We've been cowardly for a long time. Remember how America shit its pants over 9/11, and went on a fear-and-hate-based killing spree in the middle-east?
Americans believe a lot of things about themselves that are absurd lies. "Land of the Free" is another one, despite the insane war on users of politically incorrect drugs.
The fight scenes in Trek were hilarious, but it was a really smart, very progressive show for its time. You should look at it in the context of the time it was made.
Nice. I'm happy to hear this about your young friend. Of course not all people turned into idiots, but they seem to be Hollywood's market.
I also enjoy action movies in addition to smarter stuff; They look and sound pretty intense in my home theater. What I object to is the dumbing down of once-smart franchises.
>Like the drawn-out philosophical conversations between Wesley and Picard in TNG.
I've been rewatching TNG. It holds up very well, and is actually much better than I remembered it. This is another option for people who want to watch some real Star Trek instead of these action reboots.
I haven't been to the theater in a couple of months, but the recent Planet of the Apes, and Guardians of the Galaxy were both good, so there's a fair chance you can find something decent. Most movies are crap, but there are still occasional good ones.
It seems like a reasonable tradeoff, and the first Trek reboot began with a Fast and Furious type scene of Kirk in a sports-car, so this change started happening with J.J. at the helm. I recommend watching the original series on BlueRay instead. It looks beautiful, and was brilliant for the time it was made.
There's nothing interesting about seeing normal human characters defy death ten or twelve times per minute.
There's nothing interesting about seeing them engage in combat or driving or some other activity at a level that even those with years and years of training and experience couldn't manage.
When a character has practically no limitations, there is no risk. When there is no risk, there's nothing interesting happening. The result? Bored viewers, even if the on-screen activity is rapid and frantic.
I agree completely AC, but most people seem to not share our view of these mindless action movies.
It might be that movies that don't have a lot of action are now unmarketable to the mainstream. I've been watching a lot of older films and TV lately, and the difference is remarkable. People used to go for media that contained clever ideas, and intelligent conversations. This has radically changed. A big part of this is Hollywood's fault, but the sadly public went along with this change to mindless action and fast-moving CGI. There's still plenty of material from before this change to keep anyone entertained for many years.
How is this denying service, unless you have some sort of extreme mental handicap that makes you incapable of making a simple decision? It that case, I wouldn't expect you to be able to use the Internet at all, due to being unable to decide what site to go to.
I applaud your effort to get people to stop misusing this term, but I'm afraid it's much too late.
The primary dictionary definition is now:
: to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)
: to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something)
> climate change is a spurious pseudoscientific theory spurred from flawed mathematical models and unsupported by actual data
You've slipped into an alternate reality, created by oil companies and the Republican politicians that work for them, and swallowed whole by right-wing extremists who actually call themselves "free thinkers."
Where I live it used to be like that until they blocked off a bunch of streets to reduce Chicago west-siders entering Oak Park. I'm not saying this is right, since it seems like bigotry to me, but if a neighborhood wants to eliminate undesirable traffic they absolutely can.
No. Try not to be an entitled asshole. You'd have no right to be pissed, and show yourself to be irrational. You don't get to steal because of pricing errors.
Computer monitors nowadays are just Hi-def TV screens. I had better monitor resolutions in the 90s than I do today.
Some of them are, and for a while things did go that way due to very inexpensive 1080p panels making higher-res displays look like a bad value, but that's changed recently. I just got a beautiful 2560x1440 display for only $300 from Monoprice. I'd post a link, but I'd feel too much like an advertiser, so you'll have to search yourselves if interested.
The examples show lots of web sites in a maximized browser window. I use my widescreen monitor in landscape mode so I can have multiple windows simultaneously visible side-by-side. The examples are doing it poorly!
Yep. The biggest use I get out of wide monitors is working on two things at once on a single display. This way I can get everything done on one display while I watch TV or movies on my second monitor. It would be nice to have a 3rd display that's in portrait mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Hustler still exists?
>now that some asshole of a dictator says I can't, I'm going to pay for it at least twice.
That's what Sony is counting on. Don't fall for it and pay to see a crappy movie just because of a controversy.
We've been cowardly for a long time. Remember how America shit its pants over 9/11, and went on a fear-and-hate-based killing spree in the middle-east?
Americans believe a lot of things about themselves that are absurd lies. "Land of the Free" is another one, despite the insane war on users of politically incorrect drugs.
>After all, they know they'll have packed theatres and extra showings to fill the demand.
Will they? This movie looks terrible, and there's only so much that a controversy will do to market crap.
The fight scenes in Trek were hilarious, but it was a really smart, very progressive show for its time. You should look at it in the context of the time it was made.
Nice. I'm happy to hear this about your young friend. Of course not all people turned into idiots, but they seem to be Hollywood's market.
I also enjoy action movies in addition to smarter stuff; They look and sound pretty intense in my home theater. What I object to is the dumbing down of once-smart franchises.
>Like the drawn-out philosophical conversations between Wesley and Picard in TNG.
I've been rewatching TNG. It holds up very well, and is actually much better than I remembered it. This is another option for people who want to watch some real Star Trek instead of these action reboots.
I haven't been to the theater in a couple of months, but the recent Planet of the Apes, and Guardians of the Galaxy were both good, so there's a fair chance you can find something decent. Most movies are crap, but there are still occasional good ones.
>But hey, less lens flare amiright?
It seems like a reasonable tradeoff, and the first Trek reboot began with a Fast and Furious type scene of Kirk in a sports-car, so this change started happening with J.J. at the helm. I recommend watching the original series on BlueRay instead. It looks beautiful, and was brilliant for the time it was made.
Modern action movies are incredibly boring.
There's nothing interesting about seeing normal human characters defy death ten or twelve times per minute.
There's nothing interesting about seeing them engage in combat or driving or some other activity at a level that even those with years and years of training and experience couldn't manage.
When a character has practically no limitations, there is no risk. When there is no risk, there's nothing interesting happening. The result? Bored viewers, even if the on-screen activity is rapid and frantic.
I agree completely AC, but most people seem to not share our view of these mindless action movies.
It might be that movies that don't have a lot of action are now unmarketable to the mainstream. I've been watching a lot of older films and TV lately, and the difference is remarkable. People used to go for media that contained clever ideas, and intelligent conversations. This has radically changed. A big part of this is Hollywood's fault, but the sadly public went along with this change to mindless action and fast-moving CGI. There's still plenty of material from before this change to keep anyone entertained for many years.
How is this denying service, unless you have some sort of extreme mental handicap that makes you incapable of making a simple decision? It that case, I wouldn't expect you to be able to use the Internet at all, due to being unable to decide what site to go to.
I applaud your effort to get people to stop misusing this term, but I'm afraid it's much too late.
The primary dictionary definition is now:
: to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)
: to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
> climate change is a spurious pseudoscientific theory spurred from flawed mathematical models and unsupported by actual data
You've slipped into an alternate reality, created by oil companies and the Republican politicians that work for them, and swallowed whole by right-wing extremists who actually call themselves "free thinkers."
It's hilarious and sad at the same time.
>The shamans of the amazon embark on these intergalactic, cross-universe trips nearly every week.
No they don't. Drugs allow you to explore your own mind, and imagination, not to actually explore the universe. That's just a drug-related-delusion.
Maybe we shouldn't turn chicken every time some worthless sociopath threatens violence.
Microsoft's demo with English/German realtime translation was very impressive, with just a single translation oddity toward the end of the demo.
I think this is it, but can't watch the video at work to verify
http://research.microsoft.com/...
Where I live it used to be like that until they blocked off a bunch of streets to reduce Chicago west-siders entering Oak Park. I'm not saying this is right, since it seems like bigotry to me, but if a neighborhood wants to eliminate undesirable traffic they absolutely can.
No. Try not to be an entitled asshole. You'd have no right to be pissed, and show yourself to be irrational. You don't get to steal because of pricing errors.
Why??? Hasn't he wasted enough of our time?
Try not to be a Benghazi wingnut. They're the worst. This Republican fake-outrage was discredited just like the rest of them.
That sounds spectacular, but we're going to need a motherboard big enough to hold 2000 GPUs in SLI/Crossfire configuration.
Computer monitors nowadays are just Hi-def TV screens. I had better monitor resolutions in the 90s than I do today.
Some of them are, and for a while things did go that way due to very inexpensive 1080p panels making higher-res displays look like a bad value, but that's changed recently. I just got a beautiful 2560x1440 display for only $300 from Monoprice. I'd post a link, but I'd feel too much like an advertiser, so you'll have to search yourselves if interested.
The examples show lots of web sites in a maximized browser window. I use my widescreen monitor in landscape mode so I can have multiple windows simultaneously visible side-by-side. The examples are doing it poorly!
Yep. The biggest use I get out of wide monitors is working on two things at once on a single display. This way I can get everything done on one display while I watch TV or movies on my second monitor. It would be nice to have a 3rd display that's in portrait mode.
>Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations.
Saying stupid things like that makes you look like a childish libertarian type.