The average movie was not better 25 years ago than today. 25 years ago most movies were schlock, just like today. But the only movie you hear about from 25 years ago are the GOOD ones. Bad movies don't make it onto the best 20 movies of 1979 critics list.
Lots of great movies are being made, it's just that you generally won't see them at the local 5 screen mega-cinema. There are good movie critics out there that can point you to good movies. Some are even made by Hollywood.
The English have mastered delivering withering insults very politely. Simply being polite does not make you "nice". Is it more "professional" to wrap your disdain for an idea in language that is courteous on the surface? Maybe. Is the emperor going to change? Unlikely.
All the big insurance companies care what the other guys are doing because of reinsurance. All the big companies have contracts that share some of their risk with other companies; this is called reinsurance and is very, very common.
Poll after poll shows just under 50% Americans support giving up their basic civil rights to protect their security. Why?
Can anyone explain why people who live in a country famous for valuing liberty are so quick to give their own liberty away for a false feeling of safety? Is it cowardice? Is it ignorance?
It isn't just that "you didn't see it coming", it is that most Americans are actually demanding that their politicians make them "safe from from terrorists" and are voting in people who quite clearly state that trampling all over your civil rights is great if it stops even one "terrorist". Who voted against the Patriot Act?
I don't know when the average American became a coward, but it has happened. You won't even close gitmo because of fear of having "terrorists" in a jail on the mainland.
You have no one to blame but yourselves. You voted the bastards in.
I would never use my personnel devices at work. One, if work wants me to have device xyz they can pay for it. Two, I like to keep my private and work life separate. Three, I've never worked for a company so insane that they actually thought BYOD was a good idea.
The BAC was reduced last year from 0.08 to 0.05. in our province. It did not lead to a huge rise in BAC convictions, nor it did not lead to any lessening of the social stigma associated with drunk driving. What it did is make our roads safer.
Normal banks do not take money from anyone who doesn't want their money taken. They lend out money and you pay it back with interest. No one forces you to take out a loan.
Some commercial banks will charge huge fees for services that you don't need and don't make you any money.
Governments do not take your money. You vote them in and they collect taxes to do the stuff you elected them to do. If your guy didn't win, well that can suck, but its part of the whole "democracy is the worse form of government except for all the rest".
One, it's lying. You shouldn't lie to people. Two, it's mean. It simply isn't right to cause stress for a lame joke. If I have to explain being mean is wrong you need serious help. Three, it makes you look like an idiot, as only an idiot would do a such a thing to anyone they care about.Four, it isn't funny. It is never funny to lie or make people worried.
Not only did Mr. Ebert love movies, but he could WRITE. His reviews were not just excellent and insightful movie reviews, but generally good, to very good prose. This made reading his often lengthy reviews a delight, not a chore.
Did you know Mr. Ebert was also a great fan of written SF? I did not until he recently wrote a guest column for Asimov's Science fiction. It was a warm, charming essay that showed off his writing skills in a whole new light for me who had only ever read his movie reviews.
It is my opinion that if you cannot discuss this topic, and other even more important topics, like two adults then the relationship was not meant to be.
It shouldn't be too hard to state that all the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago and humans did not evolve until about 100,000 years ago so those foot prints are not from the same epoch.
If she wants more info point her to google. If she doesn't, you are done.
I have read Kant, and I did not find his reasoning persuasive. He was starting with KNOWING that morals as spelled out in the bible are correct then trying to use "modern rational thought" to prove they are right. He starts with his rules as a given then spends a lot of time rationalizing why they are right.
He argues that the rules must be followed, no exceptions. Stealing is wrong, even to save a life.
I think it would be very hard to come up with a completely objective moral theory, but if you agree that some basic principal such as "you should not directly harm other people" is agreed on an as axiom, then you can objectively judge various actions as moral or not.
The tricky part is picking those basic rights / axioms.
As another poster pointed out, it takes a lot LESS police resources to prevent a noisy party than break up a noisy show.
Prevent: 1 cop online 2 hours, 2 cops visit say don't do it, another 2 hours.
Break up party: 10 to 20 cops for 5 hours to break it up. More cops to process everyone arrested. Judges etc... to process bail etc... and lots more I don't know about.
On first reading I thought it seemed an odd thing to spend police resources on, but if these are loud, large, punk shows that disturb many people then I can see it being a smart use of police resources.
It not the job of the judiciary to over turn laws unless the law obviously contradicts the constitution. It is the job of the judiciary to apply the law as it is written.
If the law sucks, or seems to benefit only large corporations that is because your congress/senate passed laws favouring the corporations. The cure is not activist judges, but voting for politicians that will pass laws favouring average citizens instead of corporations.
And that won't happen until you all stop whining that nothing can be done and get off your butts and vote for good people. Maybe even start a political party. Only apathy allows the corporations to continue to get their laws passed.
Does all your valid points about the Chinese's unfair business practises mean you will stop buying cheap Chinese made goods? It seems most Americans, voting with wallet, have no problem at all with Chinese business practises. In fact, I have read that many American companies put making a profit ahead of all other considerations. Are you saying all these companies should start making much more expensive goods because it is the morally right thing to do?
You are not arguing against tech like google glass, you are arguing against a fascist police state. If the government, law, and courts are not set up to be abused by the rich then taking pictures in public cannot be used as a weapon.
Improve society; don't try to suppress technology.
Why should you get decide If I'm using a camera at a pub you don't own? Sure, I think it is reasonable to demand cameras off in change rooms and similar places, but if I'm in a place were it would be socially acceptable to take picture with my phone why I should have to turn off my future tech constantly running camera?
While you make many good points about why privacy is important the fact is that ubiquitous surveillance is here and we need to shape our laws to prevent abuse of this fact. We are not going to make all the security cameras go away. We are not going to get people to only buy phones without cameras. We are being watched and recorded.
If I get Google Glass can't I opt out of sending them everything I see? Shouldn't there be laws regulating images taken in public? Regulations for both corporations, government, and individuals?
Slashdot Mirror
The average movie was not better 25 years ago than today. 25 years ago most movies were schlock, just like today. But the only movie you hear about from 25 years ago are the GOOD ones. Bad movies don't make it onto the best 20 movies of 1979 critics list.
Lots of great movies are being made, it's just that you generally won't see them at the local 5 screen mega-cinema. There are good movie critics out there that can point you to good movies. Some are even made by Hollywood.
I do blame her.
She had access to a Dr who does have that technical knowledge. All she had to do was ask.
The English have mastered delivering withering insults very politely. Simply being polite does not make you "nice". Is it more "professional" to wrap your disdain for an idea in language that is courteous on the surface? Maybe. Is the emperor going to change? Unlikely.
All the big insurance companies care what the other guys are doing because of reinsurance. All the big companies have contracts that share some of their risk with other companies; this is called reinsurance and is very, very common.
Poll after poll shows just under 50% Americans support giving up their basic civil rights to protect their security. Why?
Can anyone explain why people who live in a country famous for valuing liberty are so quick to give their own liberty away for a false feeling of safety? Is it cowardice? Is it ignorance?
So I think the "it is us" statement is true.
Not in France.
It isn't just that "you didn't see it coming", it is that most Americans are actually demanding that their politicians make them "safe from from terrorists" and are voting in people who quite clearly state that trampling all over your civil rights is great if it stops even one "terrorist". Who voted against the Patriot Act?
I don't know when the average American became a coward, but it has happened. You won't even close gitmo because of fear of having "terrorists" in a jail on the mainland.
You have no one to blame but yourselves. You voted the bastards in.
I would never use my personnel devices at work. One, if work wants me to have device xyz they can pay for it. Two, I like to keep my private and work life separate. Three, I've never worked for a company so insane that they actually thought BYOD was a good idea.
The BAC was reduced last year from 0.08 to 0.05. in our province. It did not lead to a huge rise in BAC convictions, nor it did not lead to any lessening of the social stigma associated with drunk driving. What it did is make our roads safer.
Normal banks do not take money from anyone who doesn't want their money taken. They lend out money and you pay it back with interest. No one forces you to take out a loan.
Some commercial banks will charge huge fees for services that you don't need and don't make you any money.
Governments do not take your money. You vote them in and they collect taxes to do the stuff you elected them to do. If your guy didn't win, well that can suck, but its part of the whole "democracy is the worse form of government except for all the rest".
You don't just "allow" it, you encourage it by voting them in. By "you" I mean the people of Louisiana.
The only way to stop this would be a general education test for voters which would infringe peoples rights more than this stupid law.
I would never do that.
One, it's lying. You shouldn't lie to people. Two, it's mean. It simply isn't right to cause stress for a lame joke. If I have to explain being mean is wrong you need serious help. Three, it makes you look like an idiot, as only an idiot would do a such a thing to anyone they care about.Four, it isn't funny. It is never funny to lie or make people worried.
I live in Canada, but Time's coverage of our big neighbour and the rest of the world is pretty good. Not much fluff, and generally well written.
I just like SF.
Not only did Mr. Ebert love movies, but he could WRITE. His reviews were not just excellent and insightful movie reviews, but generally good, to very good prose. This made reading his often lengthy reviews a delight, not a chore.
Did you know Mr. Ebert was also a great fan of written SF? I did not until he recently wrote a guest column for Asimov's Science fiction. It was a warm, charming essay that showed off his writing skills in a whole new light for me who had only ever read his movie reviews.
It is my opinion that if you cannot discuss this topic, and other even more important topics, like two adults then the relationship was not meant to be.
It shouldn't be too hard to state that all the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago and humans did not evolve until about 100,000 years ago so those foot prints are not from the same epoch.
If she wants more info point her to google. If she doesn't, you are done.
I have read Kant, and I did not find his reasoning persuasive. He was starting with KNOWING that morals as spelled out in the bible are correct then trying to use "modern rational thought" to prove they are right. He starts with his rules as a given then spends a lot of time rationalizing why they are right.
He argues that the rules must be followed, no exceptions. Stealing is wrong, even to save a life.
I think it would be very hard to come up with a completely objective moral theory, but if you agree that some basic principal such as "you should not directly harm other people" is agreed on an as axiom, then you can objectively judge various actions as moral or not.
The tricky part is picking those basic rights / axioms.
The demand for lower taxes killed beat cops. It is very expensive to hire enough cops to do that.
As another poster pointed out, it takes a lot LESS police resources to prevent a noisy party than break up a noisy show.
Prevent: 1 cop online 2 hours, 2 cops visit say don't do it, another 2 hours.
Break up party: 10 to 20 cops for 5 hours to break it up. More cops to process everyone arrested. Judges etc... to process bail etc... and lots more I don't know about.
On first reading I thought it seemed an odd thing to spend police resources on, but if these are loud, large, punk shows that disturb many people then I can see it being a smart use of police resources.
It not the job of the judiciary to over turn laws unless the law obviously contradicts the constitution. It is the job of the judiciary to apply the law as it is written.
If the law sucks, or seems to benefit only large corporations that is because your congress/senate passed laws favouring the corporations. The cure is not activist judges, but voting for politicians that will pass laws favouring average citizens instead of corporations.
And that won't happen until you all stop whining that nothing can be done and get off your butts and vote for good people. Maybe even start a political party. Only apathy allows the corporations to continue to get their laws passed.
Does all your valid points about the Chinese's unfair business practises mean you will stop buying cheap Chinese made goods? It seems most Americans, voting with wallet, have no problem at all with Chinese business practises. In fact, I have read that many American companies put making a profit ahead of all other considerations. Are you saying all these companies should start making much more expensive goods because it is the morally right thing to do?
You are not arguing against tech like google glass, you are arguing against a fascist police state. If the government, law, and courts are not set up to be abused by the rich then taking pictures in public cannot be used as a weapon.
Improve society; don't try to suppress technology.
Why should you get decide If I'm using a camera at a pub you don't own? Sure, I think it is reasonable to demand cameras off in change rooms and similar places, but if I'm in a place were it would be socially acceptable to take picture with my phone why I should have to turn off my future tech constantly running camera?
While you make many good points about why privacy is important the fact is that ubiquitous surveillance is here and we need to shape our laws to prevent abuse of this fact. We are not going to make all the security cameras go away. We are not going to get people to only buy phones without cameras. We are being watched and recorded.
If I get Google Glass can't I opt out of sending them everything I see? Shouldn't there be laws regulating images taken in public? Regulations for both corporations, government, and individuals?