You sound like a Soviet apparatchik around 1985. "We'll never see an independent Ukraine." "Soviet troops will keep Poland liberated for all time." Times change and things change.
Yes, but Calexit is pointless because a state cannot declare independence from the Union. CANNOT. If there was one single issue decided by the Civil War, it's that there is no Constitutional allowance for a state to leave the Union. Statehood is a permanent, indissoluble situation. 100% of California voters can vote to leave the country, but unless the rest of the country allows it, it cannot happen. It is not up to the California residents to decide whether California remains in the USA.
So all the Calexits are wastes of time and money. Now, splitting California in two (or three) IS allowed by the Constitution, and has far more of a chance of happening.
Because it hears the most cases. If you look at averages, it's... well, it's about average. It's like getting all bent out of shape saying Chicago is the murder capital of the country, a fairly popular meme these days. But if you adjust by population count, while it's still bad, there are plenty of cities throughout the country that are quite a bit worse.
It's simple. The ban is on countries that are currently exporting terrorism.
There is no country that exports terrorism more than Saudi Arabia. Their vast wealth is used to push Salafism, and other ultra-conversative, radical Islamism into more moderate countries. They drive radicalism more than anyone else.
California can always leave the union though and become a third world hell hole.
No it can't, not without armed revolution and the consent of the states. States can split up (like Virginia and West Virginia), but there is no mechanism for a state to secede. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, pretty much no chance of that happening.
The only real issue solved by the Civil War is that there is no right to secede (slavery, states vs feds, etc was decided through Constitutional Amendments afterwards). Texas v. White (1869) made it clear once and for all: without Constitutional backing otherwise, the United States is indissoluble. Entrance is permanent.
I have mixed feelings about what-about-ism. On one hand, I really dislike it as a deflection attempt to avoid discussing an issue or acknowledging a failure. On the other hand, it's pretty useful to point out when someone wants to hold you up to a standard they have never lived up to (which is a different sort of hypocrisy).
Likewise, evangelical Christians, the supposed "values voters", chucked it all out the window to vote for a serial adulterer who bragged about assaulting women. We can imagine the Republican reaction if Obama's personal attorney had paid off a porn star to cover up an extra-marital affair during an election campaign. Yet, we hear little from them now.
There's a way of looking at this that explains the logic. I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but here's the logic that evangelicals have found to 'put up' with dealing with as horrible and un-Christian a person as Donald Trump.
First, they are big on forgiveness if they think you're repentant. I have heard top representatives of the Family Research Council saying that Trump got a clean slate when he was elected. IE, nothing that happened before really matters, because he is a different man now. Somehow, being President changed him. We'll just leave aside that ridiculous notion as 71-year-old men do not change their ways, but this is what they're willing to tell themselves.
Second, what really REALLY matters to them is the POLICY that is actually put into place. They can look past a President's personality if what he DOES delivers on what they want. And Trump has delivered. Hugely. We look at these big failures like DACA or Obamacare and wonder how someone could think he's delivered anything, but they don't care about that sort of thing. They care whether the culture war issues are being legislated their way. They care about abortion, about public prayer, about pharmacists not having to proscribe birth control, or what bathrooms transgendered folks use. "Tony Perkins said, yeah, but we only have two cheeks; it's good to see someone fighting back and standing up for our kind of beliefs, and whether that means attacking his critics in a way that would not be very biblical - Christian conservatives kind of like that he is rallying to their cause."** So because he's fighting "for them," they're going to give a pass to his un-Christian ways.
meh, the theatrical release of Aliens was kinda subpar with a lot of holes in the story due to the heavy editing to shorten it. Alien was better until they released the directors cut of Aliens.
The theatrical release of Aliens was better than the director's cut in some ways. Yeah, the scenes establishing Ripley's daughter's death is crucial to her relationship with Newt, and the sentry guns were awesome. EVERY other addition to the film undercut the mood or ruined the flow. The scenes on LV426 prior to the marines' landing were a huge mistake, undercutting the theatrical edition's sense of mystery. Hudson's newer, expanded monologue on the dropship lasts way too long, undercutting the humor value of it. Even Ripley and Hicks exchanging names is awkwardly placed, ruining the mood that the movie had so effectively been cultivating in the viewer.
If I could reedit the whole thing, I would have taken the theatrical release, added the establishing scenes where Ripley learns about her daughter, and probably kept the sentry guns. Jettison everything else, it undercut what the movie was trying to do and served little purpose.
"Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar."
Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point because I couldnt disagree more.
I think the OP was right about this. Avatar was pretty amazing at the time. At the time. Its popular acclaim tapered off quickly after 2010, and it's not especially well regarded, at least not any more than any other mindless, effects-heavy action film. The problem is that it's an amazing looking movie that set the technical bar higher, but it doesn't have a lot more than that. It has an overly-broad-strokes plot with teenage-quality depth. It's nothing but the "big bad corporate goons raping the environment and killing the noble, enlightened natives" that we saw on Captain Planet. Gone are the interesting characters and well-crafted plots of Cameron's earlier work, the characters and actors involved in Avatar are especially forgettable (save for perhaps Sigourney Weaver). Sam Worthington is as bland of a leading actor as you can get, as the rest of his film credits where he has the lead shows (Clash of the Titans, Terminator Salvation), and his involvement means you'll probably not even remember who played the role.
I fear for the four (4!!!!!) Avatar sequels currently in production. They missed their window.
Not so oddly... audience attendance keeps going down despite an increase in SJW content....
Wonder why.......
Probably because TV is far more of a preeminent environment than it was before. TV, The Internet, streaming are all competing for entertainment time and entertainment value than in years past, and the home theater has supplanted the movie theater for some.
One thing I'm pretty sure of: it has nothing to do with "SJW content," whatever that is.
Pale? That means: Too white. Funny, no one would ever say that a genre is "too asian" or "too black" or too any-other-race. Only white.
Why, it's almost as if "white" was the default (and for a huge history of the medium, required) and asian/black/any-other-race had to deal with being pushed out or ever left in. I wonder why the white man could be what's focused on. What a big mystery this is..
For the same reason this sentence exists in the Constitution wrt copyright: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The first phrase is a justification. It's rare though, there aren't a lot of places in the Constitution where justifications are given.
Pardon me brother, can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to get a law changed!
If you can get a few hundred thousand people to agree with you, then yes, that law can get changed. But if you can't, then maybe your position isn't as widespread as you think it is.
The law is what society as a whole deems to be right, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to walk down that rhetorical road. Because if you gave people the specifics of this case and asked them if it seemed right that the law should jail this man, I guarantee you that far more people would be on his side than against.
Pretty much the only people that agree with this are the IP-rights lovers and their astroturf-posting AC accounts.
Another example: the DNA in your cells is moving all the time, winding and unwinding, and it doesn't break because it's a "moving part".
It kindof does. Often you'll just get a dead cell, and it's easily replaced. Sometimes it results in some sort of mutation which, again, usually results in a dead cell. But sometimes it results in something far more spectacular.
That's a pretty long warranty. How do you know they'll still be in business 80 years from now?
There will be no one to sue over breaking the copyright. Or someone purchases the copyright, they purchase the warranty obligation with it. The point was that you don't get one without the other.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like a Soviet apparatchik around 1985. "We'll never see an independent Ukraine." "Soviet troops will keep Poland liberated for all time." Times change and things change.
Yes, but Calexit is pointless because a state cannot declare independence from the Union. CANNOT. If there was one single issue decided by the Civil War, it's that there is no Constitutional allowance for a state to leave the Union. Statehood is a permanent, indissoluble situation. 100% of California voters can vote to leave the country, but unless the rest of the country allows it, it cannot happen. It is not up to the California residents to decide whether California remains in the USA.
So all the Calexits are wastes of time and money. Now, splitting California in two (or three) IS allowed by the Constitution, and has far more of a chance of happening.
The 9th Circuit
The most over turned court in the land.
Because it hears the most cases. If you look at averages, it's... well, it's about average.
It's like getting all bent out of shape saying Chicago is the murder capital of the country, a fairly popular meme these days. But if you adjust by population count, while it's still bad, there are plenty of cities throughout the country that are quite a bit worse.
"solutions" to what? rent going up? why is that a problem?
Because it's where they LIVE, and rent going up essentially kicks them out?
It's simple. The ban is on countries that are currently exporting terrorism.
There is no country that exports terrorism more than Saudi Arabia. Their vast wealth is used to push Salafism, and other ultra-conversative, radical Islamism into more moderate countries. They drive radicalism more than anyone else.
Are we going to get polar bear replant in grab bags?
I have no idea what that means. Is that a US thing?
As a US citizen, I had no idea what he meant either until I web searched for it and google auto-corrected it to "Polar bear repellent."
California can always leave the union though and become a third world hell hole.
No it can't, not without armed revolution and the consent of the states. States can split up (like Virginia and West Virginia), but there is no mechanism for a state to secede. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, pretty much no chance of that happening.
The only real issue solved by the Civil War is that there is no right to secede (slavery, states vs feds, etc was decided through Constitutional Amendments afterwards). Texas v. White (1869) made it clear once and for all: without Constitutional backing otherwise, the United States is indissoluble. Entrance is permanent.
You should always get a sunblock that specifically lists on the bottle whether it blocks UVA.
I have mixed feelings about what-about-ism. On one hand, I really dislike it as a deflection attempt to avoid discussing an issue or acknowledging a failure. On the other hand, it's pretty useful to point out when someone wants to hold you up to a standard they have never lived up to (which is a different sort of hypocrisy).
Likewise, evangelical Christians, the supposed "values voters", chucked it all out the window to vote for a serial adulterer who bragged about assaulting women. We can imagine the Republican reaction if Obama's personal attorney had paid off a porn star to cover up an extra-marital affair during an election campaign. Yet, we hear little from them now.
There's a way of looking at this that explains the logic. I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but here's the logic that evangelicals have found to 'put up' with dealing with as horrible and un-Christian a person as Donald Trump.
First, they are big on forgiveness if they think you're repentant. I have heard top representatives of the Family Research Council saying that Trump got a clean slate when he was elected. IE, nothing that happened before really matters, because he is a different man now. Somehow, being President changed him. We'll just leave aside that ridiculous notion as 71-year-old men do not change their ways, but this is what they're willing to tell themselves.
Second, what really REALLY matters to them is the POLICY that is actually put into place. They can look past a President's personality if what he DOES delivers on what they want. And Trump has delivered. Hugely. We look at these big failures like DACA or Obamacare and wonder how someone could think he's delivered anything, but they don't care about that sort of thing. They care whether the culture war issues are being legislated their way. They care about abortion, about public prayer, about pharmacists not having to proscribe birth control, or what bathrooms transgendered folks use. "Tony Perkins said, yeah, but we only have two cheeks; it's good to see someone fighting back and standing up for our kind of beliefs, and whether that means attacking his critics in a way that would not be very biblical - Christian conservatives kind of like that he is rallying to their cause."** So because he's fighting "for them," they're going to give a pass to his un-Christian ways.
** Tony Perkins, Family Research Council.
I'm totally fine with being "pro-property," but I sure don't like the trend of redefining "copyright" to be property akin to a physical object.
Exits are N, W, S, E
If you're at the North Pole, then aren't the exits S, S, S, and S?
meh, the theatrical release of Aliens was kinda subpar with a lot of holes in the story due to the heavy editing to shorten it. Alien was better until they released the directors cut of Aliens.
The theatrical release of Aliens was better than the director's cut in some ways. Yeah, the scenes establishing Ripley's daughter's death is crucial to her relationship with Newt, and the sentry guns were awesome. EVERY other addition to the film undercut the mood or ruined the flow. The scenes on LV426 prior to the marines' landing were a huge mistake, undercutting the theatrical edition's sense of mystery. Hudson's newer, expanded monologue on the dropship lasts way too long, undercutting the humor value of it. Even Ripley and Hicks exchanging names is awkwardly placed, ruining the mood that the movie had so effectively been cultivating in the viewer.
If I could reedit the whole thing, I would have taken the theatrical release, added the establishing scenes where Ripley learns about her daughter, and probably kept the sentry guns. Jettison everything else, it undercut what the movie was trying to do and served little purpose.
"Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar."
Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point because I couldnt disagree more.
I think the OP was right about this. Avatar was pretty amazing at the time. At the time. Its popular acclaim tapered off quickly after 2010, and it's not especially well regarded, at least not any more than any other mindless, effects-heavy action film. The problem is that it's an amazing looking movie that set the technical bar higher, but it doesn't have a lot more than that. It has an overly-broad-strokes plot with teenage-quality depth. It's nothing but the "big bad corporate goons raping the environment and killing the noble, enlightened natives" that we saw on Captain Planet. Gone are the interesting characters and well-crafted plots of Cameron's earlier work, the characters and actors involved in Avatar are especially forgettable (save for perhaps Sigourney Weaver). Sam Worthington is as bland of a leading actor as you can get, as the rest of his film credits where he has the lead shows (Clash of the Titans, Terminator Salvation), and his involvement means you'll probably not even remember who played the role.
I fear for the four (4!!!!!) Avatar sequels currently in production. They missed their window.
Not so oddly... audience attendance keeps going down despite an increase in SJW content....
Wonder why.......
Probably because TV is far more of a preeminent environment than it was before. TV, The Internet, streaming are all competing for entertainment time and entertainment value than in years past, and the home theater has supplanted the movie theater for some.
One thing I'm pretty sure of: it has nothing to do with "SJW content," whatever that is.
just about every movie has some gaping plot hole or poorly thought out MacGuffin that makes it unworthy of any credibility.
Sure, I can get behind that.
I'm struggling to think of a Sci-Fi film I'd even consider worthy. Interstellar maybe?
Oh Lord.
Pale? That means: Too white.
Funny, no one would ever say that a genre is "too asian" or "too black" or too any-other-race. Only white.
Why, it's almost as if "white" was the default (and for a huge history of the medium, required) and asian/black/any-other-race had to deal with being pushed out or ever left in. I wonder why the white man could be what's focused on. What a big mystery this is..
For the same reason this sentence exists in the Constitution wrt copyright: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The first phrase is a justification. It's rare though, there aren't a lot of places in the Constitution where justifications are given.
Pardon me brother, can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to get a law changed!
If you can get a few hundred thousand people to agree with you, then yes, that law can get changed. But if you can't, then maybe your position isn't as widespread as you think it is.
They do not usurp law, that IS the law.
The law is what society as a whole deems to be right, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to walk down that rhetorical road. Because if you gave people the specifics of this case and asked them if it seemed right that the law should jail this man, I guarantee you that far more people would be on his side than against.
Pretty much the only people that agree with this are the IP-rights lovers and their astroturf-posting AC accounts.
Are you a fucking moron?
Asks the stupid and entitled kid who doesn't understand copyright law.
The law is not moral. That's the whole point. This seems like it's just gone over your head several times now.
Another example: the DNA in your cells is moving all the time, winding and unwinding, and it doesn't break because it's a "moving part".
It kindof does. Often you'll just get a dead cell, and it's easily replaced. Sometimes it results in some sort of mutation which, again, usually results in a dead cell. But sometimes it results in something far more spectacular.
Top-rated Maytag fridge failed within warranty. I commented to the factory tech (an older guy)
Whoa! That lonely Maytag repairman really does exist!
That's a pretty long warranty. How do you know they'll still be in business 80 years from now?
There will be no one to sue over breaking the copyright. Or someone purchases the copyright, they purchase the warranty obligation with it. The point was that you don't get one without the other.
So, you say you have 13... errm, I mean, 1300 channels of shit on the TV to chose from?