A picture is worth a thousand words. It's key selling point - form factor - has been nearly eliminated. The MacBook Pro is almost exactly the same size, and has a lot more power for only a few hundred more.
Yes, NoScript was a must have, and it wasn't ready at release. I waited until NoScript then made the move. The new UI for NoScript was an adjustment, but it works fine now.
In the run up to FF57's deadline came up last year, I bitterly posted on Slashdot about how I didn't want the speed upgrades as much as I wanted to keep the extensions that were not getting ported.
I was wrong - dead wrong. Why?
1) Speed: If you were an anti-Chrome guy like me but would be a little jealous of its speed when you had to use it, this has been resolved. FF57 has been much snappier to use than previous versions. It feels like Chrome or faster.
In the end, browser speed DOES matter.
2) Extensions: Not every extension I used before FF57 has been ported to Quantum, but the important extensions I used have been since the FF57 release that weren't ready initially. NoScript, FlagFox, etc. All working now. If the extensions weren't ready last November, look again. They may be ready now.
Just as importantly, I haven't missed the ones that haven't made it. You may not miss them either.
3) The native Web Development tools are better than Firebug was in the end, IMO. And it's been nice to not have Firebugginess to deal with anymore.
So - Take it from this OCD guy who's not a marketing shill for the Mozilla org: If you're still sitting at FF52 ESR or FF56.x over any form of FUD (especially the, "but extension X is indispensible", worry,) given FF57 another look now and test it out without those, "I've gotta have extension X," extensions and see. You may be surprised.
In the nearly 15+ years of time I've visited Slashdot, I don't recall a first post that's this sincere yet as off-topic as this one. Talk about jarring - and totally stupid to bring up here.
Point of clarification: In Mormon dogma (subset of Christianity), the idea that babies all go to hell without baptism is an abomination. That would make getting into heaven kind of a lottery (were you born at the wrong time in the wrong place? Your mom had an abortion? Tough beans...), vs. grace + repentance.
Moroni 8 (from the Book of Mormon) covers this idea in more detail, but in short God takes all unbaptized children that die under a certain age (where you start to know right from wrong) straight up into heaven. But that's another religious topic entirely...
Yes, people should have to deal with their choices, but they should also use their God-given brains and technology to do just that - deal with their choices in the best way for them.
Or should they have to live with that choice forever? Or can they rectify the mistake and move on? In other cases in life, it's the latter, isn't it. If someone steals a car, do they have to keep the car forever? No - they can give it back and confess, sell it and move on, etc. If someone is cruel to another at some point in time, can't they apologize later? Robbery, lying, cheating, etc. People need to be able to move on after their sins, right?
You may think this is different because "another life" is involved. Fine; Let's put aside the fact that there's no scientific evidence that a fetus has a conscious spirit in there that's independent of the mother at the point of conception. Let's just talk religion (Christian dogma). Consider the following: If there IS a spirit in that fetus that is slain in an abortion, God will either just 1) give them another body to come down to this Earth to live out their life again somewhere else, or 2) take that spirit right up into Heaven to live with Him forever - and eventually be resurrected with their own bodies. There is no third option. In either scenario, the baby is ultimately BETTER off, aren't they? Isn't either scenario better than if they're born into this world as an unwanted nuisance (or worse).
In this world, freedom of choice trumps life. It was God's plan to give us choice - along with the ability to repent of our sins and move on. Abortion allows some people to move on, and until we know better about whether a baby has its own spirit or not at conception (if it does have a spirit, that changes things, IMO), it is the compromise that we should live with in modern society.
Disclaimer: I personally abhor abortion. I've given up a child for adoption to give them a better life than I could've ever given them back then as an irresponsible teenager. (And living with that is tough at times today, almost 30 years later - just like an abortion would be for some, never knowing "what if").
99% of cycles is a pretty good method, IMO. Going on the rough "once a month" cycle, that's one pregnancy every 8.25 years. If a woman becomes sexually active at 18, that's roughly 2 kids over the term of their fertility (women in their late 30s have really slowed down in terms of fertility.) And the moms can choose abortion if they must every 8 years or so.
The problem with this method is really human nature. Studies have shown that women are more attractive to men when they're ovulating - making strict adherence just about impossible...
The religious and/or emotional response to abortion has always been a problem. It's almost not even worth debating four and a half decades after Roe V. Wade was decided.
To all Christians, Muslims, and other religious sects: Abortion is about the freedom of choice - which is God's greatest gift to us all (even Jesus Christ's grace requires us accepting it by free will, right?) Based on that cornerstone of Christianity, abortion HAS to be the mother's decision about a fetus growing in her body until it's a viable, living child (roughly 20 weeks inside the fetus) - at which point the decision should be passed onto the child and its fight for life (whether we medically help the child live or not).
It's the perfect compromise between heaven and hell - which is pretty much where we live today.
What's crazy is that too many people cannot see the basic wisdom in that and move on, choosing for themselves to not have abortions while letting other choose to end the pregnancy; The emotional tug of their heart strings is just too much to overcome.
Disclaimer: I'm a GOP badge wearing Mormon (Christian - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).
"I was ovulating and was totally horny and had to get some and my boyfriend didn't pull out fast enough, so the app didn't REALLY work for me."
Or maybe the whole, "I cut it too close to my ovulation time and my man's sperm must've been really hardy. It's the app's fault for not knowing that," possibility?
In the end, there is no non-artificial, bulletproof method of birth control that works for everyone that is sexually active because there are way too many variables.
Like your experience, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies more than ever.
I'm not the hardware enthusiast or early adopter I was 20 years ago. I finally just upgraded my custom built, 6-year-old desktop's primary hard drive to a Samsung 256GB SSD (kept the other HDDs for storage) and swapped out the 32-bit OS for its 64-bit version (in order to increase the Kingston RAM to 12GB).
Nothing else in the rig needs an upgrade. The on-board network, sound, and video hardware on the motherboard are holding up fine (no more $$$$ NVIDIA video card purchases or Soundblaster updates.) My 1600x1200, 20" DVI Dell monitor has been a champ for almost a decade (only replaced one bad capacitor over that entire time). Yeah, yeah, no 4K, not widescreen - but who cares? I'm not gaming on it, and my sons' games run great for them.
The only real pain in the upgrade was software-related issues. The OS update, activation, licenses, drivers - "Where can I find a driver for my 22 year old but reliable HP laser printer?", etc.
Admittedly, if there WAS an OS where one could do what you suggested - swap the SSD (and its OS) out and simply hook it up to a new set of hardware and the installed OS just updated its drivers seamlessly... Wow. That would be a convenience/dream come true and worth the $$$$ upgrade. Until then, however, my total cost was $200 and the desktop is again good enough to last at least a few more years so why spend 2-3x that for a new, commodity-quality Dell instead?
Hell - Why even buy another desktop at all? I'm not a phone- or tablet-only honk yet, but my next computer will likely be a lightweight laptop that I'll plug into a new huge monitor with a BT keyboard and mouse - at most. Maybe an external storage device (NAS, portable HDD, etc.)?
Because Amazon has a physical presence in my state (AZ) and I do a lot of my online shopping there first before venturing elsewhere, I already pay an (admittedly annoying) sales taxes on many of my purchases.
This issue (sales taxes) also seems like they can more easily be enforced now than back in 1992. Back then, the idea of tracking where purchases are made seemed like a daunting task to do accurately. Nowadays, my browser knows generally where I'm at within a few miles, and with cell phone purchases your location is easy to surmise.
While getting accurate tax rates is a burden, it's much easier to overcome for web apps and sites.
Do I WANT sales taxes on what I buy off of every site I visit? No. But some of the more technical reasons to not have those taxes collected don't hold much weight anymore.
That would tear the country apart. It didn't work with the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work pre-Civil War. It won't work now.
The real problem isn't states right or a need for a new interpretation. It's the money and corruption flowing into Washington, and the Citizens United SCOTUS decision that allowed it to happen. That needs to be overturned with Congressional action, ASAP. Of course, that's asking the paid off men to cut off their own bread and butter, so...
To the paranoid weirdos here: Cut the FF devs and leadership some slack. They're coming clean about an accidental collection of some crash data - which has only been going on since 52.x, and they've said they're not selling that data to anyone in the past.
Yes, they're far from perfect. They ARE, however, the only browser left that at least tries to respect user privacy (even to their own UX's detriment). You should all be thanking them for even still working on the project vs. abandoning the project altogether and leaving you with Chrome's or Edge's data collection.
He should've taken a huge-ass bite out of the roasted bird/thing, and then barked something at the live ones like, "If you don't get your Jar Jar Bird asses out of this movie, you're next."
The little animal(s) - especially the one in the Falcon towards the end - were the most annoying part of the movie; They didn't fit the tone of the movie at all, IMO.
Well, maybe Rey is about to bring balance to the Force. She isn't afraid of the Dark Side and the Dark Side doesn't seem to be pushing her to do evil things... and Yoda seems to think she will do better without the historical teachings of the Jedi.
Or maybe Rey stole the Jedi books and put them on the Falcon before she left and Yoda subsequently set the "Jedi tree" on fire.
On the 93% on Rotten Tomatoes vs. the much lower "audience liked it" score, the latter is usually the better indicator of the likability of a movie for the average moviegoer. While it is good at pointing out stinkers and is easy for everyone to understand (the anti-BCS college football formula), the RT percentage/score is not good at telling you exactly HOW good a "fresh" movie is because there's no nuance to it. It's fresh or rotten - that's it; There's no how fresh the movie is: Is it a perfectly fresh tomato, or is it "wilted", "rotting", or "kinda fresh but ready to throw at someone" option.
Example: Your everyday critic kind of likes a good but flawed, 3-star movie only has the option of giving it a fresh rating (a mathematical 100%) or rotten (0%). When you get 93% of critics doing that, it makes the movie look better than it really was.
If RT took an average of all the "fresh" critic's separate 1-5 star ratings for it and added that score along with the overall RT score, it would probably much better represent the quality of a movie - and would probably serve much better as their qualifier for their supposed "Certified Fresh" score.
Best part of the movie: You weren't sure who was good or bad throughout. My favorite scene was going to light speed to cut Snoke's ship in half was made that much better because the vice-admiral turned out being good after all. Close 2nd: Snoke getting Darth Mauled. Yeah, Snoke was a wasted character, but wow what a cool way to send him out.
Good or bad point in the movie (divisive): There was a Rogue One like "graying" of the black and white, good vs. evil Star Wars universe. Having the bomber close her eyes right before her bomber was destroyed and she died, and then the First Order dreadnought's captain accepting death in the same stoic way as the bombs struck his ship and blew it apart, was a very good and subtle way to humanize both sides. It also ended up being the precursor for the tone of the entire movie: There aren't really good guys and bad guys.
Also, this is a divisive plot point to some, but I loved that Leia FINALLY getting to use the force to save herself. She had Skywalker blood, but her use of the force had never materialized until then. It was NOT corny.
Worst part of Ep8: Luke. Like Flynn in Tron Legacy, Luke got ruined by sequels.
In the original Tron movie, Flynn was the fun and light hearted (yet serious) protagonist. He had a heart of slacker hacker gold that you'd love to have as a friend. In Tron Legacy, however, they turned him into a bitter old man who'd been burned one too many times and carried a sack of guilt for his hubris and mistakes. He was miserable, cantankerous, and without spirit for 99% of the parts he was in, and in the end he disappeared from existence without dying.
That's almost exactly what they did with Luke in Ep. 7 & 8. He was a burned out hermit that was absolutely no fun at all to be around.
And the anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-profiteering, anti-animal-abuse all went against the grain of what the Star Wars saga was all about - a fun movie. The entire casino scene especially felt out of place and preachy.
When the movie ended, nobody clapped, cheered, busted out in loud conversations about the movie, etc. - nothing. People just somberly walked out of the theater. I hadn't seen that quiet and reserved response since the end of Episode 1. I knew immediately that some were definitely disappointed.
Final feeling on my way out: That was a powerful movie on its own. Great drama, good direction, character development, etc. In that way, it was a great movie - like Rogue One. But it felt like it was the end of Star Wars for me. It was Episode IX (not 8) - the END end. Han is gone. Carrie Fisher is gone. Luke is gone. Han is gone. R2-D2 + C3PO relegated to nothing roles. The Rebel Alliance is gone.
I'll have to see in a couple of years when Ep. IX comes out, but I'm not sure I care anymore.
I don't mean this as any kind of attack on this poster, but there are just too many red flags here. I mean, replace "Bitcoin" with whatever you want below (tulips, gold, whatever).
* _______ is "growing by leaps and bounds."
* It's "still very early". (buy in now - you're not too late)
* "more people are using ______ than ever before". (Bitcoin? Not in my neck of the woods yet. Nobody I know would even know what it is, let alone how to use it anywhere the average suburbanite would go.)
* "I don't know how to disentangle.... and neither does anyone else." (That sounds a lot like someone trying to describe the derivatives market in 2006 before the housing crash.)
* _______ is "unusually resistant to our ordinary methods of price discovery." (Just about every bubble ever is that way. "This time it's different, however.")
* The market for ______ may be a little frothy, but "the price this year is still low compared to what it will be in a few years when the long term trends swamps the recent short term movements." (Sounds like a quote from anyone trying to sell you house back in 2006.)
The last sentence is the best thought in the entire post. Yes, it is absolutely gambling. It's the 21st century version of Latchcomb.
And remember that you could be the shoeshine boy and not even realize it.
Corollary: When everyone - usually including your neighbor or friend down the street, or your grandma - is trying to buy in and ride the wave, but they can't really explain how commodity X works or will make money, it's over. It's time to get out. You've missed the wave as an investor, and you're going to get burned joining too late.
Bonus: If the "everyone" people wanting to buy commodity X can't even really explain how or why it will make money, it's going to get REALLY ugly.
The following fit the pattern:
Microsoft and other internet/tech stocks (2000)
Housing (2007)
Gold (2012)
Bitcoin (2017) will likely be the next big entry to the list.
I had more of a problem with Astonishing in the headline, as if we were not supposed to be using fossil fuels at all. It immediately tainted the summary and article as biased. Not good journalism...
Increasing the company's stock price trumps all other considerations. "Make the product better to make more money," or Ford's old, "Quality is Job #1" marketing motto, and such other ideas died a generation ago. Now it's, "Good enough + cheaper to make == more profits. Cut something else in the next quarter to keep feeding the beast."
Medium and large corporations swear by that philosophy, and it eventually permeates every small successful business as soon as they have an IPO and sell out to the market.
They'll start doing what they were doing before 2015, like they did to Netflix. A major ISP (Comcast, IIRC) throttled Netflix's throughput for a few months. The issue with Netflix content appeared rather abruptly, and then after Netflix agreed to pay an undisclosed amount it magically went away - as if their pipes could suddenly, almost magically, could handle the traffic again.
There were no longer allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality rules, and with Ajit Pai saying F U to everyone not from an ISP that kind of abuse will happen again.
Ajit Pai (and his GOP-appointed counterpart) had their minds made up years ago, and his doggedly stubborn position feels like it's based in ideology instead of the facts presented by his opponents.
Just compare this PBS.org interview where Mr. Pai used the same selective dodging of the facts pointed out by NN advocates (especially John Oliver's piece on the subject back in the day) that don't support his point of view. Then watch John Oliver's simplistic but factually correct episodes from 2014 and 2017 - Part One and 2017 - Part Two on the issue.
Either John Oliver (and his writing/research staff) or Ajit Pai is an outright liar about this issue. Any bets on who's the fibber? It's either a left-leaning comedian, or a former Verizon Wireless lawyer. (TIP: Don't bet the farm on this being a bad John Oliver joke...)
Slashdot Mirror
A picture is worth a thousand words. It's key selling point - form factor - has been nearly eliminated. The MacBook Pro is almost exactly the same size, and has a lot more power for only a few hundred more.
Yes, NoScript was a must have, and it wasn't ready at release. I waited until NoScript then made the move. The new UI for NoScript was an adjustment, but it works fine now.
In the run up to FF57's deadline came up last year, I bitterly posted on Slashdot about how I didn't want the speed upgrades as much as I wanted to keep the extensions that were not getting ported.
I was wrong - dead wrong. Why?
1) Speed: If you were an anti-Chrome guy like me but would be a little jealous of its speed when you had to use it, this has been resolved. FF57 has been much snappier to use than previous versions. It feels like Chrome or faster.
In the end, browser speed DOES matter.
2) Extensions: Not every extension I used before FF57 has been ported to Quantum, but the important extensions I used have been since the FF57 release that weren't ready initially. NoScript, FlagFox, etc. All working now. If the extensions weren't ready last November, look again. They may be ready now.
Just as importantly, I haven't missed the ones that haven't made it. You may not miss them either.
3) The native Web Development tools are better than Firebug was in the end, IMO. And it's been nice to not have Firebugginess to deal with anymore.
So - Take it from this OCD guy who's not a marketing shill for the Mozilla org: If you're still sitting at FF52 ESR or FF56.x over any form of FUD (especially the, "but extension X is indispensible", worry,) given FF57 another look now and test it out without those, "I've gotta have extension X," extensions and see. You may be surprised.
In the nearly 15+ years of time I've visited Slashdot, I don't recall a first post that's this sincere yet as off-topic as this one. Talk about jarring - and totally stupid to bring up here.
Point of clarification: In Mormon dogma (subset of Christianity), the idea that babies all go to hell without baptism is an abomination. That would make getting into heaven kind of a lottery (were you born at the wrong time in the wrong place? Your mom had an abortion? Tough beans...), vs. grace + repentance.
Moroni 8 (from the Book of Mormon) covers this idea in more detail, but in short God takes all unbaptized children that die under a certain age (where you start to know right from wrong) straight up into heaven. But that's another religious topic entirely...
What a self-righteous load of BS.
Yes, people should have to deal with their choices, but they should also use their God-given brains and technology to do just that - deal with their choices in the best way for them.
Or should they have to live with that choice forever? Or can they rectify the mistake and move on? In other cases in life, it's the latter, isn't it. If someone steals a car, do they have to keep the car forever? No - they can give it back and confess, sell it and move on, etc. If someone is cruel to another at some point in time, can't they apologize later? Robbery, lying, cheating, etc. People need to be able to move on after their sins, right?
You may think this is different because "another life" is involved. Fine; Let's put aside the fact that there's no scientific evidence that a fetus has a conscious spirit in there that's independent of the mother at the point of conception. Let's just talk religion (Christian dogma). Consider the following: If there IS a spirit in that fetus that is slain in an abortion, God will either just 1) give them another body to come down to this Earth to live out their life again somewhere else, or 2) take that spirit right up into Heaven to live with Him forever - and eventually be resurrected with their own bodies. There is no third option. In either scenario, the baby is ultimately BETTER off, aren't they? Isn't either scenario better than if they're born into this world as an unwanted nuisance (or worse).
In this world, freedom of choice trumps life. It was God's plan to give us choice - along with the ability to repent of our sins and move on. Abortion allows some people to move on, and until we know better about whether a baby has its own spirit or not at conception (if it does have a spirit, that changes things, IMO), it is the compromise that we should live with in modern society.
Disclaimer: I personally abhor abortion. I've given up a child for adoption to give them a better life than I could've ever given them back then as an irresponsible teenager. (And living with that is tough at times today, almost 30 years later - just like an abortion would be for some, never knowing "what if").
99% of cycles is a pretty good method, IMO. Going on the rough "once a month" cycle, that's one pregnancy every 8.25 years. If a woman becomes sexually active at 18, that's roughly 2 kids over the term of their fertility (women in their late 30s have really slowed down in terms of fertility.) And the moms can choose abortion if they must every 8 years or so.
The problem with this method is really human nature. Studies have shown that women are more attractive to men when they're ovulating - making strict adherence just about impossible...
The religious and/or emotional response to abortion has always been a problem. It's almost not even worth debating four and a half decades after Roe V. Wade was decided.
To all Christians, Muslims, and other religious sects: Abortion is about the freedom of choice - which is God's greatest gift to us all (even Jesus Christ's grace requires us accepting it by free will, right?) Based on that cornerstone of Christianity, abortion HAS to be the mother's decision about a fetus growing in her body until it's a viable, living child (roughly 20 weeks inside the fetus) - at which point the decision should be passed onto the child and its fight for life (whether we medically help the child live or not).
It's the perfect compromise between heaven and hell - which is pretty much where we live today.
What's crazy is that too many people cannot see the basic wisdom in that and move on, choosing for themselves to not have abortions while letting other choose to end the pregnancy; The emotional tug of their heart strings is just too much to overcome.
Disclaimer: I'm a GOP badge wearing Mormon (Christian - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).
"I was ovulating and was totally horny and had to get some and my boyfriend didn't pull out fast enough, so the app didn't REALLY work for me."
Or maybe the whole, "I cut it too close to my ovulation time and my man's sperm must've been really hardy. It's the app's fault for not knowing that," possibility?
In the end, there is no non-artificial, bulletproof method of birth control that works for everyone that is sexually active because there are way too many variables.
Like your experience, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies more than ever.
I'm not the hardware enthusiast or early adopter I was 20 years ago. I finally just upgraded my custom built, 6-year-old desktop's primary hard drive to a Samsung 256GB SSD (kept the other HDDs for storage) and swapped out the 32-bit OS for its 64-bit version (in order to increase the Kingston RAM to 12GB).
Nothing else in the rig needs an upgrade. The on-board network, sound, and video hardware on the motherboard are holding up fine (no more $$$$ NVIDIA video card purchases or Soundblaster updates.) My 1600x1200, 20" DVI Dell monitor has been a champ for almost a decade (only replaced one bad capacitor over that entire time). Yeah, yeah, no 4K, not widescreen - but who cares? I'm not gaming on it, and my sons' games run great for them.
The only real pain in the upgrade was software-related issues. The OS update, activation, licenses, drivers - "Where can I find a driver for my 22 year old but reliable HP laser printer?", etc.
Admittedly, if there WAS an OS where one could do what you suggested - swap the SSD (and its OS) out and simply hook it up to a new set of hardware and the installed OS just updated its drivers seamlessly... Wow. That would be a convenience/dream come true and worth the $$$$ upgrade. Until then, however, my total cost was $200 and the desktop is again good enough to last at least a few more years so why spend 2-3x that for a new, commodity-quality Dell instead?
Hell - Why even buy another desktop at all? I'm not a phone- or tablet-only honk yet, but my next computer will likely be a lightweight laptop that I'll plug into a new huge monitor with a BT keyboard and mouse - at most. Maybe an external storage device (NAS, portable HDD, etc.)?
Because Amazon has a physical presence in my state (AZ) and I do a lot of my online shopping there first before venturing elsewhere, I already pay an (admittedly annoying) sales taxes on many of my purchases.
This issue (sales taxes) also seems like they can more easily be enforced now than back in 1992. Back then, the idea of tracking where purchases are made seemed like a daunting task to do accurately. Nowadays, my browser knows generally where I'm at within a few miles, and with cell phone purchases your location is easy to surmise.
While getting accurate tax rates is a burden, it's much easier to overcome for web apps and sites.
Do I WANT sales taxes on what I buy off of every site I visit? No. But some of the more technical reasons to not have those taxes collected don't hold much weight anymore.
That would tear the country apart. It didn't work with the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work pre-Civil War. It won't work now.
The real problem isn't states right or a need for a new interpretation. It's the money and corruption flowing into Washington, and the Citizens United SCOTUS decision that allowed it to happen. That needs to be overturned with Congressional action, ASAP. Of course, that's asking the paid off men to cut off their own bread and butter, so...
To the paranoid weirdos here: Cut the FF devs and leadership some slack. They're coming clean about an accidental collection of some crash data - which has only been going on since 52.x, and they've said they're not selling that data to anyone in the past.
Yes, they're far from perfect. They ARE, however, the only browser left that at least tries to respect user privacy (even to their own UX's detriment). You should all be thanking them for even still working on the project vs. abandoning the project altogether and leaving you with Chrome's or Edge's data collection.
He should've taken a huge-ass bite out of the roasted bird/thing, and then barked something at the live ones like, "If you don't get your Jar Jar Bird asses out of this movie, you're next."
The little animal(s) - especially the one in the Falcon towards the end - were the most annoying part of the movie; They didn't fit the tone of the movie at all, IMO.
Well, maybe Rey is about to bring balance to the Force. She isn't afraid of the Dark Side and the Dark Side doesn't seem to be pushing her to do evil things... and Yoda seems to think she will do better without the historical teachings of the Jedi.
Or maybe Rey stole the Jedi books and put them on the Falcon before she left and Yoda subsequently set the "Jedi tree" on fire.
On the 93% on Rotten Tomatoes vs. the much lower "audience liked it" score, the latter is usually the better indicator of the likability of a movie for the average moviegoer. While it is good at pointing out stinkers and is easy for everyone to understand (the anti-BCS college football formula), the RT percentage/score is not good at telling you exactly HOW good a "fresh" movie is because there's no nuance to it. It's fresh or rotten - that's it; There's no how fresh the movie is: Is it a perfectly fresh tomato, or is it "wilted", "rotting", or "kinda fresh but ready to throw at someone" option.
Example: Your everyday critic kind of likes a good but flawed, 3-star movie only has the option of giving it a fresh rating (a mathematical 100%) or rotten (0%). When you get 93% of critics doing that, it makes the movie look better than it really was.
If RT took an average of all the "fresh" critic's separate 1-5 star ratings for it and added that score along with the overall RT score, it would probably much better represent the quality of a movie - and would probably serve much better as their qualifier for their supposed "Certified Fresh" score.
Best part of the movie: You weren't sure who was good or bad throughout. My favorite scene was going to light speed to cut Snoke's ship in half was made that much better because the vice-admiral turned out being good after all. Close 2nd: Snoke getting Darth Mauled. Yeah, Snoke was a wasted character, but wow what a cool way to send him out.
Good or bad point in the movie (divisive): There was a Rogue One like "graying" of the black and white, good vs. evil Star Wars universe. Having the bomber close her eyes right before her bomber was destroyed and she died, and then the First Order dreadnought's captain accepting death in the same stoic way as the bombs struck his ship and blew it apart, was a very good and subtle way to humanize both sides. It also ended up being the precursor for the tone of the entire movie: There aren't really good guys and bad guys.
Also, this is a divisive plot point to some, but I loved that Leia FINALLY getting to use the force to save herself. She had Skywalker blood, but her use of the force had never materialized until then. It was NOT corny.
Worst part of Ep8: Luke. Like Flynn in Tron Legacy, Luke got ruined by sequels.
In the original Tron movie, Flynn was the fun and light hearted (yet serious) protagonist. He had a heart of slacker hacker gold that you'd love to have as a friend. In Tron Legacy, however, they turned him into a bitter old man who'd been burned one too many times and carried a sack of guilt for his hubris and mistakes. He was miserable, cantankerous, and without spirit for 99% of the parts he was in, and in the end he disappeared from existence without dying.
That's almost exactly what they did with Luke in Ep. 7 & 8. He was a burned out hermit that was absolutely no fun at all to be around.
And the anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-profiteering, anti-animal-abuse all went against the grain of what the Star Wars saga was all about - a fun movie. The entire casino scene especially felt out of place and preachy.
When the movie ended, nobody clapped, cheered, busted out in loud conversations about the movie, etc. - nothing. People just somberly walked out of the theater. I hadn't seen that quiet and reserved response since the end of Episode 1. I knew immediately that some were definitely disappointed.
Final feeling on my way out: That was a powerful movie on its own. Great drama, good direction, character development, etc. In that way, it was a great movie - like Rogue One. But it felt like it was the end of Star Wars for me. It was Episode IX (not 8) - the END end. Han is gone. Carrie Fisher is gone. Luke is gone. Han is gone. R2-D2 + C3PO relegated to nothing roles. The Rebel Alliance is gone.
I'll have to see in a couple of years when Ep. IX comes out, but I'm not sure I care anymore.
1) The Sherman Anti-Trust Act isn't worth the paper it's written on.
2) Monopolies and/or oligarchies appear to be increasingly acceptable to everyone. Comfort/familiarity trumps (now old-school) free market economics.
I don't mean this as any kind of attack on this poster, but there are just too many red flags here. I mean, replace "Bitcoin" with whatever you want below (tulips, gold, whatever).
* _______ is "growing by leaps and bounds."
* It's "still very early". (buy in now - you're not too late)
* "more people are using ______ than ever before". (Bitcoin? Not in my neck of the woods yet. Nobody I know would even know what it is, let alone how to use it anywhere the average suburbanite would go.)
* "I don't know how to disentangle.... and neither does anyone else." (That sounds a lot like someone trying to describe the derivatives market in 2006 before the housing crash.)
* _______ is "unusually resistant to our ordinary methods of price discovery." (Just about every bubble ever is that way. "This time it's different, however.")
* The market for ______ may be a little frothy, but "the price this year is still low compared to what it will be in a few years when the long term trends swamps the recent short term movements." (Sounds like a quote from anyone trying to sell you house back in 2006.)
The last sentence is the best thought in the entire post. Yes, it is absolutely gambling. It's the 21st century version of Latchcomb.
And remember that you could be the shoeshine boy and not even realize it.
Corollary: When everyone - usually including your neighbor or friend down the street, or your grandma - is trying to buy in and ride the wave, but they can't really explain how commodity X works or will make money, it's over. It's time to get out. You've missed the wave as an investor, and you're going to get burned joining too late.
Bonus: If the "everyone" people wanting to buy commodity X can't even really explain how or why it will make money, it's going to get REALLY ugly.
The following fit the pattern:
Microsoft and other internet/tech stocks (2000)
Housing (2007)
Gold (2012)
Bitcoin (2017) will likely be the next big entry to the list.
I had more of a problem with Astonishing in the headline, as if we were not supposed to be using fossil fuels at all. It immediately tainted the summary and article as biased. Not good journalism...
Increasing the company's stock price trumps all other considerations. "Make the product better to make more money," or Ford's old, "Quality is Job #1" marketing motto, and such other ideas died a generation ago. Now it's, "Good enough + cheaper to make == more profits. Cut something else in the next quarter to keep feeding the beast."
Medium and large corporations swear by that philosophy, and it eventually permeates every small successful business as soon as they have an IPO and sell out to the market.
super-cookie safeguards (BetterPrivacy)
FYI: BetterPrivacy's privacy-preserving functionality was absorbed into Privacy Badger. Download and install the latter.
They'll start doing what they were doing before 2015, like they did to Netflix. A major ISP (Comcast, IIRC) throttled Netflix's throughput for a few months. The issue with Netflix content appeared rather abruptly, and then after Netflix agreed to pay an undisclosed amount it magically went away - as if their pipes could suddenly, almost magically, could handle the traffic again.
There were no longer allowed to do that under the Net Neutrality rules, and with Ajit Pai saying F U to everyone not from an ISP that kind of abuse will happen again.
Ajit Pai (and his GOP-appointed counterpart) had their minds made up years ago, and his doggedly stubborn position feels like it's based in ideology instead of the facts presented by his opponents.
Just compare this PBS.org interview where Mr. Pai used the same selective dodging of the facts pointed out by NN advocates (especially John Oliver's piece on the subject back in the day) that don't support his point of view. Then watch John Oliver's simplistic but factually correct episodes from 2014 and 2017 - Part One and 2017 - Part Two on the issue.
Either John Oliver (and his writing/research staff) or Ajit Pai is an outright liar about this issue. Any bets on who's the fibber? It's either a left-leaning comedian, or a former Verizon Wireless lawyer. (TIP: Don't bet the farm on this being a bad John Oliver joke...)