what are the odds that you’ll read this sentence again?
alternately, physics is having a straight in go fish
mpaa vs imdb, it’s a natural progression.
poor mpaa. this will weaken them (this lessens their ability to resist simultaneous DVD/theatrical releases) - and pretty soon, or, rather, immediatekly, we’ll get all movies (not just mark cuban’s) burned wirelessly to our ipods while we’re watching them in theaters. just like we’re promised in the constitution!
STEP 1: DEFY THE MPAA - do not let your films be rated (isn’t it evidence of a monopoly that needs to be busted up, if i can say “do not let your films be rated” and the “… by the mpaa” is implicit?)
(you might want to make the first one a kid’s movie, so the pr move cannot be dismissed as one of those ”they just got mad that they couldn’t cut comfortably to an R / they’re “too sophisticated/artsy for rating submission” scenarios)
Step 2: DEMOCRATIZE RATINGS - Collect demographic and other statistical information from audiences. Invent some arbitrary ranking system for them to participate within..
Â
(you bill moviegoing as an opportunity for cultural revolution! re-defining who we are as a country, and what for which we stand - or sit for roughly 2 hours.)
(you’re not exhibiting movies anymore, you’re “determining the future of the nation”)
(sort of a “textbooks of tomorrow” feel to the whole thing - like one big paradigm shift
 that we all have a part to play in shifting…)
(imagine how this plays into certain mindsets - it’s cultural warfare!)
Step 3 (and this is the most important): Don’t forget that the whole thing is just a marketing ploy / startup opportunity / industry destabilizer.
Â
overseen/overheard:Â
“stephen hawking is the happiest guy on the planet and doesn’t even know it anymore.”
–card sent to him ” cheer up, buddy:Â it’s all (…) ”
“you know that ”yes” moment? why can’t we engineer ourselves to be more conscious on that level?” – (bringing an uproar) (i am too nice a person to take the cheap shot by mentioning that i left during this discussion, but i will say it was a momentous moment)
“name standardization standardizing. tenses as linguistic meta-narratives representative of different states of being/reality”
“on a quantum level: Â two (the numeral concept “2″)Â = “one” (the numeric concept 1)”
“i’ll just pretend to quote you” -t
(you know how some animals throw out signals to other animals to let them know they’re friendly? let me blaze my trail:)
my very good (and completely un(screwed) definition of the term:Â
any theme which attempts to describe with accuracy AND certainty will necessarily fail, falling short this amount (this amount will be what we give in return: interest) - (aka confusionism, which, in some ways means i always get to make an interesting decision, but i am (if not “right”-which i’m not saying), at the least “never wrong”.
you cannot have a transaction without having two parties (unless both parties are secretly only one party). The exchange between these parties = the concepts which, in a physical sense, make up “time”) - (aka creationism)
you only justify the way you want it to be (aka sophistry) - (see also:Â Â love(-ly) (/) bullshit)
the logical 50.1% probabalistic certainty (i call this surety)Â of 50.1% self-definition.
(one of an infinite spread of spectrum spreading spectrum spreads)^2
is there any psychological testing / passive technical analysis done on college applicants in order to determine their level of DESIRE? i don’t mean sex. i mean a measure of how strongly they desire to attend. why isn’t this considered a meaningful score? It seems at least as indicative of performance as “intelligence” testing.
i guess you’d then have to contrast that data with whatever the generally held public conception of your company - i mean school - happened to be…  and then try to posit the conception that the applicants might have - so meaningful (true over time) conclusions could be reached about applicants / applicant’s motives - as well as your own.
Complexity does not initially strike me as something that can be overcome by collecting and analyzing more information. Secondarily, it does not strike me as something that can be that much improved by attempting (any attempt is “active”, any=all, and activity increases information) to limit collection and analysis activities.
It seems like the only things to do would be to actively stop information CREATION (since, by its very nature, information can only be created if it is being analyzed, ie, modify other people as to how their brains work - slow them down or shut them off in some way) -or- to actively embrace complexity and, by our “creative ability”, make things infinitely more complex.
Another method at “active stoppage” might be to fiddle with supply/demand of either constituent of “information”: which are both…? extrapolations?
When they set off nukes did it clear the souls of the dead from the atmosphere? Life itself, as our ultimate catalyst for information creation, is being waged war against…