SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
Fnord666
on Thursday November 16 2017, @10:14PM
from the aren't-you-a-little-short... dept.
from the aren't-you-a-little-short... dept.
The princes' highly recognizable faces (and Harry's iconic red hair) are hidden by their costumes, but in-the-know fans can be on the lookout for one specific scene. Boyega, who plays the former stormtrooper now known as Finn, says they appear guarding him in an elevator along with two other famous stormtroopers -- actor Tom Hardy and Gary Barlow from British pop group Take That.
"It was a great experience," Boyega said of the scene with the princes, who are second- and fifth-in-line for the British throne. The London-born actor also called the elevator moment "the best of both worlds for me."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Princes William and Harry Play Stormtroopers in 'Last Jedi'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There are three things I always forget. Names, faces -- the third I
can't remember.
-- Italo Svevo
(Score: 2, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:16PM (10 children)
Seems like a way bigger problem than maintaining a royal family though, that transition seems a little wonky to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:41PM (9 children)
It wasn't anti-capitalist, but apparently we're in the post-truth world so whatever. Limits on wealth ownership would be pretty easy and do not preclude a capitalist venture. Coops are still capitalist enterprises, they simply are no longer pyramid structures.
(Score: 1) by insanumingenium on Friday November 17 2017, @12:16AM
No matter where you draw the line in the sand that you clearly haven't given much thought to, you are literally describing limiting the accumulating of large amounts of capital.
right, post truth world is the problem...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Friday November 17 2017, @12:46AM (4 children)
Exactly. I'm for trying to take over Corporate America with coops. To do that though, we would need a very recognizable branding along with enough participants to effectively marginalize one of the bad corps in any given area. Every single dollar you spend at a coop (although really half in some coops) goes to the employees and their benefits. Although I dislike calling them benefits, when they're really critical needs. It's beyond stupid to not work for at minimum your critical needs, but living wages are disappearing causing a real drain on social services. Social services were designed to be a net, not a fucking ongoing ecosystem supporting far too much of a society. Especially a very poorly designed one that surprisingly makes some people rich providing for these social services, while failing in their original endeavor, perhaps as intended. I cannot describe any differently the offensive stupidity of creating 10,000 beauticians in an economy that might only support 100. The social services were never designed to succeed.
To stand up and fight is all about keeping the dollars local as much as possible. Socialism always seems to be a dirty word, but I see it as plain fucking common sense. You want the bottom of the pyramid to be stable. Nothing is more stable then people without duress, savings, sophisticated educations, and community engagement. That happens more when everybody has a living wage. My socialistic proposal is simply to maintain a "line in the dirt" that can't be crossed. If you get too poor to afford your own needs, then there is some other systemic problem we need to address. Instead of letting you become homeless and living like a pathetic animal around us begging for scraps, or letting you be sucked up in first time crimes driven by severe material deprivation, we make sure you have the basics (I mean basics, not McMansion) for minimal survival.
Living in Northern California right now with the homelessness crisis, believe you me, you want to not let these people fall to living like animals. I've already seen some scary shit with the homeless, and that was less than 15 miles away from where billionaires sleep.
I'm all for unlimited wealth, just as long as every other person is at the minimum. Like another poster stated, you don't need concentrated wealth like that anymore. People will motivate themselves with what they could accomplish, perhaps by organizing themselves, and will fall behind one of the uber wealthy if the idea is attractive. Elon Musk doesn't need to give a fuck you to the local craftsman, keep workers down, and then select among those with duress (and maybe no hope in Earth) to accompany him to Mars to work for him. That can happen with thousands of inspired people wanting Elon Musk's dream as much as he does. At that point, just add charismatic leadership. All of that combined with crowdfunding, why the fuck do you need these parasites again? Technology they helped develop obviated those people.
Capitalism right now is an economy of fear. Fear you will starve, fear you will be out in the cold, fear your child will be without. Artificial scarcity and C-suite sociopathic behavior have created an economy bereft of strong factory union jobs and replaced them with transient service worker jobs already set to be replaced by advanced robotics and AI. We need an economy of strength, confidence, and patriotism (maybe a little bit of nationalism, but only in that we are all Americans). You get that by what I mentioned before, and that is when people have not just living wages, but literal foundations upon which to enjoy society. Instead of a transient 30 day permit to keep all your shit bought on credit, you have actual ownership over land. Structures, small vegetable gardens, etc. You OWN your stuff versus having it on credit. Plenty of people in fly-over country understand the benefit of being self sufficient like this and getting at least of portion of what you need for your survival from the land.
I believe in a socialist foundation filled with common sense, empathy, and a lot of patriotism. After that, lay on all the vicious competitive Capitalism you want and watch super stars and celebrities swirl in 9-11th order bank accounts. I'm for having the Elon Musk's of the world swim in wealth, as long as they're driving something ultimately beneficial for mankind. My bar on that is low, so the self-heating hot dog might get me to follow some billionaire with his self-heating hot dog dream. That's all we need them for; Their dreams.
It's all good too, because the average person will have at least what they need, and perhaps a good life where they don't give a shit about being able to own a yacht. They won't be cowed animals easily manipulated by those with wealth and power, which is what we enjoy today.
If humanity survives another thousand years, I guarantee that our form of Capitalism right now will be reviled for its near complete lack of humanity.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday November 17 2017, @01:55AM
I always figured that people would be more stable with savings, sophisticated educations, and community engagement, but I do see your point about duress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @08:07AM (1 child)
Start with something we should be able to find enough soylentils to pull off:
Forking a pre-Rust Gecko version, patching every security flaw mozilla does, then finding an alternative route to including multithreading while also allowing addons to migrate with minimal changes over time.
One way of doing both that I had thought of a while back: Make threads per-window, and have new addon instances for each window. Any user who is concerned with data leaking between tabs or addons opens a new window which will have its state sandboxed from the 'parent' window's state.
Start a crowdfunding campaign to get some initial seed money from unhappy current/former Mozilla users, maybe even a few addon developers who would be open to restarting their Pre-5x addons, and start spinning up a new organization to replace Mozilla, with sane employee voted management, a corporate charter that analyzed the pitfalls of Mozilla and other similiar 'open source' organizations and what lead to incompetence, nepotism, and ballooning executive compensation, and do better. There is still a limited chance this could be successful today, but with each passing season it will fall further behind and the odds of performing such a browser coup will become unlikely if not impossible.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 17 2017, @08:29PM
Fuck that. Let's try NO PLUGINS, a system that randomizes fingerprinting, and as many countermeasures to information leakage as possible between tabs. I would seriously consider not only threads per window, but entirely separating running tabs into completely separate running programs with their own pipes, namespaces, etc. Something extremely safe for banking, but also isn't on the TOR network like Tails.
You know all the plugins I actually use? Just all the bullshit to get rid of tracking and ads. If I want to download a YouTube video, I don't use a plugin for that anymore, and beyond that, I'm not really sure what plugins are really useful for me. Instead of plugins, I would much rather see the whole thing be open source and modularized like say Asterisk. Anything really cool, and really popular, should be rolled into the damn program. The author can take responsibility for their module and interact with the other coders. If it is that popular, people can install a version side-by-side with the stock version, that allows them to use it.
That way I could install a browser, in a VM, in a Veracrypt container, and all of my banking information, passwords, etc. are used and contained within a dedicated system just for it. I already have this, but it is stock Chromium.
Quite frankly, I think the whole plugin model is the problem by opening up the browser to too many attack vectors. That, and allowing tabs to communicate with each other at all. I want that ability to tailor custom browser tabs and rules on a per target basis.
Your idea doesn't go far enough to address the real needs that we have, and that is to finally have absolute full control over the fingerprints, and to be able to present not just as anonymous, but an entirely random trackable identity that you share with others for the express purpose of Bayesian poisoning.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 17 2017, @03:18PM
I like the structure you're proposing. It's close to what I've been cogitating on, but haven't yet brought to words as well as you did.
The pitch needs a different wrapper, though. What you're talking about is not socialism. Socialism has lost all utility as a term, and what it actually is in a political science sense is nothing we want anyway. Socialists are as noxious a bunch as fascists, but it's been such a long time since we had any real socialists in America in real numbers that we've forgotten that. Even in academia, the last bastion of socialism and marxism in America, they have nearly gone extinct.
I've tried to reference the general set of principles you're talking about as "progressive, in the Teddy Roosevelt sense," because it's the closest touchstone I've been able to think of from American history, but it's not cutting through the inchoate, primal scream that the nation's political discourse has become.
We need a new political vocabulary to describe it, but none of classical political vocabulary will serve. For me, Open Source captures a good deal of the transparency and accountability we need in the next iteration of self-governance, but I don't know how much of that would resonate enough with enough people to work.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @05:04AM (2 children)
Are those chicken coops or pigeon coops?
(The standard shortening for "cooperative" uses a hyphen: co-op.)
Coops are still capitalist enterprises
It's just pathetic how many people defend Capitalism and don't even understand what it is.
In a co-op, everyone is an owner; in Capitalism there is an Ownership Class and a separate Worker Class.
(If workers are called "employees", that's Capitalism.)
no longer pyramid structures
You just defined Anti-Capitalism AKA Democracy in the Workplace AKA Socialism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 17 2017, @06:02AM (1 child)
You may just yet get your wish, commie - there was an article on Zerohedge today that speculated that the mass media's embrace of communism is to prepare the public first for NIRP, then for universal basic income.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @08:57AM
You haven't mentioned anything that corresponds to my vision of a proper future.
communism
My vision of Communism is that that follows widespread Socialism, with Socialism being worker-owned cooperatives.
As I see it, Communism comes with the gov't (including a very tight feedback loop from The Workers/The Voters) managing the things that are natural monopolies.[1]
NIRP
A negative interest rate policy has zero overlap with Socialism/Communism.
It's strictly a FIRE sector thing.
N.B. Shakespeare got it wrong; first we kill all the bankers.
...and while we're at it, let's get the assholes who bailed out those crooks.
NIRP is also called "bail-ins".
Ellen Brown wrote about it a while back.
Bail-Ins Begin: a Crisis Worse than ISIS? [counterpunch.org]
universal basic income
I'm not really a fan of that notion.
I think everybody should have a job and should produce useful stuff.[2]
In his State of the Union Address for 1944, FDR proposed an Economic Bill of Rights and said that every USAian has The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
[1][2] I recently read a guy's idea that all useful stuff should be produced by The State and that making frivolous junk should be left to Capitalists (speculators).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]