The real frustration for us in our organizational roll out was that it would outright not run at all, bringing up some rather nasty error dialog. We did manage to fix it with DISM command line repair options, but that was an incredibly arduous process. What we did find is that some of the failures of Edge, Cortana and the Start Menu on some systems appears to have been botched upgrade of V2 roamin profiles to V5 profiles, although we had seen nothing like this on the few systems in the test bed that we had upgraded to 8/8.1. But even where we got Edge up and running, users pretty much revolted right away, so we just ended up throwing the enterprise version of Chrome as a distribution via GPO, and with the reasonably comprehensive ADMX file Google has provided, we could even do some tinkering to Chrome's functionality.
At this point, I can't imagine us even bothering with Edge. Even for our mobile users, I doubt the alleged difference in battery life could make up for how deficient it is. So, it goes in the same bucket IE did before. If someone really wants to use it, go to it, but our IT staff won't be supporting it.
Except Edge sucks so incredibly bad that even if it made my battery last three times as long I wouldn't use it. With great effort we've finally rolled out our default apps XML file through GPO settings to all but make Edge disappear, because that astonishingly terrible hunk of shit even wants to open PDF files by default.
You can't hold people responsible who had nothing to do with the crime. Shareholders have no direct power over most corporate decisions. The Board and management could potentially be held liable, to be sure, because they actually have governance and decision-making roles.
"Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity, so the claim Democrats are bigoted against "Christians" is absurd. Is there some reason you think Evangelicals are representative of all Christians? Even among Catholics, a church that takes a decidedly anti-gay and very firm anti-abortion stance, many Catholics in the US are decidedly Liberal. So really, there is no Democrat anti-Christian sentiment, there's a negative perspective of certain branches of Christianity.
And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.
What you're doing is committing the fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence.
The shareholders will be, at least in the short term, as the stock will take an inevitable hit. If VW is sufficiently pummeled in the courts, then the shareholders are likely to lose their entire investment.
And what the fuck do you think Donald Trump is, a modern day Ghandi? The man is a real estate scam artist who very likely massively overstated his wealth and business acumen.
Clinton will win. The GOP knows it, but it no longer has the will power to prevent his nomination.
Well, when your party is just about to nominate a man who has very little chance of actually becoming President, and worse, is likely to drive a wedge so deep between the major factions of the Republican party that it could deny the party the White House for several elections to come, yeah, I think that makes you bitter.
Everyone but the swirly eyed Trump supporters knows he can't beat Clinton. It's not clear that if the Dems had the love child of Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il as their candidate that Trump could beat them. The likelihood of him closing the substantial electoral college lead Clinton enjoys is extremely small, and if some of the swing states that went to Obama in 2012 wouldn't stick with Mitt Romney, what in the name of holy fuck do you think they're going to do with Trump?
About the only thing to look forward to now is the concession speech, which, I'm sure, will involve Trump making absurd threats, demanding recounts and committing to being back in four years to try again.
Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.
I can't think of a single candidate for president in my entire life that wasn't at the very least one of the lesser evils in some way. If you're walking away because voting for the better/less bad candidate seems like a compromise of principles, then you're not acting like an adult, but rather like a petulant child.
But what Trump and his supporters are railing against isn't a lack of free speech, it's the fact that there are consequences to saying certain things. What they really want is freedom from consequences. They want to say blatantly racist or bigoted things and not have anyone say "Hey wait a minute, that was horrible a prejudiced and wrong." They want CEOs to have the right to say "I hate homosexuals" and somehow not have boards of directors go "You're out of here."
No one is contesting anyone's right to say anything they want. Go for it. Say you hate Mexicans. Say you hate Muslims. Say you hate gay marriage. But to imagine that other members of society have to keep their mouths shut or that people can't condemn you for it, well that's not demanding free speech, that's demanding that only you have those kinds of freedoms, and everyone else just has to accept it and keep their mouths shut.
Trump doesn't represent some grand bastion of free speech. He represents an arrogant, rude, bigoted type of individual who wants to hold noxious beliefs, and then force everyone to simply pretend like the verbal diarrhea coming out of their mouth is just plain fine. So really it isn't about freedom of speech at all, it's about freedom from the consequences of speech.
Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to justify what amounts to laziness and apathy with what you think sounds like informed cynicism, but what to others sounds like playground-level petulance. When you boil it down, what you're really saying is a Cartmanesque "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Lloyd's work is extraordinary, still some of the most breathtaking stunts ever filmed.
I also think of Metropolis, with all its ingenious use of mirrors, camera angles, forced perspective and all the tricks of the day. Lang was a genius (as well as being one of the first directors for whom the epithets "tyrant" or "dictator" could be ascribed), and some of the shots, even in this age of over the top special effects, still seem very impressive. Again, it's because you have to ask yourself "How did he do that?"
Another phenomenal special effects film from the old days I highly recommend is The Thief of Bagdad. To ponder that this was all done through trick photography and editing gives you some idea of the skill of filmmakers in those days.
That may be part of it too. I compare the space battle for Star Wars Episode IV with Episode III, and you can see the problem. The final Death Star battle scene sequence feels a lot like a WWII air battle (I'm sure that was intentional). There are quite a few fighters, but not huge numbers, and the shots aren't filled with wall to wall laser blasts, explosions and other visual noise. Compare that to the opening battle of Episode III, and it's like watching a film directed by someone with ADD. And the reason is, of course, that with models, there's significant cost to having multiple models for a single dogfight, and even where you have just a few models, it takes effort to cut and edit together various shots to create the illusion of lots of spacecraft. With CGI, particularly as the technology matures, you can just make as many spaceships as you want, as many laser blasts as you want, as many explosions as you want. I like to refer to it as the Michael-baying of special effects. Shots are so short, and speeds so fast that it becomes incomprehensible. Craft no longer seem bound by the even iffy laws of physics as found in your average science fiction epic.
I've seen 2001 about seven times and I've never fallen asleep. A lot of Kubrick's work is like that, more contemplative and more willing to let a shot linger without trying to punch it up with dramatic sound tracks or explanatory dialogue.
Trumbull is a master was special effects, and nowhere is this seen better than 2001. After all these years, it still remains the most accurate portrayal of space ever made. The only jarring part, and this can't be pinned on Trumbull, is the scenes on the Moon where no one shows any indication they're walking on the Moon itself. But the docking scenes and the various scenes in and around Discovery are still breathtaking.
But it is true that using actual physical special effects can create some unique film events. My favorite is the scene in ET where Elliot reveals ET to his older brother. The actor playing the brother was not actually informed of how ET was going to be revealed, so the shock you see on his face is very real. If ET was just a digitally-created image edited into the footage in post-production, it's probable you wouldn't get quite the same response, particularly from child actors.
To some extent that was also my observation watching The Force Awakens. The first scene from A New Hope, with the Rebel space ship being attacked by the vaster Star Destroyer still works really well, but the space scenes in the new film, and indeed in the Prequels, just don't have the same feel. The shadows being cast on the craft seem more real, because, well, they are. I also recently rewatched Star Trek The Motion Picture, and the way refurbished Enterprise was revealed was pretty breathtaking in a way that the reboots weren't. The Enterprise seems more cartoonish in the reboots, and less like a physical object.
About where I lost all desire to watch any more episodes was when it was "revealed" (retconned) that all the spiritualistic and telepathic Vulcans were some sort of cult a century before TOS. It was absurd to imagine that by the TOS period, a culture of ritualized logic had arisen from a small rump of what would have been in the Enterprise era a pack of hippy kooks was absurd. I'm thinking about the importance of the High Priestess T'Pau in TOS and her successors in the later ST shows and films and just can't square the circle.
Here's a tip. Gays can have children, and they can even raise them.
The rest is just fevered nonsense. Homosexuals at best represent 10% of the population, so they're not a threat to the future. You're just looking for reasons to support your hatred.
Ah, I do feel sorry for you and your obsessive hatred of homosexuals. Well, look at it this way, you'll be dead in a few decades, and they won't bother you with their existence any more.
In the meantime, I recommend watching reruns of 1950s and 1960s television shows, you know, where people do the proper thing and have sex via two beds separated by three feet and no one ever has an attraction to someone of their gender. You're clearly too immature and reactionary to deal with the real world, so I recommend you sink further into your bigotry and fantasies.
I actually enjoy The Motion Picture now. The problem is that if you watch TOS and then jump to TMP, it's pretty jarring. Still, it's an exposition-heavy film that seems more akin to 2001 than to TOS.
Wrath of Khan is obviously the best, but TMP isn't bad at all.
Voyager failed because the writers could never really decide what it was about at all. Between that lack of focus, the worst excesses of the TNG world, and a lot of characters no one could give a damn about it, it never clicked.
Enterprise failed precisely because it didn't try to replicate TOS at all. Well, I hear the final season was alright, but by that point I'd lost all interest and really couldn't be bothered even now to check it out. Enterprise could have been a very interesting show, and the few episodes where it did actually concern itself with explaining how things got to be where they were by the time of TOS were high points. But most of the time, it just never really felt like Star Trek at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The real frustration for us in our organizational roll out was that it would outright not run at all, bringing up some rather nasty error dialog. We did manage to fix it with DISM command line repair options, but that was an incredibly arduous process. What we did find is that some of the failures of Edge, Cortana and the Start Menu on some systems appears to have been botched upgrade of V2 roamin profiles to V5 profiles, although we had seen nothing like this on the few systems in the test bed that we had upgraded to 8/8.1. But even where we got Edge up and running, users pretty much revolted right away, so we just ended up throwing the enterprise version of Chrome as a distribution via GPO, and with the reasonably comprehensive ADMX file Google has provided, we could even do some tinkering to Chrome's functionality.
At this point, I can't imagine us even bothering with Edge. Even for our mobile users, I doubt the alleged difference in battery life could make up for how deficient it is. So, it goes in the same bucket IE did before. If someone really wants to use it, go to it, but our IT staff won't be supporting it.
Except Edge sucks so incredibly bad that even if it made my battery last three times as long I wouldn't use it. With great effort we've finally rolled out our default apps XML file through GPO settings to all but make Edge disappear, because that astonishingly terrible hunk of shit even wants to open PDF files by default.
You can't hold people responsible who had nothing to do with the crime. Shareholders have no direct power over most corporate decisions. The Board and management could potentially be held liable, to be sure, because they actually have governance and decision-making roles.
"Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity, so the claim Democrats are bigoted against "Christians" is absurd. Is there some reason you think Evangelicals are representative of all Christians? Even among Catholics, a church that takes a decidedly anti-gay and very firm anti-abortion stance, many Catholics in the US are decidedly Liberal. So really, there is no Democrat anti-Christian sentiment, there's a negative perspective of certain branches of Christianity.
And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.
What you're doing is committing the fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence.
If VW willfully violated some states environmental laws, then why shouldn't those states seek redress?
The shareholders will be, at least in the short term, as the stock will take an inevitable hit. If VW is sufficiently pummeled in the courts, then the shareholders are likely to lose their entire investment.
And what the fuck do you think Donald Trump is, a modern day Ghandi? The man is a real estate scam artist who very likely massively overstated his wealth and business acumen.
Clinton will win. The GOP knows it, but it no longer has the will power to prevent his nomination.
Well, when your party is just about to nominate a man who has very little chance of actually becoming President, and worse, is likely to drive a wedge so deep between the major factions of the Republican party that it could deny the party the White House for several elections to come, yeah, I think that makes you bitter.
Everyone but the swirly eyed Trump supporters knows he can't beat Clinton. It's not clear that if the Dems had the love child of Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il as their candidate that Trump could beat them. The likelihood of him closing the substantial electoral college lead Clinton enjoys is extremely small, and if some of the swing states that went to Obama in 2012 wouldn't stick with Mitt Romney, what in the name of holy fuck do you think they're going to do with Trump?
About the only thing to look forward to now is the concession speech, which, I'm sure, will involve Trump making absurd threats, demanding recounts and committing to being back in four years to try again.
Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.
I can't think of a single candidate for president in my entire life that wasn't at the very least one of the lesser evils in some way. If you're walking away because voting for the better/less bad candidate seems like a compromise of principles, then you're not acting like an adult, but rather like a petulant child.
I love all these washed celebrities who suddenly love Trump. "I totally support Donald Trump, and I'm also available for birthdays and bar mitzvahs."
It's almost like Trump can't find any real substantive supporters.
But what Trump and his supporters are railing against isn't a lack of free speech, it's the fact that there are consequences to saying certain things. What they really want is freedom from consequences. They want to say blatantly racist or bigoted things and not have anyone say "Hey wait a minute, that was horrible a prejudiced and wrong." They want CEOs to have the right to say "I hate homosexuals" and somehow not have boards of directors go "You're out of here."
No one is contesting anyone's right to say anything they want. Go for it. Say you hate Mexicans. Say you hate Muslims. Say you hate gay marriage. But to imagine that other members of society have to keep their mouths shut or that people can't condemn you for it, well that's not demanding free speech, that's demanding that only you have those kinds of freedoms, and everyone else just has to accept it and keep their mouths shut.
Trump doesn't represent some grand bastion of free speech. He represents an arrogant, rude, bigoted type of individual who wants to hold noxious beliefs, and then force everyone to simply pretend like the verbal diarrhea coming out of their mouth is just plain fine. So really it isn't about freedom of speech at all, it's about freedom from the consequences of speech.
Jessica Jones dull? David Tenant plays one of the most vile and twisted villains I've ever seen.
I guess that depends. We need to ask congressman Steve King of Iowa if they're the right subgroup of robot.
Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to justify what amounts to laziness and apathy with what you think sounds like informed cynicism, but what to others sounds like playground-level petulance. When you boil it down, what you're really saying is a Cartmanesque "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Lloyd's work is extraordinary, still some of the most breathtaking stunts ever filmed.
I also think of Metropolis, with all its ingenious use of mirrors, camera angles, forced perspective and all the tricks of the day. Lang was a genius (as well as being one of the first directors for whom the epithets "tyrant" or "dictator" could be ascribed), and some of the shots, even in this age of over the top special effects, still seem very impressive. Again, it's because you have to ask yourself "How did he do that?"
Another phenomenal special effects film from the old days I highly recommend is The Thief of Bagdad. To ponder that this was all done through trick photography and editing gives you some idea of the skill of filmmakers in those days.
That may be part of it too. I compare the space battle for Star Wars Episode IV with Episode III, and you can see the problem. The final Death Star battle scene sequence feels a lot like a WWII air battle (I'm sure that was intentional). There are quite a few fighters, but not huge numbers, and the shots aren't filled with wall to wall laser blasts, explosions and other visual noise. Compare that to the opening battle of Episode III, and it's like watching a film directed by someone with ADD. And the reason is, of course, that with models, there's significant cost to having multiple models for a single dogfight, and even where you have just a few models, it takes effort to cut and edit together various shots to create the illusion of lots of spacecraft. With CGI, particularly as the technology matures, you can just make as many spaceships as you want, as many laser blasts as you want, as many explosions as you want. I like to refer to it as the Michael-baying of special effects. Shots are so short, and speeds so fast that it becomes incomprehensible. Craft no longer seem bound by the even iffy laws of physics as found in your average science fiction epic.
I've seen 2001 about seven times and I've never fallen asleep. A lot of Kubrick's work is like that, more contemplative and more willing to let a shot linger without trying to punch it up with dramatic sound tracks or explanatory dialogue.
Trumbull is a master was special effects, and nowhere is this seen better than 2001. After all these years, it still remains the most accurate portrayal of space ever made. The only jarring part, and this can't be pinned on Trumbull, is the scenes on the Moon where no one shows any indication they're walking on the Moon itself. But the docking scenes and the various scenes in and around Discovery are still breathtaking.
But it is true that using actual physical special effects can create some unique film events. My favorite is the scene in ET where Elliot reveals ET to his older brother. The actor playing the brother was not actually informed of how ET was going to be revealed, so the shock you see on his face is very real. If ET was just a digitally-created image edited into the footage in post-production, it's probable you wouldn't get quite the same response, particularly from child actors.
To some extent that was also my observation watching The Force Awakens. The first scene from A New Hope, with the Rebel space ship being attacked by the vaster Star Destroyer still works really well, but the space scenes in the new film, and indeed in the Prequels, just don't have the same feel. The shadows being cast on the craft seem more real, because, well, they are. I also recently rewatched Star Trek The Motion Picture, and the way refurbished Enterprise was revealed was pretty breathtaking in a way that the reboots weren't. The Enterprise seems more cartoonish in the reboots, and less like a physical object.
About where I lost all desire to watch any more episodes was when it was "revealed" (retconned) that all the spiritualistic and telepathic Vulcans were some sort of cult a century before TOS. It was absurd to imagine that by the TOS period, a culture of ritualized logic had arisen from a small rump of what would have been in the Enterprise era a pack of hippy kooks was absurd. I'm thinking about the importance of the High Priestess T'Pau in TOS and her successors in the later ST shows and films and just can't square the circle.
Here's a tip. Gays can have children, and they can even raise them.
The rest is just fevered nonsense. Homosexuals at best represent 10% of the population, so they're not a threat to the future. You're just looking for reasons to support your hatred.
Ah, I do feel sorry for you and your obsessive hatred of homosexuals. Well, look at it this way, you'll be dead in a few decades, and they won't bother you with their existence any more.
In the meantime, I recommend watching reruns of 1950s and 1960s television shows, you know, where people do the proper thing and have sex via two beds separated by three feet and no one ever has an attraction to someone of their gender. You're clearly too immature and reactionary to deal with the real world, so I recommend you sink further into your bigotry and fantasies.
I actually enjoy The Motion Picture now. The problem is that if you watch TOS and then jump to TMP, it's pretty jarring. Still, it's an exposition-heavy film that seems more akin to 2001 than to TOS.
Wrath of Khan is obviously the best, but TMP isn't bad at all.
Yeah, ST was never the same since it started showing equality among the races! Curse you, you hippy bastard Roddenberry!
Voyager failed because the writers could never really decide what it was about at all. Between that lack of focus, the worst excesses of the TNG world, and a lot of characters no one could give a damn about it, it never clicked.
Enterprise failed precisely because it didn't try to replicate TOS at all. Well, I hear the final season was alright, but by that point I'd lost all interest and really couldn't be bothered even now to check it out. Enterprise could have been a very interesting show, and the few episodes where it did actually concern itself with explaining how things got to be where they were by the time of TOS were high points. But most of the time, it just never really felt like Star Trek at all.