lots of printer apps for android now... you go to your manufacturer and in most cases they have an app that is compatible with most of the printers from the company.
Plug the pi into the printer and then put it on a wireless network. You can print offline that way.
That said, I don't get the point of chromebooks. They're not any cheaper then the cheap laptops you can find these days. Go to newegg. Same price basically and you get a proper operating system.
Chrome is a stupid OS. I don't know why they don't just install android on them. There are lots of printer apps for android.
Not really. Mickey Mouse would be public domain. Think about that.
Besides, I've talked to a lot of these MPAA guys personally. They're completely fanatical.
Their attitude is "our contract says we can do this, so those are our rights and anyone that violates them is a criminal." - period.
You know those crazy ads where they compare piracy to automotive theft or bank robbery? The people driving this along felt those ads were too mellow. They wanted to go farther with it.
You have no idea. They are as closed minded and intolerant as a 15th century cardinal. You cross the line and they're going to say "burn them".
While I agree nearly all the effort goes into zero day... that is because everything becomes more nebulous after that point and they make the most money off of zero day releases. So that is why they do that. But if you think they don't care about their legacy licenses you are kidding yourself. In their view, that stuff is worth billions. Telling them a certain amount of it is going to go public domain is like telling someone that a certain amount of their bank account is going to vanish. They're totally unwilling to move on the issue. They are not going to compromise on anything.
The only way forward is to let the old fire brands die... literally from old age in most cases and be replaced by more realistic members.
Even then they're not a problem so long as you understand them. Consider again the age of sail with the privateers. The privateers greatly outnumbered the official navies of their host nations. These privateers didn't go raiding their home ports or attacking allied ships... UNTIL the wars stopped and they had no justification to attack anyone.
THEN there was a problem because their whole livelihood was being a privateer at that point.
How do you stop having a war with all these privateers? Spoils. The English especially had trouble controlling their privateers because they didn't share the loot with the men that won the war. Large portions of the new world conquests should have gone to them. Under English law, paying English taxes, but still THEIR land and their profits.
Instead too much of the land went to English nobility and political interests in England that risked nothing and did nothing to win the wars. And that lead to privateers without any means of income besides piracy.
And so they did piracy. First against their old enemies such as the Spanish. Just keep fighting as if the war never ended.
But then their host nation declared them pirates and outlaws in accordance with their treaties with the aggrieved nation. Which meant they could no longer harbor in once friendly ports. They were hunted by their own people as criminals. And once that happened... well... might as well prey upon the English ships too, no?
Moral of the story, don't breed an army of attack dogs, have them win a war for you, and then leave them to starve to death.
Had the privateers been given sufficient tracts of land in the new world. The majority of the English Caribbean islands for a start... there would have been no trouble. And again, they would have operated under english law and paid English taxes. But... instead it went to English nobles and other well placed interests. Which meant the ships of those nobles and interests got boarded by pirates and looted.
In regards to hiring them for pay, you are forgetting that in most cases these would be Americans getting hired to do the job.
You have your head filled with some crap about the way mercs work that is inaccurate. They do not generally go against their host country. We have thousands of years of merc history to go through and what you have to understand is that most of them are actually rather patriotic.
They just don't want to die and they want to get paid what they're worth. That is not unreasonable.
I could go over the wars between the italian city states which I bet you're generally pretty ignorant of as well as the specifics of the european privateers during the age of sail. Which I bet you also don't know much about either.
Both situations involved large highly active mercenary armies and navies that by and large were both very effective and very loyal.
There were exceptions. Both of these sets have a hard time dealing with peace time because they only get paid during war time. Peace means they get paid nothing and so they often resort to banditry or piracy respectively.
That is the primary threat I'd see in establishing something like this... but you deal with that by keeping them on the pay roll whether there is a war or not. And that keeps them happy whether or not there is a war.
No issue with that either so long as it is the most effective means. Often there is a certain amount of corporate bloat that might be intolerable. But assuming they run their shops mean and lean... sounds good.
As to mercenaries being bad for a nation, not at all.
Consider the age of sail with the privateers. This was at a time when nations didn't have formal navies of any note. Yet those same countries had large merchant fleets with skilled sailors well able to become a navy.
Of course, they were not going to turn over their ships to the king or sign up for service if it meant losing their independence. They worked for those ships. They belonged to them. And their skills were highly in demand so they didn't need to go begging for the king's silver.
So rather then conscript all the merchant sailors, the king instead issues letters of marque granting those ships to make war on the specified enemies of the crown. The ships were permitted to take whatever they wanted from the enemy ships including the ships themselves. Rival powers would brand such sailors to be pirates but really they were just mercenaries in the pay of their respective nation.
An English ship did not sell its services to the Spanish if the spanish were at war with the english. Mercenaries rarely turn on their host nation though they do sometimes abandon it.
Regardless, the practice of privateers was very successful and allowed nations without navies to effectively project naval power. The United States in its early days did this as well. The pirates around the Americas were very thick in large part because a lot of them were New England merchants with armed merchant ships. They'd go south on a trading run and if they saw any enemy of the United States, they'd pillage her. Then sail north with a hold full of wealth and deposit their winnings.
The practice of offering a prize for capturing ships survived long after this time in the British Navy amongst others. If you can board and capture an enemy ship, I believe half the ship's value was credited to the crew of the ship in varying shares depending on the ranks of the crew.
There is nothing dishonorable about paying men to fight. You simply have to understand what you are paying for and not forget that.
In the case of US hackers hired to act in the interests of the US... I have no worries about them being any more disloyal then any conscript. Soldiers betray their countries as well least we not forget. It is upon the commanding officers and his brothers in arms to watch for such treachery and deal with it appropriately when discovered.
Offer to hire US hackers. Offer them prizes for successfully achieving certain goals. You'll get your skilled labor, you'll win every battle you are realistic about, and you'll probably do the whole thing well under budget.
Mercenaries as I have said, are actually much cheaper then regular forces. They just operate under different rules. One of which is that they have their own chain of command independent from the government and must have leave to have flexibility in the way they achieve objectives.
As to mercenaries being put at greater risk, consult the combat losses of mercenaries and compare them against regular military units.
They have much higher survival rates.
For one thing, they don't take suicide missions. For another, they do absolutely run away more often.
You remember when shipping companies were getting boarded by pirates? The shipping companies started hiring mercenaries.
Do you know what happened when a ship carrying mercenaries was boarded? About half the time they jumped over board and swam to shore.
As to how enemies deal with mercenaries, they do not ignore them. The mercenary force likes nothing better then to attack an enemy from the rear. Mercenaries are actually quite good at attacking in general. Especially ambushes or anything where they have the element of surprise. They do not like attacking prepared defenses head on and will generally refuse to do it. Enemy forces deal with mercenaries by forcing them to retreat which they do rather easily. Mercenaries are terrible defenders for this reason. They are best suited to attack.
During the city state days, that is precisely how they were used. The city states sat behind their stone walls guarded by the city guard. The mercenary army sallied forth encircle the enemy city state. They would then prey upon all the peasants that lived beyond the city walls and raid any shipment that left the city or was sent to the city. Everything the mercenaries took was theirs. They fed on what the farmers produced, they spent the money they took in those lands.
After several months or more the encircled city state would either submit to its rival or drive the mercenaries away with another mercenary company they had hired.
This system of warfare went out of style with the end of the city states and the end of city walls.
Hackers however do not risk their lives when they fight. They should be as willing to attack fixed defenses as anyone. If you have the skills of an elite hacker, you are not signing up to join the military. The pay isn't great, you get ordered around by military goons, and you have no freedom. Why would a hacker... most of whom tend to be anarchists... why would such a person join the military? They won't do it.
The military can either hire them as mercenaries and get what it needs or it can be inflexible and get garbage.
You say that indifferent to the fact that the CIA does such things without being under military rules at all.
And you say such things despite the NSA hacking away at things without being under military rules. A member of the NSA can quit at any time. Just resign and go home.
Same is true of all the military contractors that design and build the fighter planes, the submarines, the missiles, etc.
Just because you work for pay does not mean you are without honor or that it is unethical to do the work.
The men that built the atomic bomb were not members of the military.
You perhaps do not know your military history... please take no offense... do you know that mercenary armies used to be the most common means of waging war? You had your police force which was paid by the state and you had a royal guard of sorts which was very much like the modern military. However, the actual armies were considered too expensive to maintain in those days so instead of maintaining an army, you would rent one.
This had pros and cons. They were very cheap over time. Even though during war they were quite expensive, during times of peace they cost nothing at all.
The disadvantage of a mercenary army was that they lacked loyalty and a willingness to die for their client. If they were routed they would run away.
Professional armies owned by the host nation would win in most cases against a mercenary army because the mercenary army would break and run.
What further ended such armies was that professional armies could be much larger. Mercenary armies could fight little wars. They might have a few thousand men in them but they rarely got any larger then that. While as you know, professional armies can number in the hundreds of thousands.
This hacking issue however brings the whole thing full circle. There is no question of a hacker running away because he fears for his life in a hack. There is no question of the money really. And the free hackers tend to be a great deal more competent then those under conscription.
As such, a flexible mind will see that hiring them as mercenaries actually makes perfect sense.
This is a job well suited to mercenaries. They don't risk their lives.
The great danger and draw back of mercenaries is that they will not fight to the death. But hackers don't die when they lose a battle.
This concept is likely hateful to the military largely for traditional reasons. But they need to get over that. Fill the role with mercenaries and contractors. Bind them to US service, give the company a budget from the federal government, provide them with federal protection to keep them from getting assassinated by rival powers.
and that one is 10.1 inches. It is also a 2 in 1... which I guess is the new name for laptops that can become tablets. I think that was the whole point of windows 8. Boy did they cock that up.
Not 10 inches but basically the same thing. You can go sub ten inches with a chromebook if you want to be a stickler for the 10 inch thing.
What was really relevant about the netbooks was that they were cheap. 200 to 300 dollars was all you'd spend for one. And there are lots of 200 to 300 dollar laptops these days. Most of them are small like the netbooks and they tend to have similar specs. No cd drive. Itsybitsy keyboard. Atom processors are pretty common. Etc.
They didn't go anywhere. Nothing has gone.
The desktop is still here. The laptop is still here. The dumb clam shell phone is still here. The smart phone is still here. The tablet is still here. The netbook is still here.
They're all still here. They arrive on the scene, enjoy high sales, and then drop down to an equilibrium rate. It is like saying the new iphone or ipad are going away because their sales figures aren't what they were in the first week of release.
You have your time and then you become just another product.
People keep exaggerating everything saying something is going to explode or crash. Enough already.
The tablet market exploded because they were new and people wanted to have one.
Now they do. They've entered the ecosystem of stuff we own but it isn't taking anything over.
I mostly use mine to watch movies while I web browse on my laptop. The tablet sits there, playing a movie streamed from my laptop harddrive or netflix and I am happy.
As to crudeness substituted for cleverness, there is little difference from the old slapstick comedies. The only change is to make the joke dirtier. But the actual cleverness of the joke is generally the same.
Slapstick comedy is actually quite ancient and the jokes are pretty much always the same. You could have watched one 1000 years ago that had jokes of a similar nature.
As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.
Perhaps a modern laurel and hardy or three stooges. You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.
The culture has changed to make such things acceptable. If Chaplin or the Marx brothers were making movies today they'd doubtless contain some dirtier jokes then what they told in their day.
You have to compensate for the times.
Regardless, if you're determined to be unreasonable then I can't do anything for you here. The error is yours and the imperfection is yours.
This is what slapstick comedy is in the 21st century in large part because this is what gets people in the 21st century to laugh.
If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.
Compensate for the times and compensate for the genre or you're not judging the movie. Rather you're judging the times and judging the genre. Which is like complaining that there was a lot of blood in a horror movie.
It is an opinion too flawed and confused to be worthy of note.
As to creativity... Our society values creativity, individualism, and self expression. That is why we tend to show those traits more then societies that discourage those traits. It is not because we have summer vacations.
If summer vacations made people creative then people on welfare that basically did nothing all day would be the most creative people in our society.
They're not though, are they? Why? A lot of that time goes into watching tv and doing other things that are not productive.
You're doing American kids no favors here. They'll be creative whether they have summer vacations or not. We encourage those traits and give many outlets for that sort of self expression. So it is going to happen more then most places inherently. At the same time, we can help them by making sure they have the best education possible.
Studies show that a lot is forgotten during summer breaks and schools have to work very hard to get kids back up to speed. That means you're wasting time not only during the break but also during the actual school year because you have to repair the damage from the break.
Ideally, what you want to do is keep the kids in a near constant educational framework from kindergarten to college. That will maximize retention throughout and potentially allow for as much as an additional year or more of effective education in the same time period. Think of what you could do with that.
Would it be reasonable to judge an automobile by the standards of a submarine? What if I gave a review for a car and started out with the observation that it wasn't water tight to even 1 meter? Or pointed out that when put in the water whether submerged or not it would stall the engine? Or pointed out that its built in sonar system was only capable of detecting objects a couple feet behind it and only when it reversed?
Does any of that sound rational? Obviously not. It is fucking retarded.
And that is what most of the bad reviewers are doing... especially from the newspapers. They're idiot observations like "Dopey and gorey" - the boston globe. No shit, boston globe... it is a screw ball comedy. They're all dopey, you fucking morons.
Or this genius observation: "Has gross jokes" - Star Tribune. Really? Crass humor in a screw ball comedy? That is fucking shocking.
Or how about this idiot comment: ""A silly, sloppy and sophomoric slob-comedy...to paraphrase Shakespeare, it's much ado about very little. "" - SSG Syndicate. Really? A slapstick comedy that is sophomoric? And anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare knows that the "great bard" wrote lots of stupid comedies that weren't about anything either. Much ado about nothing for example was not especially about anything either. It was a lot of jokes and funny situations stitched together into an improbably plot. Yet this twit ironically cites Shakespeare's play in a pathetic attempt to make herself sound sophisticated. When really all she did was confess a lack of understanding as to the subject matter as well as sound laughably pretentious.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Judge a slap stick comedy by the standard of slap stick comedies. Not by the standards of submarines, computer graphics cards, or women's lipstick.
False. Slapstick comedies have been around for as long as film itself and many of the producers of such films have been amongst the most talented actors.
Imagine if there were a movie where Laurel and Hardy were recruited by the some intelligence service to kill Hitler or something... same thing.
The only people getting upset by this are either people that simply don't like slap stick comedy. Or people that find the political message of the movie disturbing and realizing that criticizing it directly is counter productive... simply attack the movie itself.
I've seen no criticism of the movie that can fall into anything but those two categories.
If you have a problem with the politics as most of the stuffier political types do... then just admit it and we can talk about that honestly. If rather you don't like slap stick comedies... that's fine. However they are a genre of film much like romantic comedies or horror films etc. You judge such films by the standards of their genre. If you are unfamiliar with the genre or unwilling to recognize its own internal rules then you're just disqualifying yourself from having a meaningful opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
wifi
lots of printer apps for android now... you go to your manufacturer and in most cases they have an app that is compatible with most of the printers from the company.
Plug the pi into the printer and then put it on a wireless network. You can print offline that way.
That said, I don't get the point of chromebooks. They're not any cheaper then the cheap laptops you can find these days. Go to newegg. Same price basically and you get a proper operating system.
Chrome is a stupid OS. I don't know why they don't just install android on them. There are lots of printer apps for android.
Not really. Mickey Mouse would be public domain. Think about that.
Besides, I've talked to a lot of these MPAA guys personally. They're completely fanatical.
Their attitude is "our contract says we can do this, so those are our rights and anyone that violates them is a criminal." - period.
You know those crazy ads where they compare piracy to automotive theft or bank robbery? The people driving this along felt those ads were too mellow. They wanted to go farther with it.
You have no idea. They are as closed minded and intolerant as a 15th century cardinal. You cross the line and they're going to say "burn them".
While I agree nearly all the effort goes into zero day... that is because everything becomes more nebulous after that point and they make the most money off of zero day releases. So that is why they do that. But if you think they don't care about their legacy licenses you are kidding yourself. In their view, that stuff is worth billions. Telling them a certain amount of it is going to go public domain is like telling someone that a certain amount of their bank account is going to vanish. They're totally unwilling to move on the issue. They are not going to compromise on anything.
The only way forward is to let the old fire brands die... literally from old age in most cases and be replaced by more realistic members.
As much as piracy is difficult to justify. It is rulings like this that make it hard to ultimately argue against.
You say I'm wrong without saying why. Offer a reason or you don't have a reason.
Even then they're not a problem so long as you understand them. Consider again the age of sail with the privateers. The privateers greatly outnumbered the official navies of their host nations. These privateers didn't go raiding their home ports or attacking allied ships... UNTIL the wars stopped and they had no justification to attack anyone.
THEN there was a problem because their whole livelihood was being a privateer at that point.
How do you stop having a war with all these privateers? Spoils. The English especially had trouble controlling their privateers because they didn't share the loot with the men that won the war. Large portions of the new world conquests should have gone to them. Under English law, paying English taxes, but still THEIR land and their profits.
Instead too much of the land went to English nobility and political interests in England that risked nothing and did nothing to win the wars. And that lead to privateers without any means of income besides piracy.
And so they did piracy. First against their old enemies such as the Spanish. Just keep fighting as if the war never ended.
But then their host nation declared them pirates and outlaws in accordance with their treaties with the aggrieved nation. Which meant they could no longer harbor in once friendly ports. They were hunted by their own people as criminals. And once that happened... well... might as well prey upon the English ships too, no?
Moral of the story, don't breed an army of attack dogs, have them win a war for you, and then leave them to starve to death.
Had the privateers been given sufficient tracts of land in the new world. The majority of the English Caribbean islands for a start... there would have been no trouble. And again, they would have operated under english law and paid English taxes. But... instead it went to English nobles and other well placed interests. Which meant the ships of those nobles and interests got boarded by pirates and looted.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Please rephrase and elaborate.
In regards to hiring them for pay, you are forgetting that in most cases these would be Americans getting hired to do the job.
You have your head filled with some crap about the way mercs work that is inaccurate. They do not generally go against their host country. We have thousands of years of merc history to go through and what you have to understand is that most of them are actually rather patriotic.
They just don't want to die and they want to get paid what they're worth. That is not unreasonable.
I could go over the wars between the italian city states which I bet you're generally pretty ignorant of as well as the specifics of the european privateers during the age of sail. Which I bet you also don't know much about either.
Both situations involved large highly active mercenary armies and navies that by and large were both very effective and very loyal.
There were exceptions. Both of these sets have a hard time dealing with peace time because they only get paid during war time. Peace means they get paid nothing and so they often resort to banditry or piracy respectively.
That is the primary threat I'd see in establishing something like this... but you deal with that by keeping them on the pay roll whether there is a war or not. And that keeps them happy whether or not there is a war.
No issue with that either so long as it is the most effective means. Often there is a certain amount of corporate bloat that might be intolerable. But assuming they run their shops mean and lean... sounds good.
As to mercenaries being bad for a nation, not at all.
Consider the age of sail with the privateers. This was at a time when nations didn't have formal navies of any note. Yet those same countries had large merchant fleets with skilled sailors well able to become a navy.
Of course, they were not going to turn over their ships to the king or sign up for service if it meant losing their independence. They worked for those ships. They belonged to them. And their skills were highly in demand so they didn't need to go begging for the king's silver.
So rather then conscript all the merchant sailors, the king instead issues letters of marque granting those ships to make war on the specified enemies of the crown. The ships were permitted to take whatever they wanted from the enemy ships including the ships themselves. Rival powers would brand such sailors to be pirates but really they were just mercenaries in the pay of their respective nation.
An English ship did not sell its services to the Spanish if the spanish were at war with the english. Mercenaries rarely turn on their host nation though they do sometimes abandon it.
Regardless, the practice of privateers was very successful and allowed nations without navies to effectively project naval power. The United States in its early days did this as well. The pirates around the Americas were very thick in large part because a lot of them were New England merchants with armed merchant ships. They'd go south on a trading run and if they saw any enemy of the United States, they'd pillage her. Then sail north with a hold full of wealth and deposit their winnings.
The practice of offering a prize for capturing ships survived long after this time in the British Navy amongst others. If you can board and capture an enemy ship, I believe half the ship's value was credited to the crew of the ship in varying shares depending on the ranks of the crew.
There is nothing dishonorable about paying men to fight. You simply have to understand what you are paying for and not forget that.
In the case of US hackers hired to act in the interests of the US... I have no worries about them being any more disloyal then any conscript. Soldiers betray their countries as well least we not forget. It is upon the commanding officers and his brothers in arms to watch for such treachery and deal with it appropriately when discovered.
Offer to hire US hackers. Offer them prizes for successfully achieving certain goals. You'll get your skilled labor, you'll win every battle you are realistic about, and you'll probably do the whole thing well under budget.
Mercenaries as I have said, are actually much cheaper then regular forces. They just operate under different rules. One of which is that they have their own chain of command independent from the government and must have leave to have flexibility in the way they achieve objectives.
As to mercenaries being put at greater risk, consult the combat losses of mercenaries and compare them against regular military units.
They have much higher survival rates.
For one thing, they don't take suicide missions. For another, they do absolutely run away more often.
You remember when shipping companies were getting boarded by pirates? The shipping companies started hiring mercenaries.
Do you know what happened when a ship carrying mercenaries was boarded? About half the time they jumped over board and swam to shore.
As to how enemies deal with mercenaries, they do not ignore them. The mercenary force likes nothing better then to attack an enemy from the rear. Mercenaries are actually quite good at attacking in general. Especially ambushes or anything where they have the element of surprise. They do not like attacking prepared defenses head on and will generally refuse to do it. Enemy forces deal with mercenaries by forcing them to retreat which they do rather easily. Mercenaries are terrible defenders for this reason. They are best suited to attack.
During the city state days, that is precisely how they were used. The city states sat behind their stone walls guarded by the city guard. The mercenary army sallied forth encircle the enemy city state. They would then prey upon all the peasants that lived beyond the city walls and raid any shipment that left the city or was sent to the city. Everything the mercenaries took was theirs. They fed on what the farmers produced, they spent the money they took in those lands.
After several months or more the encircled city state would either submit to its rival or drive the mercenaries away with another mercenary company they had hired.
This system of warfare went out of style with the end of the city states and the end of city walls.
Hackers however do not risk their lives when they fight. They should be as willing to attack fixed defenses as anyone. If you have the skills of an elite hacker, you are not signing up to join the military. The pay isn't great, you get ordered around by military goons, and you have no freedom. Why would a hacker... most of whom tend to be anarchists... why would such a person join the military? They won't do it.
The military can either hire them as mercenaries and get what it needs or it can be inflexible and get garbage.
You say that indifferent to the fact that the CIA does such things without being under military rules at all.
And you say such things despite the NSA hacking away at things without being under military rules. A member of the NSA can quit at any time. Just resign and go home.
Same is true of all the military contractors that design and build the fighter planes, the submarines, the missiles, etc.
Just because you work for pay does not mean you are without honor or that it is unethical to do the work.
The men that built the atomic bomb were not members of the military.
You perhaps do not know your military history... please take no offense... do you know that mercenary armies used to be the most common means of waging war? You had your police force which was paid by the state and you had a royal guard of sorts which was very much like the modern military. However, the actual armies were considered too expensive to maintain in those days so instead of maintaining an army, you would rent one.
This had pros and cons. They were very cheap over time. Even though during war they were quite expensive, during times of peace they cost nothing at all.
The disadvantage of a mercenary army was that they lacked loyalty and a willingness to die for their client. If they were routed they would run away.
Professional armies owned by the host nation would win in most cases against a mercenary army because the mercenary army would break and run.
What further ended such armies was that professional armies could be much larger. Mercenary armies could fight little wars. They might have a few thousand men in them but they rarely got any larger then that. While as you know, professional armies can number in the hundreds of thousands.
This hacking issue however brings the whole thing full circle. There is no question of a hacker running away because he fears for his life in a hack. There is no question of the money really. And the free hackers tend to be a great deal more competent then those under conscription.
As such, a flexible mind will see that hiring them as mercenaries actually makes perfect sense.
This is a job well suited to mercenaries. They don't risk their lives.
The great danger and draw back of mercenaries is that they will not fight to the death. But hackers don't die when they lose a battle.
This concept is likely hateful to the military largely for traditional reasons. But they need to get over that. Fill the role with mercenaries and contractors. Bind them to US service, give the company a budget from the federal government, provide them with federal protection to keep them from getting assassinated by rival powers.
And soldier on.
another example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
and that one is 10.1 inches. It is also a 2 in 1... which I guess is the new name for laptops that can become tablets. I think that was the whole point of windows 8. Boy did they cock that up.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
Not 10 inches but basically the same thing. You can go sub ten inches with a chromebook if you want to be a stickler for the 10 inch thing.
What was really relevant about the netbooks was that they were cheap. 200 to 300 dollars was all you'd spend for one. And there are lots of 200 to 300 dollar laptops these days. Most of them are small like the netbooks and they tend to have similar specs. No cd drive. Itsybitsy keyboard. Atom processors are pretty common. Etc.
They didn't go anywhere. Nothing has gone.
The desktop is still here.
The laptop is still here.
The dumb clam shell phone is still here.
The smart phone is still here.
The tablet is still here.
The netbook is still here.
They're all still here. They arrive on the scene, enjoy high sales, and then drop down to an equilibrium rate. It is like saying the new iphone or ipad are going away because their sales figures aren't what they were in the first week of release.
You have your time and then you become just another product.
They still exist.
People keep exaggerating everything saying something is going to explode or crash. Enough already.
The tablet market exploded because they were new and people wanted to have one.
Now they do. They've entered the ecosystem of stuff we own but it isn't taking anything over.
I mostly use mine to watch movies while I web browse on my laptop. The tablet sits there, playing a movie streamed from my laptop harddrive or netflix and I am happy.
The problem with that argument is that it works on anything and therefore is fallacious.
Any system that outputs the same answer despite input is not a system.
As to crudeness substituted for cleverness, there is little difference from the old slapstick comedies. The only change is to make the joke dirtier. But the actual cleverness of the joke is generally the same.
Slapstick comedy is actually quite ancient and the jokes are pretty much always the same. You could have watched one 1000 years ago that had jokes of a similar nature.
As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.
Perhaps a modern laurel and hardy or three stooges. You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.
The culture has changed to make such things acceptable. If Chaplin or the Marx brothers were making movies today they'd doubtless contain some dirtier jokes then what they told in their day.
You have to compensate for the times.
Regardless, if you're determined to be unreasonable then I can't do anything for you here. The error is yours and the imperfection is yours.
This is what slapstick comedy is in the 21st century in large part because this is what gets people in the 21st century to laugh.
If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.
Compensate for the times and compensate for the genre or you're not judging the movie. Rather you're judging the times and judging the genre. Which is like complaining that there was a lot of blood in a horror movie.
It is an opinion too flawed and confused to be worthy of note.
Kids do that all year.
As to creativity... Our society values creativity, individualism, and self expression. That is why we tend to show those traits more then societies that discourage those traits. It is not because we have summer vacations.
If summer vacations made people creative then people on welfare that basically did nothing all day would be the most creative people in our society.
They're not though, are they? Why? A lot of that time goes into watching tv and doing other things that are not productive.
You're doing American kids no favors here. They'll be creative whether they have summer vacations or not. We encourage those traits and give many outlets for that sort of self expression. So it is going to happen more then most places inherently. At the same time, we can help them by making sure they have the best education possible.
Studies show that a lot is forgotten during summer breaks and schools have to work very hard to get kids back up to speed. That means you're wasting time not only during the break but also during the actual school year because you have to repair the damage from the break.
Ideally, what you want to do is keep the kids in a near constant educational framework from kindergarten to college. That will maximize retention throughout and potentially allow for as much as an additional year or more of effective education in the same time period. Think of what you could do with that.
Would it be reasonable to judge an automobile by the standards of a submarine? What if I gave a review for a car and started out with the observation that it wasn't water tight to even 1 meter? Or pointed out that when put in the water whether submerged or not it would stall the engine? Or pointed out that its built in sonar system was only capable of detecting objects a couple feet behind it and only when it reversed?
Does any of that sound rational? Obviously not. It is fucking retarded.
And that is what most of the bad reviewers are doing... especially from the newspapers. They're idiot observations like "Dopey and gorey" - the boston globe. No shit, boston globe... it is a screw ball comedy. They're all dopey, you fucking morons.
Or this genius observation: "Has gross jokes" - Star Tribune. Really? Crass humor in a screw ball comedy? That is fucking shocking.
Or how about this idiot comment: ""A silly, sloppy and sophomoric slob-comedy...to paraphrase Shakespeare, it's much ado about very little. "" - SSG Syndicate. Really? A slapstick comedy that is sophomoric? And anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare knows that the "great bard" wrote lots of stupid comedies that weren't about anything either. Much ado about nothing for example was not especially about anything either. It was a lot of jokes and funny situations stitched together into an improbably plot. Yet this twit ironically cites Shakespeare's play in a pathetic attempt to make herself sound sophisticated. When really all she did was confess a lack of understanding as to the subject matter as well as sound laughably pretentious.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Judge a slap stick comedy by the standard of slap stick comedies. Not by the standards of submarines, computer graphics cards, or women's lipstick.
Bingo. It is always gratifying to run into someone that doesn't have their head shoved directly up their own ass.
*tips hat*
False. Slapstick comedies have been around for as long as film itself and many of the producers of such films have been amongst the most talented actors.
Imagine if there were a movie where Laurel and Hardy were recruited by the some intelligence service to kill Hitler or something... same thing.
The only people getting upset by this are either people that simply don't like slap stick comedy. Or people that find the political message of the movie disturbing and realizing that criticizing it directly is counter productive... simply attack the movie itself.
I've seen no criticism of the movie that can fall into anything but those two categories.
If you have a problem with the politics as most of the stuffier political types do... then just admit it and we can talk about that honestly. If rather you don't like slap stick comedies... that's fine. However they are a genre of film much like romantic comedies or horror films etc. You judge such films by the standards of their genre. If you are unfamiliar with the genre or unwilling to recognize its own internal rules then you're just disqualifying yourself from having a meaningful opinion.