None of them are phrased or set the way a real story would be, and none of them have a clever or entertaining premise; a reference is not a joke. These are sad every year, but this crop seems especially pathetic.

I mean, The Onion is almost never funny, but looking at this crap makes you appreciate the tiny amount of work and thought they put in; there's usually at least an attempted joke there.

They weren't blacklisted. Stop with your damn conspiracy. IT was a movie in an industry that knows full well beginning actors aren't in the union.

You get your card AFTER you have done some work.

SHe is actually pretty good. The professional, Heat she is really good.

I suspect she has just picked poor scripts in most her roles.

Hey now! Teak has character. That's why it make beautiful furniture.

" Empire Strikes back is jumbled; no real beginning or end."

It's not supposed to. I understand that some people need simple stories wrapped up in a neat package, but don't blame the oive.

Just stick you your sitcom and laugh tracks, let the adults enjoy a story.

Maybe you should learn to enjoy build up and tension and not just pretty lights and explosions?

You're right about his acting ability, but the killer for the movie was direction. Portman is a much better actor, but lame script and mediocre director was what really did it in. I suspect if she was more mature at the time she could have pushed back on some of the script and direction choices.

All the hot grits in the world can't save her from that script.

And that skill is 23 throat punches a minute.

The first set dealt with unknowns in lead roles. The fact that one of them became a megastar is pretty good.

The last three where horrible directed.

Yeah, a 'eager' 125,000 for an entry level position.

Actors are paid too damn much.

Well... I think what they'll probably do is continue testing - and they probably won't be widely deployed until they're as safe as human drivers (on average, they'll probably be safer in some ways and less safe in others). Soon after that, they'll be safer than humans (because they can share knowledge, are easy to upgrade, and once there's lots of them they'll be able to communicate in ways humans can't).. well, that is, if we keep going.

I say "if", because the more likely problem is Luddites who will want them banned after the first death, even if their overall safety record is better than humans. An enormous number of extra people will die because of how slowly we'll adopt self-driving cars. This is because people are dumb and ruled by emotional reactions: when people cause collisions (which they do thousands of times a day) it's just an accident, but the first time a self-driving car runs over a kid it's going to be pandemonium - and a good percentage of people will want to go back to the old higher death rates.

As to your argument, it's difficult to compare a computer to an ant or a person on some single scale of intelligence. An ant is very good at some things, but completely incapable at most everything else. Computers exceed humans at many tasks, while lagging behind in others. No computer today could learn how to drive well by itself, or have much conception of what driving is - but we've demonstrated that computers, designed and refined over time by people, can get very good at complex tasks. I think we're still a ways off from having safe computer drivers, but it's not in any way impossible or far distant; computers are already much closer to "humans" than "ants" on the "ability to drive" standard, and there's no reason they couldn't be better than humans at driving within the next 10-20 years.

I think it shows a lot of insecurity about tech jobs that so many people here attack prisoners and fear job market competition from them after some basic tech training.

It is great that people could learn a trade which would let them prosper and be rewarded for their efforts. This could be much worse - they could be trained to become lawyers!

There's probably lots of things certain people won't do with a camera pointed at them, even if it's supposedly disabled. This will probably end up saving them some money on hijinks related car damage.

Are not, rather.

Except people who commit crimes don't really care all that much about the punishment. Harsher sentences don't lead to reduction in crime. Criminals are the kinds of people who think, "Hey, what's the punishment for killing somebody?"

You're a very broken person, but I suspect you know this.