The MagSafe pops out all the time. I just set my MacBook down on the table, and that was enough to cause it to pop out. It's ridiculous and useless.
Meanwhile, the number of times I've tripped over the cable and dragged the MacBook down anyway are too many to count.
It's a useless feature. It offers no protection and all it does it lead to MacBooks with dead batteries. Bring on USB-C. At least then you'll be able to get third party chargers made out of something that doesn't disintegrate the instant the warranty is up.
My experience with MagSafe is that it's terrible for when you want it to remain plugged in, routinely falling out as you use it.
It also is terrible at what it's designed for, and is easily able to hook onto the power port just long enough to drag the MacBook to the floor before disconnecting if you trip over the cable.
So, yeah, go riddance to the "doesn't stay plugged in" power adapter. It fails at everything it's supposed to do.
I expect most people think of "Pokemon Go" as "that game you have to walk to play" and not the AR aspect of it. The part of the game that's actually AR is very small and limited to overlaying a Pokemon on what the camera is seeing. It's AR but only in the most basic sense in that it's just tied to the direction the camera is facing, it doesn't do any sort of mapping to what it's seeing, it just dumps a Pokemon into the world and then uses the phone's accelerometers to keep it relatively in one place compared to the camera. If you walk towards a Pokemon, it will move backwards "with" you.
A much better example of AR that I think even more people would recognize are Snapchat "lenses." Things like Face Swap or those things that do things like add dog ears to people's heads. That's AR that is taking reality and "augmenting" it in a way, based on what the camera is seeing and not merely on the direction it's pointing.
Wait, people still play Pokemon Go? That would be news.
Pokemon Go exploded in popularity for maybe a month, and then people got bored and stopped playing. Apparently it's bad enough that they're already doing some form of "welcome back" campaign to try and get people to start playing again.
I do agree that AR would be more useful in every day life than VR, but if Pokemon Go is the example, that's not the kind of AR I care about. Just about everyone turns the AR mode off in Pokemon Go because it's just annoying, leaving the only "augmented reality" part being that you have to physically go to real places to "find" Pokemon. Except the serious players just use GPS spoofing so not even that gets done in reality.
I could see AR being useful if someone developed something that could, for example, overlay directions on top of the real world, or identify things you're looking at. But that's just not feasible right now, leaving AR to useless things like showing a Pokemon on top of a camera image or whatever you want to call Snapchat filters. It's vaguely interesting but not really useful.
VR, on the other hand, is being used to create real experiences right now. I may not find VR that compelling personally (certainly not enough to rush out to spend at least $1000 on it, when you include computer upgrades), but it at least creates something more meaningful than I've ever seen done with AR.
Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.
WHAT?!!! Uh, NO.
If you ever hold a security clearance, the proper procedure for dealing with classified information leaks will be drilled into you. The very first thing you get taught - repeatedly - is you do not delete classified information if it leaks.
The process is pretty simple: you disconnect from the network, go into "airplane mode" if necessary, and then immediately stop using the machine. You don't delete anything, you don't close any open programs, you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.
This leaves a paper trail. But it also makes sure that the information spill is known, that how far it leaks is known, and that any potential spill to uncleared individuals is known.
So if Hillary did delete emails with classified information, she - well, broke procedure. I have no idea if it's a law or just an official process. But there's a process and procedure for dealing with classified information leaks, and deleting anything is 100% not it.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about how Russia is trying to "subvert our election." Annoyed enough to bother logging in and not posting AC.
Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.
Who cares who revealed it? If they weren't acting unethically, there would be no issue. But they are, and that's why it's a problem, and trying to bring Russia into this is purely a smokescreen.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue. It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy, and merely hiding the numeric age of an actor or actress isn't going to resolve this.
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role. Trying to hide their "real" age won't help with that. Nothing short of completely changing Hollywood culture - and, really, American culture - to not be so youth-focused will change that. And that's not an easy task, and certainly not something this law will help with.
This is clearly a "this is something, so we're doing something about the problem!" law. It won't help in any way, but at least it's a bullet point on some lawmaker's resume!
Twitter was a bold as an experiment for democratic debate
I disagree. Twitter was originally intended as a "micro-blogging" platform that ran over SMS with a web interface. The 140 character limit is from that, and it's the reason Twitter usernames are limited to 15 characters. (The remaining five characters in a 160-character tweet are for "command" codes. The SMS interface still exists.)
It rapidly grew to something that no longer fits that, but it was never an "experiment for democratic debate," it was if anything an experiment in running a social network over SMS. Public forums and public blogging platforms existed well before Twitter did.
But for posting selfies, spamming, professional self-promotion and reinforcing your own world view, yeah, it's great, and it's true of Facebook, Instagram, everything else.
While true, it's also useful for one other thing: posting notifications. Most of what I use Twitter for are getting notifications about various things. Twitter has essentially become a "push RSS" service where instead of polling an RSS feed, you get push notifications as updates as posted. It's useful in a very specific set of circumstances.
It's that last thing that would make me miss Twitter were it to go away. 99.9% of Twitter? Burn it with fire. But using it as a free notification platform with an SMS-fallback? That's incredibly useful.
"Hey, you know that one differentiating feature we had between ourselves and Chrome, the extensions that are available for Firefox that just aren't really possible in the Chrome extension model? Let's get rid of those." "So we'll just basically be a crappy version of Chrome that uses more memory, is less stable, and is slower?" "Yeah!" "Sounds like a great idea! Let's do that!"
The only reason anyone is still using Firefox instead of Chrome is to get access to Firefox extensions. Once Firefox makes their extensions be Chrome extensions, there will no longer be any compelling reason to keep using Firefox.
The only one I can think of is "at least Google won't be spying on you" but with Firefox you're still being spied on because they still want to do ads when you open new tabs and as you enter URLs in the "Awesome Bar." (No, really, that's what Mozilla calls what you'd think is the URL field. It's the "Awesome Bar.")
Apple doesn't have to do any of that because it ships you the binaries specific for your phone only.
Actually they do have to do it. Starting in iOS 9 I think, developers compile to bytecode and then Apple compiles to the native code on their own cloud servers.
So the difference between Android and iOS is that Android compiles the code on your device (because of the wide variety of devices) while Apple compiles it in the cloud because of the very small number of devices they support.
Of course this means that when you update iOS, you have to re-get all your apps from the cloud. Hope you don't have a metered data plan!
PS: because of the way Android runs, apps written back for Android 2.0 still work. Do apps written for the 3GS still run without issue? Or does the author have to recompile first?
Depends. Sometimes they do. Generally they do not. Apple tends to not really care about backwards compatibility, so it's a complete crapshoot. I remember that a 2-factor authentication app had to warn people about upgrading to iOS 9.3 because it would break the authenticator requiring a complete reinstall of the app.
It's impossible to hold gyms for more than a few hours, and even if you did, there is no point to.
Actually there is. You know the currency you have to pay real money to get? Apparently you get it if you can hold on to a gym for more than 20 hours. I've never been in a place where gym churn is slow enough for that to happen, so I can't verify it.
But that's why the bot-swarms bother with gyms - to farm those "coins" from them.
One of the most convincing arguments that I've heard this election is that congress won't allow Trump to do anything, but the same cannot be said of Clinton.
This right here is what has convinced me that I'd rather see Trump in the White House than Hillary. If Trump wins the presidency, we might actually see Congress rein in executive power! If Hillary wins, forget it, we all lose.
Of course, I live in a state that's so blue that my vote is entirely meaningless (for any office, anywhere), so I'm going to be voting third party as well. Might finally get them enough votes to at the very least be allowed in a national debate.
Yeah I too preferred the old computer games that eschewed CGI in favor of hand painted and animated models.
I wonder how many people realize you're not joking: the original Doom and Doom II models were literally clay models that were shot from various angles to make the final sprites.
I'm expecting No Man's Sky to be kinda like Elite: Dangerous, lots of potential falls flat on it's face with execution. If it manages to pull a Minecraft I'll be pleasantly surprised, No Man's Sky is the biggest indie title to launch this month though.
It won't. The reviews are coming in and they're brutal: it's interesting for the novelty factor at first, but quickly becomes tedious and boring. The "procedurally generated planets" boils down to "picks a few random colors and resources." Even people who enjoyed it can't recommend it to other players because it's yet another one of those games that mistakes "hours of content" for "depth." Because if you had fun doing a task once, clearly you'll have 100 times as fun doing it 100 times. That's how fun works, right?
Which is a problem I've seen a lot in games recently: the apparent assumption that the solution to a lack of gameplay is to just repeat the same gameplay many times, as if that will make up for a lack of content.
I guess they really don't make them like they used to, when it was OK for a game to be short as long as it was fun to play.
Red Letter Media posted a fairly extensive review that goes over all the flaws the movie has (and there are a ton of them - bad pacing, poor editing, bad action sequences, just poorly thought out plotting, poorly done cameos - I can't even remember them all).
Their review - despite being very well sourced as to exactly why they're saying what they're saying - got tarred as being "misogynist."
Have you tried explaining how the Ghostbusters movie sucks online? Almost instantly you'll get a post explaining how actually the movie is great and you just hate female main characters.
Apparently if you think the movie sucks, you hate female leads and are going to be Responsible for Hollywood Not Casting Female Leads in the future because you hate women.
And not because the movie is bad.
Yes, I've literally seen that argument, I am not making it up.
And I actually liked the new Ghostbusters characters, over all. The movie is still bad, but it's not because the leads were women.
Yeah, when I watched Ghostbusters 2016 on opening weekend, I saw it in a packed theater and... nah, just kidding.
The theater was practically deserted. I think there were maybe 20 people there all told? And this was the opening weekend.
When I went to the same theater to see Deadpool on like week three in the middle of the afternoon, the theater was literally sold out. And that's an R-rated film and it was the afternoon showing. So it's not just an unpopular theater - the new Ghostbusters film just did that poorly.
It was terrible and highly sexist. A sex object male secretary and "safety switches are for boys."
"That's the joke." The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role. Which would make more sense if Janine fit that role, which she - well, didn't. Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make.
Except they forget to play up the "friendship" angle and it comes off as the Girl Ghostbusters hating him but keeping him around for literally no reason. (They don't even seem to like him as "eye candy" after the initial interview. Like, the idea is apparently supposed to be that he's kept around because they like looking at him but then they never really show that and you're left to deduce that.)
If it had been a great movie maybe those things would be less glaring but it was a terrible movie, it wasn't funny, no suspense, no action, nothing redeeming at all.
It's not that bad. What it ends up being is a great example of studios trying to produce a "safe" movie while at the same time being "edgy." You end up with a movie that's clearly been handed a checklist by the studio and rapidly interrupts itself to let you know what it's doing.
There are funny moments and glimpses of what could have been a good movie. Unfortunately they're interspersed with "HEY DID YOU NOTICE THIS IS A COMEDY" and "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S AN OBVIOUS TOY PROTOTYPE FOR MATTEL" and "DID YOU REMEMBER THIS IS GHOSTBUSTERS? BECAUSE THIS IS A THING FROM GHOSTBUSTERS, WE HOPE YOU NOTICED IT. WE'LL JUST LINGER HERE A BIT. WHAT'S PACING?"
It is a bad movie. But it's not "fun" bad. It's just bland bad. And it's annoyingly bad because there are good ideas to be found in it, but they just aren't ever allowed to breathe.
To be "certified fresh" it has to have a rating of 75% or better.
75% is Rotten Tomatoes' "cut-off" for "Certified Fresh." In order to receive the badge, after a certain number of reviews are received, the movie has to have a rating of 75% or better. Ghostbusters 2016 got close (73%), but it didn't quite hit that.
Yet it got to be "certified fresh" anyway for... some reason. (Hm, wonder what that might be.) Despite not meeting the criteria required for that badge.
Right-click an empty spot on the toolbar and select Customize, then select Title Bar.
Nope: even with that selected, Firefox manages to ignore the "use accent color" settings and continues the "white with black text/white with gray text" focus/unfocus behavior you get without the "use accent color on title bars" setting set.
Firefox ignoring that setting is a known bug that won't be fixed because they consider it working properly.
An AC mentioned this not being the case for them, and it's because of a setting that had its default changed at some point.
To find it, right click on the desktop and choose "Personalize." (Or open Settings, which is not the Control Panel, and choose "Personalization." Do not search for "Personalization" in the Start menu because that will find you the Control Panel's version of "Personalization" and not the Settings version which what you want. Windows 10, everyone.)
Anyway, choose Colors. If you opened the Control Panel version anyway, then click on Color and it will open the Settings app to Personalization, Colors for you. Because Windows 10.
In that screen, scroll down below all the accent colors, and find "Show color on Start, taskbar, action center, and title bar." Turn it on.
From now on, focused windows will use your "accent color" and unfocused windows will remain gray.
Except for Firefox, because Firefox ignores this setting. Also the Settings app itself, because I guess Metro - er,... whatever they're calling it now apps ignore it as well.
But it will make the majority of windows more noticeably focused.
If you read through their privacy stuff you'll notice they talk mostly about how they encrypt all the data they collect on you and how they try and keep it "secure" - but they still collect a ton of data on you. iOS was known to gather your location, OS X has been sending all the wifi passwords you connect to back to iCloud for several versions (yet no one cared until Windows 10 did the same thing then everyone got mad), iTunes sends back information about what music is on your Mac, and who knows what else since I'm not about to dig through their excessively long privacy policy to find what they gather on you.
In short: yes, OS X collects a shit load of info about what you're doing and then sends it back to Cupertino. But they "encrypt" it so I guess it's OK.
You sure about that? As the DNC email leaks demonstrated, they're not really all that concerned about democracy when it comes to how they choose their nominees.
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate, while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement - primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side. (But, hey, if the FBI gives a pass to criminal behavior with regards to handling our nation's biggest secrets, why be surprised when they do nothing about criminal behavior altering our elections.)
If you read any reports outside the MSM, the DNC has been a complete disaster. In addition to the walkout you mentioned there has been constant protests from the floor, off-script outbursts from invited celebrities, a "fart-in" where silenced delegates decided that if they couldn't speak they'd make do with farting (really! they had a bean cook-off), creative altering of the signs the DNC handed out to delegates (turning "Stronger Together" signs in "Stop Her", for example), which was followed by DNC goons literally stealing Bernie supporters' signs, and who knows what else that didn't get reported on.
By any objective measure the DNC has been a complete disaster. The party is more fractured now than ever before. Hillary has managed to turn 538's "80% chance" of victory into a 52% chance - WITH the "post-nomination bounce!"
But if you limit yourself to the New York Times or the Huffington Post or the like, everything is going just fine...
And nobody has yet explained how the recipient of a classified email could have prevented it from being sent.
When you have a clearance, you (at least contractors do, I suppose government types might be different) have to undergo "training" on how to handle classified information. One of the things that you're taught is how to deal with receiving classified material on an unapproved computer.
Bottom line (for contractors at least) is that basically you immediately disconnect from the Internet, immediately stop using the computer (but do not close any running programs or turn it off), and immediately contact security who will start making arrangements to deal with it. Failure to do so is essentially a crime. (Or at least I sure thought it was. Apparently it isn't, if you're a Clinton.)
Receiving classified information isn't itself a crime, but receiving it and then not doing anything about it is. Or, at least, that's what I've been taught every time I'm forced to retake the Security Clearance Refresher Training.
Slashdot Mirror
The MagSafe pops out all the time. I just set my MacBook down on the table, and that was enough to cause it to pop out. It's ridiculous and useless.
Meanwhile, the number of times I've tripped over the cable and dragged the MacBook down anyway are too many to count.
It's a useless feature. It offers no protection and all it does it lead to MacBooks with dead batteries. Bring on USB-C. At least then you'll be able to get third party chargers made out of something that doesn't disintegrate the instant the warranty is up.
My experience with MagSafe is that it's terrible for when you want it to remain plugged in, routinely falling out as you use it.
It also is terrible at what it's designed for, and is easily able to hook onto the power port just long enough to drag the MacBook to the floor before disconnecting if you trip over the cable.
So, yeah, go riddance to the "doesn't stay plugged in" power adapter. It fails at everything it's supposed to do.
I expect most people think of "Pokemon Go" as "that game you have to walk to play" and not the AR aspect of it. The part of the game that's actually AR is very small and limited to overlaying a Pokemon on what the camera is seeing. It's AR but only in the most basic sense in that it's just tied to the direction the camera is facing, it doesn't do any sort of mapping to what it's seeing, it just dumps a Pokemon into the world and then uses the phone's accelerometers to keep it relatively in one place compared to the camera. If you walk towards a Pokemon, it will move backwards "with" you.
A much better example of AR that I think even more people would recognize are Snapchat "lenses." Things like Face Swap or those things that do things like add dog ears to people's heads. That's AR that is taking reality and "augmenting" it in a way, based on what the camera is seeing and not merely on the direction it's pointing.
Wait, people still play Pokemon Go? That would be news.
Pokemon Go exploded in popularity for maybe a month, and then people got bored and stopped playing. Apparently it's bad enough that they're already doing some form of "welcome back" campaign to try and get people to start playing again.
I do agree that AR would be more useful in every day life than VR, but if Pokemon Go is the example, that's not the kind of AR I care about. Just about everyone turns the AR mode off in Pokemon Go because it's just annoying, leaving the only "augmented reality" part being that you have to physically go to real places to "find" Pokemon. Except the serious players just use GPS spoofing so not even that gets done in reality.
I could see AR being useful if someone developed something that could, for example, overlay directions on top of the real world, or identify things you're looking at. But that's just not feasible right now, leaving AR to useless things like showing a Pokemon on top of a camera image or whatever you want to call Snapchat filters. It's vaguely interesting but not really useful.
VR, on the other hand, is being used to create real experiences right now. I may not find VR that compelling personally (certainly not enough to rush out to spend at least $1000 on it, when you include computer upgrades), but it at least creates something more meaningful than I've ever seen done with AR.
Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.
WHAT?!!! Uh, NO .
If you ever hold a security clearance, the proper procedure for dealing with classified information leaks will be drilled into you. The very first thing you get taught - repeatedly - is you do not delete classified information if it leaks.
The process is pretty simple: you disconnect from the network, go into "airplane mode" if necessary, and then immediately stop using the machine. You don't delete anything, you don't close any open programs, you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.
This leaves a paper trail. But it also makes sure that the information spill is known, that how far it leaks is known, and that any potential spill to uncleared individuals is known.
So if Hillary did delete emails with classified information, she - well, broke procedure. I have no idea if it's a law or just an official process. But there's a process and procedure for dealing with classified information leaks, and deleting anything is 100% not it.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about how Russia is trying to "subvert our election." Annoyed enough to bother logging in and not posting AC.
Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.
Who cares who revealed it? If they weren't acting unethically, there would be no issue. But they are, and that's why it's a problem, and trying to bring Russia into this is purely a smokescreen.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue. It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy, and merely hiding the numeric age of an actor or actress isn't going to resolve this.
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role. Trying to hide their "real" age won't help with that. Nothing short of completely changing Hollywood culture - and, really, American culture - to not be so youth-focused will change that. And that's not an easy task, and certainly not something this law will help with.
This is clearly a "this is something, so we're doing something about the problem!" law. It won't help in any way, but at least it's a bullet point on some lawmaker's resume!
Twitter was a bold as an experiment for democratic debate
I disagree. Twitter was originally intended as a "micro-blogging" platform that ran over SMS with a web interface. The 140 character limit is from that, and it's the reason Twitter usernames are limited to 15 characters. (The remaining five characters in a 160-character tweet are for "command" codes. The SMS interface still exists.)
It rapidly grew to something that no longer fits that, but it was never an "experiment for democratic debate," it was if anything an experiment in running a social network over SMS. Public forums and public blogging platforms existed well before Twitter did.
But for posting selfies, spamming, professional self-promotion and reinforcing your own world view, yeah, it's great, and it's true of Facebook, Instagram, everything else.
While true, it's also useful for one other thing: posting notifications. Most of what I use Twitter for are getting notifications about various things. Twitter has essentially become a "push RSS" service where instead of polling an RSS feed, you get push notifications as updates as posted. It's useful in a very specific set of circumstances.
It's that last thing that would make me miss Twitter were it to go away. 99.9% of Twitter? Burn it with fire. But using it as a free notification platform with an SMS-fallback? That's incredibly useful.
I see no real down side.
Really?
"Hey, you know that one differentiating feature we had between ourselves and Chrome, the extensions that are available for Firefox that just aren't really possible in the Chrome extension model? Let's get rid of those."
"So we'll just basically be a crappy version of Chrome that uses more memory, is less stable, and is slower?"
"Yeah!"
"Sounds like a great idea! Let's do that!"
The only reason anyone is still using Firefox instead of Chrome is to get access to Firefox extensions. Once Firefox makes their extensions be Chrome extensions, there will no longer be any compelling reason to keep using Firefox.
The only one I can think of is "at least Google won't be spying on you" but with Firefox you're still being spied on because they still want to do ads when you open new tabs and as you enter URLs in the "Awesome Bar." (No, really, that's what Mozilla calls what you'd think is the URL field. It's the "Awesome Bar.")
Apple doesn't have to do any of that because it ships you the binaries specific for your phone only.
Actually they do have to do it. Starting in iOS 9 I think, developers compile to bytecode and then Apple compiles to the native code on their own cloud servers.
So the difference between Android and iOS is that Android compiles the code on your device (because of the wide variety of devices) while Apple compiles it in the cloud because of the very small number of devices they support.
Of course this means that when you update iOS, you have to re-get all your apps from the cloud. Hope you don't have a metered data plan!
PS: because of the way Android runs, apps written back for Android 2.0 still work. Do apps written for the 3GS still run without issue? Or does the author have to recompile first?
Depends. Sometimes they do. Generally they do not. Apple tends to not really care about backwards compatibility, so it's a complete crapshoot. I remember that a 2-factor authentication app had to warn people about upgrading to iOS 9.3 because it would break the authenticator requiring a complete reinstall of the app.
Anyway, it doesn't matter: Apple is going to remove access to apps that old entirely.
It's impossible to hold gyms for more than a few hours, and even if you did, there is no point to.
Actually there is. You know the currency you have to pay real money to get? Apparently you get it if you can hold on to a gym for more than 20 hours. I've never been in a place where gym churn is slow enough for that to happen, so I can't verify it.
But that's why the bot-swarms bother with gyms - to farm those "coins" from them.
One of the most convincing arguments that I've heard this election is that congress won't allow Trump to do anything, but the same cannot be said of Clinton.
This right here is what has convinced me that I'd rather see Trump in the White House than Hillary. If Trump wins the presidency, we might actually see Congress rein in executive power! If Hillary wins, forget it, we all lose.
Of course, I live in a state that's so blue that my vote is entirely meaningless (for any office, anywhere), so I'm going to be voting third party as well. Might finally get them enough votes to at the very least be allowed in a national debate.
Yeah I too preferred the old computer games that eschewed CGI in favor of hand painted and animated models.
I wonder how many people realize you're not joking: the original Doom and Doom II models were literally clay models that were shot from various angles to make the final sprites.
I'm expecting No Man's Sky to be kinda like Elite: Dangerous, lots of potential falls flat on it's face with execution. If it manages to pull a Minecraft I'll be pleasantly surprised, No Man's Sky is the biggest indie title to launch this month though.
It won't. The reviews are coming in and they're brutal: it's interesting for the novelty factor at first, but quickly becomes tedious and boring. The "procedurally generated planets" boils down to "picks a few random colors and resources." Even people who enjoyed it can't recommend it to other players because it's yet another one of those games that mistakes "hours of content" for "depth." Because if you had fun doing a task once, clearly you'll have 100 times as fun doing it 100 times. That's how fun works, right?
Which is a problem I've seen a lot in games recently: the apparent assumption that the solution to a lack of gameplay is to just repeat the same gameplay many times, as if that will make up for a lack of content.
I guess they really don't make them like they used to, when it was OK for a game to be short as long as it was fun to play.
Yeah, no.
Red Letter Media posted a fairly extensive review that goes over all the flaws the movie has (and there are a ton of them - bad pacing, poor editing, bad action sequences, just poorly thought out plotting, poorly done cameos - I can't even remember them all).
Their review - despite being very well sourced as to exactly why they're saying what they're saying - got tarred as being "misogynist."
Have you tried explaining how the Ghostbusters movie sucks online? Almost instantly you'll get a post explaining how actually the movie is great and you just hate female main characters.
Apparently if you think the movie sucks, you hate female leads and are going to be Responsible for Hollywood Not Casting Female Leads in the future because you hate women.
And not because the movie is bad.
Yes, I've literally seen that argument, I am not making it up.
And I actually liked the new Ghostbusters characters, over all. The movie is still bad, but it's not because the leads were women.
Yeah, when I watched Ghostbusters 2016 on opening weekend, I saw it in a packed theater and ... nah, just kidding.
The theater was practically deserted. I think there were maybe 20 people there all told? And this was the opening weekend.
When I went to the same theater to see Deadpool on like week three in the middle of the afternoon, the theater was literally sold out. And that's an R-rated film and it was the afternoon showing. So it's not just an unpopular theater - the new Ghostbusters film just did that poorly.
It was terrible and highly sexist. A sex object male secretary and "safety switches are for boys."
"That's the joke." The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role. Which would make more sense if Janine fit that role, which she - well, didn't. Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make.
Except they forget to play up the "friendship" angle and it comes off as the Girl Ghostbusters hating him but keeping him around for literally no reason. (They don't even seem to like him as "eye candy" after the initial interview. Like, the idea is apparently supposed to be that he's kept around because they like looking at him but then they never really show that and you're left to deduce that.)
If it had been a great movie maybe those things would be less glaring but it was a terrible movie, it wasn't funny, no suspense, no action, nothing redeeming at all.
It's not that bad. What it ends up being is a great example of studios trying to produce a "safe" movie while at the same time being "edgy." You end up with a movie that's clearly been handed a checklist by the studio and rapidly interrupts itself to let you know what it's doing.
There are funny moments and glimpses of what could have been a good movie. Unfortunately they're interspersed with "HEY DID YOU NOTICE THIS IS A COMEDY" and "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S AN OBVIOUS TOY PROTOTYPE FOR MATTEL" and "DID YOU REMEMBER THIS IS GHOSTBUSTERS? BECAUSE THIS IS A THING FROM GHOSTBUSTERS, WE HOPE YOU NOTICED IT. WE'LL JUST LINGER HERE A BIT. WHAT'S PACING?"
It is a bad movie. But it's not "fun" bad. It's just bland bad. And it's annoyingly bad because there are good ideas to be found in it, but they just aren't ever allowed to breathe.
Why is this modded down? The AC is right:
To be "certified fresh" it has to have a rating of 75% or better.
75% is Rotten Tomatoes' "cut-off" for "Certified Fresh." In order to receive the badge, after a certain number of reviews are received, the movie has to have a rating of 75% or better. Ghostbusters 2016 got close (73%), but it didn't quite hit that.
Yet it got to be "certified fresh" anyway for ... some reason. (Hm, wonder what that might be.) Despite not meeting the criteria required for that badge.
Right-click an empty spot on the toolbar and select Customize, then select Title Bar.
Nope: even with that selected, Firefox manages to ignore the "use accent color" settings and continues the "white with black text/white with gray text" focus/unfocus behavior you get without the "use accent color on title bars" setting set.
Firefox ignoring that setting is a known bug that won't be fixed because they consider it working properly.
An AC mentioned this not being the case for them, and it's because of a setting that had its default changed at some point.
To find it, right click on the desktop and choose "Personalize." (Or open Settings, which is not the Control Panel, and choose "Personalization." Do not search for "Personalization" in the Start menu because that will find you the Control Panel's version of "Personalization" and not the Settings version which what you want. Windows 10, everyone.)
Anyway, choose Colors. If you opened the Control Panel version anyway, then click on Color and it will open the Settings app to Personalization, Colors for you. Because Windows 10.
In that screen, scroll down below all the accent colors, and find "Show color on Start, taskbar, action center, and title bar." Turn it on.
From now on, focused windows will use your "accent color" and unfocused windows will remain gray.
Except for Firefox, because Firefox ignores this setting. Also the Settings app itself, because I guess Metro - er, ... whatever they're calling it now apps ignore it as well.
But it will make the majority of windows more noticeably focused.
In short, yes.
If you read through their privacy stuff you'll notice they talk mostly about how they encrypt all the data they collect on you and how they try and keep it "secure" - but they still collect a ton of data on you. iOS was known to gather your location, OS X has been sending all the wifi passwords you connect to back to iCloud for several versions (yet no one cared until Windows 10 did the same thing then everyone got mad), iTunes sends back information about what music is on your Mac, and who knows what else since I'm not about to dig through their excessively long privacy policy to find what they gather on you.
In short: yes, OS X collects a shit load of info about what you're doing and then sends it back to Cupertino. But they "encrypt" it so I guess it's OK.
In the US we have the Democratic Party though.
You sure about that? As the DNC email leaks demonstrated, they're not really all that concerned about democracy when it comes to how they choose their nominees.
There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate, while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement - primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side. (But, hey, if the FBI gives a pass to criminal behavior with regards to handling our nation's biggest secrets, why be surprised when they do nothing about criminal behavior altering our elections.)
If you read any reports outside the MSM, the DNC has been a complete disaster. In addition to the walkout you mentioned there has been constant protests from the floor, off-script outbursts from invited celebrities, a "fart-in" where silenced delegates decided that if they couldn't speak they'd make do with farting (really! they had a bean cook-off), creative altering of the signs the DNC handed out to delegates (turning "Stronger Together" signs in "Stop Her", for example), which was followed by DNC goons literally stealing Bernie supporters' signs, and who knows what else that didn't get reported on.
By any objective measure the DNC has been a complete disaster. The party is more fractured now than ever before. Hillary has managed to turn 538's "80% chance" of victory into a 52% chance - WITH the "post-nomination bounce!"
But if you limit yourself to the New York Times or the Huffington Post or the like, everything is going just fine...
And nobody has yet explained how the recipient of a classified email could have prevented it from being sent.
When you have a clearance, you (at least contractors do, I suppose government types might be different) have to undergo "training" on how to handle classified information. One of the things that you're taught is how to deal with receiving classified material on an unapproved computer.
Bottom line (for contractors at least) is that basically you immediately disconnect from the Internet, immediately stop using the computer (but do not close any running programs or turn it off), and immediately contact security who will start making arrangements to deal with it. Failure to do so is essentially a crime. (Or at least I sure thought it was. Apparently it isn't, if you're a Clinton.)
Receiving classified information isn't itself a crime, but receiving it and then not doing anything about it is. Or, at least, that's what I've been taught every time I'm forced to retake the Security Clearance Refresher Training.