Your suggestion is ridiculously impractical. There are far too many terms for you to understand to do anything in the modern world.
Then don't sign up for those services!! Really, if people actually drew a line in the sand with terms of services, they wouldn't be nearly as illegible or onerous.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Slow down there. I would strongly suggest you take a look at one of your sibling replies (http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3381197&cid=42582279). In a fully voiced game, which I am to understand SW:TOR is, this is a non-trivial thing to do. If the original voice talent is gone, that's an issue
I remember when SWTOR came out much was made that it was a fully-voiced game, which just sounded a bit more like an annoyance to me. But the above situation sounds like one of the truly great weaknesses of a fully-voiced game -- it seems like a pretty big limitation. You can't change the game over time (something which is pretty important for an MMO) due the additional cost of recording new dialogue. That works for single-player games, or just games that are complete on launch.
I wouldn't blame any devs for saying F*** IT, we just won't do it at all.
Or you could do it from the beginning! We all know what the original decision was, and I suspect the original poster's anger comes from the decision the devs made -- which is better to annoy? non-heterosexuals, or bigots who would be truly offended that these options even exist? The anger comes because the decision was: they'd rather placate the bigots, at least on launch.
Then again, I wouldn't be really offended due to the ridiculous nature of Star Wars's "planet of hats" syndrome anyway (and it goes double for Star Trek). This sort of thing fits well into the trope that they already established.
As opposed to the boxers that never get hit in the head in their entire career? The entire sport is giving each other concussions and you hear more complaints about the NFL than boxing these days. I think the loudest whiners are just soccer fans and/or people who don't like football.
This is kindof a shitty thing to say, but I think US sports fans (of which I am one) sortof expect by now boxers to be to be mentally slow thugs who barely have a bell to ring in the first place, while they hold (many) American Football players to a bit of a higher standard.
Hang gliding, bungi jumping, sky diving, piloting private planes, piano-lifting, writing bad checks, Class B fireworks, running with scissors - what is it exactly that you want to do that our oppressive statist jack-booted government is preventing you from doing?
they go through a field that "de-evolves" some of them to cavemen, and it also "devolves" their CLOTHES. I even called that one as it happened "don't make their clothes change, too!" and yet it happened anyway.
This particular episode was, IMO, the very worst of the series. And it wasn't just the stupid science, it was scene after scene of people wordlessly screaming at each other until I couldn't imagine how this show wasn't canceled by that point. It was a true jumping the shark moment.
Space 1999 had a few good episodes, but most of them, even in the pre-Freiburger days, were pretty bad. Bad science, bad scripts. The production design and actors were fine, but they were saddled with nonsense.
The second season of Space 1999 was definitely as you describe, but the first season was not like that. It was much more serious and realistic. It is just like Lost in Space. The early black and white episodes of that show were ten thousand times better than the later, colour, and campy episodes.
As one who recently rewatched the first and second seasons of Space: 1999, I think the original poster had it right -- the moon seemed to accelerate and decellerate without reason so that an episode could take place within a solar system. The change of speed was never mentioned, it was just like if all these systems that Alpha visited were right next to each other. The obstacles to the episodes could be unbelievably stupid (like that in "Space Brain"), but they could also be excellent (like the "Dragon's Domain" monster). Indeed, after watching both seasons, the highs of Season 1 were better than the highs of Season 2... but the lows in Season 1 were far worse as well. Make no mistake, the worst moments of Space: 1999 came in Season 1 and there were times when I'd watch some horribly bad, drawn out scenes and think "why would anyone want to watch this?" Then it'd be followed by a brilliant episode. It was ambitious and took a lot of risks, some of which backfired.
Season 2, by contrast, was evenly mediocre. It wasn't as bad as Season 1, but not as good either. Also, in Season 1, Martin Landau was Kirk, Barbara Bain was McCoy, and Barry Morse was Spock. They formed the same sort of trio that Star Trek had. Morse left after Season 1 and there was no serious, Spock-like character to replace him, and it threw a wrench in the chemistry for Season 2. Season 2 added Tony and Maya -- Tony was forgettable, Maya was a fantastic addition, but still the chemistry wasn't the same, and the series had shifted to more action-oriented episodes.
I can just imagine that there was some stupid network executive behind the downfall of both these shows, who thought that science fiction was just for kids and that kids only want to see monsters and aliens. It would be interesting to read an account of the behind the scenes decisions that changed these shows.
Fred Freiberger was brought on to save Space: 1999 after it was canceled at the end of its Season 1. He was also the person who "retooled" Star Trek in its final Season 3 (after it's earlier cancellation as well). I stole this note from Wikipedia: "Johnny Byrne has gone on record saying that Freiberger was a good man and good producer, but not good for Space: 1999. He had gotten them a second year after the cancellation, but the changes he made did not benefit the programme"
This is reminding of Slashdot's lame attempts and FUD against Windows 7 with the fake benchmark shit and false claims of DRM.
Yeah, that wasn't quite true. The grousing about Windows 7 was minor at best. Did it exist? Sure, but no where close to the same extent that ME and Vista received, and it seems like Microsoft is swinging back and forth between bad and good OSes like the Star Trek film franchise. It started with Windows 98, most people thought it was an improvement, but Windows ME was poorly received. Then came XP which did great, but Vista was a flop. Windows 7 seemed like the successor to XP, a fine OS on its own, but Windows 8 is getting the reception that the poorer entries on the list received.
Jesus Christ, how did this idiocy get modded as high as it was? Any time someone retorts "You are a fucktwad and a poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain" they deserve exactly one mod score: -1, Flamebait.
Given that reports are surfacing that the mother was in the process of having him committed to an institution, I think we can theorize that there was something else in play other than the autism.
I heard that report on ABC news, but I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere else, and it was explicitly rejected by family members as implausible. Specifically, he was 'withdrawn' but hadn't shown behaviors (yet) that would justify institutionalization.
Behind half the plot elements is this notion of unrepeatability and decline
This is a very very common trope throughout much of history's epic literature, or at least Western Europe's, that kingdoms in the past were greater, nobler, or more enlightened, and that humanity has been in a long, slow, decline. I remember Cretien de Troys's epic poems of King Arthur of Camelot, and how that kingdom was much fairer, chivalrous, and nobler than the kingdoms of the day. I wonder if it has to do with The Enlightenment, when the culture of Ancient Rome was rediscovered and everyone became enamored with the 1500-year-old tales and mourned the loss of that ancient civilization. Or maybe it all flows from the Bible, where in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve were immortal before being cast from Eden, and the great patriarchs lived for hundreds of years, with each successive generation living a little less. Fantasy literature often follows the same formula: "These are hard times, but our people were once great and mighty before falling into decline." Tolkien, being so influenced by Christianity, created a people (the elves) who similarly started in paradise, were faced with a great evil (Morgoth), disobeyed the higher powers (by leaving Valinor and chasing Morgoth to Beleriand), and suffering the decline that resulted from those decisions. I know that Tolkien claims to have hated allegory, but he simultaneously claimed his writings were very Christian (while being disappointed that C.S. Lewis's works were too overtly Christian).
Naturally, Feanor can't make more Silmarils
I always figured that he didn't have access to the raw materials anymore. I mean, he created them from all the remaining light of the dying trees. Without the trees... no more Silmarils. Also, Feanor was a complete dick, and everyone knew it. He hit on Galadriel a lot, but she always rejected his advances because she could "sense the darkness within him." He withheld the Silmarils from the Valar even when they suspected that the Silmarils could be used to restore the trees. So the loss of the Silmarils could again be blamed on defiance of the heavens. Sure, Morgoth set everything in motion, but you can blame Feanor for a lot of the ills of the elves.
I love how the 3 LOFR books were 3 movies but the Hobbit somehow becomes 3 movies too
That's because the LOTR movies were based almost entirely on LOTR, but the Hobbit is based off the Hobbit, borrows from LOTR, borrows from the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and even more heavily on Tolkien's notes and minor stories. It's basically trying to relate all the events that happened during that time period (and there was a lot going on). It wasn't mentioned in the book, but by the time of the events of the Hobbit, the Wise already knew that the power in Dol Guldur was Sauron and that the northern Dwarf kingdoms needed to be strong for the upcoming war. Thus his motivation for aiding the dwarves. He suspected that Dol Guldur and Smaug would aid each other if attacked which is why Gandalf leaves Thorin and Co after the end of the first movie -- the White Council attacks Dol Guldur at the same time Smaug's lair is breached. Little of that is told in the Hobbit (which was written well before the LOTR, but concurrently with Tolkien's legendarium), but it looks like Jackson wants to show both fronts.
Ultimately, I think Jackson fell into the trap that he so niftily evaded when making his LOTR trilogy. Originally the earlier trilogy was sprawling, too slow, had too many things going on, but he found he was able to remove certain scenes (like the Barrow Wights, Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire) by realizing he had to focus on the quest of the ring. I don't don't think he always succeeded in this (I'm not sure the early Warg attack in the Two Towers was really necessary), but overall the trilogy was fairly contained. They didn't need to show Galadriel assaulting Dol Guldur, or the Easterlings attacking the dwarf kingdom of Erebor. Sure, those events happened, but they didn't need to be portrayed. Seeing the first movie in the Hobbit, I fear that Jackson wasn't able to nail down a similar question, and everything is being thrown in. When you include everything, the narrative suffers, and I feel that the cuts back and forth between the dwarf journey, Radagast, etc are distracting.
Just for comparison's, I decided to look at the top 10 2012 movies, and yes, I'd say it's the box office dollars that count -- we can all talk about which are the best movies critically (my two favorites this year are Lincoln and Life of Pi), but the box office total is what reflects what Americans actually went to see.
1. The Avengers. Fairly gun-centered. 2. The Dark Knight Rises. Not really.. all that gun centered. There are a decent amount of guns, and there are certainly lots of explosions and violence, but Batman has always been a character to eschew guns. The intense fights in the movie are hand-to-hand. 3. Hunger Games. Violence-focused, but almost no guns to be found. 4. Twilight Blah 2. I'm not a fan of Twilight and I didn't see this, but my understanding is that it has little to do with guns. 5. Skyfall. Pretty gun-oriented. And a British production. 6. The Amazing Spider-Man. Not that many guns to be found here -- were there any outside of police shooting lizard-men? Spidey doesn't use a gun. Neither does the Lizard. And Spidey always believed in tying up criminals and leaving them for the cops. 7. Brave, from you-know-who, of course.:-) Lol, guns? 8. Ted. Didn't see. Were there any guns here? Was it a gun-toting violence-fest? Don't think so, but I don't know. I'll say no for now. 9. Madagascar 3. I didn't see it again, but my understanding was it was not a gun-fest either. 10. The Lorax. Once again, didn't see, but there weren't any guns that I'd heard of.
Assuming my assumptions about the films I didn't see are correct, that means a whopping two out of the 10 movies are a "gun-glorifying violence-fest."
When was the last time a movie in this country earned an "X" rating for *violence*.
Robocop is a quick an easy answer just off the top of my head, and there are many more. But it wasn't released as an X-rated movie, the producers made cuts to bring it down to an R rating. That's common in the movie industry, a production will go for one rating, the ratings boards will give it another, and they discuss what violence or sex will have to be removed in order to achieve an R rating.
That's why you don't see X-rated violence movies, not because an X rating is difficult to achieve, but because few companies want to give up the much larger sum of money that a few cuts will get them. They're in the business of having their movies earn money.
These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.
While I agree with your overall point, the video game companies also have right of association, they no not need to accept sex offenders onto their service, and there is no obligation that they do so. The question is whether the government is forcing them to eliminate any registered sex offenders, or if they wanted to purge their player base of sex offenders. Due process generally includes the provision that you must be treated equally before the law, but private organizations do not need to follow it.
I suppose it depends on which of Tolkien's accounts you want to believe, he gave more than one backstory for Galadriel. The Silmarillion and the Road Goes Ever On gives one account, that she was an eager participant and leader in the Noldor rebellion (though she had parted ways with Feanor and did not participate in the kinslaying), meeting Celeborn once she arrived in Middle Earth. In the Unfinished Tales, she meets Celeborn while still in Valinor, and they come to Middle Earth by a much longer, separate from the Noldor hosts, and this version has them not allied with the Noldor, and even fighting with them during the kinslaying.
I have an IQ of 150, am a member of a 3 sigma IQ society. But I cannot remember names, and if I had to do manual skilled labor, I would starve to death
Manual skilled labor doesn't have too much to do IQ. The 'skilled' part, but not the manual labor part. It should be noted that IQ shouldn't determine a person's worthiness or value.
As for names, I can remember strange stuff. Chatting with my partner in the car, I could remember that Galadriel crossed into Middle Earth with Feanor after Morgoth stole the Silmarils and killed King Finwe. I then confessed that I didn't know what it meant that somehow I was able to remember Finwe's name easily, even though it'd been years since I'd read the Silmarillion, yet I had a hard time recalling names of co-workers I had worked closely with a few years back. What does that mean? How does THAT fit into 'IQ?'
The War of 1812 is often not seen as a loss for the US, but not a win either. It was not conquered, it suffered some important political building losses (the White House, Capitol Building). US troops also destroyed buildings in Canada, though they were not as high-profile.
Neither side won nor lost territory in the war, in fact, the war served to end border disputes. The real losers in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans. They lost -big time- as a result, and while historians can disagree on whether the US, Canada, or GB won the war of 1812, everyone can agree that the Indians were the real losers.
This is how an american responds to suggestions that work in other countries: "But we're like, so.. different man. You can't possibly understand the challenges we face."
It's horseshit.
It's not horseshit, it's a reflection that the violence is part of a bigger problem.
What waste? I saw the Republicans transfer massive amounts of wealth from their ignorant, elderly, frightened, super-rich supporters to the advertising industry.
Those ad guys and media outlets will have bought all kinds of toys with the money, boosting the entire economy.
This is actually a great point. People say "waste of money" as if all those hundred dollar bills were lit on fire and gone forever. I don't think there's any broken-window fallacy going on here. It's really just a transfer of wealth from one set of rich folks to another (though the majority of Obama doners were nowhere close to rich).
Many of the summer Olympic events have military origins. Even Dressage ("horse ballet") came about as a union of a general and his horse, allowing the rider to command equine movements with little effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Your suggestion is ridiculously impractical. There are far too many terms for you to understand to do anything in the modern world.
Then don't sign up for those services!!
Really, if people actually drew a line in the sand with terms of services, they wouldn't be nearly as illegible or onerous.
before they were brought in by EA
Ugh, kiss of death right there.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Slow down there. I would strongly suggest you take a look at one of your sibling replies (http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3381197&cid=42582279). In a fully voiced game, which I am to understand SW:TOR is, this is a non-trivial thing to do. If the original voice talent is gone, that's an issue
I remember when SWTOR came out much was made that it was a fully-voiced game, which just sounded a bit more like an annoyance to me. But the above situation sounds like one of the truly great weaknesses of a fully-voiced game -- it seems like a pretty big limitation. You can't change the game over time (something which is pretty important for an MMO) due the additional cost of recording new dialogue. That works for single-player games, or just games that are complete on launch.
I wouldn't blame any devs for saying F*** IT, we just won't do it at all.
Or you could do it from the beginning! We all know what the original decision was, and I suspect the original poster's anger comes from the decision the devs made -- which is better to annoy? non-heterosexuals, or bigots who would be truly offended that these options even exist? The anger comes because the decision was: they'd rather placate the bigots, at least on launch.
Then again, I wouldn't be really offended due to the ridiculous nature of Star Wars's "planet of hats" syndrome anyway (and it goes double for Star Trek). This sort of thing fits well into the trope that they already established.
As opposed to the boxers that never get hit in the head in their entire career? The entire sport is giving each other concussions and you hear more complaints about the NFL than boxing these days. I think the loudest whiners are just soccer fans and/or people who don't like football.
This is kindof a shitty thing to say, but I think US sports fans (of which I am one) sortof expect by now boxers to be to be mentally slow thugs who barely have a bell to ring in the first place, while they hold (many) American Football players to a bit of a higher standard.
Hang gliding, bungi jumping, sky diving, piloting private planes, piano-lifting, writing bad checks, Class B fireworks, running with scissors - what is it exactly that you want to do that our oppressive statist jack-booted government is preventing you from doing?
Pretty sure he's talking about teh marijuana.
they go through a field that "de-evolves" some of them to cavemen, and it also "devolves" their CLOTHES. I even called that one as it happened "don't make their clothes change, too!" and yet it happened anyway.
This particular episode was, IMO, the very worst of the series. And it wasn't just the stupid science, it was scene after scene of people wordlessly screaming at each other until I couldn't imagine how this show wasn't canceled by that point. It was a true jumping the shark moment.
Space 1999 had a few good episodes, but most of them, even in the pre-Freiburger days, were pretty bad. Bad science, bad scripts. The production design and actors were fine, but they were saddled with nonsense.
The second season of Space 1999 was definitely as you describe, but the first season was not like that. It was much more serious and realistic. It is just like Lost in Space. The early black and white episodes of that show were ten thousand times better than the later, colour, and campy episodes.
As one who recently rewatched the first and second seasons of Space: 1999, I think the original poster had it right -- the moon seemed to accelerate and decellerate without reason so that an episode could take place within a solar system. The change of speed was never mentioned, it was just like if all these systems that Alpha visited were right next to each other. The obstacles to the episodes could be unbelievably stupid (like that in "Space Brain"), but they could also be excellent (like the "Dragon's Domain" monster). Indeed, after watching both seasons, the highs of Season 1 were better than the highs of Season 2... but the lows in Season 1 were far worse as well. Make no mistake, the worst moments of Space: 1999 came in Season 1 and there were times when I'd watch some horribly bad, drawn out scenes and think "why would anyone want to watch this?" Then it'd be followed by a brilliant episode. It was ambitious and took a lot of risks, some of which backfired.
Season 2, by contrast, was evenly mediocre. It wasn't as bad as Season 1, but not as good either.
Also, in Season 1, Martin Landau was Kirk, Barbara Bain was McCoy, and Barry Morse was Spock. They formed the same sort of trio that Star Trek had. Morse left after Season 1 and there was no serious, Spock-like character to replace him, and it threw a wrench in the chemistry for Season 2. Season 2 added Tony and Maya -- Tony was forgettable, Maya was a fantastic addition, but still the chemistry wasn't the same, and the series had shifted to more action-oriented episodes.
I can just imagine that there was some stupid network executive behind the downfall of both these shows, who thought that science fiction was just for kids and that kids only want to see monsters and aliens. It would be interesting to read an account of the behind the scenes decisions that changed these shows.
Fred Freiberger was brought on to save Space: 1999 after it was canceled at the end of its Season 1. He was also the person who "retooled" Star Trek in its final Season 3 (after it's earlier cancellation as well). I stole this note from Wikipedia: "Johnny Byrne has gone on record saying that Freiberger was a good man and good producer, but not good for Space: 1999. He had gotten them a second year after the cancellation, but the changes he made did not benefit the programme"
This is reminding of Slashdot's lame attempts and FUD against Windows 7 with the fake benchmark shit and false claims of DRM.
Yeah, that wasn't quite true. The grousing about Windows 7 was minor at best. Did it exist? Sure, but no where close to the same extent that ME and Vista received, and it seems like Microsoft is swinging back and forth between bad and good OSes like the Star Trek film franchise. It started with Windows 98, most people thought it was an improvement, but Windows ME was poorly received. Then came XP which did great, but Vista was a flop. Windows 7 seemed like the successor to XP, a fine OS on its own, but Windows 8 is getting the reception that the poorer entries on the list received.
Jesus Christ, how did this idiocy get modded as high as it was? Any time someone retorts "You are a fucktwad and a poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain" they deserve exactly one mod score: -1, Flamebait.
Given that reports are surfacing that the mother was in the process of having him committed to an institution, I think we can theorize that there was something else in play other than the autism.
I heard that report on ABC news, but I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere else, and it was explicitly rejected by family members as implausible. Specifically, he was 'withdrawn' but hadn't shown behaviors (yet) that would justify institutionalization.
Behind half the plot elements is this notion of unrepeatability and decline
This is a very very common trope throughout much of history's epic literature, or at least Western Europe's, that kingdoms in the past were greater, nobler, or more enlightened, and that humanity has been in a long, slow, decline. I remember Cretien de Troys's epic poems of King Arthur of Camelot, and how that kingdom was much fairer, chivalrous, and nobler than the kingdoms of the day. I wonder if it has to do with The Enlightenment, when the culture of Ancient Rome was rediscovered and everyone became enamored with the 1500-year-old tales and mourned the loss of that ancient civilization. Or maybe it all flows from the Bible, where in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve were immortal before being cast from Eden, and the great patriarchs lived for hundreds of years, with each successive generation living a little less. Fantasy literature often follows the same formula: "These are hard times, but our people were once great and mighty before falling into decline." Tolkien, being so influenced by Christianity, created a people (the elves) who similarly started in paradise, were faced with a great evil (Morgoth), disobeyed the higher powers (by leaving Valinor and chasing Morgoth to Beleriand), and suffering the decline that resulted from those decisions. I know that Tolkien claims to have hated allegory, but he simultaneously claimed his writings were very Christian (while being disappointed that C.S. Lewis's works were too overtly Christian).
Naturally, Feanor can't make more Silmarils
I always figured that he didn't have access to the raw materials anymore. I mean, he created them from all the remaining light of the dying trees. Without the trees... no more Silmarils. Also, Feanor was a complete dick, and everyone knew it. He hit on Galadriel a lot, but she always rejected his advances because she could "sense the darkness within him." He withheld the Silmarils from the Valar even when they suspected that the Silmarils could be used to restore the trees. So the loss of the Silmarils could again be blamed on defiance of the heavens. Sure, Morgoth set everything in motion, but you can blame Feanor for a lot of the ills of the elves.
I love how the 3 LOFR books were 3 movies but the Hobbit somehow becomes 3 movies too
That's because the LOTR movies were based almost entirely on LOTR, but the Hobbit is based off the Hobbit, borrows from LOTR, borrows from the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and even more heavily on Tolkien's notes and minor stories. It's basically trying to relate all the events that happened during that time period (and there was a lot going on). It wasn't mentioned in the book, but by the time of the events of the Hobbit, the Wise already knew that the power in Dol Guldur was Sauron and that the northern Dwarf kingdoms needed to be strong for the upcoming war. Thus his motivation for aiding the dwarves. He suspected that Dol Guldur and Smaug would aid each other if attacked which is why Gandalf leaves Thorin and Co after the end of the first movie -- the White Council attacks Dol Guldur at the same time Smaug's lair is breached. Little of that is told in the Hobbit (which was written well before the LOTR, but concurrently with Tolkien's legendarium), but it looks like Jackson wants to show both fronts.
Ultimately, I think Jackson fell into the trap that he so niftily evaded when making his LOTR trilogy. Originally the earlier trilogy was sprawling, too slow, had too many things going on, but he found he was able to remove certain scenes (like the Barrow Wights, Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire) by realizing he had to focus on the quest of the ring. I don't don't think he always succeeded in this (I'm not sure the early Warg attack in the Two Towers was really necessary), but overall the trilogy was fairly contained. They didn't need to show Galadriel assaulting Dol Guldur, or the Easterlings attacking the dwarf kingdom of Erebor. Sure, those events happened, but they didn't need to be portrayed. Seeing the first movie in the Hobbit, I fear that Jackson wasn't able to nail down a similar question, and everything is being thrown in. When you include everything, the narrative suffers, and I feel that the cuts back and forth between the dwarf journey, Radagast, etc are distracting.
Just for comparison's, I decided to look at the top 10 2012 movies, and yes, I'd say it's the box office dollars that count -- we can all talk about which are the best movies critically (my two favorites this year are Lincoln and Life of Pi), but the box office total is what reflects what Americans actually went to see.
1. The Avengers. Fairly gun-centered. :-) Lol, guns?
2. The Dark Knight Rises. Not really.. all that gun centered. There are a decent amount of guns, and there are certainly lots of explosions and violence, but Batman has always been a character to eschew guns. The intense fights in the movie are hand-to-hand.
3. Hunger Games. Violence-focused, but almost no guns to be found.
4. Twilight Blah 2. I'm not a fan of Twilight and I didn't see this, but my understanding is that it has little to do with guns.
5. Skyfall. Pretty gun-oriented. And a British production.
6. The Amazing Spider-Man. Not that many guns to be found here -- were there any outside of police shooting lizard-men? Spidey doesn't use a gun. Neither does the Lizard. And Spidey always believed in tying up criminals and leaving them for the cops.
7. Brave, from you-know-who, of course.
8. Ted. Didn't see. Were there any guns here? Was it a gun-toting violence-fest? Don't think so, but I don't know. I'll say no for now.
9. Madagascar 3. I didn't see it again, but my understanding was it was not a gun-fest either.
10. The Lorax. Once again, didn't see, but there weren't any guns that I'd heard of.
Assuming my assumptions about the films I didn't see are correct, that means a whopping two out of the 10 movies are a "gun-glorifying violence-fest."
When was the last time a movie in this country earned an "X" rating for *violence*.
Robocop is a quick an easy answer just off the top of my head, and there are many more. But it wasn't released as an X-rated movie, the producers made cuts to bring it down to an R rating. That's common in the movie industry, a production will go for one rating, the ratings boards will give it another, and they discuss what violence or sex will have to be removed in order to achieve an R rating.
That's why you don't see X-rated violence movies, not because an X rating is difficult to achieve, but because few companies want to give up the much larger sum of money that a few cuts will get them. They're in the business of having their movies earn money.
These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.
While I agree with your overall point, the video game companies also have right of association, they no not need to accept sex offenders onto their service, and there is no obligation that they do so. The question is whether the government is forcing them to eliminate any registered sex offenders, or if they wanted to purge their player base of sex offenders.
Due process generally includes the provision that you must be treated equally before the law, but private organizations do not need to follow it.
I suppose it depends on which of Tolkien's accounts you want to believe, he gave more than one backstory for Galadriel. The Silmarillion and the Road Goes Ever On gives one account, that she was an eager participant and leader in the Noldor rebellion (though she had parted ways with Feanor and did not participate in the kinslaying), meeting Celeborn once she arrived in Middle Earth. In the Unfinished Tales, she meets Celeborn while still in Valinor, and they come to Middle Earth by a much longer, separate from the Noldor hosts, and this version has them not allied with the Noldor, and even fighting with them during the kinslaying.
Yup, I remember that too!
I have an IQ of 150, am a member of a 3 sigma IQ society. But I cannot remember names, and if I had to do manual skilled labor, I would starve to death
Manual skilled labor doesn't have too much to do IQ. The 'skilled' part, but not the manual labor part. It should be noted that IQ shouldn't determine a person's worthiness or value.
As for names, I can remember strange stuff. Chatting with my partner in the car, I could remember that Galadriel crossed into Middle Earth with Feanor after Morgoth stole the Silmarils and killed King Finwe. I then confessed that I didn't know what it meant that somehow I was able to remember Finwe's name easily, even though it'd been years since I'd read the Silmarillion, yet I had a hard time recalling names of co-workers I had worked closely with a few years back. What does that mean? How does THAT fit into 'IQ?'
The War of 1812 is often not seen as a loss for the US, but not a win either. It was not conquered, it suffered some important political building losses (the White House, Capitol Building). US troops also destroyed buildings in Canada, though they were not as high-profile.
Neither side won nor lost territory in the war, in fact, the war served to end border disputes. The real losers in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans. They lost -big time- as a result, and while historians can disagree on whether the US, Canada, or GB won the war of 1812, everyone can agree that the Indians were the real losers.
This is how an american responds to suggestions that work in other countries: "But we're like, so .. different man. You can't possibly understand the challenges we face."
It's horseshit.
It's not horseshit, it's a reflection that the violence is part of a bigger problem.
What waste? I saw the Republicans transfer massive amounts of wealth from their ignorant, elderly, frightened, super-rich supporters to the advertising industry.
Those ad guys and media outlets will have bought all kinds of toys with the money, boosting the entire economy.
This is actually a great point. People say "waste of money" as if all those hundred dollar bills were lit on fire and gone forever. I don't think there's any broken-window fallacy going on here. It's really just a transfer of wealth from one set of rich folks to another (though the majority of Obama doners were nowhere close to rich).
No, the purpose is not merely to shoot, but to kill. If you use the gun for target practice, you are misusing it.
Oh I see! Let's just change the definition of 'gun' because xevioso says so. He says we're misusing guns for target practice.
so guns are only for killing kids? FU! you think you can kill people with computers, you are dillusional.
Haven't you seen The Net? Excellent Sandra Bullock movie, really puts the whole computer thing in perspective.
Many of the summer Olympic events have military origins. Even Dressage ("horse ballet") came about as a union of a general and his horse, allowing the rider to command equine movements with little effort.