Tricky, because if the oil price stays low he'll have to explain to a lot of Texans that have lost their jobs why he's personally in the pockets of those Saudis that caused to job losses.
Has anyone noticed that this was done by the executive branch all on its own, with no oversight?
Going from many of the comments in the place it's how a lot of Americans think their country is run anyway. "Why hasn't the President done X? Why hasn't he done Y?" ignores that there is a government and not a King. So since a lot of people are thinking they are run by a King already, well that makes it a whole lot easier for the executive branch to act like it is. The tea party dumbing down has backfired in a way that would horrify them. Be pretending they are opposing a harsh and all powerful King they have enabled him the act like one.
Could be a flimsy excuse after the fact, but it fits anyway. If you watch the movie as if it's a serious of music videos strung together with plot it works:)
The Avengers, and most if not all of the recent Marvel movies, are a nice exception to the very common lazy "lone hero" plots. Even the Captain America movies get it right - despite revolving around one person it's teams that get the jobs done in those movies.
In Australia we're busy trying to adopt the worst ideas of the USA as quickly as we can. Luckily the people doing it are children that got in politics at University and never managed to grow up since so it's taking a while, but the people fully in their power are in deep shit (eg. Manus Island).
and what they'd do if someone grabbed their sister's crotch
In Australia we elected one of those to run the country. Of course he told the Judge it was only the woman's back and not her crotch, so it came down to the word of his friends versus the word of the victim.
Example please. Ensure that you are not making the mistake of taking a generally directed comment personally or an "if you do this you are an X" comment the wrong way.
The "culture" of kicking the girls off the keyboards is a relatively new thing (though older than some readers here) and has produced a self perpetuating widening gap. Law got over it. Mining got over it. The armed forces got over it. We are making it worse. We're not oil drillers so what's with the testosterone fuelled bullshit that is even scaring off male geeks?
Cultural differences can make people look worse than they really are. I had to initially overcome a very strong urge to punch a Texan I was working with when he started spitting tobacco all over the place but he was actually a nice guy apart from that. He probably initially thought we were a bunch of pricks for glaring at him at times until we got used to his habit.
The above doesn't mean starting off as an utterly rude prick. It means changing approach when "being nice" hits a roadblock due to the personality of someone else. In the example above it took strong language before the other person could understand that the situation was real and not some timorous person of no consequence yapping about a triviality. Merely swearing changed the context of the discussion to one he would have with his peers - the language of "real men" and not some technical freak.
I'm not sure what he meant exactly by not being nice. He seems okay until someone pisses him off with some bullshit.
I think that's exactly what he means - once someone starts obstructing a project there's not much point being nice to them and let them stay in the way instead of making it clear that they should get out of the way.
I saw a lot of it myself back when I was an engineer, before the internet became a big thing with lots of job opportunities: A: That weld is out of spec and has a very large number of significant defects. B: Can't you let it go? A: It's in a pressure vessel and it will not be able to take anywhere near the rated pressure. B: Can't you let it go? More civil discussion and even taking the person to the site followed for some time, and then: A: It's completely fucked and has a fucking crack big enough to stick a fucking ruler a fucking inch deep into it (demonstrates). At this point B began to understand the situation because it was phrased forcefully enough to make it clear that just talking about the situation was not going to fix it. The weld in question was part of a blast furnace under construction and there would probably have been double digit deaths if that weld, and several others, had not been redone.
Some people take politeness as meaning that something is not important enough to get worried about or even as complete agreement with their viewpoint. If you are being polite they see your contribution as worthless and see themselves as the dominant fucking monkey and do not understand that they are the only ones in the conversation playing dominant monkey games. There's plenty of examples of that on this site.
It's annoying, but some things are more important than being nice, and if being nice stops them happening (the other person taking it as a roll over submission) then you have to stop being nice or it doesn't happen. Sadly some people just have to be shown that you will not do exactly what they want when it's the wrong thing to do, and they take politeness as a sign of submission.
Remember that Hollywood pushes the "lone hero" idea really hard. The sort of thing where it's Lindberg alone who could cross that Atlantic, and not a similarly capable pilot with the same sort of team behind them. Great achievement, but represented not many notches short of deification for one and obscurity for the others, and set forth as a template for how team efforts have to be shown as really the work of a lone hero instead of just a damned good leader. The team has to vanish out of sight in case so they can't take any credit away from the hero. The lone hero can have servants, and they can be very capable, but without the hero they have no purpose in the story.
It's a fun little fantasy but it reeks enough of old world aristocracy that the sheer volume of it would probably have Washington rolling in his grave.
So Hollywood doesn't do teams much. Television is not quite so bad and many series have plot points where the hero goes to see the X guy and outsource the difficult task of X as part of catching the bad guys or whatever.
Steven Segal/Van Damme film trailers--only the latter do it better
They do - in those it's generally a set of tasks that require a specific narrow skillset over a short timeframe. Even that A-Team split the unlikely superskillmonster into several characters and it was not pretending to be anyway remotely near reality.
So you've got the difficult task of making it dramatic and understandable without turning it into cyber-fantasy.
I didn't mind "Hackers" where the excuse for the weird stuff was "that's no what they see on the computer screen, that's what they see in their heads". Of course that was stated afterwards in an interview and was not so clear in the actual film, where the cuts to complex computer graphics in no way matches the capability of the systems in use.
Maybe Ron Howard will make a movie about hacking. I think he would do a good job of it.
Apollo 13 had plenty of good bits but the invented conflict in the crew showed that Ron Howard is a poor choice for director when you what something to approximate reality instead of being a fantasy. Unless someone from the documentary side of town gets involved it's going to be Indiana Jones with a keyboard fighting against both the bad guys and some internal traitor.
Infinite fuel space-planes and the magical spaceship that somehow carried enough supplies for a multi-year mission
That's something that even movies like "The Black Hole" didn't mess up. The crew may not be large in the older movies but the ships are - plenty of room to stow whatever a plot needs. The practicality of building big shit in space is another story.
Yes but the very funny thing is many of those "survivalist" gun nuts still couldn't cope in places where 14 year old boy scouts go camping for fun. I suggest more hiking and less playing with guns, and maybe get obsessed with climbing or some other technical stuff that's less of an armchair hobby than guns.
A lot of the Prometheus complaints seem to originate from the concept that the crew should have been a 100% perfectly professional team that knew exactly what to do in all situations.
Hollywood seems to have given up on that sort of environment some time after "The Thing From Outer Space" - where the only guy that seemed anywhere near inept was the journalist, until the end and his "watch the skies" speech. Even the Apollo 13 movie suffered from Hollywood deciding that a the real life crew that was 100% perfectly professional needed a bit of conflict to add excitement or something.
I think it's part of the disaster movie formula where a few characters have to do something stupid and die to show how dangerous the situation is - a formula that looks a bit stupid creeping into other things IMHO. I disagree with the "just filling a gap in the roster" bit above and see that as fairly thin justification for applying formulaic plot elements with a spatula. It requires a bit of extra suspension of disbelief. A third-rate test pilot is still going to outclass a typical pilot in a major way and we're describing similar highly contested positions.
Hang on - are you really calling those people I mentioned leftists or are you ignoring that environmentalists had little or no political power during that time and trying to distract readers by going on a very odd tangent?
We need to let science resolve this issue using the proven methodology of science
Done about three decades ago, then politics noticed later, and some in politics are declaring now that political will trumps reality. Canute had a message about that a very long time back.
There we go again - yet another example just like you dumping on my joke, dumping on the other poster and thinking it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against someone on this site because it's this site. Clearly all a game to you so it's clearly fine in your mind to treat the other posters as if they are not human beings.
Slashdot Mirror
Tricky, because if the oil price stays low he'll have to explain to a lot of Texans that have lost their jobs why he's personally in the pockets of those Saudis that caused to job losses.
Going from many of the comments in the place it's how a lot of Americans think their country is run anyway. "Why hasn't the President done X? Why hasn't he done Y?" ignores that there is a government and not a King.
So since a lot of people are thinking they are run by a King already, well that makes it a whole lot easier for the executive branch to act like it is. The tea party dumbing down has backfired in a way that would horrify them. Be pretending they are opposing a harsh and all powerful King they have enabled him the act like one.
Could be a flimsy excuse after the fact, but it fits anyway. :)
If you watch the movie as if it's a serious of music videos strung together with plot it works
The Avengers, and most if not all of the recent Marvel movies, are a nice exception to the very common lazy "lone hero" plots. Even the Captain America movies get it right - despite revolving around one person it's teams that get the jobs done in those movies.
In the Database Database
I'm struggling in the Database Wow Wow
It doesn't even matter if there is no hope
As the madness of the system grows
http://www.animelyrics.com/ani...
In Australia we're busy trying to adopt the worst ideas of the USA as quickly as we can. Luckily the people doing it are children that got in politics at University and never managed to grow up since so it's taking a while, but the people fully in their power are in deep shit (eg. Manus Island).
Not a person. Missing beagle, and it's been found.
People can cut and paste in any language :(
In Australia we elected one of those to run the country. Of course he told the Judge it was only the woman's back and not her crotch, so it came down to the word of his friends versus the word of the victim.
So that's being polite?
I sense a very extreme double standard here.
Anti-American-ism?
You must be incredibly thin skinned for your country if you think Linus is Anti-American.
Example please. Ensure that you are not making the mistake of taking a generally directed comment personally or an "if you do this you are an X" comment the wrong way.
The "culture" of kicking the girls off the keyboards is a relatively new thing (though older than some readers here) and has produced a self perpetuating widening gap.
Law got over it. Mining got over it. The armed forces got over it. We are making it worse. We're not oil drillers so what's with the testosterone fuelled bullshit that is even scaring off male geeks?
You appear to have confused a small teaching tool for something completely different. Minix is not much like linux at all.
Cultural differences can make people look worse than they really are. I had to initially overcome a very strong urge to punch a Texan I was working with when he started spitting tobacco all over the place but he was actually a nice guy apart from that. He probably initially thought we were a bunch of pricks for glaring at him at times until we got used to his habit.
The above doesn't mean starting off as an utterly rude prick. It means changing approach when "being nice" hits a roadblock due to the personality of someone else.
In the example above it took strong language before the other person could understand that the situation was real and not some timorous person of no consequence yapping about a triviality. Merely swearing changed the context of the discussion to one he would have with his peers - the language of "real men" and not some technical freak.
I think that's exactly what he means - once someone starts obstructing a project there's not much point being nice to them and let them stay in the way instead of making it clear that they should get out of the way.
I saw a lot of it myself back when I was an engineer, before the internet became a big thing with lots of job opportunities:
A: That weld is out of spec and has a very large number of significant defects.
B: Can't you let it go?
A: It's in a pressure vessel and it will not be able to take anywhere near the rated pressure.
B: Can't you let it go?
More civil discussion and even taking the person to the site followed for some time, and then:
A: It's completely fucked and has a fucking crack big enough to stick a fucking ruler a fucking inch deep into it (demonstrates).
At this point B began to understand the situation because it was phrased forcefully enough to make it clear that just talking about the situation was not going to fix it. The weld in question was part of a blast furnace under construction and there would probably have been double digit deaths if that weld, and several others, had not been redone.
Some people take politeness as meaning that something is not important enough to get worried about or even as complete agreement with their viewpoint. If you are being polite they see your contribution as worthless and see themselves as the dominant fucking monkey and do not understand that they are the only ones in the conversation playing dominant monkey games. There's plenty of examples of that on this site.
It's annoying, but some things are more important than being nice, and if being nice stops them happening (the other person taking it as a roll over submission) then you have to stop being nice or it doesn't happen. Sadly some people just have to be shown that you will not do exactly what they want when it's the wrong thing to do, and they take politeness as a sign of submission.
The lone hero can have servants, and they can be very capable, but without the hero they have no purpose in the story.
It's a fun little fantasy but it reeks enough of old world aristocracy that the sheer volume of it would probably have Washington rolling in his grave.
So Hollywood doesn't do teams much. Television is not quite so bad and many series have plot points where the hero goes to see the X guy and outsource the difficult task of X as part of catching the bad guys or whatever.
They do - in those it's generally a set of tasks that require a specific narrow skillset over a short timeframe.
Even that A-Team split the unlikely superskillmonster into several characters and it was not pretending to be anyway remotely near reality.
I didn't mind "Hackers" where the excuse for the weird stuff was "that's no what they see on the computer screen, that's what they see in their heads". Of course that was stated afterwards in an interview and was not so clear in the actual film, where the cuts to complex computer graphics in no way matches the capability of the systems in use.
Apollo 13 had plenty of good bits but the invented conflict in the crew showed that Ron Howard is a poor choice for director when you what something to approximate reality instead of being a fantasy.
Unless someone from the documentary side of town gets involved it's going to be Indiana Jones with a keyboard fighting against both the bad guys and some internal traitor.
That's something that even movies like "The Black Hole" didn't mess up. The crew may not be large in the older movies but the ships are - plenty of room to stow whatever a plot needs. The practicality of building big shit in space is another story.
Yes but the very funny thing is many of those "survivalist" gun nuts still couldn't cope in places where 14 year old boy scouts go camping for fun. I suggest more hiking and less playing with guns, and maybe get obsessed with climbing or some other technical stuff that's less of an armchair hobby than guns.
Hollywood seems to have given up on that sort of environment some time after "The Thing From Outer Space" - where the only guy that seemed anywhere near inept was the journalist, until the end and his "watch the skies" speech.
Even the Apollo 13 movie suffered from Hollywood deciding that a the real life crew that was 100% perfectly professional needed a bit of conflict to add excitement or something.
I think it's part of the disaster movie formula where a few characters have to do something stupid and die to show how dangerous the situation is - a formula that looks a bit stupid creeping into other things IMHO.
I disagree with the "just filling a gap in the roster" bit above and see that as fairly thin justification for applying formulaic plot elements with a spatula. It requires a bit of extra suspension of disbelief. A third-rate test pilot is still going to outclass a typical pilot in a major way and we're describing similar highly contested positions.
Done about three decades ago, then politics noticed later, and some in politics are declaring now that political will trumps reality.
Canute had a message about that a very long time back.
There we go again - yet another example just like you dumping on my joke, dumping on the other poster and thinking it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against someone on this site because it's this site.
Clearly all a game to you so it's clearly fine in your mind to treat the other posters as if they are not human beings.