"California Bounces Back As Worldâ(TM)s 7th Largest Economy, Larger Than Brazil"
There's really a knife's edge dividing the 5th and below economies. California could easily become the 4th largest with a small increase.
However, it's unlikely to exceed that of the U.S., China, Germany, and Japan. Especially since any gains it sees will also increase the U.S. so by definition, it can never be #1.
I'm not finding a lot of support for the california doom and gloom scenario.
I'm a texan who's been to california once in my life so no axe to grind here.
Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas. http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...
Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014. http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...
It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.
Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.
It was more entertaining in the way an autotuned song sounds better than a real song.
As I thought bout the Force Awakens, it's not holding up well. It didn't do so hot in the theater ( a "9/10" for the first half, a "4/10" for the predictable remake of a second half). Now I rate it about a "8/10" for the first half and a "4/10" for the second half.
I suspect it will be entertaining but pointless.
Lucas had something to say- he was just a terrible director.
It will improve but if you were to put a billion dollars into solar panels, you would see a fifth the amount of solar actually built there which changes the cost/benefit equation substantially.
Plus it becomes a massive target for attacks and blackmail over attacks. You could patrol and militarize the region but that would cost money and change the cost/benefit again.
And... some of the dunes in the sahara are 75 stories tall and they drift around and could cover your facility if left unchecked.
And finally, creating that much shade under the panels would probably change the microclimate. You might see changes under the panels- life taking a foothold in the shade. Not sure what unintended consequenes that might have.
When one side starts using the media to carry out murders, to recruit people to carry out murders, I think you can reasonably draw a line there just as you can draw a line at shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.
It's difficult to do that however when the language is constantly changing- urban slang/code words- alternate meanings for words which you thought you knew what they meant- talking around the subject such that people know what you mean- and talking medium/mildly radical to attrack and set up private discussions which are much more radical.
The constant mass murders by ISIS and their agents is going to push freedom of speech pretty hard. The west has suspended freedom of speech before in time of war and this is just one incident away from blowing back up into a hot war.
The absolute death rate in the west remains well below many accidental forms of death but the intent behind the killings is chilling. As John Cleese said, you can't joke about islam because they'll kill you. The murder of Theo van Gogh was specifically targeted at freedom of speech. The mass murder at Charley Hebdo was specifically targeted at freedom of speech.
It seems a tiny step from Twitter starting with obviously evil message to including irritating, insulting free speech. And then from there to simply disagreeable speech.
But you can't ignore people when they are shooting you on the street and then taking out a big knife and trying to saw your head off right there in the streets of a 1st world country until the bone stops the knife.
I've seen some theory suggestion that Jar Jar is really as old as Yoda. If so, he's a secret survivor that Darth Bane didn't know about so he would have been sneaky even when young.
I've also seen items suggesting that he is the equivalent of the "Mule" from Asimov's foundation series. He sits in the background and steers the galaxy to benefit him but never takes a lead or does anything obvious or directly.
And finally, George had a yin/yang thing going in the prequels which had darkness in the light (Mace for one example) and it's possible that Jar Jar is not stupid/completely evil like most Sith. So he would be okay with bad things happening but he doesn't want to burn down the whole galaxy. Jar Jar might even the equivalent of Luke and found a third path outside of the dark and the light but coming from a dark side perspective.
I like to think that he and yoda would have had a philosophical discussion and Jar Jar would have reluctantly decided he had to kill Yoda after failing to sway him rather than they simply set at each other. But then a nice drunken fist vs yoda battle with Jar Jar either slain or escaping wounded back into the shadows.
The difference is that in New Hope Lucas directly addresses those points in the movie.
The movie says that... Luke is already an experienced and qualified flyer with years of experience flying in a narrow canyons at high speed firing at 2 meter targets with a mounted weapon.
Biggs tells the rebellion, "Luke is the best brush pilot in the galaxy". Luke says it's no different than shooting Womp Rats in the canyons back home.
Extending to a filmed but deleted scene.. Biggs also says to Luke (in a deleted but filmed scene in a bar on Tatooine) "You may be the hottest bush pilot this side of Mos Eisley, Luke, but those little skyhoppers can be dangerous. They move awfully fast for tropospheric craft "faster than they need to. Keep playing engine jockey with one and someday, whammo! You're going to be nothing more than a dark spot on the damp side of a canyon wall."
Extending to the Star Wars Wikia.. The T-16 Skyhopper "Even so, these airspeeders were often used as training vehicles by the Rebel Alliance, due to the fact that their flight controls were similar to those of X-wings. "
Thermal Exhaust Port http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... [wikia.com] "The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system." - Jan Dodonna on the attack on the first Death Star
So Luke spent his misguided youth flying at high speeds down canyons shooting at moving 2 meter targets with a mounted youth in a craft with the same control system as X-Wings.
And the mission was to fly down a dangerous canyon at high speed and fire at a 2 meter target with a mounted weapon! Sounds tailor made! lol.
To be fair, he didn't really dog fight either. He flew in and did a bombing run.
--
If Rey and done anything or they said anything in the movie to justify her massive immediate mastery of the force, it would have helped a lot. As I said above, a trivial example would have been a scene of her force leaping in the ruins of the StarDestroyer. Another trivial example would have been a scene of her mind controlling the food vendor for a little extra food.
But instead there was nothing. It was as bad as Chris Pine in Star Trek. A completely unqualified, untrained person drops into the role and out performs people with years more experience and training. I know from experience in the SCA that someone with even a few months training and experience is going to cut a novice to pieces in seconds. You have no muscle memory. You have no reflexes. And you have no clue.
And neither did Rey.
Fin... was less clear. He was trained and experienced and probably had several kinds of martial arts training which might have included Kendo. But to show him getting owned by another storm trooper and then holding his own against Kylo Ren was dubious. He should have show skill and won the battle against the storm trooper and then he would have had more credibility. But at least he wasn't un credible. Just a bit of a stretch.
Look- it's easy to find a video of Tarantino saying these things directly and personally. Tarantino puts it on Disney, not on the theaters. I think he'd know.
Biggs tells the rebellion, "Luke is the best brush pilot in the galaxy" and he knows how to fly tight combat situations having flown his T-16 Skyhopper in Beggars Canyon hunting Womp Rats which are the same size as the exhaust port.
In a deleted scene... "You may be the hottest bush pilot this side of Mos Eisley, Luke, but those little skyhoppers can be dangerous. They move awfully fast for tropospheric craftâ"faster than they need to. Keep playing engine jockey with one and someday, whammo! You're going to be nothing more than a dark spot on the damp side of a canyon wall." âBiggs Darklighter to Luke Skywalker[src]
Where it says... "Even so, these airspeeders were often used as training vehicles by the Rebel Alliance, due to the fact that their flight controls were similar to those of X-wings. "
Thermal Exhaust Port http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... "The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system."
âJan Dodonna on the attack on the first Death Star[src]
So apparently Luke is already a trained flyer with years of experience flying in a dangerous canyon at high speed firing at 2 meter targets with a mounted weapon (on his T-16 Skyhopper).
So the mission is to fly down a dangerous canyon at high speed and fire at a 2 meter target with a mounted weapon! Sounds tailor made! lol.
There is no "real" problem. In the real world, problems are complex and have multiple causes.
I hated the prequels and view lucas as a terrible director but I can also see thru the mess to the design and what Lucas was shooting for. Great storyteller, extremely good secrets and reveals, terrible director who did repeated takes giving his actors no clue what he wanted, and surrounded by yes men during the prequels.
This is a constructed work autotuned with the basic elements audiences like. It's not a real story any more. It will probably end as well as Lost or the X-Files. i.e. just kinda dribble off with no point.. but dang it sure feels nice.
Like those set chords of music they play to manipulate your emotions or laugh tracks to provoke you to laugh.
Look- I'm not even saying it was a bad movie and I'd give it a rating of a 6 (8 for the first half, 4 for the second half). But it's not sitting well. Too many things about the movie bother me and feel unbelievable (even in a science fiction/fantasy setting).
If it helps, it's not just a female lead thing. Chris Pine (and everyone else in the star trek reboots) outperformed people with years more experience and training. I think JJ feels that young people want the young protagonists to be successful and don't want to see someone of a reasonable age to reflect the required skills and experience.
And things just happened with no prior foreshadowing or explanation.
Only to be outdone when things happened so predictably that my audience was voicing what was going to happen before it happened.
"Oh they'll find a weakness" "oh that person's going to kill that person", etc.
If it wasn't star wars, it would not be getting such a good reception.
But.. it does at least feel right for the first half.
Yea this bothered me. If Finn had shown ANY skill during the fight with the storm trooper earlier then perhaps I would have believed he could last more than a few seconds before Kylo cut off an arm or cut him in half.
JJ Abrahms has this problem since star trek. You have a young person with years less experience and training and they consistently outperform everyone else. It destroys my sense of disbelief.
All they had to do was show Rey using force jumps in the ruins and mine control on the food vendor-- and it MIGHT have been remotely credible. But she makes more progress in half a movie (and years less time in the story) than Luke AND Anakin did with training by masters, field experience, and a lot of time.
It's not incredible... it's simply not credible.
Kylo Ren had been trained by a master jedi for years and then went on to serve on the dark side for so long that his master was partially forgotten and partially legendary (at least a decade per the portrayal in the movie itself).
--- But I agree the first half of the movie *felt* good. It was meticulously tuned to push the right buttons and say the right things. The second half.. well predictable would be too kind a word. You know what they would say and what they would do before the characters even said it themselves. It was simply lame.
No, actually Tarantino had contracts and Disney said "Okay fine, we'll just pull Star Wars from your theater.. or maybe your entire theater chain."
It was an asshat move.
I suspect Hateful 8 is actually going to be a better and more memorable film that maybe even sorta has something new in it unlike the entire last half of the star wars movie.
You know how you can recite the lines of a film you've seen several times before-- like Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Star wars-- you could recite the lines on the first viewing in the 2nd half of the film. It was just that predictable. You saw what was coming and what the actors would say before they actually did and said it. Abrahms didn't even try to subvert it a little bit. You know-- set it up and then not do it- and then do it later by surprise? You got "In the next scene we are going from A to F".... "A B C D E F.' -cut-
Hateful 8 was unable to even open in Houston due to Disney's strong arm tactics.
The best way I can find to explain how I felt after thinking about the film was that it has been "autotuned".
It feels right and great (at least the first half) while you are in the theatre.
But it doesn't feel right later when you start thinking about it.
Some people will be satisfied with the feeling of the first half and not too bothered by the retread of a retread of a retread of a second half but unless the next film is better this is not going to be very rewatchable.
You don't want to see it as I saw it- through less than new 3-d glasses which had a kind of haze around the edge near the frame that couldn't be cleaned with waiters walking back and forth in front of you-- stopping twice to tell us the bar was closing soon.
I started to feel like "Get the "F" off of me and out of my view-line!"
Bottom line is- I feel this movie is a designed corporate film where young people who lack experience and training beat people with years of experience and training ( Sounds like Star Trek already right?) and it tosses out 30 years of canon and 50% reboots the series.
http://www.popcenter.org/probl... Quote: "Pedestrian injury is the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children ages five to 14.50 The âoedart-outâ phenomenon, where children quickly enter traffic from between parked cars, is one major factor that has contributed to 80 percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes involving children aged six to eight from 1983 to 1990.51 In addition to the âoe dart-outâ phenomenon, several other factors could put children and teens at higher risk:
Walking is a major form of transportation for children.
Children frequently donâ(TM)t pay attention to traffic conditions.
Childrenâ(TM)s height makes them difficult to see.
Teens can be at high risk when in groups (for example, since teens often travel in groups, they might be more prone to âoeherd mentalityâ). " If the automated car responds instantaneously without any analysis it will still take it 43 feet to stop a car going 30mph. That's why we use 20mph in school zones.
The situation must be programmed for.
You can either give that right up to the programmers at Lexus or you could have the ability to choose to risk hitting a fixed object at various speeds to save a human being's life. Since you can die at 30mph (unlikely but it happens many times every year in the U.S.) that means it's not automatically immoral to express a preference to brake instead of avoiding hitting a person in a way that might kill you.
Say a child runs into the street from a blind spot.
Should you brake hard, avoid the child and hit the parked car the child came from behind at 30mph or should you plow thru the child or should you swerve into the opposite lane and have a headon collision with another vehicle at a closing speed of 70mph?
Manypeople would avoid the child instinctually and hit the car. Another large group would go full braking mode and hit the child at 30mph. Very few would swerve into a headon collision.
Is to allow the driver to answer a set of preferences including the question of should the car give higher priority to preserving other lives or the drivers.
Then it's the driver's choice just as it would be if they were driving the car.
In any case, glad this abusive, corrupting program was shut down.
A time article on John Oliver's influence including noting his show on civil forfeiture. Here's an article where you could read that he had an effect on CF...
Quote: After the increased exposure given to the issue by the (Washington) Post and Oliver, Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that he would enact major limitations on the law.
It sounds what is lacking is legal documentation of her permanent consent and that the judge is saying default consent within a relationship is within the relationship.
This sounds related to "prenuptial" agreements to me.
If he had gotten her to sign a model's consent form and specified how she was being compensated for the images and videos, then his rights would be permanent.
But what of any 3rd party they may have had sex with? What if they also have photos given with consent during a three way? There is no relationship to end there. Is the judge saying the photos and videos were only good during the evening and ended with the evening? What of the persons right to record their own life?
And what of public nudity and photos taken of people naked out in public? Is there some kind of implicit permission or does a person have a right to their "likeness" even then? ( and is that right for everyone or only for celebrities?)
Slashdot Mirror
For a few minutes so you can fix obvious huge typos that slipped thru.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/...
Californiaâ(TM)s eighth place showing in 2013 tells the story of the stateâ(TM)s comeback after years of hard knocks starting in 2007.
"Levy said California is poised to overtake the fifth and sixth largest economies this year."
And...the prior certs are outdated. As of June, it's the 7th largest economy.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
"California Bounces Back As Worldâ(TM)s 7th Largest Economy, Larger Than Brazil"
There's really a knife's edge dividing the 5th and below economies. California could easily become the 4th largest with a small increase.
However, it's unlikely to exceed that of the U.S., China, Germany, and Japan. Especially since any gains it sees will also increase the U.S. so by definition, it can never be #1.
I'm not finding a lot of support for the california doom and gloom scenario.
I'm a texan who's been to california once in my life so no axe to grind here.
Article shows California is doing better than the U.S. overall and slightly worse in 4 industries out of 16 employment areas.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...
Graph here shows that california GDP growth is slightly exceeding U.S. GDP growth in 2012 to 2014.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/Blog/Med...
It fell a little harder in 2008, 2009 than the rest of the U.S.
Seems like this is just business turnover which is happening everywhere all the time.
Personal income growth exceeded all but four out of fifty states in 2015.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconT...
http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbe...
2013- California surpasses Italy and Russia to become the 8th largest economy in the entire world.
Looks like California is fine.
see also
http://www.statista.com/statis...
It was more entertaining in the way an autotuned song sounds better than a real song.
As I thought bout the Force Awakens, it's not holding up well. It didn't do so hot in the theater ( a "9/10" for the first half, a "4/10" for the predictable remake of a second half). Now I rate it about a "8/10" for the first half and a "4/10" for the second half.
I suspect it will be entertaining but pointless.
Lucas had something to say- he was just a terrible director.
It will improve but if you were to put a billion dollars into solar panels, you would see a fifth the amount of solar actually built there which changes the cost/benefit equation substantially.
Plus it becomes a massive target for attacks and blackmail over attacks. You could patrol and militarize the region but that would cost money and change the cost/benefit again.
And... some of the dunes in the sahara are 75 stories tall and they drift around and could cover your facility if left unchecked.
And finally, creating that much shade under the panels would probably change the microclimate. You might see changes under the panels- life taking a foothold in the shade. Not sure what unintended consequenes that might have.
I'm a strong supporter of free speech.
When one side starts using the media to carry out murders, to recruit people to carry out murders, I think you can reasonably draw a line there just as you can draw a line at shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.
It's difficult to do that however when the language is constantly changing- urban slang/code words- alternate meanings for words which you thought you knew what they meant- talking around the subject such that people know what you mean- and talking medium/mildly radical to attrack and set up private discussions which are much more radical.
The constant mass murders by ISIS and their agents is going to push freedom of speech pretty hard. The west has suspended freedom of speech before in time of war and this is just one incident away from blowing back up into a hot war.
The absolute death rate in the west remains well below many accidental forms of death but the intent behind the killings is chilling. As John Cleese said, you can't joke about islam because they'll kill you. The murder of Theo van Gogh was specifically targeted at freedom of speech. The mass murder at Charley Hebdo was specifically targeted at freedom of speech.
It seems a tiny step from Twitter starting with obviously evil message to including irritating, insulting free speech. And then from there to simply disagreeable speech.
But you can't ignore people when they are shooting you on the street and then taking out a big knife and trying to saw your head off right there in the streets of a 1st world country until the bone stops the knife.
Why not do it again?
This was a sweetheart deal for Apple.
The managers were probably well compensated for their risk too.
Italy should have collected the back taxes owned plus penalties.
Almost all the money will be spent.
And it will circulate in the local economy until someone buys a product from a big box store that extracts the money from the local economy.
A little will be lost every time around to buy raw products from outside of the city but part will return as labor wages (and local jobs).
I've seen some theory suggestion that Jar Jar is really as old as Yoda. If so, he's a secret survivor that Darth Bane didn't know about so he would have been sneaky even when young.
I've also seen items suggesting that he is the equivalent of the "Mule" from Asimov's foundation series. He sits in the background and steers the galaxy to benefit him but never takes a lead or does anything obvious or directly.
And finally, George had a yin/yang thing going in the prequels which had darkness in the light (Mace for one example) and it's possible that Jar Jar is not stupid/completely evil like most Sith. So he would be okay with bad things happening but he doesn't want to burn down the whole galaxy. Jar Jar might even the equivalent of Luke and found a third path outside of the dark and the light but coming from a dark side perspective.
I like to think that he and yoda would have had a philosophical discussion and Jar Jar would have reluctantly decided he had to kill Yoda after failing to sway him rather than they simply set at each other. But then a nice drunken fist vs yoda battle with Jar Jar either slain or escaping wounded back into the shadows.
Whatever Rei. I think you are being unreasonable. It'll be pointless to continue this further. May the force be with you.
The difference is that in New Hope Lucas directly addresses those points in the movie.
The movie says that ...
Luke is already an experienced and qualified flyer with years of experience flying in a narrow canyons at high speed firing at 2 meter targets with a mounted weapon.
Biggs tells the rebellion, "Luke is the best brush pilot in the galaxy".
Luke says it's no different than shooting Womp Rats in the canyons back home.
Extending to a filmed but deleted scene..
Biggs also says to Luke (in a deleted but filmed scene in a bar on Tatooine) "You may be the hottest bush pilot this side of Mos Eisley, Luke, but those little skyhoppers can be dangerous. They move awfully fast for tropospheric craft "faster than they need to. Keep playing engine jockey with one and someday, whammo! You're going to be nothing more than a dark spot on the damp side of a canyon wall."
Extending to the Star Wars Wikia..
The T-16 Skyhopper
"Even so, these airspeeders were often used as training vehicles by the Rebel Alliance, due to the fact that their flight controls were similar to those of X-wings. "
Womp Rat
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... [wikia.com]
These are two meters long and moving.
Thermal Exhaust Port
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... [wikia.com]
"The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system."
- Jan Dodonna on the attack on the first Death Star
So Luke spent his misguided youth flying at high speeds down canyons shooting at moving 2 meter targets with a mounted youth in a craft with the same control system as X-Wings.
And the mission was to fly down a dangerous canyon at high speed and fire at a 2 meter target with a mounted weapon! Sounds tailor made! lol.
To be fair, he didn't really dog fight either. He flew in and did a bombing run.
--
If Rey and done anything or they said anything in the movie to justify her massive immediate mastery of the force, it would have helped a lot. As I said above, a trivial example would have been a scene of her force leaping in the ruins of the StarDestroyer. Another trivial example would have been a scene of her mind controlling the food vendor for a little extra food.
But instead there was nothing. It was as bad as Chris Pine in Star Trek. A completely unqualified, untrained person drops into the role and out performs people with years more experience and training. I know from experience in the SCA that someone with even a few months training and experience is going to cut a novice to pieces in seconds. You have no muscle memory. You have no reflexes. And you have no clue.
And neither did Rey.
Fin... was less clear. He was trained and experienced and probably had several kinds of martial arts training which might have included Kendo.
But to show him getting owned by another storm trooper and then holding his own against Kylo Ren was dubious. He should have show skill and won the battle against the storm trooper and then he would have had more credibility. But at least he wasn't un credible. Just a bit of a stretch.
Look- it's easy to find a video of Tarantino saying these things directly and personally.
Tarantino puts it on Disney, not on the theaters. I think he'd know.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/11/...
http://www.hasbro.com/en-us/pr...
http://scifi.stackexchange.com...
Upper Turret clearly visible.
Good point. Half the time he would have no shot while the Tie Fighters would have a big fat plate shaped target to shoot at.
Biggs tells the rebellion, "Luke is the best brush pilot in the galaxy" and he knows how to fly tight combat situations having flown his T-16 Skyhopper in Beggars Canyon hunting Womp Rats which are the same size as the exhaust port.
In a deleted scene...
"You may be the hottest bush pilot this side of Mos Eisley, Luke, but those little skyhoppers can be dangerous. They move awfully fast for tropospheric craftâ"faster than they need to. Keep playing engine jockey with one and someday, whammo! You're going to be nothing more than a dark spot on the damp side of a canyon wall." âBiggs Darklighter to Luke Skywalker[src]
The T-16 Skyhopper
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...
Where it says...
"Even so, these airspeeders were often used as training vehicles by the Rebel Alliance, due to the fact that their flight controls were similar to those of X-wings. "
Womp Rat
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...
Thermal Exhaust Port
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...
"The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system."
âJan Dodonna on the attack on the first Death Star[src]
So apparently Luke is already a trained flyer with years of experience flying in a dangerous canyon at high speed firing at 2 meter targets with a mounted weapon (on his T-16 Skyhopper).
So the mission is to fly down a dangerous canyon at high speed and fire at a 2 meter target with a mounted weapon! Sounds tailor made! lol.
There is no "real" problem. In the real world, problems are complex and have multiple causes.
I hated the prequels and view lucas as a terrible director but I can also see thru the mess to the design and what Lucas was shooting for. Great storyteller, extremely good secrets and reveals, terrible director who did repeated takes giving his actors no clue what he wanted, and surrounded by yes men during the prequels.
This is a constructed work autotuned with the basic elements audiences like. It's not a real story any more. It will probably end as well as Lost or the X-Files. i.e. just kinda dribble off with no point.. but dang it sure feels nice.
Like those set chords of music they play to manipulate your emotions or laugh tracks to provoke you to laugh.
Look- I'm not even saying it was a bad movie and I'd give it a rating of a 6 (8 for the first half, 4 for the second half). But it's not sitting well. Too many things about the movie bother me and feel unbelievable (even in a science fiction/fantasy setting).
If it helps, it's not just a female lead thing. Chris Pine (and everyone else in the star trek reboots) outperformed people with years more experience and training. I think JJ feels that young people want the young protagonists to be successful and don't want to see someone of a reasonable age to reflect the required skills and experience.
And things just happened with no prior foreshadowing or explanation.
Only to be outdone when things happened so predictably that my audience was voicing what was going to happen before it happened.
"Oh they'll find a weakness" "oh that person's going to kill that person", etc.
If it wasn't star wars, it would not be getting such a good reception.
But.. it does at least feel right for the first half.
Yea this bothered me. If Finn had shown ANY skill during the fight with the storm trooper earlier then perhaps I would have believed he could last more than a few seconds before Kylo cut off an arm or cut him in half.
JJ Abrahms has this problem since star trek. You have a young person with years less experience and training and they consistently outperform everyone else. It destroys my sense of disbelief.
All they had to do was show Rey using force jumps in the ruins and mine control on the food vendor-- and it MIGHT have been remotely credible. But she makes more progress in half a movie (and years less time in the story) than Luke AND Anakin did with training by masters, field experience, and a lot of time.
It's not incredible... it's simply not credible.
Kylo Ren had been trained by a master jedi for years and then went on to serve on the dark side for so long that his master was partially forgotten and partially legendary (at least a decade per the portrayal in the movie itself).
---
But I agree the first half of the movie *felt* good. It was meticulously tuned to push the right buttons and say the right things.
The second half.. well predictable would be too kind a word. You know what they would say and what they would do before the characters even said it themselves. It was simply lame.
But good star wars feel in the first half.
No, actually Tarantino had contracts and Disney said "Okay fine, we'll just pull Star Wars from your theater.. or maybe your entire theater chain."
It was an asshat move.
I suspect Hateful 8 is actually going to be a better and more memorable film that maybe even sorta has something new in it unlike the entire last half of the star wars movie.
You know how you can recite the lines of a film you've seen several times before-- like Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Star wars-- you could recite the lines on the first viewing in the 2nd half of the film. It was just that predictable. You saw what was coming and what the actors would say before they actually did and said it. Abrahms didn't even try to subvert it a little bit. You know-- set it up and then not do it- and then do it later by surprise? You got "In the next scene we are going from A to F".... "A B C D E F.' -cut-
Hateful 8 was unable to even open in Houston due to Disney's strong arm tactics.
The best way I can find to explain how I felt after thinking about the film was that it has been "autotuned".
It feels right and great (at least the first half) while you are in the theatre.
But it doesn't feel right later when you start thinking about it.
Some people will be satisfied with the feeling of the first half and not too bothered by the retread of a retread of a retread of a second half but unless the next film is better this is not going to be very rewatchable.
You don't want to see it as I saw it- through less than new 3-d glasses which had a kind of haze around the edge near the frame that couldn't be cleaned with waiters walking back and forth in front of you-- stopping twice to tell us the bar was closing soon.
I started to feel like "Get the "F" off of me and out of my view-line!"
Bottom line is- I feel this movie is a designed corporate film where young people who lack experience and training beat people with years of experience and training ( Sounds like Star Trek already right?) and it tosses out 30 years of canon and 50% reboots the series.
Don't try to handwave this away.
http://www.popcenter.org/probl...
Quote: "Pedestrian injury is the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children ages five to 14.50 The âoedart-outâ phenomenon, where children quickly enter traffic from between parked cars, is one major factor that has contributed to 80 percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes involving children aged six to eight from 1983 to 1990.51 In addition to the âoe dart-outâ phenomenon, several other factors could put children and teens at higher risk:
Walking is a major form of transportation for children.
Children frequently donâ(TM)t pay attention to traffic conditions.
Childrenâ(TM)s height makes them difficult to see.
Teens can be at high risk when in groups (for example, since teens often travel in groups, they might be more prone to âoeherd mentalityâ).
"
If the automated car responds instantaneously without any analysis it will still take it 43 feet to stop a car going 30mph. That's why we use 20mph in school zones.
The situation must be programmed for.
You can either give that right up to the programmers at Lexus or you could have the ability to choose to risk hitting a fixed object at various speeds to save a human being's life. Since you can die at 30mph (unlikely but it happens many times every year in the U.S.) that means it's not automatically immoral to express a preference to brake instead of avoiding hitting a person in a way that might kill you.
Say a child runs into the street from a blind spot.
Should you brake hard, avoid the child and hit the parked car the child came from behind at 30mph or should you plow thru the child or should you swerve into the opposite lane and have a headon collision with another vehicle at a closing speed of 70mph?
Manypeople would avoid the child instinctually and hit the car.
Another large group would go full braking mode and hit the child at 30mph.
Very few would swerve into a headon collision.
Is to allow the driver to answer a set of preferences including the question of should the car give higher priority to preserving other lives or the drivers.
Then it's the driver's choice just as it would be if they were driving the car.
And the Margarita machine one police department bought that John Oliver reported on.
Also...
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv......
http://www.forbes.com/sites/in......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/......
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro......
In any case, glad this abusive, corrupting program was shut down.
A time article on John Oliver's influence including noting his show on civil forfeiture. Here's an article where you could read that he had an effect on CF...
http://time.com/3674807/john-o......
Quote:
After the increased exposure given to the issue by the (Washington) Post and Oliver, Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that he would enact major limitations on the law.
It sounds what is lacking is legal documentation of her permanent consent and that the judge is saying default consent within a relationship is within the relationship.
This sounds related to "prenuptial" agreements to me.
If he had gotten her to sign a model's consent form and specified how she was being compensated for the images and videos, then his rights would be permanent.
But what of any 3rd party they may have had sex with? What if they also have photos given with consent during a three way? There is no relationship to end there. Is the judge saying the photos and videos were only good during the evening and ended with the evening? What of the persons right to record their own life?
And what of public nudity and photos taken of people naked out in public? Is there some kind of implicit permission or does a person have a right to their "likeness" even then? ( and is that right for everyone or only for celebrities?)