Vista didn't suck, at least not as bad as Me, and was a worthwhile upgrade if buggy with drivers and such. but definitely the jump from Vista to 7 was akin to that from 95/98 to 2000/XP, as 7 refined and perfected what Vista started the same way 2000/XP perfected what 95/98 started. likewise, 8 pretty much sucks, and 10 is blah. in fact, 10 is currently more akin to Vista than anything else, so w/e comes next after 10 will likely be the next XP (jinx).
so for now, 7 is the new XP, and will likely remain so for sometime, much as Microsoft wishes it weren't so, as we wait for 11.
although Lucas came up with story treatments for a new trilogy, those materials, to put it bluntly, were discarded.
Thank God.
"They decided they didn't want to use those stories, they decided they were gonna go do their own thing," says Lucas. "They weren't that keen to have me involved anyway.
Smart move on their part.
But at the same time, I said if I get in there I'm just going to cause trouble.
Undoubtedly.
All I would do is muck everything up.
Identifying the problem is the first step to correcting it.
"The issue was, ultimately, they looked at the stories and they said, 'We want to make something for the fans,'" says Lucas.
A lesson you would do well to learn Mr Lucas. Making your fans happy is how you became a success in the first place......and displeasing them is how you crashed and burned.
And as long as we're breaking up, can you please give us back our original Original Trilogy? Just drop it off at our door, no need to stick around. That would be awkward. And you can keep the prequels, we don't want them.
because people like you deny there is a problem until its too late and just assume that 'the farmers' will fix it before its too late, when most 'farmers' are big corporations who care more about next quarter profit statements than the long term production of crops.
Trump: We have to do something about Muslims. Reporter: What, like a database? Trump (actual quote): "I would certainly implement that, absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems." Reporter: Should Muslims be legally obligated to sign into the database? Trump (actual quote): "They have to be — they have to be."
So any attempt to say he didn't talk about databases is pure bullshit. He was not talking about immigration. He was talking about Muslims.
Your entire case is built on the idea that the database was suggested by the reporter and not Trump, but the fact he gladly went went along with it, expounded on it, and then later suggested special IDs and shutting down -ALL- Mosques, makes that irrelevant.
they don't want to label it because they fear consumers may be hesitant to purchase it, hurting their profits, so their solution is to keep consumers ignorant and prevent them from even knowing whether it is or isn't......but that's not trying to mislead someone by omitting a piece of information that may influence a consumers decision?
innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good standard
in a court of law, not in regards to what you put into your body.
innocent until proven guilty, when applied to the food industry, would wait until AFTER someone poisons or sickens someone, instead of working to prevent from happening in the first place.
we know this, because its exactly how it was run until the public had had enough, and we created the FDA (or rather its forerunner), and began requiring food producers to follow various safety/cleanliness protocols.
they claimed nutrition and ingredients labels were also politically driven.
they felt we should just buy there products, and they were under no obligation to tell us what is in them.
stuff that.
its not merely trope. the market DOES require informed parties, even if some situations like healthcare have extenuating circumstances that make it nigh impossible for one of the actors to make a completely rational decision. this is not one of those situations.
they can label it and let the market have its way with them, and if they wish to change peoples minds they can go through the effort of persuading them, rather than doing an end run around it by hiding the information from consumers.
because what's being suggested is -how it used to be- . its not some untested, untried theory. state colleges used to be nearly free because they were supported by tax dollars.
the tax cuts came first, then shrinking budgets, then tuition jumps, then the student loan program (creating profit motive for wall street based on lending for an education that -everyone- wants), then even larger tuition jumps fueled by a combination of easily available financing (similar to high healthcare costs caused by the presence of the insurance industry), every school thinking they need high profile sports teams, and a few other factors.
the cost of operating a school does not scale linearly with the number of students, specifically in the downward direction. much like, where income tax is concerned and why an across the board flat tax is stupid, there is a minimum cost of living that does not scale down even if income does, operating a school has certain fixed/minimum costs, even if there is only 1 student.
this is how education gets underfunded, leading to a cycle of poor performance at schools where money has been taken out in order to follow students elsewhere.
no. innocent before proven guilty does not (or should not) apply in the realm of consumer safety, particularly for things we put in our bodies to achieve certain results after being led to believe there is some physical or medical benefit to it.
that's how people die. and they have. even though libertarians like to ignore history.
and your analysis of medical costs is also completely detached from reality, as is your suggestion that we shouldn't require doctors to have medical licenses. again: simple history is all it takes to make a libertarian look foolish.
who needs doctors and pharmacists, and all that training they go through to learn about dosages, and interactions, side effects, and every other detail that could fill a book?
see the racks of drugs in the pharmacy at walgreens? thousands of them just open it up, and let the customers walk through it themselves and decide for themselves. im sure everything will be fine.
Slashdot Mirror
because you've been debunked on this particular line of BS before.
the fact we're too tired to go through the motions again doesn't make you correct.
In what fantasy realm is the destruction of all life on earth the act of a sane man?
i bet the correlation gets even better when the technical expertise (or rather lack thereof) of their managers is considered.
Vista didn't suck, at least not as bad as Me, and was a worthwhile upgrade if buggy with drivers and such. but definitely the jump from Vista to 7 was akin to that from 95/98 to 2000/XP, as 7 refined and perfected what Vista started the same way 2000/XP perfected what 95/98 started. likewise, 8 pretty much sucks, and 10 is blah. in fact, 10 is currently more akin to Vista than anything else, so w/e comes next after 10 will likely be the next XP (jinx).
so for now, 7 is the new XP, and will likely remain so for sometime, much as Microsoft wishes it weren't so, as we wait for 11.
shill spouts lies, news at 11.
Actually yes I am surprised.
And now I'd like to respond directly to Mr Lucas:
although Lucas came up with story treatments for a new trilogy, those materials, to put it bluntly, were discarded.
Thank God.
"They decided they didn't want to use those stories, they decided they were gonna go do their own thing," says Lucas. "They weren't that keen to have me involved anyway.
Smart move on their part.
But at the same time, I said if I get in there I'm just going to cause trouble.
Undoubtedly.
All I would do is muck everything up.
Identifying the problem is the first step to correcting it.
"The issue was, ultimately, they looked at the stories and they said, 'We want to make something for the fans,'" says Lucas.
A lesson you would do well to learn Mr Lucas. Making your fans happy is how you became a success in the first place... ...and displeasing them is how you crashed and burned.
And as long as we're breaking up, can you please give us back our original Original Trilogy?
Just drop it off at our door, no need to stick around. That would be awkward.
And you can keep the prequels, we don't want them.
because people like you deny there is a problem until its too late and just assume that 'the farmers' will fix it before its too late, when most 'farmers' are big corporations who care more about next quarter profit statements than the long term production of crops.
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him.
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him
I was unaware those, other than the first one, were religions.
once again, you're an idiot
Trump was under no obligation to agree. But he did anyway, which makes it irrelevant whether he or the reporter brought it up first.
And, since your a fool for looking at it in a vacuum, the database concept is not at all out of alignment with Trumps prior comments on Muslims.
fuck you idiots trying to defend him.
Trump: We have to do something about Muslims.
Reporter: What, like a database?
Trump (actual quote): "I would certainly implement that, absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems."
Reporter: Should Muslims be legally obligated to sign into the database?
Trump (actual quote): "They have to be — they have to be."
So any attempt to say he didn't talk about databases is pure bullshit.
He was not talking about immigration.
He was talking about Muslims.
Your entire case is built on the idea that the database was suggested by the reporter and not Trump, but the fact he gladly went went along with it, expounded on it, and then later suggested special IDs and shutting down -ALL- Mosques, makes that irrelevant.
and he's the front runner of the GOP field, and these things he says are appealing to the majority of that base.
that's the even scarier part.
they claim to care to about the constitution, but these words and actions on their part consistently prove that false.
Nobody is trying to mislead anyone here
really?
they don't want to label it because they fear consumers may be hesitant to purchase it, hurting their profits, so their solution is to keep consumers ignorant and prevent them from even knowing whether it is or isn't... ...but that's not trying to mislead someone by omitting a piece of information that may influence a consumers decision?
innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good standard
in a court of law , not in regards to what you put into your body.
innocent until proven guilty, when applied to the food industry, would wait until AFTER someone poisons or sickens someone, instead of working to prevent from happening in the first place.
we know this, because its exactly how it was run until the public had had enough, and we created the FDA (or rather its forerunner), and began requiring food producers to follow various safety/cleanliness protocols.
they claimed nutrition and ingredients labels were also politically driven.
they felt we should just buy there products, and they were under no obligation to tell us what is in them.
stuff that.
its not merely trope. the market DOES require informed parties, even if some situations like healthcare have extenuating circumstances that make it nigh impossible for one of the actors to make a completely rational decision. this is not one of those situations.
they can label it and let the market have its way with them, and if they wish to change peoples minds they can go through the effort of persuading them, rather than doing an end run around it by hiding the information from consumers.
because what's being suggested is -how it used to be- .
its not some untested, untried theory.
state colleges used to be nearly free because they were supported by tax dollars.
the tax cuts came first, then shrinking budgets, then tuition jumps, then the student loan program (creating profit motive for wall street based on lending for an education that -everyone- wants), then even larger tuition jumps fueled by a combination of easily available financing (similar to high healthcare costs caused by the presence of the insurance industry), every school thinking they need high profile sports teams, and a few other factors.
its an exercise in lying/misleading with literal truth.
like the related field of lying with statistics.
the things said are literally true, but presented in a way to confer a meaning different than face value.
they argue against it because its stupid.
the cost of operating a school does not scale linearly with the number of students, specifically in the downward direction. much like, where income tax is concerned and why an across the board flat tax is stupid, there is a minimum cost of living that does not scale down even if income does, operating a school has certain fixed/minimum costs, even if there is only 1 student.
this is how education gets underfunded, leading to a cycle of poor performance at schools where money has been taken out in order to follow students elsewhere.
maybe not.
considering the level of gerrymandering in texas, he surely owes a lot to the state legislature.
no.
innocent before proven guilty does not (or should not) apply in the realm of consumer safety, particularly for things we put in our bodies to achieve certain results after being led to believe there is some physical or medical benefit to it.
that's how people die.
and they have.
even though libertarians like to ignore history.
and your analysis of medical costs is also completely detached from reality, as is your suggestion that we shouldn't require doctors to have medical licenses. again: simple history is all it takes to make a libertarian look foolish.
right on cue.
who needs doctors and pharmacists, and all that training they go through to learn about dosages, and interactions, side effects, and every other detail that could fill a book?
see the racks of drugs in the pharmacy at walgreens? thousands of them
just open it up, and let the customers walk through it themselves and decide for themselves.
im sure everything will be fine.
which is all done to get the doctor to push their drugs.
which should also be illegal.
the thing driving doctor recommendations should be medical science, not bribes.
good. good. let the hate flow through you.
How do the announcers do it? They talk a ton about nothing much happening.
If it were me it'd be:
He's making a left turn! [repeat every 5 minutes]