Source: Trust me, bro!

The question was about "successful" movies. Not about "movies liked by people over 30/50/90 years old". I'd argue that box office IS one criteria for measuring success.

That said, I do like all the movies I listed. If that makes me young, so be it.

The question was just about "sci-fi movies" and not about "sci-fi movies but not in space". But ok:

Source Code
Chappie
Ex Machina
Edge of Tomorrow
Elysium
Tomorrowland
Limitless
The Book of Eli

Better? ;)

"Show me a successful sci-fi movie that's not a remake, sequel/prequel or spin-off in the last ten years."

The Martian?

Interstellar?

Arrival?

Or rather, there is no $500-value setup.

Read the GP's post again. There IS no $500 setup. ;)

Considering it's over 300 million kilometers away from earth, I doubt the scenario you and the GPs are describing can happen, considering it takes over 16 minutes for a signal to reach it ;)

The 20 seconds cited in TFS/TFA are most likely the result of the small bandwidth they can work with due to the computer not being booted up or something - because for example the "BIOS" can only receiver commands at 1kb/s or something.

He makes a WHOOOSH thousand dollars.

To be honest, I can also understand the opposing viewpoint - that by buying DRM-ed software (even if you pirate it afterwards to remove the DRM features) you basically tell the publisher that you are fine with their DRM. Eventually pirating your legally bought software might not be a viable option anymore (due to various online-only features, for example), most/all of the software companies will have switched to DRM, since it works - see above, and THEN you'd have no recourse but to use DRM-ed software.

That being said, once you've decided not to support the publisher because of their DRM, you might say that pirating it doesn't harm them, since you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Personally, I think it really doesn't harm them and what's more, on average it actually helps them a bit - by using even just a pirated version, you are still helping them expand their user base, which helps them also get more paying customers. As a really simple and probably exaggerated example, let's say Company X sells 10.000 copies of their software, while 100.000 more people just go and pirate it. 10% of all users then go and post on an online forum about that software. That means 100 paying customers and 10.000 pirates. Now Joe Average hears from someone (maybe even a pirate) about the software and goes to Google to see what it's about. He finds a forum with 100 legitimate users and thinks - "meh, nobody ever uses that thing - if I ever need help or suggestions, probably nobody will be around to help me, so I'll buy the software from Company Y instead". If he finds a forum with 10.100 users instead, he might think - "hmm, that seems like a big and active community, looks like that's the right software for me".

So, if you are 100% sure you won't pay for some software and want to demonstrate to the company that they are wrong, you shouldn't even pirate it, because by doing that you are still helping their bottom line at worst, or aren't making any change at best (because they can't know you've pirated it instead of simply not using it).

As opposed to a 6 year old boy?

If you have root and want to invest a couple of bucks, you can get Tasker and its plugin, Secure Settings, and can make a very simple profile that automatically switches to the desired keyboard for the app you are currently using (and then back to the default one after you close the app, if you want). One of the many, many useful things you can do with Tasker. Alternatively, you might be able to do the same for free with Llama, but I haven't tried it and I don't know if Secure Settings works with it. But Tasker is way more powerful anyway.

But we did!

The summary is wrong. TFA says "U.S. has dropped 27 places to 47th in the world", or from 20th to 47th. So meaningless or not, over 100% is right.

Yes, because someone couldn't possibly want to make a walkthrough with highlight-able spoilers or something like that...

While I myself don't use Twitter and have literally only read about 3-4 tweets since the site first appeared, I can certainly see the use of this imposed limit. Say I want to follow the news about several dozen people (book authors, movie critics, gog.com owners, etc.) but don't want to waste much time doing it. So instead of reading their homepages and the news items they post on them, or their blogs, which could conceivably degenerate into multiple-page-long ramblings with only a tiny bit of relevant information hidden somewhere in them, I'd follow them on Twitter, where they are forced by the limit to write short and concise updates. In fact I suppose this might have been one of the reasons for creating the site in the first place or if not, it should have been.