She was also going after Jayne himself, as he was planning to turn her in.
Erm, I mean, would plan, in the future, to turn her in, after her behavior in attacking Jayne causes Simon to propose the hospital robbery. That's a bit confusing.
You know, none of the characters seem to have twigged to the fact she can see the future. They've figure out the mind-reading, but the future-seeing has eluded them.
If you don't believe me, look at Objects in Space, where she can see what people are going to say a good ways in the future.
I have to say, that one is in the top ten of all his shows, although I have to subtract points for the incredibly annoying tactic of telling the 'end' of the story first.
Come to think of it, that episode ended on a hilarious note too, didn't it?
Why, did you not like Buffy? Or, let me guess, you've never seen it?
All those 'from the creators of' shows flopped because only the original show had a great premise and people got interested.
Except Buffy, of course, which has such a crazy premise it's still near impossible to get people to watch it. It's a joke.
Or they had a good timeslot.
Unlike Buffy, which was not only in a sucky timeslot, but on a network no one could find.
Or it managed to get so popular so fast that everyone was talking about it next day.
Unlike Buffy, where some people still look at fans oddly.
In fact, there is absolutely no traditional reason that Buffy succeeded. Instead of the any above, it relied on good stories, great actors, and metaphors people can relate to.
Other shows had gimmicks that can't be duplicated that sucked people in, and shows by the same people after can't pull them off. Buffy is rather unique in that it had negative gimmicks that discouraged people from watching.
If a person can put together actors and stories and writers, there's no logical reason he can't do it again.
I wish you libertarians would shut up about Firefly.
People, in the various Whedon universes, have philosophies:
Mal's philosophy is freedom.
Buffy's philosophy is duty.
Angel's philosophy is redemption.
Spiderman's philosophy is with great power comes gr...crap, not a Whedon hero, nevermind.
Yes, the philosophy that the hero ascribes to will get promoted, and they'll go out with winning on that score. Buffy ended with her being able to put down her duty. Angel ended with him fighting the good fight and about to lose. And I won't spoil Serenity.
There are also some core philosophies:
Love cannot, in fact, conquer all. Nothing can conquer all.
In fact, life's a bitch, and then you die, and if you're very lucky, it ends there.
Anyway, picking up Mal's personal philosophy and attempting to portray it as libertarianism is stupid. It's freedom. It's also loyalty to his crew. It's not anything else. We have no idea how he feels about socialized medicine.
And this 'libertarian' concept ignores the fundamental philosophy that underlies all Whedon shows: People are people because they care about each other. People do not care about each other are monsters, often literally.
Every Whedon hero ascribes to that concept. Just watch the first aired episode, 'The Train Job'.
And Mal has a pretty serious beef with the social imbalance in his universe, too. If he could redistribute wealth, he wouldn't hesitate. The reason he doesn't trust the government to do that is they're run by the rich people.
You seen 'Heart of Gold'? (It didn't air.) Did you catch what Mal thought about that guy who kept the rest of society poor so he could run around playing cowboy? Was there the slightest hint that Mal approved of this?
Andromeda and Firefly are the same show, except one is made by Joss Whedon and thus is incredibly well-written and well-directed, full of metaphors and philosophies, with astonishing actors, and just fun, and the other is not made by him and hence none of those things.
The lawnchair is useful to me at the present time, at least until the fence is up, so if you can leave it until later, I would be happy. I was just going to get rid of it while putting up the fence.
However, I would not presume to dicate your job to you, and removal of the shade tree is entirely your call. So if removal of the lawnchair is needed to clear your path to the shade tree, feel free. It will not affect the fence timetable.
And do not hesitate to remove the garden gnomes. They would have to go anyway, and the sooner they are removed, the less both of our equipment will get tangled in them. I suggest you just put them in the trash. As they are, indeed, your gnomes, you should probably be the one to remove them.
The existing system, works quite well, thank you very much.
God, everyone here is a moron. And I'm talking to you 'pro-UN' people, too. The issue isn't what government is in control, it's if ICANN is in control.
Have you seen what ICANN has been doing the past few years? Remember the 'let's redirect invalid names to our server so we can show ads', that was lots of fun. And that was just the obvious tip of the iceberg, the one everyone could see. The problem isn't that the US is nominally in charge of ICANN. The problem is ICANN, period.
I'd be perfectly happy if root DNS operations were turned over to the IANA or the IETF or even back to the NSF, anyone trustworthy, with ultimate control remaining in the hands of the US. (Who would continue to never use it.) However, the US refuses to do this.
Because the US has let ICANN do whatever the fuck it wants, the US must stop being in control. It is not responsible, it has decided on a 'hands-off approach' to the internet, which is normally fine, but not when the people they have deligated to manage DNS for them are running wild.
That's what this push is about. It's not because of any issues with the US control, it's because the US completely refuses to do anything about ICANN, even when they blatantly violate their charter by removing non-corporate elected people and keep secrets from board members and whatnot.
And whle you can take the women of your conquered enemy as 'wives', if you decided to get rid of them, you're not allowed to kill them. You have to let them go.
OTOH, if you choose not to enslave them and rape them, erm, I mean, 'marry' them, you are free to kill them.
You can't be required to give DNA or blood samples off yourself without a warrant.
Of course, it's legal for the police to take DNA and blood from a place they know you were, or something you throw away, if they have a warrant for that place or it's public. And if those match DNA or blood at the crime scene, hey, they've good grounds for a warrant to see if they are yours.
Fingerprints are different, as nothing is taken from you. You can be required to provide those at any time, although in many places it's not legal for the police to keep them unless you're actually convicted of a crime.
However, yes, none of those are subject to the 5th, which even warrants can't override. This is because it is not 'you' testifiying, it is merely evidence that you are walking around with.
The Constitutional Party manages to misrepresent not only the Constitution, but also the Bible. And I don't mean in the traditional way of misrepresenting the Bible, they've invented new and exciting things it must mean.
Who knows what 'Biblical common-law foundations' they've invented. Common law foundations came from the Roman Empire and England, with maybe a little Athens. There's not even such thing as a jury trial in the Bible.
It's the really screwed up thinking of 'Being a Christian is patriotic' and 'God wants you to support the US', the most convolted mixing of religion and politics you'll ever see. They are the party the Republicans are pretending to be to religious people.
They tend to attract the sort of people who think that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the rest of the world, and who will press a Bible in your hand and tell you to read it, and can quote a hundred verses, but can't actually explain any of the context or any of the meaning. (Quick test: Ask them who a 'Samaritan' is in the Bible. See if they understand one of the most important stories.)
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are apes.
Sheesh. How could we evolve from ourselves?
Whedon does that in all his series, he says, cleverly trying to avoid saying what that thing is.
How the hell was it like the original BSG?
I forget. What does 'cookies and soda' mean again? Is that explosives? Or is that 'milk and cookies'?
The first scene in the movie is the Allience's side of the story.
Erm, I mean, would plan, in the future, to turn her in, after her behavior in attacking Jayne causes Simon to propose the hospital robbery. That's a bit confusing.
You know, none of the characters seem to have twigged to the fact she can see the future. They've figure out the mind-reading, but the future-seeing has eluded them.
If you don't believe me, look at Objects in Space, where she can see what people are going to say a good ways in the future.
I have to say, that one is in the top ten of all his shows, although I have to subtract points for the incredibly annoying tactic of telling the 'end' of the story first.
Come to think of it, that episode ended on a hilarious note too, didn't it?
Are you willing to lay aside your irrationality and take a look at Buffy?
You know what I say?
Screw those people.
Buffy is one of the most successful television fantasies ever.
All those 'from the creators of' shows flopped because only the original show had a great premise and people got interested.
Except Buffy, of course, which has such a crazy premise it's still near impossible to get people to watch it. It's a joke.
Or they had a good timeslot.
Unlike Buffy, which was not only in a sucky timeslot, but on a network no one could find.
Or it managed to get so popular so fast that everyone was talking about it next day.
Unlike Buffy, where some people still look at fans oddly.
In fact, there is absolutely no traditional reason that Buffy succeeded. Instead of the any above, it relied on good stories, great actors, and metaphors people can relate to.
Other shows had gimmicks that can't be duplicated that sucked people in, and shows by the same people after can't pull them off. Buffy is rather unique in that it had negative gimmicks that discouraged people from watching.
If a person can put together actors and stories and writers, there's no logical reason he can't do it again.
People, in the various Whedon universes, have philosophies:
Mal's philosophy is freedom.
Buffy's philosophy is duty.
Angel's philosophy is redemption.
Spiderman's philosophy is with great power comes gr...crap, not a Whedon hero, nevermind.
Yes, the philosophy that the hero ascribes to will get promoted, and they'll go out with winning on that score. Buffy ended with her being able to put down her duty. Angel ended with him fighting the good fight and about to lose. And I won't spoil Serenity.
There are also some core philosophies:
Love cannot, in fact, conquer all. Nothing can conquer all.
In fact, life's a bitch, and then you die, and if you're very lucky, it ends there.
Anyway, picking up Mal's personal philosophy and attempting to portray it as libertarianism is stupid. It's freedom. It's also loyalty to his crew. It's not anything else. We have no idea how he feels about socialized medicine.
And this 'libertarian' concept ignores the fundamental philosophy that underlies all Whedon shows: People are people because they care about each other. People do not care about each other are monsters, often literally.
Every Whedon hero ascribes to that concept. Just watch the first aired episode, 'The Train Job'.
And Mal has a pretty serious beef with the social imbalance in his universe, too. If he could redistribute wealth, he wouldn't hesitate. The reason he doesn't trust the government to do that is they're run by the rich people.
You seen 'Heart of Gold'? (It didn't air.) Did you catch what Mal thought about that guy who kept the rest of society poor so he could run around playing cowboy? Was there the slightest hint that Mal approved of this?
Andromeda and Firefly are the same show, except one is made by Joss Whedon and thus is incredibly well-written and well-directed, full of metaphors and philosophies, with astonishing actors, and just fun, and the other is not made by him and hence none of those things.
However, I would not presume to dicate your job to you, and removal of the shade tree is entirely your call. So if removal of the lawnchair is needed to clear your path to the shade tree, feel free. It will not affect the fence timetable.
And do not hesitate to remove the garden gnomes. They would have to go anyway, and the sooner they are removed, the less both of our equipment will get tangled in them. I suggest you just put them in the trash. As they are, indeed, your gnomes, you should probably be the one to remove them.
This makes more sense when you realize who's on the board of ICANN.
God, everyone here is a moron. And I'm talking to you 'pro-UN' people, too. The issue isn't what government is in control, it's if ICANN is in control.
Have you seen what ICANN has been doing the past few years? Remember the 'let's redirect invalid names to our server so we can show ads', that was lots of fun. And that was just the obvious tip of the iceberg, the one everyone could see. The problem isn't that the US is nominally in charge of ICANN. The problem is ICANN, period.
I'd be perfectly happy if root DNS operations were turned over to the IANA or the IETF or even back to the NSF, anyone trustworthy, with ultimate control remaining in the hands of the US. (Who would continue to never use it.) However, the US refuses to do this.
Because the US has let ICANN do whatever the fuck it wants, the US must stop being in control. It is not responsible, it has decided on a 'hands-off approach' to the internet, which is normally fine, but not when the people they have deligated to manage DNS for them are running wild.
That's what this push is about. It's not because of any issues with the US control, it's because the US completely refuses to do anything about ICANN, even when they blatantly violate their charter by removing non-corporate elected people and keep secrets from board members and whatnot.
Western civilivation collapsed for a thousand years, from about 500 AD to 1500 AD.
Mod parent: +1 Obscure video game reference
OTOH, if you choose not to enslave them and rape them, erm, I mean, 'marry' them, you are free to kill them.
Forget Elvish, you could probably throw them by speaking in French or Australian.
Hold on a minute, I think I just heard Martin Luther King Jr. spinning in his grave.
We've decided that what our house needs is a nice picket fence. A nice blue picket fence. We should have it up by Tuesday.
Because, you know, I'm not seeing that one.
Of course, it's legal for the police to take DNA and blood from a place they know you were, or something you throw away, if they have a warrant for that place or it's public. And if those match DNA or blood at the crime scene, hey, they've good grounds for a warrant to see if they are yours.
Fingerprints are different, as nothing is taken from you. You can be required to provide those at any time, although in many places it's not legal for the police to keep them unless you're actually convicted of a crime.
However, yes, none of those are subject to the 5th, which even warrants can't override. This is because it is not 'you' testifiying, it is merely evidence that you are walking around with.
Who knows what 'Biblical common-law foundations' they've invented. Common law foundations came from the Roman Empire and England, with maybe a little Athens. There's not even such thing as a jury trial in the Bible.
It's the really screwed up thinking of 'Being a Christian is patriotic' and 'God wants you to support the US', the most convolted mixing of religion and politics you'll ever see. They are the party the Republicans are pretending to be to religious people.
They tend to attract the sort of people who think that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the rest of the world, and who will press a Bible in your hand and tell you to read it, and can quote a hundred verses, but can't actually explain any of the context or any of the meaning. (Quick test: Ask them who a 'Samaritan' is in the Bible. See if they understand one of the most important stories.)
Likewise, prisoners are free to leave prison at any time of their choosing, subject to the needs of law enforcement.