Not really. There are actually quite a few decent superhero stories with a sensible plot. But you are right too many of them boil down to: evil power wants to destroy world because reasons or family feud between powerful people wants to destroy the world because reasons.
Having "reasons" vs having something intelligent to write in place of that word, and having something to write which isn't sumarised in some narration in the first 5 minutes of the film is what separates the hollow nonsense from the somewhat decent movies.
Jason Momoa is a handsome man, currently in the "omg yes please!" Club for girls (and some men) across the world. I find it hard to believe this guy was threatened only by men.
That just shows you clearly haven't read the review. Here's a cut from the first paragraph, tell me why some women who drools at the thought of Jason Momoa would write a death threat about this:
"He’s a hirsute beast of a man that could probably sear your heart with the power of his gleaming green eyes. In another life, he probably modeled for 1980s cheesy romance novel covers. What a perfectly cast superhero. Take away Momoa’s steady presence, and you’re looking at an overstuffed mess"
Thus anyone criticising Aquaman is a target of these guys.
Why do you always default to SJW bullshit rather than realising that there actually a lot of angry comic fans out there. Death threats to reviewers aren't even new, and certainly predate Aquaman and Wonder Woman. Some people are just pissed that Warner Brothers are shitting on their childhood memories by releasing flops that get hammered in the reviews.
The same reason I read spam: My filter is not perfect enough to sort the hate mail from the legit mail? You're right it's usually quite readily apparent, but in the world of tweets those first few words of the hate mail are also the only words. You figured out what's going on? Congrats you just read the entire mail.
But if you do read it, just remember that death threats on the internet are absurdly hollow.
Hollow threats repeated ad nauseam still...well are nauseating. Excessive negativity can take it's toll even when it may not be directly aimed at you. If you read nothing but death threats and critiques all day it would take a toll on you as well. I don't think he actually believes that he is in any danger.
The fact aquaman is grossing over a billion dollars worldwide so soon ahead of so many other titles is proof we are now in an alternate timeline.
Why? Not everyone goes to the cinema seeking an oscar winning story. Some go for the lights and effects, to see a cool idea what people living under water would be like, and some even go because Jason Momoa is a one man gun show. Each of these diverse reasons is yet another ticket sold.
I enjoyed Aquaman. It wasn't a good movie, but I enjoyed it which is more than I can see for the DC movies released since Man of Steel.
The original Starwars was forgettable? I can't agree with that, but then if there weren't differences in opinions then it wouldn't be art nor would we have critics.
Each to their own. The original Starwars wasn't some cinematic masterpiece, but personally I don't find it "bad".
Okay you clarified it for me. You're not dense or blind, but rather you haven't actually watched the movie.
She manages to fend off his attacks until the planet breaks under them
She fends of a very mobile and not the least bit injured Kylo attack for about 1 minute. Then Rei Mary Sues her way to becoming one with the force, goes on the offensive, injures Kylo, disarms him, and then cuts through a chunk of his shoulder. Kylo is saved by a Deus ex Machina (since we've already got a Mary Sue and a Mcguffin why not include more lazy writing right?) and spends the first part of the following movie in surgery recovering from his arse kicking.
Seriously man I know it's a bad movie but you should at least watch it to the end if you're going to join a discussion about it.
First thing she does is crash a ship into the ground and try to run away from the Force.
Falling over yourself doesn't not make you a Mary Sue. The Mary Sue trait comes out of the character development arc.
Luke goes from farming moisture and whining, never having been off-world, to piloting a military spacecraft and taking out the Death Star using the Force, even though Vader is trying to stop him at the time.
Indeed he does. He does so through the help of a mentor. He does so through a character progression arc which is incredibly basic. The finale of his powers in his first movie can be summed up as pushing something slightly one direction so it hits its target. He spends a good portion of the second film training. His first face to face with Darth Vader results in him getting his arse handed to him. More development more character building and off he goes to take on the emperor who hands his arse to him again.
Comparing this to magic girl in the desert who goes from "omg you're talking about the force right?" to using the force suggestion on her first try and then defeating the villain of the trilogy is either being blind, intentionally dense, or maybe you're just a huge Rei fanboi.
Luke's not a perfect character by any means, but seriously the way you talk I wonder if you've actually seen any of the movies.
The original Star Wars concept was at best 3 movies
Star Wars as a concept is a universe. The original story line was at best 3 movies. Disney's problem is they are trying to copy those 3 movies rather than reaching out to any amount of good stories based in that universe which have been published, and there are a LOT of those.
It says a lot that the best Star Wars movie since I left school has been one without any of the well known characters in it.
I can forgive an average story. I can forgive poor dialogue too. But Starwars' current failings are something that would get the writers a solid D- in their highschool English classes. Ignoring the stories, the character development is non-existent, they wrote a classical Mary Sue, characters are written to decisions that are just outright dumb and often explainable. Where they are explainable it's to do with a SJW agenda (at least in The Last Jedi).
Disney should just pay some 15 year old to take their fan fiction and turn that into a movie. Except it's Disney so they'll probably just rip it off and then sue the original writer.
In fact it has been proven TRUE over and over again in open source. When a project is popular and well used, bugs (which all are security risks; the only difference between them is magnitude) get rooted out very efficiently.
Look just claiming something doesn't make it so. Maybe have data to back it up? I know I know you would struggle to prove a false, but if the CVEs on OpenSSL, and Bash (just to name 2 very high profile cases recently) are anything to go by your statement could not be more wrong.
Now to be fair the bugs are shallow statement is misrepresented. Linus's law specifically talked about beta testing and problems, not covert security vulnerabilities. But the misrepresented version has been proven false over and over again, and to claim otherwise is an incredible display of.... selective attention (even ignorance couldn't get someone this wrong).
if security is important to me, I can hire someone to look over the open source code
Did you? I bet you didn't. The number of opensource projects which have received complete independent security audits can be counted on one hand, and the most high profile case of this took so long that the results didn't even come in before the project was formally abandoned (over 2 years).
With closed source, on such products, it will be very hard to perform any kind of security review.
A concern which would be more valid if anyone demonstrates that security reviews are being performed on open source software.
You don't need to be threatened by women to see forced decisions that make no fucking sense be put in for the sole purpose of "empowering women". Don't get me wrong it would still be a turd of a movie if it weren't for the SJW trend, but you turning a blind I to it (I refuse to think you're actually blind enough not to see the absurdity that came out of the shithouse attempt at making powerful and relevant female characters) is not helping the situation at all.
Now I'm going to bow out of this discussion like an elite tie fighter pilot escaping the enemy in a tie fighter while getting shot,... being piloted by a diversity hire mechanic who needs to look powerful because reasons.
Now I'd like to explain it to you some more, but right now I'm going to go all Admiral Holdo on you and leave you here in the dark for no fucking reason what so ever.
Have you watched Star Wars before? Terrible dialogue and so so acting with the good vs evil story line.
None of that makes for a bad movie. Also none of that is listed in the GP's complaints.
Rogue One was passable but it suffered from incredibly weak writing and poor character development. The worse is Mary Sue... err I mean Rei.... oh look, slip of the fingers but I made my point anyway.
I know someone who writes Starwars fan fiction and actually included a character named Mary Sue in his books that wasn't as much of a Mary Sue. Zero training, magical use of the force, able to hold her own against EmoVader, it was just lazy writing. The crappy dialogue can stay as it adds charm and character, but man the writers need to go back to highschool. They all would have failed grade 9 English class with this story.
A bad pointer can still trash another task. Maybe other tasks can still run even if one hangs, but now you need a two level watchdog system to save that task and to save the OS in case that gets stuck.
What we could do is collect all of these functions in a common structure and run it on our hardware. Let's give it a fancy name like "Operating System".
Sure there was. You came in and wanted to play a different sport than others were playing. I was replying about file system corruption and specifically talking about file system corruption and you went and changed the scenario to one which not only has many orders of magnitude different likelihood but also orders of magnitude different consequences.
But back on point, even DigiSharman's original assertion contradicts itself. If you want "high-performance" then you don't want ECC RAM. The entire topic of ECC is incredibly intricate, far more so than a "Thanks AMD I'm being screwed by Intel" summary.
Take away people's guns and they'll just stab you. Your notion that if avoid writing in C (especially in low level systems like this) everything will be better is just stupid.
The algorithm could handle this uncertainty by computing multiple solutions and then giving humans a menu of options with their associated trade-offs
That's not the algorithms adding uncertainty and making ethical choices, that's a human performing this task and the algorithm being demoted. The idea that having a human involved improves the ethics of the decision is laughable.
Most likely explanation for all of it: they're lying and they submitted samples from others.
Why do you jump straight to that conclusion rather than researching how DNA tests are done in the first place and how uncertainty is inherently part of the process? Or has CSI Miami trained you to believe that lab samples are perfect? http://phdcomics.com/comics.ph...
Abstraction adds safety. The closer to your hardware you get the more complicated and quirky edge cases you need to handle and debug. The library principle applies here too. e.g. you don't want every idiot reinventing openssl the end result would be very bad. Instead by abstracting yourself and building on the platform of others you have not only reduced the chance of bugs in your code, you've increased consistency between your products and platforms while also dramatically simplifying the process of bug fixing.
Well, you signed up for proprietary operating system, this is what you get when you do that.
What makes you think that if the OS were non proprietary that the companies in question would have bothered to go through and debug the source code? The many eyes theory has been proven false over and over again in open source.
Have *you* gone through the Linux kernel line by line? Or are you making an assumption that someone, somewhere who is competent has done a good job?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. There are actually quite a few decent superhero stories with a sensible plot. But you are right too many of them boil down to: evil power wants to destroy world because reasons or family feud between powerful people wants to destroy the world because reasons.
Having "reasons" vs having something intelligent to write in place of that word, and having something to write which isn't sumarised in some narration in the first 5 minutes of the film is what separates the hollow nonsense from the somewhat decent movies.
Aquaman was not one of those movies.
Jason Momoa is a handsome man, currently in the "omg yes please!" Club for girls (and some men) across the world. I find it hard to believe this guy was threatened only by men.
That just shows you clearly haven't read the review. Here's a cut from the first paragraph, tell me why some women who drools at the thought of Jason Momoa would write a death threat about this:
"He’s a hirsute beast of a man that could probably sear your heart with the power of his gleaming green eyes. In another life, he probably modeled for 1980s cheesy romance novel covers. What a perfectly cast superhero.
Take away Momoa’s steady presence, and you’re looking at an overstuffed mess"
Move to Queensland Australia. The local police will happily handle your security detail: https://www.couriermail.com.au...
You mean to say that you wrote a negative review of the movie.
Have you read his review? Maybe he's actually getting death threats for writing a "bad" review. :-)
Thus anyone criticising Aquaman is a target of these guys.
Why do you always default to SJW bullshit rather than realising that there actually a lot of angry comic fans out there. Death threats to reviewers aren't even new, and certainly predate Aquaman and Wonder Woman. Some people are just pissed that Warner Brothers are shitting on their childhood memories by releasing flops that get hammered in the reviews.
So then, why are you reading it?
The same reason I read spam: My filter is not perfect enough to sort the hate mail from the legit mail? You're right it's usually quite readily apparent, but in the world of tweets those first few words of the hate mail are also the only words. You figured out what's going on? Congrats you just read the entire mail.
But if you do read it, just remember that death threats on the internet are absurdly hollow.
Hollow threats repeated ad nauseam still ...well are nauseating. Excessive negativity can take it's toll even when it may not be directly aimed at you. If you read nothing but death threats and critiques all day it would take a toll on you as well. I don't think he actually believes that he is in any danger.
The movie is horrible, no-one laughed at any point
Wow, where do you live? Sad-ville? There was plenty of laughing in my cinema.
Yeah the plot itself was incredibly silly, the acting was poor, but if I had to sum up the movie I would call it sufficiently entertaining.
The fact aquaman is grossing over a billion dollars worldwide so soon ahead of so many other titles is proof we are now in an alternate timeline.
Why? Not everyone goes to the cinema seeking an oscar winning story. Some go for the lights and effects, to see a cool idea what people living under water would be like, and some even go because Jason Momoa is a one man gun show. Each of these diverse reasons is yet another ticket sold.
I enjoyed Aquaman. It wasn't a good movie, but I enjoyed it which is more than I can see for the DC movies released since Man of Steel.
How about being highly forgettable?
The original Starwars was forgettable? I can't agree with that, but then if there weren't differences in opinions then it wouldn't be art nor would we have critics.
Each to their own. The original Starwars wasn't some cinematic masterpiece, but personally I don't find it "bad".
She doesn't beat Kylo Ren.
Okay you clarified it for me. You're not dense or blind, but rather you haven't actually watched the movie.
She manages to fend off his attacks until the planet breaks under them
She fends of a very mobile and not the least bit injured Kylo attack for about 1 minute. Then Rei Mary Sues her way to becoming one with the force, goes on the offensive, injures Kylo, disarms him, and then cuts through a chunk of his shoulder. Kylo is saved by a Deus ex Machina (since we've already got a Mary Sue and a Mcguffin why not include more lazy writing right?) and spends the first part of the following movie in surgery recovering from his arse kicking.
Seriously man I know it's a bad movie but you should at least watch it to the end if you're going to join a discussion about it.
First thing she does is crash a ship into the ground and try to run away from the Force.
Falling over yourself doesn't not make you a Mary Sue. The Mary Sue trait comes out of the character development arc.
Luke goes from farming moisture and whining, never having been off-world, to piloting a military spacecraft and taking out the Death Star using the Force, even though Vader is trying to stop him at the time.
Indeed he does. He does so through the help of a mentor. He does so through a character progression arc which is incredibly basic. The finale of his powers in his first movie can be summed up as pushing something slightly one direction so it hits its target. He spends a good portion of the second film training. His first face to face with Darth Vader results in him getting his arse handed to him. More development more character building and off he goes to take on the emperor who hands his arse to him again.
Comparing this to magic girl in the desert who goes from "omg you're talking about the force right?" to using the force suggestion on her first try and then defeating the villain of the trilogy is either being blind, intentionally dense, or maybe you're just a huge Rei fanboi.
Luke's not a perfect character by any means, but seriously the way you talk I wonder if you've actually seen any of the movies.
The original Star Wars concept was at best 3 movies
Star Wars as a concept is a universe. The original story line was at best 3 movies. Disney's problem is they are trying to copy those 3 movies rather than reaching out to any amount of good stories based in that universe which have been published, and there are a LOT of those.
It says a lot that the best Star Wars movie since I left school has been one without any of the well known characters in it.
I can forgive an average story. I can forgive poor dialogue too. But Starwars' current failings are something that would get the writers a solid D- in their highschool English classes. Ignoring the stories, the character development is non-existent, they wrote a classical Mary Sue, characters are written to decisions that are just outright dumb and often explainable. Where they are explainable it's to do with a SJW agenda (at least in The Last Jedi).
Disney should just pay some 15 year old to take their fan fiction and turn that into a movie. Except it's Disney so they'll probably just rip it off and then sue the original writer.
In fact it has been proven TRUE over and over again in open source. When a project is popular and well used, bugs (which all are security risks; the only difference between them is magnitude) get rooted out very efficiently.
Look just claiming something doesn't make it so. Maybe have data to back it up? I know I know you would struggle to prove a false, but if the CVEs on OpenSSL, and Bash (just to name 2 very high profile cases recently) are anything to go by your statement could not be more wrong.
Now to be fair the bugs are shallow statement is misrepresented. Linus's law specifically talked about beta testing and problems, not covert security vulnerabilities. But the misrepresented version has been proven false over and over again, and to claim otherwise is an incredible display of .... selective attention (even ignorance couldn't get someone this wrong).
if security is important to me, I can hire someone to look over the open source code
Did you? I bet you didn't. The number of opensource projects which have received complete independent security audits can be counted on one hand, and the most high profile case of this took so long that the results didn't even come in before the project was formally abandoned (over 2 years).
With closed source, on such products, it will be very hard to perform any kind of security review.
A concern which would be more valid if anyone demonstrates that security reviews are being performed on open source software.
You don't need to be threatened by women to see forced decisions that make no fucking sense be put in for the sole purpose of "empowering women". Don't get me wrong it would still be a turd of a movie if it weren't for the SJW trend, but you turning a blind I to it (I refuse to think you're actually blind enough not to see the absurdity that came out of the shithouse attempt at making powerful and relevant female characters) is not helping the situation at all.
Now I'm going to bow out of this discussion like an elite tie fighter pilot escaping the enemy in a tie fighter while getting shot, ... being piloted by a diversity hire mechanic who needs to look powerful because reasons.
Now I'd like to explain it to you some more, but right now I'm going to go all Admiral Holdo on you and leave you here in the dark for no fucking reason what so ever.
Have you watched Star Wars before? Terrible dialogue and so so acting with the good vs evil story line.
None of that makes for a bad movie. Also none of that is listed in the GP's complaints.
Rogue One was passable but it suffered from incredibly weak writing and poor character development. The worse is Mary Sue ... err I mean Rei .... oh look, slip of the fingers but I made my point anyway.
I know someone who writes Starwars fan fiction and actually included a character named Mary Sue in his books that wasn't as much of a Mary Sue. Zero training, magical use of the force, able to hold her own against EmoVader, it was just lazy writing. The crappy dialogue can stay as it adds charm and character, but man the writers need to go back to highschool. They all would have failed grade 9 English class with this story.
Finally, something we agree on. How do you feel about the lava battle in Episode III?
Still a better love story than Twilight.
A bad pointer can still trash another task. Maybe other tasks can still run even if one hangs, but now you need a two level watchdog system to save that task and to save the OS in case that gets stuck.
What we could do is collect all of these functions in a common structure and run it on our hardware. Let's give it a fancy name like "Operating System".
No goalpost movement here, bud. Relax!
Sure there was. You came in and wanted to play a different sport than others were playing. I was replying about file system corruption and specifically talking about file system corruption and you went and changed the scenario to one which not only has many orders of magnitude different likelihood but also orders of magnitude different consequences.
But back on point, even DigiSharman's original assertion contradicts itself. If you want "high-performance" then you don't want ECC RAM. The entire topic of ECC is incredibly intricate, far more so than a "Thanks AMD I'm being screwed by Intel" summary.
Take away people's guns and they'll just stab you. Your notion that if avoid writing in C (especially in low level systems like this) everything will be better is just stupid.
And the only way to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more is to Open Source Windows 10.
What do you imagine the result of this would look like?
The algorithm could handle this uncertainty by computing multiple solutions and then giving humans a menu of options with their associated trade-offs
That's not the algorithms adding uncertainty and making ethical choices, that's a human performing this task and the algorithm being demoted. The idea that having a human involved improves the ethics of the decision is laughable.
Most likely explanation for all of it: they're lying and they submitted samples from others.
Why do you jump straight to that conclusion rather than researching how DNA tests are done in the first place and how uncertainty is inherently part of the process? Or has CSI Miami trained you to believe that lab samples are perfect? http://phdcomics.com/comics.ph...
Abstraction adds safety. The closer to your hardware you get the more complicated and quirky edge cases you need to handle and debug. The library principle applies here too. e.g. you don't want every idiot reinventing openssl the end result would be very bad. Instead by abstracting yourself and building on the platform of others you have not only reduced the chance of bugs in your code, you've increased consistency between your products and platforms while also dramatically simplifying the process of bug fixing.
Well, you signed up for proprietary operating system, this is what you get when you do that.
What makes you think that if the OS were non proprietary that the companies in question would have bothered to go through and debug the source code? The many eyes theory has been proven false over and over again in open source.
Have *you* gone through the Linux kernel line by line? Or are you making an assumption that someone, somewhere who is competent has done a good job?