Tesla is as much a tech company as they are a car company, and in the tech world for every open-source right-to-repair organization, you'll have five startups based around their new closed standards and vendor lock-ins.
That's the Washington Times, not Washington Post. Washington Times was created as the conservative alternative. It was created be Unification's Revered Moon, and a prominent proponent of the Obama birther conspiracy.
I’d say that RT is miles better than FoxNews. At least the pieces about topics not related to Russian matters are well written and informative. FoxNews and CNN are smelly drivel.
RT sometimes has good news pieces. They are an intentional mix of accurate news that you can find elsewhere, with a smattering of pure Kremlin propaganda, so your defenses are down when the propaganda is pushed. They need to create that thin veneer of respectability as a shield.
You don't have AIDS anymore if you've been cleared of HIV...
AIDS is a condition caused by HIV. HIV kills the immune system, even if it's cleared out, you will still have AIDS if you have no functional immune system. But it might not be contagious.
Then the question isn't "how are they not losing legal cases over this" and more "isn't it time to change the laws to make what is currently legal, illegal?"
That level of ingraining would not just be in the culture. Survival would favor those who are more passive and genetic selection would occur. Epigenetics would play a part too when traumas endured by parents are strong enough to turn on survival mechanisms whose activation is passed on to their children.
I don't think that's how genetics work. Events that happen as an adult are not passed genetically through offspring.
I know the Slashdot audience consists of a bunch of middle-aged, overweight, misogynistic, libertarian losers, can we please make some positive comments about what China is doing? I'm being dead, fucking serious. Thanks.
Maybe totalitarian regimes are hard to defend. I'm being dead, fucking serious.
4. Political inertia: the majority alive today in China have little/no experience of a working democratic republic. They are used to a totalitarian dictatorship. One doesn't miss what one's never had (and what the de facto gov't there makes sure one knows little about).
China has also basically been an imperial or totalitarian state for thousands of years. One shouldn't underestimate that level of ingraining acceptance of that government style in the culture.
Either Crusher and Troi, as Starfleet officers, could easily have had some very modest degree of martial arts competence, yet they basically fell into the standard helpless female role when it came to fisticuffs.
It's been decades, and I remember Troi being fairly useless (even as an empath!), but I have vague memories of Crusher having a couple ass-kicking moments. Tasha Yar was strong, Ensign Ro as well, but there was a gap of about 5 seasons between the two of them. Then again, I seem to recall Wesley and LaForge being pretty useless in any (non-phaser-related) fight. Worf and Riker were the action guys, and Picard sometimes got in some licks since he's the lead.
The first true strong action hero female was Linda Hamilton's jaw-dropping performance as Sara Connor in Terminator 2,
Linda Hamilton was pretty amazing in that film, no doubt. She was the real Terminator. But I will certainly give first props to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens(1986). Towards the end of that movie, she is basically a more believable Rambo and a woman whose maternal instincts lead to her physical strengths, not her anti-masculine weakness.
If ever someone asks me "what is Slashdot? How do I get started?" I will send them to this thread to get them caught up with the most important topics.
This UHD release is supposed to be scanned from the original negative, so, however how grainy it is, it should at least be as good as it could be.
Unless the original negative has degraded, which is a not-uncommon problem with restoration from these 40-year-old film cans. If the original negative wasn't well-stored, a well-preserved working print could be higher quality. So we can sortof gestimate a best-case scenario, but who knows what the quality level will be.
Saul Goodman is a fictional character in a fictional TV show that is based on a real life industry. Just because Jimmy McGill doesn't actually exist doesn't mean that drug dealers and the lawyers they need don't exist in real life.
And even better, the spin is, "He's a liar, you can't trust anything he said, except that no collusion thing."
Unfortunately, all this testimony from these various people is all suspect, because they're all liars and generally terrible people. Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Papadopoulos, Flynn, on and on. Far from bringing in "the best people," he has surrounded himself with the worst people, which unfortunately means when they're cast off you have no idea if the tell-alls that they tell are in any way accurate or just new lies to save their own miserable skins.
In other words, "yeah, I know, I lied for years for this guy, but now I'm telling the truth, honest" makes for witnesses that are easily dismissed. Now, if they can provide hard proof, like the 12 years of checks that Cohen said he had, then that makes for something.
Meh. The lead actress said this movie wasn't for me. Fair enough, I guess. Seems like she'd know. When a company says it doesn't want my business, I find it best to move on.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
There are two methods of inclusion. First, you can bring under-represented groups in, make them welcome and part of the team. Or second, you can do that by telling an overrepresented group that they suck and don't matter. "Inclusion through exclusion." The first works. The second does not.
and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend
You don't normally put your big blockbuster in late February / early March. It was never expected to be an enormous hit. It's taking the same slot as Black Panther (which was a HUGE hit but wasn't expected to be) and Deadpool. It's not quite the dead zone that January is, but Feb - Early March is where you place your somewhat cheaper movies with more modest aims.
For Ghostbusters 2016 I think it was really less of an issue with taking offense that it was an all female crew, though there are always people who get offended when people mess around with established franchises, than the fact that they made that part of their marketing campaign which is the same complaint many people are having with Brie Larson's take on Captain Marvel.
I avoid all marketing as much as possible because I try to go into movies fresh without any preconceived notions... and marketing is often chock-full of spoilers that I don't want spoiled. That said, it was impossible to avoid positive and negative hype about Ghostbusters. I'm one of those guys who thinks that only bad movies really deserve remakes, that a remake is only justified if the original movie had a good idea that was poorly executed. Because of that I was predisposed to dislike it just on the basis of that. But I wanted to like it. I like the cast -- Jones is ok in small doses, but McCarthy, Wiig, and McKinnon are three of the best comediennes working today, and early in the movie they have some good lines and good moments. But they don't work in this movie, as the plot and their characters are SO bad. It's another goddamn crappy Paul Feig movie trying to cram his usual Paul Feig schtick into a Ghostbusters film. He should have given writing duties to Kristen Wiig. She was starring in the movie, she had a writing Oscar nom for Bridesmaids, and that movie was hilarious... but the best writer involved ended up NOT writing this movie. What a wasted opportunity.
With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
I mean, your milage may vary from reviewer to reviewer, but all of the live-action Transformers maybe (except Bumblebee) have received overall negative reviews. The first movie was the best reviewed at 57% (and hey, it started out ok..) which at least by RT standards is considered rotten. One other movie in the series had a 35% positive score, all the rest were in the teens. Critics did not like it.
I thought Rogue One's characters were pretty good (action girl was saddled with a few bad lines, but that's my only real criticism of her). By far the best Star Wars movie since Empire.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla is as much a tech company as they are a car company, and in the tech world for every open-source right-to-repair organization, you'll have five startups based around their new closed standards and vendor lock-ins.
here is one where WaPo attacked their credibility and I wouldnt call WaPo right-leaning at all.
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
That's the Washington Times, not Washington Post. Washington Times was created as the conservative alternative. It was created be Unification's Revered Moon, and a prominent proponent of the Obama birther conspiracy.
I’d say that RT is miles better than FoxNews. At least the pieces about topics not related to Russian matters are well written and informative. FoxNews and CNN are smelly drivel.
RT sometimes has good news pieces. They are an intentional mix of accurate news that you can find elsewhere, with a smattering of pure Kremlin propaganda, so your defenses are down when the propaganda is pushed. They need to create that thin veneer of respectability as a shield.
As with Donald Trump's hiding of his grades when asking for Obama to show his, yeah, that's a conservative trait.
Or the President, who has spread memes from Stormfront, saying that the Democrats are the party of antisemitism.
Magic Johnson (no pun intended) has been living with HIV since the early 90s.
Because he's filthy rich, and direct injections of liquified cash cured him.
You don't have AIDS anymore if you've been cleared of HIV...
AIDS is a condition caused by HIV. HIV kills the immune system, even if it's cleared out, you will still have AIDS if you have no functional immune system. But it might not be contagious.
Well, in that case, everyone who ever had chicken pox as a child is still technically "infected with a disease" (Herpes Zoster).
Yes, yes they are, we get tons of commercials where I live about Shingles that say as much.
Then the question isn't "how are they not losing legal cases over this" and more "isn't it time to change the laws to make what is currently legal, illegal?"
That level of ingraining would not just be in the culture. Survival would favor those who are more passive and genetic selection would occur. Epigenetics would play a part too when traumas endured by parents are strong enough to turn on survival mechanisms whose activation is passed on to their children.
I don't think that's how genetics work. Events that happen as an adult are not passed genetically through offspring.
I know the Slashdot audience consists of a bunch of middle-aged, overweight, misogynistic, libertarian losers, can we please make some positive comments about what China is doing? I'm being dead, fucking serious. Thanks.
Maybe totalitarian regimes are hard to defend. I'm being dead, fucking serious.
4. Political inertia: the majority alive today in China have little/no experience of a working democratic republic. They are used to a totalitarian dictatorship. One doesn't miss what one's never had (and what the de facto gov't there makes sure one knows little about).
China has also basically been an imperial or totalitarian state for thousands of years. One shouldn't underestimate that level of ingraining acceptance of that government style in the culture.
Either Crusher and Troi, as Starfleet officers, could easily have had some very modest degree of martial arts competence, yet they basically fell into the standard helpless female role when it came to fisticuffs.
It's been decades, and I remember Troi being fairly useless (even as an empath!), but I have vague memories of Crusher having a couple ass-kicking moments. Tasha Yar was strong, Ensign Ro as well, but there was a gap of about 5 seasons between the two of them. Then again, I seem to recall Wesley and LaForge being pretty useless in any (non-phaser-related) fight. Worf and Riker were the action guys, and Picard sometimes got in some licks since he's the lead.
The first true strong action hero female was Linda Hamilton's jaw-dropping performance as Sara Connor in Terminator 2,
Linda Hamilton was pretty amazing in that film, no doubt. She was the real Terminator.
But I will certainly give first props to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens(1986). Towards the end of that movie, she is basically a more believable Rambo and a woman whose maternal instincts lead to her physical strengths, not her anti-masculine weakness.
I like how you call her Ellen Degenerates. That's very classy.
If ever someone asks me "what is Slashdot? How do I get started?" I will send them to this thread to get them caught up with the most important topics.
This UHD release is supposed to be scanned from the original negative, so, however how grainy it is, it should at least be as good as it could be.
Unless the original negative has degraded, which is a not-uncommon problem with restoration from these 40-year-old film cans. If the original negative wasn't well-stored, a well-preserved working print could be higher quality. So we can sortof gestimate a best-case scenario, but who knows what the quality level will be.
Saul Goodman is a fictional character in a fictional TV show that is based on a real life industry. Just because Jimmy McGill doesn't actually exist doesn't mean that drug dealers and the lawyers they need don't exist in real life.
Also, where there are actual lies, Trump lies about stupid, irrelevant stuff...crowd size and the like.
Trump lies about everything, big or little. It just seems to be how he does things.
You had me until you mentioned a fictitious TV character Saul Goodman. Nice try with the bullshit'n.
Really? That's what you're using to dismiss this?
And even better, the spin is, "He's a liar, you can't trust anything he said, except that no collusion thing."
Unfortunately, all this testimony from these various people is all suspect, because they're all liars and generally terrible people. Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Papadopoulos, Flynn, on and on. Far from bringing in "the best people," he has surrounded himself with the worst people, which unfortunately means when they're cast off you have no idea if the tell-alls that they tell are in any way accurate or just new lies to save their own miserable skins.
In other words, "yeah, I know, I lied for years for this guy, but now I'm telling the truth, honest" makes for witnesses that are easily dismissed. Now, if they can provide hard proof, like the 12 years of checks that Cohen said he had, then that makes for something.
Meh. The lead actress said this movie wasn't for me. Fair enough, I guess. Seems like she'd know. When a company says it doesn't want my business, I find it best to move on.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
There are two methods of inclusion.
First, you can bring under-represented groups in, make them welcome and part of the team.
Or second, you can do that by telling an overrepresented group that they suck and don't matter. "Inclusion through exclusion."
The first works. The second does not.
and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend
You don't normally put your big blockbuster in late February / early March. It was never expected to be an enormous hit. It's taking the same slot as Black Panther (which was a HUGE hit but wasn't expected to be) and Deadpool. It's not quite the dead zone that January is, but Feb - Early March is where you place your somewhat cheaper movies with more modest aims.
I'm not the one being or acting fucking stupid.
*****ROFLCOTPER*****
I don't know whether this is flamebait or if you're seriously trolling trying to be as offensive as possible.
For Ghostbusters 2016 I think it was really less of an issue with taking offense that it was an all female crew, though there are always people who get offended when people mess around with established franchises, than the fact that they made that part of their marketing campaign which is the same complaint many people are having with Brie Larson's take on Captain Marvel.
I avoid all marketing as much as possible because I try to go into movies fresh without any preconceived notions... and marketing is often chock-full of spoilers that I don't want spoiled. That said, it was impossible to avoid positive and negative hype about Ghostbusters. I'm one of those guys who thinks that only bad movies really deserve remakes, that a remake is only justified if the original movie had a good idea that was poorly executed. Because of that I was predisposed to dislike it just on the basis of that. But I wanted to like it. I like the cast -- Jones is ok in small doses, but McCarthy, Wiig, and McKinnon are three of the best comediennes working today, and early in the movie they have some good lines and good moments. But they don't work in this movie, as the plot and their characters are SO bad. It's another goddamn crappy Paul Feig movie trying to cram his usual Paul Feig schtick into a Ghostbusters film. He should have given writing duties to Kristen Wiig. She was starring in the movie, she had a writing Oscar nom for Bridesmaids, and that movie was hilarious... but the best writer involved ended up NOT writing this movie. What a wasted opportunity.
With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
I mean, your milage may vary from reviewer to reviewer, but all of the live-action Transformers maybe (except Bumblebee) have received overall negative reviews. The first movie was the best reviewed at 57% (and hey, it started out ok..) which at least by RT standards is considered rotten. One other movie in the series had a 35% positive score, all the rest were in the teens. Critics did not like it.
I thought Rogue One's characters were pretty good (action girl was saddled with a few bad lines, but that's my only real criticism of her). By far the best Star Wars movie since Empire.