Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment I'll decide for myself thanks (Score 1) 94

Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola have urged audiences to see their films in the cinema at a time when the movie industry is reckoning with the growing popularity of video on demand and streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon.

Translation: We're in charge of the current situation and if it changes we'll have less control.

Boo-hoo. Not my problem.

"This is a story that needs to carry you through the suspenseful situation, and make you feel like you are there, and the only way to do that is through theatrical distribution"

Bullshit. Maybe that's the only way it works for him but I can decide for myself what the best way for me to view a particular movie is. Sometimes that's the theater but I have a large 4K screen at home with a good sound system too. For me I enjoy going to the theater but more as a social outing than for any practical movie going reason. It's certainly not convenient to go. The best theaters offer amenities I cannot get at home and that might be more than just the movie. If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.

"I am depending and relying on all of you to try to present this film in the best way possible."

Whose definition of best? The only one I care about is mine. If our opinions of "best" happen to match then fine but I'm not worried about what the director wants. I'll enjoy art on my terms, not someone elses.

Comment Re:Why is this difficult to understand? (Score 1) 122

I always thought that way until I realized that for the new majority of people on the internet today, the net is a tool for communicating mostly with people they know in person. So, to use old tech to give a loose analogy, online bullying is more like a real life bully who has put attack ads against you in all the commercial breaks on every channel of your TV. Even if you just want to disengage from the real world and distract yourself with electronic media, the real world jackasses can follow you there now too.

Comment Re:[cough]poor education on display[cough] (Score 1) 303

And further to that, that isn't the only place "regulate" even appears in the Constitution, with the clear intent that the enumerated powers were meant to be *governing* powers. In fact, the word appears FIFTEEN times in the Constitution, and each and every instance indicates that "regulate" is being used exactly in the definition I gave.

Even your example is absurd, since it's pretty clear a "voltage regulator" is meant to "control" voltage, in other words govern it. It is exactly the same usage.

Comment Re:[cough]poor education on display[cough] (Score 1) 303

JEsus, just how far do you want to take this argument. The fact is that "regulate" was used in governing parlance over a century and a half BEFORE the Constitution was written, and clearly the Founding Fathers, being reasonably well-versed in the English governing system were using "regulate" in exactly that sense. In fact, "voltage" as a word didn't exist until the very tale end of the 18th century or the early 19th century.

I love how the so-called "Constitutional purists" will in fact try to redefine the Framers' intentions with the most obviously moronic arguments.

Where the Constitution says "regulate", it means to control and govern, to create laws, to, well, REGULATE. Jesus Christ.

Comment Re:Side effect of the Fake news in MSM (Score 1) 265

It's more like this. People think, not entirely incorrectly, that politicians lie all the time. At the very least, they cherry pick facts and statistics to suit their position. So given that for every fact you can find an opposing one and everyone else just seems to pick the ones they prefer, why not do the same yourself?

That's where alternate facts come from. She wasn't supposed to use that phrase publicly, but that's where we are at. The truth is the set of facts you cherry pick.

Comment Re:"Explore the synergies" will be worth it (Score 1) 61

Accenture is basically a giant body shop of consultants and no skill cheap contractors. Their consultants will blow smoke up your ass harder than a fully loaded 2 stroke marine diesel and their contractors suck harder than a black hole with daddy issues. I have twice dealt with Accenture at customer sites and I have never met one who wasn't just wasting my valuable oxygen.

Yes, but if anyone can find a way to make Accenture suck even worse, it's Oracle.

Comment Re:They really don't understand. (Score 3, Interesting) 247

The foundation has to come after the initial exposure. That's how I leaned, and if you try to start with the dry stuff the kids get bored and lose interest. They have to understand where that knowledge will take them, what they can do with it.

That's why we encourage kids to read. Not just for practice, but to make them interested in reading. Start with fun books before getting into grammar and the history of literature.

Comment Re: Atheist [Re:Free global markets != wonde (Score 1) 56

and atheist (right and wrong aren't enforced socially in the same manner as Western countries)

Hogwash! For one, China is largely Buddhist (or variations of), not atheist.

Buddhism is by definition, atheist. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god (opposite of Theism, the belief in god or gods). Buddhism does not contain a god or higher power that controls everything. Buddhism is about the universe responding to what you do, whether you're resurrected as a higher or lower being depends on how you've lived your life, not what $_.Skyman allegedly says (lets ignore that every single one of his directives was written by the hand of man).

Buddha was a man who, according to Buddhism, achieved enlightenment. Buddha does not control or influence from beyond the point of enlightenment and it's the goal of Buddhists to reach the same level of enlightenment. Buddhists religious texts are treated more like guides than unquestionable directives.

Buddhism is not the only major religion to be atheist, and despite being rather non-authoritative compared to theist religions they have also been abused by those in power. That being said, I'd much rather sit next to a devout Buddhist than a devout Christian. Unwelcome proselytising is not the done thing for Buddhists (its a personal journey and all that). Buddhist being atheist is about the only thing the GGP got right though.

Second, the USA started off industrialization in a similar poorly-regulated dog-eat-dog kind of way. Europe used to rib us about it. Poor people take more risks because they have less to lose. Read about "Muck Rakers". Tape-worm eggs were sold as diet medicine, for example, and nobody did anything about it.

It wasn't just the USA, Europe was pretty messy too although we did it earlier than the US. The thing is, for Europe this was well over 100 years ago where we used kids to clean smoke stacks. For China, there are many people who remember when Mao told them to make steel in their back yards (which resulted in massive amounts of pig iron, which is too brittle for most applications requiring steel). Much like Europe and the US, China's middle class are rising.

Comment Re:Goodbye Karma (Score 1) 385

Thanks for the great comment.

The question of when a foetus becomes a human doesn't really make sense. It's a continual process. At various stages it has more or fewer human qualities and similarity to a human baby.

That's why the focus is usually on those factors, like ability to react to stimulus.

There is no good answer. It's not that kind of question.

Comment Re:Counterfeit vs. Fake (Score 1) 56

If the product really behaves as what it's being sold as, it's a counterfeit. If it doesn't, it's an outright fake. I once bought a micro SD card that turned out to be fake (it failed, and then the company said the serial number wasn't valid). When buying phone batteries on eBay, I expect them to be counterfeit. They've always worked, though I don't have any good way of telling if the mAh ratings were real.

However the collary to this is that there is a difference between "fake" and "not genuine".

Many non-genuine products are just missing a brand. Bosch make oil filters for a number of auto manufacturers. The only difference between a Bosch filter and a Genuine BMW filter is that the Genuine BMW filter has a brand sticker and a huge markup. Its the same with many ICT products. Quite often the parts you buy were made in the same factory, sold off as excess and resold at a lower price than genuine components.

OTOH, there are legitimate fakes, but they are much rarer than most are lead to believe.

Personally I've never bought a fake component, unbranded ones designed to fit, but never a fake, but I also dont buy from random sellers on Alibaba.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).

Working...