Disney released "Cars 3" this year and it didn't do well -- Disney doesn't have any new ideas.
The Disney side of Disney is actually doing quite well. Coco, Moana, Frozen, etc were all smash hits, and were relatively original for the current landscape. Now, the Pixar side is falling back on its laurels a little, but it's hard to believe they're completely out of ideas.
Disney's a giant conglomerate that owns a lot of franchises. Of course you're going to see sequels and variations of those franchises from them. But they're far from being a company that doesn't do original content, they seem to be better at that than they were in the past.
A Republican government will do jack shit about a merger where Rupert Murdoch stands to gain billions of dollars. In the improbable event they stick their oar in, expect Fox News to actually start attacking Republicans - and I don't mean some "establishment" Republicans, I mean Trump, the Tea Party, everyone.
I think arguing that someone abused something once therefore it's not necessary (which was the argument, not merely that it was a "good thing") is not reasonable. Unless you see a hard limit to which an economy will ever grow, placing a hard limit on a currency supply is absolutely going to be disastrous. It will ultimately result in deflation, which will kill investment and turn a currency into a store of value rather than an exchange medium.
Yes, history has shown us several examples of poorly managed currencies. But history has also shown us far more examples of well managed currencies. A soft limit, such as that advocated by Friedman (where the amount of currency is still not subject to a hard limit, but where the amount in current circulation is determined by a computer algorithm) is a better choice if you're worried about incompetence or malice causing mismanagement of an economy and an oversupply of currency.
It's worked on non-Amazon devices for a while. However, what they've done (this might have changed recently) is forced you to download it from the Amazon App Store, after downloading the official Amazon app via Amazon's website rather than via the Play Store.
Yeah it's dumb, and no, the average Baby Boomer wouldn't be able to do it, but it's not restricted in the sense you think it is.
Why the fuck would men paying child support for children that AREN'T THEIRS want better parental leave?
I don't know. You tell me. Also tell me how it's relevant. Are you suggesting that every man, or even most men, that are MRAs that complain about having to pay child support are claiming (for anything other than legal reasons) that they're not the father? Courts generally deal with that issue through paternity tests. You did know that, right? You did know that almost every single man claiming that the kid they're paying child support for isn't their's is actually lying?
And why would that stop an actual men's right's movement from protesting against the lack of parental leave? Is it your position that the entire MRA movement, every single one, is made up of people who are accused of being fathers, but are in fact not?
There are no actual fathers in the MRA movement? Really? Not one?
They're all... sterile? Or they've never had sex? What is it? Please tell me, oh angry one?
Also, if a group says they are for men's rights, but calls the big bad enemy "the Patriarchy," you know without a doubt exactly what they think of men's rights.
Perhaps you can explain, because it's almost like you pulled another stupid argument right out of your ass, didn't think about it much, and then shat it onto your keyboard and hit submit. Why would being against "The Patriarchy" mean you're opposed to men having equal rights? Do you know what the patriarchy is? Did you mosey on over to Rationalwiki or some other site that explains what feminist jargon means before shitting on your keyboard? Or is it the name? Is it your position that women can't suggest that the world is run by a combination of forces that favor male power without somehow being opposed to men having any rights at all, including rights they don't have?
No, you can't mean that, because that would be stupid... but wait, weren't you the amazingly clever guy just now who appeared to imply that not a single member of the MRA movement has ever had a kid?
Based on what you have already written, calling you a liar would be a compliment.
Based upon what you have already written, calling you an idiot would be a compliment.
So your response is the same as what the other side says all the time about yours?
I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here. Yes, I'm aware a lot of people think "I'm not X, you're the X, there, I win" is an argument, but that doesn't apply here.
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
Their sole job is to provide connectivity between their customers and the Internet, a massive telecommunications network.
It should have been regulated like this from the start. I appreciate why it wasn't from the start, but the network is mature now, and most people only have a choice of two wireline providers. The technical issues are long resolved. The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply - if they ever did.
It says only the Republicans on the committee voted to end NN. Also does that mean it wasn't Obama who tried to introduce NN? Because I heard lots of conservative critics claiming Obama had overstepped his authority in introducing Network Neutrality.
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke was. I don't think you know what a Mary Sue is.
Also, you can turn in your geek card given your quote: "The crew behind Rogue One was making a lot of SJW noise on social media, including calling the Empire a white supremacist regime (FFS, how can you be so lacking in imagination and still hold a creative writing job?!!!)" The Empire always were Nazis, that's what Lucas based them on. That's literally why all the officers wear jackboots.
You have no idea what Star Wars is. You are completely unfamiliar with the original movies, you have no idea what the themes are.
In the mean time you consider it an outrage, an "SJW" outrage nonetheless, that something that's supposed to be evil might get compared to White Supremacism. Seriously? You're so out of touch you think it's wrong to consider White Supremacism evil? Because even here on Slashdot you're going to have a hard sell with that.
"Oh, I only liked Star Wars before it was cool." "Oh, it went to hell with Disney, it became all commercialized!"
Yeah, that was Star Wars alright, a niche thing only nerds liked that was never commercialized.
The reviewers I trust say The Last Jedi was awesome. And BTW, I saw TFA, and I know it's become cool to rag on it, but I loved it. The complaints are stupid - it harked back to Star Wars (so called Episode 4) you say? Dude, have you watched ANY OTHER F---ING SW MOVIES IN THE OT? They ALL do that.
It was fun! It had great characters! Having a former storm trooper be the audience surrogate was a massive improvement on the camp robot AS of the original.
And the reviewers say this is better? It probably is. They say it's the best Star Wars movie since ESB, and you know, I'm inclined to believe they may well be right, because SW in the hands of someone who loves the franchise should lead to great things.
So I'm pumped. As someone who loved Star Wars in 1978 when I went to see it at the cinema with my dad. When it was already cool, because it was from the beginning. When it was already commercialized, because the toys were already in stores in the UK when the film finally made it to our shores.
It probably won't change anyone's political orientation, but that's not the point. Almost all political campaigning focuses on two points:
1. Re-enforce your base's opinions and get them motivated to actually take action.
2. Depress your opponent's supporters.
Facebook is a giant network of echo chambers. It's ripe for exploiting, taking the above model of political campaigning and ramping it up exponentially.
Most Americans have a choice of ISPs. The choice is between Bell (Verizon, AT&T, etc) or Cable.
Neither's culture reflects goodwill towards the concept of NN. The telcos might once have done that pre-divestiture, but virtually all phone companies spend most of their time trying to figure out "innovative" ways to complicate your bill while making it look simple. And the cable companies are notorious for restricting access to what you can have in opaque "packages" and inventing new charges to cover it.
Why, exactly, should we trust them with IP when their own native products are handled so poorly?
He put the term in quotes, I think he's well aware there's a disconnect between actual liberalism and the viewpoints of these people, who are conservatives in the strictess sense even if they claim otherwise - against positive change and against programs that help other people if they mildly inconvenience them themselves.
Nice of you to ignore the overwhelming evidence making up the vast majority of studies that demonstrate women are, actually paid less for identical work, even when all other factors are taken into account.
Surveys of higher paid men and women show the pay gap as being enormous, despite the reasons people would take those jobs being identical. Women CEOs are not taking lower salaries because "quality of life".
Jeez, we had one survey posted to Slashdot recently that argued that women are paid less because somehow there are "logical" reasons, and now everyone's trying to find an excuse.
No, they're not. They'll pay whatever the market rate is. Even if they did, the impact they'd make would be only slight: the issue here isn't their decisions about wages, but about hiring. If you're still at a situation where 5% of qualified men are unemployed, but 50% of qualified women are unemployed, then the women are going to get paid less.
If they only hired women, they'd have to pay more. Women likely earn less for the most part due to discrimination, rather than because they're totally OK with being paid poorer wages. If you discriminate in favor of one group over another, you'll end up paying more members of that group you favor.
If they only hired women, they'd have to pay more. Women likely earn less for the most part due to discrimination, rather than because they're totally OK with being paid poorer wages. If you discriminate in favor of one group over another, you'll end up paying more members of that group you favor.
That's hard because of the way Bitcoin stories work.
As Slashdot mines the news for more Bitcoin stories, they become more and more computationally expensive to find. While there may seem a lot right now, especially as more and more submitters join the craze, mining Twitter feeds, various libertarian blogs, and Reddit for undiscovered Bitcoin stories, there will eventually be an equilibrium where they just stop being profitable to find. At that point the number of stories posted to Slashdot will decrease.
Advocates of Slashdot covering Bitcoin claim that when this happens, the stories published will be more and more valuable, but many feel that the very act of reaching this equilibrium will mean that there just aren't any interesting posts left, resulting in a complete collapse of interest in this shitty "currency that's not a currency".
Slashdot Mirror
If the Trump administration vetoes the buyout: not much.
If the Trump administration supports the buyout: re-electing the Republicans. It'll all go to Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch media empire.
The Disney side of Disney is actually doing quite well. Coco, Moana, Frozen, etc were all smash hits, and were relatively original for the current landscape. Now, the Pixar side is falling back on its laurels a little, but it's hard to believe they're completely out of ideas.
Disney's a giant conglomerate that owns a lot of franchises. Of course you're going to see sequels and variations of those franchises from them. But they're far from being a company that doesn't do original content, they seem to be better at that than they were in the past.
A Republican government will do jack shit about a merger where Rupert Murdoch stands to gain billions of dollars. In the improbable event they stick their oar in, expect Fox News to actually start attacking Republicans - and I don't mean some "establishment" Republicans, I mean Trump, the Tea Party, everyone.
I think arguing that someone abused something once therefore it's not necessary (which was the argument, not merely that it was a "good thing") is not reasonable. Unless you see a hard limit to which an economy will ever grow, placing a hard limit on a currency supply is absolutely going to be disastrous. It will ultimately result in deflation, which will kill investment and turn a currency into a store of value rather than an exchange medium.
Yes, history has shown us several examples of poorly managed currencies. But history has also shown us far more examples of well managed currencies. A soft limit, such as that advocated by Friedman (where the amount of currency is still not subject to a hard limit, but where the amount in current circulation is determined by a computer algorithm) is a better choice if you're worried about incompetence or malice causing mismanagement of an economy and an oversupply of currency.
It's worked on non-Amazon devices for a while. However, what they've done (this might have changed recently) is forced you to download it from the Amazon App Store, after downloading the official Amazon app via Amazon's website rather than via the Play Store.
Yeah it's dumb, and no, the average Baby Boomer wouldn't be able to do it, but it's not restricted in the sense you think it is.
I don't know. You tell me. Also tell me how it's relevant. Are you suggesting that every man, or even most men, that are MRAs that complain about having to pay child support are claiming (for anything other than legal reasons) that they're not the father? Courts generally deal with that issue through paternity tests. You did know that, right? You did know that almost every single man claiming that the kid they're paying child support for isn't their's is actually lying?
And why would that stop an actual men's right's movement from protesting against the lack of parental leave? Is it your position that the entire MRA movement, every single one, is made up of people who are accused of being fathers, but are in fact not?
There are no actual fathers in the MRA movement? Really? Not one?
They're all... sterile? Or they've never had sex? What is it? Please tell me, oh angry one?
Perhaps you can explain, because it's almost like you pulled another stupid argument right out of your ass, didn't think about it much, and then shat it onto your keyboard and hit submit. Why would being against "The Patriarchy" mean you're opposed to men having equal rights? Do you know what the patriarchy is? Did you mosey on over to Rationalwiki or some other site that explains what feminist jargon means before shitting on your keyboard? Or is it the name? Is it your position that women can't suggest that the world is run by a combination of forces that favor male power without somehow being opposed to men having any rights at all, including rights they don't have?
No, you can't mean that, because that would be stupid... but wait, weren't you the amazingly clever guy just now who appeared to imply that not a single member of the MRA movement has ever had a kid?
I can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say here. Yes, I'm aware a lot of people think "I'm not X, you're the X, there, I win" is an argument, but that doesn't apply here.
An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?
Their sole job is to provide connectivity between their customers and the Internet, a massive telecommunications network.
It should have been regulated like this from the start. I appreciate why it wasn't from the start, but the network is mature now, and most people only have a choice of two wireline providers. The technical issues are long resolved. The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply - if they ever did.
It says only the Republicans on the committee voted to end NN. Also does that mean it wasn't Obama who tried to introduce NN? Because I heard lots of conservative critics claiming Obama had overstepped his authority in introducing Network Neutrality.
Rey is no more a Mary Sue than Luke was. I don't think you know what a Mary Sue is.
Also, you can turn in your geek card given your quote: "The crew behind Rogue One was making a lot of SJW noise on social media, including calling the Empire a white supremacist regime (FFS, how can you be so lacking in imagination and still hold a creative writing job?!!!)" The Empire always were Nazis, that's what Lucas based them on. That's literally why all the officers wear jackboots.
You have no idea what Star Wars is. You are completely unfamiliar with the original movies, you have no idea what the themes are.
In the mean time you consider it an outrage, an "SJW" outrage nonetheless, that something that's supposed to be evil might get compared to White Supremacism. Seriously? You're so out of touch you think it's wrong to consider White Supremacism evil? Because even here on Slashdot you're going to have a hard sell with that.
Yeah, let's start that boycott in a few weeks though, I wouldn't want to miss the new Star Wars movie.
IIT: Geek Hipsters.
"Oh, I only liked Star Wars before it was cool."
"Oh, it went to hell with Disney, it became all commercialized!"
Yeah, that was Star Wars alright, a niche thing only nerds liked that was never commercialized.
The reviewers I trust say The Last Jedi was awesome. And BTW, I saw TFA, and I know it's become cool to rag on it, but I loved it. The complaints are stupid - it harked back to Star Wars (so called Episode 4) you say? Dude, have you watched ANY OTHER F---ING SW MOVIES IN THE OT? They ALL do that.
It was fun! It had great characters! Having a former storm trooper be the audience surrogate was a massive improvement on the camp robot AS of the original.
And the reviewers say this is better? It probably is. They say it's the best Star Wars movie since ESB, and you know, I'm inclined to believe they may well be right, because SW in the hands of someone who loves the franchise should lead to great things.
So I'm pumped. As someone who loved Star Wars in 1978 when I went to see it at the cinema with my dad. When it was already cool, because it was from the beginning. When it was already commercialized, because the toys were already in stores in the UK when the film finally made it to our shores.
^ This is what Republicans really think and tell each other is true.
Uh, read (2)
Wait, you just said... did you read what you literally said one sentence before that?
It probably won't change anyone's political orientation, but that's not the point. Almost all political campaigning focuses on two points:
1. Re-enforce your base's opinions and get them motivated to actually take action.
2. Depress your opponent's supporters.
Facebook is a giant network of echo chambers. It's ripe for exploiting, taking the above model of political campaigning and ramping it up exponentially.
Were any Slashdotters claiming the Essential phones would be a success?!
I had no idea Comcast and Verizon have such rabid fans among moderators today.
If were true (thankfully it's not, but that doesn't mean the situation is good) it would re-enforce my point.
Most Americans have a choice of ISPs. The choice is between Bell (Verizon, AT&T, etc) or Cable.
Neither's culture reflects goodwill towards the concept of NN. The telcos might once have done that pre-divestiture, but virtually all phone companies spend most of their time trying to figure out "innovative" ways to complicate your bill while making it look simple. And the cable companies are notorious for restricting access to what you can have in opaque "packages" and inventing new charges to cover it.
Why, exactly, should we trust them with IP when their own native products are handled so poorly?
He put the term in quotes, I think he's well aware there's a disconnect between actual liberalism and the viewpoints of these people, who are conservatives in the strictess sense even if they claim otherwise - against positive change and against programs that help other people if they mildly inconvenience them themselves.
Nice of you to ignore the overwhelming evidence making up the vast majority of studies that demonstrate women are, actually paid less for identical work, even when all other factors are taken into account.
Surveys of higher paid men and women show the pay gap as being enormous, despite the reasons people would take those jobs being identical. Women CEOs are not taking lower salaries because "quality of life".
Jeez, we had one survey posted to Slashdot recently that argued that women are paid less because somehow there are "logical" reasons, and now everyone's trying to find an excuse.
No, they're not. They'll pay whatever the market rate is. Even if they did, the impact they'd make would be only slight: the issue here isn't their decisions about wages, but about hiring. If you're still at a situation where 5% of qualified men are unemployed, but 50% of qualified women are unemployed, then the women are going to get paid less.
It's market forces.
If they only hired women, they'd have to pay more. Women likely earn less for the most part due to discrimination, rather than because they're totally OK with being paid poorer wages. If you discriminate in favor of one group over another, you'll end up paying more members of that group you favor.
If they only hired women, they'd have to pay more. Women likely earn less for the most part due to discrimination, rather than because they're totally OK with being paid poorer wages. If you discriminate in favor of one group over another, you'll end up paying more members of that group you favor.
That's hard because of the way Bitcoin stories work.
As Slashdot mines the news for more Bitcoin stories, they become more and more computationally expensive to find. While there may seem a lot right now, especially as more and more submitters join the craze, mining Twitter feeds, various libertarian blogs, and Reddit for undiscovered Bitcoin stories, there will eventually be an equilibrium where they just stop being profitable to find. At that point the number of stories posted to Slashdot will decrease.
Advocates of Slashdot covering Bitcoin claim that when this happens, the stories published will be more and more valuable, but many feel that the very act of reaching this equilibrium will mean that there just aren't any interesting posts left, resulting in a complete collapse of interest in this shitty "currency that's not a currency".