I doubt the AC was Florian Mueller, but Florian does have a Slashdot account and did post here: http://slashdot.org/~FlorianMueller. It looks like he stopped posting in June after everyone got sick of them.
So if you don't think that I should get shot if I choose not to pay for some government program that I disagree with then you oppose mandatory taxation? Because as it stands right now if I choose not to pay after a series of letters armed men will come to my house to kidnap me and if I resit them in the same way as I would resist any other home invader they will shoot me.
There is a difference between arguing that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and then not actually paying taxes. Refusing to pay the taxes required to live in our society is an action (action through inaction).
If you want to live in society, then you get to play by that society's rules. If you don't, in older, slightly less civilized days you got run out of town, exiled, imprisoned, or just outright killed. Now we formalize the punishment process and you'll face 'merely' prison for being recalcitrant. Also these days, America has expanded to completely fill its borders. You can't move out to a shack in Montana to escape governmental rules, but you can move to a different country.
Well then that would be a pretty revolutionary reform of our entire economic system.
Yeah, unhappily, it would be. The responsibility cutout implied by the existence of a public corporation really disturbs me.
Well, the executives who make the decisions (and the peons who carry them out) for cases like, say, the Bhopal disaster are still legally liable. Being employed by a corporation doesn't shield you from criminal acts you approve or take part in. There just has to be the political will to carry that out.
Great! I will sell you my house within 100 miles of Fukushima with a nice discount! (you know, I have offered this many times to nuke fanboys, and they never seem to take up the offer . . . Could BS travel more easily from the mouth than the wallet?)
I imagine the number of nuke fanboys who want to buy your house is about the same now as it was before the earthquake/tsunami. That is, about 0^H, ok, apparently just dknight. Good luck with that!
I don't want to buy it and the reasons don't have anything to do with the nuclear situation: 1) I don't want to live in Japan. As a gaijin, I have a pretty good idea of the limitations that would be placed on me. 2) I especially don't want to live in semi-remote northern Japan. 3) I don't want to leave my current house that I've invested heavily in, thank you very much, nor the dream job that I worked for years to get. 4) I have no particular desire to entirely upend my life just so I can quell your smug self-righteousness.
Should you be forced to pay 1000 bucks out of your pocket because some company in your portfolio made a bad decision?
Yes, you invested in that company. You should bear some liability for its actions.
Well then that would be a pretty revolutionary reform of our entire economic system. The whole point of public stock is that it shields stock owners from liability for company actions that they did not themselves commit. Otherwise, the entire public stock system would collapse (almost no one in the country would want to own any stock) along with a majority of the US's citizens retirement plans. Unless every other country did the same, the US economy would suffer irreparable damage.
Oh, and the Fukushima meltdown had started before the tsunami hit.
Oh, and that statement needs a source.
The grandparent had repeated as actual fact a mid-May story from Reuters where Fukushima officials speculated that the meltdown might have started started before the tsunami. Said story had its own full Slashdot article, but I have yet to hear of anything along those lines since.
Around where I live, Best Buy is about the only game in town when it comes to A/V equipment and computers, since all the computer stores closed down. I don't mind ordering online for computers, but for most A/V equipment I want to see it and hear it before I buy it.
You have a 100 foot cable connecting a bluray player and your display... why?
Could be a home theater installation. If you have a projector and all of your equipment (PS3, etc) is in the front of the room while the HDMI cable has to go into and up the wall, across the ceiling, and down again into the projector... well, 100' is still pretty much pushing it, that sounds like an extra long cable. But this sort of setup is not uncommon.
We have turkey vultures that return to nest in a tree on our property every year. They're intelligent critters, and they do not "finish off" injured animals. They do clean up roadkill remarkably quickly. Late in the summer their young leave the nest and the parents follow them around our yard as they learn to fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Vulture Its primary form of defense is regurgitating semi-digested meat.
Ah. I was going to point out that I always called them buzzards until someone told me it was politically incorrect.
Unfortunately, I will ruin the joke and play biology bird/nerd for a moment and note that "buzzards" are hunting hawks, not vultures, so it's politically and biologically incorrect!
Very true... Suppose there's a hungry vampire just in front of you, about to die if not by your blood. Which right to live is bigger? (from a book I read a long time ago). Let's get a not so hypothetical and fantastic case, let's say you're in front of a severe renal patient and known to be a compatible donor. You don't want to live with a single kidney, which right is more important, his right to live or your right not to have your organs harvested?
This was actually the scenario (or close to it) used to defend the moral right of allowing an abortion in the case of rape/incest. The notion that your body cannot be used to provide life without your consent (although in the philosophy readings I saw, the actual example was 'what if Fred Astaire needed one of your kidneys...").
maybe maybe not. firefox's new release schedule basically renamed minor bug fixes as major releases. they are not working any faster, they just changed how they name things more or less.
Worse than that, since major releases are so frequent, your minor bug fixes will get bundled in with major browser changes, making it difficult or impossible to separate the two for those who need browser stability but also bug fixes.
If it does not free the memory when you are closing the tabs, then when
I would guess very little memory is needed for each tab, so closing a few will make little difference. At least, little memory compared to the core browser, it's addons, various code engines, etc.
OK kids, let's see if we can help JayJayAarh find the flaw in his cunning plan.
You've never worked at a company that implements its internal employee timecard/timesheet system through a web site. There's nothing more "mission critical" from the employees' perspective at that point.
That's fine, and I certainly agree that the protagonist's despair and pain fit with the rest of the movie. But suicide is not the same as sacrifice. You can have a sacrificial suicide, but the protagonist's suicide was not that.
Sorry, I forgot to address the X-men 3 scene with Dark Phoenix: yes, that was definitely over-the-top, with him regenerating faster than she could disintegrate him with her god-like powers
I suppose you could make the case that Phoenix wasn't really trying very hard, since Wolverine was appealing to her human side. But meh, the original X-Men Dark Phoenix Saga played out so much better with Professor X and Phoenix holding a psychic duel while Jean struggled to regain control.
In his more recent incarnations and especially in the movies, I don't think Wolverine is a good example of what you're trying to say... regenerating faster than he can be disintegrated by the phoenix force, a billion super powers based on his animal nature, being able to survive an adamantium bullet to the head point blank range and the worse that happens is he loses his memory... He's a bit over the top now.
What? None of that stuff happened, what are you talking about? Wolverine? He hasn't been seen in comic books since the 80s. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do in X-Men 3, if they ever make it.
Cut out the romance- I'm not anti-romance, but I get that in every other film. This is superhero fiction. Give me more god-like beings punching one another. It's not like Superman/Lois Lane where it's pretty ingrained into the mythos.
When you have a movie that costs as much as Green Lantern does (any movie in that cost class), the filmmakers are under immense pressure to put as many people in the seats as possible. What are the "most (financially) successful" movies? Ones that hit multiple sections of The Four Quadrants. The link goes into a nice amount of detail, but the idea is that the movie-going audience is split into four demographic groups, young and old, male and female. If your movie has great appeal to young men and older women (think Titanic) then you have box-office gold.
So don't expect to see the "romance" angles disappear from action movies. They're just clumsy attempts to appeal to a larger demographic and rake in more money.
It's the same thing, as the concept of the "Übermensch"/"Übersoldat" in Nazi Germany.
I loved one comparison I saw on a website on a preview for Captain America: "So now, augmented by the Super-Soldier Serum, blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-chinned Captain America fights against the Nazis and everything they stand for."
I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.
I'm wondering what was created that you never got to see.
Really expensive movies are often "really expensive" for one or more of three reasons: 1) Huge salaries for the actors (this doesn't appear to be the case) 2) Incredible/elaborate special effects where money was thrown at an effects problem and/or the producer couldn't or wasn't in the position to say no to the director (generally a producer watching costs will say to the director "well ok, you can do this sort of effect/shot, but you'll have to give up something else that's expensive, choose which one you want.") 3) The story wasn't working, requiring rewrites that forced them to do reshoots and scrap previously-completed work.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't know you frequented /. Florian.
I doubt the AC was Florian Mueller, but Florian does have a Slashdot account and did post here: http://slashdot.org/~FlorianMueller. It looks like he stopped posting in June after everyone got sick of them.
So if you don't think that I should get shot if I choose not to pay for some government program that I disagree with then you oppose mandatory taxation? Because as it stands right now if I choose not to pay after a series of letters armed men will come to my house to kidnap me and if I resit them in the same way as I would resist any other home invader they will shoot me.
There is a difference between arguing that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and then not actually paying taxes. Refusing to pay the taxes required to live in our society is an action (action through inaction).
If you want to live in society, then you get to play by that society's rules. If you don't, in older, slightly less civilized days you got run out of town, exiled, imprisoned, or just outright killed. Now we formalize the punishment process and you'll face 'merely' prison for being recalcitrant. Also these days, America has expanded to completely fill its borders. You can't move out to a shack in Montana to escape governmental rules, but you can move to a different country.
Well then that would be a pretty revolutionary reform of our entire economic system.
Yeah, unhappily, it would be. The responsibility cutout implied by the existence of a public corporation really disturbs me.
Well, the executives who make the decisions (and the peons who carry them out) for cases like, say, the Bhopal disaster are still legally liable. Being employed by a corporation doesn't shield you from criminal acts you approve or take part in. There just has to be the political will to carry that out.
Great! I will sell you my house within 100 miles of Fukushima with a nice discount! (you know, I have offered this many times to nuke fanboys, and they never seem to take up the offer . . . Could BS travel more easily from the mouth than the wallet?)
I imagine the number of nuke fanboys who want to buy your house is about the same now as it was before the earthquake/tsunami. That is, about 0^H, ok, apparently just dknight. Good luck with that!
I don't want to buy it and the reasons don't have anything to do with the nuclear situation:
1) I don't want to live in Japan. As a gaijin, I have a pretty good idea of the limitations that would be placed on me.
2) I especially don't want to live in semi-remote northern Japan.
3) I don't want to leave my current house that I've invested heavily in, thank you very much, nor the dream job that I worked for years to get.
4) I have no particular desire to entirely upend my life just so I can quell your smug self-righteousness.
Should you be forced to pay 1000 bucks out of your pocket because some company in your portfolio made a bad decision?
Yes, you invested in that company. You should bear some liability for its actions.
Well then that would be a pretty revolutionary reform of our entire economic system. The whole point of public stock is that it shields stock owners from liability for company actions that they did not themselves commit. Otherwise, the entire public stock system would collapse (almost no one in the country would want to own any stock) along with a majority of the US's citizens retirement plans. Unless every other country did the same, the US economy would suffer irreparable damage.
Oh, and the Fukushima meltdown had started before the tsunami hit.
Oh, and that statement needs a source.
The grandparent had repeated as actual fact a mid-May story from Reuters where Fukushima officials speculated that the meltdown might have started started before the tsunami. Said story had its own full Slashdot article, but I have yet to hear of anything along those lines since.
(Black and white video of a duck's penis; it was a meme a while ago. Not at all shocking, could start an interesting office conversation.)
Yeah, probably with HR!
s/ looking for a high-end camera//
Around where I live, Best Buy is about the only game in town when it comes to A/V equipment and computers, since all the computer stores closed down. I don't mind ordering online for computers, but for most A/V equipment I want to see it and hear it before I buy it.
$999 refurbished? What do they do to them?
You have a 100 foot cable connecting a bluray player and your display... why?
Could be a home theater installation. If you have a projector and all of your equipment (PS3, etc) is in the front of the room while the HDMI cable has to go into and up the wall, across the ceiling, and down again into the projector... well, 100' is still pretty much pushing it, that sounds like an extra long cable. But this sort of setup is not uncommon.
We have turkey vultures that return to nest in a tree on our property every year. They're intelligent critters, and they do not "finish off" injured animals. They do clean up roadkill remarkably quickly. Late in the summer their young leave the nest and the parents follow them around our yard as they learn to fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Vulture
Its primary form of defense is regurgitating semi-digested meat.
And defecating on its own legs.
Ah. I was going to point out that I always called them buzzards until someone told me it was politically incorrect.
Unfortunately, I will ruin the joke and play biology bird/nerd for a moment and note that "buzzards" are hunting hawks, not vultures, so it's politically and biologically incorrect!
Actually his comment seems more relevant then your trollish comment.
His comment shows that the only things he knows about vultures come from really shitty movies and comic books.
A turkey vulture will no more "finish you off" than you would fly up a thermal.
Very true... Suppose there's a hungry vampire just in front of you, about to die if not by your blood. Which right to live is bigger? (from a book I read a long time ago). Let's get a not so hypothetical and fantastic case, let's say you're in front of a severe renal patient and known to be a compatible donor. You don't want to live with a single kidney, which right is more important, his right to live or your right not to have your organs harvested?
This was actually the scenario (or close to it) used to defend the moral right of allowing an abortion in the case of rape/incest. The notion that your body cannot be used to provide life without your consent (although in the philosophy readings I saw, the actual example was 'what if Fred Astaire needed one of your kidneys...").
maybe maybe not. firefox's new release schedule basically renamed minor bug fixes as major releases. they are not working any faster, they just changed how they name things more or less.
Worse than that, since major releases are so frequent, your minor bug fixes will get bundled in with major browser changes, making it difficult or impossible to separate the two for those who need browser stability but also bug fixes.
If it does not free the memory when you are closing the tabs, then when
I would guess very little memory is needed for each tab, so closing a few will make little difference. At least, little memory compared to the core browser, it's addons, various code engines, etc.
OK kids, let's see if we can help JayJayAarh find the flaw in his cunning plan.
You've never worked at a company that implements its internal employee timecard/timesheet system through a web site. There's nothing more "mission critical" from the employees' perspective at that point.
That's fine, and I certainly agree that the protagonist's despair and pain fit with the rest of the movie. But suicide is not the same as sacrifice. You can have a sacrificial suicide, but the protagonist's suicide was not that.
Hey, it worked for Kirk!
And for that engineer guy in Galaxy Quest.
Sorry, I forgot to address the X-men 3 scene with Dark Phoenix: yes, that was definitely over-the-top, with him regenerating faster than she could disintegrate him with her god-like powers
I suppose you could make the case that Phoenix wasn't really trying very hard, since Wolverine was appealing to her human side. But meh, the original X-Men Dark Phoenix Saga played out so much better with Professor X and Phoenix holding a psychic duel while Jean struggled to regain control.
In his more recent incarnations and especially in the movies, I don't think Wolverine is a good example of what you're trying to say... regenerating faster than he can be disintegrated by the phoenix force, a billion super powers based on his animal nature, being able to survive an adamantium bullet to the head point blank range and the worse that happens is he loses his memory... He's a bit over the top now.
What? None of that stuff happened, what are you talking about?
Wolverine? He hasn't been seen in comic books since the 80s.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do in X-Men 3, if they ever make it.
I'm in denial.
Cut out the romance- I'm not anti-romance, but I get that in every other film. This is superhero fiction. Give me more god-like beings punching one another. It's not like Superman/Lois Lane where it's pretty ingrained into the mythos.
When you have a movie that costs as much as Green Lantern does (any movie in that cost class), the filmmakers are under immense pressure to put as many people in the seats as possible. What are the "most (financially) successful" movies? Ones that hit multiple sections of The Four Quadrants. The link goes into a nice amount of detail, but the idea is that the movie-going audience is split into four demographic groups, young and old, male and female. If your movie has great appeal to young men and older women (think Titanic) then you have box-office gold.
So don't expect to see the "romance" angles disappear from action movies. They're just clumsy attempts to appeal to a larger demographic and rake in more money.
I'll say. I got more enjoyment from Iron Man and Thor than I did from many of the 'first-tier' superhero movies of the last decade.
It's the same thing, as the concept of the "Übermensch"/"Übersoldat" in Nazi Germany.
I loved one comparison I saw on a website on a preview for Captain America: "So now, augmented by the Super-Soldier Serum, blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-chinned Captain America fights against the Nazis and everything they stand for."
I can't see how they spent $200 million on that turkey. There aren't that many sets, and the big ones are obviously green-screen work. The alien city (?) is so fuzzy that it looks like bad video game art.
I'm wondering what was created that you never got to see.
Really expensive movies are often "really expensive" for one or more of three reasons:
1) Huge salaries for the actors (this doesn't appear to be the case)
2) Incredible/elaborate special effects where money was thrown at an effects problem and/or the producer couldn't or wasn't in the position to say no to the director (generally a producer watching costs will say to the director "well ok, you can do this sort of effect/shot, but you'll have to give up something else that's expensive, choose which one you want.")
3) The story wasn't working, requiring rewrites that forced them to do reshoots and scrap previously-completed work.
I have a sneaking suspicion #3 was at play.