So many people are just dismissing Spielberg's point without bothering to understand it. People think that the Oscars are for movies and the Emmies are for TV, so if Netflix makes a movie then it should be eligible for the Oscars... but we've had made-for-TV movies forever and they get Emmies, not Oscars.
So what is the difference between the Emmies and the Oscars, really? Well there are historical and business reasons why they're separate, but Spielberg's argument is one of principle: the theatrical experience is different from the home experience, and the awards should be delineated by that difference. In other words, Spielberg is saying that the theater is a part of the medium for Oscar-eligible films.
If you're going to disagree with Spielberg on this, you have two options: you can try to come up with some other factor which separates works eligible for Oscars from works eligible for Emmies, while still significant enough to justify separate awards for each, or you can say that they're all just videos and having separate awards is dumb.
Some people will point out that Netflix did put its submissions in theaters very briefly, but this was a transparent ploy to use the greater popularity of the Oscars, compared to the Emmies, for promotional purposes. It was quite clear from the start that the theater was not intended to be part of the medium for the Netflix films.
I'm not arguing with you, but... man. The idea that "an economy which works for everyone" would be such anathema to the entirety of the American right-wing... that's just sad.
For your note at the bottom: I had a conversation with someone who was absolutely insistent that communism and fascism were effectively the same thing, and could not be convinced otherwise. I think there's a talking point going around trying to equate them. Regardless: you don't have to be radical, you just have to be in the outgroup.
... What? I said that "Don't ask, don't tell" was an improvement over what came before it. What came before it was a dishonorable discharge with a unique code which would permanently label you as gay to anyone who cared to look. In particular, any employers who were checking up on your background would see this and could exclude you for that reason.
You're reading a news site. If the only facts you're willing to accept are those which are directly connected to you friends' employment, or which you research extensively yourself (Whatever that means. I have no idea how you research something if you're unwilling to accept any information which isn't connected directly to one of your friends.) then... why are you here? What could Slashdot possibly offer you, if you're unwilling to believe anything that anyone here says?
You do say that you're willing to listen to people who you don't know personally, but who you do know by reputation. You give the example of movie reviewers... who write articles just like any other journalist, and put their names on those articles just like any other journalist. Every journalist does that. Including fact checkers.
The only even-faintly-legitimate source you cite is cepr.net, which is a self-described "progressive" think tank.
I'm shocked. I know that the Center for Economic and Policy Research has been described by others as progressive, but I can't imagine them describing themselves that way. That just isn't done.
What could we call such a person, I wonder... I'm going to go with "truth verifier."
You've made a giant leap from, "fallible humans who don't always succeed at overcoming their biases," to, "false authorities worthy only of derision and hate." I don't see how that leap is in any way justified, and it's impractical regardless. We're always going to need fact checkers, even if you don't want to call them fact checkers.
I read an article a while back in a philosophy publication in which a guy made the suggestion that we should all verify each story for ourselves, by (politely) contacting primary sources. It's such an absurd notion. If someone gets killed in a notable way, this does not mean that their parents are suddenly capable of fielding questions from ten million individual skeptical readers. Nor should they have any obligation to do so. Let alone all of the time that each of those readers has to spend verifying every story of any consequence that shows up in the news every day.
No, all of those social media buttons and ad banners and "free" analytics tools and fonts, etc., those are mechanisms to spy on you. That's how they follow you around, well outside of their living rooms.
Yes, fact-checkers are subject to all of the standard pitfalls of journalism. As well as all of the standard solutions to those pitfalls. The question remains: what is your point? Where are you going with this? Are you seriously suggesting that we should just throw up our hands and give up on the concept of truth? Facts still need to be checked.
That's just wildly untrue. "Don't ask, don't tell" is exactly the opposite of what you're describing, and that was an improvement over what came before it.
If you've never heard of someone getting fired for being an uppity negro then you live in a fantasy land. That was a commonplace thing for a long time, and probably still is in some places.
ideas about "facts" being objective and bias free, and that's great, but fact-checkers never are
Okay, I will agree with you on this point at least. But... so what? From a practical standpoint your quibble seems to be entirely useless. Regardless of the bias of the fact checkers, facts still exist and falsehoods still exist and so facts need to be checked.
We have a bit of additional protection in that, unlike other journalists, fact-checkers' goal and purpose is to suppress bias as much as possible. So they have some motivation, more so than other journalists, to keep their information as neutral as they can. When they fail in this respect we can apply our standard method of having multiple sources, multiple fact checkers, in order to address this concern. Thus they provide a check on one another. They already do this of course, and have been doing it this way forever, so... what is the point of bringing this up?
Presumably your pain, as a seller, would be lessened by the fact that every time the auction is extended you get more money.
I don't see why this couldn't work with Ebay's auto-bidding system. You could even tweak it so that the time only gets extended when someone gets outbid, in other words when there's a new highest bidder. That gives time for the old person to respond, while incentivizing the new person to bid high right away so they won't have to wait.
Ebay accepts credit cards directly now, no Paypal account is required and especially no verified Paypal account is required (i.e.: linked to your bank account).
As for: "The only way eBay could really counter sniping..." - Never think that there isn't a better solution just because you can't come up with it. The standard method for bidding in forums is that the auction ends 24 hours after the last bid. This solves the sniping problem and encourages people to bid their maximum right away, so that they can get their item sooner. Trolls aren't an issue provided the seller sets a reasonable bid increment. That's just one possible answer to this problem.
Agreed about the bit regarding trying to turn themselves into a regular store. They've been perusing that for a long time and it's really been to their detriment as an auction site.
My biggest complaint with them has always been auction snipers. They've never done anything to address this issue, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. It's frustrating for the buyers, it means that the sellers don't get as much from their auctions they could, and it means that Ebay's cut is smaller. There appears to be no upside to ignoring this issue, and yet... nothing. Forever.
That said, there is one improvement that they've made relatively recently: spinning off Paypal into a separate company. The fact that I'm no longer required to have a verified Paypal account linked to my Ebay account means that I actually do purchase things on Ebay now and then. There was a period when almost every auction was restricted like that, and it just wasn't worth the bother to even go to the site anymore.
Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards.
Your supporting argument for this claim is that the crime rate has increased after the practice was stopped. That's... something. I don't know whether or not crime has actually gone up in Toronto, but given that the man assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of carding (Stop and Frisk) called it, "a practice that has not definitively been shown to widely reduce or solve crime," it seems as though you're jumping to conclusions. Even if it's true that crime has in fact increased since then, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that it's not a coincidence.
You might also consider New York's Stop and Frisk program, which had few positive results.
What you describe in your second paragraph is racial profiling, what the article is describing seems to be broader than that. Though the "negative neighborhood" comment might be interpreted as having a racial component.
The grandparent, Igw, is saying that people need to have the right to have and discuss strange or incorrect ideas. The parent, greythax, is saying that we need to distinguish between thinking the wrong thought and taking the wrong action. You have missed this point.
It's the "STOP LYING." A lie is not the same thing as saying something which is untrue, the parent is claiming that that the article is trying to deceive people but the parent gives no reason for that belief. It's not a trivial accusation to make, especially without giving any sort of justification for it at all.
It could just be a mistake, it could just be an over-generalization of the term "review bombing"... there are a lot of alternative possibilities. Also, "stop" lying? "Stop"? Like this a recurring thing? Does comicbook.com have some terrible reputation that I don't know about? Or is this a personal vendetta or something? That's just weird.
And New York seems to consider it a fine idea to take from those who have most and redistribute to those who have less.
Your claim is not supported by the facts at hand, these protests were provoked by New York taking money from those who have less and giving it to those who have more.
Also, what does this: "so shouldn't they be happy that more federal money is being spent on the states that contribute less?" have to do with anything? You're wondering off into your own world, with unrelated tangents and baseless assumptions.
I read your post, I was correcting you. "Obtaining goods and services" is just another way of saying, "Getting other people to do things for you and give your their stuff." In other words, it's influence. Power. The more money you have the more you can do this, but there's no point where it flips from not being about power. It's always a measure of power no matter how much of it you have.
Not that I was disagreeing with you about the other part. I wasn't really commenting on that.
Money is just one way of measuring your power over other people. In numbers, what is the numerical value of my ability to get you to do something, or to take your possessions? Money isn't the only measure of power, it isn't the only thing that matters, but it is certainly an important one.
In that light, you can look at the consolidation of wealth as a failure of democratic principles.
Corruption of FCC commissioners is a known problem, but this isn't a good example. Selling out the public after leaving office isn't nearly as much of a problem as selling out the public while still in office. You could point to Ajit Pai, and that would probably be accurate, but there are even better examples than him.
Slashdot is, and has been for a long time, the place I come to learn about the latest right-wing talking points from people who believe them and are willing to defend them, at least a little bit. It depends on the story, but the Slashdot userbase does not fit into a single political category. Slashdot users usually deride gun control, and are quite a bit more libertarian than the general populace. These positions are not consistent with a strong left-lean.
I always find it interesting to see how certain topics interact with Slashdot's technically-minded population. Climate change denial, for example, conflicts with a science-positive outlook, and even those people here who are strongly right wing have pretty well rejected certain talking points along those lines. I've seen people elsewhere repeating claims that climate scientists are living the high life, and that climate change is really all about pulling in that sweet sweet research money. That's a real claim that some deniers make, but it's so ridiculous that when I've seen it here it's never gotten much traction. Likewise claims that nebulous unspecified "jobs" are more important than droughts / hurricanes / loss of coastline / etc. The only denier claims that have legs here are ones which give the appearance of being science-positive.
But they do have legs, because Slashdot does not have a strong left-lean. I'm sure there are trolls, but there's a fair share of true believers as well.
Cleaning cardboard is difficult to do in a way which allows it to be reused for food, most recycling programs will only take clean paper products anyway (not been used for food, or gotten wet). New York City has a special exception for pizza boxes: pizza boxes in New York can be recycled, but that's still only limited to boxes where the grease hasn't seeped into the fibers.
Stainless steel, and metals in general, are super easy to recycle and, even better, they're even easier to just clean and reuse.
That's true, the summary is misleading. The article doesn't say why he's being charged with intimidation, right after it says the police determined that it was a joke with no credible threat.
I think it's politics. The Republicans are the party of big business and rich people. The Democrats are harder to explain, because the left is classically anti-government, but it can probably be reduced to partisanship: the government is the only thing which can stop companies from fully running roughshod over the population (with regulations::spit::), so the Democrats support it, while the Republicans oppose the government for the same reason. Running roughshod is very profitable.
These positions might have been adopted for political reasons, but that sort of thing works its way into your psyche eventually. Distrust of private companies gets burned into your head. Partisanship between Republicans and Democrats has been growing ever since the Southern Strategy, which is coincident with the Vietnam War, so it fits your timeline.
This is one of the craziest comments I've ever read on this site. I'm guessing you probably just weren't reading too carefully, and thought that the parent was trying to suggest that a foreign law might apply to a US company, but it comes off as just amazingly myopic to suggest that foreign successes shouldn't influence American lawmaking.
Slashdot Mirror
So many people are just dismissing Spielberg's point without bothering to understand it. People think that the Oscars are for movies and the Emmies are for TV, so if Netflix makes a movie then it should be eligible for the Oscars... but we've had made-for-TV movies forever and they get Emmies, not Oscars.
So what is the difference between the Emmies and the Oscars, really? Well there are historical and business reasons why they're separate, but Spielberg's argument is one of principle: the theatrical experience is different from the home experience, and the awards should be delineated by that difference. In other words, Spielberg is saying that the theater is a part of the medium for Oscar-eligible films.
If you're going to disagree with Spielberg on this, you have two options: you can try to come up with some other factor which separates works eligible for Oscars from works eligible for Emmies, while still significant enough to justify separate awards for each, or you can say that they're all just videos and having separate awards is dumb.
Some people will point out that Netflix did put its submissions in theaters very briefly, but this was a transparent ploy to use the greater popularity of the Oscars, compared to the Emmies, for promotional purposes. It was quite clear from the start that the theater was not intended to be part of the medium for the Netflix films.
I'm not arguing with you, but... man. The idea that "an economy which works for everyone" would be such anathema to the entirety of the American right-wing... that's just sad.
For your note at the bottom: I had a conversation with someone who was absolutely insistent that communism and fascism were effectively the same thing, and could not be convinced otherwise. I think there's a talking point going around trying to equate them. Regardless: you don't have to be radical, you just have to be in the outgroup.
... What? I said that "Don't ask, don't tell" was an improvement over what came before it. What came before it was a dishonorable discharge with a unique code which would permanently label you as gay to anyone who cared to look. In particular, any employers who were checking up on your background would see this and could exclude you for that reason.
You're reading a news site. If the only facts you're willing to accept are those which are directly connected to you friends' employment, or which you research extensively yourself (Whatever that means. I have no idea how you research something if you're unwilling to accept any information which isn't connected directly to one of your friends.) then... why are you here? What could Slashdot possibly offer you, if you're unwilling to believe anything that anyone here says?
You do say that you're willing to listen to people who you don't know personally, but who you do know by reputation. You give the example of movie reviewers... who write articles just like any other journalist, and put their names on those articles just like any other journalist. Every journalist does that. Including fact checkers.
The only even-faintly-legitimate source you cite is cepr.net, which is a self-described "progressive" think tank.
I'm shocked. I know that the Center for Economic and Policy Research has been described by others as progressive, but I can't imagine them describing themselves that way. That just isn't done.
or "follow" someone who does
What could we call such a person, I wonder... I'm going to go with "truth verifier."
You've made a giant leap from, "fallible humans who don't always succeed at overcoming their biases," to, "false authorities worthy only of derision and hate." I don't see how that leap is in any way justified, and it's impractical regardless. We're always going to need fact checkers, even if you don't want to call them fact checkers.
I read an article a while back in a philosophy publication in which a guy made the suggestion that we should all verify each story for ourselves, by (politely) contacting primary sources. It's such an absurd notion. If someone gets killed in a notable way, this does not mean that their parents are suddenly capable of fielding questions from ten million individual skeptical readers. Nor should they have any obligation to do so. Let alone all of the time that each of those readers has to spend verifying every story of any consequence that shows up in the news every day.
No, all of those social media buttons and ad banners and "free" analytics tools and fonts, etc., those are mechanisms to spy on you. That's how they follow you around, well outside of their living rooms.
Yes, fact-checkers are subject to all of the standard pitfalls of journalism. As well as all of the standard solutions to those pitfalls. The question remains: what is your point? Where are you going with this? Are you seriously suggesting that we should just throw up our hands and give up on the concept of truth? Facts still need to be checked.
That's just wildly untrue. "Don't ask, don't tell" is exactly the opposite of what you're describing, and that was an improvement over what came before it.
If you've never heard of someone getting fired for being an uppity negro then you live in a fantasy land. That was a commonplace thing for a long time, and probably still is in some places.
ideas about "facts" being objective and bias free, and that's great, but fact-checkers never are
Okay, I will agree with you on this point at least. But... so what? From a practical standpoint your quibble seems to be entirely useless. Regardless of the bias of the fact checkers, facts still exist and falsehoods still exist and so facts need to be checked.
We have a bit of additional protection in that, unlike other journalists, fact-checkers' goal and purpose is to suppress bias as much as possible. So they have some motivation, more so than other journalists, to keep their information as neutral as they can. When they fail in this respect we can apply our standard method of having multiple sources, multiple fact checkers, in order to address this concern. Thus they provide a check on one another. They already do this of course, and have been doing it this way forever, so... what is the point of bringing this up?
Presumably your pain, as a seller, would be lessened by the fact that every time the auction is extended you get more money.
I don't see why this couldn't work with Ebay's auto-bidding system. You could even tweak it so that the time only gets extended when someone gets outbid, in other words when there's a new highest bidder. That gives time for the old person to respond, while incentivizing the new person to bid high right away so they won't have to wait.
How do you pay for those items?
Ebay accepts credit cards directly now, no Paypal account is required and especially no verified Paypal account is required (i.e.: linked to your bank account).
As for: "The only way eBay could really counter sniping..." - Never think that there isn't a better solution just because you can't come up with it. The standard method for bidding in forums is that the auction ends 24 hours after the last bid. This solves the sniping problem and encourages people to bid their maximum right away, so that they can get their item sooner. Trolls aren't an issue provided the seller sets a reasonable bid increment. That's just one possible answer to this problem.
Agreed about the bit regarding trying to turn themselves into a regular store. They've been perusing that for a long time and it's really been to their detriment as an auction site.
My biggest complaint with them has always been auction snipers. They've never done anything to address this issue, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. It's frustrating for the buyers, it means that the sellers don't get as much from their auctions they could, and it means that Ebay's cut is smaller. There appears to be no upside to ignoring this issue, and yet... nothing. Forever.
That said, there is one improvement that they've made relatively recently: spinning off Paypal into a separate company. The fact that I'm no longer required to have a verified Paypal account linked to my Ebay account means that I actually do purchase things on Ebay now and then. There was a period when almost every auction was restricted like that, and it just wasn't worth the bother to even go to the site anymore.
Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards.
Your supporting argument for this claim is that the crime rate has increased after the practice was stopped. That's... something. I don't know whether or not crime has actually gone up in Toronto, but given that the man assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of carding (Stop and Frisk) called it, "a practice that has not definitively been shown to widely reduce or solve crime," it seems as though you're jumping to conclusions. Even if it's true that crime has in fact increased since then, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that it's not a coincidence.
You might also consider New York's Stop and Frisk program, which had few positive results.
What you describe in your second paragraph is racial profiling, what the article is describing seems to be broader than that. Though the "negative neighborhood" comment might be interpreted as having a racial component.
The grandparent, Igw, is saying that people need to have the right to have and discuss strange or incorrect ideas. The parent, greythax, is saying that we need to distinguish between thinking the wrong thought and taking the wrong action. You have missed this point.
I have no idea why you're being called a Troll.
It's the "STOP LYING." A lie is not the same thing as saying something which is untrue, the parent is claiming that that the article is trying to deceive people but the parent gives no reason for that belief. It's not a trivial accusation to make, especially without giving any sort of justification for it at all.
It could just be a mistake, it could just be an over-generalization of the term "review bombing"... there are a lot of alternative possibilities. Also, "stop" lying? "Stop"? Like this a recurring thing? Does comicbook.com have some terrible reputation that I don't know about? Or is this a personal vendetta or something? That's just weird.
And New York seems to consider it a fine idea to take from those who have most and redistribute to those who have less.
Your claim is not supported by the facts at hand, these protests were provoked by New York taking money from those who have less and giving it to those who have more.
Also, what does this: "so shouldn't they be happy that more federal money is being spent on the states that contribute less?" have to do with anything? You're wondering off into your own world, with unrelated tangents and baseless assumptions.
I read your post, I was correcting you. "Obtaining goods and services" is just another way of saying, "Getting other people to do things for you and give your their stuff." In other words, it's influence. Power. The more money you have the more you can do this, but there's no point where it flips from not being about power. It's always a measure of power no matter how much of it you have.
Not that I was disagreeing with you about the other part. I wasn't really commenting on that.
Money is just one way of measuring your power over other people. In numbers, what is the numerical value of my ability to get you to do something, or to take your possessions? Money isn't the only measure of power, it isn't the only thing that matters, but it is certainly an important one.
In that light, you can look at the consolidation of wealth as a failure of democratic principles.
Corruption of FCC commissioners is a known problem, but this isn't a good example. Selling out the public after leaving office isn't nearly as much of a problem as selling out the public while still in office. You could point to Ajit Pai, and that would probably be accurate, but there are even better examples than him.
Always a strong left-lean
Slashdot is, and has been for a long time, the place I come to learn about the latest right-wing talking points from people who believe them and are willing to defend them, at least a little bit. It depends on the story, but the Slashdot userbase does not fit into a single political category. Slashdot users usually deride gun control, and are quite a bit more libertarian than the general populace. These positions are not consistent with a strong left-lean.
I always find it interesting to see how certain topics interact with Slashdot's technically-minded population. Climate change denial, for example, conflicts with a science-positive outlook, and even those people here who are strongly right wing have pretty well rejected certain talking points along those lines. I've seen people elsewhere repeating claims that climate scientists are living the high life, and that climate change is really all about pulling in that sweet sweet research money. That's a real claim that some deniers make, but it's so ridiculous that when I've seen it here it's never gotten much traction. Likewise claims that nebulous unspecified "jobs" are more important than droughts / hurricanes / loss of coastline / etc. The only denier claims that have legs here are ones which give the appearance of being science-positive.
But they do have legs, because Slashdot does not have a strong left-lean. I'm sure there are trolls, but there's a fair share of true believers as well.
Cleaning cardboard is difficult to do in a way which allows it to be reused for food, most recycling programs will only take clean paper products anyway (not been used for food, or gotten wet). New York City has a special exception for pizza boxes: pizza boxes in New York can be recycled, but that's still only limited to boxes where the grease hasn't seeped into the fibers.
Stainless steel, and metals in general, are super easy to recycle and, even better, they're even easier to just clean and reuse.
That's true, the summary is misleading. The article doesn't say why he's being charged with intimidation, right after it says the police determined that it was a joke with no credible threat.
I think it's politics. The Republicans are the party of big business and rich people. The Democrats are harder to explain, because the left is classically anti-government, but it can probably be reduced to partisanship: the government is the only thing which can stop companies from fully running roughshod over the population (with regulations ::spit::), so the Democrats support it, while the Republicans oppose the government for the same reason. Running roughshod is very profitable.
These positions might have been adopted for political reasons, but that sort of thing works its way into your psyche eventually. Distrust of private companies gets burned into your head. Partisanship between Republicans and Democrats has been growing ever since the Southern Strategy, which is coincident with the Vietnam War, so it fits your timeline.
This is one of the craziest comments I've ever read on this site. I'm guessing you probably just weren't reading too carefully, and thought that the parent was trying to suggest that a foreign law might apply to a US company, but it comes off as just amazingly myopic to suggest that foreign successes shouldn't influence American lawmaking.