48% of moviegoers are willing to pay $1 or more per ticket for the additional measures. Nineteen per cent of respondents said they would pay $3 or more
HOnestly, I'm surprised at the LOW percentage, since they put the questions to their Board of Directors, but then again, they are a bunch of money-grubbing arseholes that that percentage is actually reasonable for them. (not that they'd ever actually PAY to go watch a movie)
Similar thing happened with Elite Dangerous. After months of saying there would be an offline mode, they turn around days before release and say FU all that bought the game on that premise... Online only.
the Flying Burrito Brothers, Hot Tuna and New Riders of the Purple Sage
OK, I work for a vinyl collecting magazine for 5+ years now, so I constantly get introduced to obscure music, not counting the fact my father collects some obscure stuff, but I've never even heard of these bands
Nha, pretty sure you can replace politicians with a rock, it'll be just as productive, or even a monkey... You'd still get poo flung at you, but atleast you won't have your faced held in it, forced to eat it and proclaim it the greatest meal you've ever had.
"the US would never (*snort*) go against the wishes of it's citizens."
Well that is actually true... do you really think the lobbyists/politicians will bite the hand that feeds them (companies/individuals that line their pockets), when they can just make empty promises and gestures to placate or distract the sheeple?
There's also the part now where they won't be wiping save games from the Gamma testing at launch. This means everyone who has been playing these past few weeks will be way ahead of everyone else that starts on release day. This includes all the players who have raked in millions of credits using exploits and hacks. (I for one played during Beta to get my settings and controls sorted, and decided to wait for release to play as they should be doing a wipe).
that it was going to hold the government to a very high standard and would not allow the government to manufacture a misleading transcript by hiding the fact of any redactions
That is EXACTLY what they were trying to do.
If they'd managed to remove anything, thereby changing a sworn testimony, they could go back and requestion and show that the person was lying under oath, and thereby jeopardise the entire case and try get it thrown out.
If there was one reason for me to become a lawyer, it would be to slap the shit outta idiots like this in court(though I'd probably try and get wording in my damages claim that would allow me to actually slap him)