Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Social Justice Twitter (Score -1) 85

Typical SJWNPAT (my acronym for SJW Normal Person Anti-Terrorist), all Twitter is doing is censoring people for criticizing Ethics in Western society. Sure, some people have claimed in ISIL's name to have murdered a few people here and there, but first of all THOSE people they supposedly "murdered" are professional victims and their claims of being murdered are highly suspect no matter how many videos we produced of them being beheaded and threads on /r/WesternSocietyInAction you can point at where every laughed at the Beta Cuck Infidels. And secondly, just because they said they were ISIS doesn't mean they were, I mean, it's a hashtag, you can't police that. You can't blame some guy on Twitter who is just concerned with Ethics and sends a few rape threats to Hillary Clinton THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT SERIOUS with some other guy who murders people because that's totally unfair. And also (continued on thread 94)

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 1) 342

What are Trump and Cruz's views on NSA mass surveillance? I doubt that either oppose it but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rubio's comments don't seem, on the surface, to be out of whack with 99% of Republicans. I'd be surprised if other current candidates considered by most to not be insane strongly disagree with him on this. (Yeah, Rand Paul might, but he's already dropped out, and in any case...)

What makes Rubio more attractive than those two are that he's not on the theocratic wing, unlike Cruz, and... well, he's not Trump.

Comment Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood (Score 1) 137

I'm sure the majority of actors would love what you're saying. Most actors don't get anything close to a living wage.

Now, sure, a few lead actors do, but then they're worth it. They pull people in to watch the movie so that it's capable of making its money back and paying something slightly less shitty to the other actors.

The other problem with the "We don't want actors earning outrageous salaries like $250,000 per movie!" (seriously, that's actually not unusual for a headliner) argument is it ignores context. Acting is a shitty career. If you're unsuccessful - and you probably will be - you'll end up leaving penniless. If you succeed, well, you have an expiration date (not a massive market for older people in Hollywood) after which you'll probably be incapable of useful employment because you just wasted ten years on a combination pretending to be someone else, and serving customers at cafes to make ends meet. You'll have next to no useful skills, beyond being available for bit roles in TV shows.

I'm not saying Hollywood is the most efficient of money making industries, but the salaries, at least, are, if anything, too small, largely because it relies upon unrealistic eager dreamers hoping they'll win the popularity lottery and get to be the next Brandon Routh or Kate Bosworth.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 137

I wasn't being harsh, I was being charitable. "New and recent releases" are the ones studios are most guarded about. Those are the movies they're expecting to still make quite a bit on DVD sales and TV payments. Commercially so-so movies from the 1980s (think "They Live" rather than "Blade Runner") are exactly the kind of thing you'd expect them to give away licenses at low cost.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 5, Insightful) 137

I have Amazon Prime and we did some trials of Netflix and Hulu, and I can honestly say that it was disappointing finding nothing I was actively looking for on any of the systems. I remember spending an evening just going through a list of movies I've been wanting to watch for a while, being utterly astounded when none of them showed up on each list. Some movies were classics, some were cult movies, some were "just movies I saw in the 1980s that I'd like to watch again", some were blockbusters that hadn't been in the cinema for a couple of years. And... none were there.

Now, sure, I can find something to watch with all three, but in terms of the "I want to watch X, I haven't watched it in a while" itch, we're a long way away from having services (or even a combination thereof) that do that.

I'd be very surprised if Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = 5% of mainstream movies made since 1976.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 20

Nah, you're just being crazy. Honestly, you replied to a spoof with some bizarre "HOW DARE YOU CRITIFICATE OBAMACARE?" thing done as sarcasm. Since then you've said I'm "projecting" for calling Obama a failure.

Honestly, you've lost it. You're rambling incoherently at this point, not "mocking" "delusions".

Gonna put you in the timeout bin for a little bit. Just temporarily. Not for my sake, but for yours. I'm pretty sure you have no idea that your comments don't actually in any way relate to any sane interpretation of the comments they're responding to.

Comment Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score 3, Informative) 634

Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?

Uh, no. No it doesn't. Ted Cruz might have his judgment questioned, but only the most partisan idiot would say he'd done something illegal. If George W. Bush had done the same thing, it might have been something for the Daily Show to laugh at, but not even Salon would have called for impeachment.

Right now, a group of avowed Clinton haters is still trawling through Clinton's emails trying to find some case where she might have accidentally mislabeled an email or sent it to the wrong person. That's how pathetic this is.

To most of the world, it looks like yet another witch-hunt against a political couple that, for some reason, many on the far right in the US decided they actively hated in 1992 and as a result have held the couple to a bizarrely high standard they'd never do with any other politician.

And before you make assumptions: I'm not a fan of the woman. Her politics are far from mine. I'm depressed the current primaries are between her and someone I suspect isn't what he claims to be, and who, in any case, would probably result in four years of ideological gridlock if he won.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 20

OK.

Are you just here to winge about people not agreeing with you, or do you have anything vaguely on topic to say? I mean, the above comment doesn't even make sense.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 20

Well, if he was sufficiently awesome, nobody would be scared of change would they!

Obama is a massive disappointment. And not just because of health care reform.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 20

Well, the above reflects the views of most Bernie supporters.

And to be honest, as someone who has lived under ProtoObamacare (ie the health system minus the mandates and subsidies, Obamacare is a relatively tiny set of reforms), Obamacare, and the NHS, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.

I really can't stand Obamacare. It's an attempt to shore up a system that utterly sucks - employer based healthcare. It's ridiculously expensive, it's still possible to get denied coverage, and we still have a significant portion of the populace without health coverage. We have it because people are scared of change. And I guess because American governments (Fed, State, local) are uniquely incompetent on occasion which means the fears associated with SP have some legitimacy...

User Journal

Journal Journal: A draw 20

I'm thinking actually the Iowa results are the way the country should go. What we actually need is for Clinton and Sanders to share the presidency.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire

Working...