*yes I'm mentally incompetent and cannot determine the difference between two and too and to etc etc.... sorry for the bad grammar I never catch it all.
I will contradict your re-buttle by saying I did like the original series and Enterprise. I honestly thought that the Enterprise show had more emotional depth then the shallow philosophical comedy of the original series.
There's a place for both. There have been dark "Original Trek Moves". The Wrath of Khan? Search for Spock? Maybe that was part of the down slide you were talking about. But they are full of defining cinematic moments that speak to a wide audience and not just borg drones out to kill everything.
The PG13 I speak of is the tendency for more political correctness in movies geared towards a younger audience. There is less debate about the merits of freedom and giving ones life for a cause and more debate for finding mommy or daddy and having a happy ending. It has nothing to do with swear words.
A measure of the intellectual and emotional respect I have for people is whether or not they are willing to interact on a level greater then discussing the weather with me because its safe and simple.
I do not get that feeling from JJ Abrams. He may not like the original premise of the series and believe its time to move on. I can understand that. I think we do have a need for a good space opera to show humans transcending their petty mentalities. But to limit yourself to a arbitrary rating system for showing that is futile. my defense I know Abrams will cater more towards mature audiences then ones he believes are two mentally incompetent to see Spock die again. But I am not sure its going to be Spock this time in 12 =)
This is really hard. Some topics work well. Some do not. Some people have more emotional maturity, and 3rd world countries have their own action movies going on enough that they don't want to be bothered by any more large explosions. I'm just guessing here.
Also the markets to target are the ones were the average income is enough to support the movie makers. So selling movies that would appeal to sweatshop workers is a bad business strategy (Tm).
Are you really a trekkie? 11 breathed fresh blood and new young pretty faces who are reliable actors back into the franchise. 11 was a good move in the right direction. They even pulled off their roles and payed amazingly good homage to the original characters.
Was it a brand new series with full of unknown new content going in a bold new direction? No, sorry no more Captain Janeway's for you... If the movies are successful they might reboot a series though with new characters. Stick to your fan fiction for now;p
You can't please everyone and after being burned by Enterprise I'm not surprised they went with a proven formulaic approach to the movies. There are plenty twists on the "alternate universe" characters that have yet to play out.
I was going to say at least the franchise is being handed to JJ Abrams he is a fairly competent director. So the new movies in the series may at least be PG13 and action packed I don't think its JJ Abrams style to do a G or PG rated Star wars Fern gully.
The worst possible case scenario... Uwe Boll gets a hold of the Star Wars franchise and infiltrates Disney.
Maybe its just one aspect of manipulating fiat currency through their savings. This way they have oil, gold, and other means of controlling the value of fiat currencies by manipulating the markets. This is how I would use it. Call it gold ammunition for the economy. That would explain why they hoard it.
Just a joke here. Maybe the aliens value gold more then us humans?
I don't know why, it seems paper is cheaper and lighter weight to gamble with =) Maybe because its cheap and diversifying your investments is smart? I may not be the best investment but it is one that might have some value if you could sit on it in a post apocalyptic medieval world...
Could be left over from pre 1800's era trading...
Could be the banks are just holding on to that gold for people who think it is.
I think the smartest answer is while gold is cheap its one of those things that is good to hold on to because as the market fluctuates you can sell it back out and buy more back cheaper later. So the banks having a lot of gold right now just means they've been winning at that game. The good banks wouldn't be dumping all their assets into gold though.
Thats why smart civilians should be off the streets and let the police do their thing. Does it really take a law other then interfering with law enforcement or obstruction of law enforcement to justifiable enforce this sane action?
I know I would be complying with the lawmen there. Its insane enough as it is. But someone who's on a street by themselves and one town over aught to have a right to do something if some crazy dood with a vest breaks into their home for a botttle of vodka.
Most civilians are at least not trained or encouraged to use deadly force by their training. There is some desensitization to violence that police and military have by the very nature of training with their firearms. So they might actually opt to use deadly force more often then an untrained and unprofessional person would.
I would argue that this is a bad point, most people including police should have a reasonable ability to know when to use deadly force and when not to. This is more about what should be rather then what is.
I can't answer. But there are more valuable things then gold to own and the smartest richest people on the planet kind of technically more or less own them.
Like big corporations. Stock. Land. Contracts with the DoD. Things like that are far better to "have" then gold. I would say diamonds are a start as well. I wouldn't stock gold unless I was really into making jewelry or using it to produce electronics. And because of golds "volatile nature' I would stock just enough to run whatever business I was making translating it to something else.
So the answer is, gold has uses but its useless as a measure of wealth by itself in todays economy. Virtually everything you can invest in is a gamble backed by the governments you are working through for your rights to conduct commerce.
The problem is actually shit is so mixed up that anything anti-government agenda anything is labeled as infowars.
There is no truth in the middle ground or non-bias any where left to be had...
But I grantee shit does happen even if its not part of a great conspiracy. Its as annoying to talk to infowars chuckle-heads as imperialist lapdogs about this shit.
It further erodes any checks and balances our form of government had or needs, such as JOURNALISM. Because people are increasingly afraid to say anything politically incorrect on official channels.
Well, we all know that the rule of law has been questionable for a long while in our country. Back in 1950's if you were black you had this problem, now its just escalated to anyone without official government sanction. Thanks for sharing your story.
Inversely though children will be taught these things more and more at a young age in science class and a few nerds will remain to slowly push humanity forward tidbit by tidbit. These examples are already pretty much standard classroom fair for grade schoolers. At least they were in the 80's.
But what you don't realize is many people are increasingly becoming convinced we need this branch to keep us safe. They can't fathom the idea of creating their own safety or just accepting that people have bad days. The direction our culture is heading is to be completely authoritarian and have a military organizational structure with the "perfect" soldiers having all the privileges and the imperfect ones serving the lowest classes if being allowed to continue to exist at all. It's the new form of racism without race. I hesitate to call it fascist. But it does seem to be a corporate agenda. Because it serves the most powerful the most and the least powerful the worst. And power in this country is determined solely by monetary wealth at this point.
Further, if you want a president with a good public opinion of him Obama is not your man, he does not represent the people of the United States. Obama seems more concerned about the opinions of his political bedfellows, peers, and financial supporters. This is absolutely obvious to any lay man. To bury your head in the sand and ignore this is to be extremely ignorant. I'm not saying he needs to be impeached. I'm saying he makes for a very lousy president and leader. His leadership skills amount to rolling over and getting belly scratched.
Heck Nixon and Reagan Clinton seemed like a more honest man then him. They were at least human, flawed, and had agenda's that were picked up by the populace. Obama is the perfect poster child, nothing more, nothing less. Class president 2012. Its sad that I feel like I need to come on here and provide you all more opportunities to mod me troll.
If someone wishes to bother to take the time to point out what such a great president he has been feel free. I'm open to real information from anyone that can put it out there. What makes him a role model and a hero? The fact that he's not in Jail yet?
I don't want to just bad mouth him, he's no demon. But he is a fool for not stepping aside and letting someone with real potential take the job and risk of fixing this country. Even if its just to stand in front of congress and the people and say what aught to be done, and who aught to be fired and why. And what not to put in the bills. He won't even listen to what people want though. He completely ignores any protesters as if they are meaningless. Thats not a hero. Winning the title of president does not make you good.
This is the appropriate use of law in this situation. To clarify what is right and wrong to law abiding people. Ignorant people will still be ignorant. But law abiding people will follow the rule and make their guns safer. The very nature of having the law will deter people from being ignorant.
The actual problem is how we as a people and society determine who is fit to own or not own what. The original principle was that we were all basically fit accept in extreme cases and all bared the responsibility and risk of a few unfit ones having freedom along with us.
This worked for a very long time more or less until recently. Minus some bad areas. But no one said downtown Detroit had to disarm or else back int he 70's. Well people may have but they weren't very good at enforcing it.
I pity you people who have to mod this troll. I have not seen a decent thing that Obama has done. I have seen him scared shitless after coming out of a meeting on public television. The man could at least defend whats good and right and be the figurehead that he is supposed to be rather then toeing whichever party line is convenient at the time. He could ask for moderation. He could be honest. He could call out the people who are corrupt. But he's genuinely a good guy then he's a scared shit less guy who knows or thinks he's easily replaced. At least Ron and Rand have the decency to label the GoP and NWO by name.
My beef with him as a person is he doesn't seem to have any decency, dignity, or integrity.
Eh I wouldn't be so harsh. I don't think what the above AC posted is really all that inflammatory. They just don't want to express a specific opinion other then the one that expressing an opinion is a bad idea at all. P.S. English can suck it does not translate from a verbal to a written language very easily.
I love you to you little anonymous bastard. Why don't you go read the wiki article and ask why you cant just drive on the road without a license and question the foundation of our rules? I'm not disagreeing with the status quo I'm just saying those rights you think you have are not as clearly defined as they aught to be.
The constitution while nice back in the day is full of holes. But we are able to make laws that specifically skirt the 9th amendment on a regular basis. To live under the delusion that we have those rights when its not clear to all is a bit silly.
Which does not pertain specifically to vehicles. It pertains to the fact that in order to legislate something the government has to make a specific amendment. This is why you need a license to operate a vehicle on a public road. The "people" government own that road there-fore they can get around the rule of this amendment.
Professor Laurence Tribe shares the view that this amendment does not confer substantive rights: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution. From wiki, no citations needed thats an opinion I share with Professor Laurence.
So yeah you have a right to drive a vehicle anywhere except on "our roads" so the government says. Are licenses and such unconstitutional? I am pretty sure its been tried before and ruled not as such.
So while yes you do have the right to operate vehicles. You don't really anywhere government doesn't want you to and specifically has the power enumerated to stop you. I'm not sure what rule that is or people just blatantly ignore the fact that the idea of licenses are not constitutional in nature. Thats a little like saying, you have the right to dress however you want except at the shopping mall. Which in fact is the case. No one legislates how your dressed while posting on slash dot, yet. Its a useless right the way the rules stand. It should be clarified and amendments should be passed that specifically cover the right to operate vehicles. But they don't want anything like that mess with the 2cnd amendment that specifically enumerates the right to bear arms.
Actually driving a vehicle ON public non-private roads IS a PRIVILEGE. You do indeed sign away certain rights when you sign for your drivers license. This only pertains to the use of a vehicle on public roads but occasionally law enforcement has stretched it a bit. This usually has to do with DUI, or search and seizure or drug related laws.
Slashdot Mirror
*yes I'm mentally incompetent and cannot determine the difference between two and too and to etc etc.... sorry for the bad grammar I never catch it all.
I will contradict your re-buttle by saying I did like the original series and Enterprise. I honestly thought that the Enterprise show had more emotional depth then the shallow philosophical comedy of the original series.
There's a place for both. There have been dark "Original Trek Moves". The Wrath of Khan? Search for Spock? Maybe that was part of the down slide you were talking about. But they are full of defining cinematic moments that speak to a wide audience and not just borg drones out to kill everything.
The PG13 I speak of is the tendency for more political correctness in movies geared towards a younger audience. There is less debate about the merits of freedom and giving ones life for a cause and more debate for finding mommy or daddy and having a happy ending. It has nothing to do with swear words.
A measure of the intellectual and emotional respect I have for people is whether or not they are willing to interact on a level greater then discussing the weather with me because its safe and simple.
I do not get that feeling from JJ Abrams. He may not like the original premise of the series and believe its time to move on. I can understand that. I think we do have a need for a good space opera to show humans transcending their petty mentalities. But to limit yourself to a arbitrary rating system for showing that is futile. my defense I know Abrams will cater more towards mature audiences then ones he believes are two mentally incompetent to see Spock die again. But I am not sure its going to be Spock this time in 12 =)
This is really hard. Some topics work well. Some do not. Some people have more emotional maturity, and 3rd world countries have their own action movies going on enough that they don't want to be bothered by any more large explosions. I'm just guessing here.
Also the markets to target are the ones were the average income is enough to support the movie makers. So selling movies that would appeal to sweatshop workers is a bad business strategy (Tm).
Are you really a trekkie? 11 breathed fresh blood and new young pretty faces who are reliable actors back into the franchise. 11 was a good move in the right direction. They even pulled off their roles and payed amazingly good homage to the original characters.
Was it a brand new series with full of unknown new content going in a bold new direction? No, sorry no more Captain Janeway's for you... If the movies are successful they might reboot a series though with new characters. Stick to your fan fiction for now ;p
You can't please everyone and after being burned by Enterprise I'm not surprised they went with a proven formulaic approach to the movies. There are plenty twists on the "alternate universe" characters that have yet to play out.
I was going to say at least the franchise is being handed to JJ Abrams he is a fairly competent director. So the new movies in the series may at least be PG13 and action packed I don't think its JJ Abrams style to do a G or PG rated Star wars Fern gully.
The worst possible case scenario... Uwe Boll gets a hold of the Star Wars franchise and infiltrates Disney.
Thanks for the correction =)
If there is a spy box on every parsel of property or every street where there really doesn't need to be yes it does.
But if this is a singular case out of a sea of nothingness, then it really is meaningless to anyone but the spies and the spied upon.
Their planning to own the exclusive rights to anything star wars related for the next 2000 years, if they can do it cheaply and shoddily they will.
Maybe its just one aspect of manipulating fiat currency through their savings. This way they have oil, gold, and other means of controlling the value of fiat currencies by manipulating the markets. This is how I would use it. Call it gold ammunition for the economy. That would explain why they hoard it.
Just a joke here. Maybe the aliens value gold more then us humans?
I don't know why, it seems paper is cheaper and lighter weight to gamble with =) Maybe because its cheap and diversifying your investments is smart? I may not be the best investment but it is one that might have some value if you could sit on it in a post apocalyptic medieval world...
Could be left over from pre 1800's era trading...
Could be the banks are just holding on to that gold for people who think it is.
I think the smartest answer is while gold is cheap its one of those things that is good to hold on to because as the market fluctuates you can sell it back out and buy more back cheaper later. So the banks having a lot of gold right now just means they've been winning at that game. The good banks wouldn't be dumping all their assets into gold though.
Thats why smart civilians should be off the streets and let the police do their thing. Does it really take a law other then interfering with law enforcement or obstruction of law enforcement to justifiable enforce this sane action?
I know I would be complying with the lawmen there. Its insane enough as it is. But someone who's on a street by themselves and one town over aught to have a right to do something if some crazy dood with a vest breaks into their home for a botttle of vodka.
Most civilians are at least not trained or encouraged to use deadly force by their training. There is some desensitization to violence that police and military have by the very nature of training with their firearms. So they might actually opt to use deadly force more often then an untrained and unprofessional person would.
I would argue that this is a bad point, most people including police should have a reasonable ability to know when to use deadly force and when not to. This is more about what should be rather then what is.
I can't answer. But there are more valuable things then gold to own and the smartest richest people on the planet kind of technically more or less own them.
Like big corporations. Stock. Land. Contracts with the DoD. Things like that are far better to "have" then gold. I would say diamonds are a start as well. I wouldn't stock gold unless I was really into making jewelry or using it to produce electronics. And because of golds "volatile nature' I would stock just enough to run whatever business I was making translating it to something else.
So the answer is, gold has uses but its useless as a measure of wealth by itself in todays economy. Virtually everything you can invest in is a gamble backed by the governments you are working through for your rights to conduct commerce.
The problem is actually shit is so mixed up that anything anti-government agenda anything is labeled as infowars.
There is no truth in the middle ground or non-bias any where left to be had...
But I grantee shit does happen even if its not part of a great conspiracy. Its as annoying to talk to infowars chuckle-heads as imperialist lapdogs about this shit.
It further erodes any checks and balances our form of government had or needs, such as JOURNALISM. Because people are increasingly afraid to say anything politically incorrect on official channels.
Well, we all know that the rule of law has been questionable for a long while in our country. Back in 1950's if you were black you had this problem, now its just escalated to anyone without official government sanction. Thanks for sharing your story.
Inversely though children will be taught these things more and more at a young age in science class and a few nerds will remain to slowly push humanity forward tidbit by tidbit. These examples are already pretty much standard classroom fair for grade schoolers. At least they were in the 80's.
But what you don't realize is many people are increasingly becoming convinced we need this branch to keep us safe. They can't fathom the idea of creating their own safety or just accepting that people have bad days. The direction our culture is heading is to be completely authoritarian and have a military organizational structure with the "perfect" soldiers having all the privileges and the imperfect ones serving the lowest classes if being allowed to continue to exist at all. It's the new form of racism without race. I hesitate to call it fascist. But it does seem to be a corporate agenda. Because it serves the most powerful the most and the least powerful the worst. And power in this country is determined solely by monetary wealth at this point.
Further, if you want a president with a good public opinion of him Obama is not your man, he does not represent the people of the United States. Obama seems more concerned about the opinions of his political bedfellows, peers, and financial supporters. This is absolutely obvious to any lay man. To bury your head in the sand and ignore this is to be extremely ignorant. I'm not saying he needs to be impeached. I'm saying he makes for a very lousy president and leader. His leadership skills amount to rolling over and getting belly scratched.
Heck Nixon and Reagan Clinton seemed like a more honest man then him. They were at least human, flawed, and had agenda's that were picked up by the populace. Obama is the perfect poster child, nothing more, nothing less. Class president 2012. Its sad that I feel like I need to come on here and provide you all more opportunities to mod me troll.
If someone wishes to bother to take the time to point out what such a great president he has been feel free. I'm open to real information from anyone that can put it out there. What makes him a role model and a hero? The fact that he's not in Jail yet?
I don't want to just bad mouth him, he's no demon. But he is a fool for not stepping aside and letting someone with real potential take the job and risk of fixing this country. Even if its just to stand in front of congress and the people and say what aught to be done, and who aught to be fired and why. And what not to put in the bills. He won't even listen to what people want though. He completely ignores any protesters as if they are meaningless. Thats not a hero. Winning the title of president does not make you good.
This is the appropriate use of law in this situation. To clarify what is right and wrong to law abiding people. Ignorant people will still be ignorant. But law abiding people will follow the rule and make their guns safer. The very nature of having the law will deter people from being ignorant.
The actual problem is how we as a people and society determine who is fit to own or not own what. The original principle was that we were all basically fit accept in extreme cases and all bared the responsibility and risk of a few unfit ones having freedom along with us.
This worked for a very long time more or less until recently. Minus some bad areas. But no one said downtown Detroit had to disarm or else back int he 70's. Well people may have but they weren't very good at enforcing it.
I pity you people who have to mod this troll. I have not seen a decent thing that Obama has done. I have seen him scared shitless after coming out of a meeting on public television. The man could at least defend whats good and right and be the figurehead that he is supposed to be rather then toeing whichever party line is convenient at the time. He could ask for moderation. He could be honest. He could call out the people who are corrupt. But he's genuinely a good guy then he's a scared shit less guy who knows or thinks he's easily replaced. At least Ron and Rand have the decency to label the GoP and NWO by name.
My beef with him as a person is he doesn't seem to have any decency, dignity, or integrity.
Eh I wouldn't be so harsh. I don't think what the above AC posted is really all that inflammatory. They just don't want to express a specific opinion other then the one that expressing an opinion is a bad idea at all. P.S. English can suck it does not translate from a verbal to a written language very easily.
I love you to you little anonymous bastard. Why don't you go read the wiki article and ask why you cant just drive on the road without a license and question the foundation of our rules? I'm not disagreeing with the status quo I'm just saying those rights you think you have are not as clearly defined as they aught to be.
The constitution while nice back in the day is full of holes. But we are able to make laws that specifically skirt the 9th amendment on a regular basis. To live under the delusion that we have those rights when its not clear to all is a bit silly.
Which does not pertain specifically to vehicles. It pertains to the fact that in order to legislate something the government has to make a specific amendment. This is why you need a license to operate a vehicle on a public road. The "people" government own that road there-fore they can get around the rule of this amendment.
Professor Laurence Tribe shares the view that this amendment does not confer substantive rights: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution. From wiki, no citations needed thats an opinion I share with Professor Laurence.
So yeah you have a right to drive a vehicle anywhere except on "our roads" so the government says. Are licenses and such unconstitutional? I am pretty sure its been tried before and ruled not as such.
So while yes you do have the right to operate vehicles. You don't really anywhere government doesn't want you to and specifically has the power enumerated to stop you. I'm not sure what rule that is or people just blatantly ignore the fact that the idea of licenses are not constitutional in nature. Thats a little like saying, you have the right to dress however you want except at the shopping mall. Which in fact is the case. No one legislates how your dressed while posting on slash dot, yet. Its a useless right the way the rules stand. It should be clarified and amendments should be passed that specifically cover the right to operate vehicles. But they don't want anything like that mess with the 2cnd amendment that specifically enumerates the right to bear arms.
Actually driving a vehicle ON public non-private roads IS a PRIVILEGE. You do indeed sign away certain rights when you sign for your drivers license. This only pertains to the use of a vehicle on public roads but occasionally law enforcement has stretched it a bit. This usually has to do with DUI, or search and seizure or drug related laws.