The third... I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I lost it at the "Destroy the enemy using 20th Century Popular Music" part. The entire thing felt like it was written by that teacher you had when you were a kid that was always trying to be hip and cool and "down with" the kids. It was embarrassing.
I don't know, I always thought it was a little amusing that Star Trek writers believed only pre-20th century classical music would survive the test of time and is all that folks in Star Fleet would listen to. At least Sisko liked Jazz, but why wouldn't they listen to, say, 20th century rock/rap/etc? The whole thing smacks of super-old guys saying "in my day we didn't listen to this rock and roll nonsense. Smart people in the future won't either. Humbug!"
Though my favorite musical anachronism was the TNG parody edit where Data and Chief O'Brien set down to present a selection of Earth music for visiting vulcan ambassador Sarak. Their choices were... interesting..
I don't know, after the bad Voyager, the equally bad Enterprise, and the absolute disaster that was Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek needed to be shaken up. The Abrams movies, schlocky as they were, were a big improvement over all of that.
I haven't really liked anything Star Trek put out since DS9, and even that had wild swings in quality.
That also sounds a lot like The Best of Both Worlds.
Eh? I thought Best of Both Worlds worked pretty decently on multiple levels. You have the sense the whole time of the seeming unstoppability of the Borg, you have the whole plot of Riker refusing promotion while a younger, competent, more-aggressive officer is gunning for his permission, Riker having a hard time letting go of Picard once he's assimilated, et all. And of course, Picard's broken spirit if you consider the followup episode with Picard in France as an unofficial Best of Both Worlds Part 3.
I'm not trying to be a denier here, I really am not! Everything you mentioned IS a reason to prefer the pirated version. As someone who has a reliable, but fairly low-bandwidth network connection, I can empathize. Most of the problems you experience sound like your network connection is crappy. Most likely yours, less likely theirs. Slow as my network connection might be, I don't get dropouts, sudden resolution changes, etc. Now, I CAN get those dropouts on HBO, netflix, blizzcon, etc streaming if a computer in the house decides it's time to download something. There's just no bandwidth to spare. The would explain #1, #2, #4, #5. There's no excuse for #3, #7, or #8. No subtitles? Almost seems like that has to violate some ADA law.
The only "evening prep" is that I shower at night instead of in the morning (I sleep so much better when I'm clean!)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this! People think I'm weird sometimes for showering right before bed. Normally I do shower in the morning, but if I feel particularly grimy at the end of the day... ugh, I just can't sleep like that!
He and his friend bitch about how they are being exploited, and then BUY THE COFFEE ANYWAY. I think the moral of this scene was supposed to be about how the rich exploit the poor, but I think it was really "idiots will be idiots".
I haven't seen the movie, but it might be a good example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy as well. They already put in the "cost" of the wait in line, so there's the emotional desire to get SOMETHING out of that time spent.
That means if he spends one minute 15 seconds making his coffee then it is costing him $2.50 in time alone
That's assuming that he would be working during the time he's making coffee. Maybe it just cuts into his free time, and maybe his free time is far more valuable to him than $2.50.
"I want unlimited power as if I was a king, and there are all these checks and balances! I'm just going to call it the Deep State when I'm not given total power."People with jobs don't like it when I appoint superiors with the directive to shut down their department! Wah wah."
Shesh... This "Big companies make profits = bad" thing is getting old.
When there's no competition, yes, it is bad. That's the whole rationale behind various anti-trust actions. "Excess profits" are balanced out by competition, because they allow companies that are better for the consumer to make gains. Get rid of the competition and there is very little upside. It might as well be a utility and should be treated as such.
Comcast is currently trading at about 19 P/E, earning less than $2.00/share and currently pays under $0.70/share in dividends. I'd be willing to bet that YOU benefit from this, directly, if you have any kind of investment.
I find the "don't criticize/take action against this company because most people probably have it as some type of mutual fund" to be a BS argument. I don't particular care if my funds "benefit" from it, I can guarantee we individually pay a hell of a lot more to more than balance that out.
A la carte cable channels isn't the same thing. Look, through my apartment building, I get basic cable (however that's defined). That gives me a bunch of channels, many of which, I never watch. I pay a little extra for some more channels, but I'm not paying just for those extra three or four channels that I watch. I'm paying for a bundle of channels that include those three or four.
PEople never really wanted a la carte cable channels either. They just wanted specific shows, but the way cable worked that wasn't technologically feasible. It's now technologically feasible for every "channel," (netflix, amazon, etc) to have every show, all the time, but the content companies don't want that either.
That whole episode played out in the court of public opinion exactly how Netflix wanted. But I ask you a serious question. First, has NN gone into effect yet? Nope, it hasn't. So how has this been resolved for Comcast's customers? They ARE watching their Netflix now are they not?
Yes, Netflix is now paying protection money -- Comcast inserted themselves as a middleman, threatening to choke off access. So now, everyone is going to pay more. Comcast customers pay for their Internet access just like they did before the throttling began. Netflix pays for their Internet access, just like their did before the throttling. That's exactly how the Internet worked for a few decades until the ISPs gained trust power. They now have the ability to choke off huge numbers of customers in ways that ISPs back in the old days were incapable of doing. This is what happens when someone has no choice but to purchase your offering: you can charge all sorts of fees, and they'll pay. They have to. So now a third payment is being made, from Netflix to Comcast, for nothing other than to buy access to Comcast's subscribers. That means Netflix has had to raise prices and eat losses which is fine since the ISPs were also content companies trying to kill Netflix's offerings. So we have higher prices to pay for Netflix, all so those coins can go straight to Comcast's coffers.
You can't let every mom and pop ISP tear up the roads. Municipalities give monopoly rights to cable and telco companies because easements on private properties suck. Tearing up the streets sucks and is expensive. The Comcasts and Verizons and AT&Ts get away with this because they CAN. Consumers have no choice. They are not able to choose broadband alternatives. In the glory days of the 90s and the early 00s, we had the Golden Age of DSL, when the telcos were required to lease their lines to ISPS. ISPs popped up, all offering up different plans to entice subscribers. We don't live in that world anymore.
You know, I'd actually be fine with no network neutrality. I really would, if the ISPs didn't own the last mile. If they had no way to dictate any terms, and everyone was on the same footing. But no, ISPs DO own the lines, so if they want these guarantees, I think it's reasonable for us to demand decent behavior from them.
Ah yes, "toll lanes." The lanes whose very existence slows down the rest of the freeway so that some other folks can pay to go faster. Meanwhile, folks who don't pay find that they're closing slower, and that's the beauty of it it: Make a situation worse so that someone will be willing to also pay you to make it better. That's what you get in a society when the almighty dollar is valued higher than anything else.
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps
He didn't say that the right reasons were internment camps. The "right reasons" were protecting against Japanese invasion, and protecting against foreign infiltration and sabotage during wartime. The internment camps were an abhorrent means to get a reasonable end. The camps were not the goal, they were not put into place because jailing Japanese Americans is fun. It was a horrible means to gaining security from Japanese sabotage and attacks, and as the GP stated, the ends do not justify the means.
Yeah, he basically took Eduardo Saverin's story and fictioned it up a little bit. No surprise, that story makes Saverin seem like a saint, and everyone else like a horrible asshole and/or the devil. It also shouldn't shock anyone that serial character assassin Aaron Sorkin liked it enough to adapt it for the Social Network.
I think you will not find anything confirming your idea, but tons of evidence disproving it. You don't know what a dollar is worth, and neither does anyone else.
Money, like everything else in the world including gold, is worth exactly as much as we think it does.
I just make it clear that I'm not interested in giving OR receiving gifts. Folks seem to have no problem with that, and I'm quite comfortable with gathering where presents are flying around and I'm just socializing instead of part of the present frenzy.
The failed Perl scripters hate Rust because they can't comprehend it. The K&R C weenies hate it because it makes them even more obsolete than they already are
I've never used Rust, honestly don't know much about it, so I don't have an opinion on the language itself. You, however, make Rust advocates sound like a bunch of hipster douchebags. But Ed Tice is right, the parent is a great way to troll. I'd been disappointed with the obviousness of the trolling recently, the satire was way to obvious.
A good troll is one who you honestly can't tell is serious or not.
Slashdot Mirror
As so eloquently explained in Screw You, Taxpayer!
Unfortunately the only recourse is to terror bomb "innocent" American citizens
If the Canadians bomb America, I think no one on either side will hate if you start with the mansion where the Baldwin brothers all live.
Sisko took less and less shit the further the seasons went on.
Q: "You hit me! Picard never hit me!"
Sisko: "I'm not Picard."
The third... I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I lost it at the "Destroy the enemy using 20th Century Popular Music" part. The entire thing felt like it was written by that teacher you had when you were a kid that was always trying to be hip and cool and "down with" the kids. It was embarrassing.
I don't know, I always thought it was a little amusing that Star Trek writers believed only pre-20th century classical music would survive the test of time and is all that folks in Star Fleet would listen to. At least Sisko liked Jazz, but why wouldn't they listen to, say, 20th century rock/rap/etc? The whole thing smacks of super-old guys saying "in my day we didn't listen to this rock and roll nonsense. Smart people in the future won't either. Humbug!"
Though my favorite musical anachronism was the TNG parody edit where Data and Chief O'Brien set down to present a selection of Earth music for visiting vulcan ambassador Sarak. Their choices were... interesting..
I don't know, after the bad Voyager, the equally bad Enterprise, and the absolute disaster that was Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek needed to be shaken up. The Abrams movies, schlocky as they were, were a big improvement over all of that.
I haven't really liked anything Star Trek put out since DS9, and even that had wild swings in quality.
That also sounds a lot like The Best of Both Worlds.
Eh? I thought Best of Both Worlds worked pretty decently on multiple levels. You have the sense the whole time of the seeming unstoppability of the Borg, you have the whole plot of Riker refusing promotion while a younger, competent, more-aggressive officer is gunning for his permission, Riker having a hard time letting go of Picard once he's assimilated, et all. And of course, Picard's broken spirit if you consider the followup episode with Picard in France as an unofficial Best of Both Worlds Part 3.
Trolls are neither leftist not right-wing. Trolling is their political philosophy, and all are targets.
I'm not trying to be a denier here, I really am not! Everything you mentioned IS a reason to prefer the pirated version. As someone who has a reliable, but fairly low-bandwidth network connection, I can empathize. Most of the problems you experience sound like your network connection is crappy. Most likely yours, less likely theirs. Slow as my network connection might be, I don't get dropouts, sudden resolution changes, etc. Now, I CAN get those dropouts on HBO, netflix, blizzcon, etc streaming if a computer in the house decides it's time to download something. There's just no bandwidth to spare. The would explain #1, #2, #4, #5. There's no excuse for #3, #7, or #8. No subtitles? Almost seems like that has to violate some ADA law.
The only "evening prep" is that I shower at night instead of in the morning (I sleep so much better when I'm clean!)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this! People think I'm weird sometimes for showering right before bed. Normally I do shower in the morning, but if I feel particularly grimy at the end of the day... ugh, I just can't sleep like that!
He and his friend bitch about how they are being exploited, and then BUY THE COFFEE ANYWAY. I think the moral of this scene was supposed to be about how the rich exploit the poor, but I think it was really "idiots will be idiots".
I haven't seen the movie, but it might be a good example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy as well. They already put in the "cost" of the wait in line, so there's the emotional desire to get SOMETHING out of that time spent.
That means if he spends one minute 15 seconds making his coffee then it is costing him $2.50 in time alone
That's assuming that he would be working during the time he's making coffee.
Maybe it just cuts into his free time, and maybe his free time is far more valuable to him than $2.50.
"I want unlimited power as if I was a king, and there are all these checks and balances! I'm just going to call it the Deep State when I'm not given total power."People with jobs don't like it when I appoint superiors with the directive to shut down their department! Wah wah."
Shesh... This "Big companies make profits = bad" thing is getting old.
When there's no competition, yes, it is bad. That's the whole rationale behind various anti-trust actions. "Excess profits" are balanced out by competition, because they allow companies that are better for the consumer to make gains. Get rid of the competition and there is very little upside. It might as well be a utility and should be treated as such.
Comcast is currently trading at about 19 P/E, earning less than $2.00/share and currently pays under $0.70/share in dividends. I'd be willing to bet that YOU benefit from this, directly, if you have any kind of investment.
I find the "don't criticize/take action against this company because most people probably have it as some type of mutual fund" to be a BS argument. I don't particular care if my funds "benefit" from it, I can guarantee we individually pay a hell of a lot more to more than balance that out.
A la carte cable channels isn't the same thing. Look, through my apartment building, I get basic cable (however that's defined). That gives me a bunch of channels, many of which, I never watch. I pay a little extra for some more channels, but I'm not paying just for those extra three or four channels that I watch. I'm paying for a bundle of channels that include those three or four.
PEople never really wanted a la carte cable channels either. They just wanted specific shows, but the way cable worked that wasn't technologically feasible. It's now technologically feasible for every "channel," (netflix, amazon, etc) to have every show, all the time, but the content companies don't want that either.
That whole episode played out in the court of public opinion exactly how Netflix wanted. But I ask you a serious question. First, has NN gone into effect yet? Nope, it hasn't. So how has this been resolved for Comcast's customers? They ARE watching their Netflix now are they not?
Yes, Netflix is now paying protection money -- Comcast inserted themselves as a middleman, threatening to choke off access. So now, everyone is going to pay more. Comcast customers pay for their Internet access just like they did before the throttling began. Netflix pays for their Internet access, just like their did before the throttling. That's exactly how the Internet worked for a few decades until the ISPs gained trust power. They now have the ability to choke off huge numbers of customers in ways that ISPs back in the old days were incapable of doing. This is what happens when someone has no choice but to purchase your offering: you can charge all sorts of fees, and they'll pay. They have to. So now a third payment is being made, from Netflix to Comcast, for nothing other than to buy access to Comcast's subscribers. That means Netflix has had to raise prices and eat losses which is fine since the ISPs were also content companies trying to kill Netflix's offerings. So we have higher prices to pay for Netflix, all so those coins can go straight to Comcast's coffers.
You can't let every mom and pop ISP tear up the roads. Municipalities give monopoly rights to cable and telco companies because easements on private properties suck. Tearing up the streets sucks and is expensive. The Comcasts and Verizons and AT&Ts get away with this because they CAN. Consumers have no choice. They are not able to choose broadband alternatives. In the glory days of the 90s and the early 00s, we had the Golden Age of DSL, when the telcos were required to lease their lines to ISPS. ISPs popped up, all offering up different plans to entice subscribers. We don't live in that world anymore.
You know, I'd actually be fine with no network neutrality. I really would, if the ISPs didn't own the last mile. If they had no way to dictate any terms, and everyone was on the same footing. But no, ISPs DO own the lines, so if they want these guarantees, I think it's reasonable for us to demand decent behavior from them.
Ah yes, "toll lanes." The lanes whose very existence slows down the rest of the freeway so that some other folks can pay to go faster.
Meanwhile, folks who don't pay find that they're closing slower, and that's the beauty of it it: Make a situation worse so that someone will be willing to also pay you to make it better. That's what you get in a society when the almighty dollar is valued higher than anything else.
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps
He didn't say that the right reasons were internment camps. The "right reasons" were protecting against Japanese invasion, and protecting against foreign infiltration and sabotage during wartime. The internment camps were an abhorrent means to get a reasonable end. The camps were not the goal, they were not put into place because jailing Japanese Americans is fun. It was a horrible means to gaining security from Japanese sabotage and attacks, and as the GP stated, the ends do not justify the means.
The only two people on the planet who can make Mark Zuckerburg look better in comparison.
Source: "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal" by Ben Mezrich
Yeah, he basically took Eduardo Saverin's story and fictioned it up a little bit. No surprise, that story makes Saverin seem like a saint, and everyone else like a horrible asshole and/or the devil. It also shouldn't shock anyone that serial character assassin Aaron Sorkin liked it enough to adapt it for the Social Network.
I'm not a faggot, I'm a furry! Get your facts straight!
They're not mutually exclusive.
I think you will not find anything confirming your idea, but tons of evidence disproving it. You don't know what a dollar is worth, and neither does anyone else.
Money, like everything else in the world including gold, is worth exactly as much as we think it does.
I just make it clear that I'm not interested in giving OR receiving gifts. Folks seem to have no problem with that, and I'm quite comfortable with gathering where presents are flying around and I'm just socializing instead of part of the present frenzy.
The Standard Template Library is in no way standard, unlike anything resembling a template, and almost totally opposite of a library.
I love good object-oriented languages, but C++ was a horror, a good case study in how not to implement OOP in a non-OOP language.
Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000
What you say??? The self-driving car advocates tell me otherwise, as do a number of the utopian visionaries in Silicon Valley.
The failed Perl scripters hate Rust because they can't comprehend it. The K&R C weenies hate it because it makes them even more obsolete than they already are
I've never used Rust, honestly don't know much about it, so I don't have an opinion on the language itself.
You, however, make Rust advocates sound like a bunch of hipster douchebags.
But Ed Tice is right, the parent is a great way to troll. I'd been disappointed with the obviousness of the trolling recently, the satire was way to obvious.
A good troll is one who you honestly can't tell is serious or not.