Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.
Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.
As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.
Nothing personal here, but I will really enjoy the day when corporate managers, analysts, traders, etc. and most of all economists (especially the ones that advocate the Chicago school of economics) are finally completely replaced by AI.
"We have to forget steel as a core employer," says Wolfgang Eder, Voestalpine's chief executive officer for the past 13 years. "In the long run we will lose most of the classic blue-collar workers, people doing the hot and dirty jobs in coking plants or around the blast furnaces. This will all be automated."
Tell me something I don't know like, for example, how will the economy work when 90% of the jobs are automated. Will we have a situation like in ancient Rome where the rich people who owned masses of slaves they used to bankrupt small businesses and farmers by undercutting them with cheap labour but then ended up feeding the unemployed citizen masses simply out of a deep rooted and very real fear of the unwashed citizen masses rising up, dragging the moneyed classes out of their luxury villas and either throwing them to the lions or just crucifying them in the atrium of their own luxury villa? Will our unemployed kids and grand kids be living off of handouts from the rich oligarchs who own the automated factories?... and how will an economy work when only 10% or less of the population are employed either designing new robots or staring at flatscreen making sure that things are running smoothly?
Don't worry, stop hyperventilating, just keep calm and carry on. President Trump has pledged to fix this, coal will be back, electric cars will be subject to severe restrictions to boost oil consumption and to further the sales of technologically obsolete internal combustion engine cars there is nothing to worry about. The greatest negotiator of all time is on the job.
And that's all they talk about, to distract from the heart of the matter. It's nothing but a 'shoot the messenger' campaign. The DNC and Clinton were behaving in an unethical manner, and the Russians leaked the evidence of it. The underlying unethical behavior should be the focus. And yes, the retort is that they only leaked information on one party, but a) that doesn't absolve the DNC and HRC of what they did, b) What they did pales in comparison to what Trump openly did anyway, and c) They almost certainly alienated even more voters who realized a) and b) and watched them try to scream about Russians stealing the election anyway.
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, because Clinton was still the lesser evil by miles. Thinking that anyone who says anyone other than Russia was at fault is automatically a Trump supporter is another thing that's just alienating even more people so that they stay home and cost the Dems the midterms and next presidency too.
I agree, the Democrats behaved unethically but quite frankly, having taken a look at Donald Trump's extensive record of unethical behaviour (excluding the hullabaloo about Russia), the Democrats look like a bunch of Eagle Scouts by comparison.
Actually, 55% of Democrats believe that the Russians modified vote totals to elect Trump, according the most recent YouGov/Economist poll. This is roughly the same response rate that we've seen since December, 2016 - 50%-60% believe it.
Well it now seems that the Russians tried to attack election officials and voting machine manufacturers so there may be some fire to go with that smoke although only time will tell how much luck the Russians had with that approach. I always thought it was kind of stupid to hack the actual voting machines and counting mechanism. Just getting 'kompromat' on the candidate you don't like regarding some US specific hot button issue and releasing it at strategic moments was always much more likely to be effective and still retain some semblance of plausible deniability.
SO far they claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election...
Really? The only ones I have seen make that claim are pundits on Fox News and Breitbart trying to defend their 'Dear Leader', the greatest negotiator of all time. Most of the rest of the media claims the Russians hacked the DNC and used carefully timed leaks of that information in an attempt to influence the voting behaviour of the US electorate.
The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors...
... who have no girlfriend, live in their parent's basement with a robotic dog and a PC running Linux. Next to the PC there sits a mountain of used tissues and a bottle of lube while a video clip of a porn actress that bears a striking resemblance to Natalie Portman covering herself in hot grits is running full screen on the 42" UltraHD monitor.... aaaand I think that pretty much covers the stereotype of the Slashdot reading leftist.
Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.
Corbyn got young people to vote which is a longstanding source of failure for the left and not just in the UK. For that alone he deserves a whole box of Cuban cigars. He also took a few leafs out of Donald Trump's book, held rallies and came up with a set of simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances. Meanwhile there was Theresa May talking about allowing fox hunting again (when 80% of the nation hates the idea because it stinks of aristocracy), being mean to old people, taking meals away from school kids and defunding the NHS so I think Theresa May's ivory tower view on the world didn't hurt Corbyn either.
Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people
ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.
That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.
The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).
That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum. Brexit was and is a monumental decision and you need to require there to be a clear mandate for whoever gets stiffed with implementing such a decision. Otherwise that person cannot be expected do their job effectively. What AC describes, however, is the kind of lukewarm one foot through the door, I want full access to the club facilities but making me pay a membership fee is an assault on my human rights, attitude that brought us Farage, Wilders, Le Pen in the first place. Ironically the clusterfuck that Brexit and British politics has become is actually helping the EU along whit the fact that Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and their ilk held Donald Trump up as an example to follow and now that he has turned out to be a human shitsandwich European voters, who seem to generally be a bit quicker spot a turd than some American voters seem to be, are not having any of it. People in the rest of the EU27 take one look at the UK and think 'Wat? Do I want a slice of shit cake? Ummm... no thanks'. From now on people are just going to have to make up their minds whether they want to *exit or stay in the EU and fight for reforms. There are no other choices.
"mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia."
Reminder, no such ties have been shown to actually exist.
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Ehmm? There are plenty of evidence and the administration have even acknowledged it and fired the people. What open is whether Trump was aware of it, or if it was only his most trusted and most prominent leaders of his campaign that colluded with the Russians.
Oh, Trump was aware of the collusion and the Russian election meddling in his favour, he would have to be suffering from a severe case of Altsheimers in order not to be aware of it. The question is: was Trump clever enough to separate himself from the meddling thoroughly enough by acting only through loyal minions that his complicity cannot be conclusively proven? l certainly hope not... and if it is proven he himself had a direct hand in the DNC hack and all the rest of it, it should be fun watching the wingnuts eat crow over supporting and hyping up a guy who is turning out to be an utterly incompetent moron.
SMB sucks ass? and now it's revealed to be seriously insecure as well?... now there's a couple of newsflashes that will shock the entire tech industry to it's core
Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... It must be freezing in hell.
I have a seen a number of movies that critics decided were rubbish but that audiences loved.
Me too. What I haven't seen is a movie that critics decided was terrible, but audiences loved, and I liked. YMMV, of course.
That's true, I just tend to take with a grain of salt what somebody who lives and breathes the masterpieces of the filmmakers art has to say about a move like 'The Mummy' for example. I really liked those movies but critics generally didn't while audiences gave them a much higher score. The only reason I stopped watching the franchise was that without Rachel Weisz the third film really wasn't the same as the old ones because she and Brendan Fraser complemented each other really well in those roles.
Trump Will Announce US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
I'm not surprised, It's the one big thing he can do quickly to fulfil a campaign promise and stick it to the 'libruls' where he does not have to deal with congress, the constitution or the judicial system. He can just pull out of the Paris Accord and declare a glorious victory, temporary balm for a bruised ego. Meanwhile China stands by on the sidelines with plans for a $900 billion fund to invest in overseas energy and infrastructure projects and watches approvingly as the US shoots it self in the foot by abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech. Same for Germany which is in the middle of doing the exact opposite of what Trump plans to do and will along with China probably be a world leader in renewable energy tech if by the time Trump is done takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector. So, folks! It's amateur hour at the White House for the 132nd day in a row!
I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...
I look at both. The problem with critic ratings is that critics look for somewhat different things in a movie than I do. The problem with audience ratings is they are doubly self-selected, as well as vulnerable to astroturfing. I find that looking at both gives me a really good idea of whether I'm going to like it: if both critic and audience ratings are high, I know I'm good. If either one is really low, I can be pretty sure the movie sucks. In other cases, I have to look closer, which means actually reading a sampling of both critic and viewer reviews. I do weight critic ratings/reviews a little more heavily.
In the case of these movies, a 32% RT score is a strong negative indicator, but if the audience ratings are high, I might see it. I probably will see Pirates 5. Any RT score below 20% is a clear loser. I'll stay home if there's no better option.
I have a seen a number of movies that critics decided were rubbish but that audiences loved. They keep analysing the quality of the acting, the depth of the characters, blah, blah, blah, and that is certainly important in some movies but sometimes it does not matter how a movie stands up to a Woody Allen classic masterpiece, you just want to see the Hulk bash the crap out of aliens... or something... even if the acting compares badly with the masterpieces.
While I agree there are some good movies that have poor Rotten Tomatoes ratings which makes me wonder if I missed a movie because of RT reviews, I would still consider them to be a pretty good indicator of movie quality. The studios are just mad that RT tells me what I need to know about crappy movies before I spend my money on them!
I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...
I mean, let's suppose that somehow, actual evidence that was somehow incontrovertible showed that there was meddling...
There is.
...and let's even further say that they managed to identify the people responsible, and were able to bring them to court, where they were appropriately and justly tried and sentenced for the crime.
The people involved have been identified as belonging to Russian intelligence, not holding my breath for a list of names though.
Would that really change anything, though? I'm betting it wouldn't.
No, it would not change anything. A thin skinned egomaniacal moron with a twitter account and a bad temper is still president of the United States and will be for as long as Mitch McConnell can find a use for him after which you will probably be saying hello to president Pence.
Um no, that is not the solution, the solution is to air gap anything you cant afford to have break due to hacking, and hunt down criminal hackers around the world. Treat state sponsored hacking like an act of war, and make sure everyone knows you will respond with devastating force.
Air gapping critical infrastructure should be a federal law, because anything connected can eventually be hacked given enough time and resources.
You can compromise but it comes with a cost. I recently read a case study about a power outage in the Ukraine due to Russian hackers compromising the computers controlling the grid infrastructure. The Ukrainians responded to this by simply disconnecting the computers and going back to manual control, something they were able to do because their infrastructure is pretty old. It allowed them, according to the authors of that piece at least, to bring their system up much faster than what is possible with modern 'smart' grids. If you plan your system properly, make it modular/compartmentalised so that any damage done is contained to each module and attackers will have to hack multiple system modules to do real damage, put in a manual backup option, and train your personnel correctly you can enjoy the advantages of computerisation without sacrificing the security of being able to bring the thing up manually. Having said all that, hiring a dedicated security contractor to do intrusion monitoring on your computer network and air-gaping or moving everything to private networks that does not have to be publicly accessible would probably be worth every penny. The Russians don't seem to care about the damage they do. They are have hacked and jammed various air traffic control assets around the Baltic seemingly to test their jamming systems and cyber warfare capability and you can bet your bottom dollar they have done extensive research on how to bring the US power grid down.
US Might Ban Laptops On All Flights Into And Out of the Country, this is considered a prelude to the Trump administrations next major move in aviation security which is to ban passengers and cargo on all flights in and out of the USA. In an interview on "Fox News Sunday" U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was quoted as saying: "We have determined that the largest two security risks in aviation are passengers and cargo. Passengers are basically a bunch of morons anyway and unquestionably a general nuisance and they are just far to vulnerable to terrorist attacks plus, an alarming number of them are actually evil foreigners. Furthermore, there are just way to many places to hide bombs in air cargo so after a lengthy 12 second consultation with president Trump during a commercial break on 'Fox and Friends' POTUS decided that we should just ban them. It's a pretty clever idea, It just simplifies everything when the aircraft are empty, security checks are shorter, there are no delays around boarding, no crowding in the airport terminal, no security lines, the turn-around rate at airports will also skyrocket. In fact we won't be needing airport terminals at all anymore since aircraft are only stopping to refuel before returning to what ever dystopian foreign hell hole they came from in the first place so we'll be re-purposing the airport terminals as presidential adulation centres. We'll also be laying off large numbers of redundant TSA staff who'll be re-hired at lower wages by subsidiaries of The Trump Organisation and sent into the deserts to build the US-Mexico border wall which POTUS assures us the Mexicans have now agreed to pay for."
So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.
That's probably the most serious point. The thing is that the people voted for all of this and they are going to get it. It's a bit like that recent and shocking discovery by a large portion of the Republican voting citizenry that: ((the ACA = ObamaCare) ^ (I'm on ACA)) -> Repealing Obamacare affects me!!! The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the instant you get sick. It is it's OK to vote for Republicans because you both are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun, after all, Americans live in a (nominally at least) representative democracy. But if you forget to check whether those same Republicans you are voting for because they are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun are also pro-you it's your own damn fault when the Republicans take things away from you that matter to you and are critical to the existence of you and your family so that they can give rich people a monstrous tax cut. Over the next two years the Republicans are going to wreck a social security system that took decades to build and that seems to be the price that must be paid for millions of Americans to learn the simple basic lesson,when voting for a politician, before you check whether he/she is Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun or pro anything else you care about, first of all check whether he/she is pro-you.
Trump is supplying the wind.
When Trump heard about this and was told they needed the wind to blow hard he claimed he was the biggest blowhard ever, a great big beautiful blowhard, the biggest blowhard that has ever been in government.:-)
That's surprising ?!? I would have thought Trump's knee jerk reaction upon hearing that a Chinese wind turbine company is unfolding an evil plan to destroy America's coal industry with unfair competition would be to put a 30% import tariff on wind, enact a special tax to kill off domestic wind production and make it illegal to move wind across state lines?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so are you implying that it's the Russians who hate systemd?
No, it's way more diabolical than that, the Russians wrote systemd ...
Wall street is the only part of the country that would cheer the loss of jobs.
Everybody should cheer. The purpose of economic activity is to create goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If the same number of burgers can be delivered with less labor, that is a GOOD THING.
As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.
Nothing personal here, but I will really enjoy the day when corporate managers, analysts, traders, etc. and most of all economists (especially the ones that advocate the Chicago school of economics) are finally completely replaced by AI.
"We have to forget steel as a core employer," says Wolfgang Eder, Voestalpine's chief executive officer for the past 13 years. "In the long run we will lose most of the classic blue-collar workers, people doing the hot and dirty jobs in coking plants or around the blast furnaces. This will all be automated."
Tell me something I don't know like, for example, how will the economy work when 90% of the jobs are automated. Will we have a situation like in ancient Rome where the rich people who owned masses of slaves they used to bankrupt small businesses and farmers by undercutting them with cheap labour but then ended up feeding the unemployed citizen masses simply out of a deep rooted and very real fear of the unwashed citizen masses rising up, dragging the moneyed classes out of their luxury villas and either throwing them to the lions or just crucifying them in the atrium of their own luxury villa? Will our unemployed kids and grand kids be living off of handouts from the rich oligarchs who own the automated factories? ... and how will an economy work when only 10% or less of the population are employed either designing new robots or staring at flatscreen making sure that things are running smoothly?
Don't worry, stop hyperventilating, just keep calm and carry on. President Trump has pledged to fix this, coal will be back, electric cars will be subject to severe restrictions to boost oil consumption and to further the sales of technologically obsolete internal combustion engine cars there is nothing to worry about. The greatest negotiator of all time is on the job.
Lego still allows the user to exercise their own creativity. You might buy a Star Destroyer kit, but you can build other things with it.
Ain't that the truth. I rather liked this idea: http://www.thebricktestament.c...
The part about camp deification was amusing: http://www.thebricktestament.c...
Python will never beat Perl ... ever!!! **Ducks for cover**
And that's all they talk about, to distract from the heart of the matter. It's nothing but a 'shoot the messenger' campaign. The DNC and Clinton were behaving in an unethical manner, and the Russians leaked the evidence of it. The underlying unethical behavior should be the focus. And yes, the retort is that they only leaked information on one party, but a) that doesn't absolve the DNC and HRC of what they did, b) What they did pales in comparison to what Trump openly did anyway, and c) They almost certainly alienated even more voters who realized a) and b) and watched them try to scream about Russians stealing the election anyway. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, because Clinton was still the lesser evil by miles. Thinking that anyone who says anyone other than Russia was at fault is automatically a Trump supporter is another thing that's just alienating even more people so that they stay home and cost the Dems the midterms and next presidency too.
I agree, the Democrats behaved unethically but quite frankly, having taken a look at Donald Trump's extensive record of unethical behaviour (excluding the hullabaloo about Russia), the Democrats look like a bunch of Eagle Scouts by comparison.
Actually, 55% of Democrats believe that the Russians modified vote totals to elect Trump, according the most recent YouGov/Economist poll. This is roughly the same response rate that we've seen since December, 2016 - 50%-60% believe it.
Well it now seems that the Russians tried to attack election officials and voting machine manufacturers so there may be some fire to go with that smoke although only time will tell how much luck the Russians had with that approach. I always thought it was kind of stupid to hack the actual voting machines and counting mechanism. Just getting 'kompromat' on the candidate you don't like regarding some US specific hot button issue and releasing it at strategic moments was always much more likely to be effective and still retain some semblance of plausible deniability.
SO far they claimed Russia hacked the 2016 election ...
Really? The only ones I have seen make that claim are pundits on Fox News and Breitbart trying to defend their 'Dear Leader', the greatest negotiator of all time. Most of the rest of the media claims the Russians hacked the DNC and used carefully timed leaks of that information in an attempt to influence the voting behaviour of the US electorate.
The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors ...
... who have no girlfriend, live in their parent's basement with a robotic dog and a PC running Linux. Next to the PC there sits a mountain of used tissues and a bottle of lube while a video clip of a porn actress that bears a striking resemblance to Natalie Portman covering herself in hot grits is running full screen on the 42" UltraHD monitor. ... aaaand I think that pretty much covers the stereotype of the Slashdot reading leftist.
Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.
Corbyn got young people to vote which is a longstanding source of failure for the left and not just in the UK. For that alone he deserves a whole box of Cuban cigars. He also took a few leafs out of Donald Trump's book, held rallies and came up with a set of simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances. Meanwhile there was Theresa May talking about allowing fox hunting again (when 80% of the nation hates the idea because it stinks of aristocracy), being mean to old people, taking meals away from school kids and defunding the NHS so I think Theresa May's ivory tower view on the world didn't hurt Corbyn either.
ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.
That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.
The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).
That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum. Brexit was and is a monumental decision and you need to require there to be a clear mandate for whoever gets stiffed with implementing such a decision. Otherwise that person cannot be expected do their job effectively. What AC describes, however, is the kind of lukewarm one foot through the door, I want full access to the club facilities but making me pay a membership fee is an assault on my human rights, attitude that brought us Farage, Wilders, Le Pen in the first place. Ironically the clusterfuck that Brexit and British politics has become is actually helping the EU along whit the fact that Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and their ilk held Donald Trump up as an example to follow and now that he has turned out to be a human shitsandwich European voters, who seem to generally be a bit quicker spot a turd than some American voters seem to be, are not having any of it. People in the rest of the EU27 take one look at the UK and think 'Wat? Do I want a slice of shit cake? Ummm... no thanks'. From now on people are just going to have to make up their minds whether they want to *exit or stay in the EU and fight for reforms. There are no other choices.
At least he has not appointed to his horse ... yet.
There, fixed that for you....
"mounting scrutiny of ties between his campaign and Russia."
Reminder, no such ties have been shown to actually exist.
Posting as AC because the last time I went against the Conspiracy Theories someone decided to call my boss and claim I was destroying America.
Ehmm? There are plenty of evidence and the administration have even acknowledged it and fired the people. What open is whether Trump was aware of it, or if it was only his most trusted and most prominent leaders of his campaign that colluded with the Russians.
Oh, Trump was aware of the collusion and the Russian election meddling in his favour, he would have to be suffering from a severe case of Altsheimers in order not to be aware of it. The question is: was Trump clever enough to separate himself from the meddling thoroughly enough by acting only through loyal minions that his complicity cannot be conclusively proven? l certainly hope not... and if it is proven he himself had a direct hand in the DNC hack and all the rest of it, it should be fun watching the wingnuts eat crow over supporting and hyping up a guy who is turning out to be an utterly incompetent moron.
SMB sucks ass? and now it's revealed to be seriously insecure as well?... now there's a couple of newsflashes that will shock the entire tech industry to it's core
Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... It must be freezing in hell.
I have a seen a number of movies that critics decided were rubbish but that audiences loved.
Me too. What I haven't seen is a movie that critics decided was terrible, but audiences loved, and I liked. YMMV, of course.
That's true, I just tend to take with a grain of salt what somebody who lives and breathes the masterpieces of the filmmakers art has to say about a move like 'The Mummy' for example. I really liked those movies but critics generally didn't while audiences gave them a much higher score. The only reason I stopped watching the franchise was that without Rachel Weisz the third film really wasn't the same as the old ones because she and Brendan Fraser complemented each other really well in those roles.
Trump Will Announce US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
I'm not surprised, It's the one big thing he can do quickly to fulfil a campaign promise and stick it to the 'libruls' where he does not have to deal with congress, the constitution or the judicial system. He can just pull out of the Paris Accord and declare a glorious victory, temporary balm for a bruised ego. Meanwhile China stands by on the sidelines with plans for a $900 billion fund to invest in overseas energy and infrastructure projects and watches approvingly as the US shoots it self in the foot by abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech. Same for Germany which is in the middle of doing the exact opposite of what Trump plans to do and will along with China probably be a world leader in renewable energy tech if by the time Trump is done takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector. So, folks! It's amateur hour at the White House for the 132nd day in a row!
I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...
I look at both. The problem with critic ratings is that critics look for somewhat different things in a movie than I do. The problem with audience ratings is they are doubly self-selected, as well as vulnerable to astroturfing. I find that looking at both gives me a really good idea of whether I'm going to like it: if both critic and audience ratings are high, I know I'm good. If either one is really low, I can be pretty sure the movie sucks. In other cases, I have to look closer, which means actually reading a sampling of both critic and viewer reviews. I do weight critic ratings/reviews a little more heavily.
In the case of these movies, a 32% RT score is a strong negative indicator, but if the audience ratings are high, I might see it. I probably will see Pirates 5. Any RT score below 20% is a clear loser. I'll stay home if there's no better option.
I have a seen a number of movies that critics decided were rubbish but that audiences loved. They keep analysing the quality of the acting, the depth of the characters, blah, blah, blah, and that is certainly important in some movies but sometimes it does not matter how a movie stands up to a Woody Allen classic masterpiece, you just want to see the Hulk bash the crap out of aliens ... or something ... even if the acting compares badly with the masterpieces.
While I agree there are some good movies that have poor Rotten Tomatoes ratings which makes me wonder if I missed a movie because of RT reviews, I would still consider them to be a pretty good indicator of movie quality. The studios are just mad that RT tells me what I need to know about crappy movies before I spend my money on them!
I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...
I mean, let's suppose that somehow, actual evidence that was somehow incontrovertible showed that there was meddling...
There is.
...and let's even further say that they managed to identify the people responsible, and were able to bring them to court, where they were appropriately and justly tried and sentenced for the crime.
The people involved have been identified as belonging to Russian intelligence, not holding my breath for a list of names though.
Would that really change anything, though? I'm betting it wouldn't.
No, it would not change anything. A thin skinned egomaniacal moron with a twitter account and a bad temper is still president of the United States and will be for as long as Mitch McConnell can find a use for him after which you will probably be saying hello to president Pence.
Um no, that is not the solution, the solution is to air gap anything you cant afford to have break due to hacking, and hunt down criminal hackers around the world. Treat state sponsored hacking like an act of war, and make sure everyone knows you will respond with devastating force.
Air gapping critical infrastructure should be a federal law, because anything connected can eventually be hacked given enough time and resources.
You can compromise but it comes with a cost. I recently read a case study about a power outage in the Ukraine due to Russian hackers compromising the computers controlling the grid infrastructure. The Ukrainians responded to this by simply disconnecting the computers and going back to manual control, something they were able to do because their infrastructure is pretty old. It allowed them, according to the authors of that piece at least, to bring their system up much faster than what is possible with modern 'smart' grids. If you plan your system properly, make it modular/compartmentalised so that any damage done is contained to each module and attackers will have to hack multiple system modules to do real damage, put in a manual backup option, and train your personnel correctly you can enjoy the advantages of computerisation without sacrificing the security of being able to bring the thing up manually. Having said all that, hiring a dedicated security contractor to do intrusion monitoring on your computer network and air-gaping or moving everything to private networks that does not have to be publicly accessible would probably be worth every penny. The Russians don't seem to care about the damage they do. They are have hacked and jammed various air traffic control assets around the Baltic seemingly to test their jamming systems and cyber warfare capability and you can bet your bottom dollar they have done extensive research on how to bring the US power grid down.
US Might Ban Laptops On All Flights Into And Out of the Country, this is considered a prelude to the Trump administrations next major move in aviation security which is to ban passengers and cargo on all flights in and out of the USA. In an interview on "Fox News Sunday" U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was quoted as saying: "We have determined that the largest two security risks in aviation are passengers and cargo. Passengers are basically a bunch of morons anyway and unquestionably a general nuisance and they are just far to vulnerable to terrorist attacks plus, an alarming number of them are actually evil foreigners. Furthermore, there are just way to many places to hide bombs in air cargo so after a lengthy 12 second consultation with president Trump during a commercial break on 'Fox and Friends' POTUS decided that we should just ban them. It's a pretty clever idea, It just simplifies everything when the aircraft are empty, security checks are shorter, there are no delays around boarding, no crowding in the airport terminal, no security lines, the turn-around rate at airports will also skyrocket. In fact we won't be needing airport terminals at all anymore since aircraft are only stopping to refuel before returning to what ever dystopian foreign hell hole they came from in the first place so we'll be re-purposing the airport terminals as presidential adulation centres. We'll also be laying off large numbers of redundant TSA staff who'll be re-hired at lower wages by subsidiaries of The Trump Organisation and sent into the deserts to build the US-Mexico border wall which POTUS assures us the Mexicans have now agreed to pay for."
So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.
That's probably the most serious point. The thing is that the people voted for all of this and they are going to get it. It's a bit like that recent and shocking discovery by a large portion of the Republican voting citizenry that: ((the ACA = ObamaCare) ^ (I'm on ACA)) -> Repealing Obamacare affects me!!! The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the instant you get sick. It is it's OK to vote for Republicans because you both are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun, after all, Americans live in a (nominally at least) representative democracy. But if you forget to check whether those same Republicans you are voting for because they are Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun are also pro-you it's your own damn fault when the Republicans take things away from you that matter to you and are critical to the existence of you and your family so that they can give rich people a monstrous tax cut. Over the next two years the Republicans are going to wreck a social security system that took decades to build and that seems to be the price that must be paid for millions of Americans to learn the simple basic lesson,when voting for a politician, before you check whether he/she is Christian, pro-life, pro-religion or pro-gun or pro anything else you care about, first of all check whether he/she is pro-you.
Trump is supplying the wind. When Trump heard about this and was told they needed the wind to blow hard he claimed he was the biggest blowhard ever, a great big beautiful blowhard, the biggest blowhard that has ever been in government. :-)
That's surprising ?!? I would have thought Trump's knee jerk reaction upon hearing that a Chinese wind turbine company is unfolding an evil plan to destroy America's coal industry with unfair competition would be to put a 30% import tariff on wind, enact a special tax to kill off domestic wind production and make it illegal to move wind across state lines?