It's a tough problem. The ACA is a mess and is going to dump shit all over it's owners (the Ds).
It is indeed, but the Rs have set themselves up perfectly to be the fall guy that will get all the blame for it ("If only they listened and hadn't fought it!"). The Ds are counting on the general population's short attention span that will just remember how much the Rs railed against it. They'll allow themselves to be conned into believing that it's all the Rs fault (not that they don't share in the blame, but they'll get stuck with far more than they deserve).
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
No they aren't. 6 months in with Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and Whitehouse, yet nothing has happened. If they really wanted it, it would have been done 5 months ago. If they really wanted it, after all the bitching they've done since ACA came about, they would have had a bill drafted and ready to go as soon as Trump was sworn in.
What they are doing is making a big show of it so they can go home and say "See! We are trying to do what you asked, but XXX is the real problem.". It's all theater to keep us occupied so that we miss (or ignore) the other things that are getting done (like the changes to the FCC and EPA).
For my money, Bill was one of the most interesting companions in years. Your dislike of her says much more about you than it does about Bill.
Please explain what made her so interesting? She is by far the weakest female characters since Rose with 9 (I do rate her higher than the early Rose due to the lack of being in love with the Dr which was just annoying). She did almost nothing to further the story and was mostly space filler. They had her be mostly incapable of taking care of herself without the Dr which is pretty much the antithesis of the female companions since Rose came into her own with 10.
That, or you ignored how hamfisted Jack was about his sexuality, probably because you liked him as a character
Actually I hated him as a character because he was a bumbling fool that did more plot damage than he helped. Maybe my dislike for him distracted me from his sexual predilections, but I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out to me (admittedly I then wondered how I missed it the first time when I saw some of his episodes again).
Another difference that likely softened the blow is that Jack wasn't in every episode and I'm not even sure I would classify him as a regular. It's one thing for it to happen once or twice a season. It's another when it is every show for a season.
It sounds more like you've become more sensitive to that in general
Yeah I have and it's because I'm tired of it constantly showing up in such a manner.
Take the last Star Trek for example. I saw noise about people being upset that Sulu is gay, but they executed it nearly perfectly in my opinion. He meets his daughter and husband as he disembarks and they walk off arm in arm. Maybe they lingered on the scene a little longer than needed, but nothing was said/done to call attention to it (I actually missed it the first time through). Then there was nothing else said/shown about it the rest of the movie which was correct as it had no bearing on anything.
This is far more representative of the vast majority of gay people I've known in my life. They just want to live their life and have no interest in projecting their private lives on the world. Accordingly they don't want other's views projected on them.
And how many times did we have scenes with straight characters realising they fancy each other?
Or two characters actually in a relationship and talking about it?
"Oh god, why do Amy and Rory go on *all the time* about how they're married? We *get it* - stop pushing your agenda in our faces all the time."
Amy and Rory's sickly sweet romance was equally obnoxious when it was jarring and out of place with the story. I'm totally with you on the "enough already" in that regard. Even River's relationship with the Dr got old. Most of the time it fit with the story (or was the story), but it too was tedious at the time. At least in River's case, however, it was two people that wouldn't see each other for long periods of time so a little reunion "friendliness" made some sense.
(spoilers)
> They chose, however, to make it one of her two most defining characteristics.
> There was nothing subtle about that character.
So - concerning sexual orientation - is Bill travelling on with the pilot in the end of series 10
a) subtle, maybe because it's a fscking romantic arc that comes to a beautiful conclusion, repeats "The doctor and X" and "Ashildr and Clara" and - admittedly - is an unexpected deus-ex.
b) non-subtle, because the pilot is a girl
If it's b) I understand subtle means "invisible, go AWAY, at least behave hetero."
Actually it's C, it's a mix. The Pilot episode was the most well done in this regard. Her being a lesbian actually fit and furthered the story in a manner where it did not stand out as "OMG! Look! I'm a lesbian!". It was just natural so it worked.
As far as her going off with the Pilot at the end, I thought that was cheesy and campy, but that has nothing to do with them being two girls in love. I didn't like it, because it made no sense given that there was no further reference to the Pilot until that point. Here my problem (and I have the same with Ashildr and Clara as well as Rose and Donna) is that it's the forced happy ending where everyone gets to live. Life sucks. Good people die. If they don't want to show that, then keep the characters out of such situations (or give them some silly escape route like they do in every other episode. Rory, Amy, and River rocked in that regard. When they were done, they were done. No escaping their fate. Others (Martha) just moved on without the theatrics.
There is a wide gap between invisible and natural. One being that it doesn't happen at all (which is wrong) and the other meaning that it does, but in a manner that makes sense and reflects reality.
So you think it should be ignored, huh? What if every time you saw someone they were a man and then suddenly, they became a woman.
First of all there is a difference between ignored and not making a deal over it. In the 10-11 regeneration Rose freaked out in an entirely understandable way, but then she accepted it and moved on.
Secondly, there have been few interactions with characters that knew the Dr in his prior incarnations. They could easily go her whole run without bringing old characters back. If they do, again, there is a history of them dealing with it reasonably and I would argue that for someone that knows who the Dr is is going to have little additional surprise over him being a her now (e.g. they already know weird shit happens around the Dr).
Specifically in the context of this coming regeneration, Clara has been gone awhile, River is gone, Bill (thankfully) is gone, so all we potentially have left is Nardole and he is well aware of Missy/Master.
So beyond a "well that was unexpected" and maybe an "ooh! I have breasts!", they don't need to focus on it for more than a few minutes.
The Dr undergoes a complete physical change periodically and they've long made it part of the cannon that Timelords can change sexes in a regeneration. Missy was the first direct image of such.
Just seems that if they can manage it decently (e.g. not make a deal out of it), it makes sense. It's not a "omg they have to do this!!!" thing,
just something that seems like it should happen sooner or later based on what they've been setting up for ages.
The way they are handling it so far, however, feels very much "News at 11: Talented actress gets acting job!". That kind of stuff just seems incredibly patronizing to me which is kinda the opposite of what is supposedly being projected. We'll see if they pull it off, but my hopes aren't high.
Your memory is faulty. Captain Jack did make a big thing of being gay
I'll grant you that may be as I don't think I ever went back and watched the 10th in order, so that could have skewed my view.
especially in he spin off Torchwood
Never seen an episode and not directly the subject.
By comparison, Bill has been very subtle and matter of fact.
Subtle doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm not willing to say "every" without rewatching them all (which I will never do), but most they made at least one jarring and out of place scene where she had to tell someone she was into girls. While it may have been "matter of fact", it served no purpose in the story other than "hey! look! I'm a lesbian character!".
If they had simply made her a competent female character like Clara, Amy, Martha, Donna, and Rose (at least with 11, she was rather needy with 10) that just had a female love interest when she wasn't traveling, big deal. So what. They chose, however, to make it one of her two most defining characteristics.
There was nothing subtle about that character.
If anything they avoided bringing it up by refraining from her having a love interest in any situations where it might be an issue, like the past (where her being black at a time when black people were property was something they couldn't avoid).
No, instead, in the past, present, and future they had her bring up slavery and/or discrimination. Her whole interaction with the blue guy in that episode about the killer space suits was just painful and disgusting. I'm pretty sure that everyone in 1st and 2nd world countries are well aware that there was a period of time where people were abused and enslaved primarily based on their skin color. I'm also equally sure that they are aware that even after those peoples were given equal rights in the 1st & 2nd world, discrimination still persisted.
If they wanted to make an episode where they went back in time and she ran into problems specifically because of it, fine. If they want to do an episode on a different planet where she does something to quash slavery, fine. Having her bring it up in many/most episodes where that is the only reference to such, just obnoxious and pointless.
The original Star Trek and earlier Dr Who pulled off the ability to normalize such things specifically because they didn't make a deal out of it. The simply inserted the character and moved on.
Contrary to the popular belief today, the way to fix these issues is not to constantly rub people's noses in it. Constantly getting in people's faces tends to have the opposite of the desired effect.
The only Doctor I didn't like was the more recent Peter Capaldi, I didn't enjoy a single second of watching him
I tend to agree. I think they were trying to make him a throw back to the original character, but it never worked out. He is a good actor so I suspect they just never got the story quite worked out that well.
It could also be that there was no real overarching story like Tennent (Bad Wolf) and Smith (the crack) had to help tie things together. The best Peter had was Missy, but that didn't really tie anything together and the episodes just felt like disconnected adventures with no greater meaning.
So I too am glad for X-Mas to come so we can put the unfortunate 12th Dr behind us.
Missy was a exceptional incarnation of The Master as an evil Mary Poppins. Michelle Gomez proved the character can be gender flipped and still retain credibility.
Exactly, but they never made a big deal of it so it worked well.
This last companion, however, was an abomination of SJW-ness. Not a single episode went by without them putting some focus on her liking girls and/or (mostly and) some slavery reference. It was tedious, annoying, helped nothing, and damaged the story lines.
Cpt Jack's homosexuality was never an issue and it was never focused on. Martha didn't go around constantly commenting about slavery. Bill was also the first female companion (at least since the reboot) that I would not classify as a "strong woman" (mostly due to her being on about slavery and being gay so much). Seemed she needed more rescuing by the Dr than she did rescuing of the Dr like all her predecessors did.
Hopefully the story will just be "poof, the Dr is a woman" and then it is never mentioned again. If so, it will work well. Based on how they are publicizing it, however, I suspect they are going to work some form of "wait! you're a woman now???" into each episode. That will be a damn shame if that is indeed what happens.
I agree that there should be a female Dr and by all accounts it looks like she is a good choice. I just hope that the writers and producers don't turn it into disgusting political circus to try to make a point that doesn't need making.
There was a time decades ago where quality actually meant something time be damned.
No there wasn't. There is zero evidence that code quality was better decades ago.
My reference to quality was about the overall product, not the code building it. And yes my "time be damned" was a bit hyperbolic, but it was much more true than it is now.
I've watched it change through my 20 years. Used to plans and release cycles were long enough that if a major architecture change was needed, you could work it into the schedule. It also gave time to put actual thought and planning into how the new features would interact together. It certainly wasn't a a nirvana of perfect code or products, but it had some significant advantages over what we have today.
Now we push this asinine "Agile" idea where we should release changes on a near constant basis (or at least that's what management believes it is about). The promise is that we can quickly change directions or even throw it all away and start over. The reality, however, is that poorly thought out (due to being in a rush to "market") architectural decisions made in the beginning to support the original idea turn into a nightmare a year down the road when you are continuing to tack on the new ideas that were never considered. Not to mention that all along to that point the "we really need to fix/change this" stuff that makes up Tech Debt gets ignored and left out. Finally somewhere between 1 and 2 years you get to the point where every new feature just becomes a hack and the whole system needs to be scrapped and rewritten, but as that can't be done in a couple of sprints it just keeps getting kicked down the road.
I'm sure there are the exceptions out there that don't work that way, but that's the reality for the vast majority of companies that have made it passed the startup phase of life.
It used to be that code could be written and then you'd get a call 5-10 years later and your response is "holy shit! That process is still running??" because it just did it's job quietly and accurately. I think my personal record was 11 years for some PL/1 code on Stratus.
Today that doesn't happen very often. It's true that part of that comes down to complexity and dependencies, but the key part is the lack of foresight in designs and requirements these days. I often get chided by my managers about over engineering, but when it gets to Prod my stuff just works with minimal support. They like that part.
If you've had a successful career in CS, then chances are you're probably decent at math and it's possible you just had bad teachers.
You got me. You know more about what I do on a daily basis than I do...
but I've tutored introduction to algebra to people in their 20s and 30s, and for the life of them, they couldn't understand it.
And I am one of those people. Can't do it. Just doesn't make any sense. Even basic math that requires more than fingers and toes requires effort for me.
I'm glad math is so easy for you, but it's not for me. Yet I still excel at my job just fine.
Programming is still a skill set that requires the fitting mindset. You have to want to program to do it right. And nobody has any use for people doing it wrong. Not today, and even less so in the future when "it compiles, ship is" is no longer going to cut it due to competition.
Umm... Have you seen the world we work in today?
There was a time decades ago where quality actually meant something time be damned. Now it's not what you produce, but how fast you do it. "You can fix it in the next rev" is the mantra of management these days (of course new stuff always takes precedence over the backlog...).
The programming field has also long been full of developers that don't have the "fitting mindset". That happened in the boom leading up to the turn of the century. Everyone saw "easy" money and jumped into it even though they have no passion for it. These are the "everyday" programmers that can turn detailed requirements into code, but they can't go off script at all or recognize when there is a problem with the requirements. They are the ones that just code the answer to the problem with no interest in if the question is correct or how it will change over time. They are the reasons the good programmers have mountains of unmaintainable code that we have to figure out how to maintain.
Ok. Different angle. Think of a subject at school that you had no interest in. Now imagine you could only land a job where this subject exactly is what you need. Do you think you could pull it off with what you "learned" at school?
Well every one likes to tell me how math is absolutely critical to being a programmer and you can't survive in the field without it. Yet I dropped out of high school primarily because I suck at math and I've now been a programmer for 20 years. I'm a programmer that can choose my jobs too.
Hell, I even spent 5 years building a metrics system that ended up being the catalyst for turning that company around (they accepted all the absurd excuses from the developers/admins until we were able to present them with actual facts that showed the product was a POS).
The key isn't to know it all (which is what I hated about school as it was all memory based), it's to know where to find what you need when you need it.
In 20 years I've barely needed to know more than basic math and in the rare cases that I did, the equations were given as part of the requirements. I'll never create the next great algorithm, but so what? I couldn't care less about big O and the like as it is irrelevant to the type of work that I do and the work I do is what I enjoy and make a damn good living doing.
where the ruling only applies to.ca/.fr servers, not.com (but regardless from where it is accessed)? In that case, why should contries not be allowed to dictate the legitimacy of content served under their TLD.
They should indeed have that ability, but their beef should be with the registrar for the TLD and the service utilizing a name in that TLD.
They should also have some rights to take issue with what is displayed to IP addresses registered as within their borders.
They should under no circumstances have any jurisdiction over what a foreign entity returns to another foreign entity.
While this doesn't do anything to improve life for the poor folks trying to retrieve their files, this type of aggressive approach may be required to eliminate the incentives for ransomware creators. It's truly the nuclear option, as the fallout is likely to hurt many unintended targets, but it could end the war.
WTF does the asshat at the other end of the malware care if the email account works or not? Most aren't going to find out that it's a dead email address until they've already paid. So asshat already has the money, what do they care about your files?
Thanks for the link. Not as I recall it at the time, but that could easily be a signal/noise ratio issue. They mention a couple that had their faithless votes overturned, but I thought there were a few more (about a dozen spread across the states)?
Anyone living in America bitching about people coming to this country "illegally" is a huge hypocrite. Just ask the next Cherokee you run across.
Pretty sure there is no one in the country that was born prior to 1776. US law states that if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen regardless of your parents status.
So while our ancestors did some shit things to the native population, no US citizen can be considered to be here illegally at this point in time and is therefore not a hypocrite when they say they want people to immigrate here by legal means.
in case you forgot he lost the vote.
And there we have it folks, proof of a clueless moron that just toes the party line.
First of all, the POTUS is not elected by the popular vote and never has been. You can argue all day long if the electoral college is right or not, but it is the long standing law on how the election happens. Hillary knew this, but chose to go for the pointless popular vote.
Secondly, the only cases of electors going against the will of the people they were representing were ones that tried (I believe all were overturned?) to vote against Trump even though that's how their state voted.
Finally, for all the crying about how Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election, where is the complaining about how the DNC did the exact same thing (though through back door dealings and flouting their own rules rather than following long standing law) to nominate Hillary to begin with? Until it was clear that the fix was in, Bernie won primary after primary, yet some how the delegates kept going to Hillary??? Talk about being a hypocrite!
Was on a grandfathered iPhone unlimited plan from the iPhone 3G days paying about $70/month.
Finally sick of Apple (and with the new iPhone 7 work just gave me I'm ecstatic I dropped that crap for my personal phone!) I switched to the Nexus 6p just before the Pixel came out. After a month to decide I was happy with the phone I dropped AT&T and am now paying less that $30/month.
The auto switching and utilizing vetted WiFi has cut my data usage significantly. That they actually credit you back for unused data is the part I find most refreshing. Imagine that, NOT paying for something you don't use.
My only complaint with Fi is that I'm restricted to Google's phones and while I really like the Nexus, I'm not a fan of the iPhone path they appear to be following for the Pixel.
No it wasn't. Or at the very least that is unclear.
"Bricking" has a specific meaning that the device firm/software no longer functions and it cannot be returned to a working state (e.g. bricking a router implies that it no longer works and you can not upload another firmware image or reset it).
In this case it appears service was disconnected on the server side which would mean that the device itself is still perfectly functional even though it's useless (e.g. removing the uplink from your router in no way makes it "bricked"). Since this device was disabled from the server side, the implication is that it can be returned to service at anytime (e.g. plugging the router back into it's uplink).
Mag-Moss: Learn it. Love it. Shove it down your lying dealer's throat.
While they are constantly trying to gut Mag-Moss and work around it with special tools that independents can't afford to stay up with, they still have zero legal power to void your warranty for having your car worked on by someone other than the dealer. They do, however, do an excellent job of convincing people that they can do it.
The other one they like to try is convincing you of is that your whole warranty is void because you made some modification (e.g. lowered suspension, replaced the radio, etc..).
She was never happy that her manager hired her entire team before her. She proved to be very nepotistic in her hiring and promotion practices.
Two of us had come from the company's tech support org and were paid hourly and it was agreed after everyone settled in we'd sort out the switch to salary (I was 19 and naive). In 8 months in support I had made 33k due to the unlimited over time policy. In the first 2 months in this job I was still putting in similar hours. Her non-negotiable "offer" was $28k because she based it on my hourly rate x 40 rather than what I had actually been working. The other guy didn't milk the overtime nearly as much as I did, but he was similarly screwed.
She actively did her best to make the original group's life miserable. She crammed 5 of the team into a room made for 2 and I was put out in a bull pen type area. Ultimately I was kicked out of that spot for her sales team (which all ended up fired and a few even got some jail time over cooking their expense reports) and I was given a desk in a hall.
When I had enough and moved to another group in the company I took a week off between the switch. While I was on vacation I got a call from a friend in HR to ask me what was going on. Apparently she had one form from my new manager with my new info and salary and the next form was from my not-quite-ex boss trying to terminate me. Her response to HR's query was "that's what I thought I needed to file".
I worked to get the rest of the group over too and only lost one because he just couldn't take her anymore. On the last save we had been working on it for months and she was fighting releasing him tooth and nail. Thankfully we had HR involved in the situation so when she filed a "whoops, I missed this one" to include him the previous week's layoff she shot her "I can't release him because he is critical to the group" argument in the head.
She then went on to throw her nepotistic hires in front of the bullets that should have taken her out. Ultimately the company was finally rid of her when they spun that group off into a separate company and sold it.
The last I heard she had left the Tech field and become a Therapist. I feel sorry for anyone that tries to get help from her...
It's been 20 years since I worked for her and I can still feel my BP go up thinking about her...
A router company would have to print a random code per product sold if it wanted out of the box security.
Why on earth would they need to do that? The simple answer is that at initial set up the only thing that should be enabled is the setup service and it should not proceed until they set up their own user and password info. Bonus points if they apply real password requirements and block common user names (user, admin, etc..).
There is nothing complicated here, it's just laziness on the part of the manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a tough problem. The ACA is a mess and is going to dump shit all over it's owners (the Ds).
It is indeed, but the Rs have set themselves up perfectly to be the fall guy that will get all the blame for it ("If only they listened and hadn't fought it!"). The Ds are counting on the general population's short attention span that will just remember how much the Rs railed against it. They'll allow themselves to be conned into believing that it's all the Rs fault (not that they don't share in the blame, but they'll get stuck with far more than they deserve).
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
No they aren't. 6 months in with Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and Whitehouse, yet nothing has happened. If they really wanted it, it would have been done 5 months ago. If they really wanted it, after all the bitching they've done since ACA came about, they would have had a bill drafted and ready to go as soon as Trump was sworn in.
What they are doing is making a big show of it so they can go home and say "See! We are trying to do what you asked, but XXX is the real problem.". It's all theater to keep us occupied so that we miss (or ignore) the other things that are getting done (like the changes to the FCC and EPA).
For my money, Bill was one of the most interesting companions in years. Your dislike of her says much more about you than it does about Bill.
Please explain what made her so interesting? She is by far the weakest female characters since Rose with 9 (I do rate her higher than the early Rose due to the lack of being in love with the Dr which was just annoying). She did almost nothing to further the story and was mostly space filler. They had her be mostly incapable of taking care of herself without the Dr which is pretty much the antithesis of the female companions since Rose came into her own with 10.
That, or you ignored how hamfisted Jack was about his sexuality, probably because you liked him as a character
Actually I hated him as a character because he was a bumbling fool that did more plot damage than he helped. Maybe my dislike for him distracted me from his sexual predilections, but I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out to me (admittedly I then wondered how I missed it the first time when I saw some of his episodes again).
Another difference that likely softened the blow is that Jack wasn't in every episode and I'm not even sure I would classify him as a regular. It's one thing for it to happen once or twice a season. It's another when it is every show for a season.
It sounds more like you've become more sensitive to that in general
Yeah I have and it's because I'm tired of it constantly showing up in such a manner.
Take the last Star Trek for example. I saw noise about people being upset that Sulu is gay, but they executed it nearly perfectly in my opinion. He meets his daughter and husband as he disembarks and they walk off arm in arm. Maybe they lingered on the scene a little longer than needed, but nothing was said/done to call attention to it (I actually missed it the first time through). Then there was nothing else said/shown about it the rest of the movie which was correct as it had no bearing on anything.
This is far more representative of the vast majority of gay people I've known in my life. They just want to live their life and have no interest in projecting their private lives on the world. Accordingly they don't want other's views projected on them.
And how many times did we have scenes with straight characters realising they fancy each other? Or two characters actually in a relationship and talking about it? "Oh god, why do Amy and Rory go on *all the time* about how they're married? We *get it* - stop pushing your agenda in our faces all the time."
Amy and Rory's sickly sweet romance was equally obnoxious when it was jarring and out of place with the story. I'm totally with you on the "enough already" in that regard. Even River's relationship with the Dr got old. Most of the time it fit with the story (or was the story), but it too was tedious at the time. At least in River's case, however, it was two people that wouldn't see each other for long periods of time so a little reunion "friendliness" made some sense.
(spoilers) > They chose, however, to make it one of her two most defining characteristics. > There was nothing subtle about that character.
So - concerning sexual orientation - is Bill travelling on with the pilot in the end of series 10 a) subtle, maybe because it's a fscking romantic arc that comes to a beautiful conclusion, repeats "The doctor and X" and "Ashildr and Clara" and - admittedly - is an unexpected deus-ex. b) non-subtle, because the pilot is a girl
If it's b) I understand subtle means "invisible, go AWAY, at least behave hetero."
Actually it's C, it's a mix. The Pilot episode was the most well done in this regard. Her being a lesbian actually fit and furthered the story in a manner where it did not stand out as "OMG! Look! I'm a lesbian!". It was just natural so it worked.
As far as her going off with the Pilot at the end, I thought that was cheesy and campy, but that has nothing to do with them being two girls in love. I didn't like it, because it made no sense given that there was no further reference to the Pilot until that point. Here my problem (and I have the same with Ashildr and Clara as well as Rose and Donna) is that it's the forced happy ending where everyone gets to live. Life sucks. Good people die. If they don't want to show that, then keep the characters out of such situations (or give them some silly escape route like they do in every other episode. Rory, Amy, and River rocked in that regard. When they were done, they were done. No escaping their fate. Others (Martha) just moved on without the theatrics.
There is a wide gap between invisible and natural. One being that it doesn't happen at all (which is wrong) and the other meaning that it does, but in a manner that makes sense and reflects reality.
So you think it should be ignored, huh? What if every time you saw someone they were a man and then suddenly, they became a woman.
First of all there is a difference between ignored and not making a deal over it. In the 10-11 regeneration Rose freaked out in an entirely understandable way, but then she accepted it and moved on.
Secondly, there have been few interactions with characters that knew the Dr in his prior incarnations. They could easily go her whole run without bringing old characters back. If they do, again, there is a history of them dealing with it reasonably and I would argue that for someone that knows who the Dr is is going to have little additional surprise over him being a her now (e.g. they already know weird shit happens around the Dr).
Specifically in the context of this coming regeneration, Clara has been gone awhile, River is gone, Bill (thankfully) is gone, so all we potentially have left is Nardole and he is well aware of Missy/Master.
So beyond a "well that was unexpected" and maybe an "ooh! I have breasts!", they don't need to focus on it for more than a few minutes.
So please, tell us what your reason is.
The Dr undergoes a complete physical change periodically and they've long made it part of the cannon that Timelords can change sexes in a regeneration. Missy was the first direct image of such.
Just seems that if they can manage it decently (e.g. not make a deal out of it), it makes sense. It's not a "omg they have to do this!!!" thing, just something that seems like it should happen sooner or later based on what they've been setting up for ages.
The way they are handling it so far, however, feels very much "News at 11: Talented actress gets acting job!". That kind of stuff just seems incredibly patronizing to me which is kinda the opposite of what is supposedly being projected. We'll see if they pull it off, but my hopes aren't high.
Your memory is faulty. Captain Jack did make a big thing of being gay
I'll grant you that may be as I don't think I ever went back and watched the 10th in order, so that could have skewed my view.
especially in he spin off Torchwood
Never seen an episode and not directly the subject.
By comparison, Bill has been very subtle and matter of fact.
Subtle doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm not willing to say "every" without rewatching them all (which I will never do), but most they made at least one jarring and out of place scene where she had to tell someone she was into girls. While it may have been "matter of fact", it served no purpose in the story other than "hey! look! I'm a lesbian character!".
If they had simply made her a competent female character like Clara, Amy, Martha, Donna, and Rose (at least with 11, she was rather needy with 10) that just had a female love interest when she wasn't traveling, big deal. So what. They chose, however, to make it one of her two most defining characteristics.
There was nothing subtle about that character.
If anything they avoided bringing it up by refraining from her having a love interest in any situations where it might be an issue, like the past (where her being black at a time when black people were property was something they couldn't avoid).
No, instead, in the past, present, and future they had her bring up slavery and/or discrimination. Her whole interaction with the blue guy in that episode about the killer space suits was just painful and disgusting. I'm pretty sure that everyone in 1st and 2nd world countries are well aware that there was a period of time where people were abused and enslaved primarily based on their skin color. I'm also equally sure that they are aware that even after those peoples were given equal rights in the 1st & 2nd world, discrimination still persisted.
If they wanted to make an episode where they went back in time and she ran into problems specifically because of it, fine. If they want to do an episode on a different planet where she does something to quash slavery, fine. Having her bring it up in many/most episodes where that is the only reference to such, just obnoxious and pointless.
The original Star Trek and earlier Dr Who pulled off the ability to normalize such things specifically because they didn't make a deal out of it. The simply inserted the character and moved on.
Contrary to the popular belief today, the way to fix these issues is not to constantly rub people's noses in it. Constantly getting in people's faces tends to have the opposite of the desired effect.
The only Doctor I didn't like was the more recent Peter Capaldi, I didn't enjoy a single second of watching him
I tend to agree. I think they were trying to make him a throw back to the original character, but it never worked out. He is a good actor so I suspect they just never got the story quite worked out that well.
It could also be that there was no real overarching story like Tennent (Bad Wolf) and Smith (the crack) had to help tie things together. The best Peter had was Missy, but that didn't really tie anything together and the episodes just felt like disconnected adventures with no greater meaning.
So I too am glad for X-Mas to come so we can put the unfortunate 12th Dr behind us.
Missy was a exceptional incarnation of The Master as an evil Mary Poppins. Michelle Gomez proved the character can be gender flipped and still retain credibility.
Exactly, but they never made a big deal of it so it worked well.
This last companion, however, was an abomination of SJW-ness. Not a single episode went by without them putting some focus on her liking girls and/or (mostly and) some slavery reference. It was tedious, annoying, helped nothing, and damaged the story lines.
Cpt Jack's homosexuality was never an issue and it was never focused on. Martha didn't go around constantly commenting about slavery. Bill was also the first female companion (at least since the reboot) that I would not classify as a "strong woman" (mostly due to her being on about slavery and being gay so much). Seemed she needed more rescuing by the Dr than she did rescuing of the Dr like all her predecessors did.
Hopefully the story will just be "poof, the Dr is a woman" and then it is never mentioned again. If so, it will work well. Based on how they are publicizing it, however, I suspect they are going to work some form of "wait! you're a woman now???" into each episode. That will be a damn shame if that is indeed what happens.
I agree that there should be a female Dr and by all accounts it looks like she is a good choice. I just hope that the writers and producers don't turn it into disgusting political circus to try to make a point that doesn't need making.
There was a time decades ago where quality actually meant something time be damned.
No there wasn't. There is zero evidence that code quality was better decades ago.
My reference to quality was about the overall product, not the code building it. And yes my "time be damned" was a bit hyperbolic, but it was much more true than it is now.
I've watched it change through my 20 years. Used to plans and release cycles were long enough that if a major architecture change was needed, you could work it into the schedule. It also gave time to put actual thought and planning into how the new features would interact together. It certainly wasn't a a nirvana of perfect code or products, but it had some significant advantages over what we have today.
Now we push this asinine "Agile" idea where we should release changes on a near constant basis (or at least that's what management believes it is about). The promise is that we can quickly change directions or even throw it all away and start over. The reality, however, is that poorly thought out (due to being in a rush to "market") architectural decisions made in the beginning to support the original idea turn into a nightmare a year down the road when you are continuing to tack on the new ideas that were never considered. Not to mention that all along to that point the "we really need to fix/change this" stuff that makes up Tech Debt gets ignored and left out. Finally somewhere between 1 and 2 years you get to the point where every new feature just becomes a hack and the whole system needs to be scrapped and rewritten, but as that can't be done in a couple of sprints it just keeps getting kicked down the road.
I'm sure there are the exceptions out there that don't work that way, but that's the reality for the vast majority of companies that have made it passed the startup phase of life.
It used to be that code could be written and then you'd get a call 5-10 years later and your response is "holy shit! That process is still running??" because it just did it's job quietly and accurately. I think my personal record was 11 years for some PL/1 code on Stratus.
Today that doesn't happen very often. It's true that part of that comes down to complexity and dependencies, but the key part is the lack of foresight in designs and requirements these days. I often get chided by my managers about over engineering, but when it gets to Prod my stuff just works with minimal support. They like that part.
If you've had a successful career in CS, then chances are you're probably decent at math and it's possible you just had bad teachers.
You got me. You know more about what I do on a daily basis than I do...
but I've tutored introduction to algebra to people in their 20s and 30s, and for the life of them, they couldn't understand it.
And I am one of those people. Can't do it. Just doesn't make any sense. Even basic math that requires more than fingers and toes requires effort for me.
I'm glad math is so easy for you, but it's not for me. Yet I still excel at my job just fine.
Do not fear.
Programming is still a skill set that requires the fitting mindset. You have to want to program to do it right. And nobody has any use for people doing it wrong. Not today, and even less so in the future when "it compiles, ship is" is no longer going to cut it due to competition.
Umm... Have you seen the world we work in today?
There was a time decades ago where quality actually meant something time be damned. Now it's not what you produce, but how fast you do it. "You can fix it in the next rev" is the mantra of management these days (of course new stuff always takes precedence over the backlog...).
The programming field has also long been full of developers that don't have the "fitting mindset". That happened in the boom leading up to the turn of the century. Everyone saw "easy" money and jumped into it even though they have no passion for it. These are the "everyday" programmers that can turn detailed requirements into code, but they can't go off script at all or recognize when there is a problem with the requirements. They are the ones that just code the answer to the problem with no interest in if the question is correct or how it will change over time. They are the reasons the good programmers have mountains of unmaintainable code that we have to figure out how to maintain.
Ok. Different angle. Think of a subject at school that you had no interest in. Now imagine you could only land a job where this subject exactly is what you need. Do you think you could pull it off with what you "learned" at school?
Well every one likes to tell me how math is absolutely critical to being a programmer and you can't survive in the field without it. Yet I dropped out of high school primarily because I suck at math and I've now been a programmer for 20 years. I'm a programmer that can choose my jobs too.
Hell, I even spent 5 years building a metrics system that ended up being the catalyst for turning that company around (they accepted all the absurd excuses from the developers/admins until we were able to present them with actual facts that showed the product was a POS).
The key isn't to know it all (which is what I hated about school as it was all memory based), it's to know where to find what you need when you need it.
In 20 years I've barely needed to know more than basic math and in the rare cases that I did, the equations were given as part of the requirements. I'll never create the next great algorithm, but so what? I couldn't care less about big O and the like as it is irrelevant to the type of work that I do and the work I do is what I enjoy and make a damn good living doing.
where the ruling only applies to .ca/.fr servers, not .com (but regardless from where it is accessed)? In that case, why should contries not be allowed to dictate the legitimacy of content served under their TLD.
They should indeed have that ability, but their beef should be with the registrar for the TLD and the service utilizing a name in that TLD.
They should also have some rights to take issue with what is displayed to IP addresses registered as within their borders.
They should under no circumstances have any jurisdiction over what a foreign entity returns to another foreign entity.
While this doesn't do anything to improve life for the poor folks trying to retrieve their files, this type of aggressive approach may be required to eliminate the incentives for ransomware creators. It's truly the nuclear option, as the fallout is likely to hurt many unintended targets, but it could end the war.
WTF does the asshat at the other end of the malware care if the email account works or not? Most aren't going to find out that it's a dead email address until they've already paid. So asshat already has the money, what do they care about your files?
Actually in looking up the faithless electors it appears that more abandoned Hillary than Trump.
Thanks for the link. Not as I recall it at the time, but that could easily be a signal/noise ratio issue. They mention a couple that had their faithless votes overturned, but I thought there were a few more (about a dozen spread across the states)?
I'll study up. Thanks again.
Anyone living in America bitching about people coming to this country "illegally" is a huge hypocrite. Just ask the next Cherokee you run across.
Pretty sure there is no one in the country that was born prior to 1776. US law states that if you are born on US soil, you are a US citizen regardless of your parents status.
So while our ancestors did some shit things to the native population, no US citizen can be considered to be here illegally at this point in time and is therefore not a hypocrite when they say they want people to immigrate here by legal means.
in case you forgot he lost the vote.
And there we have it folks, proof of a clueless moron that just toes the party line.
First of all, the POTUS is not elected by the popular vote and never has been. You can argue all day long if the electoral college is right or not, but it is the long standing law on how the election happens. Hillary knew this, but chose to go for the pointless popular vote.
Secondly, the only cases of electors going against the will of the people they were representing were ones that tried (I believe all were overturned?) to vote against Trump even though that's how their state voted.
Finally, for all the crying about how Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election, where is the complaining about how the DNC did the exact same thing (though through back door dealings and flouting their own rules rather than following long standing law) to nominate Hillary to begin with? Until it was clear that the fix was in, Bernie won primary after primary, yet some how the delegates kept going to Hillary??? Talk about being a hypocrite!
Another Fi user here.
Was on a grandfathered iPhone unlimited plan from the iPhone 3G days paying about $70/month.
Finally sick of Apple (and with the new iPhone 7 work just gave me I'm ecstatic I dropped that crap for my personal phone!) I switched to the Nexus 6p just before the Pixel came out. After a month to decide I was happy with the phone I dropped AT&T and am now paying less that $30/month.
The auto switching and utilizing vetted WiFi has cut my data usage significantly. That they actually credit you back for unused data is the part I find most refreshing. Imagine that, NOT paying for something you don't use.
My only complaint with Fi is that I'm restricted to Google's phones and while I really like the Nexus, I'm not a fan of the iPhone path they appear to be following for the Pixel.
Bullshit. The device was bricked.
No it wasn't. Or at the very least that is unclear.
"Bricking" has a specific meaning that the device firm/software no longer functions and it cannot be returned to a working state (e.g. bricking a router implies that it no longer works and you can not upload another firmware image or reset it).
In this case it appears service was disconnected on the server side which would mean that the device itself is still perfectly functional even though it's useless (e.g. removing the uplink from your router in no way makes it "bricked"). Since this device was disabled from the server side, the implication is that it can be returned to service at anytime (e.g. plugging the router back into it's uplink).
tldr; Words mean things
If they are curious enough, they will develop machines that are as advanced as the ones we had in the ancient times!
Or they'll find that film is a great way to get a really good fire going...
Mag-Moss: Learn it. Love it. Shove it down your lying dealer's throat.
While they are constantly trying to gut Mag-Moss and work around it with special tools that independents can't afford to stay up with, they still have zero legal power to void your warranty for having your car worked on by someone other than the dealer. They do, however, do an excellent job of convincing people that they can do it.
The other one they like to try is convincing you of is that your whole warranty is void because you made some modification (e.g. lowered suspension, replaced the radio, etc..).
She was never happy that her manager hired her entire team before her. She proved to be very nepotistic in her hiring and promotion practices.
Two of us had come from the company's tech support org and were paid hourly and it was agreed after everyone settled in we'd sort out the switch to salary (I was 19 and naive). In 8 months in support I had made 33k due to the unlimited over time policy. In the first 2 months in this job I was still putting in similar hours. Her non-negotiable "offer" was $28k because she based it on my hourly rate x 40 rather than what I had actually been working. The other guy didn't milk the overtime nearly as much as I did, but he was similarly screwed.
She actively did her best to make the original group's life miserable. She crammed 5 of the team into a room made for 2 and I was put out in a bull pen type area. Ultimately I was kicked out of that spot for her sales team (which all ended up fired and a few even got some jail time over cooking their expense reports) and I was given a desk in a hall.
When I had enough and moved to another group in the company I took a week off between the switch. While I was on vacation I got a call from a friend in HR to ask me what was going on. Apparently she had one form from my new manager with my new info and salary and the next form was from my not-quite-ex boss trying to terminate me. Her response to HR's query was "that's what I thought I needed to file".
I worked to get the rest of the group over too and only lost one because he just couldn't take her anymore. On the last save we had been working on it for months and she was fighting releasing him tooth and nail. Thankfully we had HR involved in the situation so when she filed a "whoops, I missed this one" to include him the previous week's layoff she shot her "I can't release him because he is critical to the group" argument in the head.
She then went on to throw her nepotistic hires in front of the bullets that should have taken her out. Ultimately the company was finally rid of her when they spun that group off into a separate company and sold it.
The last I heard she had left the Tech field and become a Therapist. I feel sorry for anyone that tries to get help from her...
It's been 20 years since I worked for her and I can still feel my BP go up thinking about her...
A router company would have to print a random code per product sold if it wanted out of the box security.
Why on earth would they need to do that? The simple answer is that at initial set up the only thing that should be enabled is the setup service and it should not proceed until they set up their own user and password info. Bonus points if they apply real password requirements and block common user names (user, admin, etc..).
There is nothing complicated here, it's just laziness on the part of the manufacturer.