Why is your political system designed around campaign contributions? Why the hell do you think that is the deciding factor?
Because your message is meaningless if no one hears it. Air time is expensive, and while the campaigns don't need to pay for the endless debates that have aired, commercials need to be paid for, people walking door to door have to be paid for. Everything that gets mailed to a house has to get paid for.
Maybe try to use live animals and just animate the mouths?
That doesn't work for a few reasons:
*) Animals can only rarely be directed, and many films with large animal casts tend to be expensive boondoggles because real animals cause delays. Real animals don't do what the writer/director wants. Real animals put together on set can attack and kill each other. Real animals are extremely difficult to film. Given the sheer number of animal shots used in the Jungle Book, as well as the -type- of shots they were able to get.. yeah. That was not going to happen with real animals, not unless the budget ballooned from its already-high value.
*) Remember that Conan O'Brien skit (many others have done this as well) where they show a picture of a celebrity's face, and super-impose a different person's speaking mouth on them? Sure, it was intended to look bad, but it also illustrates a truth: speaking is more than just lips and jaw moving. Animating just the mouth has never been convincing. You need the body language as well. If you want a "performance," a real animal is just not going to give it to you.
Things rightwingers believe: There is some mysterious force preventing our raising atmospheric CO2 content from increasing the earth's temperature as well defined and established physical mechanisms would cause There is some mysterious force raising the earth's temperature, in parallel with our raising atmospheric CO2 content.
Whoa, hold on. The usual story I hear from deniers is that the Earth's temperature is NOT rising, that these are all politically-funded manipulations of faulty data. A very few might believe that AGW is actually happening, but blame volcanoes or otherwise be unsure of what causes it, but doubt mankind's culpability. I don't think that line of thinking if very mainstream in denier circles though; I thought they were generally more hardcore.
Aaaah, but many people do not have houses. Thus they can't crank up the sound system.
then it must suck to be you....
Well it used to suck to be me, though the person in the apartment next door was my hearing-impaired grandmother, so I got away with playing sound louder than I currently play in my house.
But anyway, that's a full 1/3 of the US population, and that doesn't count people in houses which share a wall with the next house over, which might as well be an apartment (Although maybe that's balanced out by the people who rent houses as opposed to apartments). So... it sucks to be 110 million people in the US. In more highly-dense developed European and Asian communities, I expect that percentage is far higher than the US, where private home ownership is more commonly prized.
The theater I go to has a projectionist who is fast with the laser pointer. If he sees a cell phone light, he'll shine the pointer in a pattern (squiggles) on the back of seat in front to shame the person into putting the phone away. It works pretty well.
I think I should have summarized it better as 'Low quality click-bait'.
Sorry, but calling it as I see it.
Oh. Yes, you're absolutely right with that. I still think the taxi anecdote is amusing, but it's definitely more of a casual numerology blog post and not a newsworthy story.
He may have been referring to the stories in 2012 that coal mine owners told their employees, saying they'd be fired if they voted for Obama because Obama was going to stop all coal mining.
A genocide, a deliberate destruction of Appalachian culture? You kidding?
It's about coal. If Appalachian culture is so tightly woven to coal mining that it CANNOT survive without lots of coal mining, then maybe you don't have culture. It's certainly not worth continuing to mine coal just to "keep alive Appalachian culture."
Gives a damn is good. Deliberately pointing traffic for a story on *sports* while masking it as tech by trying to bring math into the equation...
Are you saying Math and Sports do not intersect? Sabremetricians would respectfully disagree!
That said, I thought it was kindof a dumb story about the number 73. I quickly scanned through it to see if there was more to it than the summary that summarized the first two paragraphs of the story, but really, that was about it. It actually had almost nothing to do with sports and was more "here's the number 73. Isn't it cool? Here are some other things that had to do with the number 73." That anecdote about the taxi cab number was the only somewhat interesting point to make from either a sports or a math perspective.
Having some dimwit complain about the audio mixing because he/she doesn't feel it is appropriate for THEIR tastes is just as annoying. You are the perfect customer for Monster cables and a home theater!
The sound had better be worth pumping up. I've been in theaters where the sound was too loud. Not "I'm an old person, turn it down!" loud, but "the machine gun fire in Die Another Day is physically painful to listen to" loud. If the loudness causes pain, it can easily cause hearing damage, and it is -objectively- too loud. So yeah, sometimes I've gone to movies where the sound was cranked up too high. That hasn't happened in awhile, though.
Problem then is you look down onto the texters, and you'd be able to see all their distracting, flashy cell phone lights. There would have to be a line-of-sight blocker as well.
It's not about growing a pair, it's about maximizing income.
Do you:
A) Keep the kids out, because they want to use their phone more than they want to see a movie, or B) Keep the old people out, because they can't handle modern technology and society.
The answer is: do which ever one makes you the most income.
I think it's focusing on the short term at the expense of the long term. They're not building good relationships by alienating all their existing customers, just to bring in customers whose loyalty is suspect anyway. The millennials will move on to the next toy experience, and everyone will treat the theater as a place to be avoided.. the place to see the movie because thanks to deals between theaters and studios, it's the ONLY way to legally see a movie at release. Going there because you don't have much choice if you want to see the movie is undercutting their long-term sustainability.
As such, we'll buy the giganto screen TV, and a house shaking sound system to match, then watch the show in the comfort of our home when it releases to Pay Per view, Netflix, Blu-Ray, whatever floats your boat.
Aaaah, but many people do not have houses. Thus they can't crank up the sound system.
I'm curious if you have a reference for this. I've heard that chain of events as well, but when I did a quick search for it, the only reference I could find to the definition of sexual relations being limited to full intercourse was that it was a definition proposed by Clinton's lawyers, and that definition was explicitly rejected by the court. Maybe I missed something obvious.
Ever since the Democrats 'popped their cherry' by challenging the the definition of 'is'
It was a proper question to ask, because guess what, the 'is' in the question had an implication that wasn't stated. This was after Lewinsky had left the White House and there was no more contact between her and Clinton, meaning that particular affair was over. He was asked the question, is there anything going on between you two? 'No' would have been a technically correct answer because they weren't seeing each other.... anymore. But that wasn't what the question was really trying to get after. What did he mean by "Is?" did he really mean only now, or any time in the past? Does "is" also mean "was?" No surprise those sorts of statements made Mr. Starr pretty suspicious.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" seems pretty obviously a lie, though. Harder to get more direct than that!
True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge
I think it's sliiiiightly different, but with the same result. They love the war they have going with each other. Each tries to expand the executive when their side is in charge, and each side fights like hell to stop it when the other guy is in power.
Washington was one of the most mild.
The political rancor could get just as strident in the late 1700s, but what made Washington so amazing is that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists pleaded with him to run. The two opposing ideologies all agreed that Washington, the only US President ever with no political party, was the correct choice, and they all agreed on this twice!
whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.
I think the media is now inherently polarizing. I'd have thought that more openness in communication would bring people together more, but it's actually just made it easier to create and find echo chambers where fringe opinions become reinforced and more mainstreamed.
thank you for your thoughts, your perspective mirrors mine. In 1974 President Nixon resigned, because he got caught lying. In 1998, President Clinton got caught lying and everyone told me to forget about it
Nixon got caught lying about a burglary at the DNC's headquarters that attempted to throw the 1972 Presidential Election. Clinton got caught lying about having an affair with a staffer in the White House.
and now... "There's classified, and then there's classified"
You know he's right, and it's not some horrible scandal or perversion of justice? There have always been different levels of "classified." It's pointless to say "oh yes, this stuff is totally open to the public, this other stuff must only ever be shown to the President or members of Congress," and have nothing in between. Some Classified stuff is not that secure, yet not public. Other classified stuff.... well, people have been executed for sharing it with other countries. Who determines what level of classification it gets? The people who know what it means, of course. And the level of classification can be changed, yes even by fiat, over time. What the hell is wrong with that?
It's worth listening to the original words, and not to the submitted headline or the submitter, who twisted the meaning of the words because he has a hate-boner for Obama and a political axe to grind.
Almost there. The new social rules are based on privilege ratios. The person with less privilege can do whatever they want to someone with more. The group with the most privilege is the patriarchy, thus why racism, bigotry, and sexism against white men don't exist. The last privileged group is black women, because they are the opposite (keep rationality out of this to understand it). So a black woman can do whatever she wants to a white woman because the white woman has more privilege. Past actions have no say in the matter. She can hate on men all she wants but that is not relevant because of the patriarchy.
I'm trying to figure out how serious this is. This seems a little too blatant to be openly stated by one of the many who hold these beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is your political system designed around campaign contributions? Why the hell do you think that is the deciding factor?
Because your message is meaningless if no one hears it. Air time is expensive, and while the campaigns don't need to pay for the endless debates that have aired, commercials need to be paid for, people walking door to door have to be paid for. Everything that gets mailed to a house has to get paid for.
US election law isn't really equiped ti deal with an entitity with FB size and reach working fir or against a candidate
The hold that Facebook has over Americans is nothing compared to the hold that William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer once held!
I don't know of any conservatives that will refuse to have lunch with a co-worker who is liberal
Seems a whole bunch of them refuse to have lunch, or even talk to Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and he's not even that liberal.
But yeah, the inabilty to hold a note is no impediment if a person is "hot" enough today.
I can't believe I actually miss Randy Jackson, judge on American Idol, and his "sorry, that was a little pitchy, dawg."
Maybe try to use live animals and just animate the mouths?
That doesn't work for a few reasons:
*) Animals can only rarely be directed, and many films with large animal casts tend to be expensive boondoggles because real animals cause delays. Real animals don't do what the writer/director wants. Real animals put together on set can attack and kill each other. Real animals are extremely difficult to film. Given the sheer number of animal shots used in the Jungle Book, as well as the -type- of shots they were able to get.. yeah. That was not going to happen with real animals, not unless the budget ballooned from its already-high value.
*) Remember that Conan O'Brien skit (many others have done this as well) where they show a picture of a celebrity's face, and super-impose a different person's speaking mouth on them? Sure, it was intended to look bad, but it also illustrates a truth: speaking is more than just lips and jaw moving. Animating just the mouth has never been convincing. You need the body language as well. If you want a "performance," a real animal is just not going to give it to you.
Things rightwingers believe:
There is some mysterious force preventing our raising atmospheric CO2 content from increasing the earth's temperature as well defined and established physical mechanisms would cause
There is some mysterious force raising the earth's temperature, in parallel with our raising atmospheric CO2 content.
Whoa, hold on. The usual story I hear from deniers is that the Earth's temperature is NOT rising, that these are all politically-funded manipulations of faulty data. A very few might believe that AGW is actually happening, but blame volcanoes or otherwise be unsure of what causes it, but doubt mankind's culpability. I don't think that line of thinking if very mainstream in denier circles though; I thought they were generally more hardcore.
I think he's an idiot. Not even those of us in the US use that sort of distinction.
Well, we can certainly tell where you stand.
Halting immigration from countries with known terror problems is perfectly reasonable
He didn't say that. He said halting immigration from Muslims, regardless of country of origin.
Aaaah, but many people do not have houses. Thus they can't crank up the sound system.
then it must suck to be you....
Well it used to suck to be me, though the person in the apartment next door was my hearing-impaired grandmother, so I got away with playing sound louder than I currently play in my house.
But anyway, that's a full 1/3 of the US population, and that doesn't count people in houses which share a wall with the next house over, which might as well be an apartment (Although maybe that's balanced out by the people who rent houses as opposed to apartments). So... it sucks to be 110 million people in the US. In more highly-dense developed European and Asian communities, I expect that percentage is far higher than the US, where private home ownership is more commonly prized.
The theater I go to has a projectionist who is fast with the laser pointer. If he sees a cell phone light, he'll shine the pointer in a pattern (squiggles) on the back of seat in front to shame the person into putting the phone away. It works pretty well.
I think I should have summarized it better as 'Low quality click-bait'.
Sorry, but calling it as I see it.
Oh. Yes, you're absolutely right with that.
I still think the taxi anecdote is amusing, but it's definitely more of a casual numerology blog post and not a newsworthy story.
He may have been referring to the stories in 2012 that coal mine owners told their employees, saying they'd be fired if they voted for Obama because Obama was going to stop all coal mining.
A genocide, a deliberate destruction of Appalachian culture? You kidding?
It's about coal. If Appalachian culture is so tightly woven to coal mining that it CANNOT survive without lots of coal mining, then maybe you don't have culture. It's certainly not worth continuing to mine coal just to "keep alive Appalachian culture."
Gives a damn is good. Deliberately pointing traffic for a story on *sports* while masking it as tech by trying to bring math into the equation...
Are you saying Math and Sports do not intersect? Sabremetricians would respectfully disagree!
That said, I thought it was kindof a dumb story about the number 73. I quickly scanned through it to see if there was more to it than the summary that summarized the first two paragraphs of the story, but really, that was about it. It actually had almost nothing to do with sports and was more "here's the number 73. Isn't it cool? Here are some other things that had to do with the number 73." That anecdote about the taxi cab number was the only somewhat interesting point to make from either a sports or a math perspective.
But I like Whipslash. Baby steps.
Having some dimwit complain about the audio mixing because he/she doesn't feel it is appropriate for THEIR tastes is just as annoying. You are the perfect customer for Monster cables and a home theater!
The sound had better be worth pumping up.
I've been in theaters where the sound was too loud. Not "I'm an old person, turn it down!" loud, but "the machine gun fire in Die Another Day is physically painful to listen to" loud. If the loudness causes pain, it can easily cause hearing damage, and it is -objectively- too loud. So yeah, sometimes I've gone to movies where the sound was cranked up too high. That hasn't happened in awhile, though.
Problem then is you look down onto the texters, and you'd be able to see all their distracting, flashy cell phone lights.
There would have to be a line-of-sight blocker as well.
It's not about growing a pair, it's about maximizing income.
Do you:
A) Keep the kids out, because they want to use their phone more than they want to see a movie, or
B) Keep the old people out, because they can't handle modern technology and society.
The answer is: do which ever one makes you the most income.
I think it's focusing on the short term at the expense of the long term. They're not building good relationships by alienating all their existing customers, just to bring in customers whose loyalty is suspect anyway. The millennials will move on to the next toy experience, and everyone will treat the theater as a place to be avoided.. the place to see the movie because thanks to deals between theaters and studios, it's the ONLY way to legally see a movie at release. Going there because you don't have much choice if you want to see the movie is undercutting their long-term sustainability.
As such, we'll buy the giganto screen TV, and a house shaking sound system to match, then watch the show in the comfort of our home when it releases to Pay Per view, Netflix, Blu-Ray, whatever floats your boat.
Aaaah, but many people do not have houses. Thus they can't crank up the sound system.
I'm curious if you have a reference for this. I've heard that chain of events as well, but when I did a quick search for it, the only reference I could find to the definition of sexual relations being limited to full intercourse was that it was a definition proposed by Clinton's lawyers, and that definition was explicitly rejected by the court. Maybe I missed something obvious.
Ever since the Democrats 'popped their cherry' by challenging the the definition of 'is'
It was a proper question to ask, because guess what, the 'is' in the question had an implication that wasn't stated. This was after Lewinsky had left the White House and there was no more contact between her and Clinton, meaning that particular affair was over. He was asked the question, is there anything going on between you two? 'No' would have been a technically correct answer because they weren't seeing each other.... anymore. But that wasn't what the question was really trying to get after. What did he mean by "Is?" did he really mean only now, or any time in the past? Does "is" also mean "was?" No surprise those sorts of statements made Mr. Starr pretty suspicious.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" seems pretty obviously a lie, though. Harder to get more direct than that!
True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge
I think it's sliiiiightly different, but with the same result. They love the war they have going with each other. Each tries to expand the executive when their side is in charge, and each side fights like hell to stop it when the other guy is in power.
Washington was one of the most mild.
The political rancor could get just as strident in the late 1700s, but what made Washington so amazing is that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists pleaded with him to run. The two opposing ideologies all agreed that Washington, the only US President ever with no political party, was the correct choice, and they all agreed on this twice!
whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.
I think the media is now inherently polarizing. I'd have thought that more openness in communication would bring people together more, but it's actually just made it easier to create and find echo chambers where fringe opinions become reinforced and more mainstreamed.
thank you for your thoughts, your perspective mirrors mine. In 1974 President Nixon resigned, because he got caught lying. In 1998, President Clinton got caught lying and everyone told me to forget about it
Nixon got caught lying about a burglary at the DNC's headquarters that attempted to throw the 1972 Presidential Election.
Clinton got caught lying about having an affair with a staffer in the White House.
Do you think those situations are equal?
and now ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"
You know he's right, and it's not some horrible scandal or perversion of justice?
There have always been different levels of "classified." It's pointless to say "oh yes, this stuff is totally open to the public, this other stuff must only ever be shown to the President or members of Congress," and have nothing in between. Some Classified stuff is not that secure, yet not public. Other classified stuff.... well, people have been executed for sharing it with other countries. Who determines what level of classification it gets? The people who know what it means, of course. And the level of classification can be changed, yes even by fiat, over time. What the hell is wrong with that?
It's worth listening to the original words, and not to the submitted headline or the submitter, who twisted the meaning of the words because he has a hate-boner for Obama and a political axe to grind.
Almost there. The new social rules are based on privilege ratios. The person with less privilege can do whatever they want to someone with more. The group with the most privilege is the patriarchy, thus why racism, bigotry, and sexism against white men don't exist. The last privileged group is black women, because they are the opposite (keep rationality out of this to understand it). So a black woman can do whatever she wants to a white woman because the white woman has more privilege. Past actions have no say in the matter. She can hate on men all she wants but that is not relevant because of the patriarchy.
I'm trying to figure out how serious this is. This seems a little too blatant to be openly stated by one of the many who hold these beliefs.