But it was the PR office ("Public Affairs," in government parlance) that modded the photo, not the AP. Again, this is all standard procedure. No PR/public affairs office is going to give the AP or any other press agency an unflattering photo of one of their leaders. Portraits are ALWAYS touched-up (even newspapers themselves touch-up and remove the background of their reporters' official portraits).
"Zero tolerance"--the first refuge of the irrational person. The AP's silly policy reminds me of the school principal whose response to one kid bringing a gun to school is to have the next kid who brings a plastic knife to school in his lunchbox arrested and expelled.
First of all, there is no such thing as an "accurate" portrait of a person. Factors such as lighting, the background, the time of day, how they have their hair styled at the moment, whether or not they're wearing makeup, their specific physical condition at the moment of the photo, the quality of the camera, etc. all play a major role in how any given photograph of a person looks.
If the AP really is going to take such a ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy, then they had better just stop accepting outside photographs altogether. If they're going to be such sticklers about every single image (even portraits), then they had better get off their lazy asses and send their own damn photographers to take every picture. Because neither the Army nor any other agency or corporation is under any obligation to release unflattering photos of their leaders.
Everyone becomes an armchair expert when anything comes up for criticism on/. Personally, it looks just fine to me--especially considering the piss-poor quality of the original source pic.
Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is. Touching-up portraits is standard procedure just about anywhere. When I worked in PR, we did it for all of our portrait pics. I became quite a whiz at removing wrinkles, bags under the eyes, and backgrounds.
The "giving corporations tax cuts creates jobs" argument sounds logical enough, until you look at real-world examples. Most of the time, if you give a corporation more money with no strings attached, they'll do things like hoard it, give big raises and bonuses to their CEO, and expanding in ways that do little to help the country actually giving them the break. For example, the only expansion most U.S. manufacturing corporations have been doing for the last 20 years has mostly been in countries like China and Mexico. So, in a sense, giving a U.S. tax cut to a company *is* creating jobs alright--in China.
P.S. You should also bring a large number of rednecks on this mission, who will absolutely not be anally probed or eaten when they get to this spot where no alien fleet is hidden.
Detroit already did come up with a good electric car. But, in a typically brilliant move for GM, they decided to cancel the program when it was still in the lease-only stage, revoked all the leases, refused to sell the leased cars to the many people who actually wanted to buy one, sent every one of the cars into a scrapyard compactor, and promptly canceled all further electric/hybrid development plans to focus on SUV's. This stunning lack of forward-thinking is just one of the many reasons why GM is in Washington today begging for a handout while smarter companies like Toyota are taking over the auto industry.
I love the Netflix feature. The only problem I had with it was that only 7 of my 11 playable videos in my queue actually showed up on my 360. The rest must have been owned by Sony, who in typically Sony douchebag fashion, refused to allow Sony videos to be streamed to 360's. Other than that, it worked flawlessly for me. I loved that the setup was so simple (just enter a simple one-time code when you're logged into your Netflix account and whalla, you're all set!)
If we're going to start slapping that label on everything that has any DRM in it, we had might as well just make it appear by default on every story on/. There is very little software, media, or hardware released today that DOESN'T have some form of DRM attached.
Google was not only paying them, it was basically buying the company. Pointing out that 88% of Mozilla's entire revenue came from Google alone and that Mozilla repaid this by bundling Google into all the defaults and the toolbar is far from "semantic bullshit." Now personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But, then again, I never thought there was anything wrong with MS bundling internet explorer with Windows either.
Yeah, and most of these "spinoffs" are urban legends, including the smoke detector, which was not developed by NASA. And the "13 dollars for every 1" "fact" is just as much horseshit as your history of the smoke detector.
85% of Mozilla's funding comes directly from Google?!? For all practical purposes, Google basically owns them. No wonder Mozilla was so forgiving of Chrome.
Did I say that we shouldn't be trimming elsewhere also? Of course we should. But pointing out that other agencies waste even MORE money is a pretty piss-poor excuse for wasting money at NASA. The hundreds of millions of $ wasted on each shuttle launch isn't exactly chicken feed, irregardless of whether or not it's dwarfed by waste in other agencies. As for the "we should fund science" argument, that's fine. But there are a *lot* better ways to use $700 million in science funding than to send up yet another space shuttle to service the ISS. Both the shuttle and the ISS have made only small, dubious contributions to science. Compared to what the billions of $ spent on those programs could have done here on earth, both are woefully inefficient ways to pursue genuine scientific advancement.
My ancestors not only crawled out of the slime, they also learned how to present reasoned arguments instead of just slinging insults and offering clichéd emotional appeals to irrational dreamers.
Slashdot Mirror
Just give me a tire iron and five minutes alone with that bitch and we can forgo all the legal intricacies.
But it was the PR office ("Public Affairs," in government parlance) that modded the photo, not the AP. Again, this is all standard procedure. No PR/public affairs office is going to give the AP or any other press agency an unflattering photo of one of their leaders. Portraits are ALWAYS touched-up (even newspapers themselves touch-up and remove the background of their reporters' official portraits).
I love the Power Glove. It's so bad!
as;ka;slk d;lewqd[-p3=02 r3099w3ew2 \=-0l;aksxm';'awledp323pri5hytou342sdc'm9
"Zero tolerance"--the first refuge of the irrational person. The AP's silly policy reminds me of the school principal whose response to one kid bringing a gun to school is to have the next kid who brings a plastic knife to school in his lunchbox arrested and expelled.
First of all, there is no such thing as an "accurate" portrait of a person. Factors such as lighting, the background, the time of day, how they have their hair styled at the moment, whether or not they're wearing makeup, their specific physical condition at the moment of the photo, the quality of the camera, etc. all play a major role in how any given photograph of a person looks.
If the AP really is going to take such a ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy, then they had better just stop accepting outside photographs altogether. If they're going to be such sticklers about every single image (even portraits), then they had better get off their lazy asses and send their own damn photographers to take every picture. Because neither the Army nor any other agency or corporation is under any obligation to release unflattering photos of their leaders.
Everyone becomes an armchair expert when anything comes up for criticism on /. Personally, it looks just fine to me--especially considering the piss-poor quality of the original source pic.
Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is. Touching-up portraits is standard procedure just about anywhere. When I worked in PR, we did it for all of our portrait pics. I became quite a whiz at removing wrinkles, bags under the eyes, and backgrounds.
No way. I couldn't stand the indignity of getting fragged by someone with a Hello Kitty avatar.
The "giving corporations tax cuts creates jobs" argument sounds logical enough, until you look at real-world examples. Most of the time, if you give a corporation more money with no strings attached, they'll do things like hoard it, give big raises and bonuses to their CEO, and expanding in ways that do little to help the country actually giving them the break. For example, the only expansion most U.S. manufacturing corporations have been doing for the last 20 years has mostly been in countries like China and Mexico. So, in a sense, giving a U.S. tax cut to a company *is* creating jobs alright--in China.
Until we're free of the bears, we will never be able to breathe easy.
Sorry, like all decent people I only write in English.
Not only that, but the truck left years ago. But the studios are still standing around the barn today with an empty sack saying "Here, kitty kitty..."
If you get 88% of your entire budget from one entity, you're pretty closely tied.
P.S. You should also bring a large number of rednecks on this mission, who will absolutely not be anally probed or eaten when they get to this spot where no alien fleet is hidden.
Detroit already did come up with a good electric car. But, in a typically brilliant move for GM, they decided to cancel the program when it was still in the lease-only stage, revoked all the leases, refused to sell the leased cars to the many people who actually wanted to buy one, sent every one of the cars into a scrapyard compactor, and promptly canceled all further electric/hybrid development plans to focus on SUV's. This stunning lack of forward-thinking is just one of the many reasons why GM is in Washington today begging for a handout while smarter companies like Toyota are taking over the auto industry.
I love the Netflix feature. The only problem I had with it was that only 7 of my 11 playable videos in my queue actually showed up on my 360. The rest must have been owned by Sony, who in typically Sony douchebag fashion, refused to allow Sony videos to be streamed to 360's. Other than that, it worked flawlessly for me. I loved that the setup was so simple (just enter a simple one-time code when you're logged into your Netflix account and whalla, you're all set!)
If we're going to start slapping that label on everything that has any DRM in it, we had might as well just make it appear by default on every story on /. There is very little software, media, or hardware released today that DOESN'T have some form of DRM attached.
Google was not only paying them, it was basically buying the company. Pointing out that 88% of Mozilla's entire revenue came from Google alone and that Mozilla repaid this by bundling Google into all the defaults and the toolbar is far from "semantic bullshit." Now personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But, then again, I never thought there was anything wrong with MS bundling internet explorer with Windows either.
Yeah, and most of these "spinoffs" are urban legends, including the smoke detector, which was not developed by NASA. And the "13 dollars for every 1" "fact" is just as much horseshit as your history of the smoke detector.
Just give me an elephant, a hot glue gun, and shitload of brown wigs and I'll recreate the wholly mammoth for a lot cheaper than these scientists.
85% of Mozilla's funding comes directly from Google?!? For all practical purposes, Google basically owns them. No wonder Mozilla was so forgiving of Chrome.
How about we do both?
Did I say that we shouldn't be trimming elsewhere also? Of course we should. But pointing out that other agencies waste even MORE money is a pretty piss-poor excuse for wasting money at NASA. The hundreds of millions of $ wasted on each shuttle launch isn't exactly chicken feed, irregardless of whether or not it's dwarfed by waste in other agencies. As for the "we should fund science" argument, that's fine. But there are a *lot* better ways to use $700 million in science funding than to send up yet another space shuttle to service the ISS. Both the shuttle and the ISS have made only small, dubious contributions to science. Compared to what the billions of $ spent on those programs could have done here on earth, both are woefully inefficient ways to pursue genuine scientific advancement.
My ancestors not only crawled out of the slime, they also learned how to present reasoned arguments instead of just slinging insults and offering clichéd emotional appeals to irrational dreamers.