Compare to the first appearance of Yoda, pretending to be a silly little muppet who will guide Luke to the great Jedi before revealing that he's it. I think the reason it didn't work is that Lucas went overboard with it - had the reveal happened in the first movie as a cliffhanger, it would have explained why Jar Jar had such amazing "luck", and turned the so-stupid-you-hate-him character into Keyser Söze on steroids.
I must presume that you first saw it later, on video, where you could rewind the VHS and watch it over and over and over. Those of us who saw it brand new that first week, in a theater with 500 other maniacs leaping to their feet and cheering when the Falcon reappears, didn't think they were so terrible.
What happens if large objects collide *slowly* (at least, slowly with respect to each other, they could both be moving fast relative to other objects, like stock cars trading paint)? Crunch the surface layer, release lots of particulate and dust, change the spin, cause extinctions over multiple years of horribly changed weather (maybe with extra acid rain or other trace chemicals) rather than one huge explosion. I'm a computer systems engineer, not mechanical or geological; maybe I've slipped a decimal point or two on the back of this envelope.
On the other hand, maybe something REALLY HUGE cracked the planet into the separate tectonic plates. Comparing it to the largest single meteorite that humans have found, on land, and recognized for what it was, leaves out all of the underwater area and things not recognized (assumed to be part of mountain ranges or other terrain). Random collisions might also explain why the different planets all have different axial tilts, despite being in (pretty much) the same plane of rotation around the sun. I believe that humans have a problem comprehending the immensity of forces involved and the insignificance of any particular life form.
You don't actually think he MEANT it, do you? He says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, and in the tech world of open offices and continual collaboration and CEOs in cubicles, "no chain of command" sounds good. Except he's the effing President, and he's assigning jobs and choosing meetings, and it's pretty clear who commands.
Looking for a way to satisfy the balance of safety vs. ownership. Would it be enough to:
- limit charging to some maximum percentage (maybe 80%)
- limit the charging rate (no fast charging)
- limit the amount of time per charge (with some enforced delay between charging periods)
Break aim and fire into the floor to show you're serious - and too stupid to consider the danger of a ricochet. If a police officer had done it, they would call it a "warning shot". But since it was a random citizen pointing a weapon at another random citizen, it's assault with a deadly weapon, followed by the discharge of a firearm within city limits, reckless endangerment, reckless handling of a firearm, and a bunch of other citations for which the moron should be locked up.
Less judgemental: If a person carries a rifle and several handguns into a pizzeria, and points a weapon at people, and fires a weapon within the city limits of a city with strict gun laws, that person has committed assault with a deadly weapon (and some lesser crimes). Period. Doesn't matter why.
How about "hoaxes"? Or "lies", possibly including "slander"? We don't need to make up new words,any more than we needed "identity theft" to describe "fraud by impersonation" or "criminal impersonation".
It was the best comprehensive collection of information at the time it was published, and it's all still valid (if somewhat dated as far as specific examples). What has changed is the tradeoffs and power of systems. If you're not doing tiny/cheap embedded applications, you don't care about economizing quite as much. OTOH the concepts of algorithmic complexity are even more important than before because of the huge scale of online systems.
Interesting problem. As the original photographer *and* releaser-of-rights, one would think that she had the BEST claim that they were RELEASED. Or does one have to say that she would be the best WITNESS that they were released, on someone else's behalf?
I saw Stephen Colbert and John Oliver doing an "interview" last night, at a benefit for the Montclair Film Festival. (It was originally planned as an election recap, but that would have been too sore a subject...) In response to an audience question about "fake news", Colbert said (not claiming a precise quote here) that the term is being misused: "it's not fake news, it's just lying". "The Daily Show", Jon Stewart, SNL, and many other comedians beforehand have categorized "fake news" - topical humor on current events, and more recently on the news media itself - for years. The current discussion is about so-called news items that are simply false, or contain simple falsehoods because the real person being quoted said something simply false. At best people are woefully misinformed; at worst, they know better and are deliberately lying.
I'm sure that many followers of homeopathy will assume that Big Government is in collusion with Big Pharma here.
Also let's all make sure to keep the distinction between "herbalism", which is about natural-source drugs, and "homeopathy", which is about less being more somehow. They are often lumped together.
On the contrary. The studio-system Golden Age and its associated constant gossip-factory was always about people hooking up while working intensely together on a project. It's like a "shipboard romance" (a term that has vanished with air travel) - people together for the week of an Atlantic crossing.
I bicycle. Never wear earplugs or have music/phone on. I have had Prius or Tesla come up alongside with no warning whatsoever because they're so damn quiet. Startles the crap out of me.
You're being willfully ignorant, or denying reality. Obama pushed all kinds of things, and was blocked on all fronts through rules-lawyering. The problem is there was no compromise. This particular candidate was NOT the first choice; Obama went directly to a compromise candidate who had been praised by Republicans when they approved him for a lower position. The contrast between that earlier praise, and the current refusal to even TALK to or about him, should have generated enough outrage from both sides to get SOMETHING achieved; but we have gotten so used to this complete dysfunctional Congress that the issue just died. I'll agree with you, Obama expected the can to be kicked down the road, but HE didn't do it; he made an offer and the OTHER side did it. But nobody cares.
there's a certain legitimacy to those sites even if it's known that they are heavily left-leaning.
Left-leaning is not fake - and "leaning" either way is acceptable when it is open and honest. For example, I trust The Wall Street Journal to be consistent and thorough, knowing that they will be biased towards big business because that's their audience. The New Yorker, on the other hand, does well-researched reporting with a liberal focus, and is also consistent and thorough, because that is their audience. The problem is when something claims to be factual, or balanced, when it is not.
"Merely"? Would you like to be specially registered and have a special ID card? Hands up everyone who would like to be on a special government list? No, I didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Jump to the left, then a step to the right is how it goes. Or should I say "went"?
No, it still goes. ;-) And if you ever have a chance to see "Saucy Jack and the Space Vixens", take it.
Go listen to "Thanksgiving" by Paul and Storm https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Compare to the first appearance of Yoda, pretending to be a silly little muppet who will guide Luke to the great Jedi before revealing that he's it. I think the reason it didn't work is that Lucas went overboard with it - had the reveal happened in the first movie as a cliffhanger, it would have explained why Jar Jar had such amazing "luck", and turned the so-stupid-you-hate-him character into Keyser Söze on steroids.
I must presume that you first saw it later, on video, where you could rewind the VHS and watch it over and over and over. Those of us who saw it brand new that first week, in a theater with 500 other maniacs leaping to their feet and cheering when the Falcon reappears, didn't think they were so terrible.
What happens if large objects collide *slowly* (at least, slowly with respect to each other, they could both be moving fast relative to other objects, like stock cars trading paint)? Crunch the surface layer, release lots of particulate and dust, change the spin, cause extinctions over multiple years of horribly changed weather (maybe with extra acid rain or other trace chemicals) rather than one huge explosion. I'm a computer systems engineer, not mechanical or geological; maybe I've slipped a decimal point or two on the back of this envelope.
On the other hand, maybe something REALLY HUGE cracked the planet into the separate tectonic plates. Comparing it to the largest single meteorite that humans have found, on land, and recognized for what it was, leaves out all of the underwater area and things not recognized (assumed to be part of mountain ranges or other terrain). Random collisions might also explain why the different planets all have different axial tilts, despite being in (pretty much) the same plane of rotation around the sun. I believe that humans have a problem comprehending the immensity of forces involved and the insignificance of any particular life form.
Only old people like us.
You don't actually think he MEANT it, do you? He says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, and in the tech world of open offices and continual collaboration and CEOs in cubicles, "no chain of command" sounds good. Except he's the effing President, and he's assigning jobs and choosing meetings, and it's pretty clear who commands.
Snowflakes are ANYBODY who think that they're special and unique and [diety's-name]'s gift to the world, and exempt from the rules.
Looking for a way to satisfy the balance of safety vs. ownership. Would it be enough to:
- limit charging to some maximum percentage (maybe 80%)
- limit the charging rate (no fast charging)
- limit the amount of time per charge (with some enforced delay between charging periods)
Break aim and fire into the floor to show you're serious - and too stupid to consider the danger of a ricochet. If a police officer had done it, they would call it a "warning shot". But since it was a random citizen pointing a weapon at another random citizen, it's assault with a deadly weapon, followed by the discharge of a firearm within city limits, reckless endangerment, reckless handling of a firearm, and a bunch of other citations for which the moron should be locked up.
Less judgemental: If a person carries a rifle and several handguns into a pizzeria, and points a weapon at people, and fires a weapon within the city limits of a city with strict gun laws, that person has committed assault with a deadly weapon (and some lesser crimes). Period. Doesn't matter why.
How about "hoaxes"? Or "lies", possibly including "slander"? We don't need to make up new words,any more than we needed "identity theft" to describe "fraud by impersonation" or "criminal impersonation".
It was the best comprehensive collection of information at the time it was published, and it's all still valid (if somewhat dated as far as specific examples). What has changed is the tradeoffs and power of systems. If you're not doing tiny/cheap embedded applications, you don't care about economizing quite as much. OTOH the concepts of algorithmic complexity are even more important than before because of the huge scale of online systems.
Interesting problem. As the original photographer *and* releaser-of-rights, one would think that she had the BEST claim that they were RELEASED. Or does one have to say that she would be the best WITNESS that they were released, on someone else's behalf?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/2...
I saw Stephen Colbert and John Oliver doing an "interview" last night, at a benefit for the Montclair Film Festival. (It was originally planned as an election recap, but that would have been too sore a subject ...) In response to an audience question about "fake news", Colbert said (not claiming a precise quote here) that the term is being misused: "it's not fake news, it's just lying". "The Daily Show", Jon Stewart, SNL, and many other comedians beforehand have categorized "fake news" - topical humor on current events, and more recently on the news media itself - for years. The current discussion is about so-called news items that are simply false, or contain simple falsehoods because the real person being quoted said something simply false. At best people are woefully misinformed; at worst, they know better and are deliberately lying.
I'm sure that many followers of homeopathy will assume that Big Government is in collusion with Big Pharma here.
Also let's all make sure to keep the distinction between "herbalism", which is about natural-source drugs, and "homeopathy", which is about less being more somehow. They are often lumped together.
On the contrary. The studio-system Golden Age and its associated constant gossip-factory was always about people hooking up while working intensely together on a project. It's like a "shipboard romance" (a term that has vanished with air travel) - people together for the week of an Atlantic crossing.
Are we really supposed to believe that the 4 year presidency term is actually several months shorter than that?
The Republicans certainly believed that when it came to approving judgeship appointments . . . .
I bicycle. Never wear earplugs or have music/phone on. I have had Prius or Tesla come up alongside with no warning whatsoever because they're so damn quiet. Startles the crap out of me.
You're being willfully ignorant, or denying reality. Obama pushed all kinds of things, and was blocked on all fronts through rules-lawyering. The problem is there was no compromise. This particular candidate was NOT the first choice; Obama went directly to a compromise candidate who had been praised by Republicans when they approved him for a lower position. The contrast between that earlier praise, and the current refusal to even TALK to or about him, should have generated enough outrage from both sides to get SOMETHING achieved; but we have gotten so used to this complete dysfunctional Congress that the issue just died. I'll agree with you, Obama expected the can to be kicked down the road, but HE didn't do it; he made an offer and the OTHER side did it. But nobody cares.
there's a certain legitimacy to those sites even if it's known that they are heavily left-leaning.
Left-leaning is not fake - and "leaning" either way is acceptable when it is open and honest. For example, I trust The Wall Street Journal to be consistent and thorough, knowing that they will be biased towards big business because that's their audience. The New Yorker, on the other hand, does well-researched reporting with a liberal focus, and is also consistent and thorough, because that is their audience. The problem is when something claims to be factual, or balanced, when it is not.
Let the readers do their own filtering. They do anyway.
I believe you have hit the nail on the thumb: The overriding problem is that THEY DON'T. Or that their filtering criteria do not include "reality".
"Merely"? Would you like to be specially registered and have a special ID card? Hands up everyone who would like to be on a special government list? No, I didn't think so.