Yep - my main complaint was CHANGING things. I have no issue with them replacing a special effect with a better version. IE, redoing the lightsabers, or even the spaceship scenes with CGI. I just am not a fan of adding in extra creatures that weren't there before, awkwardly working in deleted footage, and changing complete sequences like having Greedo shoot first.
Particularly aggravating for me was replacing the original Anakin actor in ROTJ with Hayden Christensen. That might wouldn't be as bad if the prequels or his performance had been better received, but forcing in an actor who most of the fans really didn't like really didn't feel good.
That SCOTUS case is nearly 100 years old at this point. Actual honest to goodness slavery was only gone for ~60 years prior to that ruling. There's no guarantee (and I'd think it possibly even likely) that a modern court wouldn't differ in their ruling.
That's not bad though. Updates cost money - the lack thereof is part of what makes those phones sub-$100 or even sub-$50 devices. If you want to live with that in exchange for a cheap phone, you have that option with Android. If you want a more expensive device that DOES get regular updates, you have that option too.
Sometimes the ability to cut a corner is a GOOD thing if it's something you feel you can live without.
I actually have a coworker at work who's still using an iPhone 3. No, it doesn't get updates and he only has like a 150MB per month data plan, but he seems happy with it. Granted, he's an old COBOL programmer in his late 50's, but some people just aren't into the latest and greatest tech.
Indeed. My 8 year old niece who in the last year and a half has become absolutely OBSESSED with Star Wars was very torn up about it. I think it's the first celebrity death she's experienced that she was really familiar with their work.
Almost everything in your list is napkin "yeah maybe we can automate that". Until you can make those things happen, that's just pessimistic thinking. Maybe in 100-150 years everything will be automated - but it isn't not, and whining about what's EVENTUALLY coming isn't helping anyways. For now, take a job that is still relevant, until there are none.
No - I'm a white male but I simply don't want a Democrat. That Hillary was female made no difference. I'd gladly vote for Nikki Haley over any white male Democrat you could put on the ballot.
Unlikely. The simple truth is that for 3rd parties, Libertarians tend to fall to the right of the spectrum (IE, Republicans if they HAVE go to a 2 party system), and most Green Party supporters fall to the left (Democrats if they HAVE to go 2 party).
The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, got 4,042,291 votes. The Green party candidate, Jill Stein, got 1,207,141 votes.
That's a difference of 2,835,150 votes for the righter leaning of the 3rd parties. Hillary won the popular vote by 2,597,156 votes. If all 3rd party votes were logically converted to their closest 2-party approximations, not only would Hillary have not won, but she also would have likely lost the popular vote.
The Republicans are the ones desperately trying to hang-on to power.
After the 2008 elections Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate to the Republicans' 41. They had 257 seats in the house to the Republicans' 178. They had 29 state Governors compares to the Republican's 21. They had the white house.
Now, after 2016, the Republicans have 52 senators to the Democrats' 46. They have 247 seats in the House compared to the Democrats' 188. They Republicans have 33 state governors compared to 16 held by the Democrats. And, the Republicans have the white house.
Republicans aren't "Desperately try to hang on to power". In the last decades Democrats have continually seen their political power eroded, yet to hear them speak the Republican party is some barely relevant distant memory. It's very reminiscent of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf during the Iraq war.
That's the price you pay for everyone being part of the country.
Lets say 95% of the country's population lived in California. The other 5% is spread out amongst the rest of the states.
In a purely popular vote, that 5% might as well pound sand - their politics and opinions pretty much don't matter - the 95% in California are making the rules.
Now, that might be fine, but with California only comprising such a small percentage of the overall land mass, it wouldn't make sense that the other regions should even be a part of the same country if everyone whose votes are determining policy don't live there.
That's pretty much the same reason we originally had the Revolutionary War - Britain was in control but was far removed from the politics and needs of the colonies much farther away.
As such, if you want all the individual states to be a part of this country, you're going to have to use a system that gives them some legitimate say in the elections. The electoral college does that - it makes sure that sparsely populated states aren't marginalized and effectively just ruled by outside influences.
The other option is just to break the country up into several smaller countries, or return to the original vision of having a much smaller Federal government and to let the states mostly govern themselves. In the original constitution the Federal government's only powers were mutual defense and to regulate interstate trade. Regulating interstate trade has been perverted over the years basically to mean that the Federal government can control everything.
Every indication from the articles are that they're talking about the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's emails.
There's not indication that they hacked the actual results (the electronic voting machines aren't even net-connected), but merely that by releasing the DNC's emails that they hacked they swayed public opinion.
And what of them wanting to wait for a Republican president to nominate a conservative to the supreme court when if they were playing to the letter of the law it should have been Obama that made that nomination?
By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE. If the senate doesn't wish to approve a specific candidate - or any candidate - from the currently sitting president, then they have no legal obligation to do so. You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given. If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.
The simple reality is that the parties have become polarized to the point that if you don't control BOTH the presidency AND the senate - your party probably isn't going to be filling any vacant SCOTUS positions. That's perfectly legal, and generally preferred by most people who voted in the legislature. Can most Democrats honestly say that if Trump had won the presidency but the Democrats had won the Senate, if he wanted to appoint someone openly anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion that you'd be of the opinion that they should just go ahead and approve his choice because appointing a justice is just some perk that Trump should receive? I'd be willing to bet you'd be looking at every single legal option no matter how outlandish to try and avoid that - much like many are already trying to do with Trump's presidency itself (ie, trying to coerce the electoral college into voting for Hillary - in one case I even saw one person suggesting that the electorates would be violating the constitution and should be replaced if they DIDN'T switch their votes to Hillary).
You've lost the Presidency, I would say you "lost" the Senate and House but you didn't have those to begin with, and with the antics after the election you've lost whatever moral highground you thought you had.
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
Because we don't trust a Democrat led White House to necessarily report accurate findings from such "investigations". It's like asking why you're afraid when you just paid the mob your protection money. Do you really think they're going to be "protecting" you?
The court is currently sitting on 4-4 split on conservative vs liberal, with 1 vacant spot. Trump will nominate a conservative. Republicans control the senate which means that they will have no problem approving his nomination. That will put the court 5-4 again. If any conservative justices retire during his term, they will be replaced and the same will hold. If any liberals leave, then they will get replaced with conservatives making the split 6-3 or even 7-2.
Basically - the supreme court belongs to the Republicans for at 2 years MINIMUM, with them likely being safe for at least 4. After that period they still have the court until a conservative leaves or dies. If a liberal justice leaves or dies within that 2 to 4 years and they get a 6-3 or better margin that hold could easily continue for decades.
If it's the fault of the manufacturer then sure, sue them. If however it's just a freak accident - and I know this may be a hard pill to swallow - perhaps you sue no one. It sort of saddens me a great deal when new tech is always confronted with "But who do I sue if something goes wrong!?!?!".
Bloodborne isn't exactly a social game if you're looking to play with a group, but most of its gameplay is revolved around timing. Boss fights in the game effectively go through a sequence of attacks - you have to understand the pattern of the boss. One boss may attack in a pattern when he's going to swing 3 times - when you have to dodge his attacks before even thinking about attacking back. Sometimes whether you dodge left, right, or backwards makes a difference (ie, a boss may have 6 telegraphed attack sequences - one one specific one you may need to dodge left for the first two attacks in the sequence and then right for the third).
Some sequences may not even have a counter-attack afterwards - you dodge until he telegraphs a new sequence and then give it a try another time. Sometimes they hit certain phases where their library of attacks or patterns change at a certain health level.
It becomes a game of dodging and counterattacking with extreme precision. While a few of the boss fights I won within 2-3 tries, certain ones took DOZENS of attempts over several days to complete.
I can completely understand if you say that you don't like that type of game - but I can't reasonably comprehend you saying that the reason for you not liking it is due it basically being a movie with no gameplay. Heck the story in those games is so subtle and nearly non-existent that you have to basically watch Youtube videos to even explain what's going on. It's nearly all gameplay and no story.
I think you underestimate the gameplay of the above games. PARTICULARLY Dark Souls or Bloodborne. If you think those are even remotely similar to "mashing the X button a lot" you're very mistaken. They're some of the most challenging AAA titles on the market.
I may be wrong, but I don't think it really is anymore. It came out of the gate with a lower price point due to XB One originally bundling Kinect. After they've ditched that though and MS has gotten XB One's price down below PS4's it seems to be picking up. I remember seeing several articles stating that XB One's outsold PS4 over Black Friday, and it may continue to do so over the rest of the holiday season.
At this point PS4 just has a fairly significant lead overall and any ground Microsoft has gained has been minimal - probably not enough get back into the lead in installed base for the remainder of the lifecycle.
Xbox One does have better price. Other than that there are a precious few exclusive titles but for the most part they're basically the same with most titles being available for both platforms - you can play a game on either and have mostly the same experience.
Honestly any serious gamer can just buy whichever one they feel like at first - for many that's already been PS4 because it INITIALLY had the price advantage, and then play all the cross platform games on that. After a few years when they've both gotten cheaper buy the other system to catch up on the back catalog of exclusives.
So what you're saying is that the PS4 is a powerful console without games?
I think it may just be poorly phrased shock that you'd make such a comment, as for most people the PS4 lineup seems patently superior to Wii-U.
I've got both systems (and XBOne), and though the kids enjoy a few more games on the Wii-U, I'm basically stuck waiting on Zelda Breath of the Wild.
On PS4 I've got Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Uncharted 4, Until Dawn, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and quite a few more - with more on the way too (Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us 2, etc).
Granted, I'm sure it's subjective and based on what types of games you enjoy, but it's just hard to imagine anyone looking at the current console gen's library and thinking WiiU is the one with the good games.
I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.
Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.
Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.
He thinks finding ways around the law (like not paying taxes) is "smart".
Um, it is. I'd bet virtually every person here takes every deduction they can to reduce their tax burden. I don't know of anyone that voluntarily pays more taxes than they're legally obligated to. Trump simply - like most rich people - can afford to hire accountants good enough to reduce that tax rate more than most of us can. Sometimes down to zero.
I don't fault him or any rich person for that. It's what I'd do myself. The solution to this is to adjust the tax code to try and ELIMINATE the loopholes - not chastise people who legally take advantage of them. I wouldn't elect to office anyone who wasn't taking full advantage of the existing tax code. It means they're bad with money, and I don't see them managing public funds any more wisely than they managed their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - my main complaint was CHANGING things. I have no issue with them replacing a special effect with a better version. IE, redoing the lightsabers, or even the spaceship scenes with CGI. I just am not a fan of adding in extra creatures that weren't there before, awkwardly working in deleted footage, and changing complete sequences like having Greedo shoot first.
Particularly aggravating for me was replacing the original Anakin actor in ROTJ with Hayden Christensen. That might wouldn't be as bad if the prequels or his performance had been better received, but forcing in an actor who most of the fans really didn't like really didn't feel good.
That SCOTUS case is nearly 100 years old at this point. Actual honest to goodness slavery was only gone for ~60 years prior to that ruling. There's no guarantee (and I'd think it possibly even likely) that a modern court wouldn't differ in their ruling.
That's not bad though. Updates cost money - the lack thereof is part of what makes those phones sub-$100 or even sub-$50 devices. If you want to live with that in exchange for a cheap phone, you have that option with Android. If you want a more expensive device that DOES get regular updates, you have that option too.
Sometimes the ability to cut a corner is a GOOD thing if it's something you feel you can live without.
I actually have a coworker at work who's still using an iPhone 3. No, it doesn't get updates and he only has like a 150MB per month data plan, but he seems happy with it. Granted, he's an old COBOL programmer in his late 50's, but some people just aren't into the latest and greatest tech.
Indeed. My 8 year old niece who in the last year and a half has become absolutely OBSESSED with Star Wars was very torn up about it. I think it's the first celebrity death she's experienced that she was really familiar with their work.
Almost everything in your list is napkin "yeah maybe we can automate that". Until you can make those things happen, that's just pessimistic thinking. Maybe in 100-150 years everything will be automated - but it isn't not, and whining about what's EVENTUALLY coming isn't helping anyways. For now, take a job that is still relevant, until there are none.
No - I'm a white male but I simply don't want a Democrat. That Hillary was female made no difference. I'd gladly vote for Nikki Haley over any white male Democrat you could put on the ballot.
Unlikely. The simple truth is that for 3rd parties, Libertarians tend to fall to the right of the spectrum (IE, Republicans if they HAVE go to a 2 party system), and most Green Party supporters fall to the left (Democrats if they HAVE to go 2 party).
The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, got 4,042,291 votes.
The Green party candidate, Jill Stein, got 1,207,141 votes.
That's a difference of 2,835,150 votes for the righter leaning of the 3rd parties. Hillary won the popular vote by 2,597,156 votes. If all 3rd party votes were logically converted to their closest 2-party approximations, not only would Hillary have not won, but she also would have likely lost the popular vote.
The Republicans are the ones desperately trying to hang-on to power.
After the 2008 elections Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate to the Republicans' 41.
They had 257 seats in the house to the Republicans' 178.
They had 29 state Governors compares to the Republican's 21.
They had the white house.
Now, after 2016, the Republicans have 52 senators to the Democrats' 46.
They have 247 seats in the House compared to the Democrats' 188.
They Republicans have 33 state governors compared to 16 held by the Democrats.
And, the Republicans have the white house.
Republicans aren't "Desperately try to hang on to power". In the last decades Democrats have continually seen their political power eroded, yet to hear them speak the Republican party is some barely relevant distant memory. It's very reminiscent of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf during the Iraq war.
That's the price you pay for everyone being part of the country.
Lets say 95% of the country's population lived in California. The other 5% is spread out amongst the rest of the states.
In a purely popular vote, that 5% might as well pound sand - their politics and opinions pretty much don't matter - the 95% in California are making the rules.
Now, that might be fine, but with California only comprising such a small percentage of the overall land mass, it wouldn't make sense that the other regions should even be a part of the same country if everyone whose votes are determining policy don't live there.
That's pretty much the same reason we originally had the Revolutionary War - Britain was in control but was far removed from the politics and needs of the colonies much farther away.
As such, if you want all the individual states to be a part of this country, you're going to have to use a system that gives them some legitimate say in the elections. The electoral college does that - it makes sure that sparsely populated states aren't marginalized and effectively just ruled by outside influences.
The other option is just to break the country up into several smaller countries, or return to the original vision of having a much smaller Federal government and to let the states mostly govern themselves. In the original constitution the Federal government's only powers were mutual defense and to regulate interstate trade. Regulating interstate trade has been perverted over the years basically to mean that the Federal government can control everything.
As a point of trivia - Nebraska and Maine DO do it differently.
Every indication from the articles are that they're talking about the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's emails.
There's not indication that they hacked the actual results (the electronic voting machines aren't even net-connected), but merely that by releasing the DNC's emails that they hacked they swayed public opinion.
And what of them wanting to wait for a Republican president to nominate a conservative to the supreme court when if they were playing to the letter of the law it should have been Obama that made that nomination?
By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE. If the senate doesn't wish to approve a specific candidate - or any candidate - from the currently sitting president, then they have no legal obligation to do so. You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given. If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.
The simple reality is that the parties have become polarized to the point that if you don't control BOTH the presidency AND the senate - your party probably isn't going to be filling any vacant SCOTUS positions. That's perfectly legal, and generally preferred by most people who voted in the legislature. Can most Democrats honestly say that if Trump had won the presidency but the Democrats had won the Senate, if he wanted to appoint someone openly anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion that you'd be of the opinion that they should just go ahead and approve his choice because appointing a justice is just some perk that Trump should receive? I'd be willing to bet you'd be looking at every single legal option no matter how outlandish to try and avoid that - much like many are already trying to do with Trump's presidency itself (ie, trying to coerce the electoral college into voting for Hillary - in one case I even saw one person suggesting that the electorates would be violating the constitution and should be replaced if they DIDN'T switch their votes to Hillary).
You've lost the Presidency, I would say you "lost" the Senate and House but you didn't have those to begin with, and with the antics after the election you've lost whatever moral highground you thought you had.
The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.
That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.
3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.
Because we don't trust a Democrat led White House to necessarily report accurate findings from such "investigations". It's like asking why you're afraid when you just paid the mob your protection money. Do you really think they're going to be "protecting" you?
The court is currently sitting on 4-4 split on conservative vs liberal, with 1 vacant spot. Trump will nominate a conservative. Republicans control the senate which means that they will have no problem approving his nomination. That will put the court 5-4 again. If any conservative justices retire during his term, they will be replaced and the same will hold. If any liberals leave, then they will get replaced with conservatives making the split 6-3 or even 7-2.
Basically - the supreme court belongs to the Republicans for at 2 years MINIMUM, with them likely being safe for at least 4. After that period they still have the court until a conservative leaves or dies. If a liberal justice leaves or dies within that 2 to 4 years and they get a 6-3 or better margin that hold could easily continue for decades.
If it's the fault of the manufacturer then sure, sue them. If however it's just a freak accident - and I know this may be a hard pill to swallow - perhaps you sue no one. It sort of saddens me a great deal when new tech is always confronted with "But who do I sue if something goes wrong!?!?!".
Bloodborne isn't exactly a social game if you're looking to play with a group, but most of its gameplay is revolved around timing. Boss fights in the game effectively go through a sequence of attacks - you have to understand the pattern of the boss. One boss may attack in a pattern when he's going to swing 3 times - when you have to dodge his attacks before even thinking about attacking back. Sometimes whether you dodge left, right, or backwards makes a difference (ie, a boss may have 6 telegraphed attack sequences - one one specific one you may need to dodge left for the first two attacks in the sequence and then right for the third).
Some sequences may not even have a counter-attack afterwards - you dodge until he telegraphs a new sequence and then give it a try another time. Sometimes they hit certain phases where their library of attacks or patterns change at a certain health level.
It becomes a game of dodging and counterattacking with extreme precision. While a few of the boss fights I won within 2-3 tries, certain ones took DOZENS of attempts over several days to complete.
I can completely understand if you say that you don't like that type of game - but I can't reasonably comprehend you saying that the reason for you not liking it is due it basically being a movie with no gameplay. Heck the story in those games is so subtle and nearly non-existent that you have to basically watch Youtube videos to even explain what's going on. It's nearly all gameplay and no story.
I think you underestimate the gameplay of the above games. PARTICULARLY Dark Souls or Bloodborne. If you think those are even remotely similar to "mashing the X button a lot" you're very mistaken. They're some of the most challenging AAA titles on the market.
I may be wrong, but I don't think it really is anymore. It came out of the gate with a lower price point due to XB One originally bundling Kinect. After they've ditched that though and MS has gotten XB One's price down below PS4's it seems to be picking up. I remember seeing several articles stating that XB One's outsold PS4 over Black Friday, and it may continue to do so over the rest of the holiday season.
At this point PS4 just has a fairly significant lead overall and any ground Microsoft has gained has been minimal - probably not enough get back into the lead in installed base for the remainder of the lifecycle.
Xbox One does have better price. Other than that there are a precious few exclusive titles but for the most part they're basically the same with most titles being available for both platforms - you can play a game on either and have mostly the same experience.
Honestly any serious gamer can just buy whichever one they feel like at first - for many that's already been PS4 because it INITIALLY had the price advantage, and then play all the cross platform games on that. After a few years when they've both gotten cheaper buy the other system to catch up on the back catalog of exclusives.
Loyalty to any single console is stupid.
So what you're saying is that the PS4 is a powerful console without games?
I think it may just be poorly phrased shock that you'd make such a comment, as for most people the PS4 lineup seems patently superior to Wii-U.
I've got both systems (and XBOne), and though the kids enjoy a few more games on the Wii-U, I'm basically stuck waiting on Zelda Breath of the Wild.
On PS4 I've got Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Uncharted 4, Until Dawn, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and quite a few more - with more on the way too (Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us 2, etc).
Granted, I'm sure it's subjective and based on what types of games you enjoy, but it's just hard to imagine anyone looking at the current console gen's library and thinking WiiU is the one with the good games.
Strange how you don't seem to feel the same when your "kind" is conservative or Republican.
I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.
Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.
Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.
He thinks finding ways around the law (like not paying taxes) is "smart".
Um, it is. I'd bet virtually every person here takes every deduction they can to reduce their tax burden. I don't know of anyone that voluntarily pays more taxes than they're legally obligated to. Trump simply - like most rich people - can afford to hire accountants good enough to reduce that tax rate more than most of us can. Sometimes down to zero.
I don't fault him or any rich person for that. It's what I'd do myself. The solution to this is to adjust the tax code to try and ELIMINATE the loopholes - not chastise people who legally take advantage of them. I wouldn't elect to office anyone who wasn't taking full advantage of the existing tax code. It means they're bad with money, and I don't see them managing public funds any more wisely than they managed their own.