Well, what did you expect? Even a novella is likely to clock in at 80-100 pages, and a movie script itself is usually about 110 pages or so of mostly blank paper, with a small amount of actual writing. You're not likely to be looking at more than an A, B and possibly C and D plot for the film, whereas a well structured book can handle that without breaking a sweat.
If you're attached to a book to that extent, then it's probably best not to watch the movie. Movie adaptations are always going to be stripped down to the basics with liberties taken so that the whole thing makes sense in a relatively short period of time. LOTR is sort of the exception, to an extent, but even there they drastically restructured the story to better fit the format.
That was my thought, despite what the summary says, this isn't particularly portable. You still need to get a monitor and a keyboard. There are other better projects for this. I get that it's Pi, but seriously, this has been possible for quite some time.
Wake me up when somebody can do something similar to the OpenPandora on a budget. I've got one and it's great, but the cost is still on the high side due to the small number of units ordered.
No, but it's more likely that you've had exposure to journalistic ethics while in school, as well as studied what precisely does and does not constitute integrity.
Just because you choose to be one of those that bashes colleges with no understanding of the situation, doesn't mean that there isn't anything important covered.
Sure, you can take photos without the degree, you're just not likely to get hired in lieu of somebody that's actually studied the craft.
Not in this case. You need a camera that's weather sealed, in case the weather is bad, and that has enough pixels to crop away, the sensor has to be as sensitive as possible, because you don't have studio strobes, and there needs to be enough manual control that you can override the settings the camera wants if the situation demands it.
Cameras phones can deliver excellent results in easy conditions, but they're just not good enough to handle the demands of photojournalists in most cases. Sometimes they are the correct tool, but they lack the flexibility to be the camera that is being carried around for work. They have neither the quality nor the reach for that.
Photojournalism generally requires a degree for a reason. You can't just take photos from every Tom, Dick and Harry that has them, you don't know that they're an accurate portrayal of the situation. Sure, they might be, but whether they're edited or not, it's easy to get photos that are unintentionally biased, or fail to capture the event as it's happening.
These are not fine art photos, these are documentary photos, and just because they don't need to be art, doesn't mean that there isn't any need for technical proficiency or knowledge of the situation. It can take a very long time to learn how to properly anticipate the action and get the photo at the right time.
BTW: I'm not a photojournalist, I'm just a more ordinary art photographer, but this is just such blatant horse shit that I had to reply.
The reason to get a real camera is that you can get photos in conditions where a phone won't. Also, they last for years and are far less likely to be damaged in the field. I've got a Canon 7D and even with something like an F2.8 28-75, that cost me $400 a decade ago, it still whips the crap out of what you'd get with a phone. In total that would be a $1500 or so set up. Which would likely last many, many years.
As for professional photographers, you get what you paid for. Ultimately, you need somebody else to do the photography, because you can't interview and take photos of whatever happens at the same time. And a professional is much more likely to get the photos that are needed quickly, rather than futzing around trying to figure out how to best capture the scene.
All this BS about how expensive photographers are, is generally by people who have no idea how much it costs to find that you've been at the scene and don't have any usable shots. Might as well outsource the journalists as well and just collate tweets while we're at it..
Yep, that's wide spread enough that it's effectively correct. And since it's a contraction of you would have, the correct spelling is you'd've. guess that makes it a compound contraction.
That's not really relevant seeing as it would be the court that does the exonerating.
The cameras ultimately, function to protect both the officer as well as the people that the officer comes into contact with. Cameras aren't perfect, but they're a shade better than having nothing but witness testimony from both sides. Which is never quite objective, no matter how honest the people are.
Which is why they shouldn't have been conducting this research outside. I know that it's terribly expensive to properly control it, but who knows what's going to happen when you have random GMO strains contaminating each other. One gene might not be a problem on its own, but who knows what happens when 2 or 3 or 6 different genes interact.
If your hit rate is that low, then you're literally a threat to all those around you.
If you're missing with 80% of the shots, then you haven't trained sufficiently to use the weapon in that circumstance. Stray bullets are just as deadly as aimed bullets.
Sigh, this right here is why medications were invented.
Do you have any idea how much work it is to cut off the hand of somebody that doesn't want their hand cut off? Seriously, before you got the hand lopped off they'd just shoot you, hit you with pepper spray and beat you unconsious with their night stick.
At that point, you might as well just use the knife for it's intended purpose and stab the officer, because you're much more likely to succeed.
And people wonder why we think gun nuts are stupid.
No, he couldn't have easily stolen the stuff necessary to make the smart guns work. This kind of "thinking" is why the debate will never resolve in a sane way. You can't assume that effective gun control isn't possible, it's been demonstrated to work in Australia, amongst other places. It's just in the US where the gun nuts can't fathom the notion that we don't need perfect to make a difference where things aren't working.
The easiest solution to that is to make them use an incompatible round. It's not the possession of old firearms that's the problem here, it's the easy ability to get ammunition for them that you deal with. Eventually the supply dries up making it quite a bit harder to get the rounds that you need to practice and use the weapons.
What gun nuts like you fail to understand is that anything we can do to make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible to use firearms outside of their intended purpose is a good thing.
There is no way of ensuring with perfect precision that nobody uses them illegally, but effective regulations do work. Australia went for over a decade without any mass murders before the recent one. And that, IIRC, didn't involve a firearm.
And sure, they might be hacked, but it's far more difficult to hack one of these firearms than to use one that has not safety features at all. Plus, hacking the firearm cannot be done on the spur of the moment, it requires deliberate action, which means no shooting somebody with their own firearm.
Lastly, if you're that concerned with reliability, you wouldn't be using a semi-automatic, you'd stick with a simple revolver or a blunt instrument.
That's a moot point. The reality is that the weapons that people are describing as assault rifles have no other purpose. You don't need a 30 round magazine for any other purpose. If you're hunting something that takes that many rounds, then you're either using a pea-shooter to take down a grizzly or are such a bad shot that you should, under no circumstances be permitted to own or operate a fire arm.
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm. I know that people have delusions that having more firepower will enable them to save the day, but realistically the situations where a firearm is useful for self defense where 6 shots isn't enough is rather unusual. And ultimately the result of overpowered weapons having been created for the small penis set in the first place.
It's not obsolete, it's just not necessary in many cases. But, if you're using it as the object of the preposition there's really no excuse not to use it. And sentences like "who hit who" are better when phrased as "who hit whom." The former requires more thinking than the latter.
Just because most people don't bother, doesn't mean that it's not worth the time. Granted, if you're using more complex sentences it can be ridiculous to diagram them in your head, but for more simple sentences it's not that hard.
If you're talking about a sex addict, then it definitely is detrimental to their health. And yes, it does have very real consequences. These aren't just people who like to sleep around, these are people who sleep around because they can't stop it. And it does ruin marriages, assuming they can get a partner in the first place. Increased risk of STIs and accidental pregnancy.
So, no, the isn't a matter of puritanism, there are very real consequences to sex addiction and trivializing it does nothing to help these people.
There is some luck involved, yes, but not that much luck. It's a matter of choice and priorities, if you don't choose to watch your weight then you'll likely become obese over time. Nobody ever got to be 100 or 200lbs., overweight just through genetics alone. And zero people got so fat that they can't fit through the doorway without a lot of help from friends.
If you don't want to put up with the crap, I'd recommend losing the weight. It's not like retaining the weight is doing you any favors anyways.
It's slightly complicated by all the bad advice that's given on how to manage ones weight.
However, when all is said and done, eating less and moving more solves the problem for most people. Sometimes there's a need to fix ones sleep and or stress in order to lose the weight.
But, doctors themselves are a terrible source of information on diet and exercise. Unless it's changed recently, they only get a few weeks of training on diet and none on exercise.
Why should we change? Unlike most of the world, we had a system of measure that worked prior to the metric system being invented. We also have trillions of dollars in legacy infrastructure and hardware that's all in imperial measure. And we're a large enough market to justify people making more in our measures.
The assumption that we need to change is one that really requires justification. We have a system of measures that's been enforced for a very long time. It works a lot better than what the pro-metric people are willing to acknowledge and it's going to literally cost us trillions of dollars to do the transition.
Logic has nothing to do with it. 10,000,000 meters from the equator to the North Pole isn't what I would personally consider to be logical. And 1kg is for all practical purposes outside of science is arbitrary as well.
What you're ignoring is the fact that people don't generally think of both yards and miles at the same time. If I'm talking about miles, then it's unlikely that the precision is good enough to warrant much more than tenths of miles. Just like in the metric system where you're unlikely to be talking about both kilometers and meters as that's likely within the margin for error on any measurements you're doing.
And you regularly go around with a thermometer? I know the metric system, I have a degree in the natural sciences. That does not however mean that I think in metric units. I think in imperial measures because that actually relates to my life experience.
So, no, temperatures aren't easy as the actual number has only a loose connection to ones experience in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what did you expect? Even a novella is likely to clock in at 80-100 pages, and a movie script itself is usually about 110 pages or so of mostly blank paper, with a small amount of actual writing. You're not likely to be looking at more than an A, B and possibly C and D plot for the film, whereas a well structured book can handle that without breaking a sweat.
If you're attached to a book to that extent, then it's probably best not to watch the movie. Movie adaptations are always going to be stripped down to the basics with liberties taken so that the whole thing makes sense in a relatively short period of time. LOTR is sort of the exception, to an extent, but even there they drastically restructured the story to better fit the format.
I stand corrected, I guess that is included. Still, doesn't look like the best shape for something that's portable.
That was my thought, despite what the summary says, this isn't particularly portable. You still need to get a monitor and a keyboard. There are other better projects for this. I get that it's Pi, but seriously, this has been possible for quite some time.
Wake me up when somebody can do something similar to the OpenPandora on a budget. I've got one and it's great, but the cost is still on the high side due to the small number of units ordered.
No, but it's more likely that you've had exposure to journalistic ethics while in school, as well as studied what precisely does and does not constitute integrity.
Just because you choose to be one of those that bashes colleges with no understanding of the situation, doesn't mean that there isn't anything important covered.
Sure, you can take photos without the degree, you're just not likely to get hired in lieu of somebody that's actually studied the craft.
Not in this case. You need a camera that's weather sealed, in case the weather is bad, and that has enough pixels to crop away, the sensor has to be as sensitive as possible, because you don't have studio strobes, and there needs to be enough manual control that you can override the settings the camera wants if the situation demands it.
Cameras phones can deliver excellent results in easy conditions, but they're just not good enough to handle the demands of photojournalists in most cases. Sometimes they are the correct tool, but they lack the flexibility to be the camera that is being carried around for work. They have neither the quality nor the reach for that.
Photojournalism generally requires a degree for a reason. You can't just take photos from every Tom, Dick and Harry that has them, you don't know that they're an accurate portrayal of the situation. Sure, they might be, but whether they're edited or not, it's easy to get photos that are unintentionally biased, or fail to capture the event as it's happening.
These are not fine art photos, these are documentary photos, and just because they don't need to be art, doesn't mean that there isn't any need for technical proficiency or knowledge of the situation. It can take a very long time to learn how to properly anticipate the action and get the photo at the right time.
BTW: I'm not a photojournalist, I'm just a more ordinary art photographer, but this is just such blatant horse shit that I had to reply.
The reason to get a real camera is that you can get photos in conditions where a phone won't. Also, they last for years and are far less likely to be damaged in the field. I've got a Canon 7D and even with something like an F2.8 28-75, that cost me $400 a decade ago, it still whips the crap out of what you'd get with a phone. In total that would be a $1500 or so set up. Which would likely last many, many years.
As for professional photographers, you get what you paid for. Ultimately, you need somebody else to do the photography, because you can't interview and take photos of whatever happens at the same time. And a professional is much more likely to get the photos that are needed quickly, rather than futzing around trying to figure out how to best capture the scene.
All this BS about how expensive photographers are, is generally by people who have no idea how much it costs to find that you've been at the scene and don't have any usable shots. Might as well outsource the journalists as well and just collate tweets while we're at it..
Yep, that's wide spread enough that it's effectively correct. And since it's a contraction of you would have, the correct spelling is you'd've. guess that makes it a compound contraction.
That's not really relevant seeing as it would be the court that does the exonerating.
The cameras ultimately, function to protect both the officer as well as the people that the officer comes into contact with. Cameras aren't perfect, but they're a shade better than having nothing but witness testimony from both sides. Which is never quite objective, no matter how honest the people are.
Which is why they shouldn't have been conducting this research outside. I know that it's terribly expensive to properly control it, but who knows what's going to happen when you have random GMO strains contaminating each other. One gene might not be a problem on its own, but who knows what happens when 2 or 3 or 6 different genes interact.
If your hit rate is that low, then you're literally a threat to all those around you.
If you're missing with 80% of the shots, then you haven't trained sufficiently to use the weapon in that circumstance. Stray bullets are just as deadly as aimed bullets.
Sigh, this right here is why medications were invented.
Do you have any idea how much work it is to cut off the hand of somebody that doesn't want their hand cut off? Seriously, before you got the hand lopped off they'd just shoot you, hit you with pepper spray and beat you unconsious with their night stick.
At that point, you might as well just use the knife for it's intended purpose and stab the officer, because you're much more likely to succeed.
And people wonder why we think gun nuts are stupid.
No, he couldn't have easily stolen the stuff necessary to make the smart guns work. This kind of "thinking" is why the debate will never resolve in a sane way. You can't assume that effective gun control isn't possible, it's been demonstrated to work in Australia, amongst other places. It's just in the US where the gun nuts can't fathom the notion that we don't need perfect to make a difference where things aren't working.
The easiest solution to that is to make them use an incompatible round. It's not the possession of old firearms that's the problem here, it's the easy ability to get ammunition for them that you deal with. Eventually the supply dries up making it quite a bit harder to get the rounds that you need to practice and use the weapons.
What gun nuts like you fail to understand is that anything we can do to make it harder for criminals and the irresponsible to use firearms outside of their intended purpose is a good thing.
There is no way of ensuring with perfect precision that nobody uses them illegally, but effective regulations do work. Australia went for over a decade without any mass murders before the recent one. And that, IIRC, didn't involve a firearm.
And sure, they might be hacked, but it's far more difficult to hack one of these firearms than to use one that has not safety features at all. Plus, hacking the firearm cannot be done on the spur of the moment, it requires deliberate action, which means no shooting somebody with their own firearm.
Lastly, if you're that concerned with reliability, you wouldn't be using a semi-automatic, you'd stick with a simple revolver or a blunt instrument.
That's a moot point. The reality is that the weapons that people are describing as assault rifles have no other purpose. You don't need a 30 round magazine for any other purpose. If you're hunting something that takes that many rounds, then you're either using a pea-shooter to take down a grizzly or are such a bad shot that you should, under no circumstances be permitted to own or operate a fire arm.
There's no reason for any civilian to have more than 9 rounds in a firearm. I know that people have delusions that having more firepower will enable them to save the day, but realistically the situations where a firearm is useful for self defense where 6 shots isn't enough is rather unusual. And ultimately the result of overpowered weapons having been created for the small penis set in the first place.
Has that really changed? If that's the case, then what's the point of subscribing?
Anyways, if it's not during the movie, then the likelihood of getting any views is even lower than if you're doing it in the middle.
HBO doesn't have advertisements. The people who subscribe to HBO are the real clients.
It's not obsolete, it's just not necessary in many cases. But, if you're using it as the object of the preposition there's really no excuse not to use it. And sentences like "who hit who" are better when phrased as "who hit whom." The former requires more thinking than the latter.
Just because most people don't bother, doesn't mean that it's not worth the time. Granted, if you're using more complex sentences it can be ridiculous to diagram them in your head, but for more simple sentences it's not that hard.
If you're talking about a sex addict, then it definitely is detrimental to their health. And yes, it does have very real consequences. These aren't just people who like to sleep around, these are people who sleep around because they can't stop it. And it does ruin marriages, assuming they can get a partner in the first place. Increased risk of STIs and accidental pregnancy.
So, no, the isn't a matter of puritanism, there are very real consequences to sex addiction and trivializing it does nothing to help these people.
LOL, nice try fatty.
There is some luck involved, yes, but not that much luck. It's a matter of choice and priorities, if you don't choose to watch your weight then you'll likely become obese over time. Nobody ever got to be 100 or 200lbs., overweight just through genetics alone. And zero people got so fat that they can't fit through the doorway without a lot of help from friends.
If you don't want to put up with the crap, I'd recommend losing the weight. It's not like retaining the weight is doing you any favors anyways.
It's slightly complicated by all the bad advice that's given on how to manage ones weight.
However, when all is said and done, eating less and moving more solves the problem for most people. Sometimes there's a need to fix ones sleep and or stress in order to lose the weight.
But, doctors themselves are a terrible source of information on diet and exercise. Unless it's changed recently, they only get a few weeks of training on diet and none on exercise.
Why should we change? Unlike most of the world, we had a system of measure that worked prior to the metric system being invented. We also have trillions of dollars in legacy infrastructure and hardware that's all in imperial measure. And we're a large enough market to justify people making more in our measures.
The assumption that we need to change is one that really requires justification. We have a system of measures that's been enforced for a very long time. It works a lot better than what the pro-metric people are willing to acknowledge and it's going to literally cost us trillions of dollars to do the transition.
Logic has nothing to do with it. 10,000,000 meters from the equator to the North Pole isn't what I would personally consider to be logical. And 1kg is for all practical purposes outside of science is arbitrary as well.
What you're ignoring is the fact that people don't generally think of both yards and miles at the same time. If I'm talking about miles, then it's unlikely that the precision is good enough to warrant much more than tenths of miles. Just like in the metric system where you're unlikely to be talking about both kilometers and meters as that's likely within the margin for error on any measurements you're doing.
And you regularly go around with a thermometer? I know the metric system, I have a degree in the natural sciences. That does not however mean that I think in metric units. I think in imperial measures because that actually relates to my life experience.
So, no, temperatures aren't easy as the actual number has only a loose connection to ones experience in the real world.