Slashdot Mirror

Always with the multiple pages, yes I know you get ansy and start doubleclicking words or some other psychological thing, but for those with attention spans:

One Nice Single Page With No Ads

Iran is not as bad as the Bush administration claims. A key US ally boils people alive and the US rewards him with very generous aid. "Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive WARNING horrific images of torture! http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39 43.htm )

Iran on the other hand, amongst many things, gave us many humanist movies such as Kandahar about Afghanistan, on Time's best 100 movies of all time http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/0,23220,ka ndahar,00.html and Turtles Can Fly about Kurdish Iraq http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20050414/REVIEWS/50324002/1023 Iran is *not* evil, nor is Chavez. Hands off!

>Are you blaming Katrina on global warming?
Partly, yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/01/katrina .warming.ap/

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109 9102,00.html

All on one page

PS: I know I'm a karma whore.

This statement tends to fall apart when you realise that the freedom the terrorist is fighting for is freedom from your existence.

Are you referring to Islamic extremists or neocons here, because it applies nicely to both groups, which is the point that the grandparent post was trying to make.

That's cruel hard. Even President Chirac would concede that the USA is less bad than al-Qaeda.

Are you sure? In a 2003 TIMEeurope poll they asked "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq, North Korea or The United States". Almost 87% of people voted for the USA.

In what way was the actions of al-Qaeda more evil than the actions of US army in the past few years? By all the criteria that I can think of, the US Army is way ahead, e.g. number of attacks, number of innocent people killed, damage done to infrastructure etc.

The Terrorists seem a bit more forward to me; The Neocons hardly ever kill you for not converting.

How do you reckon? Compare body counts - USA is a few orders of magnitude ahead of al-Qaeda.

I checked the minutes of our Neocon meeting and we definitely had it down as "indiscriminantly killing *terrorists*".

At their meetings they call it "indiscriminately killing *infidels*". What does what you call the people want to kill have to do with anything?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816, 1101299,00.html

( credits to: http://www.sketchy.ca/PermaLink,guid,3da4e3a8-f003 -4bf2-bf5b-49cc34ba850a.aspx )

The link gives you just a shaving of the article, this link give you the whole ice cube.

The full article seems to be available in the print-only version here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816, 1101299,00.html

You're not missing much, though -- I'm guessing this one was a sidebar blurb, as it's only two paragraphs anyways.

the US won't do anything like this because there isn't a ton of oil in the ground in China....

There's some. Right next to China's bright, shiny nukes.

China wasn't always so heavily dependent upon imported oil. The discovery in 1959 of the Daqing oil fields under the Manchurian grasslands meant the once largely agrarian country was for decades able to produce more crude than it required, a happy circumstance that the government celebrated as a political victory. "Study Daqing!" chanted legions of Red Guards during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when the country's best-known "model worker" was Wang Jinxi, who was said to have plunged into a vat of Daqing oil during a freezing winter and stirred it with his body so it would continue flowing. Oil and gas discoveries in the South China Sea and Bohai Gulf, where drilling began in 1979, made China seem all the more invulnerable to oil shocks, and the country remained an oil exporter until 1993. Today, however, output from China's top four oil fields is in decline. By some estimates, the country's current proven reserves will be depleted in as few as 14 years. Meanwhile, largely untapped petroleum pools believed to lie beneath western China's desolate Tarim Basin are uneconomic to drill, even with prices at $50 a barrel.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,1 3673,501041025-725174,00.html

How could anyone think that threatened with life in prison by a repressive government, a Chinese "Citizen" would possibly choose to not immediately capitulate to ANY request by the police?

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations! Here's another Chinese citizen.

One example:

Young women killed for dating. Limbs amputated for petty theft. Makeshift courts deciding the fates of members of local Muslim communities. The Western world has grown accustomed to hearing about the brutalities of Islamic law. However, these primitive practices are no longer limited to the remote tribal areas of Pakistan, the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or oppressive, mullah-dominated Iran. Today, thanks in large part to a massive flow of immigration from Muslim countries, sharia law and medieval customs are becoming increasingly common in the heart of Christian Europe.

And another:

Noor Khan awoke one morning last September to a knock on her bedroom door. Several people, most of them strangers, stood clustered outside. It was Noor's wedding day, and she was the last to know.

A relative visiting from Amsterdam pushed forward in introduction her son, a pleasant-faced young man named Munir (like Noor's, his and other names have been changed to protect Noor's identity). This was Noor's husband-to-be. Noor's brother Ali embraced her, squeezing so tightly it hurt. "Don't embarrass me," he whispered. But when Noor, then 17, objected, he exploded. "I'll kill you. I'll do it right now, I don't care," Noor says he shouted. Munir and his companions went downstairs and Noor began sobbing uncontrollably.

Hitler would have walked in to England in 1940, RAF or not, and, from a consolidated Europe would have likely beaten Russia.

Basically true, but not quite that much. A solid Dunkirk victory would still not've been enough to give Hitler a military landfall on Britain before 1947. It would've destroyed the RAF to the point where the Luftwaffe could have air superiority over every UK port, rendering an American landing in France impossible... but

Had the Luftwaffe not switched to city bombing, the RAF was literally down to its last day of fighter strength.

You are repeating optimistic Nazi propaganda that was disproven a week later. That is, at best, a big exaggeration. The urban targeting was a mistake, but by itself wasn't what sealed the Luftwaffe's fate. If it had been avoided, the RAF would've pulled their airstrips 50mi north, reducing their response time and increasing bombing effectiveness to the tune of thousands more deaths, but that's still far from decisive.

No one thing won the war on its own. Many individual things, in their absence, would have been enough to have lost it.

If some of those things had combined to "lose" the war, it would still have been won later. By 1949 or so, the fruits of the Manhattan Project would turn Berlin into an atomic wasteland. (Probably after a dozen other bombs had smashed Wehrmarcht strongpoints on the way into Europe)

Three feet of sinking plus other issues, like rising water levels. Here, read this time story:

http://www.time.com/time/reports/mississippi/orlea ns.html

The story's author is Nathan Thornburgh. A look at his track records at the Time shows a total lack of technology articles. And this story isn't raising his average. Looks like the author is anything but a techie. Which doesn't prevent him from writing down to his audience about things he knows nothing about.

Frankly, I can't help but wonder if Thornburgh hasn't been completely hogwashed by this Carpenter guy. The story would also be a tad more convincing if the artcile didn't read like a bad movie script or one of those inane pulp "hacker" novels concocted by writers who think using FTP to transfer files is a great technical prowess.

Thornburgh should write B-movies for the sci-fi channel. At least he won't have to explain the technobabble.

And which large profitable airline would that be? If you are talking the United States, there is only one - Southwest. And since you didn't seem to know, Southwest hedged 85% of its fuel expenses through the end of 2006 at the equivalent of $26 per barrel, not the $60+ it is running presently. And those fuel hedges are running out, and I don't think any banks are willing to bet like that again.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1111087731.html

http://www.time.com/time/globalbusiness/printout/0 ,8816,1074147,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A551 40-2005Apr14.html

Do the math on that, and its closer to 40% - 50% of operating costs when that runs out; Southwest has freely admitted that it would be losing money just like all the other large U.S. airlines if it was paying market prices for fuel. Presently, Continental and Southwest have industry leading CASMs of about $.09 when running 737s, of which about $.04 is fuel. Make fuel $400 per barrel, and your fuel CASM goes to about $.32, leading to a total CASM of $.37, an increase a factor of 4, not 2.

In addition, if the price of a seat goes up by a factor of 4, a tremendous amount of traffic will die away, which means either the airlines will have to park a tremendous number of airplanes with expensive leases, raise the ticket prices even more than 4 times to cover it, go into bankruptcy to cover the leases, etc. - airlines do NOT shrink in size easily, because they have such high initial capital costs for equipment.... But let's assume that the prices "only" go up by a factor of four.

Hotel in the U.K. (figures taken from friend who just came back)
75 pounds/night / .554 pounds/USD * 21 nights = $2,843 hotel cost.

Flight round trip EWR to Heathrow on Continental (SWA doesn't go international): today's cost: $729.00 round-trip. Times 4? $2,916.

Your holiday just got more expensive.

But I agree with you that $400 a barrel for oil will have much more significant effects than doubling your holiday cost. Quadruple the cost of anything that has to be transported or farmed.

I simply was pointing out that DIA is a symbol of an industry that has peaked, and is on the way downhill, like vinyl records, incadescent light bulbs and CRT manufacture. And it's a bit depressing for me.

"The End of Management?"

"Market Experiments Inside Companies"

Yahoo's prediction market

Prediction market

You too can bet in prediction markets!

That doesn't stop me though. Although I have noticed that people who suggest we try something different than the status quo are routinely modded down on /.

Do you actually believe because these people have all this "stuff", i.e. crap... they are any more happier than you or I?

Of course the rich aren't really happier because of their wealth. Mo' money, mo' problems, as far as I'm concerned. But there is one thing that makes them happy, makes them fulfilled and fixes many of their problems: Power.

They say power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. And - this is America after all - everything is for sale; power can be purchased.

Being able to control the fates of thousands of worker drones - to make them happy or make them sad as you wish - that must be very satisfying, especially for megalomaniacs and psychopaths. CEOs are given power first and foremost - that is why Bill Gates goes to bed with a smile on his face.

I guess I should be explicitly clear - I am in favor of not only giving ordinary workers more money, but also more power. This actually benefits the CEOs because workers are more productive when they feel like they matter. Turnover also decreases. So much of capitalism actually seems to be done out of spite. Many company policies are blatantly counter-productive and humiliating. I think that's because certain elements in management (the psychopaths I mentioned earlier) value control over success. They would rather have their personal power than see the companies earnings go up. For a somewhat glib example, see Catbert the evil HR director in Dilbert. However, there is a movement afoot to free us from the office psychopaths. Check out this article.

So I guess you didn't know that Ho was a Communist since 1919 and that NO American administration would be friendly to an agent of Moscow?

http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/h ochiminh.html

You need to work on your sarcasm detector, btw.

The police in South Korea - a country as mad about gaming as the UK is about football - report that of the 40,000 or so cybercrimes reported in the first six months of 2003, more than half (22,000) had something to do with online gaming.

"Today the average welfare recipient lives better than the kings of Europe did 250 years ago. Our poor people are fat sitting in air conditioned trailors watching color TV instead of dying in the gutters."

"12% of Americans live below the poverty line. As opposed to 10% in China, BTW."

And you trust facts and figures released by the Chinese government? Wow. (by the way, the 10% on the CIA's "factbook" was provided by the Chinese) That aside, how were your calculations made? What sources are you using?

Just FYI, 10% of over one billion > 12% of 285 million, so whatever point you were trying to make with this handy little factoid totally escapes me. But because you seem to think Lennin had it right where the US founding fathers did not, I ask you why China is bar none the world's biggest violator of copyright and intellictual property law if they're so capable of an economy full of technological innovation. This isn't to mention their extremely large and active network of information gatherers (read: spies) trying to "aquire" military, nuclear, engineering, and other secrets. If they're as great as you tout, why don't they just build this stuff themselves, instead of stealing it? This is just as good as the Chinese sending a Nigerian chain letter...

"Most honorable nuclear engineer, if you could just share the superuser info for the FTP you keep your most super-secret uranium refinement data on..."

Sometimes I wonder if there is a limit to how much this figure can be exaggerated. Real story: several millions died because of very bad harvest (remember, climate sucks in Russia) and destruction of economy by the Civil War. A few more millions died directly in Civil War.

Again, I'd like to know your source for the "real story." I don't doubt millions of Russians were killed during World War II, but again, I doubt you're considering the source of your information and the fact that most of the BS to come out of communist nations is propaganda.

BTW, if you meant other countries, such as Cambogia, it would have been nice of you to mention that carpet bombing by US Air Forces killed more Cambogians than Pol Pot did (news to you?)

Yes, actually, it probably is news to him, considering the high estimates for Cambodian (you did mean CamboDia, didn't you?) killed are around 500,000 (sources here or here) vs. 1.5 million killed by Pol Pot. And that's Pol Pot's low figures.

"..and total misery for the poor bastards forced to live under communist rule."

"I dunno, I rather enjoyed it. Certainly was better than having half the population living in poverty and a quarter of the population starving."

Let's put aside the fact that you claim you actually enjoyed living in nations where the thought police not only exist, but thrive, and human rights are non-existant. Didn't you just say that only 12% of Americans are living below the poverty line? In what capitalist nation have you lived where 50% of the people are poor and 25% are starving? I'm curious.

I look forward to the troll mod for this. :D

See this article. Cooper's source was revealed because Time editors chose to reveal that source, against Cooper's wishes, in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling. Cooper should not have trusted his editors, if he really wanted to protect his source. No amount of technological security will help if you are betrayed by your own people.

Why spend all that money on education when we can just steal smart people from other countries?

The incentive for someone to leave Europe is to find a job that pays enough to buy a good quality home. We've got the democracy bit sorted out - but are starting to get long commutes and expensive housing on teeny-tiny plots of land, especially in England. And pensions in the UK are looking a bit wobbly.

if you want land, China has a lot more than we do!

And one of the latest housing developments in Shanghai is to have each suburb in the style of a particular country (English Tudor, Italian canals, German gingerbread).

First of all I don't necessarily think it was "staged". Although that might be the case, "staged", means they took part in setting it up. Even though there has been evidence of the gov and/mil wanting to stage FAKE incidents in the past, personally, I tend to lean more toward "They let it happen.". Whatever the case, I thought the latest was to keep the Brits involved and on the ground in Iraq. Especially seeing as how more and more of their citizens, as well as their military officials, are becoming increasingly fed up and want out of Iraq. Looks like not only that they will stay (and quiet some of the protest) but we get the added bonus of renewing the Un-Patriot Act without much coverage (since the focus is on London) and they get more inertia behind enacting their own version of the Un-patriot Act.

This is all well aside from the fact that it helps take some of the focus away from Libby and Rove as well; one or both of which may in the future be charged with perjury, obstructing justice and/or making false statements to an FBI agent.

Remember when we had all kinds of officials running around saying, "We never would have thought about someone using a plane as a weapon"?What about Sam Byck(1974)? What about all the communications between the (g hadists)? What about the daily briefing What about the FBI memo? What about the CIA memo (even the washington times covered that one)?

"Coincidence is like a rubber band. Stretch it too far and it snaps." - Roger Zelazny
"If you do something once, people will call it an accident. If you do it twice, they call it a coincidence. But do it a third time and you've just proven a natural law." - Grace Murray Hopner

The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive.

That's interesting. It should be modded higher. In any case, Time Magazine now claims the removal was due to copyright issues: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/ special_report.clintons_29.html.

Whether or not that's true, the original article can be read here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm.

Flat out wrong. Don't forget that Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missile.

Also, and this is well documented, the Clinton administration told Bush that Bin Laden was the most serious threat to the US at the time. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,6 12309,00.html It was Bush who ignored Bin Laden until September 11. Bush was and has always been too preoccupied with Iraq.

Clinton did not do a good enough job here, but Bush can not take his eye off of Iraq, even for more pressing matters.

No, actually polio has been making a huge resurgence in the last ten years, after almost being completely eradicated.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 059060,00.html

Now, what can you do with this data? Well, once it is in the google index - tomorrow, I suspect. Then the 3.5mb page of 80k validated pieces of knowledge will be able to do for consensus internal knowledge what wikipedia does for consensus external knowledge. I hope that eventually, google will trust Mindpixel as it does Wikipedia. Then commercial applications of semantic spectrum based technology can proceed, and the 50,000 owners of the

The Earth did indeed precess, but even if it didn't, what they are trying to say is that a constellation millions of light years away is going to affect things here on earth. Like the constellation scorpio is going to affect my life and my moods. My astronomy professor exlained to us that a bucket of water sitting next to your bed when you were born has more gravitational impact on us than a constellation far far away. He called astrology complete "bafoonary". The fact that Nancy Reagan enlisted the help of astrologer Joan Quigley is really ubsurd, spending tax dollars on bullshit science..hmm probably not the first time that happened though.

Actually, they started the revolution with the intent of annexing Cuba to the Soviets, which they did.

Dude!!!! Are you fucking stoned?!?!?!?!? Fidel cozying up with the Soviets is why Che left!!!! Che fraking hated them. That was not part of the inital plan, to just hand over Cuba to the Soviets you bloody retard!!! That is ALL the US's doing there buddy. After the revolution there were constant US backed attempts to take back the island and/or kill the new leaders. The only chance they had was to join with a more powerful country. The Soviets were the only country powerful enough to help and Castro/Che's Marxist doctrine fit well enough that it was done (thanks to the states).

managing the slaughter of thousands of political prisoners

Again, I don't know where you get your info (of course I really do the US where they demonize anything they don't agree with). I'm cannot claim nobody was killed during the revolution but your claims are rediculous! It would be like me saying "The outlaw George Washington had a merry old time managing the slaughter of all the innocent English boys who were just doing thier jobs". Here is an article in Time listing Che as one of the 100 heros!

Cuban people do not deserve such punishment.

Perhaps not, but they certainly don't deserve the "liberation" the Iraqies recieved.

Nonetheless, the real answer to the organ replacement problem is goading adult stem cells into growing a human heart. It would not suffer the negative effects of rejection (caused by donor hearts) and blood clots (caused by mechanical hearts).

I almost fell out of my chair when I RTFA. "Mercury is a planet few people, even astrologers, have ever seen." WTF? Is this Slashdot or the Nancy Reagan hotline? There's a better article at Sky and Telescope without any of the mumbo jumbo.

• anyone caught selling or manufacturing so much as a stick faces a fine of up to $5,600 and one year in jail. But last-second negotiations on a U.S.-Singapore Free Trade agreement could bring bubbles back. In a compromise, sugarless gum prescribed by doctors and dentists will be legal for sale by pharmacists--although to get your fix, you'll have to wait until the free trade agreement takes effect in 2004.
  
• Using a public toilet without flushing still carries a $284 fine.
  
• Drive into Malaysia with a tank of gas less than three-quarters full: $1,136.
  
• Walk around your house naked: another $1,136.
  

I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.

First off, this isn't about ID Cards. Sure, I'm not happy at the prospect of being bullied by police for exercising my freedom of speech (mostly against ID Cards), but we're having the world's biggest database built to spy on us.

Finally, it baffles me how people are so nervous about a stupid piece of paper or plastic.

See above.

On the No2ID site I read taurinities like it would cause racial discrimination,

See, the Government said it would be a scheme to combat illegal immigration. That can only happen if the police constantly pester ethnic minorities to prove their identity. So either the government was lying or it would cause racial discrimination.

fingerprint people like criminals (I have been taken fingerprints only once in my life, at the military draft visit)

Then you obviously know very little about what we're facing. We will be fingerprinted upon application for the card as well as every use of public services in the future.

and will be useless against crime. Never mind there are heaps of experience in continental Europe of criminals caught because they provided a not-good-enough fake ID (one I remember was mafia boss Madonia).

According to Time, he was caught by a phone tap.

The claim that identity theft would not be affected is simply ludicrous: the very term "identity theft" is exclusive to the anglosaxon world, as identity theft is impossible with an ID-card system; in continental Europe, we don't even talk of it.

Identity theft is a buzzword meaning transactions using someone else's financial identity - our Government has been talking about the £1.3 billion cost even though ID Cards can only prevent a mere £35 million of it.

And last but not least, how can be that people are worried about ID cards when living in countries where the government has been given insane powers to detain people without trial and rights, like in Guantanamo?

You can't be worried about 2 things at the same time? Most British people don't know about this Database, they don't know they can be locked up without trial and they don't know that the government can rewrite our entire set of laws at whim. The media seems reluctant to report these things.

I wrote to my MP twice about control orders. You have to realise that our democracy is non-existent and unless the media takes an interest, Blair can do whatever he wants. Even when the media took an interest for the last 9 years, Blair had nearly 2/3rds of the votes.

Looking through some of the replies, I'd say that you folks are proving my point.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of crap that comes out now. Like everyone else, I wish I had the time and money back that I invested in The Hulk and Battlefield Earth. I'm not saying that because a movie is flashy and new, it's better than that old black and white stuff. But the opposite is not true, either. Just because a film is old or the first to innovate doesn't make it better than today's films.

Maybe our difference of opinion stems from our respective definitions of "best" in the sense of the 100 all-time best movies. Call me pedestrian (not the walking kind), but when I evaluate what a top movie is, I don't think about "mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction." I think about how entertained I was. Depending on the genre, some of the things that are important to me are: Did I laugh? Did I cry? Did it get me to think? Did I feel like I connected with it? Did I talk about it with my friends afterwards? Did I want to watch it again? Do I still like it as much today as I did then?

Hey, I like the movie Psycho as much as most people do. Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and as far as suspense/horror movies goes, it was certainly out there on the edge at the time. But if I were to compare it to a movie such as, say, Silence of the Lambs, which really scares the bejesus outta me, I'd have to rate the latter as the better movie. Sorry Hitchcock fans, but I even think that Jaws is more suspenseful and scary. Maybe you disagree, and that's okay, I don't care. But if you disagree because Psycho is more historically significant (a point which I concede), then I think that's sad.

It's a Wonderful Life is a genuinely touching feel-good movie. But have you seen Mr. Holland's Opus? Jesus, it's a good thing I'm secure in my masculinity because I've never felt more like a girl in my life, crying with giddiness by the end.

I mean for real, come on people. Read the description for a movie on the list such as The 400 Blows or Umberto D and ask yourself, does this sound better than the quality movies (note: not the crap) that are coming out today? Maybe more historically significant, but this list isn't the all-time 100 most historically significant movies, it's the all-time 100 BEST movies, and therefore my uneducated opinion is a firm "I think not."

Looking through some of the replies, I'd say that you folks are proving my point.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of crap that comes out now. Like everyone else, I wish I had the time and money back that I invested in The Hulk and Battlefield Earth. I'm not saying that because a movie is flashy and new, it's better than that old black and white stuff. But the opposite is not true, either. Just because a film is old or the first to innovate doesn't make it better than today's films.

Maybe our difference of opinion stems from our respective definitions of "best" in the sense of the 100 all-time best movies. Call me pedestrian (not the walking kind), but when I evaluate what a top movie is, I don't think about "mise-en-scene, composition, editing, lighting, plot, sound, historical importance, and direction." I think about how entertained I was. Depending on the genre, some of the things that are important to me are: Did I laugh? Did I cry? Did it get me to think? Did I feel like I connected with it? Did I talk about it with my friends afterwards? Did I want to watch it again? Do I still like it as much today as I did then?

Hey, I like the movie Psycho as much as most people do. Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and as far as suspense/horror movies goes, it was certainly out there on the edge at the time. But if I were to compare it to a movie such as, say, Silence of the Lambs, which really scares the bejesus outta me, I'd have to rate the latter as the better movie. Sorry Hitchcock fans, but I even think that Jaws is more suspenseful and scary. Maybe you disagree, and that's okay, I don't care. But if you disagree because Psycho is more historically significant (a point which I concede), then I think that's sad.

It's a Wonderful Life is a genuinely touching feel-good movie. But have you seen Mr. Holland's Opus? Jesus, it's a good thing I'm secure in my masculinity because I've never felt more like a girl in my life, crying with giddiness by the end.

I mean for real, come on people. Read the description for a movie on the list such as The 400 Blows or Umberto D and ask yourself, does this sound better than the quality movies (note: not the crap) that are coming out today? Maybe more historically significant, but this list isn't the all-time 100 most historically significant movies, it's the all-time 100 BEST movies, and therefore my uneducated opinion is a firm "I think not."

Okay, here is the real link to the whole list. Note that the list isn't ranked (there is no "number one" movie...), it's just an alphabetized but otherwise unordered list.

I don't like lists like this because they tend to be biased towards old movies. Here's the breakdown by decade:

• 2000's: 5 movies
• 1990's: 10 movies
• 1980's: 12 movies
• 1970's: 9 movies
• 1960's: 15 movies
• 1950's: 16 movies
• 1940's: 15 movies
• 1930's: 12 movies
• 1920's: 6 movies

Were the first four decades of movie-making so great that they produced more "top" movies than the most recent four? Were the '50's really the golden age of cinema? Were the '70's through '90's really worse than the '40's through '60's?

I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense to me that the best movies are getting progressively fewer and further between as time goes on. In general, movies that I consider "top" movies these days are infinitely more entertaining, moving, spectacular, and in other ways better than movies were fifty years ago. Writers can better relate to the culture I grew up in, they are more free to explore topics that were once considered taboo, technology has greatly expanded the realm of the possible in movie-making, actors are much more real than they used to be, etc. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but hopefully you can see my point.

I think that people who rate old movies as high or higher than recent or current movies are just being nostalgaic or trying to sound sophisticated. It's a little bit like saying that Beethoven is the best composer of all time when you know that if you start rooting through everyone's CD collections, you'll find tons more McCartney/Lennon and (sigh) Madonna. I'm not saying that I don't like old movies at all; one of my personal favorites is 12 Angry Men (didn't make the list), but I'm just talking about in general.

Some of my top choices (by entertainment value, not necessarily culturally significant) that didn't make the list would have to include, in no particular order (all links go to IMDB):

Raiders of the Lost Ark (leaving this one off is, in my humble opinion, the most egregious sin), Rat Race, The Usual Suspects, Independence Day, Ghost Busters, The Majestic, Airplane!, The Professional, The Shawshank Redemption, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Mr. Holland's Opus, Galaxy Quest, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Primal Fear, The Matrix, Superman, ...

(I'll stop boring you with my list now.)

Did you RTFA? Neither Yahoo nor the complete list include Revenge of the Sith, although Star Wars (1977) did make the list.

I dunno, this obviously posed picture of Steve Jobs kneeling as a vassal never seemed to hurt Apple.

That is a mere assertion, driven by fear and ignorance of reality. You need to get out, and stop viewing reality with tunnel vision. I notice that you are now posting anonymously now. Perhaps deep down you know that you are wrong, and fear losing your precious /. karma as a result? Very laughable if you ask me.

Here are some things you may wish to read. These things kinda suck for the respective countries, but their loss is the US's gain. And like it or not, the brain drain starts as H1-Bs:

• How To Plug Europe's Brain Drain
• How extensive is the brain drain?
• How to reverse Africa's brain drain

And now the signs that the US's recent paranoia is self destructive

• Here's a page which talks about Jasper becker's book Hungry Ghosts, which covers how farm collectivization during Mao's "Great Leap Forward" resulted in the death of some 30-60 million of your countrymen.
• Here's a page which discusses the genocide rsulting from China's invasion of Tibet, where "over 17 percent of the Tibetan people killed, and 6,000 monasteries ruined."
• Finally, here's a page discussing the practice of Falun Gong. Now I'm personally not a believer in Falun Gong, but since I live in a nation blessed with freedom of religion, and since your government would rather execute people rather than let them practice it, perhaps you should find out for yourself what it is they so desperately don't want you to hear.
• Finally, here's the profile of a true Chinese hero.

Freedom starts with you.

I'm a person with Aspergers myself, while I'm increedibly smart for my age (14,11 months. Yes, thats 14years,11 months), I don't have an incredibly good social life, along with various other problems which have bogged me down. Interesting though that in this time article (just borrow the magazine from your local library) he says he managed to control some symptoms (in particular the urge to go out and flame people publically that we share) through various tactics, something which I have had extreme trouble controlling in the past. And like him, I basically learned everything {Java,Perl,some C,PHP,Linux} myself.

Good on him.

You should read this: Europeans Just Want to Have Fun

Bill Gates knows how to deal with Apple.

What does it say in the FIRST sentence?
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations.
here is their site - http://www.citel.oas.org/citel_i.asp They have been meeting for years. So they did have plenty of chances, at least since 2003. So by what you wrote, you agree with me? Somehow I doubt it. It is never that easy.

Still think my head is up my ass? To the contrary, do you really expect to convince me with nothing? You seem to be saying these are bad guys up to no good... they just are. See, they kicked some guys off a commission because they donated $250 to the democrats and are Kerry supporters.

Uh huh. Real convincing.... NOT! I have donated more than that to Mount Vernon (George Washington's house in Virginia now run by a private women's organization, they put out nice calendars too BTW). Somehow I doubt my donations would include or exclude me from anything official. I have very good reason to think that by the way. If those companies feel they have been wronged, you can bet they will be in contact with their congressman. Sounds like no big deal but they do make a difference.

Looking for your name I found a number of citations from you. What do you mean by your original suggestion? It won't kill them to send the engineers? Let them meet without them this one time. It won't kill anyone to leave them behind and we may get something done, finally.

If I haven't convinced you by now, nevermind.

Then he has already reinvented himself. In 1980, the little flannelled one said the opposite in Time Magazine.

Ah, the actual passage is here. And they are indeed quoting Lucas. So, Lucas is revising history again. Big news. Anyway, everybody just enjoy this last time you'll ever have that "new Star Wars movie is coming out in just a few weeks" feeling.

I first heard of this legend in 1980 in Time Magazine's cover story on Empire Strikes Back. That Time article is here. I'm not subscribed, so I can't read it all, so I can't remember if they quoted Lucas directly, but they definitely said there would be 9 episodes and that only R2 and C-3PO would be in all 9.

There's no need to call Ann Coulter corporate.

There's a reason there's a law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

A true Republican president would be fighting against the trusts, unlike the corporate whore who occupies the White House.