Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Exodus (Score 1) 615

by Rakarra (#49801813) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?

I started reading The Fountainhead once upon a time. I don't think I got through the first chapter, her writing was just so terrible. I can't imagine what Atlas Shrugged would be like.

You missed all the weird S&M hate-fucking then. She alternated chapters, going from Roark's architecture in one chapter to raping Dominique in the next. When I read it as a young teenager it was all very strange... and boring.

Comment: Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? (Score 2) 186

You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB

So basically everyone on the planet should trust their private information to an untrustworthy data-mining company. And we're just supposed to... all be fine with this and hope that it works out?

Comment: Re:wrong (Score 1) 382

by Rakarra (#49754655) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

Others, especially in the Salon's comment section have already pointed out some of the fallacies with a few of those flip-flops, but I'll focus on the contraception position because no one else has, and it is hardly a flip flop. He's one of the folks who believes that life begins at conception, no later. So for him, the morning after pill is not a contraceptive because it terminates a fertilized embryo, which would make it an abortion method.

His stance is fairly consistent if you believe that before fertilization = contraceptive, after fertilization = abortion. It's a bit sneaky to say that the morning after pill is the same sort of "contraceptive" that a condom is.

Paul's support of the Blunt Amendment is also perfectly in line with his support and with his libertarian principles that people are perfectly fine to do what they wish with themselves or consenting adults, but others shouldn't have to pay for their actions.

Comment: Re: Fuck you. (Score 1) 618

by Rakarra (#49722697) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

its latant advertising. theyre betting that per dollar spent advertising, if they get 100 times as many people to see their message and half remember the message, and half of them remember the ad was so annoying that they wont buy or pateonize out of spite, then a quarter will be annoyed, forget the annoyance and remember the product or service

APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 618

by Rakarra (#49722555) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

Advertisers, take note. If people are blocking your ads, it's because you're being way too obnoxious about shoving them in people's faces

That's because they're coming from the ideal world of broadcast television, where 1/4 to 1/3 of the time is spent forcing you to watch commercials. And yeah, they would ban commercial skippers if it was technologically feasible.

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 1) 776

before the whole internet started shitting all over video games.

This never happened. It was made up by idiots like you who crave the righteous feeling of being a persecuted martyr, but don't have the fortitude to endure any kind of actual persecution.

It happened, but it happened over a fairly limited time. "Shitting over video games and gamers" would be pretty accurate, though saying there was real persecution would be an exaggeration.

Comment: Re:Yeah, disappointing (Score 1) 776

Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.

Recently all the media, even 'respectable' ones like the New York Times, have become desperate for anything to bring in page views. If there is a story that brings eyes to someone else's page, they all want a piece of it.

My God, it's like the news media version of Network Decay! Among other things, it's the trope where various disconnected channels try to aggressively chase the same demographic, and end up showing the same shows. So you'll have Spike TV, A&E, the Sci Fi Channel, and Bravo all showing Law and Order reruns, because that show brings in viewers, even if it has nothing to do with the channel's once-core mission.

Comment: Re: Yeah, disappointing (Score 2) 776

The best 1980s action movie: Aliens, with Sigourney Weaver taking the gun-toting action role.

And thinking of it, if Steven Seagal was to star in a chick flick instead of Jennifer Aniston, that would be a sign of true gender equality

It's true, but Seagal has little charisma outside of his chosen genre. I don't think most women want to think of him as anything other than an action star. Most men for that matter.

Gerard Butler and Hugh Jackman are most famous for their action movies, but they have serious chick-flick cred as well. Hugh was in Kate and Leopold and Australia and in a number of stage musicals. Gerard Butler was in Phantom of the Opera and then in P.S. I Love You the same year he was in 300. He followed that up with rom-com The Ugly Truth.

Saturday Night Live used to have a recurring skit called "Best of Both Worlds," highlighting actors who played both sides. Unsurprisingly, it was hosted by Andy Samburg as Hugh Jackman.

Who else would count? Nicholas Cage? Liam Neeson? I'm not sure Leonardo DiCaprio or Tom Hanks would count, since they're a bit more "four-corners" actors. Do comedies that both women and men like count? By the late 80s, Arnold Schwarzenegger used to alternate action with family comedies (Twins, Kindergarden Cop, Dave, Junior, Jingle All the Way).

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...