I really like Rotten Tomatoes, and use it all the time to see if a movie I'm thinking of seeing is worth my time... but unless I'm missing something on the site, it's not particularly good as a "recommendation service"; it's really only useful if you already know the name of a movie you're considering. Jinni does a much better job of finding movies you might not have heard of, but which happens to be exactly what you're looking for when you're thinking "what to watch on Netflix tonight?"
Oh look, someone who went to sleep in 2000, woke up in 2012 and didn't realize the deliberately planted misleading meme that was wrong then is still wrong today!
Because that hardware combination is not supported by Air Display under Lion. I'm not sure what they changed about the OS that makes that happen, but (as the Avatron website notes), the Air Display driver will disable itself if it detects that you have that hardware/OS combination.
On a brighter note, though, it turns out iDisplay works just fine (and is cheaper).
If, like me, you have a 2009 MBP with the Nvidia Gforce 9400M, running Lion, Air Display won't work for you. I don't want to downgrade to Snow Leopard just for that, so I'm out the $9.99 I paid for it.
Guess I'll give iDisplay a try, since I found the functionality quite useful...
Let's also remember when we talk about "endangering lives" that the U.S. Military, in spite of having had a year to investigate, and an obviously great motivation to find the opposite, has released a statement that states unequivocally that they can find no evidence that Manning's release of the documents has led to the loss of even a single life.
As someone else pointed out, civil disobedience carries with it the risk of arrest, and Manning must have known that if he was discovered, he'd be brought up on charges. It's also become increasingly clear that the unit he was a part of was shockingly lax in terms of discipline and security procedures, so some of the blame for the leak has to rest with the commanders of his unit. Nonetheless, the fact that Manning is on trial is a logical outcome of his actions; his treatment prior to the trial, however, has been documented to have met international definitions of "cruel and unusual punishment". Being locked in a cell the size of a small bathroom, kept naked in cold temperatures, and kept from sleeping for long periods are not humane methods of imprisonment.
I don't actually know what his personal motives were for his actions, but I applaud the actions themselves. The U.S. government/military has been involved in some heinous crimes in Iraq, and saying "everyone knows that" is not the same as being able to watch video of a helicopter gunship hunting down women, children, unarmed men, and journalists. That alone, to me, justifies bypassing "normal channels" to bring the evidence to the world. Among other things, that caused the Iraqi government to refuse to continue the policy of not prosecuting Americans who committed crimes in Iraq under Iraqi law, and that's a primary reason why all the troops are coming home, rather than leaving a token force behind.
Actually, my experience has been that iBooks does a much worse job of syncing between my iPhone and iPad than the Kindle app does... I got so sick of having to page forward to find my place that I switched back the the Kindle for my next book. Hopefully the new update addresses that...
Fry: "Remember when I snuck away on the diamond planet?"
Leela: "I thought you were just sneaking away to take a dump!"
Fry: "A man can sneak away to do TWO things..."
Leela: "I thought you were just sneaking away to take a dump!"
Fry: "A man can sneak away to do TWO things..."
I Netflixed it a year ago or so... it's not without its flaws, but worth it to me because it managed to take a the well-worn structure of standard filmmaking and find a way to turn it into a totally different experience. I still find it coming back to at odd moments a year later; it doesn't feel like something I watched, more like something that happened to me.
Like someone else posted, it's a "watch once" experience. But definitely, if you're ready for a very different experience in film viewing, watch it.
Like someone else posted, it's a "watch once" experience. But definitely, if you're ready for a very different experience in film viewing, watch it.
I thought Tabletop sounded great until I found out that it's just a platform for adding "devices" that you have to purchase in-app... iow, the $.99 just gets you the opportunity to spend a bunch more money to make it actually useful. Not quite the deal it sounded like upfront...
The central problem of all of these supercilious sayings is that the unspoken assumption behind them is that there's some sort of underlying plan to the universe that determines things like whether an individual human is "ready" for an event in their life, and withholds gratification until they've passed some invisible threshold of "readiness". Determinism is a dead philosophy outside of religious tenets, so unless theology underlies your view of life, pithy quotes like these are simply silly.
Consumer Reports has long been famous for being seriously off-base in their reports on tech gear; their writers don't generally understand the technology, they tend to pick some arbitrary benchmarks (like "screen size" or "battery life") without really getting how people actually use the item in question, and then simply compile "scores". Without taking sides in this particular dogfight, I can only say that I wouldn't trust CR's judgement of any tech gadget.
As a good example, even outside the tech world: they once ranked Breyer's ice cream far above Haagen Dazs because they liked the "texture" better. Not that Haagen Dazs is the best ice cream in the world (by a long shot), but... really?
As a good example, even outside the tech world: they once ranked Breyer's ice cream far above Haagen Dazs because they liked the "texture" better. Not that Haagen Dazs is the best ice cream in the world (by a long shot), but... really?
Yes, that does blow.
Okay, I know I'm a little late to the party, but I don't watch live tv anymore...
Based on the posts here I decided to check it out last night (also the trailers have had me intrigued for the past month or so).... Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of cheese done right (see Xena, Hercules, and/or Spartacus), but I just couldn't force myself to stick with this one past the scene when they finally get to Storybrooke. I've seen high school drama class productions with better acting, and the writing was humorless, cliche-ridden (okay, that's a given for cheese), and unbelievably stilted. I mean, just stupid, and not in a fun way. I guess it's conceivable that it'll pick up a few episodes in, but if I were the network, I would have canceled it before embarrassing myself by airing this p.o.s. pilot.
I'm doing my best to erase the fact that I gave it a shot from my memory banks...
Based on the posts here I decided to check it out last night (also the trailers have had me intrigued for the past month or so).... Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of cheese done right (see Xena, Hercules, and/or Spartacus), but I just couldn't force myself to stick with this one past the scene when they finally get to Storybrooke. I've seen high school drama class productions with better acting, and the writing was humorless, cliche-ridden (okay, that's a given for cheese), and unbelievably stilted. I mean, just stupid, and not in a fun way. I guess it's conceivable that it'll pick up a few episodes in, but if I were the network, I would have canceled it before embarrassing myself by airing this p.o.s. pilot.
I'm doing my best to erase the fact that I gave it a shot from my memory banks...
Exactly! "Blog commenter skeptics" so frequently write as though there are about fifteen scientists with dubious credentials who came up with this whole idea of anthropogenic climate change (mainly to enrich themselves), and it's now time for amateurs with a few anecdotes to point out the obvious flaws in their theory.
All the "real" scientists in the world have apparently been intimidated by the power of the fifteen climate scientists who've bullied them into accepting their conclusions without ever checking the data themselves, so people who remember a little high school science will have to show some balls and lead the way to the shining obvious truth that thousands of climate scientists have either had the wool pulled over their eyes, or they're just lying to us!
All the "real" scientists in the world have apparently been intimidated by the power of the fifteen climate scientists who've bullied them into accepting their conclusions without ever checking the data themselves, so people who remember a little high school science will have to show some balls and lead the way to the shining obvious truth that thousands of climate scientists have either had the wool pulled over their eyes, or they're just lying to us!
Actually, if I was an insane billionaire (instead of just insane), the first thing I'd do for movies is run around buying up all the rights to every movie that should never be remade. And Akira, live action or not, would be right at the top of that list.
Very cool, but it doesn't look to me like more than an incremental improvement over digital elevation maps that have been available for a long time... the most impressive thing about it to me is the fact that they've released data that covers most of the earth's surface.
Makes no sense to compare it to Google Earth, however... the cool thing about Google Earth is that it processes the data in real time. Unless I'm missing something, it appears the NASA data needs to be imported into a rendering engine and processed into video for viewing at runtime, which limits the viewer to a pre-determined path, rather than just exploring (and falling into a volcano).
Makes no sense to compare it to Google Earth, however... the cool thing about Google Earth is that it processes the data in real time. Unless I'm missing something, it appears the NASA data needs to be imported into a rendering engine and processed into video for viewing at runtime, which limits the viewer to a pre-determined path, rather than just exploring (and falling into a volcano).
I've spent my entire career working with scientists, at the National Science Foundation and at the National Academies of Science, as well as numerous other academic organizations. I have no political agenda with regard to scientific endeavors in any field, I'm simply stating facts based on my experience.
Which sounds more plausible, that an amateur who is not a scientist can look at a few reports of "fraud" and come to an accurate conclusion about a scientific theory, or that the most prestigious and respected scientific institutions in the world have actually examined data (using the scientific method!) and come to a conclusion that fits the available evidence?
I have not been attempting to "squash dissent" with regard to your claims, I've simply been pointing out that you have yet to make a rational argument to support them. If you had anything to offer other than obvious falsehoods, such as "the majority of scientists" who subscribe to anthropogenic climate change theory "aren't trained in the field of climatology", or "the raw data is so poorly collected that it's useless", I'd be interested in engaging you in discussion on the subject. Where are you getting the evidence for these absurd claims? As someone who's spent a lifetime working in the field, I can tell you I've heard them many times before, but not once has anyone presented any actual evidence to support them.
I made the mistake early on in this discussion of believing that we could have a rational discussion about the facts, but it's clear that your political agenda has precluded that possibility. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is at an end. I'm sorry to have wasted time on it.
Which sounds more plausible, that an amateur who is not a scientist can look at a few reports of "fraud" and come to an accurate conclusion about a scientific theory, or that the most prestigious and respected scientific institutions in the world have actually examined data (using the scientific method!) and come to a conclusion that fits the available evidence?
I have not been attempting to "squash dissent" with regard to your claims, I've simply been pointing out that you have yet to make a rational argument to support them. If you had anything to offer other than obvious falsehoods, such as "the majority of scientists" who subscribe to anthropogenic climate change theory "aren't trained in the field of climatology", or "the raw data is so poorly collected that it's useless", I'd be interested in engaging you in discussion on the subject. Where are you getting the evidence for these absurd claims? As someone who's spent a lifetime working in the field, I can tell you I've heard them many times before, but not once has anyone presented any actual evidence to support them.
I made the mistake early on in this discussion of believing that we could have a rational discussion about the facts, but it's clear that your political agenda has precluded that possibility. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is at an end. I'm sorry to have wasted time on it.
I tried Terra Nova too, but honestly, there just isn't enough time in the world to waste it on something as superficial and poorly written as this show. Shows like Breaking Bad have raised the bar, and it's time for producers to realize that you can't just shovel out nice-looking crap and have it live long and prosper!
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your arguments suggests that thousands of professionals from all over the globe have decided to forget all their years of training and dedication to their disciplines, and accept "flimsy evidence" with "a margin of error in the vicinity of 100%". It's clear that you have no idea how actual scientists work, or the standards of data they require before they will accept any conclusion to be drawn from it.
The fact is that your argument against the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept anthropogenic climate change theory could easily be used against you. Without presenting any evidence whatsoever, you claim that rising temperatures are collected by deliberately placing thermometers over hot surfaces and then having random people scrawl the numbers down on scraps of paper, which numbers are then fed into "tweaked computer models" to create a theory which thousands of professional scientists then accept without question.
No serious critique of a scientific theory would ever base a conclusion on such flimsy evidence. In fact, a student that turned in a paper with such poor dialectical methods being used never earn a passing grade.
The fact is that your argument against the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept anthropogenic climate change theory could easily be used against you. Without presenting any evidence whatsoever, you claim that rising temperatures are collected by deliberately placing thermometers over hot surfaces and then having random people scrawl the numbers down on scraps of paper, which numbers are then fed into "tweaked computer models" to create a theory which thousands of professional scientists then accept without question.
No serious critique of a scientific theory would ever base a conclusion on such flimsy evidence. In fact, a student that turned in a paper with such poor dialectical methods being used never earn a passing grade.
I'm sorry, but you are proclaiming the latest red herring of climate change deniers: "it's not science if 'proponents' simply declare a consensus and refuse to consider alternatives". This argument is simply not based in fact. The truth is, global warming (more properly called climate change, simply because it doesn't propose uniform straight-line warming of the planet), was never proposed by some small elite group of scientists. The theory is based on countless samples of raw data from all over the globe in experiments going back thirty years or more, with thousands of scientists in various disciplines examining the data, testing it, and many of them attempting to establish alternative theories that would better explain the observed results.
The "consensus" you're referring to simply means that the overwhelming majority of scientists who've worked in the field have not been able to come up with a theory that better explains the available evidence than the currently prevailing one, i.e., that anthropogenic climate change is real, is happening, and is dangerous to our species. In mainstream science the only remaining arguments are about degree.
Alternative theories are considered all the time; there just hasn't been one so far that fits the facts better than what most climate scientists observe.
In other words, "GW proponents" have in fact "done their work in accordance with Scientific Method" (in fact, it's almost laughable to consider that they wouldn't have). Ipso facto, if you stand by your word, you are now "right on board with them".
The "consensus" you're referring to simply means that the overwhelming majority of scientists who've worked in the field have not been able to come up with a theory that better explains the available evidence than the currently prevailing one, i.e., that anthropogenic climate change is real, is happening, and is dangerous to our species. In mainstream science the only remaining arguments are about degree.
Alternative theories are considered all the time; there just hasn't been one so far that fits the facts better than what most climate scientists observe.
In other words, "GW proponents" have in fact "done their work in accordance with Scientific Method" (in fact, it's almost laughable to consider that they wouldn't have). Ipso facto, if you stand by your word, you are now "right on board with them".
