If a claim starts gathering eyeballs, you have to address it head on. It's going to happen whether it "should" or not.
Too many people want to believe the false narratives, that's why they survive. They greatly prefer the idea that their side is the noble and perfect one, the other side is always self-serving, craven, and evil. That's much more comforting than the notion that both their side and the other side have some real murky greys.
(never understood the distinction between "filmic" and "cinematic").
I can say that in the film world, the word "filmic" is a bit like Engrish. Even if the term gets used, seriously, by some. It's like calling multiple computers "boxen." It's hard to take that seriously.
The correct term that most in the industry would use is "film studies," not filmic. Now, film and cinema have become somewhat interchangeable in actual use, though it wasn't always the case. In particular, "cinema" seems like it has more of a high-brow connotation, but again, there's no real definition, just a difference in how people tend to use the terms. The only things we really know is that "movie" is used more in the US than outside it, and that movies are often not shot on actual "film" anymore.
The President has the ability to veto bills but not line veto because selective line veto is considered dramatically more powerful.
The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it takes legislative powers and reassigns them to the President. If you have a bill with many parts that depend on each other, but the President can pass one but not the others, then he is not passing the bill as Congress had intended or passed itself. He is creating his own bill out of the pieces of another and then passing that, which is both creating and passing legislation.
the cars driving like maniacs. Do the drivers in your city drift into the bike lane while making right turns too?
Mine do, I once hit a car (fortunately this was all low-speed and I had a chance to brake so as not to hit it at full speed) when a car passed me to turn right in front of me into a driveway. The exuse he gave was "But I had my turn signal on."
Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.
Heavy traffic usually means I can make it home on my bike faster than I could in my car. And that's with stopping at red lights, etc.
You could, ummm... uhh... just Uber/Lyft around from work.
Ok, I got nothing.
But really, are they reimbursing you at all for the cost in gas and wear and tear for the use of your private vehicle for work purposes? That sounds like you're being taken advantage of otherwise.
Personally I'm just happy when my jeans don't get caught in the chain causing me to have a horrible bloody accident.
These days I use my bike sock. I got sick of ruining a number of pairs of pants by having them touch an oily chain, so I extend a sock (doesn't work if you wear short socks) over the bottom hem of the pants leg to keep it from flapping all over.
It's funny the terminology people use. When we read the governments emails we're "stealing".
When they're into ours...shit they don't even count it as "collected" unless a human reads it!
Huh, it's almost as if, societally we decided that law enforcement has more allowance towards surveillance and law enforcement than private citizens do!
It's funny the terminology people use. When the government throws someone in a room they can't get out of, they're "jailing." When I do the same to someone who wrong me, they call it "kidnapping" instead. Unbelievable!
a non-aligned party (like me) necessarily must consider China the least aggressive of all.
I'm surprised, given Trump's rantings, that he's been so quiet about China's state-sponsored hacking. The country has pillaged just about every secret from an enormous number of non-Chinese company. It has gotten to the point where there is a truism in the IT world: "There are two kinds of companies: those who have been hacked by the Chinese, and those who don't yet realize they have been hacked by the Chinese." This seems like the sort of thing Trump would be all over, yet Obama made more of a stink about it. Maybe the topic is a bit over Donald's head.
the US thinks it can arrest non-nationals as if everyone were US citizens all over the world
They can, if they have extradition treaties. It's pretty much the point of having those treaties in the first place, to go after people who have committed crimes against US citizens but aren't geographically located in the US.
> They ALL spy on everybody, you stupid motherfucker Since when is it an excuse to do something wrong because others do it?
Because if you don't, you lose. You win or you die.
If Snoewden decides to steal classified docs, and then decides to give them to you, then you're in the clear. You didn't commit a crime, you just published what he gave you.
If you actively encourage someone to steal those specific docs, or if Snowden asks you for help on how to steal the docs, and you help him, then you've become an accomplice in Snowden's crime.
It would be nice if Slashdot had a way to mod up one comment to +10. I know this doesn't fit into the ultra-cynical "these guys are all super-corrupt blah blah" hand-wringing that usually gets modded up here, but this is easily the most insightful comment attached to this story.
(GASP) A Democrat who does not care if his party breaks the law, as long as they win.
I'm still waiting for these criminal charges; the DoJ does not have as its executives people I would say are sympathetic to the DNC. The DNC fucked up, and it was stupid. But the Bernie bros pretending the dude had any chance whatsoever and think that the establishment threw the primary to Hillary are crazy. Just crazy. I guess it's something they tell themselves at night to feel better, but they learned the wrong lessons in the primary.
That's usually not what I hear from the left. What I currently hear is the left telling Trump voters "you told us he wasn't really serious when he said he was going to do these things, turns out he is."
The left doesn't doubt that he's going to try to come through with his campaign promises. They just feel like most of his promises are either abhorrent, such as getting into another Middle Eastern war and reworking the tax code to benefit his family and super-rich friends, or the promises were naively unrealistic, like how we're somehow going to end Islamic terrorism or get Mexico to pay for the wall or replace Obamacare with something that is cheaper and better and yet provides universal coverage.
Hillary couldn't beat a junior senator with almost no voting record, and she couldn't beat Trump. But that is all the Russians fault
It's not "all the Russians' fault," but they have a lot of culpability here. The election was extremely close, so close that any of these factors, including Russian hacking, swayed the election. That is, if any of those factors (Hillary being nearly as shitty a candidate as Trump, Russian hacking, Hillary's dumb email server move, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation) were absent, it's likely that she would have won. Put ALL of them together and Trump just barely squeaks through. So yes, you can (and should) blame all those other factors AS WELL. But the Russian interference absolutely had an effect, most notably in turnout.
Perhaps it is just a semantic argument, because when I hear someone is a soda drinker I assume at least a few sodas a week, if not an average of at least one per day. I guess that should be called a regular soda drinker instead of just a soda drinker.
And by "a soda," I would hope something like a 12 ounce soda, not 32-oz Big Gulp. In college I used to get 44-oz gulps of Dr. Pepper. Looking back, I really don't understand why.
For example, you end up with a city like San Francisco that's supposedly "liberal" and has immense financial wealth, yet it also has the highest concentration of homeless in America. What's worse, they aren't just homeless, but they act in the most uncivilized ways possible. They urinate and defecate on sidewalks, for example, and then turn around and sleep in their own filth! There are entire districts of the city where this is a typical scene.
San Francisco is very much not Silicon Valley, politically, socially, or otherwise. The homeless problem is due to a number of factors that attract the homeless to the area.
First, the weather, it's never too hot, and very rarely too cold, and until this year not that rainy either. In other words, it's one of the few urban locations that is perfect weather-wise for someone who wants to live outside 365 days/year.
And I said "wants" there for a reason -- most of the chronically homeless in SF are not people "down on their luck," who have problems finding work, they are people who have serious mental disorders, who cannot and in some cases do not want to integrate with society. Since we decided as a society that we cannot institutionalize people against their will unless they are violent, and Saint Reagan closed down the sanitariums, this has left all the homeless on the streets and under the bridges. The formal institutions have been replaced by a less formal system of outreach: homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. There are also quite a few well-meaning but foolish folk who give the homeless tools to set up camp -- tents, stoves, canvas, etc, so they can make encampments, which they do.
Finally, although most people are sick of the homeless problem and want action, you have a lot of politically-connected advocacy groups who push for (and often get) more money. More, more money, all the time. I can't think of another city in the US that spends more money trying to "solve" the homeless problem, and it usually fails because it doesn't take into account that most of these people cannot be 'fixed' and there's not enough political will to, say, run them all out of town.
But back on topic, one of the biggest problems with Silicon Valley startups is the lack of diversity. Not necessarily diversity of race or gender or whatnot, but diversity of opinion. You're creating a company by hiring your friends, people who probably think and act the way you do, and if you're off the rails, you don't necessarily have that important voice in the room to tell you that your idea is nonsense. "A juicer with these amazing juice packs that cost $5-$8 each!! And it's Internet-connected! So it sucks power all the time, it tells you things that your eyes can totally see already! Yes, I'd totally put $400-$700 down on that, all that is awesome! My friend Larry agrees with me, we'll start a company!" Very few people are that super-pricey-fad-conscious, but if your close circle of friends is that way, you aren't necessarily going to recognize that demand is not going to have your product leaping off the shelves.
In most cases, this is where a good venture capitalist would step in, evaluate the product and business plan, and refuse funding if it didn't seem like there was a path to prosperity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of investors who seemed to have a blind spot here as well. Shark Tank can be kitschy and entertaining, but the sharks are usually good enough to ask "so how am I getting my money back? Who is actually going to buy this? Who is purchasing these packs?"
I've got the sneaking suspicion, especially with the price drop of the juicer itself from $700 to $400, that it's the juice packs that are actually the profit center, and that the company comes out ahead if people bought just the packs but not the juicer. However, then there would be nothing to stop people from switching to a slightly cheaper competitor, in which case then all the business will be gone.
One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?
Maybe for the same reason I buy small crates of oranges at Costco and then use a little hand citrus juicer. Including cleanup time, it doesn't take any longer than two minutes, and the juice tastes noticeably better than any juice I've ever gotten from a bottle or carton.
But I'm a very atypical person in this regard, and am almost certainly not the target audience for this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
If a claim starts gathering eyeballs, you have to address it head on. It's going to happen whether it "should" or not.
Too many people want to believe the false narratives, that's why they survive. They greatly prefer the idea that their side is the noble and perfect one, the other side is always self-serving, craven, and evil. That's much more comforting than the notion that both their side and the other side have some real murky greys.
There sure are a lot of fucks not being given here.
Don't forget Cali is about to go bankrupt,
Lol? And I thought SFers smoked a lot of weed.
(never understood the distinction between "filmic" and "cinematic").
I can say that in the film world, the word "filmic" is a bit like Engrish. Even if the term gets used, seriously, by some.
It's like calling multiple computers "boxen." It's hard to take that seriously.
The correct term that most in the industry would use is "film studies," not filmic.
Now, film and cinema have become somewhat interchangeable in actual use, though it wasn't always the case. In particular, "cinema" seems like it has more of a high-brow connotation, but again, there's no real definition, just a difference in how people tend to use the terms. The only things we really know is that "movie" is used more in the US than outside it, and that movies are often not shot on actual "film" anymore.
The President has the ability to veto bills but not line veto because selective line veto is considered dramatically more powerful.
The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it takes legislative powers and reassigns them to the President. If you have a bill with many parts that depend on each other, but the President can pass one but not the others, then he is not passing the bill as Congress had intended or passed itself. He is creating his own bill out of the pieces of another and then passing that, which is both creating and passing legislation.
the cars driving like maniacs. Do the drivers in your city drift into the bike lane while making right turns too?
Mine do, I once hit a car (fortunately this was all low-speed and I had a chance to brake so as not to hit it at full speed) when a car passed me to turn right in front of me into a driveway. The exuse he gave was "But I had my turn signal on."
Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.
Heavy traffic usually means I can make it home on my bike faster than I could in my car. And that's with stopping at red lights, etc.
You could, ummm... uhh... just Uber/Lyft around from work.
Ok, I got nothing.
But really, are they reimbursing you at all for the cost in gas and wear and tear for the use of your private vehicle for work purposes? That sounds like you're being taken advantage of otherwise.
Personally I'm just happy when my jeans don't get caught in the chain causing me to have a horrible bloody accident.
These days I use my bike sock. I got sick of ruining a number of pairs of pants by having them touch an oily chain, so I extend a sock (doesn't work if you wear short socks) over the bottom hem of the pants leg to keep it from flapping all over.
It's funny the terminology people use. When we read the governments emails we're "stealing".
When they're into ours...shit they don't even count it as "collected" unless a human reads it!
Huh, it's almost as if, societally we decided that law enforcement has more allowance towards surveillance and law enforcement than private citizens do!
It's funny the terminology people use. When the government throws someone in a room they can't get out of, they're "jailing."
When I do the same to someone who wrong me, they call it "kidnapping" instead. Unbelievable!
a non-aligned party (like me) necessarily must consider China the least aggressive of all.
I'm surprised, given Trump's rantings, that he's been so quiet about China's state-sponsored hacking. The country has pillaged just about every secret from an enormous number of non-Chinese company. It has gotten to the point where there is a truism in the IT world: "There are two kinds of companies: those who have been hacked by the Chinese, and those who don't yet realize they have been hacked by the Chinese." This seems like the sort of thing Trump would be all over, yet Obama made more of a stink about it. Maybe the topic is a bit over Donald's head.
the US thinks it can arrest non-nationals as if everyone were US citizens all over the world
They can, if they have extradition treaties. It's pretty much the point of having those treaties in the first place, to go after people who have committed crimes against US citizens but aren't geographically located in the US.
> They ALL spy on everybody, you stupid motherfucker
Since when is it an excuse to do something wrong because others do it?
Because if you don't, you lose. You win or you die.
If Snoewden decides to steal classified docs, and then decides to give them to you, then you're in the clear. You didn't commit a crime, you just published what he gave you.
If you actively encourage someone to steal those specific docs, or if Snowden asks you for help on how to steal the docs, and you help him, then you've become an accomplice in Snowden's crime.
It would be nice if Slashdot had a way to mod up one comment to +10. I know this doesn't fit into the ultra-cynical "these guys are all super-corrupt blah blah" hand-wringing that usually gets modded up here, but this is easily the most insightful comment attached to this story.
(GASP) A Democrat who does not care if his party breaks the law, as long as they win.
I'm still waiting for these criminal charges; the DoJ does not have as its executives people I would say are sympathetic to the DNC.
The DNC fucked up, and it was stupid. But the Bernie bros pretending the dude had any chance whatsoever and think that the establishment threw the primary to Hillary are crazy. Just crazy. I guess it's something they tell themselves at night to feel better, but they learned the wrong lessons in the primary.
The big news organizations did not publish those leaks, they told their listeners it was illegal to even view them.
Some dude on CNN does not equal "the big news organizations told their listeners this was illegal to view." That's stretching the truth a bit.
Never before have I seen so many on Slashdot actually quickly coming forward with citations!
To be fair something doesn't have to be illegal to be corrupt or dishonest.
If it's corrupt, it's illegal. If it's not illegal, then it's just "playing smart," according to our President, the DNC, and our corporations.
That's usually not what I hear from the left. What I currently hear is the left telling Trump voters "you told us he wasn't really serious when he said he was going to do these things, turns out he is."
The left doesn't doubt that he's going to try to come through with his campaign promises. They just feel like most of his promises are either abhorrent, such as getting into another Middle Eastern war and reworking the tax code to benefit his family and super-rich friends, or the promises were naively unrealistic, like how we're somehow going to end Islamic terrorism or get Mexico to pay for the wall or replace Obamacare with something that is cheaper and better and yet provides universal coverage.
Can we all agree people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mitch McConnell should have no place representing the American people?
Yes. Yes please. What happened to the moderates of this country? Why is everything hyper-partisan?
Hillary couldn't beat a junior senator with almost no voting record, and she couldn't beat Trump. But that is all the Russians fault
It's not "all the Russians' fault," but they have a lot of culpability here. The election was extremely close, so close that any of these factors, including Russian hacking, swayed the election. That is, if any of those factors (Hillary being nearly as shitty a candidate as Trump, Russian hacking, Hillary's dumb email server move, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation) were absent, it's likely that she would have won. Put ALL of them together and Trump just barely squeaks through. So yes, you can (and should) blame all those other factors AS WELL. But the Russian interference absolutely had an effect, most notably in turnout.
Perhaps it is just a semantic argument, because when I hear someone is a soda drinker I assume at least a few sodas a week, if not an average of at least one per day. I guess that should be called a regular soda drinker instead of just a soda drinker.
And by "a soda," I would hope something like a 12 ounce soda, not 32-oz Big Gulp.
In college I used to get 44-oz gulps of Dr. Pepper. Looking back, I really don't understand why.
Hey look, they saved 10c by not having to include an 'i' key. That extra savings was passed onto your company, I'm sure!
For example, you end up with a city like San Francisco that's supposedly "liberal" and has immense financial wealth, yet it also has the highest concentration of homeless in America. What's worse, they aren't just homeless, but they act in the most uncivilized ways possible. They urinate and defecate on sidewalks, for example, and then turn around and sleep in their own filth! There are entire districts of the city where this is a typical scene.
San Francisco is very much not Silicon Valley, politically, socially, or otherwise. The homeless problem is due to a number of factors that attract the homeless to the area.
First, the weather, it's never too hot, and very rarely too cold, and until this year not that rainy either. In other words, it's one of the few urban locations that is perfect weather-wise for someone who wants to live outside 365 days/year.
And I said "wants" there for a reason -- most of the chronically homeless in SF are not people "down on their luck," who have problems finding work, they are people who have serious mental disorders, who cannot and in some cases do not want to integrate with society. Since we decided as a society that we cannot institutionalize people against their will unless they are violent, and Saint Reagan closed down the sanitariums, this has left all the homeless on the streets and under the bridges. The formal institutions have been replaced by a less formal system of outreach: homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. There are also quite a few well-meaning but foolish folk who give the homeless tools to set up camp -- tents, stoves, canvas, etc, so they can make encampments, which they do.
Finally, although most people are sick of the homeless problem and want action, you have a lot of politically-connected advocacy groups who push for (and often get) more money. More, more money, all the time. I can't think of another city in the US that spends more money trying to "solve" the homeless problem, and it usually fails because it doesn't take into account that most of these people cannot be 'fixed' and there's not enough political will to, say, run them all out of town.
But back on topic, one of the biggest problems with Silicon Valley startups is the lack of diversity. Not necessarily diversity of race or gender or whatnot, but diversity of opinion. You're creating a company by hiring your friends, people who probably think and act the way you do, and if you're off the rails, you don't necessarily have that important voice in the room to tell you that your idea is nonsense. "A juicer with these amazing juice packs that cost $5-$8 each!! And it's Internet-connected! So it sucks power all the time, it tells you things that your eyes can totally see already! Yes, I'd totally put $400-$700 down on that, all that is awesome! My friend Larry agrees with me, we'll start a company!" Very few people are that super-pricey-fad-conscious, but if your close circle of friends is that way, you aren't necessarily going to recognize that demand is not going to have your product leaping off the shelves.
In most cases, this is where a good venture capitalist would step in, evaluate the product and business plan, and refuse funding if it didn't seem like there was a path to prosperity. Unfortunately, there are a lot of investors who seemed to have a blind spot here as well. Shark Tank can be kitschy and entertaining, but the sharks are usually good enough to ask "so how am I getting my money back? Who is actually going to buy this? Who is purchasing these packs?"
I've got the sneaking suspicion, especially with the price drop of the juicer itself from $700 to $400, that it's the juice packs that are actually the profit center, and that the company comes out ahead if people bought just the packs but not the juicer. However, then there would be nothing to stop people from switching to a slightly cheaper competitor, in which case then all the business will be gone.
Properly prepared kale caesar salad is absolutely delicious. I certainly prefer it over romaine lettuce caesar, but that's good too.
One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?
Maybe for the same reason I buy small crates of oranges at Costco and then use a little hand citrus juicer. Including cleanup time, it doesn't take any longer than two minutes, and the juice tastes noticeably better than any juice I've ever gotten from a bottle or carton.
But I'm a very atypical person in this regard, and am almost certainly not the target audience for this sort of thing.
-1 Offtopic. Wrong thread.
Well...... you asked him, after all.