The person with a ten minute drive to pick up their kid from day care would really love to know whether they're going to get caught in a 15 minute queue because the police are breathalysing everybody that goes past.
Leaving five minutes earlier and taking a detour avoids a frightened upset child with a ruined evening.
To continue to be a traffic cop they must consistently bring in at least as much as they are paid, in revenue
Bullshit.
Traffic police provide a valuable public service in helping keep the roads open and usable, with vast economic benefits significantly beyond mere law violation related revenues.
That role is recognised and justifies employing police to manage and support transport infrastructure even without generating any revenue.
The revenue generation is both a genuine outcome of financially encouraging people to obey the law and also a seedy cash grab intended to mitigate the cost of operating the necessary traffic policing functions.
When ticket revenue is down, they get chewed out hard for sure. That money was expected.
What's more worrying are the multiple times Onion articles have proven to be merely prescient and published a few years early, rather than actually wrong.
XML was a flawed concept badly implemented shittest back when it should've been aborted and not only has it got no better since but the rest of the planet has adopted usable working alternatives that are superior in pretty much every single way.
XML is shit and I hold great suspicion towards the competence of anybody that promotes it.
there are ways to discipline children without involving the police and courts
In this situation I can understand the police seeking to assure that there is in fact no threat.
I think they can also play a role in scaring a kid shitless in a "Dude, we nearly shot you. Stop fucking about!" kind of way that helps the idiot understand how silly he was while at the same time making him glad the police realised he was just being stupid.
Maybe I expect too much from the police in America.
I don't know a whole heck of a lot of truly smart people who are also religious.
Several of the most intelligent (and best educated) people I know adhere strongly to their religious practices.
Whether they actually believe any of that shit is something I'm very kind and don't press them on, but they're heavily into the 'must do' / 'must not do' shite purely on archaic superstitious grounds.
ALL of these measurements ignore people, like those who have given up
That's the class of people added in U-4.
If they're not making enough to live on, they need a new job too.
You're assuming that they're not making enough to live on. I mean, I'd like to earn $4m/week, so I'm going to keep looking for a job that'll pay that. In the meantime I'm underemployed, as I'm not working in a job that meets my income expectations.
Have you ever seen naked savages run down a pig and beat it to death with sticks? None of those people want to be there.
That's supposition. I've seen video footage of people living like that, and they're damned happy when they carry dead pig back home.
They have to be there because they have no other options.
I've also met people living like that who are clearly keen to improve their standard of living. They also have access to industrialised cities offering jobs that would help them achieve that goal.
Why do you think they haven't moved to those cities?
Look, dude, most people are willing to work for a living rather than the alternative.
Hunting pigs is hard work. I respect the men that do this to feed their families.
U-6 includes under employed workers, which means they're not unemployed.
I'd argue that U-5 is flawed too. I'm technically U-5 but the reason I haven't looked for work in the past month is because I've been in North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean on holiday. It feels inappropriate to class me as 'unemployed'.
U-4 would be a more reasonable measure, but even there I can understand the difficulty of treating someone as unemployed if they haven't even tried to find a job.
In the UK Netflix basically had no films at all, so I cancelled my subscription. They may now offer a broader range of foreign and independent cinema but I have a backlog of films from TV film channels and Amazon Prime.
On Amazon Prime there's rarely anything worth searching but they do keep adding (then removing) films, and that's where I find the interesting ones. E.g. in the autumn they added The Handmaiden, the plot summary for which puts it nowhere near my normal preferences - but then I spotted the name of the director. It has its flaws but it's also a bloody good film. (I did subsequently acquire and now prefer the director's cut as it has better pacing).
Black Panther isn't the "best" to fucking anybody. Any rating system which declares it the highest rated film of all time is clearly fucked in the head.
I haven't seen Moo Moo but the title would help me manage my expectations and it's unlikely to reach the bottom of my IMDB ratings. I mean, it's a mde-for-TV kids film, the warning signs are flashing from the other side of the moon on that one.
Unlike films like Last Dance, Inferno and Taken 3. I mean, shit, Liam Neeson tends to be watchable and Forest Whitaker is awesome any time he's on screen and Taken 3 was still a horrific shitshow I deeply regret trying to watch.
Although now I mention it, fairly sure that was an Amazon Prime selection. Hmm.
90 to 180 minutes to tell a story, combining narrative, visual and audio elements, including scene setting, mood adjustments, entertainment and an actual fucking story is an artistic endeavour the results of which are often deeply enjoyable.
What sort of cunt thinks 'youtube' and 'tv' are relevant to that? They're just distribution challels, a movie is still a movie on either of them.
Maybe I'm just an old person. When did 'old people' become a synonym for 'educated' anyway?
Oddly that makes Amazon Prime a better service for me.
If a movie is genuinely good (above and beyond mere competent) then I've probably already seen it. If it's a great movie then I probably have a copy at home to watch on demand.
It's the other films that I haven't seen yet, that may actually be superb but too niche to receive mainstream recognition, that I want to see.
E.g. I saw the other day an advert for a new film about human trafficking, almost guaranteed a top rating on Rotten Tomatoes, likely to win a dozen different awards.
Meanwhile Lilya 4-ever is "Fresh: 58" despite completely and viciously depicting a compelling and realistic story on exactly the same theme.
I'd rather watch the foreign language independent film that isn't scared to properly explore its subject than the widely acclaimed Hollywood virtue piece.
It offers no subjective opinion if a movie is "the best" which is what you are trying to making it out to be.
No, he quite clearly isn't making it out to be that. He's very clearly highlighting that the article's description of 'higher rated films' is based on a demonstrably flawed measure.
Rotten Tomatoes also categorically offers only a subjective opinion. If there was any objectivity at all then the examples he's quoted would never have made the top 5 - and if you disagree with that, do please articulate the objective criteria that would grant them such lofty status.
Slashdot Mirror
The person with a ten minute drive to pick up their kid from day care would really love to know whether they're going to get caught in a 15 minute queue because the police are breathalysing everybody that goes past.
Leaving five minutes earlier and taking a detour avoids a frightened upset child with a ruined evening.
What the fuck do traffic laws have to do with it?
To continue to be a traffic cop they must consistently bring in at least as much as they are paid, in revenue
Bullshit.
Traffic police provide a valuable public service in helping keep the roads open and usable, with vast economic benefits significantly beyond mere law violation related revenues.
That role is recognised and justifies employing police to manage and support transport infrastructure even without generating any revenue.
The revenue generation is both a genuine outcome of financially encouraging people to obey the law and also a seedy cash grab intended to mitigate the cost of operating the necessary traffic policing functions.
When ticket revenue is down, they get chewed out hard for sure. That money was expected.
They'd still exist without it.
Banks cannot print money
They can in the UK, if they're more than a certain distance from London.
Which is why the Royal Bank of Scotland has its own bank notes.
Me: chuck a couple of days of CPU at something for fun
You: why not break the law too
Yeah, maybe I wont listen to you.
However, with a $137m pay-off I'd be tempted to buy a pi and leave it running.
Sure, it'd be lucky if it fluked the key, but people buy lottery tickets too.
What's more worrying are the multiple times Onion articles have proven to be merely prescient and published a few years early, rather than actually wrong.
If a state at war is not trying to destroy it's enemy's ability to make war, that state is ineptly led
Or they've read their Clauswitz and understand that the objective of war has fuck all to do with winning the war.
It's possible to deliver a strong positive return (above and beyond any inflation) without growth, which makes your entire point pointless.
In short: they are made to fail
What the fuck?
1 - user idiocy
2 - user idiocy
3 - user idiocy
4 - didn't fail
Nice job on proving yourself wrong (and an idiot).
Erm. WHY?
XML was a flawed concept badly implemented shittest back when it should've been aborted and not only has it got no better since but the rest of the planet has adopted usable working alternatives that are superior in pretty much every single way.
XML is shit and I hold great suspicion towards the competence of anybody that promotes it.
there are ways to discipline children without involving the police and courts
In this situation I can understand the police seeking to assure that there is in fact no threat.
I think they can also play a role in scaring a kid shitless in a "Dude, we nearly shot you. Stop fucking about!" kind of way that helps the idiot understand how silly he was while at the same time making him glad the police realised he was just being stupid.
Maybe I expect too much from the police in America.
I don't know a whole heck of a lot of truly smart people who are also religious.
Several of the most intelligent (and best educated) people I know adhere strongly to their religious practices.
Whether they actually believe any of that shit is something I'm very kind and don't press them on, but they're heavily into the 'must do' / 'must not do' shite purely on archaic superstitious grounds.
ALL of these measurements ignore people, like those who have given up
That's the class of people added in U-4.
If they're not making enough to live on, they need a new job too.
You're assuming that they're not making enough to live on. I mean, I'd like to earn $4m/week, so I'm going to keep looking for a job that'll pay that. In the meantime I'm underemployed, as I'm not working in a job that meets my income expectations.
That sure as fuck doesn't make me unemployed.
Have you ever seen naked savages run down a pig and beat it to death with sticks? None of those people want to be there.
That's supposition. I've seen video footage of people living like that, and they're damned happy when they carry dead pig back home.
They have to be there because they have no other options.
I've also met people living like that who are clearly keen to improve their standard of living. They also have access to industrialised cities offering jobs that would help them achieve that goal.
Why do you think they haven't moved to those cities?
Look, dude, most people are willing to work for a living rather than the alternative.
Hunting pigs is hard work. I respect the men that do this to feed their families.
U-6 includes under employed workers, which means they're not unemployed.
I'd argue that U-5 is flawed too. I'm technically U-5 but the reason I haven't looked for work in the past month is because I've been in North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean on holiday. It feels inappropriate to class me as 'unemployed'.
U-4 would be a more reasonable measure, but even there I can understand the difficulty of treating someone as unemployed if they haven't even tried to find a job.
I rent out property
I have NEVER had a job in my life and I never will
You're too stupid to even realise that 'landlord' is a job.
Working and taxes are for white-trash.
There was me thinking that working and taxes are for productive members of society.
I guess you despise productive people. Makes me wonder who the fuck paid for the property you rent out though.
Just try and hate me. You literally can't
This is true. Pity, sure, bit not hate.
because it's against your basic programming
Nah, it's because you're so obviously a total twat and if I went through life hating idiotic fuckwits I'd have no time for anything else.
You're not worth such strong emotions.
Forgive my ignorance then but how do I set it to not reboot without my direct instruction for the next 595680 hours?
No. The people calling it 'highest rated' are.
"Just because it's higher rated doesn't make it better" is exactly why using that shitty rating system is fucking silly.
That may just be your specific combination of OS, browser, plugins, network architecture and configuration.
I had no ads and no issues viewing the web page.
Now I'm off to see if I can find out the 40+ architectures Multiplan ran on.
In the UK Netflix basically had no films at all, so I cancelled my subscription. They may now offer a broader range of foreign and independent cinema but I have a backlog of films from TV film channels and Amazon Prime.
On Amazon Prime there's rarely anything worth searching but they do keep adding (then removing) films, and that's where I find the interesting ones. E.g. in the autumn they added The Handmaiden, the plot summary for which puts it nowhere near my normal preferences - but then I spotted the name of the director. It has its flaws but it's also a bloody good film. (I did subsequently acquire and now prefer the director's cut as it has better pacing).
Black Panther isn't the "best" to fucking anybody. Any rating system which declares it the highest rated film of all time is clearly fucked in the head.
I haven't seen Moo Moo but the title would help me manage my expectations and it's unlikely to reach the bottom of my IMDB ratings. I mean, it's a mde-for-TV kids film, the warning signs are flashing from the other side of the moon on that one.
Unlike films like Last Dance, Inferno and Taken 3. I mean, shit, Liam Neeson tends to be watchable and Forest Whitaker is awesome any time he's on screen and Taken 3 was still a horrific shitshow I deeply regret trying to watch.
Although now I mention it, fairly sure that was an Amazon Prime selection. Hmm.
90 to 180 minutes to tell a story, combining narrative, visual and audio elements, including scene setting, mood adjustments, entertainment and an actual fucking story is an artistic endeavour the results of which are often deeply enjoyable.
What sort of cunt thinks 'youtube' and 'tv' are relevant to that? They're just distribution challels, a movie is still a movie on either of them.
Maybe I'm just an old person. When did 'old people' become a synonym for 'educated' anyway?
Oddly that makes Amazon Prime a better service for me.
If a movie is genuinely good (above and beyond mere competent) then I've probably already seen it. If it's a great movie then I probably have a copy at home to watch on demand.
It's the other films that I haven't seen yet, that may actually be superb but too niche to receive mainstream recognition, that I want to see.
E.g. I saw the other day an advert for a new film about human trafficking, almost guaranteed a top rating on Rotten Tomatoes, likely to win a dozen different awards.
Meanwhile Lilya 4-ever is "Fresh: 58" despite completely and viciously depicting a compelling and realistic story on exactly the same theme.
I'd rather watch the foreign language independent film that isn't scared to properly explore its subject than the widely acclaimed Hollywood virtue piece.
It offers no subjective opinion if a movie is "the best" which is what you are trying to making it out to be.
No, he quite clearly isn't making it out to be that. He's very clearly highlighting that the article's description of 'higher rated films' is based on a demonstrably flawed measure.
Rotten Tomatoes also categorically offers only a subjective opinion. If there was any objectivity at all then the examples he's quoted would never have made the top 5 - and if you disagree with that, do please articulate the objective criteria that would grant them such lofty status.
Seems you want to apply a Strawman argument.
The fucking irony.