There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%
This is really just a problem with the methodology that Rotten Tomatoes uses. 27% just means that there is broad agreement among critics that it's not a very good movie, it doesn't mean that those critics, or any critics, would give it a rating of 2.7/10.
It's a shame that Rotten Tomatoes functions this way, it means that an uncontroversial movie like Batman vs Superman will get a lower score than another movie which may be generally worse but more controversial. If you check Metacritic for Batman vs. Superman you'll see that the user score is pretty similar but the critic score is higher. Though, okay fine, it's still a pretty big disconnect.
80% of women are chasing the top 10% of men. And because even homely-looking ladies get carpet bombed by responses from dudes just hoping to get a nibble for a cast, they have inflated ideas of what their league actually is.
I'm not sure that "and" is the right way to connect those two thoughts. It's plausible that inflated egos are the reason why average-looking women are chasing above-average looking men - when you're being flooded with requests then becoming more selective is a perfectly rational response.
I'd assume "small." If you remember the Xbox one and it's two controllers: there was the original "Duke" controller, which was quite large, and the Controller S, which was much smaller and designed originally for Japan.
When the court changes its mind about what is constitutional, then what is constitutional has been changed.
The constitution is a legal document, there is no Truth independent from legal truth here. Moreover, bear in mind what a constitution is: a document which exists to establish the basis for a government in an deliberately inflexible way. The point is to prevent the perversion of government by setting down some ground rules of what it is, what it can do, and what it can't do. If government then becomes perverted, as it has in this case, it represents a failure of the constitution. An ideal constitution could not be interpreted in this way, the fact that it has been means that we need to change it to correct that problem.
Y'all are living in a fantasy land. You're certainly right that these registries shouldn't exist, but they're not unconstitutional and changing the terms of what their registration entails, ex post facto, isn't unconstitutional either. According to a supreme court decision in 2003 (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84), sex offender registries are not punishment and therefore aren't subject to judicial review or any of the associated protections or burdens.
So to address the grandparent's point: the existence of the registry is probably a law passed by the state legislature, but the administration of that registry is almost certainly handled by the executive branch. Since there are no legal limits on when the registry can be changed to effect the people on it, and very few limits on how it can be changed, it's not surprising at all that the governor can do pretty much whatever he wants.
A further thing to note: since these registries are not punishment, you don't actually have to be convicted of a crime, or even accused of a crime, in order to be forced to register. Just a fun little point I thought I'd throw out there. There was a bill floated in Ohio which would have allowed anyone to enter their neighbor on the sex offender list if they wanted to, no legal proceedings necessary.
Finally, about the constitutional thing: the fact that this is outrageous and an affront to justice does not make it unconstitutional. Random Internet Person does not decide what is and isn't constitutional, only the courts decide that. The fact that this is constitutional represents a flaw in our constitution and it needs to be changed. Fortunately, we have a way to do that.
But only because the alternative, Trump, is even worse.
This just isn't true. Up until last week there was another alternative, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary won anyway. Your claim is that Hillary has no merit other than being the "not-Trump," but there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Like Trump's supporters, you can dismiss them all as simpletons, or you can take a few minutes (or more than that...) to dig down through all of the negativity and try to find the positive qualities that each candidate is bringing. It takes some effort, this is one of the most negative campaigns in history, but there are people who like both both of them and you will be a better informed person if you can figure out why.
That's a terrible article. Yes regulations and pole attachment fees create barriers to stringing new cables, but we don't want new cables. Unregulated utility poles look like this. The point of open access is to promote competition over existing cables.
You can still blame government if you want, but blame them for de-regulating access back in 1996, Of course, they only did so at the behest of industry lobbyists.
It still has all of the privacy implications associated with carrying around an RFID chip. Regardless of who might pay for fraudulent charges, this is not something that you want to have in your wallet unshielded.
I'm not aware of anything besides the quote above, here it is again: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"
This quote, with no other context, makes it sound as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that before. I need no further input, blinks or otherwise, to read that quote and see that Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. It comes from the part where he asks Russia for help in getting elected and then says that they'll be rewarded if they do so.
Those are the only possibilities that you can come up with? Trump's comment more than anything sounds like Gingrich in 2012 when he was publicly "not communicating" with his PAC.
It sounds as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. In my opinion this is a problem regardless of whether or not it involves further criminal activities.
Okay, thanks. That's tells me where it's coming from anyway, though the logic in that article is god-awful. "Why would the word 'USPS' show up next to the name of someone who was nominated for a position at the USPS? It must be a conspiracy!"
There doesn't seem to be any such spreadsheet. There is a spreadsheet listing donors and how much they donated, and there's another spreadsheet with the word "USPS" next to the name "David Shapira." Some pundits are trying to make a big deal out of that one, but David Shapira was nominated to the USPS board of governors last year, so... that seems far more likely to be the reason why that would show up next to his name. Anything else is just leaping to unfounded conclusions.
On the one hand, this is certainly true. On the other hand, it's not like Steam isn't a walled garden itself. Valve takes a 30% cut too - this won't mean squat to the average Windows gamer. (Though it would suck for those of us who play on Linux.)
He says that they've started doing this by adding new features to Windows which are only available to software distributed through UWP. This is certainly in line with how Microsoft has operated in the past, but what are these new features which are so important to new games? I'm struggling to imagine anything other than DRM and social networking integration that MS can mess with too much before they just block third party software altogether.
You know... I was just going to dismiss that, like all the rest of the election bullshit, but Trump is unstable enough that I wonder if that could be true. Could Hillary be getting money from otherwise Republican donors, just for the sake of having some predictability?
Why do people keep trying to push Nintendo into the mobile world of awful freemium games and touchscreen-only controls? It's possible that they may end up there, as cell phones continue to devour other electronics, but this would represent a loss from the gamers' perspective, as another source of quality gaming dries up. It would also mean giving 30% of their revenue to Google/Apple. I can't see why Nintendo would be in any rush to do that, and I can't see why anyone else would want them to. (Other than Google and Apple...)
You're making a mixed metaphor here. Clinton and Obama are not the ultra-rich, they're just regular rich, and they're the subjects of the contest (or the prizes, if you will) they're not the contestants.
Too busy first-posting to read the summary, eh? It says FAA-approved right there. Unless by "go around" you meant "comply with the law in order to prevent fatal mid-air collisions"?
Sonic has the unattainable goal of pleasing a fanbase which is split into two incompatible camps: one camp mired in nostalgia, who wants the old 2D games, and one smart and handsome camp who recognizes that a game which is all about going fast needs to be able to show what's in front of you at a greater distance than a sidescrolling camera will allow.
This divide between the fans was made really obvious when Sonic Generations came out: "It's good," some reviewers said, "but I wish they didn't have to include those awesome and fun 3D bits. Still, the 2D portions make the game worthwhile." While other reviewers were more forward thinking: "It's good," those reviewers said, "but this shows pretty clearly why 3D Sonic works better than 2D Sonic - you can actually see what's in front of you. The 2D portions are still pretty fun, but 3D is obviously the right way to go."
The only one of those things which could effect an election is the abortion one. If he's a democratic candidate who votes against abortion, that puts him further towards the right - so it's a choice to possibly appeal to some on the right who are anti-Trump. Virginia is also a swing state, so that's another plus, although 538 says it only boosts her election chances by 0.7%.
The choice of vice prez only marginally effects the overall election odds, unless it's a really interesting choice like Palin, and this guy is in no way interesting. This gets an emphatic "meh" from me.
It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%
This is really just a problem with the methodology that Rotten Tomatoes uses. 27% just means that there is broad agreement among critics that it's not a very good movie, it doesn't mean that those critics, or any critics, would give it a rating of 2.7/10.
It's a shame that Rotten Tomatoes functions this way, it means that an uncontroversial movie like Batman vs Superman will get a lower score than another movie which may be generally worse but more controversial. If you check Metacritic for Batman vs. Superman you'll see that the user score is pretty similar but the critic score is higher. Though, okay fine, it's still a pretty big disconnect.
80% of women are chasing the top 10% of men. And because even homely-looking ladies get carpet bombed by responses from dudes just hoping to get a nibble for a cast, they have inflated ideas of what their league actually is.
I'm not sure that "and" is the right way to connect those two thoughts. It's plausible that inflated egos are the reason why average-looking women are chasing above-average looking men - when you're being flooded with requests then becoming more selective is a perfectly rational response.
I'd assume "small." If you remember the Xbox one and it's two controllers: there was the original "Duke" controller, which was quite large, and the Controller S, which was much smaller and designed originally for Japan.
When the court changes its mind about what is constitutional, then what is constitutional has been changed.
The constitution is a legal document, there is no Truth independent from legal truth here. Moreover, bear in mind what a constitution is: a document which exists to establish the basis for a government in an deliberately inflexible way. The point is to prevent the perversion of government by setting down some ground rules of what it is, what it can do, and what it can't do. If government then becomes perverted, as it has in this case, it represents a failure of the constitution. An ideal constitution could not be interpreted in this way, the fact that it has been means that we need to change it to correct that problem.
Y'all are living in a fantasy land. You're certainly right that these registries shouldn't exist, but they're not unconstitutional and changing the terms of what their registration entails, ex post facto, isn't unconstitutional either. According to a supreme court decision in 2003 (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84), sex offender registries are not punishment and therefore aren't subject to judicial review or any of the associated protections or burdens.
So to address the grandparent's point: the existence of the registry is probably a law passed by the state legislature, but the administration of that registry is almost certainly handled by the executive branch. Since there are no legal limits on when the registry can be changed to effect the people on it, and very few limits on how it can be changed, it's not surprising at all that the governor can do pretty much whatever he wants.
A further thing to note: since these registries are not punishment, you don't actually have to be convicted of a crime, or even accused of a crime, in order to be forced to register. Just a fun little point I thought I'd throw out there. There was a bill floated in Ohio which would have allowed anyone to enter their neighbor on the sex offender list if they wanted to, no legal proceedings necessary.
Finally, about the constitutional thing: the fact that this is outrageous and an affront to justice does not make it unconstitutional. Random Internet Person does not decide what is and isn't constitutional, only the courts decide that. The fact that this is constitutional represents a flaw in our constitution and it needs to be changed. Fortunately, we have a way to do that.
But only because the alternative, Trump, is even worse.
This just isn't true. Up until last week there was another alternative, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary won anyway. Your claim is that Hillary has no merit other than being the "not-Trump," but there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Like Trump's supporters, you can dismiss them all as simpletons, or you can take a few minutes (or more than that...) to dig down through all of the negativity and try to find the positive qualities that each candidate is bringing. It takes some effort, this is one of the most negative campaigns in history, but there are people who like both both of them and you will be a better informed person if you can figure out why.
I think the point was humor. "Heh," you might have said upon reaching the end of that list. That is all.
That's a terrible article. Yes regulations and pole attachment fees create barriers to stringing new cables, but we don't want new cables. Unregulated utility poles look like this. The point of open access is to promote competition over existing cables.
You can still blame government if you want, but blame them for de-regulating access back in 1996, Of course, they only did so at the behest of industry lobbyists.
It still has all of the privacy implications associated with carrying around an RFID chip. Regardless of who might pay for fraudulent charges, this is not something that you want to have in your wallet unshielded.
Yeah, woo! Take that! You fuck with our elections?! Well we'll fuck with your elections, Russia...
I'm not aware of anything besides the quote above, here it is again: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"
This quote, with no other context, makes it sound as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. I thought I was pretty clear when I said that before. I need no further input, blinks or otherwise, to read that quote and see that Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. It comes from the part where he asks Russia for help in getting elected and then says that they'll be rewarded if they do so.
Those are the only possibilities that you can come up with? Trump's comment more than anything sounds like Gingrich in 2012 when he was publicly "not communicating" with his PAC.
It sounds as though Trump is asking Russia for help in getting elected. In my opinion this is a problem regardless of whether or not it involves further criminal activities.
Okay, thanks. That's tells me where it's coming from anyway, though the logic in that article is god-awful. "Why would the word 'USPS' show up next to the name of someone who was nominated for a position at the USPS? It must be a conspiracy!"
There doesn't seem to be any such spreadsheet. There is a spreadsheet listing donors and how much they donated, and there's another spreadsheet with the word "USPS" next to the name "David Shapira." Some pundits are trying to make a big deal out of that one, but David Shapira was nominated to the USPS board of governors last year, so... that seems far more likely to be the reason why that would show up next to his name. Anything else is just leaping to unfounded conclusions.
If it were forced on you by the OS, then the OS would be the walled garden since the OS would the thing limiting what you use and how you use it.
You're referring to a law prohibiting the "promise of appointment" - i.e.: selling appointed positions. Where in the DNC emails did this happen?
The worst that I've seen so far is the bit about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie. Which has nothing to do with selling appointed positions.
On the one hand, this is certainly true. On the other hand, it's not like Steam isn't a walled garden itself. Valve takes a 30% cut too - this won't mean squat to the average Windows gamer. (Though it would suck for those of us who play on Linux.)
He says that they've started doing this by adding new features to Windows which are only available to software distributed through UWP. This is certainly in line with how Microsoft has operated in the past, but what are these new features which are so important to new games? I'm struggling to imagine anything other than DRM and social networking integration that MS can mess with too much before they just block third party software altogether.
You know... I was just going to dismiss that, like all the rest of the election bullshit, but Trump is unstable enough that I wonder if that could be true. Could Hillary be getting money from otherwise Republican donors, just for the sake of having some predictability?
Why do people keep trying to push Nintendo into the mobile world of awful freemium games and touchscreen-only controls? It's possible that they may end up there, as cell phones continue to devour other electronics, but this would represent a loss from the gamers' perspective, as another source of quality gaming dries up. It would also mean giving 30% of their revenue to Google/Apple. I can't see why Nintendo would be in any rush to do that, and I can't see why anyone else would want them to. (Other than Google and Apple...)
You're making a mixed metaphor here. Clinton and Obama are not the ultra-rich, they're just regular rich, and they're the subjects of the contest (or the prizes, if you will) they're not the contestants.
Too busy first-posting to read the summary, eh? It says FAA-approved right there. Unless by "go around" you meant "comply with the law in order to prevent fatal mid-air collisions"?
Sonic has the unattainable goal of pleasing a fanbase which is split into two incompatible camps: one camp mired in nostalgia, who wants the old 2D games, and one smart and handsome camp who recognizes that a game which is all about going fast needs to be able to show what's in front of you at a greater distance than a sidescrolling camera will allow.
This divide between the fans was made really obvious when Sonic Generations came out: "It's good," some reviewers said, "but I wish they didn't have to include those awesome and fun 3D bits. Still, the 2D portions make the game worthwhile." While other reviewers were more forward thinking: "It's good," those reviewers said, "but this shows pretty clearly why 3D Sonic works better than 2D Sonic - you can actually see what's in front of you. The 2D portions are still pretty fun, but 3D is obviously the right way to go."
The only one of those things which could effect an election is the abortion one. If he's a democratic candidate who votes against abortion, that puts him further towards the right - so it's a choice to possibly appeal to some on the right who are anti-Trump. Virginia is also a swing state, so that's another plus, although 538 says it only boosts her election chances by 0.7%.
The choice of vice prez only marginally effects the overall election odds, unless it's a really interesting choice like Palin, and this guy is in no way interesting. This gets an emphatic "meh" from me.
It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.