Ok. Tell you what: when _you're_ sitting on death row, having been convicted of a crime you didn't commit because a) you're black, b) your court-appointed public defender slept through the trial, and c) you didn't have time to complete one, much less all, of your appeals in the "2-3 years" you recommend, we'll happily fry your ass and say good riddance.
Now, let's look at your argument: people who kill should die. So, by that argument, there should be no wardens left in the state. Also, Duh-bya should've fried long ago. Or maybe you just mean "black people who kill should die." Or "people who can't afford good lawyers should die." Frankly, I think life in prison is a pretty horrific punishment and I'm willing to pay a few dollars more a year in taxes so that I don't have to have blood on my hands.
Umm... the period in your first statement needs to go _inside_ the quote. And I'll start a sentence with "and" if I damn well please. As long as it's a complete sentence, the use of a conjunction at its beginning is completely OK.
Man, Libertarians piss me off. And smug libertarians piss me off even more. Smug libertarians who don't check their facts are the worst of all, though.
Ok, now let's look at your Depression argument. FDR was first elected in 1932, which means he took office in January 1933. Now, if this depression-within-a-depression took place in 1933 as you said, and was a direct result of FDR's policies, as you said, that means that he had somewhat less than a year to cause the economy to head farther into the shitter. That seems _very_ unlikely, especially considering the wave of increased confidence and enthusiasm that followed his inauguration.
An apology letter, a credit on your bill, and a $5 calling card doesn't make Bell Atlantic a good company. If they could've gotten away with cheating you, they would have. Why couldn't they? Because somebody blew the whistle, and rather than fighting in court (for breaking laws imposed by the government), they decided it was cheaper to buy you off directly. Which is exactly what they did. Which is exactly (if you read my post) what I said big companies are in the habit of doing.
Ahh, a true believer in the free market. Well, the free market works, sort of (although it takes an interventionist now and again, such as FDR, to make sure it doesn't go under).
However, once a corporation has a certain amount of money, product quality and customer service cease to matter. Any lawsuits can be settled, hush-hush-like. Unhappy customers can be bought off. With a big enough advertising blitz, even the shoddiest products will rush off the shelves (witness fast food chains like McDonalds, where the food is crap, the service is worse, and people still eat there every day.).
This is a step on the road to monopoly, at which point companies truly cease to be regulated by the market. Fortunately we have antitrust laws. Unfortunately, monopolies can afford lots of lawyers and can dawdle and delay antitrust proceedings seemingly forever (witness M$). Even more unfortunately, the government's anti-trust agencies seem to be asleep at the switch. Look at the upcoming merger between SFX and the radio company, whose name I can't remember right now (Clear Somthing-or-other). Look at the patent office, protecting big corporations' stupid "internet business method" patents and genetic patents, but still screwing the little guy businessman.
I don't think we can rely on consumer pressures to keep big corporations in check. People are asleep, or they're sheep.
Ok, here you go. I saw the film. I plunked down my $8 and parked my ass in a chair and watched the whole thing, from start to finish.
IT SUCKED.
The plot was lame. In fact, it was more than lame: it built massive towers of lameness upon the lame foundations it stole wholesale from other lame films. The music was awful. It's the same disposable popcrap that currently litters American radio airwaves. The animation was acceptable, but not spectacular, and the blend of CGI with hand-drawn characters just had the effect of making the hand-drawn characters look cheap and poorly done. The characters themselves (with the single exception of the little toad scientist guy) were poorly conceived, poorly scripted, and poorly voiced. The dialog was wooden.
Another comment on the animation: Watch a movie like Iron Giant, where the 2D animation looks and behaves like it's 3D. You get a sense that the giant is very large, that the earth shakes when he moves, and that he is, in fact, a three-dimensional character. Now look at the "3d" scenes in Titan AE. They look like a video game, where physics doesn't matter (check out the ice-crystal space battle scene for a prime example of this). This makes the movie feel cheap, rushed, and (subliminally) undermines the willing suspension of disbelief.
As far as the trailers go, I almost didn't bother seeing the film because the trailers were so bad. I remember the first one I saw was very short, just showed the Titan lifting off from the exploding earth. The Titan looked _really_ dumb, and got a big laugh from everyone in the theater. Then they came out with the supremely annoying "Higher"-by-Creed trailer, and I figured that any film that would use such stupid music in its trailer was bound to suck, and to suck hard. But I figured, hey, I'll give it a chance. I wish I hadn't.
Well, you're right about one thing... but then, I've seen used car commercials that are better than the last Trek movie.
And I'm really glad it _did_ go out of theaters, because the fewer people who see it, the less money it makes and the less likely Hollywood is to try and "milk" the same picture for a few hundred million more bucks.
I _really_ wanted to like Titan. I really did. I would love to be able to say that Hollywood managed to nail a good animated sci-fi, because then I could hope for more.
If I were paying $2-$4 to see movies, I'd pay attention to your argument. But the fact is, when I go see a movie, I have to stand in line for upwards of half an hour (usually) for the privilege of dropping between 7 and 10 bucks (or more if I'm taking a date). The crappy movies cost as much as the good ones. The only difference is that the crappy movies only play for two weeks so they can bring in more crap.
Titan AE was an insulting film that pandered to the lowest common denominator. Laughable, saccharine storyline, entirely forgettable music, OK animation (but really terrible physics effects... e.g., large ice crystals colliding all the time. Where are the small ice crystals?), dumb characters, phoned-in voice talent... I could go on, but you get the picture.
It's a dilemma for me, because movie reviews so often give away large chunks of plot, and trailers always do. But these days the studios churn out so much garbage that you almost have to read reviews before seeing the movies.
Also suppose that certain extreme events would lead to cross universal leakage. Hmm. This explains the weird phenomena that accompany downhill mountain-biking, street luge, and bungee jumping.
I drive 70 miles to work, in Maine... so in the winter there is snow... lots of snow... If you want to drive a little rice burner I dont get down on you for not buying american or the type of labor your XX vehicle used to be built... you bought the car you wanted...
Well, it sounds like you might have a legitimate need to use a truck. And if that's the case, use it, with my blessings. What bugs me are the yuppie assholes who drive SUV's 'cause they're cool. There's a distinction between people who use SUVs as _utility_ vehicles and those who use them as _luxury_ vehicles. And, by the way, I drive a Saturn, built in Tennessee which (last time I checked) is still part of the US. Also, a further point of clarification: I don't drive the car I wanted, I drive the car I can afford. If I could, I'd drive a Volvo to protect me from the jerks in SUVs. Since I can't, I bought the safest, most fuel-efficient car I could find.
I'd bet my left arm that you just notice them more because of this deep seated hatred you have.. I see people in BMW's and Porches and Honda Civics driving like complete fools every day... SUV's in my experience are more likely to be going the speed limit and are more likely to NOT be tailgating some big rig that cant see them
Well, it would appear that your experience and mine differ. Also, I'm much less worried when a Civic drivier is driving like an idiot--I will survive a crash with a Civic. When an SUV driver is driving dumb, I have to worry about his bumper coming through my windshield.
You actually believe we should eliminate SUVs?
No. I didn't say that. I said we should eliminate war and murder. I do think some sort of regulation on SUVs (and other trucks--double- and triple-trailer big rigs are really dangerous, as well) is in order, though. Maybe a fuel-efficiency tax: the fewer miles-per-gallon you get, the more the gas costs. An incentive for people to buy more efficient cars. Then those who use their SUVs for work (such as yourself) could get a big deduction come April, whereas those who see them as a luxury item would pay the premium rate.
Of course, it'd never work. The rich assholes have better accountants than I do.
1) You aren't the only one who drives an SUV. If you were, I wouldn't be complaining. But the fact is, you and about a zillion other people are driving them. Which means that a LOT of gasoline is being wasted EVERY YEAR so you can look good commuting 3 miles to work in your frigging tank, which means that I pay more for gasoline.
I won't argue that some people _do_ need a truck (folks in the upper midwest where there's a foot of snow on the ground 9 mos. out of the year, for example) but where I live (Atlanta) there is NO NEED for ANYONE to drive an SUV. And yet there are more of them on the road every day down here. 40-50% of the cars in my office parking lot right now are SUVs.
2) The SUV drivers (around here at least) are the most irresponsible drivers on the road. There seems to be an idea that, since their cars are bigger than everyone else's, they should have the right-of-way in every situation. Also, from my (admittedly informal) observations, SUV drivers seem far more likely to be talking on their cellular phones, eating, etc. while driving. One asshole I saw on the way in today was presumably steering with his knees while he ran his electric razor with one hand and chatted on his phone with the other. Doing 30 MPH in rush hour traffic on Peachtree Street.
3) SUVs also reduce visibility for other vehicles, and the more of them there are, the harder it is to see. When I'm sitting in traffic behind an SUV with one on either side of me, I can't see a damn thing.
4) Despite the ignorant "we'll have gas forever" propaganda, WE WON'T. And sure, individual SUVs use much less fuel than planes. Of course, an individual murder kills far fewer people than a war. Doesn't mean both things shouldn't be eliminated.
We will run out of oil within your lifetime, mainly because of assholes like you. The stats you're quoting are from several years ago, before the SUV craze hit. In the early nineties, people drove sensible cars that got more than 2 miles to the gallon.
Of course, your economic argument does make me happy, because you have to fill your tank up twice a day, whereas I fill mine once a month or so. Don't come crying to me when you're spending 80% of your paycheck to keep your gas-guzzler on the road.
Oy. Man, when the revolution comes, you're first against the wall.
I will _not_ keep my judgments to myself. You are in the wrong. I see more reckless driving by SUV drivers than by any other group of drivers. There's an attitude of "my car is bigger than yours so get the f*ck out of the way" which is really the height of irresponsibility. This morning on my way to work, I saw some dumb jerk in his SUV shaving with one hand and talking on his cell phone with the other. I assume he was steering with his knees. Sure, he'll probably survive a crash. He'll probably cause it, too.
As for "killing the environment," your SUV gets between 8 and 15 miles to the gallon, I bet. Unless it's the Excursion, which gets between 6 and 10. Whereas my "featherweight deathbox" (with steel spaceframe, crumple zones, and front & side airbags) gets 30-40. What you don't seem to understand is that, regardless of your clean-burning emissions, petroleum is a finite resource. Once it's gone, there ain't gonna be any more.
Frankly, the fact that you're probably paying $1k+ a month for an efficiency apartment makes me think that your "efficiency" isn't saving you much. That, and I'm agoraphobic, so your "efficient lifestyle choice" would make me a miserable wreck inside of a week. I visited NYC last week and I'd have to say it was one of the most foully polluted places I've ever been.
I pay $300 a month in rent and drive a fuel-efficient car (which I'd happily convert to CNG or another fuel source if it were available in my area) which I fill maybe twice a month at $15 a pop. You do the math.
I'd happily pay more for gas to fund better mass transit in my area. But I'm surrounded by assholes who like their SUVs and are far more concerned that the "wrong sort of people" would be coming into their lily-white neighborhoods if mass transit were expanded.
NASA has had more than "occasional shuttle missions"... seems like every other week a Titan is lofting somebody's satellite. Meanwhile, Russia's Protons have had an _extremely_ spotty service record, as far as explosions-upon-launch are concerned. And don't tell me about "Mir resupply missions"... for the last year, at least, they've flown maybe 2 of those, because Mir has spent that time unmanned. NOT THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ON RESUPPLYING MIR ANYWAY when they can't meet their ISS obligations on time. Point me to a website with some contradictory facts, and I'll eat my words.
Sure, NASA's backup support module will cost more than Zvezda. However, it'll also meet safety specs at launch time, and won't need to be refurbished for the next two years just to bring it up to code. And they managed to put it together and get it launch ready in under a year.
I have a lot of respect for the Russians' achievements in space, and the fact that we're working with them instead of against them is wonderful. However, their insistence on keeping the increasingly expensive and decrepit MIR in orbit instead of fulfilling their ISS obligations is really unfortunate. I'm really glad that Zvezda's up there. Let's hope it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, let's look at your argument: people who kill should die. So, by that argument, there should be no wardens left in the state. Also, Duh-bya should've fried long ago. Or maybe you just mean "black people who kill should die." Or "people who can't afford good lawyers should die." Frankly, I think life in prison is a pretty horrific punishment and I'm willing to pay a few dollars more a year in taxes so that I don't have to have blood on my hands.
Hear hear. George W. Bush puts the "goober" back in "gubernatorial."
You wily little troll, you.
Ok, now let's look at your Depression argument. FDR was first elected in 1932, which means he took office in January 1933. Now, if this depression-within-a-depression took place in 1933 as you said, and was a direct result of FDR's policies, as you said, that means that he had somewhat less than a year to cause the economy to head farther into the shitter. That seems _very_ unlikely, especially considering the wave of increased confidence and enthusiasm that followed his inauguration.
An apology letter, a credit on your bill, and a $5 calling card doesn't make Bell Atlantic a good company. If they could've gotten away with cheating you, they would have. Why couldn't they? Because somebody blew the whistle, and rather than fighting in court (for breaking laws imposed by the government), they decided it was cheaper to buy you off directly. Which is exactly what they did. Which is exactly (if you read my post) what I said big companies are in the habit of doing.
Then he's not talking to you.
However, once a corporation has a certain amount of money, product quality and customer service cease to matter. Any lawsuits can be settled, hush-hush-like. Unhappy customers can be bought off. With a big enough advertising blitz, even the shoddiest products will rush off the shelves (witness fast food chains like McDonalds, where the food is crap, the service is worse, and people still eat there every day.).
This is a step on the road to monopoly, at which point companies truly cease to be regulated by the market. Fortunately we have antitrust laws. Unfortunately, monopolies can afford lots of lawyers and can dawdle and delay antitrust proceedings seemingly forever (witness M$). Even more unfortunately, the government's anti-trust agencies seem to be asleep at the switch. Look at the upcoming merger between SFX and the radio company, whose name I can't remember right now (Clear Somthing-or-other). Look at the patent office, protecting big corporations' stupid "internet business method" patents and genetic patents, but still screwing the little guy businessman.
I don't think we can rely on consumer pressures to keep big corporations in check. People are asleep, or they're sheep.
MST3K.
IT SUCKED.
The plot was lame. In fact, it was more than lame: it built massive towers of lameness upon the lame foundations it stole wholesale from other lame films. The music was awful. It's the same disposable popcrap that currently litters American radio airwaves. The animation was acceptable, but not spectacular, and the blend of CGI with hand-drawn characters just had the effect of making the hand-drawn characters look cheap and poorly done. The characters themselves (with the single exception of the little toad scientist guy) were poorly conceived, poorly scripted, and poorly voiced. The dialog was wooden.
Another comment on the animation: Watch a movie like Iron Giant, where the 2D animation looks and behaves like it's 3D. You get a sense that the giant is very large, that the earth shakes when he moves, and that he is, in fact, a three-dimensional character. Now look at the "3d" scenes in Titan AE. They look like a video game, where physics doesn't matter (check out the ice-crystal space battle scene for a prime example of this). This makes the movie feel cheap, rushed, and (subliminally) undermines the willing suspension of disbelief.
As far as the trailers go, I almost didn't bother seeing the film because the trailers were so bad. I remember the first one I saw was very short, just showed the Titan lifting off from the exploding earth. The Titan looked _really_ dumb, and got a big laugh from everyone in the theater. Then they came out with the supremely annoying "Higher"-by-Creed trailer, and I figured that any film that would use such stupid music in its trailer was bound to suck, and to suck hard. But I figured, hey, I'll give it a chance. I wish I hadn't.
Fox: Good riddance.
And I'm really glad it _did_ go out of theaters, because the fewer people who see it, the less money it makes and the less likely Hollywood is to try and "milk" the same picture for a few hundred million more bucks.
I _really_ wanted to like Titan. I really did. I would love to be able to say that Hollywood managed to nail a good animated sci-fi, because then I could hope for more.
Titan AE was an insulting film that pandered to the lowest common denominator. Laughable, saccharine storyline, entirely forgettable music, OK animation (but really terrible physics effects... e.g., large ice crystals colliding all the time. Where are the small ice crystals?), dumb characters, phoned-in voice talent... I could go on, but you get the picture.
It's a dilemma for me, because movie reviews so often give away large chunks of plot, and trailers always do. But these days the studios churn out so much garbage that you almost have to read reviews before seeing the movies.
Should've listened to my instincts. Terrible film, made worse because I knew just how hard so many people had worked on it.
ZPE, I know Akira, Akira is a friend of mine, and ZPE, Titan is no Akira. Go see Iron Giant.
I think you mean _steganography._
Well, I for one am not gonna kowtow to some commie pinko extradimensional invader...
Well, it sounds like you might have a legitimate need to use a truck. And if that's the case, use it, with my blessings. What bugs me are the yuppie assholes who drive SUV's 'cause they're cool. There's a distinction between people who use SUVs as _utility_ vehicles and those who use them as _luxury_ vehicles. And, by the way, I drive a Saturn, built in Tennessee which (last time I checked) is still part of the US. Also, a further point of clarification: I don't drive the car I wanted, I drive the car I can afford. If I could, I'd drive a Volvo to protect me from the jerks in SUVs. Since I can't, I bought the safest, most fuel-efficient car I could find.
I'd bet my left arm that you just notice them more because of this deep seated hatred you have.. I see people in BMW's and Porches and Honda Civics driving like complete fools every day... SUV's in my experience are more likely to be going the speed limit and are more likely to NOT be tailgating some big rig that cant see them
Well, it would appear that your experience and mine differ. Also, I'm much less worried when a Civic drivier is driving like an idiot--I will survive a crash with a Civic. When an SUV driver is driving dumb, I have to worry about his bumper coming through my windshield.
You actually believe we should eliminate SUVs?
No. I didn't say that. I said we should eliminate war and murder. I do think some sort of regulation on SUVs (and other trucks--double- and triple-trailer big rigs are really dangerous, as well) is in order, though. Maybe a fuel-efficiency tax: the fewer miles-per-gallon you get, the more the gas costs. An incentive for people to buy more efficient cars. Then those who use their SUVs for work (such as yourself) could get a big deduction come April, whereas those who see them as a luxury item would pay the premium rate.
Of course, it'd never work. The rich assholes have better accountants than I do.
Hey! We don't want his kind, either. Well, maybe they do in Texas...
Just as I thought: SUV drivers are selfish, paranoid assholes.
If you need to carry a soccer team, drive a van. Last 3 SUVs I've ridden in could hold 5 people, same as my compact Saturn.
I won't argue that some people _do_ need a truck (folks in the upper midwest where there's a foot of snow on the ground 9 mos. out of the year, for example) but where I live (Atlanta) there is NO NEED for ANYONE to drive an SUV. And yet there are more of them on the road every day down here. 40-50% of the cars in my office parking lot right now are SUVs.
2) The SUV drivers (around here at least) are the most irresponsible drivers on the road. There seems to be an idea that, since their cars are bigger than everyone else's, they should have the right-of-way in every situation. Also, from my (admittedly informal) observations, SUV drivers seem far more likely to be talking on their cellular phones, eating, etc. while driving. One asshole I saw on the way in today was presumably steering with his knees while he ran his electric razor with one hand and chatted on his phone with the other. Doing 30 MPH in rush hour traffic on Peachtree Street.
3) SUVs also reduce visibility for other vehicles, and the more of them there are, the harder it is to see. When I'm sitting in traffic behind an SUV with one on either side of me, I can't see a damn thing.
4) Despite the ignorant "we'll have gas forever" propaganda, WE WON'T. And sure, individual SUVs use much less fuel than planes. Of course, an individual murder kills far fewer people than a war. Doesn't mean both things shouldn't be eliminated.
Of course, your economic argument does make me happy, because you have to fill your tank up twice a day, whereas I fill mine once a month or so. Don't come crying to me when you're spending 80% of your paycheck to keep your gas-guzzler on the road.
I will _not_ keep my judgments to myself. You are in the wrong. I see more reckless driving by SUV drivers than by any other group of drivers. There's an attitude of "my car is bigger than yours so get the f*ck out of the way" which is really the height of irresponsibility. This morning on my way to work, I saw some dumb jerk in his SUV shaving with one hand and talking on his cell phone with the other. I assume he was steering with his knees. Sure, he'll probably survive a crash. He'll probably cause it, too.
As for "killing the environment," your SUV gets between 8 and 15 miles to the gallon, I bet. Unless it's the Excursion, which gets between 6 and 10. Whereas my "featherweight deathbox" (with steel spaceframe, crumple zones, and front & side airbags) gets 30-40. What you don't seem to understand is that, regardless of your clean-burning emissions, petroleum is a finite resource. Once it's gone, there ain't gonna be any more.
Frankly, you sound pretty selfish.
That's right. It's still polluting. But a lot less. These are pretty impressive vehicles, if they work.
But you're missing Hnice's argument, which seems to be that you're morally inferior unless you live in New York City and ride the subway to work.
I pay $300 a month in rent and drive a fuel-efficient car (which I'd happily convert to CNG or another fuel source if it were available in my area) which I fill maybe twice a month at $15 a pop. You do the math.
I'd happily pay more for gas to fund better mass transit in my area. But I'm surrounded by assholes who like their SUVs and are far more concerned that the "wrong sort of people" would be coming into their lily-white neighborhoods if mass transit were expanded.
Sure, NASA's backup support module will cost more than Zvezda. However, it'll also meet safety specs at launch time, and won't need to be refurbished for the next two years just to bring it up to code. And they managed to put it together and get it launch ready in under a year.
I have a lot of respect for the Russians' achievements in space, and the fact that we're working with them instead of against them is wonderful. However, their insistence on keeping the increasingly expensive and decrepit MIR in orbit instead of fulfilling their ISS obligations is really unfortunate. I'm really glad that Zvezda's up there. Let's hope it works.