I think this might be a bit simplistic, as demographic groups are far more complex than just educational background (which you've lumped together into only 5 categories, without any regard for the field of study: someone with a "theological degree" or a degree in "metaphysics" (WTF?) is not equivalent to someone with a degree in engineering, mathematics, or liberal arts. Someone with a degree from some wacky diploma mill or a "Christian college" is not the same as someone with a degree from an Ivy League or from a well-respected state university.
There's some other big demographic factors here which are pretty important: age range, and religious affiliation (if any). Certain generations tend to vote certain ways, and religion hugely affects voting too.
Exactly. And he had a lot of other help; I read somewhere that his (now ex-)wife helped edit the script for ANH to keep it from having the same shit dialog that the Prequels had. And of course ESB and RotJ had other writers and directors. Lucas had a few good ideas for an overall story, then other people came in and cleaned it all up and gave us Episodes 4-6. The Prequels are what you get when Lucas has full control of everything, and the result is crap, some nice ideas, but overall crap.
What are you talking about? Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. Although I have sometimes wondered why the Star Trek franchise went straight from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I guess someone at Paramount forgot how to count. But that's OK, IV and VI were both good movies.
I liked the first JJ ST movie better than the SW prequels (1 and 2, never saw 3).
I still didn't like it enough to bother watching his second ST movie. And considering I used to be a big ST fan as a teenager, that's saying something.
One shitfest being better than another shitfest just isn't enough to get me to spend time or money watching a movie.
THX-1138 was an enjoyable film, but it had no dialog! That's the #1 complaint about Lucas's scripts: he can't write dialog worth a shit. THX didn't have any, except a few weird lines ("I'm an android!"). THX was all about visual effects, nothing more. And it did well with that. It really didn't have much of a plot, and certainly no dialog worth speaking of.
JJ's Star Trek movies were lame, and they cut out everything that made ST great: the intellectualism and consideration of social issues, instead of just having mindless violence and action like most other modern movies.
I don't; we've already seen what JJ produces with sci-fi with his Star Trek movies, and the result isn't pretty. Better than the SW Prequels, maybe a little, but that's not saying much.
Yes, that is true, but the thing is, even if Abrams's SW is better than Lucas's, that's not enough to make me spend my time watching it. Something slightly better than utter crap is still crap. I'm not going to go watch a movie just because it's not quite as horrifically bad as some other movie.
Yeah, at first the idea of Lucas's script not being used sounds great. But then you have to just remember how awful JJ's Star Trek movies were.
Honestly, I don't see this working out well at all. The movies would have sucked in Lucas's hands, and they're going to suck in JJ's hands. They should have hired Joss Whedon to do them instead. Or maybe James Cameron (though he probably wouldn't have been interested).
Honestly, I'm curious which companies these posters are talking about. I live in America, and the last time I was drug-tested was when I went to work for Intel way back in 2000. Since then, I've had 4 other corporate jobs, including one short-term contract assignment at a defense contractor, and I never had to take a drug test.
This still doesn't make sense. The Powershift (which is just Ford's name for DSG, which is still an "automatic", it just uses clutches and two transmissions that look like manuals mechanically, but are shifted by computer, or optionally by the driver using paddles) is still getting better highway mileage, which is not because of shifting competence but because of gear ratios, since you don't normally need to shift a lot when driving on the highway. The anticipation factor you speak of is only a factor when driving at lower, varying speeds, not cruising on the highway with the cruise control set.
Note also that CVT transmissions are also "automatics" (even though, again, mechanically, they have little in common with a traditional automatic), and here again I'm pretty sure Suburus are showing better MPG across the board with theirs.
>Go to Europe and you'll see the automatic/manual dynamic flipped. American drivers are lazier. They can barely be bothered to use their turn signals much less shift a manual.
That's irrelevant, we're talking about cars with both manual and automatic options, and for the manuals, the small subset of Americans who do like to drive them. I'm fairly sure they don't put different gear ratios in the manual models in Europe.
Back to the other one their family members came from. What do you think, or are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you really think Mexico is going to turn them away?
"Legally entitled to be here" does not equal "your entire extended family is entitled to be here".
>That's not to say fast shifting automatics don't exist but they're on better cars than I have driven.
Then you need to send your 1985 Chrysler to the junkyard and get something a little more modern, especially something with a DSG (Fords, VWs, Audis) or a CVT (Suburu).
NASCAR racing is not about efficiency, it's about restricting all the participants to using ancient technology so they can supposedly see who the better driver is without making it a tech-fest like F1 racing. Modern DSG gearboxes were largely pioneered in F1 racing. And even there, where they don't share the same concerns about technology as the primitive people in NASCAR, they still made restrictions so that gear changes weren't made automatically by software; from Wikipedia: "After concerns that the technology allowed software engineers to pre-program the cars to automatically change to the optimum gear according to the position on the track, without any driver intervention, a standardized software system was mandated, ensuring the gears would only change up or down when instructed to by the driver. Buttons on the steering wheel, which go directly to a certain gear—rather than sequentially—are still permitted."
18-wheelers don't have them because 1) automatics can only handle so much torque, so for an application like this involving so much torque, it's a lot cheaper and easier to just a manual with a semi-tractor, and 2) trucks spend most of their time on the highway where gear changing isn't necessary so much. (Plus they don't care much about accelerating quickly on the highway like car buyers do.)
The other thing you're missing is that both these applications involve professional drivers. Your average car driver cannot shift more efficiently than a computer, and if you really think you're the equal of an F1 driver, then you're a fool.
Lastly, it probably won't be long before manual transmissions are gone in semi-tractors. They've been gone in heavy construction equipment for ages now, because they all went to serial-hybrid-electic drivetrains. Trucks are going to go the same way because of efficiency concerns, and there simply won't be a transmission.
Remember, there's really only two parties in the US, and the Republicans generally appeal to the low-education religious voters. STEM workers are basically the opposite of that (and generally look down on low-education religious people), so they go with the other party usually.
Yes, I realize that's why the CEOs want more H1Bs, so they can live here while having a labor force that's more easily exploited. However, the idea that cutting off H1B will suddenly make all these CEOs move to Bangalore is just ridiculous, so that's why I was calling that out. If H1B were ended, they'd be forced to hire more American workers.
so the immigrants don't get a free ride on the backs of citizen taxpayers, and employers don't get an exploitable underclass to undermine those very same citizens.
You can't do that with open borders. There's zero incentive to raise wages when there's an infinitely large class of workers, nor is there any incentive to treat workers well when you can so easily replace them due to a glut in the labor market. The only way this would work is with a large increase in the minimum wage, or better yet a Basic Income. However you can't do that with open borders because then *everyone* will want to immigrate there for a free ride. You can't have generous social services and open borders at the same time; it's mathematically impossible.
Everything Warren spouts has been contrary to everything the Dems have been doing since the mid-2000s. She is no more representative of Democrats than Ron Paul was representative of Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
Too late now. Thanks a lot, Disney.
Perhaps, but all those were actually pretty good.
I think this might be a bit simplistic, as demographic groups are far more complex than just educational background (which you've lumped together into only 5 categories, without any regard for the field of study: someone with a "theological degree" or a degree in "metaphysics" (WTF?) is not equivalent to someone with a degree in engineering, mathematics, or liberal arts. Someone with a degree from some wacky diploma mill or a "Christian college" is not the same as someone with a degree from an Ivy League or from a well-respected state university.
There's some other big demographic factors here which are pretty important: age range, and religious affiliation (if any). Certain generations tend to vote certain ways, and religion hugely affects voting too.
So you'll take 1 stinking turd instead of 3 rotting turds?
I prefer NO turds at all, so I'll just stay home and watch Netflix or just go on a walk outside.
Exactly. And he had a lot of other help; I read somewhere that his (now ex-)wife helped edit the script for ANH to keep it from having the same shit dialog that the Prequels had. And of course ESB and RotJ had other writers and directors. Lucas had a few good ideas for an overall story, then other people came in and cleaned it all up and gave us Episodes 4-6. The Prequels are what you get when Lucas has full control of everything, and the result is crap, some nice ideas, but overall crap.
What blind spot? What are you talking about? And what is this link you posted? It doesn't go anywhere, or have a valid URL, it just says "http://".
What are you talking about? Shatner never directed a Star Trek movie. Although I have sometimes wondered why the Star Trek franchise went straight from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I guess someone at Paramount forgot how to count. But that's OK, IV and VI were both good movies.
I liked the first JJ ST movie better than the SW prequels (1 and 2, never saw 3).
I still didn't like it enough to bother watching his second ST movie. And considering I used to be a big ST fan as a teenager, that's saying something.
One shitfest being better than another shitfest just isn't enough to get me to spend time or money watching a movie.
The Kardashians is more decent than Lucas's shitfests, but I'm not about to spend my time watching the Kardashians.
Oh please.
THX-1138 was an enjoyable film, but it had no dialog! That's the #1 complaint about Lucas's scripts: he can't write dialog worth a shit. THX didn't have any, except a few weird lines ("I'm an android!"). THX was all about visual effects, nothing more. And it did well with that. It really didn't have much of a plot, and certainly no dialog worth speaking of.
JJ's Star Trek movies were lame, and they cut out everything that made ST great: the intellectualism and consideration of social issues, instead of just having mindless violence and action like most other modern movies.
Just read the Timothy Zahn books and ignore everything else.
I don't; we've already seen what JJ produces with sci-fi with his Star Trek movies, and the result isn't pretty. Better than the SW Prequels, maybe a little, but that's not saying much.
Yes, that is true, but the thing is, even if Abrams's SW is better than Lucas's, that's not enough to make me spend my time watching it. Something slightly better than utter crap is still crap. I'm not going to go watch a movie just because it's not quite as horrifically bad as some other movie.
Not me. JJ's Star Trek movies were lame, so I have no hope he's going to do better here. Better than Lucas, perhaps, but that's not saying much.
Yeah, at first the idea of Lucas's script not being used sounds great. But then you have to just remember how awful JJ's Star Trek movies were.
Honestly, I don't see this working out well at all. The movies would have sucked in Lucas's hands, and they're going to suck in JJ's hands. They should have hired Joss Whedon to do them instead. Or maybe James Cameron (though he probably wouldn't have been interested).
Honestly, I'm curious which companies these posters are talking about. I live in America, and the last time I was drug-tested was when I went to work for Intel way back in 2000. Since then, I've had 4 other corporate jobs, including one short-term contract assignment at a defense contractor, and I never had to take a drug test.
This still doesn't make sense. The Powershift (which is just Ford's name for DSG, which is still an "automatic", it just uses clutches and two transmissions that look like manuals mechanically, but are shifted by computer, or optionally by the driver using paddles) is still getting better highway mileage, which is not because of shifting competence but because of gear ratios, since you don't normally need to shift a lot when driving on the highway. The anticipation factor you speak of is only a factor when driving at lower, varying speeds, not cruising on the highway with the cruise control set.
Note also that CVT transmissions are also "automatics" (even though, again, mechanically, they have little in common with a traditional automatic), and here again I'm pretty sure Suburus are showing better MPG across the board with theirs.
>Go to Europe and you'll see the automatic/manual dynamic flipped. American drivers are lazier. They can barely be bothered to use their turn signals much less shift a manual.
That's irrelevant, we're talking about cars with both manual and automatic options, and for the manuals, the small subset of Americans who do like to drive them. I'm fairly sure they don't put different gear ratios in the manual models in Europe.
Back to the other one their family members came from. What do you think, or are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you really think Mexico is going to turn them away?
"Legally entitled to be here" does not equal "your entire extended family is entitled to be here".
>That's not to say fast shifting automatics don't exist but they're on better cars than I have driven.
Then you need to send your 1985 Chrysler to the junkyard and get something a little more modern, especially something with a DSG (Fords, VWs, Audis) or a CVT (Suburu).
NASCAR racing is not about efficiency, it's about restricting all the participants to using ancient technology so they can supposedly see who the better driver is without making it a tech-fest like F1 racing. Modern DSG gearboxes were largely pioneered in F1 racing. And even there, where they don't share the same concerns about technology as the primitive people in NASCAR, they still made restrictions so that gear changes weren't made automatically by software; from Wikipedia: "After concerns that the technology allowed software engineers to pre-program the cars to automatically change to the optimum gear according to the position on the track, without any driver intervention, a standardized software system was mandated, ensuring the gears would only change up or down when instructed to by the driver. Buttons on the steering wheel, which go directly to a certain gear—rather than sequentially—are still permitted."
18-wheelers don't have them because 1) automatics can only handle so much torque, so for an application like this involving so much torque, it's a lot cheaper and easier to just a manual with a semi-tractor, and 2) trucks spend most of their time on the highway where gear changing isn't necessary so much. (Plus they don't care much about accelerating quickly on the highway like car buyers do.)
The other thing you're missing is that both these applications involve professional drivers. Your average car driver cannot shift more efficiently than a computer, and if you really think you're the equal of an F1 driver, then you're a fool.
Lastly, it probably won't be long before manual transmissions are gone in semi-tractors. They've been gone in heavy construction equipment for ages now, because they all went to serial-hybrid-electic drivetrains. Trucks are going to go the same way because of efficiency concerns, and there simply won't be a transmission.
Remember, there's really only two parties in the US, and the Republicans generally appeal to the low-education religious voters. STEM workers are basically the opposite of that (and generally look down on low-education religious people), so they go with the other party usually.
Yes, I realize that's why the CEOs want more H1Bs, so they can live here while having a labor force that's more easily exploited. However, the idea that cutting off H1B will suddenly make all these CEOs move to Bangalore is just ridiculous, so that's why I was calling that out. If H1B were ended, they'd be forced to hire more American workers.
so the immigrants don't get a free ride on the backs of citizen taxpayers, and employers don't get an exploitable underclass to undermine those very same citizens.
You can't do that with open borders. There's zero incentive to raise wages when there's an infinitely large class of workers, nor is there any incentive to treat workers well when you can so easily replace them due to a glut in the labor market. The only way this would work is with a large increase in the minimum wage, or better yet a Basic Income. However you can't do that with open borders because then *everyone* will want to immigrate there for a free ride. You can't have generous social services and open borders at the same time; it's mathematically impossible.
Everything Warren spouts has been contrary to everything the Dems have been doing since the mid-2000s. She is no more representative of Democrats than Ron Paul was representative of Republicans.