just my own company and people in my industry who I believe do good work. In contrast, my comments to you are about your specific company. And despite your left-leaning posts elsewhere on this forum, it's clear to me from your defense of Disney, your derision of things you can't control, your constant hatred for anything Chinese, and your dogmatic and black-and-white approach to discussion, that you are an arch conservative underneath it all. You loathe anything you can't control, and that includes my comments, Chinese youth, foreign governments (who do the same things our government does, BTW), computer geeks, cell phone users, and pretty much the whole Internet. You're a control freak who's managed to give himself a podium in a public forum - kind of like Rush Limbaugh - and I'm wondering why you're still there. So yes, your comments here are pure hypocrisy because they don't gel with your other posts just like Disney doesn't gel with Children's entertainment.

Man you spit out enough bull here. But this is really about deflection. You rile about Disney content, and when somebody gives you a copy of a Disney movie, you are too unprincipled to tell your daughtered that you object to the contents of the video. The only thing all this riling deflects is a bad father who does not have the principles to say no to his children when he does not like something. Rile away HYPOCRITE, I hope you feel better even if your bull$hit makes the rest of us sick to our collective stomachs.

************

Regarding the next big battle, you continually rail against small screens as insignificant because of market-share, when I've repeatedly pointed out that sales figures don't tell the whole story. Of course TVs selling for thousands have a bigger market impact than $200 devices, but it's all how you parse the numbers. The bigger story is that these smaller screens, whether on laptops, phones, or everything else in between, are selling faster, have a higher turn-over rate, and are more ubiquitous that you are willing to admit.

None of this points to any of these devices as replacements for the television. Selling something does not mean its uses change. A cellphone is still used primarily for making calls, a laptop is still primarily for work, and an ipod's primary use is still music. That has not changed, and you trying to foretell its future uses does not constitute it as fact. It is all in your imagination.

Your examples are also based in a North American mindset, when it's clear that this says nothing about the world at large - our commuters here are not like commuters abroad, as has been pointed out already, but the thought that we here will have to become more like them (even those dreaded Chinese), is so disturbing to you, that you can't fathom a world where we will actually on day have more people riding buses/trains than in cars. Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, we are not the most technologically advanced society anymore, and that our way of life is not sustainable in a global economy?

Leaning to read always helps when trying to comprehend words. I do not have issues with the Chinese, I have issues with the Chinese government. Do the "Chinese" people set their own policies? No, the Chinese government does. Remember, we are not talking about a democracy here.

No, it is not so hard to believe that we are not the most technologically advance people in the world, and now you are making my point better than ever. Since we are not the most advance technologically, then you cannot make the same argument for the advancement of technology for this country than you can make for the rest of the world. When compared to the rest of the developed countries, we sit at the bottom at internet speed(which is why downloads still have quite a ways to go to supplant the BR disc), we do not use our technology the same way as the rest of the world(which means we do not watch our films on tiny screens), we do not travel like the rest of the world(cars are our primary transportation), and quite frankly the largest LCD and Plasma screens are sold to the US, not Europe or Asia. In American, the most television sales go to screens 40" and larger(trending more larger each year). In Europe and Asia, the most popular television screens(in terms of overall sales) was between 30 and 40" and that has held steady for years now. The Consumer Electronic Companies still consider the US market as the most important market they have, and they use their home markets as test places for gadgets and equipment they expect to sell to the US. We buy the products that they put the largest markup on, and that is large screen Plasmas and LCD televisions.

More to the point, unlike your railing against small screens, I don't try and claim that TVs are insignificant. As a matter of fact, I've pointed out repeatedly that they will continue to be there. My point is that smaller screens are a significant and growing factor. I guess in that way, my perspective suggests that there's room for both in this discussion, but you can't deal with that - it's all your way, or no way at all, right? Typical, and yes, also hypocritical.

Significant and growing factor is a loooooong way from primary viewing device, or device for watching films. It may be a growing factor, but not for primary viewing. So using the words significant and growing is irrelevant in the context to which we are speaking.

I am not railing against small screens, I am railing against the constant lying and false posturing you are doing to try and make something that is used for one thing, a factor for mass usage for other things. Small screens are good for what they do, and that is for viewing short videos and the occasional TV program while on the go. But there is no trend that ANYONE can see(except those who enjoy making one up) that points to smaller screens as a device one looks at movies on. The only place that is happening is in the empty space between your two ears, and that is it.

Let's consider this. The top selling phone in Europe is the Motorola Razr V3. It has a super large 2.2 inch 176 x 220 pixel 64K color TFT display. The best selling phone is Asia is the Nokia E71 with a huge 2.36" size screen with 320x240 pixels, hardly HD resolution. These are the phones the majority of the populace are buying, and these are hardly phones worth looking at Avatar on. You'll probably get decent 3D if you use two per eye!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

'Flier, I wonder if you don't have some serious paranoia going on here? Apart from the actuality of whether Disney hired ex-Nazis, the issue of the use of Nazi symbolism is bunk. Once you get into non-explicit "symbolism", the whole subject becomes too subjective to be worth a damn.

Well, when you have the "I see dead people" syndrome, you tend to see all kinds of conspiracies in everything. NF would be a great Journalist in the everyone is a nazi McCarthy era.

As for ex-Nazis working for Disney, does the former Nazi who's done his time deserve less of a break than any other criminal who's served his time? Is the former Nazi who wasn't convicted, or was never indicted, any less "not guilty" than any other suspect? Von Baun does come to mind, of course.

When you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist, if you have been accused(not convicted or sentenced) you are still guilty for life. I guess he gets his rocks off spreading internet based lies. Walt Disney HIMSELF was not a nazi, but he gets tarred and feathers for just hiring somebody who was accused but never convicted. Funny, Microsoft WAS convicted of stealing a patent in the Word software, and were convicted of anti trust, and yet Bill Gates walks away scot free in his world.

One thing I've learned from reading many books on the Nazi era is that most of the Nazis, even the worst the leaders, were not psychopathic monsters. The demonization of Nazis (even frivolously as in Inglorious Basterds), is hypocritcal and potentially dangerous. Most Nazis were people motivated by relatively routine personal bigotries plus a desire for advancement. The evil-doing of the typical Nazi Party member was mainly a reaction to the particular place & time. Rather than cry, "Arrg! Nazi, Nazi", the rest of us would do well watch out that we don't succumb to the same vices under comparable circumstances.

Also consider that in this country during that era, so many non communists were accused of communist links and beliefs without a shred of real proof to support the accusation. Also keep in mind that internet based rumors and lies make good copy for paranoid folks.

[E-Stat]

Many of us have spent thousands, tens of thousands, some of us even hundreds of thousands on gear that is directly threatened by this technology. Are we really that representative of what the next generation will be spending their money on?

Frankly, I'm not concerned that phones will be obsoleting televisions and movie theatres. Smart phones have their place and I use my iPhone quite a bit. My wife and I text up a storm. I just don't see the enthusiasm for folks wanting to watch Avatar on a 6 square inch screen vs. a 500,000 square inch screen (The 1570 IMAX at Mall of Georgia where I first saw it).

rw

[Geoffcin]

Hey guys, I just moved this thread to the "Steel Cage" If you want to go at each other personally I'm OK with it, but please keep it off the other forums.

Thanks for understanding!

[nightflier]

If what you state is fact(and I doubt it) then you are talking about something that happened in the 1930's. Can you tell me(without the overwhelming paranoia) how that is relevant today?

No this didn't just happen in the 30's. Walt Disney's overt bigotry and sexism is evident in his output in the 30's yes, but his spying for the FBI and his testifying at the HUAC trials happened in the 50's. Over those 20 some odd years, he enjoyed the status of being Hollywood's number one bigot. In the late 50's he tried to bust unions through rather suspicious means, and ultimately failed, this was a considerable setback for him and some authors say he never quite recovered. But by that time, others in the company were making big decisions. One of the people who made decisions, what von Braun, who also had considerable input in the planning of Disneyland, including the plans for Tomorrowland. Von Braun was never convicted, true, but he also hired another former SS officer, Haber, who was convicted and served several years for performing scientific experiments on POWs and prisoners at Dachau - the kind of gruesome stuff you don't want to think about.

Look people, I'm not making this stuff up, it's part of our history. I realize you'll have to do some digging to find the actual references online: both von Braun and Haber where also used by the US military for their research so this isn't the kind of stuff that's widely published, but it's there if you dig for it.

I realize that playing the Nazi card may seem heavy handed, but my point is simply that for all the evils that lil't is pointing to in the computer industry, he's got some pretty scary skeletons in his own closet. For someone who's wont to call every boday else's kettle, black, that rather hypocritical in my book.

I can tell you this, today I cannot order a laptop or PC without windows.

Boy you really are dumb. Yes you can, here's a whole list of them. And if that's not mainstream enough, you can buy HP and Lenovo computers fully loaded with Linux. Oh, and since I'm talking to a 5-year old, you can also uninstall Windows and install whatever OS you like, lil't.

I can only use Itunes on my ipod. That equals monopoly. Why can't I just load any MP3 I buy or rip directly to my ipod? This is today, TODAY, not 70 years ago.

There's a number of threads here, on this forum describing how to use your own software and your own MP3s on an iPod. Don't insult us.

I am not going to accept it because it is based on paranoia. I asked my kids if they see nazi influences in their Disney movies, and the answer was a resounding NO! I asked my neighbor kids do they see Nazi's in their Disney movie collection, and the answer was a resounding NO! With a paranoia filter in full force, you can see all kinds of conspiracies that you want to see.

You kids? Why don't you ask some experts instead? Look, it's been written about enough. It's just that you don't read anything marginally academic. Let it go already, this is a waste of my time.

This is no excuse. If I had the objections you have about the content, then she would not get it no matter what. So the only thing you are telling me is that you are a bad father AND a hypocrite. You tell your kids about what is wrong with it, then you let them watch it anyway. That makes you nothing more than a spineless HYPOCRITE!!!

So, you would rip the disk out of your kid's hands rather than explain what is wrong with it? Boy that explains volumes.

If you don't like it, don't let them view it HYPOCRITE!

I don't let my kids see the army ads; As soon as I see that crap, I fast forward through it. Oh, wait a minute, "Action not Allowed?" WTF does that mean? Does Disney want to force me and my kids to see this nonsense? Gee, how positively nice of them.... Any more suggestions, lil't?

This is pure paranoia. Do you think your kids look at the movies and see this? I think not HYPOCRITE!

Let's see, if kids see Ariel's proportions, do they think that's normal? Will they grow up expecting that? Gee, there's whole industries banking on it! I wonder if that's just a coincidence? More stupidity from you lil't. As a head honcho at Disney, I would think you'd be more socially responsible about this material targeted at impressionable kids. As I said before, there was a time when this was considered perfectly acceptable too:

Crows Scene from Dumbo

I suppose, you're going to try and tell me this is OK. If you do, then we've got nothing left to discuss. Oh, I'm sure you're going to dismsiss this since the movie came out in 1941, right? Well, let me also remind you that Dumbo is still sold on Amazon.

Once again, the computer industry has no respect for women or people with dark skin, or there would be more of the running computer companies and sitting in the board rooms of them as well. Look in your own backyard, there is enough misalignment there to keep you too busy to notice what happens in Disney movies.

What are you smoking? Or do Asians not count anymore? Oh, I'm sorry, you want to exclude them from the argument like you did with the Japanese programmers? OK, what about Indians (the ones from India, in case you're getting confused)? What about in Latin America? Do those people qualify? At what shade do you draw the line, lil't, a brown paper-bag? How stupid do you want your argument to get? Women? perhaps not in the major corporations, but Women make up a much larger share of the heads of smaller computer companies than you would like to admit. So yes, Linda Fiorentino was handed her walking papers, but that had nothing to do with her being a woman, it had to do with gross improprieties. But there will be other women who will head large corporations too.

Look, I realize there's inequality, and there's much work still to be done. I've never defended large corporations who commit crimes and improprieties (just read my other posts), so stop trying to make that stick - it's not working. I've been a vocal critic here and elsewhere of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, HP, and a host of other companies. But your insistence on painting a whole industry with your petty little brush just doesn't work. My company isn't headed by a woman either, but they do make up a majority of the board, which I still think is a far cry from where Disney stands.

And see that's where I think you're the bigger hypocrite: your company has a well documented and long established notoriety in the film industry. That's the folks you claim to work for and that you still defend. Me, on the other hand, speak for my own company, not Google, Microsoft or the other big guys. You just can't get it through your head that you are standing much closer to the odium of your industry's abuses than I am. So stop with calling me a bigger hypocrite, it's just not applicable at all.

************

None of this points to any of these devices as replacements for the television. Selling something does not mean its uses change. A cellphone is still used primarily for making calls, a laptop is still primarily for work, and an ipod's primary use is still music. That has not changed, and you trying to foretell its future uses does not constitute it as fact. It is all in your imagination.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]For the last time, and listen c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, now: I never said that small screens will replace televisions. What I have said repeatedly is that they will coexist and grow in market share. Really, lil't, it's not all a black-n-white world out there...

I do not have issues with the Chinese, I have issues with the Chinese government. Do the "Chinese" people set their own policies? No, the Chinese government does. Remember, we are not talking about a democracy here.

What you and so many people just can't get around your heads about China is that the people and the government are not separate like that. Your prejudice against the Chinese government and the Chinese people who steal movies, cannot so simply be extracted from the Chinese people. Until you actually live in China, you may never understand this, and it's sad really, because we'll have to add that to the long list of things you cannot understand. Let me see if I can find an example, oh that's right: it's kind of like the way the Japanese programmers cannot be extracted from the community of programmers throughout the world. Oh, I better stop before your head explodes....

No, it is not so hard to believe that we are not the most technologically advance people in the world, and now you are making my point better than ever. Since we are not the most advance technologically, then you cannot make the same argument for the advancement of technology for this country than you can make for the rest of the world. When compared to the rest of the developed countries, we sit at the bottom at internet speed(which is why downloads still have quite a ways to go to supplant the BR disc)

Not only did I not say it will supplant it, but more to the point, this shows your narrow mindedness all over again: I'm talking about the way things stand globally, and you are still obsessed with looking at only the US market when it suits your argument. Stop it already, it's getting creepy.

we do not use our technology the same way as the rest of the world (which means we do not watch our films on tiny screens), we do not travel like the rest of the world(cars are our primary transportation), and quite frankly the largest LCD and Plasma screens are sold to the US, not Europe or Asia.

This will change. Just because we are so backwards as you say we are, doesn't mean we will stay there. Unlike you, I actually have faith that we will pull ourselves out of this muck. Yet it's Luddites like you who relish in keeping us in the past. Is it just so that you can prove you were right, or are you just treasonous?

In American, the most television sales go to screens 40" and larger(trending more larger each year). In Europe and Asia, the most popular television screens(in terms of overall sales) was between 30 and 40" and that has held steady for years now. The Consumer Electronic Companies still consider the US market as the most important market they have, and they use their home markets as test places for gadgets and equipment they expect to sell to the US. We buy the products that they put the largest markup on, and that is large screen Plasmas and LCD televisions.

Not only is this a perverted model that presumes the consumer is an absolute moron (not true, BTW), but it isn't sustainable. Things are going to change, lil't, as a matter of fact they are already.

I am not railing against small screens

Yes you are.

Small screens are good for what they do, and that is for viewing short videos and the occasional TV program while on the go.

Just because that's the case in your little world, does not make it so globally. Even considering that the US is the largest consumer market, that doesn't mean it will be so in the near future. Consider of the projections for the Chinese and Indian consumer market, oh that's right you can't, it's too "vague" and "out there."

But there is no trend that ANYONE can see that points to smaller screens as a device one looks at movies on.

Of course, if all you're fixated on is digital movie sales. This tired argument is really getting old.

Let's consider this. The top selling phone in Europe is the Motorola Razr V3. It has a super large 2.2 inch 176 x 220 pixel 64K color TFT display. The best selling phone is Asia is the Nokia E71 with a huge 2.36" size screen with 320x240 pixels, hardly HD resolution. These are the phones the majority of the populace are buying, and these are hardly phones worth looking at Avatar on. You'll probably get decent 3D if you use two per eye!

I never said they needed to be HD - actually, I said the exact opposite. While HD will be the standard some day, for now, video on small screens doesn't need to be HD. Are you just trying to find a new line of argumentation where there was none? Stop wasting my time. And while we're at it, stop being such a hypocrite, it weakens your argument.

[E-Stat]

Why can't I just load any MP3 I buy or rip directly to my ipod?

There is no such reason. You can use whatever you please if you know what you're doing.. None of the content I have on my iPhone was purchased from iTunes because I have no use for poor sounding highly compressed content. I begin with uncompressed WAV format and then convert to Apple lossless to save space.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No this didn't just happen in the 30's. Walt Disney's overt bigotry and sexism is evident in his output in the 30's yes, but his spying for the FBI and his testifying at the HUAC trials happened in the 50's. Over those 20 some odd years, he enjoyed the status of being Hollywood's number one bigot. In the late 50's he tried to bust unions through rather suspicious means, and ultimately failed, this was a considerable setback for him and some authors say he never quite recovered. But by that time, others in the company were making big decisions. One of the people who made decisions, what von Braun, who also had considerable input in the planning of Disneyland, including the plans for Tomorrowland. Von Braun was never convicted, true, but he also hired another former SS officer, Haber, who was convicted and served several years for performing scientific experiments on POWs and prisoners at Dachau - the kind of gruesome stuff you don't want to think about.

1950 versus 2010. Hmmmm, that would be 60 years ago. Can you tell me the relevance today? Von Braun not convicted? That means it was not proven he was guilty of anything!

Your conspiracy myths ride hand in hand with your beliefs. Neither is true, real, or even applicable to current events.

Look people, I'm not making this stuff up, it's part of our history. I realize you'll have to do some digging to find the actual references online: both von Braun and Haber where also used by the US military for their research so this isn't the kind of stuff that's widely published, but it's there if you dig for it.

When you make accusations, it is you that need to search the internet and prove your point. I looked up what I could find, and aside from disproven internet myths, there is not direct evidence that supports your paranoia theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Haber

According to the Wikipedia entry, Von Braun was coerced to joint he Nazi party, and did not volunteer for it. From what I know of history, alot of scientist and engineers were forced to work for the party against their will, or their careers would be distroyed. He killed no one, was not a guard at any concentration camp, and none of his work was actually used to kill any allied personell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

I realize that playing the Nazi card may seem heavy handed, but my point is simply that for all the evils that lil't is pointing to in the computer industry, he's got some pretty scary skeletons in his own closet. For someone who's wont to call every boday else's kettle, black, that rather hypocritical in my book.

Having old skeletons in a 50-70 year old closet(which are myths so far) and having them currently dancing in front of the world in 2010 is a light year worth of distance.

Boy you really are dumb. Yes you can, here's a whole list of them. And if that's not mainstream enough, you can buy HP and Lenovo computers fully loaded with Linux. Oh, and since I'm talking to a 5-year old, you can also uninstall Windows and install whatever OS you like, lil't.

Look stupid a$$, everyone who is computer literate knows that Linux does not work with quite a few commonly used programs. Linux is not widely supported if you can't get something to work, and if you are not a programmer or a computer genious you can't make it work when things go wrong. Everything software related is geared towards either the Apple OS, or windows.

There's a number of threads here, on this forum describing how to use your own software and your own MP3s on an iPod. Don't insult us.

And yet none work as smoothly and with as fewer steps as with the closed ecco system it currently work effectively with.

You kids? Why don't you ask some experts instead? Look, it's been written about enough. It's just that you don't read anything marginally academic. Let it go already, this is a waste of my time.

I ask my kids because they can look at something and give a plain yes or no. Their minds are not filled with silly internet myths not supported by fact clouding their minds.

So, you would rip the disk out of your kid's hands rather than explain what is wrong with it? Boy that explains volumes.

No, I would rip the disk out of my kids hand and explain why I am doing it, AND I would not let them watch it for that reason. Unlike yourself who would complain and explain, but still allow it to be watched. You are spineless, and by most standards a bad Dad and a hypocrite.

I don't let my kids see the army ads; As soon as I see that crap, I fast forward through it. Oh, wait a minute, "Action not Allowed?" WTF does that mean? Does Disney want to force me and my kids to see this nonsense? Gee, how positively nice of them.... Any more suggestions, lil't?

Yeah I have one...get a spine jelly back! If you don't like the content, and object to Army ads on video, DON'T LET THEM WATCH THE VIDEO IDIOT!

Let's see, if kids see Ariel's proportions, do they think that's normal? Will they grow up expecting that? Gee, there's whole industries banking on it! I wonder if that's just a coincidence? More stupidity from you lil't. As a head honcho at Disney, I would think you'd be more socially responsible about this material targeted at impressionable kids. As I said before, there was a time when this was considered perfectly acceptable too:

Crows Scene from Dumbo

I suppose, you're going to try and tell me this is OK. If you do, then we've got nothing left to discuss. Oh, I'm sure you're going to dismsiss this since the movie came out in 1941, right? Well, let me also remind you that Dumbo is still sold on Amazon.

Let's see Dumbo. In 1941 is was perfectly acceptable for white only bathrooms, restaurants, hotels, trains, entertainment faclilites, movie theaters..shall I go on? There were a lot of things that were perfectly acceptable to do like sick dogs on protestors, and even hanging African Americans from trees. When it comes to moralities, 1941 might as well be a different planet than 2010. Yet in 2010, minorities and women are still under-represented in corner offices and board rooms of every major(and quite a few minor) computer companies in this country. Is the CEO of your company a woman or minority? Probably not.

What are you smoking? Or do Asians not count anymore? Oh, I'm sorry, you want to exclude them from the argument like you did with the Japanese programmers? OK, what about Indians (the ones from India, in case you're getting confused)? What about in Latin America? Do those people qualify? At what shade do you draw the line, lil't, a brown paper-bag? How stupid do you want your argument to get? Women? perhaps not in the major corporations, but Women make up a much larger share of the heads of smaller computer companies than you would like to admit. So yes, Linda Fiorentino was handed her walking papers, but that had nothing to do with her being a woman, it had to do with gross improprieties. But there will be other women who will head large corporations too.

Since Asians are literally driving the train in all of this, it is natural they would be in charge. Where are the Blacks, Latinos and women? Forgot about them, or are they too insignificant for your radar?

Look, I realize there's inequality, and there's much work still to be done. I've never defended large corporations who commit crimes and improprieties (just read my other posts), so stop trying to make that stick - it's not working. I've been a vocal critic here and elsewhere of Microsoft, Sony, Apple, HP, and a host of other companies. But your insistence on painting a whole industry with your petty little brush just doesn't work. My company isn't headed by a woman either, but they do make up a majority of the board, which I still think is a far cry from where Disney stands.

But yet in this case Microsoft sins are dismissed so you can highlight the (old and unproven)sins of Disney. Double standard and hypocritical. Do you have Blacks or Latinos on your perfect and sinless board? Probably not. So women have hit the glass ceiling at your place huh? They can be on the board, but not making the decisive decisions. Progressive bunch aren't you guys!

And see that's where I think you're the bigger hypocrite: your company has a well documented and long established notoriety in the film industry. That's the folks you claim to work for and that you still defend. Me, on the other hand, speak for my own company, not Google, Microsoft or the other big guys. You just can't get it through your head that you are standing much closer to the odium of your industry's abuses than I am. So stop with calling me a bigger hypocrite, it's just not applicable at all.

Funny, so does Warner, Sony, and MGM. I don't speak for my company, and quiet as it is kept unless you are the CEO, you don't speak for yours either. You re a working bee, and you don't know all that is going on in your company, and I do not know(even at my level in management) don't know all that is going on at Disney.

************

[quote]None of this points to any of these devices as replacements for the television. Selling something does not mean its uses change. A cellphone is still used primarily for making calls, a laptop is still primarily for work, and an ipod's primary use is still music. That has not changed, and you trying to foretell its future uses does not constitute it as fact. It is all in your imagination.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For the last time, and listen c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, now: I never said that small screens will replace televisions. What I have said repeatedly is that they will coexist and grow in market share. Really, lil't, it's not all a black-n-white world out there...

Sure they will co-exist. Cellphones will be used to make calls, Ipods to listen to music, and portable DVD players for travel of long distances(who does that everyday?).

What you and so many people just can't get around your heads about China is that the people and the government are not separate like that. Your prejudice against the Chinese government and the Chinese people who steal movies, cannot so simply be extracted from the Chinese people.

When the average Chinese person can vote for their leaders, can surf the net without blocking filteres, can protest what they don't like, can speak freely their opinions, then they cannot be extracted. As long as the reverse exists, I judge them seperately. A thief is a theif, no matter what country they are from.

Until you actually live in China, you may never understand this, and it's sad really, because we'll have to add that to the long list of things you cannot understand.

If I lived in China, I can expect extreme racism as they view people of color as inferior to their own, and whites for that matter

http://www.thechinaexpat.com/racism-in-china/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

So no thanks for he live in China argument.

Let me see if I can find an example, oh that's right: it's kind of like the way the Japanese programmers cannot be extracted from the community of programmers throughout the world. Oh, I better stop before your head explodes....

So, based on your pie in the sky analysis, the work ethic and national pride of every programmer all over the earth is exactly the same? Sorry, pull your head out of your a$$, I have already posted several links that dispute that notion.

Not only did I not say it will supplant it, but more to the point, this shows your narrow mindedness all over again: I'm talking about the way things stand globally, and you are still obsessed with looking at only the US market when it suits your argument. Stop it already, it's getting creepy.

I live in America, and so do you. What we do here in America cannot be translated into what folks do all over the world, and visa versa. When we began this discussion(and any other discussion on this issue) we are talking about what they do here, not globally, because let's face it, everyone globally does not behave the same way. South Korea has the fastest internet service in the world. Because of this downloading movies for purchase and renting is a very common practice, and movies on disc(unless it is pirated) place second fiddle to that. Internet speeds in Europe and American are comparatively slow in comparison to just about every Asian country, so we download movies at a fraction of the typical Asian consumer. We like disc, whether it is for movies or music. The Asian markets love a lot of bells and whistles on their phones, the American public likes to keep it simply and easy to use. What happens globally does not always happen here, and that is my point. You only bring in the global slant in a feeble attempt to make your point.

This will change. Just because we are so backwards as you say we are, doesn't mean we will stay there. Unlike you, I actually have faith that we will pull ourselves out of this muck. Yet it's Luddites like you who relish in keeping us in the past. Is it just so that you can prove you were right, or are you just treasonous?

This will change is crystal ball analysis. We have changed already. We want bigger screens, bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger, bigger, bigger is what we have trended in this country for years. Neither Europe nor the Asian territories have shown this trend.

Your idea of "this will change" is highlighted by the belief that everyone will be using technology in a simular fashion, and there is nothing in history that bares this out. Sorry, but you must be from a different planet other than earth martian type dude.

Not only is this a perverted model that presumes the consumer is an absolute moron (not true, BTW), but it isn't sustainable. Things are going to change, lil't, as a matter of fact they are already.

WTF it is not sustainable. You are from another planet. Of course it is sustainable, and if you expect to sell a product in this country, you would be smart to keep this in mind. I just got the sales figures for Panasonics 103" LCD that sells for $70k., and their 150" plasma that goes for over 100K. These monsters are selling in surprising numbers here in America, and doing nothing everywhere else. We want to watch our movies on bigger higher resolution screens, not eye busting tiny screens with low resolution.

Yes you are.

Just because I do not agree with you on their usage you call that riling? It is called reality, not riling your foolishness.

Just because that's the case in your little world, does not make it so globally. Even considering that the US is the largest consumer market, that doesn't mean it will be so in the near future. Consider of the projections for the Chinese and Indian consumer market, oh that's right you can't, it's too "vague" and "out there."

The projections go in two ways for China and India

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea14130c-d...44feabdc0.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=120527474

http://www.economywatch.com/indianec...-overview.html

You ever heard the term out growing your clothes too fast when it comes to economics? It means you can grow too fast in such a short time that your infrastructure cannot support it. Both China and India are prime candidates for this phenom. China is already in the throws of it. So there is absolutely no garantee eithers growth rate is sustainable in the long run, and nobody can provide the assurance it will. Just as you state, things change.

Of course, if all you're fixated on is digital movie sales. This tired argument is really getting old.

And trying to base your assertions on non moneterized(which translates to no value) low qualtiy video is also getting old. Free video does not drive an engine, digital movie SALES do.

I never said they needed to be HD - actually, I said the exact opposite. While HD will be the standard some day, for now, video on small screens doesn't need to be HD. Are you just trying to find a new line of argumentation where there was none? Stop wasting my time. And while we're at it, stop being such a hypocrite, it weakens your argument.

You are wasting your own damn time fool, you could stop your fantasy nonsense at any time. People want HD, and if they didn't CRT televsions would still be a hot commodity today. People want 1080p, whether it comes in a 32" size, or a 60" size. I do not see anyone clamering for 2.5" screens for viewing HD content. The broadcast community has embraced HD, the film community HD, advertisers HD, Blu ray HD. The enitre viewing world wants HD.

If you don't understand that HD is already the "standard" then you need to stop debating right now.

While you make a lousy prognosticator, you are a very good parrot. Polly wants low resolution video for his low resolution screen....squawk!

[E-Stat]

And if that's not mainstream enough, you can buy HP and Lenovo computers fully loaded with Linux.

Linux is best utilized in a server environment. While the OS itself is well supported - Runs on every IBM platform including their mainframes, it does not share the same application support when it comes to personal workstation. 95% of my customers run their 20-300 user ERP systems on Linux servers, while few if any use it for the client PCs.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Linux is best utilized in a server environment. While the OS itself is well supported - Runs on every IBM platform including their mainframes, it does not share the same application support when it comes to personal workstation. 95% of my customers run their 20-300 user ERP systems on Linux servers, while few if any use it for the client PCs.

rw

Thanks for clearing this up! I do not know why he would mention a OS that is better served for servers, but that is the twisted argument he likes to present.

[nightflier]

Linux is best utilized in a server environment. While the OS itself is well supported - Runs on every IBM platform including their mainframes, it does not share the same application support when it comes to personal workstation. 95% of my customers run their 20-300 user ERP systems on Linux servers, while few if any use it for the client PCs.

The marketshare of Unix OSes on the desktop is much greater than you think, especially if you include Apple's OS. More to the point, the value of the desktop OS is becoming increasingly less important as more and more applications become web-based and move to the cloud. With the devaluing of the desktop OS, also comes the reluctance of consumers to pay for it, and thus an open source OS becomes much more attractive. Furthermore, Linux is probably already running in one appliance in your life: your cable box, your house climate control, your car's nav system, your wireless router, the list goes on. The fact is Linux is growing much faster than anyone can measure because most versions are free, and there are no sales figures to point to.

But even aside from all that, Linux use is also growing on the desktop, and this is at the expense of Microsoft Windows. The idea that the Linux desktop is not a feasible alternative is very much outdated. Ubuntu and its variants like Linux Mint, pretty much make the application issue irrelevant. My father has been using it for over a year and has yet to see the command line - in return he has a virus-free system with every app he's likely to ever need that is more stable than anything he's ever had before. Linux has no marketing campaign, no Steve Balmer singing it's praises, and is in the unfortunate position of challenging a company that at one time had a 96% market share of the desktop (not anymore, BTW), and yet it is still growing in leaps and bounds while Microsoft is definitely not growing right now. And I haven't even mentioned Android...

More to the point, what lil't said was that consumers are forced to use Windows, and that is patently false. Much like most everything else he has said so far. To wit:

1. Von Braun was not coerced into joining the Nazi party - the sources that site otherwise have a specific agenda on this point. The fact is he willingly joined, and the only reason he was not convicted of his crimes (and there were many), was because the US military needed his expertise to develop rocket technology for them. He basically got a pass, but his crimes are far from innocuous. When the US military had had enough of him, Disney hired him because of his expertise in manipulating popular opinion, one of the many thing he also learned in Nazi Germany.

2. Haber was a true criminal. He also had a more sinister history. He personally took part and directed experiments on POWs and prisoners in the camps. There is an infamous photograph of him dissecting a prisoner who was visibly mangled from an experiment. This is the kind of stuff of nightmares. He served several years in prison for these crimes (many believe far too little), and was then also snatched up by the US military, probably through urging from von Braun. His experiments were equally focussed on the physical and psychological effects of manned rocket experiments. I suppose this was of interest to the US military, but the use to Disney (who also hired him after the military was done with him), is more difficult to justify. But he did work for Disney.

What is equally disturbing is that Disney spent quite some resources trying to clear their names and expunge this checkered past. Obviously there was something to hide. After being hired, both Haber and von Braun worked on the design and construction of Disneyland. If you want to know more about this, there are a number of sources and books that describe this in more detail.

3. Yes, Dumbo was released in 1941, when these scenes were not considered as offensive, but then what the hell is Disney doing by still selling this movie to children today, 2010? lil't, would you mind explaining that to us? It's pretty clear that Disney doesn't have any issues with that, even today and that is disturbing.

4. All the movies that lil't had listed as child-friendly have been criticized for their suggestive themes. As I mentioned, there are several academic articles and books that describe this in detail, but lil't would rather ignore that and just whitewash it again. Look, lil't, just because you don't see this as offensive (which is also incredibly disturbing), doesn't mean it's not. You're not the final opinion on this.

5. Why is there an Army ad on a Tinkerbell movie, lil't? This has nothing to do with whether I let my children watch the movie - and for you to keep harping on that small detail, is another deflection. Answer the question: what is this doing on this disk? What is Disney's intention, here?

6. You said that iPods don't work with MP3s, another patently false statement. When I point out that they do, you change your tune that it doesn't work as smoothly as you would like. Nice deflection, but it doesn't wash, lil't. So it the process just not dumbed down enough for you personally? It seems to be fine for millions of other users (many on this forum as well). In any case you were wrong again, you won't admit it as usual, and you're trying to weasel out of it by siting degrees. Typical.

7. Instead of just lobbing insults, another one of your tactics when the discussion doesn't go your way, why don't you explain why we can't FF through the ads on Disney DVDs? If we were talking about a free TV show that needs to generate revenue, I'd understand, but the customer paid for the darned DVD. Why is he being force fed something he doesn't want to see? I can even understand that the studios need extra sources of revenue, although I don't agree with this one bit, but then that puts them in a position to decide what the customer must see, like ads about the Army. What's next, political campaign spots? Oil company ads? The highest bidder gets the ad, right? Doesn't this bother you just a little?

8. So now Asians are not minorities anymore? Again, what about "darker" Asians, like Indians? You conveniently sidestepped my question about this, where do you draw the color line? How dark are you anyway? Darker than I? And how does the color of my skin have anything to do about what my mindset is about color? Your desperately pathetic attempt at drawing a color line where there is none is making you out to be a bigot, do you realize that?

By the way, I mentioned Latin Americans in my previous post, but I guess that didn't fit your argument, so you just wanted to say I didn't include them because...?

9. You keep attacking me for not defending my whole industry, and I'm asking you to justify the actions of the company you work for. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the actions of a whole industry are going to be far more diverse than the actions of one company, and thus much harder to discuss in a little post? I have never defended predatory corporate practices in any industry, yet you seem hell bent on pinning that on me. Why don't you do a better job of answering the questions I ask about the company you work for, rather than lobbing insults off a cliff hoping someone will hear them and actually be offended? No mater how you try and twist this around, you still come out looking like a hypocrite, isn't that ironic?

It's kind of like when I asked you to account for the way bad guys are always depicted with racist phenotypes in Disney movies. As usual, rather than answer the question, you came back with a distantly related comment about the ethnic make-up of CEOs at a few of the major corporations in the US. If I had a penny for every time I read someone pleading with Sir Terrible to just:

ANSWER THE DARNED QUESTION, ALREADY!,

I too could afford to have John Curl personally mod my cheap china-made gear to be about half as good as official John Curl designed gear.


**********************

Sure they will co-exist. Cellphones will be used to make calls, Ipods to listen to music, and portable DVD players for travel of long distances(who does that everyday?).

Boy you are dense: a mule with two a$$es, one up front, and one in the rear. You assume that these devices will be used exclusively for their one, single, primary purpose, which is absolute nonsense. I don''t know of a single person who uses a smartphone for just calls or a laptop just for word processing. What an asinine statement.

When the average Chinese person can vote for their leaders, can surf the net without blocking filteres, can protest what they don't like, can speak freely their opinions, then they cannot be extracted. As long as the reverse exists, I judge them seperately. A thief is a theif, no matter what country they are from.

The average Chinese person? Who is that? Have you met them? Have you ever been to China and met a person living there? What do you actually know about China?

You are such an absolute misanthrope towards China and the Chinese that you can't possibly understand how wrong this thinking is. I've been to China several times and what you describe is typical Western stereotyping. I am well aware of the issues you describe, but if you think for one minute that this in any way affects the majority of the people or even more ridiculously, the buying paterns of it's public, then it's quite obvious how narrow-minded your understanding of the world economy is. You're just a xenophobe trying to come off as knowledgeable. Pathetic, really - let's hope there are smarter people making decisions at Disney than you - oh, that's right, they already don't like your opinions... gee I wonder why?

I live in America, and so do you. What we do here in America cannot be translated into what folks do all over the world, and visa versa. When we began this discussion(and any other discussion on this issue) we are talking about what they do here, not globally, because let's face it, everyone globally does not behave the same way.

Correction, you xenophobe, you live in the United States, not "America." I would have expected a fellow Latino to be more conscious of this. And no, it was never the assumption that we were just talking about the US. My point is and has always been, that what is happening here is being affected by what is happening all over the world. The days of the US directing the world are over. What you fail to see on your vaulted little BART rides, is that the world is passing you by. As someone who works for Disney you should be seeing this, and yet you can't because it doesn't match with your supposed knowledge of things past.

You live in a black & white past that won't let you see that, for example, public transportation use in the US will continue to increase. The US's obsession with bigger and individualized experiences will have to give way to lesser fare. Even your comment that people here want bigger cars doesn't match the most recent data. New cars and houses are shrinking, and despite this x-mas season's little blip of growth in the average TV size sold, this is just another bubble that cannot be sustained in an increasingly global economy. I seriously doubt that people will be buying larger TVs when they have to downsize their house - it just doesn't ad up.

WTF it is not sustainable. You are from another planet. Of course it is sustainable, and if you expect to sell a product in this country, you would be smart to keep this in mind. I just got the sales figures for Panasonics 103" LCD that sells for $70k., and their 150" plasma that goes for over 100K. These monsters are selling in surprising numbers here in America, and doing nothing everywhere else. We want to watch our movies on bigger higher resolution screens, not eye busting tiny screens with low resolution.

Ok, lil't, why don't you tell us: how many of those $100K 150" plasmas were sold in the US? I mean are you really going to try and tell us that this is exemplary? Let's compare that figure to the number of Kindles or Droids sold in the US? Nice hyperbole. Do you even know what that word means? I looked it up, and there's a picture of you next to the definition!

As far as this being sustainable, it's not. It is simply not possible to continue growing the size of TVs in this economy when everything from cars, to houses, to paychecks, to family sizes is shrinking. You live in a fantasy if you think this will continue. Why do you think the TV sizes in the rest of the world have not grown? Because they are actually part of the world economy. The US isn't, and steadfastly refuses to be, but guess what? It doesn't get to determine that anymore - it will be pulled in, kicking and screaming, or just be excluded and we both know that won't happen. You will be viewing your precious movies on your smartphone sooner that you will like, and I'll be here waiting when you tell us about it.

[E-Stat]

TThe idea that the Linux desktop is not a feasible alternative is very much outdated.

It's feasible, just not prevalent. When its usage increases to 2%, get back with us.

1% as of December 2009

rw

[nightflier]

Actually, there is a lot to wonder about that figure. My guess is that it's based on sales figures, which isn't fair to an operating system that is available both free and not. That reference you posted has been questioned on a number of sites already for this and many other reasons. Here's a good article about that:

Linux Desktop Market Share: Greater Than One Percent?

It describes pretty much the same thing I've tried to explain about lil't rants: that it's based on sales figures, sampled-data, a US-focused data set, and the list goes on. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight about this, but my point is that there are some very real issues with the way that statistics are spun when the constant need for profit is a factor - surely the Market Share folks have an agenda and an intended audience. Just looking at such statistics is useful, but hardly ever acurately representitive, especially when the lion's share of the data cannot be measured (as with free software).

Besides, this report only considers the desktop, when Linux is also the dominant OS for appliances (a segment that Windows has horribly failed in), and the fastest growing OS on cell phones.

[E-Stat]

Actually, there is a lot to wonder about that figure.

Ok, unsupported speculation takes that to 1.5% or as much as 2.5%. That's insignificant even if proven to be true.

rw

[nightflier]

Well considering the Apple OS figures were way off, I'm not so sure even 2.5% is accurate. But more important than that is the growth. Linux is growing very fast in some sectors. I think once people realize that it's running their appliances and cell phones with far less issues (no BSODs, no viruses, greater longevity), the adoption rate could grow significantly more.

As I mentioned, the more things move to the cloud, the less important the OS becomes and this is perhaps even more significant. In a world where the OS has less importance and relative value to the user, then paying upwards of $150 for it becomes equally meaningless.

[E-Stat]

Well considering the Apple OS figures were way off, I'm not so sure even 2.5% is accurate.

It is pointless to debate speculation.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The marketshare of Unix OSes on the desktop is much greater than you think, especially if you include Apple's OS. More to the point, the value of the desktop OS is becoming increasingly less important as more and more applications become web-based and move to the cloud. With the devaluing of the desktop OS, also comes the reluctance of consumers to pay for it, and thus an open source OS becomes much more attractive. Furthermore, Linux is probably already running in one appliance in your life: your cable box, your house climate control, your car's nav system, your wireless router, the list goes on. The fact is Linux is growing much faster than anyone can measure because most versions are free, and there are no sales figures to point to.

But even aside from all that, Linux use is also growing on the desktop, and this is at the expense of Microsoft Windows. The idea that the Linux desktop is not a feasible alternative is very much outdated. Ubuntu and its variants like Linux Mint, pretty much make the application issue irrelevant. My father has been using it for over a year and has yet to see the command line - in return he has a virus-free system with every app he's likely to ever need that is more stable than anything he's ever had before. Linux has no marketing campaign, no Steve Balmer singing it's praises, and is in the unfortunate position of challenging a company that at one time had a 96% market share of the desktop (not anymore, BTW), and yet it is still growing in leaps and bounds while Microsoft is definitely not growing right now. And I haven't even mentioned Android...

More to the point, what lil't said was that consumers are forced to use Windows, and that is patently false. Much like most everything else he has said so far. To wit:

1. Von Braun was not coerced into joining the Nazi party - the sources that site otherwise have a specific agenda on this point. The fact is he willingly joined, and the only reason he was not convicted of his crimes (and there were many), was because the US military needed his expertise to develop rocket technology for them. He basically got a pass, but his crimes are far from innocuous. When the US military had had enough of him, Disney hired him because of his expertise in manipulating popular opinion, one of the many thing he also learned in Nazi Germany.

2. Haber was a true criminal. He also had a more sinister history. He personally took part and directed experiments on POWs and prisoners in the camps. There is an infamous photograph of him dissecting a prisoner who was visibly mangled from an experiment. This is the kind of stuff of nightmares. He served several years in prison for these crimes (many believe far too little), and was then also snatched up by the US military, probably through urging from von Braun. His experiments were equally focussed on the physical and psychological effects of manned rocket experiments. I suppose this was of interest to the US military, but the use to Disney (who also hired him after the military was done with him), is more difficult to justify. But he did work for Disney.

What is equally disturbing is that Disney spent quite some resources trying to clear their names and expunge this checkered past. Obviously there was something to hide. After being hired, both Haber and von Braun worked on the design and construction of Disneyland. If you want to know more about this, there are a number of sources and books that describe this in more detail.

3. Yes, Dumbo was released in 1941, when these scenes were not considered as offensive, but then what the hell is Disney doing by still selling this movie to children today, 2010? lil't, would you mind explaining that to us? It's pretty clear that Disney doesn't have any issues with that, even today and that is disturbing.

4. All the movies that lil't had listed as child-friendly have been criticized for their suggestive themes. As I mentioned, there are several academic articles and books that describe this in detail, but lil't would rather ignore that and just whitewash it again. Look, lil't, just because you don't see this as offensive (which is also incredibly disturbing), doesn't mean it's not. You're not the final opinion on this.

5. Why is there an Army ad on a Tinkerbell movie, lil't? This has nothing to do with whether I let my children watch the movie - and for you to keep harping on that small detail, is another deflection. Answer the question: what is this doing on this disk? What is Disney's intention, here?

6. You said that iPods don't work with MP3s, another patently false statement. When I point out that they do, you change your tune that it doesn't work as smoothly as you would like. Nice deflection, but it doesn't wash, lil't. So it the process just not dumbed down enough for you personally? It seems to be fine for millions of other users (many on this forum as well). In any case you were wrong again, you won't admit it as usual, and you're trying to weasel out of it by siting degrees. Typical.

7. Instead of just lobbing insults, another one of your tactics when the discussion doesn't go your way, why don't you explain why we can't FF through the ads on Disney DVDs? If we were talking about a free TV show that needs to generate revenue, I'd understand, but the customer paid for the darned DVD. Why is he being force fed something he doesn't want to see? I can even understand that the studios need extra sources of revenue, although I don't agree with this one bit, but then that puts them in a position to decide what the customer must see, like ads about the Army. What's next, political campaign spots? Oil company ads? The highest bidder gets the ad, right? Doesn't this bother you just a little?

8. So now Asians are not minorities anymore? Again, what about "darker" Asians, like Indians? You conveniently sidestepped my question about this, where do you draw the color line? How dark are you anyway? Darker than I? And how does the color of my skin have anything to do about what my mindset is about color? Your desperately pathetic attempt at drawing a color line where there is none is making you out to be a bigot, do you realize that?

By the way, I mentioned Latin Americans in my previous post, but I guess that didn't fit your argument, so you just wanted to say I didn't include them because...?

9. You keep attacking me for not defending my whole industry, and I'm asking you to justify the actions of the company you work for. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the actions of a whole industry are going to be far more diverse than the actions of one company, and thus much harder to discuss in a little post? I have never defended predatory corporate practices in any industry, yet you seem hell bent on pinning that on me. Why don't you do a better job of answering the questions I ask about the company you work for, rather than lobbing insults off a cliff hoping someone will hear them and actually be offended? No mater how you try and twist this around, you still come out looking like a hypocrite, isn't that ironic?

It's kind of like when I asked you to account for the way bad guys are always depicted with racist phenotypes in Disney movies. As usual, rather than answer the question, you came back with a distantly related comment about the ethnic make-up of CEOs at a few of the major corporations in the US. If I had a penny for every time I read someone pleading with Sir Terrible to just:

ANSWER THE DARNED QUESTION, ALREADY!,

I too could afford to have John Curl personally mod my cheap china-made gear to be about half as good as official John Curl designed gear.


**********************



Boy you are dense: a mule with two a$$es, one up front, and one in the rear. You assume that these devices will be used exclusively for their one, single, primary purpose, which is absolute nonsense. I don''t know of a single person who uses a smartphone for just calls or a laptop just for word processing. What an asinine statement.



The average Chinese person? Who is that? Have you met them? Have you ever been to China and met a person living there? What do you actually know about China?

You are such an absolute misanthrope towards China and the Chinese that you can't possibly understand how wrong this thinking is. I've been to China several times and what you describe is typical Western stereotyping. I am well aware of the issues you describe, but if you think for one minute that this in any way affects the majority of the people or even more ridiculously, the buying paterns of it's public, then it's quite obvious how narrow-minded your understanding of the world economy is. You're just a xenophobe trying to come off as knowledgeable. Pathetic, really - let's hope there are smarter people making decisions at Disney than you - oh, that's right, they already don't like your opinions... gee I wonder why?



Correction, you xenophobe, you live in the United States, not "America." I would have expected a fellow Latino to be more conscious of this. And no, it was never the assumption that we were just talking about the US. My point is and has always been, that what is happening here is being affected by what is happening all over the world. The days of the US directing the world are over. What you fail to see on your vaulted little BART rides, is that the world is passing you by. As someone who works for Disney you should be seeing this, and yet you can't because it doesn't match with your supposed knowledge of things past.

You live in a black & white past that won't let you see that, for example, public transportation use in the US will continue to increase. The US's obsession with bigger and individualized experiences will have to give way to lesser fare. Even your comment that people here want bigger cars doesn't match the most recent data. New cars and houses are shrinking, and despite this x-mas season's little blip of growth in the average TV size sold, this is just another bubble that cannot be sustained in an increasingly global economy. I seriously doubt that people will be buying larger TVs when they have to downsize their house - it just doesn't ad up.



Ok, lil't, why don't you tell us: how many of those $100K 150" plasmas were sold in the US? I mean are you really going to try and tell us that this is exemplary? Let's compare that figure to the number of Kindles or Droids sold in the US? Nice hyperbole. Do you even know what that word means? I looked it up, and there's a picture of you next to the definition!

As far as this being sustainable, it's not. It is simply not possible to continue growing the size of TVs in this economy when everything from cars, to houses, to paychecks, to family sizes is shrinking. You live in a fantasy if you think this will continue. Why do you think the TV sizes in the rest of the world have not grown? Because they are actually part of the world economy. The US isn't, and steadfastly refuses to be, but guess what? It doesn't get to determine that anymore - it will be pulled in, kicking and screaming, or just be excluded and we both know that won't happen. You will be viewing your precious movies on your smartphone sooner that you will like, and I'll be here waiting when you tell us about it.

With all of this ranting, you have failed to prove your point. No links, no facts, no effective counter argument except your gut, and a $hit load of political correctness. Until you can do better than this, there is no point in continuing this debate. I want fact, FACTS, FACTS, not your gut or pie in the sky prediction not supported by ANY data.

[nightflier]

The evidence describing von Braun and Haber's crimes is in a chapter called: "Pathways to Human Experimentation, 1933-1945: Germany, Japan, and the United States" in a Journal called Osiris.

A full biography of von Braun can be found here. It describes in detail his Nazi past, his relationship with Haber and a number of other Nazis, and then his escape from post-war prosecution into the arms of the US army. It also goes into detail about his role in the Disney family and his particular knack for selling his ideas, something that was of particular interest to the marketing efforts at Disney.

Walt's ignominious sexist, racist, anti-labor, right-wing, authoritarian past is described in detail in Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince. There are a number of references of how Walt's conservative ideas about the family, the role of women and of minorities transcends all the way down to the present movies and how his conservative views are carried on in the Disney studios today, well after his death.

Are these enough facts for you? Or do you not read books?