Sure there are, and of course they're applicable to all technology and practical to implement and enforce. But I wouldn't know them. They go to another school. In Canada.
Is allowing morons to use technology. It's the source of virtually every issue on Earth, and the solution is simple: if someone can't demonstrate the knowledge required to design and build a thing they shouldn't be allowed to utilize that thing.
Cool, get back to us when you've figured out how you teach someone how to design and build a device that they're not allowed to use.
I removed "social justice" because it didn't apply in the context. I was talking about the same behavior you claim to be against, but are fine with when it's your precious little tribe doing it.
Also they're not "my" congressional shit birds, because I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal. But I have to say that you're behaving an awful lot like the kind of whiny little tumblrite that makes other whiny little tumblrites shriek "essjaydubya!" as if it actually meant something.
You know, "making Congress into a stage for grandstanding" includes shutting down the government and refusing to pay the country's debts just to spite a President from the other party.
The proposed fine is $500 for the first incident, and $2500 for subsequent incidents. You'd be suprised how many "incidents" can be generated from one incident.
Carrie Fisher turned out to be an expert script doctor...many years later, after she started doctoring scripts. Star Wars was not among those scripts. Her scriptwriting talent did not come into play here.
Yes, I can indeed suggest exactly that [Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford].
Then you're wrong, and also you never saw Working Girl.
Especially since she is seven years older than Carrie Fisher was.
So what? Nothing about Leia required that she be exactly 19 years old (no, not even the fact that she's Luke's twin, because that was decided much later). Making Leia slightly older than Luke would only further underscore his fascination with her. And of course, actors play characters younger than themselves all the time. They're typically very healthy and good-looking people, and makeup is a thing. Age would not have been a real barrier here.
[Meryl Streep] Would have rendered Star Wars unwatchable. She is utterly the wrong personality type for Leia
You don't know what Meryl Streep's personality type is. What you think of as her "personality" is only a composite of roles that she's played over the years that you've mushed together in your head. And the overwhelming majority of those roles came AFTER Star Wars was released, so it's not like you can even argue that they would have conflicted with her existing image.
Carrie Fisher was a good fit for the role, no question. But if you think that literally nobody else could have done well with it, then you're not being objective.
Remember they would have had to triangulate between [the director], the script, and the other actors...
That is a challenge, but not one unique to the role of Leia. So I can state with confidence that lots of other actresses could handle that challenge, because they already have handled it, repeatedly and to great effect. There's no magical Venn-diagram of "performer traits" and "traits needed to be Leia" in which Carrie Fisher was the sole inhabitant of the overlap.
You make it sound like it was easy to do what she did in Star Wars when frankly if you read much about the shooting of Star Wars seems rather not true.
I didn't make it sound like it was easy. Nothing I said implied that. "More than one person could have done this job" does not equate to "this job was easy".
Any other name you put up would either have no chemistry, have quit or hung herself after a week.
Any other name? Come on. Would you suggest that Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford, or that Meryl Streep couldn't handle the stress of making a Star Wars movie? If not then your claim is meaningless, and if so I'll start laughing now and avoid the rush.
Say what now? I had no particular counterpoint in mind. What point did you make that you expected a counter for? Or do you mean something about the prequels? I don't really see how that's relevant as the situation is so different...
It wasn't directed at you specifically, more at anyone in general who would have said "But what about Hannibal Lecter/Indiana Jones/whoever?". Because the same point applies to those characters too; yes, so-and-so did a wonderful job, but there are other people who would also have done a wonderful job.
I'm sorry, but no. There are plenty of actresses who could have done as fine a job as Carrie Fisher did, and in each of the alternate universes where one of them got the part, you're thinking of Fisher as one of the also-rans would would have "mangled" the role. The fact that other actresses could have done well does not in any way lessen the fact that she did an excellent job, so let's not dehumanize the lady by putting her up on a pedestal that she probably wouldn't have wanted in any case.
And really, that's true of every single role we associate with a particular actor. Yes, even that one you're about to bring up as a counterpoint.
TV shows no longer reflect real life. Every show has to be what libs perceive as PC, a certain number of gays, diverse ethnic backgrounds, even transgenders are showing up. Audiences do not like having this distorted version of reality shoved down their throats.
You're implying that there was a time when TV shows did reflect real life. There wasn't.
Go watch some 50's sitcoms with the little wife putting on pearls and a nice dress to do housework. That wasn't reality, it was a wishful projection that reflected the political correctness of the time. Anyone who thinks "libs" are the only ones pushing political correctness doesn't understand what the term means.
[under the original copyright terms] The novel I just published would have until 2044 (assuming I renewed the copyright) to make me money.
Actually, you'd still be able to make money after that. It's just that after 2044, other people could too. The only thing you would lose would be the monopoly on that novel. It's important to remember that this is the actual job of copyright - incentivizing contributions to the public domain with temporary monopoly power.
As you correctly note, it's the effective removal of the "temporary" part that's a problem. When the monopoly is effectively permanent, the copyright holder isn't keeping their end of the bargain.
This is a little beyond "flirting" with pre-crime. This is more like taking pre-crime to Bed, Bath and Beyond to pick out curtains for the apartment you and pre-crime are about to move into.
Slashdot Mirror
We could absolutely put people on Mars by 2020.
But if you want them to be alive when they get there, it'll take a bit longer.
Trump would like to believe that he's the Iron Fist, but he's really more one of those big plastic Hulk gloves.
What's the public access radio of video games?
Greenlight.
What's the library of video games?
The library.
What's the turn down service of video games?
Your mom.
Sure there are, and of course they're applicable to all technology and practical to implement and enforce. But I wouldn't know them. They go to another school. In Canada.
I didn't fail to consider it. I'm just not stupid enough to buy the simplistic idea that it's a one-size-fits-all solution.
Is allowing morons to use technology. It's the source of virtually every issue on Earth, and the solution is simple: if someone can't demonstrate the knowledge required to design and build a thing they shouldn't be allowed to utilize that thing.
Cool, get back to us when you've figured out how you teach someone how to design and build a device that they're not allowed to use.
What do you think the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" are for?
Marketing.
Boca burgers are some of the best meatless burgers.
Sure, in the same way that melanoma is one of the best cancers.
I removed "social justice" because it didn't apply in the context. I was talking about the same behavior you claim to be against, but are fine with when it's your precious little tribe doing it.
Also they're not "my" congressional shit birds, because I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal. But I have to say that you're behaving an awful lot like the kind of whiny little tumblrite that makes other whiny little tumblrites shriek "essjaydubya!" as if it actually meant something.
Revisionist none. I remember debating about censorship bills here in 2001.
You know, "making Congress into a stage for grandstanding" includes shutting down the government and refusing to pay the country's debts just to spite a President from the other party.
The proposed fine is $500 for the first incident, and $2500 for subsequent incidents. You'd be suprised how many "incidents" can be generated from one incident.
Slashdot has never not had politics. It has, however, always had people bemoaning the loss of Good Ole Days that never existed.
Carrie Fisher turned out to be an expert script doctor...many years later, after she started doctoring scripts. Star Wars was not among those scripts. Her scriptwriting talent did not come into play here.
Yes, I can indeed suggest exactly that [Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford].
Then you're wrong, and also you never saw Working Girl.
Especially since she is seven years older than Carrie Fisher was.
So what? Nothing about Leia required that she be exactly 19 years old (no, not even the fact that she's Luke's twin, because that was decided much later). Making Leia slightly older than Luke would only further underscore his fascination with her. And of course, actors play characters younger than themselves all the time. They're typically very healthy and good-looking people, and makeup is a thing. Age would not have been a real barrier here.
[Meryl Streep] Would have rendered Star Wars unwatchable. She is utterly the wrong personality type for Leia
You don't know what Meryl Streep's personality type is. What you think of as her "personality" is only a composite of roles that she's played over the years that you've mushed together in your head. And the overwhelming majority of those roles came AFTER Star Wars was released, so it's not like you can even argue that they would have conflicted with her existing image.
Carrie Fisher was a good fit for the role, no question. But if you think that literally nobody else could have done well with it, then you're not being objective.
Remember they would have had to triangulate between [the director], the script, and the other actors...
That is a challenge, but not one unique to the role of Leia. So I can state with confidence that lots of other actresses could handle that challenge, because they already have handled it, repeatedly and to great effect. There's no magical Venn-diagram of "performer traits" and "traits needed to be Leia" in which Carrie Fisher was the sole inhabitant of the overlap.
You make it sound like it was easy to do what she did in Star Wars when frankly if you read much about the shooting of Star Wars seems rather not true.
I didn't make it sound like it was easy. Nothing I said implied that. "More than one person could have done this job" does not equate to "this job was easy".
Any other name you put up would either have no chemistry, have quit or hung herself after a week.
Any other name? Come on. Would you suggest that Sigourney Weaver couldn't have chemistry with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford, or that Meryl Streep couldn't handle the stress of making a Star Wars movie? If not then your claim is meaningless, and if so I'll start laughing now and avoid the rush.
Say what now? I had no particular counterpoint in mind. What point did you make that you expected a counter for? Or do you mean something about the prequels? I don't really see how that's relevant as the situation is so different...
It wasn't directed at you specifically, more at anyone in general who would have said "But what about Hannibal Lecter/Indiana Jones/whoever?". Because the same point applies to those characters too; yes, so-and-so did a wonderful job, but there are other people who would also have done a wonderful job.
Any other actress would have mangled the part.
I'm sorry, but no. There are plenty of actresses who could have done as fine a job as Carrie Fisher did, and in each of the alternate universes where one of them got the part, you're thinking of Fisher as one of the also-rans would would have "mangled" the role. The fact that other actresses could have done well does not in any way lessen the fact that she did an excellent job, so let's not dehumanize the lady by putting her up on a pedestal that she probably wouldn't have wanted in any case.
And really, that's true of every single role we associate with a particular actor. Yes, even that one you're about to bring up as a counterpoint.
or should I say a Soros loser instead?
Only if your actual intended message is "I'm a gullible idiot who thinks everyone who disagrees with me is part of a sinister conspiracy".
There's nothing more disgusting than dirty, smelly folding money.
I think you're keeping your money in the wrong part of your pants, buddy.
TV shows no longer reflect real life. Every show has to be what libs perceive as PC, a certain number of gays, diverse ethnic backgrounds, even transgenders are showing up. Audiences do not like having this distorted version of reality shoved down their throats.
You're implying that there was a time when TV shows did reflect real life. There wasn't.
Go watch some 50's sitcoms with the little wife putting on pearls and a nice dress to do housework. That wasn't reality, it was a wishful projection that reflected the political correctness of the time. Anyone who thinks "libs" are the only ones pushing political correctness doesn't understand what the term means.
Fuck Trump, fraudulent fake ass daughter-fucker.
Wannabe daughter-fucker. Accuracy matters, you know.
Actually, you'd still be able to make money after that. It's just that after 2044, other people could too. The only thing you would lose would be the monopoly on that novel. It's important to remember that this is the actual job of copyright - incentivizing contributions to the public domain with temporary monopoly power.
As you correctly note, it's the effective removal of the "temporary" part that's a problem. When the monopoly is effectively permanent, the copyright holder isn't keeping their end of the bargain.
This is a little beyond "flirting" with pre-crime. This is more like taking pre-crime to Bed, Bath and Beyond to pick out curtains for the apartment you and pre-crime are about to move into.
You misspelled "illegally search your property for no good reason".
You really haven't thought that through.