You forgot the "good guy beats bad guy even though good guy has everything stacked against him" part. It most usually comes down to an unfeasably long and urealistically brutal fist fight even though by any degree of realism they would inevitably have/use weapons and/or it would be over in seconds. The fight never leave's any marks on the good guy's face except maybe a charismatic scratch at the corner of his eye/cheekbone, but the bad guy inevitably gets an ugly fat lip or similar. Sometime during the fight the bad guy gets an "unfair" advantage and uses it, injuring the good guy in a way that would stop anyone else, but the good guy uses sheer will-power to keep fighting and ultimately causes the indirect death (as opposed to direct murder) of the bad guy (by causing something to fall on him or him to fall into fire/acid/lava/deep hole/monster's mouth). Optional ending 1) since according to Hollywood rule #4 (all sources of evil MUST be completely eliminated by the end of the movie) The good guy tries but fails to save the bad guy (usually using the arm the bad guy injured earlier so the good guy is putting himself in even more pain to save the bad guy) Optional extended ending 1) The bad guy has a "come to jesus" moment and voluntarily lets go of the good guys saving hand, thus voluntarily killing himself but also spiritually redeeming himself. Only other permissible ending) Good guy thinks he's killed bad guy, turns his back and starts to walk away. Bad guy is actually only nearly dead, can't hardly move, but manages to just reach previously discarded gun on ground. He aims to shoot good guy in back, a gun goes off, but it turns out the single shot was not actually from the bad guy but the tag-along girl who up until a moment ago had been knocked unconscious or otherwise presumed out-of-action. She hits the bad guy right between the eyes with a single shot (Hollywood rule #6 love interests cannot show excessive violence) . Good guy picks up injured girl, they kiss at last (Hollywood rule #1 being good ALWAYS pays off in the end) he carries her to the waiting police cars/ambulances. (Hollywood moral #8 society is basically there to help but you need to look out for yourself)
Yeah? tell me that when scoiety doesn't trat women better than men., such as "women and children first", or when prostate cancer (that kills more men than breast cancer does women) gets equal funding/awreness to breast cancer, or when equal numbers of women are doing the shittier jobs and society doesn't see a problem with it, like fighting on front lines or even just taking the trash out.
It doesn't matter what he's registered as. It was obvious from his actions that he has clearly sold-out to Hillary. It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary had told him to register as a Republican just to cover her ass when questions are inevitably asked because he's so obviously biassed.
The article makes several references to satiating gamers appetites but this is not a monitor that a gamer would want, at least not for the next 5 years, because even the newest GPU tech isn't ready for this. Apart from the fact that this monitor needs 8 DP cables (so would require a tri-SLI setup just to connect it), beyond a certain resolution (that we've already reached) gamers care more about FPS and being able to use high quality graphics settings than they care about pixel count. Gaming @ 8k/120Hz is not going to be practical with GPU tech for a few years yet (before anyone claims the nVidia Pascal TitanX could do it, I have one and I know it won't). I haven't yet seen an 8k monitor in the flesh, but I'm currently skeptical that you'd even be able to tell any difference between 4k and 8k on a 27" screen.
Amazing how given everything she has actually done and everything she and Trump have actually said, there are still some people stupid/ill-informed enough to think she is the most peaceful choice.
She'll get elected because the media are behind her and are brainwashing the American public as hard as they can. It will have nothing to do with reality, facts, gender or anything else.
I'm truly happy to see that the US as a country seems to be finally waking up from the decades of ridiculous feminazi peecee-ism, and finally starting to see and act on things for how they really are again.
It seems to me that the real problem is the low quality output of the Hollywood studios, combined with their monopoly on the US market. In Europe you often see films from many different countries/cultures, in the US, its ALL Hollywood monoculture output only. Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories. Now all we get is just endless hybrids of one of 7 or so standard moralized storylines, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and a bunch of CGI effects. The result is entirely predictable, unimaginative and only truly engaging to people with an IQ of about 80 at most. Presumably because that's what the studios now believe is the lowest cost/least effort approach needed in order to make something that will probably be profitable, rather than actually good. Its gotten so bad that a high percentage of American masses seriously think Hollywood Physics is how things actually work in real life. http://www.informationweek.com...?
I totally agree this is all hypothetical, since you're right that we don't (and quite possibly can't) know a thing about whats outside. Given that it makes most sense to use mechanisms that we already know to reason about anything new, occams razor is valid. Of course it may not be right or even valid to use it, but its a good starting point until we know more. You example of the physics simulation makes sense, but not always. It depends on what you're tying to achieve. For example if all I'm trying to do is establish whether a particular box would fit through a particular doorway, then using a physics simulation is both massive overkill and non-optimal.
>> Clinton is one of the most honest candidates this campaign season Bwahahaha. Nice troll.
>> Her security issues were basically about trusting the wrong people. So you're saying that she had nothing to do with the decision to set up her own mail server? What are you smoking?
>> I don't know why you'd think she would be in the pockets of foreign powers, Oh I don't know, perhaps its the literally tens/hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Clinton Foundation from Saudi regime and other middle eastern tyrannies?. https://theintercept.com/2016/...
> Only if you presume that we are the equivalent of an unintended side effect of the simulation,
I don't think I've ever used the word unintended, but I think its self evident that if we are in a simulation, then we probably aren't a directly intended product. If the creator had simply wanted one or more humans, he'd just build them directly, not create a whole system that included multiple random factors that can each significantly affect our development, such that what would ultimately be created would only have a chance that it would be what we currently are.
If this is a simulation, then it was clearly created more as an experiment to find out what would happen, not just as a factory to mass produce humans. Excuse me for asking but are you religious? Your arguments seem to keep wanting to elevate the importance of humans to being the "centre" or "main purpose" of everything, rather than just being another life form on the planet (i.e. one attribute or component of our reality, no more or less important than any other). In my experience that "self-importance" seems to be somehow self-evident only amongst practitioners of any of the 3 Abrahamic faiths.
>> I realize it's just a cultural thing, but it's quite obvious if you're used to something else.
It goes a little deeper, because its actually a side-effect of the belief by large US companies that they don't need to provide good customer care because you as a customer have no alternative. Given every store in the US is a chain, and all US companies do the same things, it's actually not far wrong. In Europe most restaurants are actually not chains so there's more competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally agree.
Becuase doing nothing is the steady state. Having a purpose has to be designed in. Not having a purpose doesn't.
Not exactly.
ALL action movie endings:
You forgot the "good guy beats bad guy even though good guy has everything stacked against him" part.
It most usually comes down to an unfeasably long and urealistically brutal fist fight even though by any degree of realism they would inevitably have/use weapons and/or it would be over in seconds.
The fight never leave's any marks on the good guy's face except maybe a charismatic scratch at the corner of his eye/cheekbone, but the bad guy inevitably gets an ugly fat lip or similar.
Sometime during the fight the bad guy gets an "unfair" advantage and uses it, injuring the good guy in a way that would stop anyone else, but the good guy uses sheer will-power to keep fighting and ultimately causes the indirect death (as opposed to direct murder) of the bad guy (by causing something to fall on him or him to fall into fire/acid/lava/deep hole/monster's mouth).
Optional ending 1) since according to Hollywood rule #4 (all sources of evil MUST be completely eliminated by the end of the movie) The good guy tries but fails to save the bad guy (usually using the arm the bad guy injured earlier so the good guy is putting himself in even more pain to save the bad guy)
Optional extended ending 1) The bad guy has a "come to jesus" moment and voluntarily lets go of the good guys saving hand, thus voluntarily killing himself but also spiritually redeeming himself.
Only other permissible ending) Good guy thinks he's killed bad guy, turns his back and starts to walk away. Bad guy is actually only nearly dead, can't hardly move, but manages to just reach previously discarded gun on ground. He aims to shoot good guy in back, a gun goes off, but it turns out the single shot was not actually from the bad guy but the tag-along girl who up until a moment ago had been knocked unconscious or otherwise presumed out-of-action. She hits the bad guy right between the eyes with a single shot (Hollywood rule #6 love interests cannot show excessive violence) . Good guy picks up injured girl, they kiss at last (Hollywood rule #1 being good ALWAYS pays off in the end) he carries her to the waiting police cars/ambulances. (Hollywood moral #8 society is basically there to help but you need to look out for yourself)
Sound familiar?
Yeah? tell me that when scoiety doesn't trat women better than men., such as "women and children first", or when prostate cancer (that kills more men than breast cancer does women) gets equal funding /awreness to breast cancer, or when equal numbers of women are doing the shittier jobs and society doesn't see a problem with it, like fighting on front lines or even just taking the trash out.
> Holt is actually a registered Republican.
It doesn't matter what he's registered as. It was obvious from his actions that he has clearly sold-out to Hillary. It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary had told him to register as a Republican just to cover her ass when questions are inevitably asked because he's so obviously biassed.
The article makes several references to satiating gamers appetites but this is not a monitor that a gamer would want, at least not for the next 5 years, because even the newest GPU tech isn't ready for this.
Apart from the fact that this monitor needs 8 DP cables (so would require a tri-SLI setup just to connect it), beyond a certain resolution (that we've already reached) gamers care more about FPS and being able to use high quality graphics settings than they care about pixel count. Gaming @ 8k/120Hz is not going to be practical with GPU tech for a few years yet (before anyone claims the nVidia Pascal TitanX could do it, I have one and I know it won't).
I haven't yet seen an 8k monitor in the flesh, but I'm currently skeptical that you'd even be able to tell any difference between 4k and 8k on a 27" screen.
Wow you clearly don't know me well.
The SJW is strong with this one.
Amazing how given everything she has actually done and everything she and Trump have actually said, there are still some people stupid/ill-informed enough to think she is the most peaceful choice.
She'll get elected because the media are behind her and are brainwashing the American public as hard as they can. It will have nothing to do with reality, facts, gender or anything else.
Hegelian dialectic? Is that some sort of high gain antenna?
Doesn't EVERYBODY hate SJWs?
Interesting. Thats pretty insightful. Wish I had mod points and that you hadn't posted as AC.
I'm truly happy to see that the US as a country seems to be finally waking up from the decades of ridiculous feminazi peecee-ism, and finally starting to see and act on things for how they really are again.
It seems to me that the real problem is the low quality output of the Hollywood studios, combined with their monopoly on the US market.
In Europe you often see films from many different countries/cultures, in the US, its ALL Hollywood monoculture output only.
Everything Hollywood make is totally formulaic and predictable, and the plot has become irrelevant to the eye-candy. Go back to the black and white movies of the 40's/50's. Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind etc. Amazing, engaging, intelligent stories.
Now all we get is just endless hybrids of one of 7 or so standard moralized storylines,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and a bunch of CGI effects. The result is entirely predictable, unimaginative and only truly engaging to people with an IQ of about 80 at most.
Presumably because that's what the studios now believe is the lowest cost/least effort approach needed in order to make something that will probably be profitable, rather than actually good.
Its gotten so bad that a high percentage of American masses seriously think Hollywood Physics is how things actually work in real life.
http://www.informationweek.com...?
I totally agree this is all hypothetical, since you're right that we don't (and quite possibly can't) know a thing about whats outside.
Given that it makes most sense to use mechanisms that we already know to reason about anything new, occams razor is valid. Of course it may not be right or even valid to use it, but its a good starting point until we know more.
You example of the physics simulation makes sense, but not always. It depends on what you're tying to achieve. For example if all I'm trying to do is establish whether a particular box would fit through a particular doorway, then using a physics simulation is both massive overkill and non-optimal.
>> Clinton is one of the most honest candidates this campaign season
Bwahahaha. Nice troll.
>> Her security issues were basically about trusting the wrong people.
So you're saying that she had nothing to do with the decision to set up her own mail server? What are you smoking?
>> I don't know why you'd think she would be in the pockets of foreign powers,
Oh I don't know, perhaps its the literally tens/hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Clinton Foundation from Saudi regime and other middle eastern tyrannies?.
https://theintercept.com/2016/...
So what on both points? did you even bother to read the headline let alone the article itself?
>> Trey Gowdy isnâ(TM)t finished with Hillary Clinton
I realise that you're a Hillary fan so not too bright, but even you must see this main thrust of this article isn't about Comey.
>> pity your reality is so shitty though.
You aint seen nuthin yet if Hillary gets in.
Occams razor.
Sure.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...
> Only if you presume that we are the equivalent of an unintended side effect of the simulation,
I don't think I've ever used the word unintended, but I think its self evident that if we are in a simulation, then we probably aren't a directly intended product. If the creator had simply wanted one or more humans, he'd just build them directly, not create a whole system that included multiple random factors that can each significantly affect our development, such that what would ultimately be created would only have a chance that it would be what we currently are.
If this is a simulation, then it was clearly created more as an experiment to find out what would happen, not just as a factory to mass produce humans.
Excuse me for asking but are you religious? Your arguments seem to keep wanting to elevate the importance of humans to being the "centre" or "main purpose" of everything, rather than just being another life form on the planet (i.e. one attribute or component of our reality, no more or less important than any other). In my experience that "self-importance" seems to be somehow self-evident only amongst practitioners of any of the 3 Abrahamic faiths.
> On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool
I started wondering who these freaks might be, but then I realized its probably mostly employees of car dent repair shops.
Good to see where your priorities are. I hope you will also be too lazy/unconcerned to actually vote.
>> I realize it's just a cultural thing, but it's quite obvious if you're used to something else.
It goes a little deeper, because its actually a side-effect of the belief by large US companies that they don't need to provide good customer care because you as a customer have no alternative. Given every store in the US is a chain, and all US companies do the same things, it's actually not far wrong. In Europe most restaurants are actually not chains so there's more competition.