Hulu's selection sucks ass. And Netflix's streaming library is BY FAR the best of any service online. It's not even close. And I say that as someone who has used about every streaming service there is at one time or another. Nothing else is even in the same league as Netflix streaming. I can watch an incredible amount of stuff in HD on Netflix that most streaming services don't even have in SD. I can sit and watch every season of Battlestar Galactica (HD), Firefly (HD), South Park, Family Guy, and tons of other shows on Netflix. What do you get with Hulu, the last 5 episodes (if you're lucky)? And does Hulu even support HD? How does Hulu's movie selection compare to Netflix?
$7.99 a month is a fucking STEAL for Netflix streaming. You're a spoiled brat if you're complaining about something you're getting for that cheap not being abolsutely perfect.
Oh, there is way more to this one than mere liberal whining and "it could have happened, therefore it happened." I fully concede that the whining over the 2000 election was unwarranted (and frankly made the Dem's look like sore losers, which was embarrassing). But in the particular case of Ohio in 2004, there was some REALLY FISHY stuff going on there. The CEO of the company making the e-voting machines was a major Bush fundraiser (which is highly unethical and a serious conflict of interest in and of itself), promising to help deliver Ohio for Bush in fundraising letters. Combine that with the discrepancy between the results and the exit polling, and you have a situation where serious questions have to be raised about the whole situation there. And O'Dell later resigning from Diebold amid charges of insider trading a year later didn't exactly bolster a reputation for honesty on his part. The whole thing cast a real cloud over the legitimacy of the results in Ohio.
Does all that NECESSARILY point to corruption? Of course not. But it sure as hell raises the question of it.
Well, when the CEO of Diebold (the company making the voting machines), Walden O'Dell is also doubling as a major Bush fundraiser and promising to "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President", is anyone really surprised that serious questions were raised about these e-voting machines--which were already controversial long before Wally O'Dell ever started fundraising?
Some things are still best done the old-fashioned way. And voting is one of them.
I remember listening to Bush's infamous "axis of evil" speech and thinking it was the biggest mistake I had ever seen a President make. No one else at the time seemed to recognize it as such, but the negative implications hit me immediately. There was nothing to gain by including Iran and North Korea in that speech. Iran in particular had a reasonably moderate government at the time and had even openly expressed condolences to the U.S. after 9-11. But by including them, then invading the third country in the "axis" (Iraq), Bush scared the hell out of them. That pushed Iran to elect a much more anti-U.S. extremist government and begin pursing a nuclear weapons program (to ensure that the U.S. couldn't just invade them next). It also pushed North Korea into active pursuit of a nuclear program.
All of those moves made the world a much less safe place, and for what? Just so Bush could have an villainous evil axis to tout in his speech for a little oratorical flourish? That "axis of evil" speech did way more damage than anyone seems to appreciate.
Oh yeah. And it's not because I hate Nolan, either. Memento and The Prestige are two of my favorites movies from the 00's. But I find his Batman movies boring and unremarkable. Mind you, Batman is probably impossible to make interesting, IMHO. For all his dark reputation, at the end of the day you still have to put him in that silly costume and that ridiculous Batmobile (which can at best be presented as surreal, or at worst as pure camp). No one is going to accept a Batman movie where Bruce Wayne just goes around solving crimes, after all. So I can sympathize with anyone stuck with the task of trying to make a guy walking around in a giant cape, and driving a car that no vigilante wanting to keep a low profile would even think of driving, appear serious.
Nolan did his best, but again it's probably an impossible task. Frankly, I find the idea of a superhero who no superpowers sort of inherently ridiculous to begin with. I mean, Superman can wear a stupid costume because it really doesn't matter what he wears. But Batman is just cutting off his peripheral vision and giving the bad guys a cape to choke him with. And don't even get me started on the stupidity of fighting armed bad guys with shit like a "Batarang." It's hard to think of a Batman that I could take seriously. And if I did, he would probably just be The Punisher (the only non-superpowered superhero that I could ever look at without laughing).
Sucked ass (Burton). And was boring and silly (Nolan). Both of those filmmakers had done good work before those movies too (Burton with Edward Scissorhands and Nolan with Memento). But something about a superhero movie, when the studio gives you that big budget with all its strings attached, can make even the best director turn out a paint-by-numbers piece of shit.
There *have* been a few exceptions (lest it appear that I hate *every* superhero movie). The first Superman was quite epic. Mystery Men was funny. Quite a few indies have been good (Special is a personal favorite). The Watchmen was pretty good.
That pales in comparison to what we are talking about with the radical Islamist movements of the last several decades. And the Mexican government (at least at the federal level) has made it brutally clear of late that those cartels do not enjoy official government sanction.
You do the scale of these movements a disservice by dismissing this as a mere criminal enterprise. Criminals generally live on the fringes of society. The movements we're talking about here enjoy state sanction and support in many countries of the Muslim world. You can't present an arrest warrant to a government that is actively supporting, protecting, and encouraging the very people you are trying to arrest. Imagine the absurdity of the U.S. presenting arrest warrants for Al-Quaida to the Taliban government after 9-11. This is far more serious than any mere criminal movement, and cannot be treated as a simple police action.
And if you think soldiers make for bad cops, you should see how badly cops do at invading countries.
My point is terrorist should have never been dealt with any differently than any other criminal. That's what they are - serial murders.
Serial murderers in police actions are generally criminals who live on the fringes of, or even completely outside the boundaries of, the society around them. Radical terrorists in the middle east, asia, and africa are often state-supported, publicly-renowned, and officially protected. The Taliban government protected and harbored Al-Quaida in 2001, for example (and there is strong evidence that the Pakistani government still does today). In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and many other countries they enjoy quasi-official or even official status. Trying to treat them like mere criminals is silly under those circumstances. It's not like the U.S. could go to the Taliban government after 9-11 and say "We have a warrant for these members of Al-Quaida, please extradite them to us" and get anything but laughter in response.
Much as I hate it, military action is warranted under those circumstances. I just wish that we had had a leader who would have been strong and smart enough to hit Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan) hard and focused after 9-11. Instead we had a weak leader manipulated by advisers who treated Afghanistan as a temporary distraction from chasing their own selfish oil development interests in Iraq, taking the conflict hopelessly off-track at a time when it needed to be strong, clear, and focused.
Its past the time for the US and others to remove all of their troops from the middle east and other trouble spots and let them sort their own problems
That would work fine if the radical elements of Islam were content to stay where they're at. But the various radical Islamist movements in the last few decades have shown a great deal of ambition at taking over and radicalizing more and more countries (not just in the middle east, but asia and africa as well). Those ambitions were bound to clash with the west eventually.
The problem with the west is that we really don't know how to fight global wars anymore and aren't really comfortable facing certain kinds of problems. WWII was a long time ago, and we just don't seem to have the stones anymore to take on a large scale threat. We're also too politically-correct to acknowledge some hard realities about the nature of this conflict. No one wants to be the guy to admit that radical Islamists aren't just some tiny minority movement. In large swaths of the Muslim world, they are a dominant force (and a real threat). The modern west really likes to respect religion, and we have made that our dominant model (for the most part) for a some time now. The thought of anything resembling a holy war makes the western world VERY uncomfortable. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Muslim world doesn't share that tolerant attitude.
Not saying that had anything to do with this particular attack. For all we know, this attack could have come from some local Norwegian political terrorists. And I'm hesitant to jump to any conclusions until more information is known.
Zynga and Facebook are very much in bed together (excellent recent article on the subject). If Zynga were to go to a competitor, Facebook might start making their OWN games (something they've never done, since they've always worked so closely with Zynga).
Yeah, now is the time for a MySpace comeback! Only 5 people reported hating them. Unfortunately, that's over half of their existing customer base. But still.
I'm sorry, the use of the Sony Internet(tm) to post articles criticizing or questioning Sony is not permitted. Please report to your Sony ISP(tm) to appeal your disconnection.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has a good track record as measured by customer satisfaction
Jobs could take a sloppy shit on a plate, get up on stage an proclaim it revolutionary, and 90% of Apple fanboys would report being satisfied with it.
and are expecting the next generation to be the same but faster and plain better
You mean like how the new versions of Final Cut Pro and OS X Server are big improvements over their predecessors?
Hulu's selection sucks ass. And Netflix's streaming library is BY FAR the best of any service online. It's not even close. And I say that as someone who has used about every streaming service there is at one time or another. Nothing else is even in the same league as Netflix streaming. I can watch an incredible amount of stuff in HD on Netflix that most streaming services don't even have in SD. I can sit and watch every season of Battlestar Galactica (HD), Firefly (HD), South Park, Family Guy, and tons of other shows on Netflix. What do you get with Hulu, the last 5 episodes (if you're lucky)? And does Hulu even support HD? How does Hulu's movie selection compare to Netflix?
$7.99 a month is a fucking STEAL for Netflix streaming. You're a spoiled brat if you're complaining about something you're getting for that cheap not being abolsutely perfect.
Oh, there is way more to this one than mere liberal whining and "it could have happened, therefore it happened." I fully concede that the whining over the 2000 election was unwarranted (and frankly made the Dem's look like sore losers, which was embarrassing). But in the particular case of Ohio in 2004, there was some REALLY FISHY stuff going on there. The CEO of the company making the e-voting machines was a major Bush fundraiser (which is highly unethical and a serious conflict of interest in and of itself), promising to help deliver Ohio for Bush in fundraising letters. Combine that with the discrepancy between the results and the exit polling, and you have a situation where serious questions have to be raised about the whole situation there. And O'Dell later resigning from Diebold amid charges of insider trading a year later didn't exactly bolster a reputation for honesty on his part. The whole thing cast a real cloud over the legitimacy of the results in Ohio.
Does all that NECESSARILY point to corruption? Of course not. But it sure as hell raises the question of it.
Well, when the CEO of Diebold (the company making the voting machines), Walden O'Dell is also doubling as a major Bush fundraiser and promising to "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President", is anyone really surprised that serious questions were raised about these e-voting machines--which were already controversial long before Wally O'Dell ever started fundraising?
Some things are still best done the old-fashioned way. And voting is one of them.
I remember listening to Bush's infamous "axis of evil" speech and thinking it was the biggest mistake I had ever seen a President make. No one else at the time seemed to recognize it as such, but the negative implications hit me immediately. There was nothing to gain by including Iran and North Korea in that speech. Iran in particular had a reasonably moderate government at the time and had even openly expressed condolences to the U.S. after 9-11. But by including them, then invading the third country in the "axis" (Iraq), Bush scared the hell out of them. That pushed Iran to elect a much more anti-U.S. extremist government and begin pursing a nuclear weapons program (to ensure that the U.S. couldn't just invade them next). It also pushed North Korea into active pursuit of a nuclear program.
All of those moves made the world a much less safe place, and for what? Just so Bush could have an villainous evil axis to tout in his speech for a little oratorical flourish? That "axis of evil" speech did way more damage than anyone seems to appreciate.
Including The Dark Night movies?
Oh yeah. And it's not because I hate Nolan, either. Memento and The Prestige are two of my favorites movies from the 00's. But I find his Batman movies boring and unremarkable. Mind you, Batman is probably impossible to make interesting, IMHO. For all his dark reputation, at the end of the day you still have to put him in that silly costume and that ridiculous Batmobile (which can at best be presented as surreal, or at worst as pure camp). No one is going to accept a Batman movie where Bruce Wayne just goes around solving crimes, after all. So I can sympathize with anyone stuck with the task of trying to make a guy walking around in a giant cape, and driving a car that no vigilante wanting to keep a low profile would even think of driving, appear serious.
Nolan did his best, but again it's probably an impossible task. Frankly, I find the idea of a superhero who no superpowers sort of inherently ridiculous to begin with. I mean, Superman can wear a stupid costume because it really doesn't matter what he wears. But Batman is just cutting off his peripheral vision and giving the bad guys a cape to choke him with. And don't even get me started on the stupidity of fighting armed bad guys with shit like a "Batarang." It's hard to think of a Batman that I could take seriously. And if I did, he would probably just be The Punisher (the only non-superpowered superhero that I could ever look at without laughing).
Batman? (in Burton's and Nolan's incarnations)
Sucked ass (Burton). And was boring and silly (Nolan). Both of those filmmakers had done good work before those movies too (Burton with Edward Scissorhands and Nolan with Memento). But something about a superhero movie, when the studio gives you that big budget with all its strings attached, can make even the best director turn out a paint-by-numbers piece of shit.
There *have* been a few exceptions (lest it appear that I hate *every* superhero movie). The first Superman was quite epic. Mystery Men was funny. Quite a few indies have been good (Special is a personal favorite). The Watchmen was pretty good.
Can anyone remember a lamer story ever appearing on this site before?
Obviously you haven't been here on on every April 1st since ever. Tis a dark day best avoided by all slashdotters.
Fortunately for him, Michael Bay protected himself from this damage by having his brain removed a long time ago.
You just described pretty much every superhero movie.
Captain America "2nd rate"?!?!? You, sir must be from Earth 2.
an asteroid that shits tax breaks
Ironically, that's Chris Christie's campaign slogan.
When Pete Olson said that we need to ween ourselves off the government tit, by "we" he meant "you" of course.
Digg...man that takes me back.
That pales in comparison to what we are talking about with the radical Islamist movements of the last several decades. And the Mexican government (at least at the federal level) has made it brutally clear of late that those cartels do not enjoy official government sanction.
You do the scale of these movements a disservice by dismissing this as a mere criminal enterprise. Criminals generally live on the fringes of society. The movements we're talking about here enjoy state sanction and support in many countries of the Muslim world. You can't present an arrest warrant to a government that is actively supporting, protecting, and encouraging the very people you are trying to arrest. Imagine the absurdity of the U.S. presenting arrest warrants for Al-Quaida to the Taliban government after 9-11. This is far more serious than any mere criminal movement, and cannot be treated as a simple police action.
And if you think soldiers make for bad cops, you should see how badly cops do at invading countries.
My point is terrorist should have never been dealt with any differently than any other criminal. That's what they are - serial murders.
Serial murderers in police actions are generally criminals who live on the fringes of, or even completely outside the boundaries of, the society around them. Radical terrorists in the middle east, asia, and africa are often state-supported, publicly-renowned, and officially protected. The Taliban government protected and harbored Al-Quaida in 2001, for example (and there is strong evidence that the Pakistani government still does today). In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and many other countries they enjoy quasi-official or even official status. Trying to treat them like mere criminals is silly under those circumstances. It's not like the U.S. could go to the Taliban government after 9-11 and say "We have a warrant for these members of Al-Quaida, please extradite them to us" and get anything but laughter in response.
Much as I hate it, military action is warranted under those circumstances. I just wish that we had had a leader who would have been strong and smart enough to hit Afghanistan (and possibly Pakistan) hard and focused after 9-11. Instead we had a weak leader manipulated by advisers who treated Afghanistan as a temporary distraction from chasing their own selfish oil development interests in Iraq, taking the conflict hopelessly off-track at a time when it needed to be strong, clear, and focused.
Its past the time for the US and others to remove all of their troops from the middle east and other trouble spots and let them sort their own problems
That would work fine if the radical elements of Islam were content to stay where they're at. But the various radical Islamist movements in the last few decades have shown a great deal of ambition at taking over and radicalizing more and more countries (not just in the middle east, but asia and africa as well). Those ambitions were bound to clash with the west eventually.
The problem with the west is that we really don't know how to fight global wars anymore and aren't really comfortable facing certain kinds of problems. WWII was a long time ago, and we just don't seem to have the stones anymore to take on a large scale threat. We're also too politically-correct to acknowledge some hard realities about the nature of this conflict. No one wants to be the guy to admit that radical Islamists aren't just some tiny minority movement. In large swaths of the Muslim world, they are a dominant force (and a real threat). The modern west really likes to respect religion, and we have made that our dominant model (for the most part) for a some time now. The thought of anything resembling a holy war makes the western world VERY uncomfortable. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Muslim world doesn't share that tolerant attitude.
Not saying that had anything to do with this particular attack. For all we know, this attack could have come from some local Norwegian political terrorists. And I'm hesitant to jump to any conclusions until more information is known.
Best.response.ever
You will bow down before us, world! No matter that it takes an eternity!
Zynga and Facebook are very much in bed together (excellent recent article on the subject). If Zynga were to go to a competitor, Facebook might start making their OWN games (something they've never done, since they've always worked so closely with Zynga).
Yeah, now is the time for a MySpace comeback! Only 5 people reported hating them. Unfortunately, that's over half of their existing customer base. But still.
I'm sorry, the use of the Sony Internet(tm) to post articles criticizing or questioning Sony is not permitted. Please report to your Sony ISP(tm) to appeal your disconnection.
I guess that'll teach some punk to try to jailbreak one of your consoles!