1366x768 is not usable for any kind of serious work.

For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer. It's the awful cluttered formatting. Every article I read lately has several breaks in the text for unrelated videos or headlines for other articles, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the right side of the page is just a mess of other crap I'm not interested in. Plus, multi-page articles that are only six or eight paragraphs to begin with, just to get more page impressions. That is a sure way to get me to never visit your site again. I'd really like a browser that just gives me the text that I want to read - I'll even take an old-school banner ad at the top if it gets rid of all of the other crap.

We all see what we want to see!

If we had the attitude of Mr. Cook in the U.S., it would save loads of tax dollars and businesses wouldn't have to move or cancel expansion plans nearly as often. It's like programs that help save lives. If one costs $10,000 per life saved, and another costs $500,000 per life saved, clearly we should forgo the latter and concentrate on the former. Unfortunately, people are too sympathetic for logic to take over.

I'm still trying to get "Donuts, Beer, and Hookers" made.

I actually made a website in the mid-90s based on this idea and dubbed it MovieGen - didn't expect to make money, just great fun. You could press a button, and it would reveal two random movies, like "Alien" meets "Liar Liar". I also added an option for a third, so you could have "Die Hard" meets "Gattaca" with a bit of "Tootsie". Great time-waster, and sadly some of the combinations have certainly been made into actual movies by now.

Every reasonable economist uses the "as a percentage of GDP" figure because it is by far the best indicator of government spending. For example, no one would compare FDR's actual numbers with Reagan's because the absolute dollar amounts are different due to inflation. In 1945 (I know there was a war to pay for, but that is irrelevant to this point), the GDP was $223 Billion and government spending was $118 Billion, which is well over 50%. 1984's numbers were $3,930 Trillion and $1,353 Trillion, which is about 33%. Now, who spent more in those individual years?

Reagan spent virtually the same percentage of GDP in his first year vs. Carter's last (33.72% vs. 34.73%) - I was slightly off in my original statement; the bar chart played tricks with my eyes, but 1.01% higher in eight years is pretty small. Ford's was higher if you count 1974, which may or may not be fair (3.77%). Carter's was less (0.28%). Bush 1 was higher (2.1% in four years). Clinton lowered it by 4.5%. Bush 2 increased it by 4.4% and Obama in two years has increased it by almost 4.7%

Your GP poster was indeed wrong and I stand by my statement.

Note that I would never be so naive as to give full credit or full blame to a President for spending. But it is interesting to note that the best combination of the last 30+ years was a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Congress.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010

"I'm done with this guy."

Why cut or "buck up a bit more cash"? Just keep spending at the current level.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-cbo-numbers-re-confirm-that-balancing-the-budget-is-simple-with-modest-fiscal-restraint/

I think a few billion people would disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

As you can see, Reagan and Clinton were President while the spending was reduced, and all the others saw spending increase during their terms (as a percent of GDP).

"I'm done with this guy."

Just because something doesn't perfectly suit a government's needs when they suspect someone of a crime doesn't mean the product should be banned. Take pre-paid cell phones. No real tracking, and if a criminal is smart, there is zero chance any government agency could ever find out what was said on the phone, and in most cases, even who used the phone. Should we ban pre-paid cell phones? What about pipes? I can smoke anything I want in a pipe, including tobacco, marijuana, crack, or torn up bits of the Constitution. The fact is the vast majority of people using any of these devices are using them legally, and benefit much more than the inconvenience to the government caused by criminals using them for nefarious purposes.

Just because something doesn't entertain you doesn't make it a "mess". I hated American Beauty, but it wasn't a mess, merely boring. You may think it's semantics, but you don't even understand the definition of the word that you're using. There was a plot, and it followed the standard Beginning-Middle-End structure. There was motivation - he liked a girl, the basis for half the movies out there. If you choose to look at something through heavily tinted glasses, it doesn't mean that you are right. I'm not trying to convince you that you should like the movie, but you're throwing out arguments that make no sense.

Baking soda can make or break a cake, just as editing can make or break a movie. You may not be savvy enough to notice it, but it is more important than most aspects of film-making. If the editing sucks, the movie sucks, and you most likely have a "mess".

I had never heard of the comic book before the movie came out, and I still haven't read it. I'm not sure what that has to do with your claim, though, since most people can differentiate source material from a retelling.

If you thought the movie wasn't funny or entertaining, that's one thing, but it wasn't a mess. Everything was well-done, the script didn't have any major plot holes, and the editing, music, and acting were fine. I agree that Anna Kendrick was underused, but most movies have one flaw or another.

Kick-Ass $30M budget, grossed $96M worldwide.

Watchmen: $130M budget, grossed $195M worldwide.

Given that the studios generally receive about 50% of the total gross and the marketing budget for most films is about 100% of the budget, both of these movies lost money if you only count the theatrical gross. Both may go on to be slightly profitable in the long run (but not likely), but studios want these to make money initially so that DVD/TV sales and merchandise are just gravy.

If Game of Thrones was done right and released theatrically, it would be NC-17.