Sunday, January 22, 2006

Jobs to scoop $3.5bn as Pixar board approves Disney takeover

The board of Pixar Animation Studios, the digital animations company, is set to meet tomorrow to approve the company's $7bn (£3.9bn) takeover by Disney.

The all-share deal will make Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, around $3.5bn and the single largest shareholder in Disney. Jobs created Pixar in 1986 when he paid $10m for the computer animations division of Lucasfilm, owned by Stars Wars creator George Lucas.

Disney has struggled to compete with its rival's cutting-edge computer animated films, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the past few years.

Disney already has a distribution agreement with Pixar, which is due to expire in June. Pixar's summer blockbuster is a film called Cars, while its previous hits include A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc, Toy Story and The Incredibles.

Disney's first computer--generated film, Chicken Little, was released in the US in November and currently has worldwide box office sales of $279m.

But the giant entertainment company has failed to produce a hit animated film of its own in years. By contrast, the six films that Pixar and Disney have made together since the 1995 release of Toy Story have grossed more than $3.2bn.

Despite the impending takeover of Pixar, Robert Iger, the chief executive of Disney, pledged in November that "animation is, and will remain, at the heart and soul of Disney".

Telegraph | Money | Jobs to scoop $3.5bn as Pixar board approves Disney takeover

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Martin Sargent.. hmmm... I miss unscrewed..

Intelligent Design FLAW!!!

It used to be that there was a whole lot of education that went into becoming a scientist. Scientists were respected for their knowledge and dedication. To be a scientist you actually had to study stuff. And not just easy stuff like, "Who’s the president of the United States?" (Hint: she was in Earth Girls Are Easy and A League of Their Own.)

As a scientist, you were expected to know chemical formulas such as H-2-0 (water) or 2-Pac (rapper). People considered scientists to be experts and consulted them on important matters like what kind of hangover you’d get if you mixed lemonade and Jagermeister, or how to set up a crystal meth lab.

But alas, Frodo, that was in the olden times....

These days anyone can weigh in as a scientific expert, especially in places like Kansas where “intelligent design” is being taught as part of the science curriculum. The last time the educational bar was set this low was when the Scarecrow got his Doctorate in Thinkology from the Wizard of Oz.

Charles Darwin falls victim to one of his most popular theories.

Supporters of intelligent design argue that the universe is so complex and beyond our understanding that it had to be designed by a superior being (like Rush Limbaugh or Barbara Streisand) or super-intelligent aliens (like Henry Kissinger or Salma Hayek). Intelligent design enthusiasts want their ramblings to be presented as an alternative to the science of evolution. The idea here is that one theory is just as good as another, regardless of any supporting evidence. Kind of like Ashlee Simpson being advanced as an alternative to Melissa Etheridge.

Or to put it another way: if Paris Hilton had a theory of evolution, it would be intelligent design.

Hey, we get it. The universe is amazing and complex. So is a microwave oven. That doesn’t mean it was designed by aliens...although Tom Cruise might give you an argument on that.

A cursory examination of the two sides of this debate would seem to favor evolutionary theory. First off, Charles Darwin had a beard. A beard is a good thing when you want to be taken seriously as a scientist. And Darwin's beard wasn't some scruffy, patchy beard like your grandmother has. Darwin had a big, bushy beard that spoke to his stature as a scientist. It was as if he were saying, "If I wasn't an expert in my field, would I really be able to walk around looking like the lead singer of ZZ Top?"

In contrast, the evangelical preachers who advance the intelligent design agenda usually sport shiny suits and ties with gigantic knots. Listen, if the knot in your tie is roughly the size of a St. Bernard's head, it is very difficult to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone the origins of the universe.

Second, Darwin's book on evolution has a weighty title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. You have to be long-winded just to say the title in one breath.

In contrast, the textbook most often proposed for teaching intelligent design is Of Pandas and People. You can’t possibly hope to be taken seriously if your science book has a title with that kind of alliteration. I don’t mean to be picky, here...all I’m saying is the directors of 2 Fast, 2 Furious didn’t try to sell it as a documentary.

But the main problem with the view that the universe was created by a superior being is: who created the superior being that created the universe? And who created the superior being who created that superior being? This is what’s known in scientific circles as an infinite regret. As in, “I regret ever trying to have an intelligent discussion with a religious zealot.”

Still, the creationists might be right...

The world is a magnificent and complex place. We marvel at the color and symmetry of a leaf in autumn. We feel humble when we gaze up at a star-filled night sky. We watch in awe as a sunrise unfolds in wisps of clouds and a symphony of pastels.

It would appear as if there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the beauty and intricacy of the universe: god is gay. To quote the The Book of (Elton) John, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was...FABULOUS!" Furthermore, since the universe is so complex, it is unlikely that only one gay god was involved. Think about it. There are five consultants on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy alone...

It’s time we started teaching children that the universe was just too big and too important a task to be assigned to just one god. It just makes sense. You pretty much need a grooming guru and a culture vulture at a bare minimum. You can read all about this controversial new theory in my new book, "Queer Creation for a Nervous Nation." It makes a great gift for that hard-to-buy-for evangelical Christian on your list.

So, come on, Kansas. Get with the program. One theory’s just as good as another, isn’t it?

Thursday, January 19, 2006

The Onion has a podcast now!

I'm amazed nobody posted this on Digg yet...The Onion (quite best fake news satire, in case you have been living under a rock) has a podcast now! Hilarious as always, and quickly is becoming one of the top daily podcasts on iTunes.

read more | digg story

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Disassembled iMac (Core Duo) by KODAWARISAN_Page1

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Frank Zappa on Crossfire

I just came across this and I got to say, this man should have been president. This is an airing of Crossfire on CNN, and it seems reminascent (in a retroactive, prorated way) of Jon Stewarts appearance on it last year. Basically Zappa tears apart the ideas of the 'witch hunt' censorship trials.

The sad part is that this was back in 1986, and thanks to a couple of Super Bowls ago, we are in a much more strict police state compared to back in the day.

Well here it is, sorry about the quality it is 20 years old. UPDATE EDIT: Well you tube didn't do so well with the encoding, and it comes out all scrambled, but the audio is what you really want to hear. Just imagine 3 old white guys and Frank sitting in some chairs. enjoy... just click the lil play button....

Quote of the Day...

The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet.
William Gibson (1948 - )

and a little somthing i just found to fuel a fire