Not working behind the scenes, I don't know for sure, but considering how much time it takes to put these things together, I would imagine there was a lot of redundancy needed.
That is, while one group was shooting, another group was working out/preparing the next scene for shooting.
I agree that $100K seems like a large figure, but I'll grant that the outlay of cash may have contributed to a quicker finished product.
This girl, in the task of helping her father, is probably no different that one of the Henson kids in terms of "apprenticeship".
Jim Henson probably had his kids on set and working Muppets when they were tall enough to get them at proper height on the sound stage.
If the $100K "investment" here is a resume item for the kid to use later in life, or just Daddy starting the kid early so that she competently takes over Daddy's business one day, well, that's fine. All kids should have fathers that take that much of an interest in their kids' futures.
Since I'm not an expert in fluid mechanics, my first question would be, not that a wall would be totally unhelpful, but would it be far more useful, practical and conservative to find a way to break the momentum of the water hitting the land?
I saw artificial reefs suggested above, but are there any other methods of doing this?
I don't know, I mean Pacific Rim jokes aside (which I'm very glad to see a number of you were on top of as I loved that movie), but I think a wall seems a short-sighted an impractical solution, particularly since no one can really prepare for the worst possible tsunami without sticking the island under a dome built out of adamantium.
I'm waiting for the day a militant Indian group rises up in the US and threatens to blow up random Denny's locations if they intend to go forward with their "Baconalia" promotion.
I'm sure, sadly, this would cause more racism than it would be a call to show how absurd being offended is.
My belief that Mayer was right IN THE SHORT TERM to curtail telecommuting policies.
If your office is in serious need of re-vamping, then you are correct, there needs to be some storming-forming-norming going on that can't be done via people on phones all the time.
Especially if people believe, as I do, bonding is built over social interaction, such as talking about the game, or people's kids, or the weather, or a game of golf, or going out and smoking cigarettes. Telecommuting is not conducive to any of that, and for better or worse, networking is best done in person.
That said: in the long term telecommuting should be re-instated for a lot of reasons: flexible hours, care of family members, de-stressing commutes, and yes, being able to get away from social interactions in order to get some actual work done.
I admired Mayer for her initial stance on the subject, as she took some harsh criticism for it, but I admit I haven't followed up on it. I hope she re-instated it.
This. While Roddenberry continually pushed boundaries, TOS never felt as if he was trying to enforce diversity to protect tender sensibilities. In fact, he was enforcing diversity DESPITE tender sensibilities.
I've repeatedly had this argument with people regarding the reboots of both Trek and Wars.
It's easy to disown the reboots as "not MY Trek/Wars" because they're not going to be the same as the original. The problem is, the intent of the argument seems to miss its own point: the arguer selfishly holds onto the old saying "the new isn't for me".
Pragmatically, however, that is correct. When a franchise is rebooted, it's done for the purpose of selling it to a new generation that didn't experience the relevance of the original generation. They literally didn't live through the producers', writers' and actors' attitudes, social status and, frankly, the entire world.
Therefore, the reboot (which, I don't much like the idea of reboots at all; just make new stuff, dammit) is made with differences such that it reflects the producers', etc., view of the world in which they live.
If you want the original, just watch the original; don't piss and moan about the reboots because chances are, they weren't made for you. I know they weren't made for me.
By the way, RIP Nimoy. Thank you for being my inner voice of reason.
When I was in college, I was only on partial scholarships and (this was before the days of online payments; the bursar figured out payments by hand in front of me) so I had to go to the bursar's office, check in hand, and pay my tuition once a month per my contract.
Well, the bursar got the number wrong one month. I owed a couple hundred more dollars more, plus what I hadn't paid the previous month. I, being about 19, pouted, whined and expressed my quiet outrage to the person taking my check. After all, it was the office's mistake. Why should I have to pay out of my budgeted expenses when your office failed to crank the numbers out right?
Turns out, I ended up paying the balance anyway. Why? It was a pointless battle I wasn't going to win.
Moral of the story is, sometimes things don't go your way in life. If you were any way hurt because one college "took it back", you might have been a sheltered kid that's not used to rejection and people making mistakes. It happens. Mistakes will happen. You may have a bad relationship that screws up your life plan for having kids by 30, you may be diagnosed with ALS and not get to live to whatever full potential you envisioned for yourself, the economy may tank and your dream job disappears when the bubble bursts on your industry.
At some point, you have to accept the fact that things aren't always going to go your way. Nobody owes you anything when that happens.
I hear that Facebook has a sensitivity team that responded to that guy who wrote a blog post when the "Year In Review" displayed a lot of pictures of his daughter that died from cancer during the year. (Apparently, Facebook was terribly insensitive in doing that or something...*)
So, it's not terribly surprising that Facebook would address something like this. Especially since the internet hasn't really had the chance to process what it means to have so much digital information on someone online yet. For instance: I received a friend suggestion on Facebook for someone who died last year. We weren't close, but I was sad she passed.
What does that mean if you don't have someone assigned as a legacy, then? Can you report the page as someone who's passed? Do you need to provide proof? What if that system gets abused and locks up people's pages because trolls think it's funny that you have to prove you're still alive in order to access your page?
*No, I'm not mocking the guy for having lost his daughter; guaranteed someone will interpret this statement that way. I personally think it's weird that said blog post became a "thing" on the internet as someone with a downgraded version of the same situation (put our dog to sleep in December; her pics came up a lot in my YIR...which, I know is hardly the same as losing a child to cancer, but if I were to scale it down, I wouldn't have called Facebook "vaguely insensitive" for that. Still miss my dog, though), as if somehow Facebook has the AI to discern exactly enough context from posts to make a perfect and not emotionally damaging YIR for everyone.
The thing that I find increasingly aggravating nowadays is how much is hung on score rather than substantive view of the content of a thing.
For instance (on a sort-of related topic): when a highly-anticipated movie, like "The Avengers" is released for critics and the scores start coming in, and it turns out critics found the movie overwhelmingly positive, the fans get all hopped up when someone dares to give the film a "rotten" instead of "fresh", ruining a "erfect score, as if there was somehow some personal investment in a movie getting 100% of critics to like it (or spoiling of their enjoyment of it if a mere 1% did not).
Except for the fact that not all critics thought the movie was perfect, and the Tomatometer merely indicates that the movie was at least good enough not to be considered bad.
The score is the headline, sure, to draw in people to read the review in the first place. But a lot of people gloss over it and stop engaging their critical faculties, brandishing a metric over true criticism as validation of their personal tastes (like Rotten Tomatoes readers; if you don't believe that people do this, find out what happened to critic Eric D. Snider after he posted a fake negative review of "The Dark Knight Rises" before he'd actually seen it).
I don't have any "infamous" examples of games to point to, though I'm sure examples exist; in fact I wandered into this topic curious about which games were controversial in the same way, since both media have the same kinds of fanatics attached to them.
My thought is to get rid of scores so that people actually consume opinions, not reduce them to a single number, but that's just me.
Agree to disagree here. I liked Colbert a thousand times more than I liked Stewart. I thought Colbert was consistently more polished and better on his feet.
Yeah, the whole "loophole" thing to go back to CC is just not something I'd buy.
It's HBO. CC may have its benefits, but there's a certain amount of prestige that comes with being on a premium channel and in the company of the original programming it produces. CC would be a huge step down.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how your comment relates to mine.
The scenario I'm talking about is one in which popular opinion relegates certain information under a banner of a particular stigma, one that most people won't access, whether they bother to investigate or not, causing information to fall into a black hole because enough people declared the information too taboo.
The one you're talking about is a scenario where "free speech" incites violence, and therefore violates the reasonable limits of free speech, and hardly touches the idea of "murder porn", its definition and its implications.
The trouble with the "murder porn site" idea is that it causes a lot of the problems that I see a number of sites and sub-cultures suffer from.
The slippery slope there is:
-Normal person A says "I wouldn't go to THAT site. That's for sickos who get off on that sort of thing." And then goes on about A's day thinking that if A just avoids that site, it puts them on some moral high ground versus anyone who would go there. -Normal person B develops some curiosity about what is really in the video. B investigates. B doesn't find it to be "murder porn" at all. In fact, B is kind of wondering what the big deal is about relegating it to some stigmatized area of the net. B is still horrified by the content, doesn't get off on it, isn't somehow convinced that B should commit murder, let alone gruesome murder, but doesn't feel like a bad person for having sought it out, despite the stigma of going to the site. -A finds out that B goes to that site. A judges B and (if possible) makes sure anyone who knows B thinks B is a sicko, despite the fact that A has never been to the site, nor watched the video, nor doesn't understand B's motives for watching the video. A repeats incessantly and proudly that many sources proclaim that the site is for sick people and that normal people shouldn't go there, even though A staunchly refuses to go there A's-self. -B is relegated to keeping quiet about B's curiosity, if B's curiosity isn't amputated at all. The video goes down the rabbit hole. People fear watching the video, not because of the content, but because of what you are labeled as if you watch it. Many As trust the echo chamber ("everyone says that sites a bad place to go, so it must be true") without verifying anything out of fear or self-righteousness.
Free speech ultimately need not be policed by the Government, you see. We do a fine job of policing ourselves.
I don't know. "Glorifying" assumes that anyone who shows the video is automatically airing it in a positive light.
Most people don't feel that atrocities are "glorious".
Whatever you feel about the video, especially if you take something positive from it, you would have felt that whether or not you saw the footage.
That's partially why I can't agree with taking the videos down. Your bias will remain your bias no matter how you feel about what happened. But people should be allowed to see it regardless of how they feel about it.
I put in a lot of time and effort to remain relevant having mastered three or four languages on my own. If I didn't I couldn't be employed as a programmer.
That's the thing I find particularly odd about the push for girls into CS. Feminism isn't pushing hard on the "manual labor" fields to get women accepted, so I kind of wonder when they get wind of how many certs and/or how being a perpetual student is really required to have a career where you're not simply another code monkey, how much they're going to resent the initial push in the first place.
I'm not saying men don't have this gripe; I have friends in IT (female ones as well) that just want a freaking break from the cycle of getting certs to stay employable, let alone to command a better-than-average salary.
It's not back-breaking the way that, say, being a garbage collector is, but it sure does lend itself to some serious physical stresses, and I wouldn't blame anyone, male or female, to self-select out so they can get some time to themselves.
1) Pilot 2) Flight attendant. 3) Gas station attendant 4) Sales associate 5) Human Resources director 6) CEO 7) Software Engineer 8) Fashion designer 9) Cosmotogist 10) Genetic researcher
Now-- Explain your answers.
1: I'm a frequent traveler and I can't remember if I've ever heard a woman's voice over the intercom to give flight status 2: I'm seeing more and more men in this position nowadays, but I usually think of a woman 3: Most of the ones I see are guys. 4: Either. I shop at a multitude of places. 5: Same as above. I've worked in enough places to have seen diversity in that regard. 6: Marissa Mayer, but I might be an exception because I've been reading about her lately. 7: First one I could think of is female (know her personally), so that kind of sticks out in my mind. That might be an exception, though. 8&9: Again, personal example: first one I could think of was male, because of a young man I know who constantly posts on Facebook about his interest in studying fashion marketing and maybe studying cosmetology 10: Most of the bio students I've met were female, so there's that.
I think 6-9 were more my personal experience than anything else. Obviously anecdotes don't count as data, so take from that what you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Not working behind the scenes, I don't know for sure, but considering how much time it takes to put these things together, I would imagine there was a lot of redundancy needed.
That is, while one group was shooting, another group was working out/preparing the next scene for shooting.
I agree that $100K seems like a large figure, but I'll grant that the outlay of cash may have contributed to a quicker finished product.
This girl, in the task of helping her father, is probably no different that one of the Henson kids in terms of "apprenticeship".
Jim Henson probably had his kids on set and working Muppets when they were tall enough to get them at proper height on the sound stage.
If the $100K "investment" here is a resume item for the kid to use later in life, or just Daddy starting the kid early so that she competently takes over Daddy's business one day, well, that's fine. All kids should have fathers that take that much of an interest in their kids' futures.
If I had mod points I'd grant them in exchange for a new keyboard.
I see a future full of kids shooting down drones for sport.
Since I'm not an expert in fluid mechanics, my first question would be, not that a wall would be totally unhelpful, but would it be far more useful, practical and conservative to find a way to break the momentum of the water hitting the land?
I saw artificial reefs suggested above, but are there any other methods of doing this?
I don't know, I mean Pacific Rim jokes aside (which I'm very glad to see a number of you were on top of as I loved that movie), but I think a wall seems a short-sighted an impractical solution, particularly since no one can really prepare for the worst possible tsunami without sticking the island under a dome built out of adamantium.
I'm waiting for the day a militant Indian group rises up in the US and threatens to blow up random Denny's locations if they intend to go forward with their "Baconalia" promotion.
I'm sure, sadly, this would cause more racism than it would be a call to show how absurd being offended is.
I believe there can be a balance to this.
My belief that Mayer was right IN THE SHORT TERM to curtail telecommuting policies.
If your office is in serious need of re-vamping, then you are correct, there needs to be some storming-forming-norming going on that can't be done via people on phones all the time.
Especially if people believe, as I do, bonding is built over social interaction, such as talking about the game, or people's kids, or the weather, or a game of golf, or going out and smoking cigarettes. Telecommuting is not conducive to any of that, and for better or worse, networking is best done in person.
That said: in the long term telecommuting should be re-instated for a lot of reasons: flexible hours, care of family members, de-stressing commutes, and yes, being able to get away from social interactions in order to get some actual work done.
I admired Mayer for her initial stance on the subject, as she took some harsh criticism for it, but I admit I haven't followed up on it. I hope she re-instated it.
This. While Roddenberry continually pushed boundaries, TOS never felt as if he was trying to enforce diversity to protect tender sensibilities. In fact, he was enforcing diversity DESPITE tender sensibilities.
As long as we agree that The Fifth Element was a great movie in and of itself, we shall never be enemies.
I've repeatedly had this argument with people regarding the reboots of both Trek and Wars.
It's easy to disown the reboots as "not MY Trek/Wars" because they're not going to be the same as the original. The problem is, the intent of the argument seems to miss its own point: the arguer selfishly holds onto the old saying "the new isn't for me".
Pragmatically, however, that is correct. When a franchise is rebooted, it's done for the purpose of selling it to a new generation that didn't experience the relevance of the original generation. They literally didn't live through the producers', writers' and actors' attitudes, social status and, frankly, the entire world.
Therefore, the reboot (which, I don't much like the idea of reboots at all; just make new stuff, dammit) is made with differences such that it reflects the producers', etc., view of the world in which they live.
If you want the original, just watch the original; don't piss and moan about the reboots because chances are, they weren't made for you. I know they weren't made for me.
By the way, RIP Nimoy. Thank you for being my inner voice of reason.
When I was in college, I was only on partial scholarships and (this was before the days of online payments; the bursar figured out payments by hand in front of me) so I had to go to the bursar's office, check in hand, and pay my tuition once a month per my contract.
Well, the bursar got the number wrong one month. I owed a couple hundred more dollars more, plus what I hadn't paid the previous month. I, being about 19, pouted, whined and expressed my quiet outrage to the person taking my check. After all, it was the office's mistake. Why should I have to pay out of my budgeted expenses when your office failed to crank the numbers out right?
Turns out, I ended up paying the balance anyway. Why? It was a pointless battle I wasn't going to win.
Moral of the story is, sometimes things don't go your way in life. If you were any way hurt because one college "took it back", you might have been a sheltered kid that's not used to rejection and people making mistakes. It happens. Mistakes will happen. You may have a bad relationship that screws up your life plan for having kids by 30, you may be diagnosed with ALS and not get to live to whatever full potential you envisioned for yourself, the economy may tank and your dream job disappears when the bubble bursts on your industry.
At some point, you have to accept the fact that things aren't always going to go your way. Nobody owes you anything when that happens.
I would kind of agree with you, but there's also a part of me that thinks he'd get shot the second he found himself in a public area in the US.
Ah, okay. I read it through the lens of being cross-posted on Slate.
Which...there's a reason why I don't read that site anymore.
I hear that Facebook has a sensitivity team that responded to that guy who wrote a blog post when the "Year In Review" displayed a lot of pictures of his daughter that died from cancer during the year. (Apparently, Facebook was terribly insensitive in doing that or something...*)
So, it's not terribly surprising that Facebook would address something like this. Especially since the internet hasn't really had the chance to process what it means to have so much digital information on someone online yet. For instance: I received a friend suggestion on Facebook for someone who died last year. We weren't close, but I was sad she passed.
What does that mean if you don't have someone assigned as a legacy, then? Can you report the page as someone who's passed? Do you need to provide proof? What if that system gets abused and locks up people's pages because trolls think it's funny that you have to prove you're still alive in order to access your page?
*No, I'm not mocking the guy for having lost his daughter; guaranteed someone will interpret this statement that way. I personally think it's weird that said blog post became a "thing" on the internet as someone with a downgraded version of the same situation (put our dog to sleep in December; her pics came up a lot in my YIR...which, I know is hardly the same as losing a child to cancer, but if I were to scale it down, I wouldn't have called Facebook "vaguely insensitive" for that. Still miss my dog, though), as if somehow Facebook has the AI to discern exactly enough context from posts to make a perfect and not emotionally damaging YIR for everyone.
The thing that I find increasingly aggravating nowadays is how much is hung on score rather than substantive view of the content of a thing.
For instance (on a sort-of related topic): when a highly-anticipated movie, like "The Avengers" is released for critics and the scores start coming in, and it turns out critics found the movie overwhelmingly positive, the fans get all hopped up when someone dares to give the film a "rotten" instead of "fresh", ruining a "erfect score, as if there was somehow some personal investment in a movie getting 100% of critics to like it (or spoiling of their enjoyment of it if a mere 1% did not).
Except for the fact that not all critics thought the movie was perfect, and the Tomatometer merely indicates that the movie was at least good enough not to be considered bad.
The score is the headline, sure, to draw in people to read the review in the first place. But a lot of people gloss over it and stop engaging their critical faculties, brandishing a metric over true criticism as validation of their personal tastes (like Rotten Tomatoes readers; if you don't believe that people do this, find out what happened to critic Eric D. Snider after he posted a fake negative review of "The Dark Knight Rises" before he'd actually seen it).
I don't have any "infamous" examples of games to point to, though I'm sure examples exist; in fact I wandered into this topic curious about which games were controversial in the same way, since both media have the same kinds of fanatics attached to them.
My thought is to get rid of scores so that people actually consume opinions, not reduce them to a single number, but that's just me.
Agree to disagree here. I liked Colbert a thousand times more than I liked Stewart. I thought Colbert was consistently more polished and better on his feet.
Yeah, the whole "loophole" thing to go back to CC is just not something I'd buy.
It's HBO. CC may have its benefits, but there's a certain amount of prestige that comes with being on a premium channel and in the company of the original programming it produces. CC would be a huge step down.
I love CK as much as anybody, but his schtick is "frumpy, schlubby guy who makes funny observations about stuff".
Not sure he could do "news anchor" even in parody.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you "troll".
(Meta-level satire, am I doing it right?)
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how your comment relates to mine.
The scenario I'm talking about is one in which popular opinion relegates certain information under a banner of a particular stigma, one that most people won't access, whether they bother to investigate or not, causing information to fall into a black hole because enough people declared the information too taboo.
The one you're talking about is a scenario where "free speech" incites violence, and therefore violates the reasonable limits of free speech, and hardly touches the idea of "murder porn", its definition and its implications.
The trouble with the "murder porn site" idea is that it causes a lot of the problems that I see a number of sites and sub-cultures suffer from.
The slippery slope there is:
-Normal person A says "I wouldn't go to THAT site. That's for sickos who get off on that sort of thing." And then goes on about A's day thinking that if A just avoids that site, it puts them on some moral high ground versus anyone who would go there.
-Normal person B develops some curiosity about what is really in the video. B investigates. B doesn't find it to be "murder porn" at all. In fact, B is kind of wondering what the big deal is about relegating it to some stigmatized area of the net. B is still horrified by the content, doesn't get off on it, isn't somehow convinced that B should commit murder, let alone gruesome murder, but doesn't feel like a bad person for having sought it out, despite the stigma of going to the site.
-A finds out that B goes to that site. A judges B and (if possible) makes sure anyone who knows B thinks B is a sicko, despite the fact that A has never been to the site, nor watched the video, nor doesn't understand B's motives for watching the video. A repeats incessantly and proudly that many sources proclaim that the site is for sick people and that normal people shouldn't go there, even though A staunchly refuses to go there A's-self.
-B is relegated to keeping quiet about B's curiosity, if B's curiosity isn't amputated at all. The video goes down the rabbit hole. People fear watching the video, not because of the content, but because of what you are labeled as if you watch it. Many As trust the echo chamber ("everyone says that sites a bad place to go, so it must be true") without verifying anything out of fear or self-righteousness.
Free speech ultimately need not be policed by the Government, you see. We do a fine job of policing ourselves.
I don't know. "Glorifying" assumes that anyone who shows the video is automatically airing it in a positive light.
Most people don't feel that atrocities are "glorious".
Whatever you feel about the video, especially if you take something positive from it, you would have felt that whether or not you saw the footage.
That's partially why I can't agree with taking the videos down. Your bias will remain your bias no matter how you feel about what happened. But people should be allowed to see it regardless of how they feel about it.
I put in a lot of time and effort to remain relevant having mastered three or four languages on my own. If I didn't I couldn't be employed as a programmer.
That's the thing I find particularly odd about the push for girls into CS. Feminism isn't pushing hard on the "manual labor" fields to get women accepted, so I kind of wonder when they get wind of how many certs and/or how being a perpetual student is really required to have a career where you're not simply another code monkey, how much they're going to resent the initial push in the first place.
I'm not saying men don't have this gripe; I have friends in IT (female ones as well) that just want a freaking break from the cycle of getting certs to stay employable, let alone to command a better-than-average salary.
It's not back-breaking the way that, say, being a garbage collector is, but it sure does lend itself to some serious physical stresses, and I wouldn't blame anyone, male or female, to self-select out so they can get some time to themselves.
For grins:
1) Pilot
2) Flight attendant.
3) Gas station attendant
4) Sales associate
5) Human Resources director
6) CEO
7) Software Engineer
8) Fashion designer
9) Cosmotogist
10) Genetic researcher
Now-- Explain your answers.
1: I'm a frequent traveler and I can't remember if I've ever heard a woman's voice over the intercom to give flight status
2: I'm seeing more and more men in this position nowadays, but I usually think of a woman
3: Most of the ones I see are guys.
4: Either. I shop at a multitude of places.
5: Same as above. I've worked in enough places to have seen diversity in that regard.
6: Marissa Mayer, but I might be an exception because I've been reading about her lately.
7: First one I could think of is female (know her personally), so that kind of sticks out in my mind. That might be an exception, though.
8&9: Again, personal example: first one I could think of was male, because of a young man I know who constantly posts on Facebook about his interest in studying fashion marketing and maybe studying cosmetology
10: Most of the bio students I've met were female, so there's that.
I think 6-9 were more my personal experience than anything else. Obviously anecdotes don't count as data, so take from that what you will.
Because a well-educated populace should know who its enemies are, and why politicians may decide to send our military to go to war with them.