2) Typically in the past Storm Troopers were pretty much put in the movie to die, they are just hero cannon fodder, adds some humanism to them. Probably why they just went with Robots in the prequels.
I think they were made robots in the prequels because the movie was aimed towards young children, so mass slaughter on the battlefield and seeing the "good guys" cutting people in half was a no-no.
Everyone seems to have the opinion that fighting with a light saber is something that only a Jedi can use. It's just another weapon!
Maybe only a Jedi can be really really good at it, but being able to use a lightsaber is certainly not exclusive to Jedis. Han used Luke's lightsaber in Empire Strikes Back, Finn used one in the Force Awakens though he certainly isn't a Jedi. The lightsaber just seems to be a weapon that the Jedis like, per Kenobi's musings of it being a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age, as opposed to Han's more crude blaster.
All those fancy pants moves are BS if they just lead to protracted fights. Those stupid spin and flip fight scenes are exactly what's wrong with the newer movies. Story? Fuck story! We've got super spinball Yoda!
One of the things I hated about the prequels was that everyone strong in The Force was a master light-saber fighter (well, except for those numbnuts that the emperor slaughtered when Anakin and Windu came to arrest him..). Like.. there wasn't room for anything else, they were somehow all spinning, leaping fighters. I like Yoda's role as the wise elder teacher from Empire. He wasn't bouncing in and out of the swamp, swinging from the trees (and movies like Labyrinth showed that Jim Henson productions weren't shy about making puppets do that sort of thing), he wasn't cutting guys down left and right. It wasn't even hinted that that's what he used to do. Then Episode 2 happened, and... ugh.
Yeah. But did you look at the how poor Darth Emo's form and technique were? He was a brawler, and not a very good one at that.
Also, he had already been shot in the side by Chewbacca, a pretty critical wound. You'd think something like that would weaken a guy. He was still able to pretty easily handle Finn, but his second fight gets him into trouble.
I still feel like Rei developed mastery of The Force in a ridiculously short amount of time. Like... 5 minutes after she first learns she can use The Force she's already mind-controlling Daniel Craig.
Review sites try to compensate for this by normalizing scores (basically grade the movie on a curve). But for anonymous reviews this means that my "Ok" rating of 7 gets turned into a "poor" rating.
It seems like they should be normalizing based on a curve that is specific for each user, not on aggregate. With anonymity turned on, I DEFINITELY wouldn't trust review votes (way too gameable), but even with it off, user reviews are self-selecting. You're more likely to rate a movie higher if you've seen it because you were already pre-disposed to liking it because you had an interest in seeing it. So the people who might think the new Iron Man movie is shit might not rate the movie at all because they hadn't seen it because they had no interest in it. And then you'll get a bunch of people who say 'I hated that trailer, I'm not wasting my time with that movie, so I'll give it a low rating.' User ratings are absolute chaos.
Ghostbusters 2016 is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, so you didn't enjoy that one? Why do you hate women?
Rotten Tomatoes does have one major flaw in their methodology, which is one reason why Metacritic has been getting more popular too: If you take 10 critics, they all give one movie a "Eh, this is decent, I guess. Wasn't horrible" review, and they all give another movie a "OMG, this is the best movie of the year!" review, those will end up with the same Tomatometer Score: 100% positive reviews. So some movies that are rated higher have very soft support. Now, I suppose the idea is that with a large number of critics, it would average out enough to reflect more the consensus of how good it really is, but I don't think that's true, even if they had a much larger pool of critics.
People will still spend money on a mediocre film if there is nothing else to watch
But there is a LOT of good stuff to watch. Maybe more now than at any point in our history. So people don't need to go out to the movie theaters, not when the best writers have switched to writing for TV series.
Just another example of stodgy people trying to hold on to antiquated business models. I agree people should be compensated for their work. However, there is a plethora of available information out there now. I heavily research most everything I buy and already know what I want when I come in to the store. By the time I pick my product I'm more interested in the best price.
The submission is desperately trying to justify a business model that customers actually hate and work counter to their interest. We're not likely to buy that shit, but the VC is certainly trying as hard as he can to argue that everyone from the customer to the employee is actually happier with the sales commission model. Here's the reality:
Employees hate the sales commission model, because your 'employees compete with each other' leads to a low salary, high stress job for the salesperson.
Customers detest the sales commission model, because they know employees are there with a "sell at any cost" mindset. They financially benefit directly from each sale, which is a true conflict of interest with what the customer wants the most: getting good advice to be able to pick out the product that they really need, or even no product at all. Your commissioned salesman is a lot less likely to admit that the products they have won't meet the customer's need.
Upper management likes the sales commission model because it means the employees work for less money, and they're undercutting each other far more than the "political" model that the blurb says everyone hates and is inferior, meaning there's less of a chance for them to organize, to actually get a stable salary and stability in life. Keep the employees busy working against each other, and they won't help each other.
I don't know that it has. Whoever stole the data isn't going to just dump it online they are going to sell it. Eventually it will all leak but not before much of it is quite stale.
Stale? I'm not sure about everyone else, but my real name, my date of birth, and my social security number are unlikely to go stale any time soon.
So the three credit agencies have agreed to allow anyone to freeze their credit. When a state passes laws, those laws govern fees/etc. Indiana allows for free credit freezes by anyone, many states allow free credit freezes for identity theft victims, and most allow them for a small fee, like $10. Probably costs a lot more to move to Indiana than to just eat the $10 fee elsewhere.
Feel free to show that evolution does not rely on spontaneous generation (life from non life).
First of all, evolution is a process, and most evolutionary scientists will tell you that evolution and "the origin of life" are two different topics. Evolution is the process by which a species changes over a period of time. We can trace various species back further and further in time, but the further back you go, the less evidence has survived. There are some pretty decent theories about how life could have originally risen, but they're hard to test, and it's not necessary that the process be repeatable either -- it only NEEDED to happen once, after all.
And then you've absolutely guaranteed that the only people companies willing to "assume the risk" are the ones staffed by complete fucking morons, because no one with more than two brain cells is going to be willing to assume that level of risk.
Gotta say, I've heard dumber ideas. It would be very helpful if someone started a site that keeps track of product managers who scramble the UI in popular applications, force-feed operating systems to unwilling users, or redesign websites whose only fault is that people like the way they work now.Basically a cross between LinkedIn, FuckedCompany, and Rotten Tomatoes, where users post independent "performance reviews."
Unless you actually worked inside the company and saw the shit going on, you can't make any sort of independent analysis. Certainly not from the outside. There are plenty of places that put out bad products but have good people working there, and there are also plenty of places that will pin the blame for a product failure on one person or group rather than another who made the bad decisions.
Maybe the product manager had to be the person to take the fall. Maybe he was the one who had to deal with mandatory changes required by some interfering upper brass. I would never trust such a site. But anyway, it sounds like GlassDoor might at least partially fit those requirements.
My main reason for using Firefox is "NoSquint", it allows you to change the zoom/font size based on domain.
The developer is an idiot who periodically breaks the extension just to have an excuse to send an update (with expiration date), but it is very useful.
The web is a fast-moving target, and anything dealing with it has to be updated often. The developer was probably sick of getting bug reports for old versions. That sounds a bit heavy-handed, but I can see why he would do it. Wouldn't be the decision I'd make, but it doesn't seem 100% unreasonable.;-)
Just look at the previous Slashdot story which had a well-intentioned fellow who was clearly advocating on behalf of Mozilla, talking about how the new Firefox addon model was just as good as the old, all the major addons had already transitioned to it, and if they hadn't, well it's their fault because they had a year's warning that this would happen.
I don't think he had an answer for the folks who complained that the new addon model made some older addons impossible to implement.
Not Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, which is still supported. It has glibc 2.15, and palemoon 27+ won't run with anything less than 2.17.
RHEL7 comes with glibc 2.17. If you're stuck on RHEL6, I certainly feel for you. As a RHEL user, I'm certainly used to supporting users who need the cutting edge technology, but that cutting edge requires you to bleed a little.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy to do when you live in mom's basement you little shitfucker
Yeah, because the GP set such a high technical bar.
2) Typically in the past Storm Troopers were pretty much put in the movie to die, they are just hero cannon fodder, adds some humanism to them. Probably why they just went with Robots in the prequels.
I think they were made robots in the prequels because the movie was aimed towards young children, so mass slaughter on the battlefield and seeing the "good guys" cutting people in half was a no-no.
Everyone seems to have the opinion that fighting with a light saber is something that only a Jedi can use. It's just another weapon!
Maybe only a Jedi can be really really good at it, but being able to use a lightsaber is certainly not exclusive to Jedis. Han used Luke's lightsaber in Empire Strikes Back, Finn used one in the Force Awakens though he certainly isn't a Jedi. The lightsaber just seems to be a weapon that the Jedis like, per Kenobi's musings of it being a more civilized weapon for a more civilized age, as opposed to Han's more crude blaster.
All those fancy pants moves are BS if they just lead to protracted fights. Those stupid spin and flip fight scenes are exactly what's wrong with the newer movies. Story? Fuck story! We've got super spinball Yoda!
One of the things I hated about the prequels was that everyone strong in The Force was a master light-saber fighter (well, except for those numbnuts that the emperor slaughtered when Anakin and Windu came to arrest him..). Like.. there wasn't room for anything else, they were somehow all spinning, leaping fighters. I like Yoda's role as the wise elder teacher from Empire. He wasn't bouncing in and out of the swamp, swinging from the trees (and movies like Labyrinth showed that Jim Henson productions weren't shy about making puppets do that sort of thing), he wasn't cutting guys down left and right. It wasn't even hinted that that's what he used to do. Then Episode 2 happened, and... ugh.
Yeah. But did you look at the how poor Darth Emo's form and technique were? He was a brawler, and not a very good one at that.
Also, he had already been shot in the side by Chewbacca, a pretty critical wound. You'd think something like that would weaken a guy. He was still able to pretty easily handle Finn, but his second fight gets him into trouble.
I still feel like Rei developed mastery of The Force in a ridiculously short amount of time. Like... 5 minutes after she first learns she can use The Force she's already mind-controlling Daniel Craig.
Review sites try to compensate for this by normalizing scores (basically grade the movie on a curve). But for anonymous reviews this means that my "Ok" rating of 7 gets turned into a "poor" rating.
It seems like they should be normalizing based on a curve that is specific for each user, not on aggregate. With anonymity turned on, I DEFINITELY wouldn't trust review votes (way too gameable), but even with it off, user reviews are self-selecting. You're more likely to rate a movie higher if you've seen it because you were already pre-disposed to liking it because you had an interest in seeing it. So the people who might think the new Iron Man movie is shit might not rate the movie at all because they hadn't seen it because they had no interest in it. And then you'll get a bunch of people who say 'I hated that trailer, I'm not wasting my time with that movie, so I'll give it a low rating.' User ratings are absolute chaos.
Ghostbusters 2016 is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, so you didn't enjoy that one? Why do you hate women?
Rotten Tomatoes does have one major flaw in their methodology, which is one reason why Metacritic has been getting more popular too: If you take 10 critics, they all give one movie a "Eh, this is decent, I guess. Wasn't horrible" review, and they all give another movie a "OMG, this is the best movie of the year!" review, those will end up with the same Tomatometer Score: 100% positive reviews. So some movies that are rated higher have very soft support. Now, I suppose the idea is that with a large number of critics, it would average out enough to reflect more the consensus of how good it really is, but I don't think that's true, even if they had a much larger pool of critics.
People will still spend money on a mediocre film if there is nothing else to watch
But there is a LOT of good stuff to watch. Maybe more now than at any point in our history. So people don't need to go out to the movie theaters, not when the best writers have switched to writing for TV series.
Just another example of stodgy people trying to hold on to antiquated business models. I agree people should be compensated for their work. However, there is a plethora of available information out there now. I heavily research most everything I buy and already know what I want when I come in to the store. By the time I pick my product I'm more interested in the best price.
The submission is desperately trying to justify a business model that customers actually hate and work counter to their interest. We're not likely to buy that shit, but the VC is certainly trying as hard as he can to argue that everyone from the customer to the employee is actually happier with the sales commission model. Here's the reality:
Employees hate the sales commission model, because your 'employees compete with each other' leads to a low salary, high stress job for the salesperson.
Customers detest the sales commission model, because they know employees are there with a "sell at any cost" mindset. They financially benefit directly from each sale, which is a true conflict of interest with what the customer wants the most: getting good advice to be able to pick out the product that they really need, or even no product at all. Your commissioned salesman is a lot less likely to admit that the products they have won't meet the customer's need.
Upper management likes the sales commission model because it means the employees work for less money, and they're undercutting each other far more than the "political" model that the blurb says everyone hates and is inferior, meaning there's less of a chance for them to organize, to actually get a stable salary and stability in life. Keep the employees busy working against each other, and they won't help each other.
I don't know that it has. Whoever stole the data isn't going to just dump it online they are going to sell it. Eventually it will all leak but not before much of it is quite stale.
Stale? I'm not sure about everyone else, but my real name, my date of birth, and my social security number are unlikely to go stale any time soon.
This SSN == credit thing is bullshit.
So 143 million people should move to Indiana?
So the three credit agencies have agreed to allow anyone to freeze their credit. When a state passes laws, those laws govern fees/etc. Indiana allows for free credit freezes by anyone, many states allow free credit freezes for identity theft victims, and most allow them for a small fee, like $10. Probably costs a lot more to move to Indiana than to just eat the $10 fee elsewhere.
Yeah, makes no sense to me for them to protest Apple...seems they should be protesting in from of ATT stores,
No one goes into AT&T stores. As a publicity stunt, it would fail.
Feel free to show that evolution does not rely on spontaneous generation (life from non life).
First of all, evolution is a process, and most evolutionary scientists will tell you that evolution and "the origin of life" are two different topics. Evolution is the process by which a species changes over a period of time. We can trace various species back further and further in time, but the further back you go, the less evidence has survived. There are some pretty decent theories about how life could have originally risen, but they're hard to test, and it's not necessary that the process be repeatable either -- it only NEEDED to happen once, after all.
Nope. It is a public company with $16B in market cap. $14B today, after the news
But being publicly-traded does not make it a government organization.
Might as well be considering how big a screw up this is.
Nice pivot!
Wow. Sounds like he's actually creating more work for himself.
And then you've absolutely guaranteed that the only people companies willing to "assume the risk" are the ones staffed by complete fucking morons, because no one with more than two brain cells is going to be willing to assume that level of risk.
Wow. #2 is just.. uhh... wow.
This is good stuff.
Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far that we've been told of.
FTFY^2
Eh, I don't know, it can't get much worse than this, at least not in the US. The bigger the leak, the harder it will be to keep secret.
People say "Fire Fox," not "FirefoX"
Gotta say, I've heard dumber ideas. It would be very helpful if someone started a site that keeps track of product managers who scramble the UI in popular applications, force-feed operating systems to unwilling users, or redesign websites whose only fault is that people like the way they work now.Basically a cross between LinkedIn, FuckedCompany, and Rotten Tomatoes, where users post independent "performance reviews."
Unless you actually worked inside the company and saw the shit going on, you can't make any sort of independent analysis. Certainly not from the outside. There are plenty of places that put out bad products but have good people working there, and there are also plenty of places that will pin the blame for a product failure on one person or group rather than another who made the bad decisions.
Maybe the product manager had to be the person to take the fall. Maybe he was the one who had to deal with mandatory changes required by some interfering upper brass. I would never trust such a site. But anyway, it sounds like GlassDoor might at least partially fit those requirements.
Yeah, I don't know either, I have two computers at home, one running Fedora and another running Windows 7. I haven't seen the Windows 10 forcing yet.
My main reason for using Firefox is "NoSquint", it allows you to change the zoom/font size based on domain.
The developer is an idiot who periodically breaks the extension just to have an excuse to send an update (with expiration date), but it is very useful.
The web is a fast-moving target, and anything dealing with it has to be updated often. The developer was probably sick of getting bug reports for old versions. That sounds a bit heavy-handed, but I can see why he would do it. Wouldn't be the decision I'd make, but it doesn't seem 100% unreasonable. ;-)
Just look at the previous Slashdot story which had a well-intentioned fellow who was clearly advocating on behalf of Mozilla, talking about how the new Firefox addon model was just as good as the old, all the major addons had already transitioned to it, and if they hadn't, well it's their fault because they had a year's warning that this would happen.
I don't think he had an answer for the folks who complained that the new addon model made some older addons impossible to implement.
Not Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, which is still supported. It has glibc 2.15, and palemoon 27+ won't run with anything less than 2.17.
RHEL7 comes with glibc 2.17. If you're stuck on RHEL6, I certainly feel for you. As a RHEL user, I'm certainly used to supporting users who need the cutting edge technology, but that cutting edge requires you to bleed a little.