OK, well, you have fun making arbitrary assumptions about other people to help you believe that you're right, and have a great time voting for one of the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Apparently you're still under the assumption that I'm refusing to vote so it's pointless to try and carry this any further.
Baseless assumptions, and poor reading comprehension. At least you've found the candidate who represents you, I can say that much.
TFA has a graphic showing landing locations for the various probes. From an analysis of the pixels, it appears that Opportunity and Schiaparelli landed in the same location. Of course, by now Opportunity is halfway up Olympus Mons, but maybe it could look behind itself and find the hydrazine cloud.
Yes, that is the unfortunate reality, and too many people seem happy to play along with this stupid game. The Republican party is telling you "the other candidate is awful and unqualified, we know that our candidate isn't perfect and is in fact disliked by a majority of the country, but you have to vote for us to stop the other candidate". Meanwhile, the Democratic party is telling you "the other candidate is awful and unqualified, we know that our candidate isn't perfect and is in fact disliked by a majority of the country, but you have to vote for us to stop the other candidate". The media pushes that same narrative, in addition to saying that no other candidate has a chance so no one else should be included in debates (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy) or receive anything near to the airtime that we give the Republicans and Democrats, because we know that they will reward us with interviews and access so we'll play the game and act like 2 parties represent the majority of the country.
People like you accept that, you understand that, hey, maybe the 2 candidates this time around aren't the best, but I'm sure it will be different next time. They'll stop beating me soon, because they love me. No reason to try and change anything about how the system is set up, right? The Democrats and Republicans enshrined this system in 1988 to ensure that they would always be in power because that's in our best interest. We need either a Democrat, or a Republican. No one else can represent America, if you're American then you fit into one of those two boxes, period. Keep anyone else out of the debates, vote for the candidate that you hate the least, and remember, next time it will be better and we'll stop beating you soon.
Oh, and thanks for playing.
You don't have much clout as an individual, but you can at least use the little you have.
That's funny, because that is the specific justification that I use to not vote for either of them. Trump or Clinton would never even notice if I voted for them. Other candidates would appreciate my vote much more, and if enough of us feel like I do, then maybe we can force the media to change their coverage and work towards an actual difference in the next election cycle instead of the same shit cycle repeating itself again. Utah looks like they might send their electoral votes to a third candidate, and I'd love to see "smaller" candidates beat out one of the two majors in several other states. It would send a message that the media has their heads up the asses of the major parties, and that they don't represent the interests of the public any more than the parties do. That kind of change won't happen if I vote for Trump or Clinton.
But, hey, if you want Donald J. Trump to be your representative to the world and the person in charge of the most powerful military on the planet, you go ahead and vote for him. That's not what I want, so I'm not going to vote for him. I don't want Clinton in power either, so I'm not going to vote for her either. I'm still voting, just not for either of them. I'm done playing the game where they try to scare you about the opponent so badly that they guilt you into voting for them even though you don't even like them. I refuse to vote for someone that I actively dislike just because the other half of the same machine put up a candidate even more frightening.
Must just be my inner two year old talking though, so thanks for the outright dismissal. I'm sure you're operating on a much higher level than I am, a level that has allowed you to convince yourself that voting for Donald Trump to be the President Of The United States somehow makes sense.
Don't get angry at me man, I'm agreeing with you that Trump would never try to monetize the job. You made a fantastic point there which is obviously based in reality and backed up by all of the behavior we've witnessed from Donald J. Trump over the past 30 or 40 years (video evidence of Donald Trump helping someone), and as you can clearly see from my comment I am agreeing with you. I'm not mocking it in any way. Just spitballing here.
On the one hand we have Hillary trading uranium rights for CGI donations, and on the other we have... well. you don't like Trump. Do you have a college degree? Ask for your money back.
Let me guess. You're actually planning on casting a vote for one of the two historically bad candidates that have been shat out in front of you by an awful system, but you think I'm the idiot. Truly, I shrink from the might of your intellect.
If "the league" is "the list of the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling", then they are in fact in the same league.
Guess what the #1 reason for voting for either candidate is? Because they are not the other person, because the voter dislikes their opponent even more than they dislike the person they're voting for. They aren't voting for that person because they like them, in fact they don't like them, they're voting for them because the don't like them slightly less than the other candidate. So, they have that in common too, maybe that's "the league" you were referring to. The league where candidates get votes not because of their own merits, but because of how historically awful the other candidate is.
Or maybe you're referring to the league where the candidate who wins the election is going to be the one who speaks the least, because no one wants to hear what either of them has to say, and whenever they open their mouths their favorability rating and poll numbers drop. That's the league where people shut up and let the other person defeat themselves. They're also both in that league.
I suppose they're in a lot of the same leagues, actually.
Ha! Yeah, if there's one thing I know, it's that The Classy And Luxurious Donald Trump(tm) would never try to monetize the office of President Of The United States. No, no, his sole motivation in this and everything else he does is to help people, not build a "personal brand", whatever that even means. That's what he is, he's just a big helper. We should call him President Helper. But, don't worry, because even if he doesn't get elected you'll still be able to watch him help people every day on The Classy And Luxurious Donald Trump TV Network(tm) featuring Roger Ailes. Tune in tomorrow to see whose pussy Donald and Roger will try to grab next!
You should "spitball" some more, that's some funny shit.
Well, "success" is really more of a continuum than a point.
nine hydrazine-powered thrusters arrest its descent to a few meters per second. A crushable structure will absorb the impact force at the planet's surface.
The primary role of Schiaparelli will be to demonstrate this landing technology so that a planned follow-up mission in 2020, complete with a rover, can also safely reach the Martian surface.
So, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we're pretty sure that the crushable structure was crushed as intended.
The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.
That's a hell of time to make a decision to push a button that you never bothered to test.
The 2 major parties have both managed to nominate possibly the only candidate who can lose to the other one. No matter who wins, the loser will have deserved to lose to that person. In any other election year either of these candidates would basically be handing the victory to the other party, but somehow we've managed to nominate the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling to face each other. It's awful. It would be comedic if it weren't for the inevitable tragic outcome.
Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.
Yeah, and Assange is so afraid of Trump trying to kill him that he's working overtime to release information that is only damaging to Democrats.
Quick question - when Wikileaks released the State Department dump that was handed to them by Manning, who was in charge of the State Department during that time?
There's a reason why Assange is anti-Hillary, and it's because she's out to get him. He embarrassed her department and herself, and if you think she's not the kind of person to hold a grudge then I'm not sure you're looking at the same person. If she gets elected Assange probably thinks that he'll spend the next 40 years in prison. He does not seem afraid of Trump at all, and I haven't heard Trump say anything bad about Assange.
If Trump gets elected it's going to be because the Democrats managed to nominate the single person capable of losing to Trump, and because of the information leaked by Assange. Trump isn't going to turn around and try to kill him.
Who can't search you, the private security hired at a private venue? They may not be able to force anyone to submit to an arbitrary search, but they sure as hell can say that a requirement of entry is that you allow them to search you. If you don't want to be searched, fine, you don't have to, go away. If you want to enter the private establishment then they can tell you that they get to search you first. There's nothing illegal about that, you don't have some right to enter any building you want on your own terms.
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
You can imagine that world, but it's Dave Chappelle's "dystopian future", huh?
There's a point that I think people like you are missing: Yondr does not disable recording devices or stop them from working. If someone wants to secretly record a political speech then they aren't going to put their recording device inside a bag that is going to lock itself when they go inside, they're going to use a camera and microphone that don't look like a camera and microphone. This "technology" requires the consent of the participants.
You want the United States to use nuclear weapons on a country fighting a civil war, which also happens to host Russia's only port in the Mediterranean, or even beyond the Bosporus for that matter. A base which Russia sees as essential, hosted in a country which is also a major arms customer. And you want us to nuke it. What's Russia going to do, sit there and spin?
Right. And I believe that the only way to watch certain live programming on the internet is if you sign in with your TV account. I understand that's how they want everything to work, but that's not how I want to do it, so I find a way that lets me watch without needing to go through their process. In the end I still get to watch it, but they don't get anything. If they want their piece I'm happy to give it to them, but I'm not going to get a new package for $80/month in order to watch their show. For example, I'll be happy to pay the NFL in order to watch the games live, but I'm not going to pay a TV company for that. A few live NFL games is not worth $80 per month to me, and none of their other offerings let me watch live online. Once they figure out how to unlock their service I'll be happy to send them my money, but they don't want to sell that to me for some reason. I watched part of the NFL game on Monday and in place of the commercials that would normally play, there was an ESPN logo with something like "We'll be back from commercials soon". ESPN doesn't get any money from me for that, I don't see any of the advertising they've sold, etc, but they refuse to sell me a way to watch the way I want to.
If you tried to sell internet "a-la-carte", the geeks would have you burned at the stake.
Yeah, and rightly so, because the internet is a huge network with virtually no barrier to entry, and anyone can publish content and anyone can consume whatever content is out there.
but don't try and sell TV as all or nothing, then you're screwing them over. Dumb fucks.
You want to use the internet model for TV? Great. One service with every possible channel available, no mandatory equipment rental fees, and then let provider companies compete on how many minutes you can watch per day or whatever for whatever price. If you want to make an analogy between the internet and TV, that's the analogy to make. Don't try to shove the internet into the TV box, that doesn't work. The reason why we love the internet model is specifically because it is better than the TV model. Don't try to make the internet like TV, try to make the old-fashioned TV model like the internet. It's going to go that way eventually once older people die and younger people are raised without ever spending childhoods sitting for hours in front of the TV every night. Instead they'll have spent hours on the internet every day. If you want those people as customers then it's time to throw out the old models and figure out what people actually want.
I'll be happy to pay money to consume TV shows the way that I want to consume them. In the meantime, I get them without paying the broadcast companies and I don't feel bad at all for the broadcast companies. They haven't earned my sympathy because they insist that I do things their way, they don't understand what I want. Until they figure that out, I'm not worried about them getting my money because I know that creative people will continue to make shows I want to watch. I would sooner buy some merchandise that goes directly to the creators than give money to a broadcaster trying to tell me how to watch everything.
No, 30 years ago 60 Minutes had a different executive producer (who was also the creator), editor, host, etc. In fact, out of the 10 current hosts and correspondents, none of them were working on the show in 1986. So, no, it wouldn't be the same 60 Minutes as 30 years ago when they aired a story that caused you to hold a 30 year grudge.
You need to find the right theaters. Like this,this, etc. I can't tell you the last time I've been in a movie where there were kids screaming or people talking. Those giant recliners also mean fewer people in the theater in general, and there is enough space between your feet and the seats in front of you so that you can be reclining in your chair while the server is brining your next drink and you don't even have to move, let alone deal with anyone hitting the back of your seat.
Also, I have at least one friend who always shows up to the theater early because he wants to watch all the previews.
I don't go to see movies at theaters as much as I used to, but when I do it's always to one of those places. If I can't order a beer and some popcorn with actual butter that comes in a giant bowl like I would make at home then that's not the place for me.
You must not be aware of the new stuff coming out. I heard there's a Spider Man movie coming soon that's unrelated to any others. And I'm pretty sure that Robert Downey Jr. is contracted for at least 29 more superhero movies. If that's not original content, I don't know what is.
After Indiana Jones and Star Wars, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't need to money. Good for him though, I'm glad he gets to cash in at the end of his career, I think he deserves it.
Slashdot Mirror
Kodi could definitely use improvement also. Searching leaves much to be desired, especially if you're looking for live events.
OK, well, you have fun making arbitrary assumptions about other people to help you believe that you're right, and have a great time voting for one of the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Apparently you're still under the assumption that I'm refusing to vote so it's pointless to try and carry this any further.
Baseless assumptions, and poor reading comprehension. At least you've found the candidate who represents you, I can say that much.
TFA has a graphic showing landing locations for the various probes. From an analysis of the pixels, it appears that Opportunity and Schiaparelli landed in the same location. Of course, by now Opportunity is halfway up Olympus Mons, but maybe it could look behind itself and find the hydrazine cloud.
One of those two will be president.
Yes, that is the unfortunate reality, and too many people seem happy to play along with this stupid game. The Republican party is telling you "the other candidate is awful and unqualified, we know that our candidate isn't perfect and is in fact disliked by a majority of the country, but you have to vote for us to stop the other candidate". Meanwhile, the Democratic party is telling you "the other candidate is awful and unqualified, we know that our candidate isn't perfect and is in fact disliked by a majority of the country, but you have to vote for us to stop the other candidate". The media pushes that same narrative, in addition to saying that no other candidate has a chance so no one else should be included in debates (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy) or receive anything near to the airtime that we give the Republicans and Democrats, because we know that they will reward us with interviews and access so we'll play the game and act like 2 parties represent the majority of the country.
People like you accept that, you understand that, hey, maybe the 2 candidates this time around aren't the best, but I'm sure it will be different next time. They'll stop beating me soon, because they love me. No reason to try and change anything about how the system is set up, right? The Democrats and Republicans enshrined this system in 1988 to ensure that they would always be in power because that's in our best interest. We need either a Democrat, or a Republican. No one else can represent America, if you're American then you fit into one of those two boxes, period. Keep anyone else out of the debates, vote for the candidate that you hate the least, and remember, next time it will be better and we'll stop beating you soon.
Oh, and thanks for playing.
You don't have much clout as an individual, but you can at least use the little you have.
That's funny, because that is the specific justification that I use to not vote for either of them. Trump or Clinton would never even notice if I voted for them. Other candidates would appreciate my vote much more, and if enough of us feel like I do, then maybe we can force the media to change their coverage and work towards an actual difference in the next election cycle instead of the same shit cycle repeating itself again. Utah looks like they might send their electoral votes to a third candidate, and I'd love to see "smaller" candidates beat out one of the two majors in several other states. It would send a message that the media has their heads up the asses of the major parties, and that they don't represent the interests of the public any more than the parties do. That kind of change won't happen if I vote for Trump or Clinton.
But, hey, if you want Donald J. Trump to be your representative to the world and the person in charge of the most powerful military on the planet, you go ahead and vote for him. That's not what I want, so I'm not going to vote for him. I don't want Clinton in power either, so I'm not going to vote for her either. I'm still voting, just not for either of them. I'm done playing the game where they try to scare you about the opponent so badly that they guilt you into voting for them even though you don't even like them. I refuse to vote for someone that I actively dislike just because the other half of the same machine put up a candidate even more frightening.
Must just be my inner two year old talking though, so thanks for the outright dismissal. I'm sure you're operating on a much higher level than I am, a level that has allowed you to convince yourself that voting for Donald Trump to be the President Of The United States somehow makes sense.
Don't get angry at me man, I'm agreeing with you that Trump would never try to monetize the job. You made a fantastic point there which is obviously based in reality and backed up by all of the behavior we've witnessed from Donald J. Trump over the past 30 or 40 years (video evidence of Donald Trump helping someone), and as you can clearly see from my comment I am agreeing with you. I'm not mocking it in any way. Just spitballing here.
On the one hand we have Hillary trading uranium rights for CGI donations, and on the other we have... well. you don't like Trump. Do you have a college degree? Ask for your money back.
Let me guess. You're actually planning on casting a vote for one of the two historically bad candidates that have been shat out in front of you by an awful system, but you think I'm the idiot. Truly, I shrink from the might of your intellect.
If "the league" is "the list of the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling", then they are in fact in the same league.
Guess what the #1 reason for voting for either candidate is? Because they are not the other person, because the voter dislikes their opponent even more than they dislike the person they're voting for. They aren't voting for that person because they like them, in fact they don't like them, they're voting for them because the don't like them slightly less than the other candidate. So, they have that in common too, maybe that's "the league" you were referring to. The league where candidates get votes not because of their own merits, but because of how historically awful the other candidate is.
Or maybe you're referring to the league where the candidate who wins the election is going to be the one who speaks the least, because no one wants to hear what either of them has to say, and whenever they open their mouths their favorability rating and poll numbers drop. That's the league where people shut up and let the other person defeat themselves. They're also both in that league.
I suppose they're in a lot of the same leagues, actually.
Trump isn't the Secretary of State and don't handle classifieds documents.
UNDERSTOOD ?
Yes, I understand that Trump "don't handle classifieds documents". Thanks for the clarification.
Ha! Yeah, if there's one thing I know, it's that The Classy And Luxurious Donald Trump(tm) would never try to monetize the office of President Of The United States. No, no, his sole motivation in this and everything else he does is to help people, not build a "personal brand", whatever that even means. That's what he is, he's just a big helper. We should call him President Helper. But, don't worry, because even if he doesn't get elected you'll still be able to watch him help people every day on The Classy And Luxurious Donald Trump TV Network(tm) featuring Roger Ailes. Tune in tomorrow to see whose pussy Donald and Roger will try to grab next!
You should "spitball" some more, that's some funny shit.
Well, "success" is really more of a continuum than a point.
nine hydrazine-powered thrusters arrest its descent to a few meters per second. A crushable structure will absorb the impact force at the planet's surface.
The primary role of Schiaparelli will be to demonstrate this landing technology so that a planned follow-up mission in 2020, complete with a rover, can also safely reach the Martian surface.
So, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we're pretty sure that the crushable structure was crushed as intended.
The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.
That's a hell of time to make a decision to push a button that you never bothered to test.
There's a source for that quote right here.
The 2 major parties have both managed to nominate possibly the only candidate who can lose to the other one. No matter who wins, the loser will have deserved to lose to that person. In any other election year either of these candidates would basically be handing the victory to the other party, but somehow we've managed to nominate the 2 most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling to face each other. It's awful. It would be comedic if it weren't for the inevitable tragic outcome.
Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.
Yeah, and Assange is so afraid of Trump trying to kill him that he's working overtime to release information that is only damaging to Democrats.
Quick question - when Wikileaks released the State Department dump that was handed to them by Manning, who was in charge of the State Department during that time?
There's a reason why Assange is anti-Hillary, and it's because she's out to get him. He embarrassed her department and herself, and if you think she's not the kind of person to hold a grudge then I'm not sure you're looking at the same person. If she gets elected Assange probably thinks that he'll spend the next 40 years in prison. He does not seem afraid of Trump at all, and I haven't heard Trump say anything bad about Assange.
If Trump gets elected it's going to be because the Democrats managed to nominate the single person capable of losing to Trump, and because of the information leaked by Assange. Trump isn't going to turn around and try to kill him.
Who can't search you, the private security hired at a private venue? They may not be able to force anyone to submit to an arbitrary search, but they sure as hell can say that a requirement of entry is that you allow them to search you. If you don't want to be searched, fine, you don't have to, go away. If you want to enter the private establishment then they can tell you that they get to search you first. There's nothing illegal about that, you don't have some right to enter any building you want on your own terms.
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
You can imagine that world, but it's Dave Chappelle's "dystopian future", huh?
There's a point that I think people like you are missing: Yondr does not disable recording devices or stop them from working. If someone wants to secretly record a political speech then they aren't going to put their recording device inside a bag that is going to lock itself when they go inside, they're going to use a camera and microphone that don't look like a camera and microphone. This "technology" requires the consent of the participants.
You want the United States to use nuclear weapons on a country fighting a civil war, which also happens to host Russia's only port in the Mediterranean, or even beyond the Bosporus for that matter. A base which Russia sees as essential, hosted in a country which is also a major arms customer. And you want us to nuke it. What's Russia going to do, sit there and spin?
Right. And I believe that the only way to watch certain live programming on the internet is if you sign in with your TV account. I understand that's how they want everything to work, but that's not how I want to do it, so I find a way that lets me watch without needing to go through their process. In the end I still get to watch it, but they don't get anything. If they want their piece I'm happy to give it to them, but I'm not going to get a new package for $80/month in order to watch their show. For example, I'll be happy to pay the NFL in order to watch the games live, but I'm not going to pay a TV company for that. A few live NFL games is not worth $80 per month to me, and none of their other offerings let me watch live online. Once they figure out how to unlock their service I'll be happy to send them my money, but they don't want to sell that to me for some reason. I watched part of the NFL game on Monday and in place of the commercials that would normally play, there was an ESPN logo with something like "We'll be back from commercials soon". ESPN doesn't get any money from me for that, I don't see any of the advertising they've sold, etc, but they refuse to sell me a way to watch the way I want to.
If you tried to sell internet "a-la-carte", the geeks would have you burned at the stake.
Yeah, and rightly so, because the internet is a huge network with virtually no barrier to entry, and anyone can publish content and anyone can consume whatever content is out there.
but don't try and sell TV as all or nothing, then you're screwing them over. Dumb fucks.
You want to use the internet model for TV? Great. One service with every possible channel available, no mandatory equipment rental fees, and then let provider companies compete on how many minutes you can watch per day or whatever for whatever price. If you want to make an analogy between the internet and TV, that's the analogy to make. Don't try to shove the internet into the TV box, that doesn't work. The reason why we love the internet model is specifically because it is better than the TV model. Don't try to make the internet like TV, try to make the old-fashioned TV model like the internet. It's going to go that way eventually once older people die and younger people are raised without ever spending childhoods sitting for hours in front of the TV every night. Instead they'll have spent hours on the internet every day. If you want those people as customers then it's time to throw out the old models and figure out what people actually want.
I'll be happy to pay money to consume TV shows the way that I want to consume them. In the meantime, I get them without paying the broadcast companies and I don't feel bad at all for the broadcast companies. They haven't earned my sympathy because they insist that I do things their way, they don't understand what I want. Until they figure that out, I'm not worried about them getting my money because I know that creative people will continue to make shows I want to watch. I would sooner buy some merchandise that goes directly to the creators than give money to a broadcaster trying to tell me how to watch everything.
Yeah, it's a good thing you're so good at keeping your feelings out of this.
No, 30 years ago 60 Minutes had a different executive producer (who was also the creator), editor, host, etc. In fact, out of the 10 current hosts and correspondents, none of them were working on the show in 1986. So, no, it wouldn't be the same 60 Minutes as 30 years ago when they aired a story that caused you to hold a 30 year grudge.
You forgot to double-check Iran, Mahmoud is old news.
sitting thru 20 minutes of previews and /commercials/. Really. I paid my $12 for the movie already, do I have to watch commercials as well????
If you're going to get there 20 minutes before the movie starts, what do you expect to watch? Another shorter movie?
You need to find the right theaters. Like this, this, etc. I can't tell you the last time I've been in a movie where there were kids screaming or people talking. Those giant recliners also mean fewer people in the theater in general, and there is enough space between your feet and the seats in front of you so that you can be reclining in your chair while the server is brining your next drink and you don't even have to move, let alone deal with anyone hitting the back of your seat.
Also, I have at least one friend who always shows up to the theater early because he wants to watch all the previews.
I don't go to see movies at theaters as much as I used to, but when I do it's always to one of those places. If I can't order a beer and some popcorn with actual butter that comes in a giant bowl like I would make at home then that's not the place for me.
You must not be aware of the new stuff coming out. I heard there's a Spider Man movie coming soon that's unrelated to any others. And I'm pretty sure that Robert Downey Jr. is contracted for at least 29 more superhero movies. If that's not original content, I don't know what is.
After Indiana Jones and Star Wars, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't need to money. Good for him though, I'm glad he gets to cash in at the end of his career, I think he deserves it.