The important distinction between Slashdot and social media is that Slashdot is organized around a topic for discussion, whereas social media is designed so that everybody can broadcast every trivial detail about themselves to everybody else.
I think I might actually pay to see one feature-length Hobbit movie...
Also, if young people really were going to favor super accurate realistic imagery why is every selfie and instagram photo on internet put through a ton of filters to make it look like a mix of some old super 8 film from 1968 crossbred with a polaroid photo?
Because people who use social media have no taste.
It's similar to how the Star Wars prequels could be edited down to one or two actually decent movies
There's absolutely no reason why 20-something years worth of Anakin Skywalker's life pre-Vader couldn't have provided enough worthwhile material for three movies. George Lucas just sucked too much to figure it out.
Indeed. If such a "fiduciary duty of loyalty" really exists, then I'd love to participate in a class-action lawsuit against a bunch of our traitorous, war-criminal politicians!
No, a chop chop receives the stolen cars (acting as an accomplice of the thief), disassembles them, and then sells the parts.
That part in parentheses is important: if the shop simply bought cars from whoever brought them in and then parted them out, that's a legitimate business.
Of course, cars are a little bit of a bad example because transferring ownership requires registering the title and whatnot. Let's talk about cellphones instead, since they don't: are those automated kiosks in the mall that let you trade in old cellphones illegal? After all, somebody could steal a cellphone and then turn it in at the kiosk. Does that make the kiosk owner a huge criminal?
You cannot conclude that "cameras cause accidents" when a far more plausible explanation is "shorter yellow light durations cause accidents".
Sure you can! You just have to add the additional claim "cameras cause shorter yellow light duration" and then apply the transitive property.
He was dealing with cash and bitcoin. Nothing else. So which one of those do you claim is illegal?
The person on the other side of the transaction might have been dealing with illegal goods, but that isn't and shouldn't be any of his business. Otherwise, you could make the exact same argument to persecute anyone who, for example, buys a car from somebody on Craigslist who then uses the cash to buy drugs.
You could use it to teach a robot to read, or count the number of beers in a room, or get a drone to chase frisbees, or make a beer fridge that only opens for you and your buddies. The technology has been around for a while, but the scientists have only just realised that the maker movement could do some really cool things with this. The same board works with Raspberry Pi and PMOD sensors too.
Any ideas what you would make?"
Link to Original Source
Now all we need is for Anonymous to hack Sony again, replace Sony.com with The Pirate Bay, and put up a torrent of the movie. Then the lulz will be complete.
Nah, that's no good -- we can't have Sony actually do something good; it'd be too out of character.
No, what really needs to happen is that Anonymous should hack Sony a second time, replace the Sony.com website with a copy of The Pirate Bay, and release a torrent of the movie there.
But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.
Exactly. But since the theaters dun goofed and Sony compounded their incompetence with a double-helping of cowardice, we need to compensate. Clearly, what needs to happen now is for Anonymous to hack Sony again and release the movie to Bittorrent.
Is stealing from the Public Domain by turning copyright into some sort of perpetual entitlement morally justifiable? Not really. In the end, someone is going around the rules of society for personal gain.
Since the experimental design involved artificially aging [only] the skin by exposing the mice to tanning, they probably don't know yet.
We could also fix it by simply making a rule that "malfunctioning" camera + complaint of misconduct = bullet between the cop's eyes.