A private company paid a bunch of money to another private company and users got the same video streaming performance they used to have before private company B starting throttling private company A's ability to deliver content that was already paid for by the users to both companies involved.
One question - please take into account that I am not suggesting with this question that I believe Deckard is a replicant, athough it may sound like it.
Why does everyone who drags out the whole 'The screenwriter and Harrison Ford deny it and Ridley didn't start saying it until later' argument ignore the fact that in the actual shooting script and at least some versions of the screenplay Deckard was clearly and specifically a replicant? There were lines about it in the script. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott actually fought about it during filming...all of this is documented. Also it is an argument that presents itself as ignorant of the fact that there were 3 screenwriters who worked on it at different times. Regardless of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, this particular argument is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
This argument of Deckard's humanity having a definitive answer is tired and pointless...the reason the film is as good as it is is in part due to the ambiguity of this very question. DADoES and Blade Runner both explore the concept of an android that does not in fact know it is an android quite thoroughly, which is what makes this particular ambiguity important to the film. "Questions are interesting, answers are boring."
I would much rather talk about what is uniquely beautiful about the film IF Deckard is human, and then talk about how that changes IF Deckard is a replicant and what that means in order to actually examine the real beauty of the film as a work of art...rather than a bunch of chest beating neanderthalic yelling about who's got the better source for their argument and thumping about how they're right and the other group is dumb and somehow ruining the movie by having a favored opinion.
Watching people have this argument is like sitting in an audience during a performance of Waiting for Godot and having no-one around you understand why it's a comedy.
Rachel's lack of expiration date is only mentioned in the original theatrical release. Not in DC or Final Cut.
Point being: There's going to be canon issues with this movie, and most likely nobody who likes any version of the original is going to be totally happy with it, even if it is amazing.
Not only *all of the above*, but also you have to do it in what for many is the fiercest, politically motivated, cruelest, pettiest, most vicious social environment we could engineer for you.
Back then we didn't have the propaganda machine on full blast trying to convince you that every child who plays outside is going to be kidnapped, raped, and mutilated by a stranger they chatted with online once.
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.
wtf are you even talking about? No, it's not surprising that not many black USians work for facebook. Seeing as how not that many Black USians work for tech companies of any sort. Wouldn't you think the latter has a lot more to do with facebook's potential diversity, or lack thereof? Wanting to be diverse doesn't mean refusing to hire white men if that's the majority of the available pool of applicants (not even getting into who's better qualified).
He picked the wrong year to ask his questions in the manner in which he did...also the wrong people. Zoe Quinn has been harassed to the point of blatant abuse by a particularly nasty part of the gamer community...death threats, forum-organized raids, and sexually harassing phone calls to her cell among other things. How she presents herself to the indie community as a woman and a developer is a very big deal at the moment. The indie teams are protective of each other and extremely protective of their individual images among their fans and supporters....this is a very big deal.
Also the show wasn't originally conceived of as the craptastic mess Matti turned it into once they got started. So okay, this wasn't quite as bad as Matti walking up to a female rape victim and asking her on camera if she thinks "women are asking for it..." but I'm pretty sure from some of the dev's standpoints, it wasn't too far from that either.
The "gender nonsense" was not a real question. It was an insult...and it came at a time when a significant portion of the gamer community has just begun recovering from an uproar about women developers...and it's been such a hot-button issue that one of the women on this show not that long ago was receiving death threats from the members of the gaming community. Jimquisition has some great thoughts and insights on this issue.
The question of women's contributions and the benefits or disadvantages of women in a dev team is completely valid to extremely ignorant masses, and the answers could be very interesting and inspiring, but Matti's questions amounted to "What do you think Chett? Do women suck at this?" "What about you? You're a Woman...do you suck at this? or do you think the fact that you're pretty might help your team with the judges?"
Slashdot Mirror
only because cock is AMAZING!!
Sure they will...and they'll protect it and charge you a goods-based toll to use it.
in most parts of 'murica? yeah, unfortunately this is so.
We know there will be! We'll make sure of it!
agreed.
A private company paid a bunch of money to another private company and users got the same video streaming performance they used to have before private company B starting throttling private company A's ability to deliver content that was already paid for by the users to both companies involved.
FTFY
but with that I can't dial 'Pleased Acknowledgement of Husband's Superior Wisdom' for my wife every morning.
Can't wait!
One question - please take into account that I am not suggesting with this question that I believe Deckard is a replicant, athough it may sound like it.
Why does everyone who drags out the whole 'The screenwriter and Harrison Ford deny it and Ridley didn't start saying it until later' argument ignore the fact that in the actual shooting script and at least some versions of the screenplay Deckard was clearly and specifically a replicant? There were lines about it in the script. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott actually fought about it during filming...all of this is documented. Also it is an argument that presents itself as ignorant of the fact that there were 3 screenwriters who worked on it at different times. Regardless of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, this particular argument is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
This argument of Deckard's humanity having a definitive answer is tired and pointless...the reason the film is as good as it is is in part due to the ambiguity of this very question. DADoES and Blade Runner both explore the concept of an android that does not in fact know it is an android quite thoroughly, which is what makes this particular ambiguity important to the film. "Questions are interesting, answers are boring."
I would much rather talk about what is uniquely beautiful about the film IF Deckard is human, and then talk about how that changes IF Deckard is a replicant and what that means in order to actually examine the real beauty of the film as a work of art...rather than a bunch of chest beating neanderthalic yelling about who's got the better source for their argument and thumping about how they're right and the other group is dumb and somehow ruining the movie by having a favored opinion.
Watching people have this argument is like sitting in an audience during a performance of Waiting for Godot and having no-one around you understand why it's a comedy.
Rachel's lack of expiration date is only mentioned in the original theatrical release. Not in DC or Final Cut.
Point being: There's going to be canon issues with this movie, and most likely nobody who likes any version of the original is going to be totally happy with it, even if it is amazing.
Just a small nitpick...we don't know that he said this about Blade Runner 2 either, we only know the Ridley Scott is saying that Harrison said it.
Being in denial is often quite fairly equated with being an asshole.
Not only *all of the above*, but also you have to do it in what for many is the fiercest, politically motivated, cruelest, pettiest, most vicious social environment we could engineer for you.
Back then we didn't have the propaganda machine on full blast trying to convince you that every child who plays outside is going to be kidnapped, raped, and mutilated by a stranger they chatted with online once.
oh, how very Phil Dick. :)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.
Does this mean we'll finally get to see episode 201 again? Seeing as how it's not allowed to show on southparkstudios.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
wtf are you even talking about? No, it's not surprising that not many black USians work for facebook. Seeing as how not that many Black USians work for tech companies of any sort. Wouldn't you think the latter has a lot more to do with facebook's potential diversity, or lack thereof? Wanting to be diverse doesn't mean refusing to hire white men if that's the majority of the available pool of applicants (not even getting into who's better qualified).
When it uses the same combination as my luggage!
You in fact SHOULD be concerned about this technology now, even if it's currently ineffective...because it won't be ineffective or useless forever.
>The alternative says to the criminal that he is free to commit all manner of mayhem.
Legal punishment as a deterrent has been proven not to work.
It's not like Harrison Ford needs the money, so I can't imagine he'd sign on if it wasn't a good part.
Did you watch Kingdom of The Crystal Skull?
He picked the wrong year to ask his questions in the manner in which he did...also the wrong people. Zoe Quinn has been harassed to the point of blatant abuse by a particularly nasty part of the gamer community...death threats, forum-organized raids, and sexually harassing phone calls to her cell among other things. How she presents herself to the indie community as a woman and a developer is a very big deal at the moment. The indie teams are protective of each other and extremely protective of their individual images among their fans and supporters....this is a very big deal.
Also the show wasn't originally conceived of as the craptastic mess Matti turned it into once they got started. So okay, this wasn't quite as bad as Matti walking up to a female rape victim and asking her on camera if she thinks "women are asking for it..." but I'm pretty sure from some of the dev's standpoints, it wasn't too far from that either.
The "gender nonsense" was not a real question. It was an insult...and it came at a time when a significant portion of the gamer community has just begun recovering from an uproar about women developers...and it's been such a hot-button issue that one of the women on this show not that long ago was receiving death threats from the members of the gaming community. Jimquisition has some great thoughts and insights on this issue.
The question of women's contributions and the benefits or disadvantages of women in a dev team is completely valid to extremely ignorant masses, and the answers could be very interesting and inspiring, but Matti's questions amounted to "What do you think Chett? Do women suck at this?" "What about you? You're a Woman...do you suck at this? or do you think the fact that you're pretty might help your team with the judges?"
fuck him, the worthless fucking fuck.
Not sure whether to mod this informative or insightful...