Pretty sure I'm just feeding a troll, but I'm not sure where you're getting any of those statistics, considering crime has been increasing in Venezuela since Slashdot was founded.
No idea why they gave it to Johnson. Is he Hollywood Royalty or something? His filmography is sparse. I can't imagine him being handed the keys to the kingdom on one of the largest franchises ever with Looper under his belt and damn near nothing else.
This happens all of the time. The big name directors with a track record are smart enough to ask for a percentage (and off the gross, not the profits which Hollywood films mysteriously seem bad at making) which for something like Star Wars is going to be a lot (people forget that this movie that everyone seems to hate still made over a billion dollars in the box office alone) of money. Johnson was pretty well known for Looper (which was a decent movie in its own right) and had directed a few well received episodes of Breaking Bad. He at least appear technically competent, and since he had written Looper the studio heads probably felt they could trust him with Star Wars.
However, the best part of it is that he's going to be cheap. He doesn't have a huge number of films behind him, so just the opportunity to do Star Wars is potential boon for his career even if he doesn't make bank on that film. It also increases his own value since whatever else he directs afterwords can be billed as "from the the director of Star Wars: Epi . .." as part of the marketing, just like you see movies talk about their academy award winning star that's only playing some minor part in the film. Johnson was a safe choice from the perspective of the big wigs, but I think this just goes to show you what the fuck the really know.
If you look at other popular videos with millions of views, many of them have a much lower like-to-watch ratio, some at least an order of magnitude less. For example, Gangnam Style is reported as being one of the most liked YouTube videos of all time, but a little under.5% of viewers liked it. The ratio on this video might be one of the better ones among videos with several million views.
There were plenty of other times the CEO's weren't worried about recessions leading up to periods where there weren't any recessions. There's always someone predicting some misfortune or windfall. If any one of these people were actually that good and always right, they'd own the rest of the planet already since they could make better financial plays than everyone else just like a poker player who can see all of the cards.
Also, the phrase "more worried than" doesn't imply that recessions aren't a worry, merely that there's something else that's being recognized as a bigger threat. Given the number and severity of data breaches, I would say that they have reason to be worried. Even more so given the mountains of data that companies are collecting these days.
Don't forget insurance. That's just another form of gambling as well when it comes down to it. Of course the government has no problem with they or their friends who can make sizable campaign contributions engaging in the kinds of behavior that that the common man cannot.
Trying to make it illegal is stupid, since it won't stop people. It just drives everything underground and gives criminals another profitable enterprise in which they can engage.
No one here voted to elect Pai. Regardless of how he acts, the real crime is that there's anyone at all in government that can make laws without being an elected representative of the people.
People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.
It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.
If I had to guess, people on average were slightly more hardy. Up until recently, infant mortality rates were over 40%, so surviving to the age of 5 was a relatively big deal. There are all manner of conditions that modern medicine can treat that would have resulted in a dead kid even 50 years ago.
Also, just because people were outside more doesn't mean that they ran around naked all the time. There are plenty of parts of the world where you'd freeze to death before having to worry about skin cancer. Where the UV exposure was greatest, humans with greater melanin content were selected for in order to improve their resilience to that exposure.
Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.
You realize it was a free market and competition that birthed these services to begin with right? They are the better service (no commercials) and lower prices (fraction of the cost of cable) that you're describing.
These companies are free to try going their own way, but they're also free to fail and I suspect that they'll fail miserably as so many other networks and providers that tried to create their own services before them.
Intel is going to have a few rocky years ahead of them. They rested on their laurels and didn't take the competition seriously. They also threw a lot of money at useless projects and tried to shoehorn x86 into every possible market rather than trying to build the best product for that market.
They need a CEO that will put an end to the idiocy and refocus Intel, but no one wants to be the one that has to go out back and shoot Old Yeller. Hopefully they do find someone, because as much fun as it is to see Intel eat some humble pie, if they don't get their shit together AMD will eventually turn out the same and we'll just be back to a stagnant computer market.
That's a definite benefit, but a lot of the tech companies just use H1-B workers to drive down wages instead. They also illegally made backroom arrangements with each other as well. Just because you've removed one means by which a company might suppress employee wage growth, don't assume that you've solved the problem.
Unless you have an electorate that's researched the ballot measure extensively ahead of time, that language is going to fool anyone. Maybe there's a small group that were voting for it because they do want such laws as it benefits them, but that particular wording appears to have been crafted by the devil himself.
I wonder if Jimmy Johns (or rather anyone high up enough to enact such policy) actually cared, or if the dickbag lawyers just put it in there to create more work for themselves when someone eventually brought a lawsuit against the company.
I felt bad for people who couldn't truthfully advertise themselves as attractive, young, single, and appealing over there.
What makes you think people are any more truthful about that than the other crap on their resumes?
Not that the Chinese are unique in this regard, but resumes tend to be as much bullshit as the person thinks they can get away with. I've seen a few that could qualify for the Pulitzer prize for fiction. Of course, you can't blame people for doing it when the requirements the company posts are just as big of a load of bullshit.
It's not just absorbing carbon, but also sequestering it. These will live quite a long time and mostly just need to be left alone to do their thing.
If these guys want to try tackle the problem this way, may as well let them. If you've got other ideas or a different approach, then you should be free to do that. Sure this isn't going to magically solve everything overnight, but it's better than just sitting around expecting someone else to do something. It's also kind of cool in its own right, so who cares if you think they have silly motives.
Not good enough for the privacy conscious as the store will be able to track whoever looks up the digital receipt and can associate that with an IP or whatever other information they can grab on top of that. It allows for cash transactions to lose privacy.
Yes, but the bot itself has no rights. If you believe that it has free speech rights would you also accept that it has a right to life and that when the person who creates it turns it off that they've committed murder or some crime tantamount to it?
We're discussing something that lacks basic sentience, never mind sapience, so why we'd even consider the question is foolish. This is also on Twitter, which is a private platform. Although I would consider it stupid of them to censor speech, they're free to do so as much as they would like. They don't owe anyone a soapbox.
I wonder how many false reports the police will see over the next several weeks because someone thinks it will be a good laugh to modify the MAC address on one of their friend's devices when they aren't looking.
Market forces aren’t some conscious entity that makes decisions any more than the tide. It’s metely an observation of how economies tend to function. The unfortunate and ugly truth is that most consumers place a very low monetary value on their privacy and as a result we see them willingly trade privacy for lower prices.
The market is merely delivering what consumers want. You and I may not like that, but that doesn’t mean that market forces aren’t working. I just hope there are enough of us privacy minded consumers that there’s room for some companies to carve out a part of the market to cater to our wants and desires.
You’d rather they keep employees around that they can’t utilize effectively and maybe bankrupt the entire business as a result? SpaceX may be somewhat unique in that it’s part of a new and relatively small industry, but most of the time that companies shed workers there isn’t too much difficulty in finding work at another company in the same industry. Unless the industry as a whole is in a downturn, one company doing badly likely means that another is growing.
It seems like Netflix could have sidestepped the whole issue easily by using a different phrasing like "Devise your own journey" or something along those lines. I think there's a lot of legal precedence against them. Apparently if you want to use the phrase "Let's get ready to rumble!" you have to pay the announcer that came up with it.
It really isn't. It was originally a British show (it ran on Channel 4) that Netflix picked up after the first two series. I haven't gotten around to watching the more recent episodes yet, but the originals were pretty good. If I had to describe it succinctly, "Modern Twilight Zone" seems to do a good job.
Of course it's modern TV so they can get away with a bit more. The first episode featured a plot where some British royal family member has apparently been kidnapped and the kidnappers are threatening to kill the person unless the Prime Minister fucks a pig on live television. That might sound crude (and it is) but it's just as engrossing as it is gross. I'd suggest giving it a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure I'm just feeding a troll, but I'm not sure where you're getting any of those statistics, considering crime has been increasing in Venezuela since Slashdot was founded.
No idea why they gave it to Johnson. Is he Hollywood Royalty or something? His filmography is sparse. I can't imagine him being handed the keys to the kingdom on one of the largest franchises ever with Looper under his belt and damn near nothing else.
This happens all of the time. The big name directors with a track record are smart enough to ask for a percentage (and off the gross, not the profits which Hollywood films mysteriously seem bad at making) which for something like Star Wars is going to be a lot (people forget that this movie that everyone seems to hate still made over a billion dollars in the box office alone) of money. Johnson was pretty well known for Looper (which was a decent movie in its own right) and had directed a few well received episodes of Breaking Bad. He at least appear technically competent, and since he had written Looper the studio heads probably felt they could trust him with Star Wars.
." as part of the marketing, just like you see movies talk about their academy award winning star that's only playing some minor part in the film. Johnson was a safe choice from the perspective of the big wigs, but I think this just goes to show you what the fuck the really know.
However, the best part of it is that he's going to be cheap. He doesn't have a huge number of films behind him, so just the opportunity to do Star Wars is potential boon for his career even if he doesn't make bank on that film. It also increases his own value since whatever else he directs afterwords can be billed as "from the the director of Star Wars: Epi . .
If you look at other popular videos with millions of views, many of them have a much lower like-to-watch ratio, some at least an order of magnitude less. For example, Gangnam Style is reported as being one of the most liked YouTube videos of all time, but a little under .5% of viewers liked it. The ratio on this video might be one of the better ones among videos with several million views.
There were plenty of other times the CEO's weren't worried about recessions leading up to periods where there weren't any recessions. There's always someone predicting some misfortune or windfall. If any one of these people were actually that good and always right, they'd own the rest of the planet already since they could make better financial plays than everyone else just like a poker player who can see all of the cards.
Also, the phrase "more worried than" doesn't imply that recessions aren't a worry, merely that there's something else that's being recognized as a bigger threat. Given the number and severity of data breaches, I would say that they have reason to be worried. Even more so given the mountains of data that companies are collecting these days.
Don't forget insurance. That's just another form of gambling as well when it comes down to it. Of course the government has no problem with they or their friends who can make sizable campaign contributions engaging in the kinds of behavior that that the common man cannot.
Trying to make it illegal is stupid, since it won't stop people. It just drives everything underground and gives criminals another profitable enterprise in which they can engage.
No one here voted to elect Pai. Regardless of how he acts, the real crime is that there's anyone at all in government that can make laws without being an elected representative of the people.
People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.
It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.
If I had to guess, people on average were slightly more hardy. Up until recently, infant mortality rates were over 40%, so surviving to the age of 5 was a relatively big deal. There are all manner of conditions that modern medicine can treat that would have resulted in a dead kid even 50 years ago.
Also, just because people were outside more doesn't mean that they ran around naked all the time. There are plenty of parts of the world where you'd freeze to death before having to worry about skin cancer. Where the UV exposure was greatest, humans with greater melanin content were selected for in order to improve their resilience to that exposure.
Most things don't exist in their ideal forms, but that doesn't stop us from talking about democracies, art, or free markets.
Market forces and free market philosophies are well understood, and the people who ignore them tend to find themselves much worse off for it.
Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.
You realize it was a free market and competition that birthed these services to begin with right? They are the better service (no commercials) and lower prices (fraction of the cost of cable) that you're describing.
These companies are free to try going their own way, but they're also free to fail and I suspect that they'll fail miserably as so many other networks and providers that tried to create their own services before them.
Nah, who am I'm kidding?
Yourself, it would seem.
Intel is going to have a few rocky years ahead of them. They rested on their laurels and didn't take the competition seriously. They also threw a lot of money at useless projects and tried to shoehorn x86 into every possible market rather than trying to build the best product for that market.
They need a CEO that will put an end to the idiocy and refocus Intel, but no one wants to be the one that has to go out back and shoot Old Yeller. Hopefully they do find someone, because as much fun as it is to see Intel eat some humble pie, if they don't get their shit together AMD will eventually turn out the same and we'll just be back to a stagnant computer market.
That's a definite benefit, but a lot of the tech companies just use H1-B workers to drive down wages instead. They also illegally made backroom arrangements with each other as well. Just because you've removed one means by which a company might suppress employee wage growth, don't assume that you've solved the problem.
Unless you have an electorate that's researched the ballot measure extensively ahead of time, that language is going to fool anyone. Maybe there's a small group that were voting for it because they do want such laws as it benefits them, but that particular wording appears to have been crafted by the devil himself.
I wonder if Jimmy Johns (or rather anyone high up enough to enact such policy) actually cared, or if the dickbag lawyers just put it in there to create more work for themselves when someone eventually brought a lawsuit against the company.
I felt bad for people who couldn't truthfully advertise themselves as attractive, young, single, and appealing over there.
What makes you think people are any more truthful about that than the other crap on their resumes?
Not that the Chinese are unique in this regard, but resumes tend to be as much bullshit as the person thinks they can get away with. I've seen a few that could qualify for the Pulitzer prize for fiction. Of course, you can't blame people for doing it when the requirements the company posts are just as big of a load of bullshit.
Dinosaur of Trees?
Jurassic Bark!
It's not just absorbing carbon, but also sequestering it. These will live quite a long time and mostly just need to be left alone to do their thing.
If these guys want to try tackle the problem this way, may as well let them. If you've got other ideas or a different approach, then you should be free to do that. Sure this isn't going to magically solve everything overnight, but it's better than just sitting around expecting someone else to do something. It's also kind of cool in its own right, so who cares if you think they have silly motives.
Not good enough for the privacy conscious as the store will be able to track whoever looks up the digital receipt and can associate that with an IP or whatever other information they can grab on top of that. It allows for cash transactions to lose privacy.
Yes, but the bot itself has no rights. If you believe that it has free speech rights would you also accept that it has a right to life and that when the person who creates it turns it off that they've committed murder or some crime tantamount to it?
We're discussing something that lacks basic sentience, never mind sapience, so why we'd even consider the question is foolish. This is also on Twitter, which is a private platform. Although I would consider it stupid of them to censor speech, they're free to do so as much as they would like. They don't owe anyone a soapbox.
I wonder how many false reports the police will see over the next several weeks because someone thinks it will be a good laugh to modify the MAC address on one of their friend's devices when they aren't looking.
Market forces aren’t some conscious entity that makes decisions any more than the tide. It’s metely an observation of how economies tend to function. The unfortunate and ugly truth is that most consumers place a very low monetary value on their privacy and as a result we see them willingly trade privacy for lower prices.
The market is merely delivering what consumers want. You and I may not like that, but that doesn’t mean that market forces aren’t working. I just hope there are enough of us privacy minded consumers that there’s room for some companies to carve out a part of the market to cater to our wants and desires.
You’d rather they keep employees around that they can’t utilize effectively and maybe bankrupt the entire business as a result? SpaceX may be somewhat unique in that it’s part of a new and relatively small industry, but most of the time that companies shed workers there isn’t too much difficulty in finding work at another company in the same industry. Unless the industry as a whole is in a downturn, one company doing badly likely means that another is growing.
It seems like Netflix could have sidestepped the whole issue easily by using a different phrasing like "Devise your own journey" or something along those lines. I think there's a lot of legal precedence against them. Apparently if you want to use the phrase "Let's get ready to rumble!" you have to pay the announcer that came up with it.
It really isn't. It was originally a British show (it ran on Channel 4) that Netflix picked up after the first two series. I haven't gotten around to watching the more recent episodes yet, but the originals were pretty good. If I had to describe it succinctly, "Modern Twilight Zone" seems to do a good job.
Of course it's modern TV so they can get away with a bit more. The first episode featured a plot where some British royal family member has apparently been kidnapped and the kidnappers are threatening to kill the person unless the Prime Minister fucks a pig on live television. That might sound crude (and it is) but it's just as engrossing as it is gross. I'd suggest giving it a try.
Are we going to bring back the coalition of the willing again?