Rewriting something in another language is just busy-work for nerds.
Unless the original was written in a language that few people know anymore, in which case it's difficult to find anyone who can maintain that. At that point, a migration strategy might be useful.
No, what makes NPR look like a bunch of retards is canceling every rerun of their biggest cash cow, their listeners' favorite weekly program, and trying to erase every trace of its existence, all because some chick suddenly pops up to object to Garrison Keillor hugging her forty years ago.
NPR is not cancelling a Prairie Home Companion, they're rebranding it. It'll still be created and broadcast the same as it always was, much to the dismay of those of us who like listening to NPR but dislike PHC's community-theater style (and quality) of oh so over-the-top faux folksy charm and preciousness.
No, he's got a point. People seem to think it's okay for private companies like Facebook and Google to do whatever they want. Limit, ban, delete, whatever. Yet when it comes to another private company, they're screaming that they can't interfere.
I would have less of a problem with what the ISPs are doing if consumers had a choice and could simply vote with their wallets against the Comcasts and the Verizons of the world. But they don't, broadband providers get local and regional monopolies or duopolies, so you basically put up with Comcast's shit on one end, or you take it up the ass from AT&T. Don't like it? Then I guess you don't get broadband Internet!
I can choose not to use Facebook, and I don't. Very few get a real choice in the ISP market.
Pai made a nonsensical statement trying to tie them together to distract from the topic.
It's not entirely nonsense, it's calculated. A Republican might consider the real crime to be that their beliefs aren't appreciated, and that everyone gets "fair and balanced" equal time. They don't see companies charging whatever contracts they want as being a problem at all. So perverting the notion of net neutrality is totally fine with them.
It's interesting to see how your idea of net neutrality is twisted and manipulated to apply to only very specific cases that benefit those who want to force neutrality on others, but who don't want to be held to the same standard themselves.
Net neutrality is far more general than your faulty and limited definition.
Simply put, net neutrality is about treating all data the same.
No, no it is not. You are watering down the definition of Net Neutrality so that it will fit your political narrative again.
If you read through and start clicking on the app reports, you'll get this disclaimer:
Privacy protecting applications embed lists of trackers signatures in order to block them. xodus could find tracker signatures in these blacklists and falsely report them as part of the application. If you have doubts about this report, contact us at contact@exodus-privacy.eu.org
Looking through some of the commercial apps that I have installed, it's pretty clear that a number of apps here are on the list which have 0 trackers (or a crash dump "tracker" which doesn't mean shit) but they have permissions which their service finds.. suspicious?
Let's use Discord as an example. exodus found 15 permissions that it thought were suspicious that this app should need. Sounds bad, right? Except there are valid reasons why Discord should need each of them: * com.google.android.c2dm.permission.RECEIVE "Allows apps to accept cloud to device messages sent by the app's service." Yes, it's a service that supports push notifications if you set your account for it, like any sort of instant messenger. * android.permission.CAMERA "Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera." Yes, the app allows you to do screen sharing and make video calls. * android.permission.BLUETOOTH "Allows the app to view the configuration of the Bluetooth on the phone, and to make and accept connections with paired devices." Pretty much necessary if the application needs to select which input/output device to use for voice audio. * android.permission.WAKE_LOCK "Allows the app to prevent the phone from going to sleep." Pretty much required if you need the voice connection and notifications to remain open when you're not actively using the phone.
And on and on and on. What I can see is the report flags a bunch of applications because the things that the application actually needs to do its intended work can also be used by spyware. Hey, it's good have a list to go through and check out yourself. But to gather all these together and then then say "all these popular apps have privacy-intruding trackers" is dishonest and not very responsible.
Against that are the successful animated versions and the successful comic versions (including All Star Superman) which are hopeful and upbeat. So no, the characters don't start strong and then feel stale when portrayed that way skillfully.
I think we're just going to disagree on this. I always found Superman to be stale. In the comics, in the few well-received animated versions, etc. But that's just my opinion, lots of other people like him, and I (usually) like what they like, so this is just one character that just never resonates with me. I think we agree for the most part otherwise.
The M.O.S. ending meant, I would not pay top dollar at a theater to see BvS
I didn't see BvS until it was on HBO for the following reasons:
*) Ben Affleck as Batman. He's gotten better as an actor since the days of Armageddon when I really detested him, but he should stay behind the director's chair. Hell, maybe he should have directed Justice League.
*) The DCEU art direction. God damn, I can't see anything that's going on. I was very disappointed with the color palette choice in MoS, and they continued that with BvS and then Justice League. Live action color grading is a tool that is abused so much now that I think its use should be strictly curtailed, if not retired. It turned Superman's nice red S into a murky maroon, and his blue to... well, pretty close to grey.
*) Advanced warning about the plot. BvS felt like it had a similar problem to the most recent Fantastic Four movie -- separately written stories that they just sortof jammed together. The Doomsday plot in particular was just tacked on at the end. The "Batman vs Superman" thing felt more logical when Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever did the same plot, and you never want to be negatively compared to that movie. The only way the writers could think of to get the two of them to come to blows was to make both of them, especially Batman, much much stupider than they had been previously portrayed. I hate Idiot Ball plots. There really is no worse plot device. When the whole "Martha" thing made them do a characterization 180, I threw up my hands and lost all hope.
*) Zach Snyder. If he has good characters played by actors who really know how to play them (say, Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, and David Wenham in 300), he can do a great job, and only if the source material fits his aesthetic style already. If your writers can't write dialogue or credible character interactions, though, then there probably isn't any saving it. Snyder is flash without substance. 300 was good, Watchmen was ok, the rest of his work looks pretty bad.
Right now, DC is going through its dark age/dork age. Marvel somehow survived the anti-hero 90s and is now maybe better for it. Hopefully DC survives the teens and comes out stronger, somehow.
And people decide "super hero moves are not profitable!"
I don't think anyone makes that claim, given how ridiculously successful Christopher Nolan's Batman series was, and how well the MCU is still doing. Hell, Wonder Woman (DCEU) did fantastic business over the summer. I think super heroes are certainly overexposed at the moment, and that's led to a mild backlash. IMO, Marvel shouldn't be putting out more than one tentpole a year, and neither should DC.
Snyder appears to hate the characters and wants to actively destroy them.. put them into no win ethical problems
I don't know, maybe the characters should have to face ethical dilemmas. I was always a bit amused at the twittering over the Man of Steel ending. That Superman didn't really have to face that either/or... Zod vs innocents, but somehow he always found a way out of that situation, I thought that was bad writing on the part of the comics. Or at least, non-daring. It's one reason why Superman would start strong and then feel stale.
All Flash? No wonder... itâ(TM)s a justice league show! I canâ(TM)t imaging how they could screw up so bad that they showed the Flash all the time instead of superman, Batman and Wonder women.... you know the popular ones and they keep showing the Flash? WTF!
That said, I've heard the Flash is really the only good thing about that movie.
Oh and fuck you for the spoiler.... I havenâ(TM)t watched it yet!
I would argue that having a very few companies controlling access to the internet is what leads to the primacy of Google and Facebook, not the other way around.
Google got the way they did because their search was better. People wanted to use it over Altavista, over Yahoo, and later, over Bing. Besides personal choice, it's less the ISP and more the browser defaults chosen by Firefox and IE (before Bing!) that led to Google's rise. Also, gmail was a hell of a lot better than yahoo mail or hotmail.
People wanted to use Facebook because they wanted all their contacts on one site. They didn't want to go to grandma's site on MySpace and the cousins on their own website. Facebook made it especially easy to suck you in and keeping you up to date with announcements from your contacts. Add a strong smartphone application that similarly keeps you all updated and make it all ridiculously easy to do, and you have a formula for success. Facebook got where it was because it did the things people wanted to do better. I don't like Facebook, but I'm clearly in the minority. Comcast and AT&T's dominance or lack of it wouldn't really change this either way.
The default state of the internet was net neutrality, from the time of its inception. Giving control over to a cable company will turn the internet into cable television, and trust me, you don't want that.
I don't know which horrifies me more having their hands in Internet policy -- Comcast or the FCC. Before the rise of Comcast, the FCC -was- the Big Bad of Internet Regulation. They did a crap job everywhere outside of the Internet, and that they were kept OUT of the Internet was a real blessing. I guess actually Net Neutrality wouldn't be necessary if the big boys didn't have regional monopolies or duopolies. But they do, so they can dictate terms like this because they know that consumers can't bail to an alternative that advertises differently.
This was an article trying to jump on the bandwagon to push a different issue which, while compelling of itself, has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether one company handles most search requests, or whether one company has the most users, or pictures, or content gated behind accounts. That's what the article author was talking about, but.. that's mostly unrelated to Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is about whether ISPs should be able to throttle companies based on whether those companies pay the ISP or not. With net neutrality, anyone could make the next Facebook or the next Netflix, set whatever (if legal) terms and features they want, and if everyone likes those companies, everyone could bail to them. That would feature drawbacks with lost content and contacts, but there would be nothing stopping them.
Without Net Neutrality, companies would have to pay the ISPs to route their packets, and everyone else would get unacceptably slow speeds. Oh, sorry, I meant, those companies could pay for a 'fast lane' in current ISP-speak, as if there was any fucking difference between the two. Your next Facebook or Netflix would have an even larger barrier to entry than they currently do. The ISP's own, usually inferior content offerings would also naturally always be given the fast lane. They can do this because we don't give a shit about local monopolies anymore, even when they use a monopoly in one area (broadband) to hamper unrelated companies so they can get a leg up.
Rather like the police in Nottingham that will record as a hate crime a man saying 'hi' to a woman.
Was the man unattractive? Remember, there are three rules to follow when approaching women to avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit: 1) Be handsome. 2) Be attractive. 3) Don't be unattractive.
One interesting tid-bit, is they seem to like to match my area code, and the first 3 digits of my number when calling,
I have noticed this quite a bit as well. My default assumption now when I see my area code and the first 3 digits of number on CallerID is that it's a spam call, and I don't answer. The call-number spoofing problem has gotten out of hand.
and that AC correctly called you out and showed how you were blatantly wrong. Then instead of owning up to your mistake, you gave us a bunch of nonsensical excuses and denial, and worse, you make this false accusation about that AC allegedly being "an asshole"
You can make a good point and be factually correct and informative and still be an asshole about it.
Sorry, a guy who posts FF defenses THIS MUCH on EVERY SINGLE Firefox thread on Slashdot for months on end is not rational. He's either a "true believer" (IE, not rational), or well(or poorly)-paid.
Does Putin get up each morning, phone his ministers and demand, "More lies! Today I want new lies!" ?
That's not really how Russia works -- it operates on the illusion of the decentralization of power. Instead, Putin wakes up in the morning and muses publicly "Boy, it sure would be nice if there were a lot more reports about the truth about the US helping IS, hint hint." Everyone else gets the message and runs with it, lest they get raided and brought up by Russian authorities on "anti-corruption" charges. Then when they're caught, Putin can say "I gave no such order to manufacture stories about IS. I only hoped that the truth would be revealed. That is fake news."
Russian troll, no less. Russia has long been trying to paint all protestors/revolutionaries that took up arms against the Assad regime as members of IS. They get a two-for: protect their puppet dictator, and deflect criticism of him and them by painting the opposition as IS. Are there opposition fighters who are also members of IS? Of course, IS hates any non-Islamic-caliphate government. But that doesn't mean that a good portion of the resistance wasn't based on backlash to Assad's barbarism.
The drudge report is not a source you flaming idiot. It only links to other websites.
God help us from morons like you.
The Drudge Report uses enough editorial bias, selecting sources that are flaming wingnuts that they have no credibility. That is, if the Drudge Report links to it, it's highly likely to be shit. Sometimes they'll get it right, like a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And while I'm wishing, a sequel to the Matrix would be nice, too.
I kindof liked the Matrix Reloaded. Well, ok, I liked "parts" of the Matrix Reloaded. I liked the Architect, even if it was a very wordy scene. It was interesting wordiness. I liked the freeway fight. I liked the questions posed by the ending.
Unfortunately, the third movie undid some of the things I liked about the second movie. The machine motives were less interesting. The big reveal at the end of the second movie (is the "real world" also the Matrix? Is it another layer? Is the Matrix like an onion?) is quickly undone in the third movie (no, Neo just has powers in the real world too. Because. BORING). Most of the action in the huge Zion climax takes place with characters we don't know and don't care about.
I think a good 30-45 minutes should have been edited out of the Matrix Reloaded and then it could have been a good movie. The stupid Zion rave.. most scenes in Zion, actually. The bad fight between Neo and a thousand Agent Smiths, much of the action in the Matrix movies is not good enough to suspend disbelief. Like Star Wars, it's overchoreographed and feels unnatural. The only fight scene that I thought was pretty good was the one that took place in the real world between Neo and the Smith-possessed guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Rewriting something in another language is just busy-work for nerds.
Unless the original was written in a language that few people know anymore, in which case it's difficult to find anyone who can maintain that. At that point, a migration strategy might be useful.
No, what makes NPR look like a bunch of retards is canceling every rerun of their biggest cash cow, their listeners' favorite weekly program, and trying to erase every trace of its existence, all because some chick suddenly pops up to object to Garrison Keillor hugging her forty years ago.
NPR is not cancelling a Prairie Home Companion, they're rebranding it. It'll still be created and broadcast the same as it always was, much to the dismay of those of us who like listening to NPR but dislike PHC's community-theater style (and quality) of oh so over-the-top faux folksy charm and preciousness.
No, he's got a point. People seem to think it's okay for private companies like Facebook and Google to do whatever they want. Limit, ban, delete, whatever. Yet when it comes to another private company, they're screaming that they can't interfere.
I would have less of a problem with what the ISPs are doing if consumers had a choice and could simply vote with their wallets against the Comcasts and the Verizons of the world. But they don't, broadband providers get local and regional monopolies or duopolies, so you basically put up with Comcast's shit on one end, or you take it up the ass from AT&T. Don't like it? Then I guess you don't get broadband Internet!
I can choose not to use Facebook, and I don't. Very few get a real choice in the ISP market.
I have to pay more for faster connection, why shouldn't Disney operate under the same cicumstances?
They do. Don't they pay for their bandwidth connection? And doesn't the end customers pay for their bandwidth connection?
Pai made a nonsensical statement trying to tie them together to distract from the topic.
It's not entirely nonsense, it's calculated. A Republican might consider the real crime to be that their beliefs aren't appreciated, and that everyone gets "fair and balanced" equal time. They don't see companies charging whatever contracts they want as being a problem at all. So perverting the notion of net neutrality is totally fine with them.
It's interesting to see how your idea of net neutrality is twisted and manipulated to apply to only very specific cases that benefit those who want to force neutrality on others, but who don't want to be held to the same standard themselves.
Net neutrality is far more general than your faulty and limited definition.
Simply put, net neutrality is about treating all data the same.
No, no it is not. You are watering down the definition of Net Neutrality so that it will fit your political narrative again.
How about asking "what is your location"? My grand mother thought me that if I want something from someone I should ask for it, not just take it.
If you ask, someone could lie. What the GP is talking about is a service where it is imperative that valid location data be passed back.
If you read through and start clicking on the app reports, you'll get this disclaimer:
Privacy protecting applications embed lists of trackers signatures in order to block them. xodus could find tracker signatures in these blacklists and falsely report them as part of the application. If you have doubts about this report, contact us at contact@exodus-privacy.eu.org
Looking through some of the commercial apps that I have installed, it's pretty clear that a number of apps here are on the list which have 0 trackers (or a crash dump "tracker" which doesn't mean shit) but they have permissions which their service finds.. suspicious?
Let's use Discord as an example. exodus found 15 permissions that it thought were suspicious that this app should need. Sounds bad, right? Except there are valid reasons why Discord should need each of them:
* com.google.android.c2dm.permission.RECEIVE "Allows apps to accept cloud to device messages sent by the app's service." Yes, it's a service that supports push notifications if you set your account for it, like any sort of instant messenger.
* android.permission.CAMERA "Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera." Yes, the app allows you to do screen sharing and make video calls.
* android.permission.BLUETOOTH "Allows the app to view the configuration of the Bluetooth on the phone, and to make and accept connections with paired devices." Pretty much necessary if the application needs to select which input/output device to use for voice audio.
* android.permission.WAKE_LOCK "Allows the app to prevent the phone from going to sleep." Pretty much required if you need the voice connection and notifications to remain open when you're not actively using the phone.
And on and on and on. What I can see is the report flags a bunch of applications because the things that the application actually needs to do its intended work can also be used by spyware. Hey, it's good have a list to go through and check out yourself. But to gather all these together and then then say "all these popular apps have privacy-intruding trackers" is dishonest and not very responsible.
Trolling troll is a little too obvious.
Against that are the successful animated versions and the successful comic versions (including All Star Superman) which are hopeful and upbeat.
So no, the characters don't start strong and then feel stale when portrayed that way skillfully.
I think we're just going to disagree on this. I always found Superman to be stale. In the comics, in the few well-received animated versions, etc. But that's just my opinion, lots of other people like him, and I (usually) like what they like, so this is just one character that just never resonates with me. I think we agree for the most part otherwise.
The M.O.S. ending meant, I would not pay top dollar at a theater to see BvS
I didn't see BvS until it was on HBO for the following reasons:
*) Ben Affleck as Batman. He's gotten better as an actor since the days of Armageddon when I really detested him, but he should stay behind the director's chair. Hell, maybe he should have directed Justice League.
*) The DCEU art direction. God damn, I can't see anything that's going on. I was very disappointed with the color palette choice in MoS, and they continued that with BvS and then Justice League. Live action color grading is a tool that is abused so much now that I think its use should be strictly curtailed, if not retired. It turned Superman's nice red S into a murky maroon, and his blue to... well, pretty close to grey.
*) Advanced warning about the plot. BvS felt like it had a similar problem to the most recent Fantastic Four movie -- separately written stories that they just sortof jammed together. The Doomsday plot in particular was just tacked on at the end. The "Batman vs Superman" thing felt more logical when Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever did the same plot, and you never want to be negatively compared to that movie. The only way the writers could think of to get the two of them to come to blows was to make both of them, especially Batman, much much stupider than they had been previously portrayed. I hate Idiot Ball plots. There really is no worse plot device. When the whole "Martha" thing made them do a characterization 180, I threw up my hands and lost all hope.
*) Zach Snyder. If he has good characters played by actors who really know how to play them (say, Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, and David Wenham in 300), he can do a great job, and only if the source material fits his aesthetic style already. If your writers can't write dialogue or credible character interactions, though, then there probably isn't any saving it. Snyder is flash without substance. 300 was good, Watchmen was ok, the rest of his work looks pretty bad.
Right now, DC is going through its dark age/dork age. Marvel somehow survived the anti-hero 90s and is now maybe better for it. Hopefully DC survives the teens and comes out stronger, somehow.
And people decide "super hero moves are not profitable!"
I don't think anyone makes that claim, given how ridiculously successful Christopher Nolan's Batman series was, and how well the MCU is still doing. Hell, Wonder Woman (DCEU) did fantastic business over the summer. I think super heroes are certainly overexposed at the moment, and that's led to a mild backlash. IMO, Marvel shouldn't be putting out more than one tentpole a year, and neither should DC.
Sorry. I don't believe you. Save your trolling. It's not credible -- learn from the trolls of the past. They were better than you at this.
Superman and Batman together couldn't defeat Jean Grey as Phoenix.
I'm not sure. Given how X-Men Apocalypse turned out, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has a chance of being worse than Justice League.
Snyder appears to hate the characters and wants to actively destroy them.. put them into no win ethical problems
I don't know, maybe the characters should have to face ethical dilemmas. I was always a bit amused at the twittering over the Man of Steel ending. That Superman didn't really have to face that either/or... Zod vs innocents, but somehow he always found a way out of that situation, I thought that was bad writing on the part of the comics. Or at least, non-daring. It's one reason why Superman would start strong and then feel stale.
All Flash? No wonder... itâ(TM)s a justice league show! I canâ(TM)t imaging how they could screw up so bad that they showed the Flash all the time instead of superman, Batman and Wonder women.... you know the popular ones and they keep showing the Flash? WTF!
That said, I've heard the Flash is really the only good thing about that movie.
Oh and fuck you for the spoiler.... I havenâ(TM)t watched it yet!
I would argue that having a very few companies controlling access to the internet is what leads to the primacy of Google and Facebook, not the other way around.
Google got the way they did because their search was better. People wanted to use it over Altavista, over Yahoo, and later, over Bing. Besides personal choice, it's less the ISP and more the browser defaults chosen by Firefox and IE (before Bing!) that led to Google's rise. Also, gmail was a hell of a lot better than yahoo mail or hotmail.
People wanted to use Facebook because they wanted all their contacts on one site. They didn't want to go to grandma's site on MySpace and the cousins on their own website. Facebook made it especially easy to suck you in and keeping you up to date with announcements from your contacts. Add a strong smartphone application that similarly keeps you all updated and make it all ridiculously easy to do, and you have a formula for success. Facebook got where it was because it did the things people wanted to do better. I don't like Facebook, but I'm clearly in the minority. Comcast and AT&T's dominance or lack of it wouldn't really change this either way.
The default state of the internet was net neutrality, from the time of its inception. Giving control over to a cable company will turn the internet into cable television, and trust me, you don't want that.
I don't know which horrifies me more having their hands in Internet policy -- Comcast or the FCC. Before the rise of Comcast, the FCC -was- the Big Bad of Internet Regulation. They did a crap job everywhere outside of the Internet, and that they were kept OUT of the Internet was a real blessing. I guess actually Net Neutrality wouldn't be necessary if the big boys didn't have regional monopolies or duopolies. But they do, so they can dictate terms like this because they know that consumers can't bail to an alternative that advertises differently.
This was an article trying to jump on the bandwagon to push a different issue which, while compelling of itself, has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether one company handles most search requests, or whether one company has the most users, or pictures, or content gated behind accounts. That's what the article author was talking about, but.. that's mostly unrelated to Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is about whether ISPs should be able to throttle companies based on whether those companies pay the ISP or not. With net neutrality, anyone could make the next Facebook or the next Netflix, set whatever (if legal) terms and features they want, and if everyone likes those companies, everyone could bail to them. That would feature drawbacks with lost content and contacts, but there would be nothing stopping them.
Without Net Neutrality, companies would have to pay the ISPs to route their packets, and everyone else would get unacceptably slow speeds. Oh, sorry, I meant, those companies could pay for a 'fast lane' in current ISP-speak, as if there was any fucking difference between the two. Your next Facebook or Netflix would have an even larger barrier to entry than they currently do. The ISP's own, usually inferior content offerings would also naturally always be given the fast lane. They can do this because we don't give a shit about local monopolies anymore, even when they use a monopoly in one area (broadband) to hamper unrelated companies so they can get a leg up.
Rather like the police in Nottingham that will record as a hate crime a man saying 'hi' to a woman.
Was the man unattractive? Remember, there are three rules to follow when approaching women to avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit:
1) Be handsome.
2) Be attractive.
3) Don't be unattractive.
Sexual Harassment and You
One interesting tid-bit, is they seem to like to match my area code, and the first 3 digits of my number when calling,
I have noticed this quite a bit as well. My default assumption now when I see my area code and the first 3 digits of number on CallerID is that it's a spam call, and I don't answer. The call-number spoofing problem has gotten out of hand.
and that AC correctly called you out and showed how you were blatantly wrong. Then instead of owning up to your mistake, you gave us a bunch of nonsensical excuses and denial, and worse, you make this false accusation about that AC allegedly being "an asshole"
You can make a good point and be factually correct and informative and still be an asshole about it.
Nope, just rational
Sorry, a guy who posts FF defenses THIS MUCH on EVERY SINGLE Firefox thread on Slashdot for months on end is not rational. He's either a "true believer" (IE, not rational), or well(or poorly)-paid.
Does Putin get up each morning, phone his ministers and demand, "More lies! Today I want new lies!" ?
That's not really how Russia works -- it operates on the illusion of the decentralization of power. Instead, Putin wakes up in the morning and muses publicly "Boy, it sure would be nice if there were a lot more reports about the truth about the US helping IS, hint hint." Everyone else gets the message and runs with it, lest they get raided and brought up by Russian authorities on "anti-corruption" charges. Then when they're caught, Putin can say "I gave no such order to manufacture stories about IS. I only hoped that the truth would be revealed. That is fake news."
Russian troll, no less. Russia has long been trying to paint all protestors/revolutionaries that took up arms against the Assad regime as members of IS. They get a two-for: protect their puppet dictator, and deflect criticism of him and them by painting the opposition as IS. Are there opposition fighters who are also members of IS? Of course, IS hates any non-Islamic-caliphate government. But that doesn't mean that a good portion of the resistance wasn't based on backlash to Assad's barbarism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The drudge report is not a source you flaming idiot. It only links to other websites.
God help us from morons like you.
The Drudge Report uses enough editorial bias, selecting sources that are flaming wingnuts that they have no credibility. That is, if the Drudge Report links to it, it's highly likely to be shit. Sometimes they'll get it right, like a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And while I'm wishing, a sequel to the Matrix would be nice, too.
I kindof liked the Matrix Reloaded. Well, ok, I liked "parts" of the Matrix Reloaded.
I liked the Architect, even if it was a very wordy scene. It was interesting wordiness.
I liked the freeway fight.
I liked the questions posed by the ending.
Unfortunately, the third movie undid some of the things I liked about the second movie.
The machine motives were less interesting.
The big reveal at the end of the second movie (is the "real world" also the Matrix? Is it another layer? Is the Matrix like an onion?) is quickly undone in the third movie (no, Neo just has powers in the real world too. Because. BORING).
Most of the action in the huge Zion climax takes place with characters we don't know and don't care about.
I think a good 30-45 minutes should have been edited out of the Matrix Reloaded and then it could have been a good movie. The stupid Zion rave.. most scenes in Zion, actually. The bad fight between Neo and a thousand Agent Smiths, much of the action in the Matrix movies is not good enough to suspend disbelief. Like Star Wars, it's overchoreographed and feels unnatural. The only fight scene that I thought was pretty good was the one that took place in the real world between Neo and the Smith-possessed guy.