Slashdot Mirror

imdb
Milton Waddams: [talking on the phone] And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire...

A Knights Tale

Of course I also remember the PC game, which the TV show was a spin-off of.

• Information is power.
• It's better to be a pirate than to join the navy.
• 90 hours per week and loving it.
• Real artists ship.

John Crichton: That's my underwear!
Aeryn Sun: What does this say?
John Crichton: Calvin.
Aeryn Sun: Well, they're not yours ...

John Crichton: That's my underwear!
Aeryn Sun: What does this say?
John Crichton: Calvin.
Aeryn Sun: Well, they're not yours ...

"I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided."

"How long would you have to stay down there?"

"I would think that uh possibly one hundred years."

"You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?"

"It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided."

"Well I... I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down."

"Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would bemuch time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

Buffy is fantasy. Lara Croft is adventure. Xena is mythological. None of them are remotely sci-fi.

On a Buffy-related note, Hex has started its second series recently. There are some distinct parallels between Buffy and Hex, except Hex is centred around the Christian mythos, something I doubt USA advertising-dependent TV can dare to go near. I do believe it might be the first series with a lesbian ghost and evil Persian fairy in it.

Look up into the night sky - is that not proof enough of an Intelligent Designer?

Not particularly. It is however a demonstration of the vast emptiness of the cosmos and the chaotic distribution of matter that's completely indifferent to the existence of biota on this planet.

Everytime I forgive or feel forgiven, love or feel loved, that testifies to me there is a Divine Creator.

That's because of your Mormon background. The same instances that your religion calls the Spirit fit into a previously unrecognized emotional response called elevation

Even you can't deny that in those moments, mortality seems more than just living sinews of flesh coexisting on a giant rock floating out in space.

Well of course I can deny it and so can anyone else. Just because you've become dogmatic and brainwashed doesn't mean others have to accept your worldview.

There is no such thing as coincidence in this life.

Please, now you're just quoting from Latter Days.

Everything is intimately interconnected in this universe, just as one byte of data is sibling to another byte of data in cyberspace (but I digress).

So, that byte of data sitting on Joe Blow's hard drive in San Dimas that forms part of his most-recently downloaded pron is interconnected to little Sally Froo-Froo's pictures of her Bunny-Wunny that her daddy gave her for her birthday?

I somehow think not.

I would love if al tv were available pay per view.

Yeah, I would love it if Al TV was available.

At the crazy fringes of quantum physics it's not much different from zen buddhism

Actually, it is. You may have just seen a silly movie produced by cultists or read some deeply ignorant books and ended up with some bad conclusions.

A post-apocalyptic tale based on a novella by Harlan Ellison. A boy communicates telepathically with his dog as they scavenge for food and sex, and they stumble into an underground society where the old society is preserved. The daughter of one of the leaders of the community seduces and lures him below, where the citizens have become unable to reproduce because of being underground so long. They use him for impregnation purposes, and then plan to be rid of him.

Starring Christopher Walker, Brendan Fraser, Alicia Silverstone, and Sissy Spacek. Oh, nevermind!

or this will happen! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/

Mashooka? Yeh Dil? That's like forming an opinion of Hollywood based on 'Spy Kids 2'.

Try and see these if you can. I'd say they were all quite watchable, including decent production values:

Ab tak Chhappan (56 so far) - despite the 'hollywood'-like tag attached to the IMDB description, I found it quite gritty and interesting. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402014/

Dil Chahta Hai (What the heart wants) - fluffy rom-com that shows Bollywood can get things right when it wants to. Fast forward through the songs, though. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292490/

They are lacking overall, especially when compared to the masterpieces that regularly come from mainland Europe.

The problem about many European masterpieces is that they tend to be pretentious. For example, consider Kieslowski's 'Bleu'. Bleu's long periods of lazy silence following the characters around might stroke those who think it's "intellectual" but it just comes across as pretentious. Especially when other talented directors (oh, at random, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut) can make a approachable yet engaging movie.

Mashooka? Yeh Dil? That's like forming an opinion of Hollywood based on 'Spy Kids 2'.

Try and see these if you can. I'd say they were all quite watchable, including decent production values:

Ab tak Chhappan (56 so far) - despite the 'hollywood'-like tag attached to the IMDB description, I found it quite gritty and interesting. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402014/

Dil Chahta Hai (What the heart wants) - fluffy rom-com that shows Bollywood can get things right when it wants to. Fast forward through the songs, though. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292490/

They are lacking overall, especially when compared to the masterpieces that regularly come from mainland Europe.

The problem about many European masterpieces is that they tend to be pretentious. For example, consider Kieslowski's 'Bleu'. Bleu's long periods of lazy silence following the characters around might stroke those who think it's "intellectual" but it just comes across as pretentious. Especially when other talented directors (oh, at random, Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut) can make a approachable yet engaging movie.

Silent Running.

Maybe I should point out the movie in question.

> However, even at bargain bin prices, it's not worth it. $5+ for a movie that's 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60+ years old is not worth it.

Woow. That's an impressive statement.

25+ years old: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/
30+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
40+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059578/
50 years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/
60+ years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Saying that any of those movies are not worth 5$ bucks just shows the world what a moron you are.

Cheers,

--fred

> However, even at bargain bin prices, it's not worth it. $5+ for a movie that's 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60+ years old is not worth it.

Woow. That's an impressive statement.

25+ years old: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/
30+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
40+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059578/
50 years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/
60+ years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Saying that any of those movies are not worth 5$ bucks just shows the world what a moron you are.

Cheers,

--fred

> However, even at bargain bin prices, it's not worth it. $5+ for a movie that's 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60+ years old is not worth it.

Woow. That's an impressive statement.

25+ years old: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/
30+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
40+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059578/
50 years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/
60+ years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Saying that any of those movies are not worth 5$ bucks just shows the world what a moron you are.

Cheers,

--fred

> However, even at bargain bin prices, it's not worth it. $5+ for a movie that's 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60+ years old is not worth it.

Woow. That's an impressive statement.

25+ years old: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/
30+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
40+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059578/
50 years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/
60+ years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Saying that any of those movies are not worth 5$ bucks just shows the world what a moron you are.

Cheers,

--fred

> However, even at bargain bin prices, it's not worth it. $5+ for a movie that's 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60+ years old is not worth it.

Woow. That's an impressive statement.

25+ years old: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/
30+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/
40+ years old: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0059578/
50 years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/
60+ years old http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Saying that any of those movies are not worth 5$ bucks just shows the world what a moron you are.

Cheers,

--fred

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear You didn't specify that it had to be a good movie. :P

NEWSFLASH - Startling new information has been recieved this morning regarding the 10-year "right to life" controversy once again thrust into the public eye.

On the day President Bush signed the bill, dubbed as "Terri's Law II" onto the federal books, advocates for the Schiavo family state a startling discovery. Terri's parents, the Schindlers - no doubt covetous jews, have announced their comatose daughter's intentions to support the GNAA.

"We were at her bedside with a video camera, trying to put an end to all of this, if we could just get her to make her intention to continue her hellish brain-dead exiestence clear." said Schiavo's mother. "When we asked her if she wanted to live, what she had to live for....we very disctinctly heard her intentions." These soon to be released five minutes of video show a definate picture of the woman's intentions as she repedately spastically shakes her head and moans what experts say appears to be "G....NAA! G.....NAA!"

"This is a very special day for our organization," GNAA representative and Golden Goatse candidate Penisbird said. "In the midst of this national controversy, it is now very clear that our organization has supporters with a visible profile."

GNAA General Council are currently debating the potential ramifications of this cry of support, and at this time it is unclear if Schiavo will be considered as a candidate for membership - as she is quite clearly neither gay, nor a nigger. "Our organization is generally not open to white devils, filthy breeders, or female creatures - however, considering the high profile nature of the individual and our well-known reputation for philantrophy, it is possible we might make an exception allowing Schiavo to become a member, to fulfill her dying wish," said GNAA representative KiSSy.

As of this time, no definate statement has been made regarding Schiavo's future with the GNAA. However, it is rumored that her parents are now diverting a yet-undisclosed sum of money to the GNAA's Nigerian bank accounts, in accordance with their daughter's wishes.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

• First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
• Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
• Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to

This... is my BOOMSTICK!!!!

I've noticed in recent years that a lot of people I meet secretly harbor very intense apocalyptic fantasies.

Not the "Oh wow, Threads was some crazy shit, imagine that happening" or some religiously motivated desire to bring about a biblical event, but a genuine sense of "Go on, fuck it, let the zombies rise, let the plagues spread and if I'm lucky I can ride it out."

When the fake news reports appeared regarding a disease in Cambodia that briefly animated the dead, the most common first reaction I encountered by those who believed it to be from a reputable source was "Fuck YES". For a moment, I was aghast, and then I realized part of me was whispering the same thing.

But I'm writing to tell everyone of my favorite zombie movie: Shaun of the Dead.

It is hilarious. Two stoners wind up in the middle of a city full of zombies and decide to be action heros. But it doesn't work out quite perfectly. Check it out this Halloween.

Mandatory reference

Please study the list for atleast 10 full minutes ( assuming pop culture hasn't numbed your attention span:) and its clear movies haven't grown complex, not by a long shot.

Take the top 10 in that list. Other than LOTR & maybe starwars, the rest are straightforward good-vs-evil narratives.

Ok, take the top 25. You have memento & usual suspects...both are an example more of puzzle/trickery than true complexity.

Take the top 50...you now add Matrix & Eternal Sunshine...two examples of, forgive me, pretentious complexity as opposed to being genuinely complex.

On to the top 100...

I'd wager that truly complex films won't do well on the box office.
Simpler motifs are more compelling.
Why ?
Because narratives mirror human life.
Human life is primarily about
1.ambition
2.rejection
3.acceptance
4.mortality

You can play combinatorics with above 4 plotpoints to get finite set of 3-acts & those would translate to premises. You then construct characters to advocate said premises, such characters would then lead to conflict,lo & behold...drama!
Ingredients have always been the same Pemise->Character->Conflict.
For a forceful primer on why this is so, study Lajos Egri, for example.

Film has a roughly 106 year old history at this point. We're still dealing with the same stock naratives, and a 106 years later, unless the species have evolved to some higher ethereal plane, we'll deal with the same narratives.

Ofcourse Joe becomes Neo to keep up with pop culture...thats as far as complexity goes.

What has changed is the phenomenal growth of meta.
50 years ago, you forgot about the outside world & watch a flick & walk out mesmerized by the characters & the narrative. Now, nobody cares about the characters as much as which star is playing the character, whom he's sleeping with, whats the size of his paycheck, where's the film's blog, what did the director say on Jon Stewart's show, hey did you see the trailer on Charlie Rose, did you hear that joke on Jay Leno, Larry King,...so much meta-info.

Gimme the first & last name of the character played by Tom Cruise in Speilberg's WOTW ?
Who cares ? It was a Tom Cruise flick, made for the studio average of $120+ million, probably made twice as much on the box, had cool cgi, ...more complex ? Certainly not. Good guy Cruise saves planet from bad guy Martians...so whats new ?

Mandatory reference

Please study the list for atleast 10 full minutes ( assuming pop culture hasn't numbed your attention span:) and its clear movies haven't grown complex, not by a long shot.

Take the top 10 in that list. Other than LOTR & maybe starwars, the rest are straightforward good-vs-evil narratives.

Ok, take the top 25. You have memento & usual suspects...both are an example more of puzzle/trickery than true complexity.

Take the top 50...you now add Matrix & Eternal Sunshine...two examples of, forgive me, pretentious complexity as opposed to being genuinely complex.

On to the top 100...

I'd wager that truly complex films won't do well on the box office.
Simpler motifs are more compelling.
Why ?
Because narratives mirror human life.
Human life is primarily about
1.ambition
2.rejection
3.acceptance
4.mortality

You can play combinatorics with above 4 plotpoints to get finite set of 3-acts & those would translate to premises. You then construct characters to advocate said premises, such characters would then lead to conflict,lo & behold...drama!
Ingredients have always been the same Pemise->Character->Conflict.
For a forceful primer on why this is so, study Lajos Egri, for example.

Film has a roughly 106 year old history at this point. We're still dealing with the same stock naratives, and a 106 years later, unless the species have evolved to some higher ethereal plane, we'll deal with the same narratives.

Ofcourse Joe becomes Neo to keep up with pop culture...thats as far as complexity goes.

What has changed is the phenomenal growth of meta.
50 years ago, you forgot about the outside world & watch a flick & walk out mesmerized by the characters & the narrative. Now, nobody cares about the characters as much as which star is playing the character, whom he's sleeping with, whats the size of his paycheck, where's the film's blog, what did the director say on Jon Stewart's show, hey did you see the trailer on Charlie Rose, did you hear that joke on Jay Leno, Larry King,...so much meta-info.

Gimme the first & last name of the character played by Tom Cruise in Speilberg's WOTW ?
Who cares ? It was a Tom Cruise flick, made for the studio average of $120+ million, probably made twice as much on the box, had cool cgi, ...more complex ? Certainly not. Good guy Cruise saves planet from bad guy Martians...so whats new ?

Mandatory reference

Please study the list for atleast 10 full minutes ( assuming pop culture hasn't numbed your attention span:) and its clear movies haven't grown complex, not by a long shot.

Take the top 10 in that list. Other than LOTR & maybe starwars, the rest are straightforward good-vs-evil narratives.

Ok, take the top 25. You have memento & usual suspects...both are an example more of puzzle/trickery than true complexity.

Take the top 50...you now add Matrix & Eternal Sunshine...two examples of, forgive me, pretentious complexity as opposed to being genuinely complex.

On to the top 100...

I'd wager that truly complex films won't do well on the box office.
Simpler motifs are more compelling.
Why ?
Because narratives mirror human life.
Human life is primarily about
1.ambition
2.rejection
3.acceptance
4.mortality

You can play combinatorics with above 4 plotpoints to get finite set of 3-acts & those would translate to premises. You then construct characters to advocate said premises, such characters would then lead to conflict,lo & behold...drama!
Ingredients have always been the same Pemise->Character->Conflict.
For a forceful primer on why this is so, study Lajos Egri, for example.

Film has a roughly 106 year old history at this point. We're still dealing with the same stock naratives, and a 106 years later, unless the species have evolved to some higher ethereal plane, we'll deal with the same narratives.

Ofcourse Joe becomes Neo to keep up with pop culture...thats as far as complexity goes.

What has changed is the phenomenal growth of meta.
50 years ago, you forgot about the outside world & watch a flick & walk out mesmerized by the characters & the narrative. Now, nobody cares about the characters as much as which star is playing the character, whom he's sleeping with, whats the size of his paycheck, where's the film's blog, what did the director say on Jon Stewart's show, hey did you see the trailer on Charlie Rose, did you hear that joke on Jay Leno, Larry King,...so much meta-info.

Gimme the first & last name of the character played by Tom Cruise in Speilberg's WOTW ?
Who cares ? It was a Tom Cruise flick, made for the studio average of $120+ million, probably made twice as much on the box, had cool cgi, ...more complex ? Certainly not. Good guy Cruise saves planet from bad guy Martians...so whats new ?

Since when is setting up a honeypot considered "Vigilante"?

Since someone wants Microsoft to sound like a tough SOB out to wreak havoc on those who would do us harm.

Would you go see a movie that is described as "A New York City architect becomes a one-man honeypot after his wife is murdered..."?

Films' "authors" are generally the studios. Stay through the end credits and you'll usually see something like "The author of this film for copyright purposes is..." The copyrights on the Star Wars films are owned by 20th-Century Fox and Lucasfilm.

That means in the US, each film gets a flat 95 years, not a period based on Lucas' lifetime. (I'm not sure exactly how it holds up for the first movie, which was made just before the copyright laws changed in 1978.)

Incidentally, the author's life-based period is now life+70 years. I think it might still be 50 in Canada, though.

Wasn't that the premise behind Doom? Of course, I don't think Patient Zero was a volunteer...

Wasn't real sure what the OP meant about the "Ding dong, the witch is dead" song was edited out (had visions of some ultra-PC schmoe saying the song was too graphic and encouraged violence), so I googled up this from imdb.com. Lots of interesting archeological findings there on how the movie was edited (the bit about removing a scene and flipping the image in the scene following to keep the original character positions seems the wildest claim there).

Anyhow, here's the bit on the Witch's dead. Song's still there; apparently an additional performance isn't:

A scene where the four main characters return to the Emerald City with the witch of the west's broomstick (including a reprise of "Ding Dong, The Witch is dead!") was cut. Only the song survived; the footage no longer exists (except a shot or two that can be found in the theatrical trailer).

Interesting case for how even recorded history can be easily lost. I doubt there's a single movie where this isn't the case -- heck, over on the Stella List (discusses Atari 2600 programming), we're trying to relocate an old Java port of the popular Stella ("no relation to the list") Atari 2600 emulator. There's hardly a medium around that keeps a perfect history, even when it's theorhetically possible, even arguably easy to do so.

I'm also reminded of my studies of Mark Twain's composition of The Mysterious Stranger, where scholars try to piece together versions by, among other things, what color pen the MSs use, or Walt Whitman's [famously] continual edits to Leaves of Grass . I'd argue our concept of 'final cuts' is a concept born solely via legacy conventional mediums of expression. Without books editions, film releases, etc, we'd have an even more difficult time discussing what's authoritative.

I'll try to stop now. I'd only initially wanted to show the Oz info, and now I'm about to launch into a diatribe about Edward Albee's desire to open up the arts from the clutches of big business (particularly in NYC's Broadway and off-Broadway theaters) so that the masses can get what he feels is a 'real' education, but at the same time uses that same power of copyright (back into another poster's deal about this all stemming from ramifications from the way IP works) closes down a local-yokel presentation of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf because he felt one of the actors wasn't believable in the role, not b/c of acting ability but b/c he was too tall for Albee to believe his stage-parents were his actual parents, and b/c the role as written was for a 16 year-old and this guy was 24. Performative art by definition can never, no matter how sessile the script, achieve anything resembling a final cut, intrusions like this one by a living author nonwithstanding.

But I won't mention that, and will simply say the age-old song has not been cut from Wizard of Oz. Now go watch a real movie like Zardoz.

Wasn't real sure what the OP meant about the "Ding dong, the witch is dead" song was edited out (had visions of some ultra-PC schmoe saying the song was too graphic and encouraged violence), so I googled up this from imdb.com. Lots of interesting archeological findings there on how the movie was edited (the bit about removing a scene and flipping the image in the scene following to keep the original character positions seems the wildest claim there).

Anyhow, here's the bit on the Witch's dead. Song's still there; apparently an additional performance isn't:

A scene where the four main characters return to the Emerald City with the witch of the west's broomstick (including a reprise of "Ding Dong, The Witch is dead!") was cut. Only the song survived; the footage no longer exists (except a shot or two that can be found in the theatrical trailer).

Interesting case for how even recorded history can be easily lost. I doubt there's a single movie where this isn't the case -- heck, over on the Stella List (discusses Atari 2600 programming), we're trying to relocate an old Java port of the popular Stella ("no relation to the list") Atari 2600 emulator. There's hardly a medium around that keeps a perfect history, even when it's theorhetically possible, even arguably easy to do so.

I'm also reminded of my studies of Mark Twain's composition of The Mysterious Stranger, where scholars try to piece together versions by, among other things, what color pen the MSs use, or Walt Whitman's [famously] continual edits to Leaves of Grass . I'd argue our concept of 'final cuts' is a concept born solely via legacy conventional mediums of expression. Without books editions, film releases, etc, we'd have an even more difficult time discussing what's authoritative.

I'll try to stop now. I'd only initially wanted to show the Oz info, and now I'm about to launch into a diatribe about Edward Albee's desire to open up the arts from the clutches of big business (particularly in NYC's Broadway and off-Broadway theaters) so that the masses can get what he feels is a 'real' education, but at the same time uses that same power of copyright (back into another poster's deal about this all stemming from ramifications from the way IP works) closes down a local-yokel presentation of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf because he felt one of the actors wasn't believable in the role, not b/c of acting ability but b/c he was too tall for Albee to believe his stage-parents were his actual parents, and b/c the role as written was for a 16 year-old and this guy was 24. Performative art by definition can never, no matter how sessile the script, achieve anything resembling a final cut, intrusions like this one by a living author nonwithstanding.

But I won't mention that, and will simply say the age-old song has not been cut from Wizard of Oz. Now go watch a real movie like Zardoz.

I call BS, there's no mention of it being cut in:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0032138/alternateversions

Not to mention, "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead" is #82 on the AFI's list of Top 100 Songs.

What they do say is:
"Original preview versions of "The Wizard of Oz" ran several minutes longer than the current version; These are the scenes that were cut or shortened to reduce the running time. These scenes were never included in any officially released version of the film: ...
A scene where the four main characters return to the Emerald City with the witch of the west's broomstick (including a reprise of "Ding Dong, The Witch is dead!") was cut. Only the song survived; the footage no longer exists (except a shot or two that can be found in the theatrical trailer)."

And according to wikipedia:
"Originally, the crew returned to the Emerald City to a "hero's welcome", with everyone singing "The Wicked Witch is Dead". This too was cut after early previews. Footage of this scene no longer exists, except for a few frames seen in a later re-issue trailer."

Thanks for that hilarious reference to Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Among other notable trivia, The word "f*ck" is used 228 times in the movie. Geez, the web is such a useful tool.

Thanks for that hilarious reference to Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Among other notable trivia, The word "f*ck" is used 228 times in the movie. Geez, the web is such a useful tool.

"Make it the commander Ronald Reagan."

"Make it the commander Ronald Reagan."

Imagine a world where you could only watch stations owned by Warner Brothers, only get Warner Brothers cable, and all movies were made by them, and only rent your television (made by them, of course) along with your cable? If anything, Time Warner is where the Bell Company was in 1900 (but a bit weaker), as the big fish in the pond which has some local monopolies but not one which has a total stranglehold over the market.

Give them time. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not advocating the return of Ma Bell. But I am allowed to express nostalgia for the golden age of telecommunications -- and disappointment/regret at the direction things are going. What is the long term future of the PSTN? Many people think that it will become just another protocol on the internet. That's all well and good -- once my home internet connection is as reliable and bullet-proof as my POTS line currently is. Short of DS1s (more Bell/Telco technology) or other leased lines I have never seen an internet connection that was remotely as reliable as my consumer phone line. In fact, come to think of it, all the times that our T1s went down we reported the problem with our land line telephone which was still working.

I am also leery of the fact that none of the new communications technologies are regulated -- and the industry will fight tooth and nail to make sure that they remain that way. If Verizon screws me on my land line I can call up the PSC, file a complaint and be talking to a Verizon executive within two hours. If he can't/won't solve my problem then the PSC will force them to do so. I do not see any similar protection in place on cell phones or VoIP services. And even if they are eventually regulated watch it wind up being the FCC or FTC doing it. I trust my state agency a hellva lot more then I trust the Feds.

I would like to see cell phones, VoIP phones and even broadband internet access in general brought under the jurisdiction of the PSC/other state agencies. In this day and age these are all life essential services -- it is totally unfair to both Verizon/other real phone companies and the consumer to allow them to keep operating without any sort of Governmental oversight. It would also prevent them from screwing the consumer in other areas -- the PSC would never allow a carrier to demand a $1,000 deposit -- but that's exactly what Verizon Wireless pulls if you have shitty credit.

If we are to pay taxes to maintain this thing called the free market, I am all for paying them.

Except as long as the people who are competing with POTS services (Time Warner, Vonage, wireless carriers, etc) aren't held to the same standards and regulation then it's not a free market anymore.

In any case, whatever you say about AT&T back in the day, they had the ability to screw the consumer. The media empires (of which Time Warner is a part) have the ability to screw our country and way of life via their control of the mass media and journalists. Ever seen The Insider and how CBS Corporate tried to stop CBS News from running a story that would be damaging to an advertiser? And that's just the people who only care about the bottom line! There's also assholes like Rupert Murdoch using their empires to force a political agenda. Even if you agree with that agenda (and most sane people don't) you have to agree that it's fucking scary to see that much power in so few hands.

I could go further and point out how companies like this one are buying up tons and tons of local media. Or how your friends at the FCC tried to change the media ownership rules in the favor of the big companies at the expense of local interests. Yeah, poor Clear Channel is only allowed to own 40% of a local market right now. Must be tough for them.

I fear that we do indeed live in interesting times.

I doubt any prison in the US has Internet access.

Of course you can get internet access in prison. You just have to be creative enough.

Mrs. Robinson?

Ninja, pffft! We both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374900/quotes

See also the use in The President's Analyst - there it's by "TPC... The Phone Company"

-David

For those of you who doubt how all pervasive and powerful Ma bell back in the day.

Has a few decent laughs as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/

At this risk of being utterly humorless, I've seen the term cougar used for that, but I can't cite a good definitive source. And the verb tadpole, after a move with that name.

I got zip googling for "World Trade Center firetrap". Changing it to "'World Trade Center' firetrap" I got one from IMDB, their page about Dean Cain. Ah, I got a bunch when I mootered "'World Trade Center' firetrap". Looking at the first 10 results, only one said it was one without any data supporting the claim. Most results were about other buildings being firetraps and one was about a floating boat that was one.

What melted the steel was the burning of the office furniture, paper, etc., and this didn't require jet fuel.

Office furniture doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, also the smoke from such a fire would be black and not the white that was seen. Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500F). Yet in the WTC there were temperature in a few hot spots greater than 800F in these hot spots (some over 1300F). Even using the 1300F temperature, that's still below 2500F. That's a big difference between what the temperature in the WTC was and the melting point of steel.

Falcon

Everybody hates TPC