Accurate data gets replicated more. Differing ideas swirling around will mostly look like total crap, until something new and interesting falls out the side.
No, the point is, when you're making a movie the producers decide early on things like, how long is the movie going to be. You should be targeting a length before you start talking to the screenwriter about what sort of script you'd like them to write.
And if it is 1:30 then you only fit one movie in. If it is between 2:00 and 2:30, then you can cram the amount of storytelling of 2 shorter movies in. If it is 4 hours, you can fit a trilogy of storytelling in because you don't have to re-introduce anything.
If a director takes is given a script and told to make 2 hours of movie out of it, and at the end of the process they're complaining that the final cut doesn't represent the movie they made, because to understand its greatness requires 4 hours, that just means they suck at the role of leading the process.
I actually don't blame the director, I blame the executive producers for letting the director have that much control. They need better producers that keep the creative vision on track in a participatory way instead of just phoning it in and trying to fix it with oversight after-the-fact. Not every director can also be their producer, that is very rare, just like authors needs editors, and even authors who are great editors need editors on their own work.
I prefer longer movies, but the good ones were planned to be long movies.
My wife loves action movies, whenever we watch a movie that is what she asks for.
At the end of Batman vs Superman, she told me she didn't like it. First superhero movie she's said that about. Even the ones with really weak plots like Transformers, she loved.
Anybody who suffered through that movie and can't figure out why lots of people would think it was a stinker, just wow. I can hardly even remember much of it, it was just weak clear through. I've seen unpopular movies that I really liked, but it is usually obvious why it would be unpopular. For example, lots of people think Heartbeeps was the worst science fiction movie ever made, and that's because it was actually a romantic comedy about robots. Romantic comedies don't make good sci-fi unless the writer and director are actually trying to make it sci-fi! If it is just a romantic comedy, and the marketing people make a trailer that makes it look like sci-fi, then it flops hard. And anybody who sees it and likes it is going to understand right away, there are long, slow, thoughtful sequences that would be complete torture for many sci-fi fans.
If you watch Batman vs Superman and come up with conspiracy theories about people holding it down, look, I'm not saying you should change your opinion of movies, just stop thinking you can understand what other people like!
You're just going in a circle like a moron. Why don't you go find somebody you trust to read the thread and explain it to you?
You didn't understand what was said. I'll repeat myself.
Oh, right, you can't understand that there is a process, or what step we're on. In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!
Don't be a fucking moron and ask for a conviction before there are charges. It is really stupid, and doesn't make the point you're thinking it made. Maybe stop talking for a fucking minute and read the words?
I don't know if you're right wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "liberals" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American right-wing media tells people.
Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated conservatives with false beliefs about what liberals believe?
I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what liberals actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant conservative and are just lying.
They did DNA analysis of coyotes in LA and found that they were likely the original wild population whose territory was in the place that became the city. Now they eat scraps out of the garbage, and hunt rodents. Most human residents mistake them for stray or feral dogs.
If you think people need a justification to hate nazis, news flash: Nobody cares!
Apologizing for the nazis harder doesn't make people fight them less. Give it up. Stop apologizing for nazis.
Nobody cares about your excuses. You can pretend that you didn't understand what he said and you're just accidentally defending him because you don't know better, but I don't believe it! You're pretending to be ignorant, but you're not: You're just a nazi apologist! And you knew you were doing it, because somebody tool the time to point it out.
You can split your world into mixed bags of apples and oranges and then compare the bags, that's fine. But if also try to talk to other humans about a subject, then it breaks down. If you're going to think that way, you can only talk about your own perspectives in their own context, there is no ability to communicate with other humans; you especially can't discuss policy! It requires shared words for that.
Don't be an asshole, either you're ignorant of the legal cases, or misrepresenting them.
This is slashdot, don't be too shy to give your real idea, don't worry, if you say something intelligent we'll understand it.
Feel free to go and look up the history in the SCOTUS before replying. But it is clear from your garbling of all three branches of government and their involvement that you won't.
Don't just wave your hands and imply that you have an idea, form an idea, and then cough it up.
I like the Ruby approach with Bundler. You can point to a remote repository, and then have it basically locked to a version and cached into the project. You get a lot of choices in how to manage it, and once it is set up it is easy for the developers working with it.
In C if you put in a directory and integrate it into make then you're doing good! Never ever ever believe it is "good enough" to just document how to build it. If it ships with the project, it has to build with the project.
No, you're just not understanding my words. I already addressed your point. So maybe try saying it again but leave out the "except that" that purports to talk about something I didn't address.
I'm saying, the results would still be problematic. You're saying, "Good enough for me!" except phrasing it as if it is external to you.
They're saying, if you do research on software using github for your data, you have to take file duplication into account in your formulas.
The problem, IMO, is that a lot of the rest is duplicated from somewhere else, but only one time on github, so the data is still polluted by duplication.
If a project has very few dependencies, they might be following best practices to include the exact libraries they are using with the distribution. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.
For people who did do that, they should be advised that they've created a plastic polymer out of the repeatedly-heated fats, and what they need to do is fill the pot with water, boil it for 30 minutes, and then scrub it out right after dumping the boiling water out.
They won't understand it as a robot until you give it a mannequin head and some arms. If it could mechanically twiddle its thumbs while it works, they'd be more likely to call it a robot.
In the book, "The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master" they talk about the difference between being lazy by anticipating what features people will want to change in the future, and then planning for it to be easy to make the changes.
By doing a little extra work up front that isn't totally forced yet, you can save time overall. Then instead of being totally swamped when changes are requested, you make the changes really quickly and go back to sipping lemonade in the shade.
Good lazy, and bad lazy. Duct tape fixes are usually more "quick" than "lazy," assuming the same person has to fix it in the end when the tape comes unstuck.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiocy is differing.
Accurate data gets replicated more. Differing ideas swirling around will mostly look like total crap, until something new and interesting falls out the side.
No, the point is, when you're making a movie the producers decide early on things like, how long is the movie going to be. You should be targeting a length before you start talking to the screenwriter about what sort of script you'd like them to write.
And if it is 1:30 then you only fit one movie in. If it is between 2:00 and 2:30, then you can cram the amount of storytelling of 2 shorter movies in. If it is 4 hours, you can fit a trilogy of storytelling in because you don't have to re-introduce anything.
If a director takes is given a script and told to make 2 hours of movie out of it, and at the end of the process they're complaining that the final cut doesn't represent the movie they made, because to understand its greatness requires 4 hours, that just means they suck at the role of leading the process.
I actually don't blame the director, I blame the executive producers for letting the director have that much control. They need better producers that keep the creative vision on track in a participatory way instead of just phoning it in and trying to fix it with oversight after-the-fact. Not every director can also be their producer, that is very rare, just like authors needs editors, and even authors who are great editors need editors on their own work.
I prefer longer movies, but the good ones were planned to be long movies.
My wife loves action movies, whenever we watch a movie that is what she asks for.
At the end of Batman vs Superman, she told me she didn't like it. First superhero movie she's said that about. Even the ones with really weak plots like Transformers, she loved.
Anybody who suffered through that movie and can't figure out why lots of people would think it was a stinker, just wow. I can hardly even remember much of it, it was just weak clear through. I've seen unpopular movies that I really liked, but it is usually obvious why it would be unpopular. For example, lots of people think Heartbeeps was the worst science fiction movie ever made, and that's because it was actually a romantic comedy about robots. Romantic comedies don't make good sci-fi unless the writer and director are actually trying to make it sci-fi! If it is just a romantic comedy, and the marketing people make a trailer that makes it look like sci-fi, then it flops hard. And anybody who sees it and likes it is going to understand right away, there are long, slow, thoughtful sequences that would be complete torture for many sci-fi fans.
If you watch Batman vs Superman and come up with conspiracy theories about people holding it down, look, I'm not saying you should change your opinion of movies, just stop thinking you can understand what other people like!
Why "unexpected?"
The "why" is the whole issue, and you have to establish that before you keep talking after making the wild claim.
"Oh, I'm a fan" doesn't predict high ratings, or even average ratings.
"I hate you for not pretending I'm popular"
This is slashdot, half the users probably agree.
You're just going in a circle like a moron. Why don't you go find somebody you trust to read the thread and explain it to you?
You didn't understand what was said. I'll repeat myself.
Oh, right, you can't understand that there is a process, or what step we're on. In your world, murder can never even happen because if you only have a dead body and no conviction, there is no reason to suspect a crime. You just keep asking if there was a conviction, and if not, no crime happened!
Don't be a fucking moron and ask for a conviction before there are charges. It is really stupid, and doesn't make the point you're thinking it made. Maybe stop talking for a fucking minute and read the words?
I don't know if you're right wing, what I do know is you have no idea who or what "liberals" are or what they believe, and instead you believe in an absurd caricature that is identical to what American right-wing media tells people.
Maybe you're just really ignorant of what other people believe, and all your friends are uneducated conservatives with false beliefs about what liberals believe?
I notice in your response a complete lack of interest in discovering what liberals actually believe, so surely you really are an ignorant conservative and are just lying.
They did DNA analysis of coyotes in LA and found that they were likely the original wild population whose territory was in the place that became the city. Now they eat scraps out of the garbage, and hunt rodents. Most human residents mistake them for stray or feral dogs.
Right, two are things, the other is somebody shouting about a thing.
(Hint: it isn't an acronym, it is a backronym)
If you think people need a justification to hate nazis, news flash: Nobody cares!
Apologizing for the nazis harder doesn't make people fight them less. Give it up. Stop apologizing for nazis.
Nobody cares about your excuses. You can pretend that you didn't understand what he said and you're just accidentally defending him because you don't know better, but I don't believe it! You're pretending to be ignorant, but you're not: You're just a nazi apologist! And you knew you were doing it, because somebody tool the time to point it out.
Who cares?
You can split your world into mixed bags of apples and oranges and then compare the bags, that's fine. But if also try to talk to other humans about a subject, then it breaks down. If you're going to think that way, you can only talk about your own perspectives in their own context, there is no ability to communicate with other humans; you especially can't discuss policy! It requires shared words for that.
Don't be an asshole, either you're ignorant of the legal cases, or misrepresenting them.
This is slashdot, don't be too shy to give your real idea, don't worry, if you say something intelligent we'll understand it.
Feel free to go and look up the history in the SCOTUS before replying. But it is clear from your garbling of all three branches of government and their involvement that you won't.
Don't just wave your hands and imply that you have an idea, form an idea, and then cough it up.
Thankfully, I haven't done that since 1999.
I don't actually have any special knowledge about fucking, I just won the DNA lottery and so it ends up looking that way!
Thanks for pointing that out, I had no idea that the word "wet" fails to describe the local river with the maximum known precision! Golly.
I like the Ruby approach with Bundler. You can point to a remote repository, and then have it basically locked to a version and cached into the project. You get a lot of choices in how to manage it, and once it is set up it is easy for the developers working with it.
In C if you put in a directory and integrate it into make then you're doing good! Never ever ever believe it is "good enough" to just document how to build it. If it ships with the project, it has to build with the project.
No, you're just not understanding my words. I already addressed your point. So maybe try saying it again but leave out the "except that" that purports to talk about something I didn't address.
I'm saying, the results would still be problematic. You're saying, "Good enough for me!" except phrasing it as if it is external to you.
They're saying, if you do research on software using github for your data, you have to take file duplication into account in your formulas.
The problem, IMO, is that a lot of the rest is duplicated from somewhere else, but only one time on github, so the data is still polluted by duplication.
If a project has very few dependencies, they might be following best practices to include the exact libraries they are using with the distribution. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.
That's the hilarious part; duplicating code is also most of the purpose of github!!
Wetness detected in local river!
For people who did do that, they should be advised that they've created a plastic polymer out of the repeatedly-heated fats, and what they need to do is fill the pot with water, boil it for 30 minutes, and then scrub it out right after dumping the boiling water out.
They won't understand it as a robot until you give it a mannequin head and some arms. If it could mechanically twiddle its thumbs while it works, they'd be more likely to call it a robot.
Except that, I think they're talking about a robot that would actually clear the table, too.
In the book, "The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master" they talk about the difference between being lazy by anticipating what features people will want to change in the future, and then planning for it to be easy to make the changes.
By doing a little extra work up front that isn't totally forced yet, you can save time overall. Then instead of being totally swamped when changes are requested, you make the changes really quickly and go back to sipping lemonade in the shade.
Good lazy, and bad lazy. Duct tape fixes are usually more "quick" than "lazy," assuming the same person has to fix it in the end when the tape comes unstuck.
They're also too lazy to put them away afterwards to make room for more dirty dishes!