While the doctor always had companions, it was never a show about a brooding sad doctor alone in the world having one romantic interest after another with all the intrinsic undertones.
The explicit romance may be new, but there has always been an undercurrent of loss and loneliness in the show regarding the Doctor and his companions. For example, the marriage of Susan, the marriage of Jo, the abandonment of Sarah Jane, the death of Adric, the nervous breakdown of Tegan... and those are just the ones I can think of at the moment.
Furthermore, the Doctor feels each loss more strongly now because after the fall of Gallifrey, all he has left are his companions. It is a very reasonable change in tone when going from a low-rated, half-hour kids' show to a top-rated primetime hour.
A minority of a minority of a minority, ranting about how no one else sees what they can see... That's pretty much the definition of a fringe kook, isn't it?
No, you cannot. To activate the game, you must associate it with a Battle.net account, and when you do, it permanently locks the activation key. You may re-sell the physical disc, perhaps, but whoever buys it will also need to buy a new key at full retail price. The disc is meaningless.
Sure, you can play offline without logging into Battle.net, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm still not going to buy a game that requires Battle.net lock-in for basic I-don't-give-a-flying-fuck-about-PvP usage, so stop asking.
(And spare me the "guest login" nonsense -- that's at best a workaround for a fundamental design choice.)
I'm a man in my mid-30s, and all of my friends are men even older than me. (I always was the precocious one...) Some of us have been friends for almost 20 years, since long before Facebook was created, so how would joining Facebook now improve our lives?
I have no problem with using the Internet to meet new people and discover new things, but from what I've seen of Twitter and Facebook, the learning curve (or the signal-to-noise ratio, if you prefer) simply isn't worth it. It would just take too much time and effort to build a useful network from scratch, within the rather arcane rules of those sites.
I'm sure it would be different if I was drawn into an existing network, but that's not going to happen for the reasons given in paragraph #1.
Stop thinking like a child, reducing everything to "I hit him 'cuz he hit me." This is a political statement about the nature of tolerance. Look at the sequence of events and the scale of the "response."
Step back and take a breath. Look at the sequence of events. Think. This is about provocation, retaliation, and the nature of tolerance. One man threatens to do something but has not actually done anything yet, thousands "respond" by actually doing that thing first.
Islamists in other countries do stuff like that all the time; it's so commonplace that it doesn't even make the news anymore.
In fact, have you seen the videos of this week's protests? They're burning all sorts of things in response to just the announcement of this Koran burning.
If you can explain to me how burning someone else's holy book qualifies as satire or parody then I'll accept the equivalence with Westergaard's case.
Have you seen the videos of the Muslim protests against this? They're burning all sorts of things in response to just the announcement of the Koran burning.
You fail -- the plural is used with "and," the singular is used with "or." For more information, google "compound subject."
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
What did I blockquote at the start of this thread?
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
You're missing the point. Of course the government intercepts many attacks that we never even hear about, but TFA is about whether such explosive growth in the bureaucracy is giving us a good ROI.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
True enough. I don't know whether to classify those as successful or unsuccessful, but as another reply pointed out, if the intent is to disrupt and terrorize more than to kill, then they were absolutely successful.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
The prosecutors chose not to charge the snipers with terrorist acts, supposedly due to lack of evidence, but the snipers' own testimony and jailhouse writings indicated otherwise.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Fair enough.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Geez, it must be too early in the morning for me, because I also forgot the Washington D.C. snipers. So make that four successful attacks.
Re:"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, that should be three successful attacks -- I forgot the shooting at LAX in 2002.
"No terrorist attacks since 9/11"?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Or has this large growth served us well, exemplified by no successful terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11?
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
Roger Ebert has always stuck me as a very humorless man. He finds no real joy in anything. Gene Siskel and then Richard Roeper always provided the smiles and laughs on their TV show, while Ebert just sat and glared. And now that he's been forced by illness to turn inward and spend more time with his own thoughts, he's just gotten even nastier.
Slashdot Mirror
The explicit romance may be new, but there has always been an undercurrent of loss and loneliness in the show regarding the Doctor and his companions. For example, the marriage of Susan, the marriage of Jo, the abandonment of Sarah Jane, the death of Adric, the nervous breakdown of Tegan... and those are just the ones I can think of at the moment.
Furthermore, the Doctor feels each loss more strongly now because after the fall of Gallifrey, all he has left are his companions. It is a very reasonable change in tone when going from a low-rated, half-hour kids' show to a top-rated primetime hour.
If you think that's a useful counterargument, then you completely missed the point of Dickens' works.
A minority of a minority of a minority, ranting about how no one else sees what they can see... That's pretty much the definition of a fringe kook, isn't it?
No, you cannot. To activate the game, you must associate it with a Battle.net account, and when you do, it permanently locks the activation key. You may re-sell the physical disc, perhaps, but whoever buys it will also need to buy a new key at full retail price. The disc is meaningless.
Sure, you can play offline without logging into Battle.net, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Can I install the game without creating a Battle.net account? Can I re-sell the game after I'm done with it?
Like I said, a fundamental design choice.
I'm still not going to buy a game that requires Battle.net lock-in for basic I-don't-give-a-flying-fuck-about-PvP usage, so stop asking. (And spare me the "guest login" nonsense -- that's at best a workaround for a fundamental design choice.)
I'm a man in my mid-30s, and all of my friends are men even older than me. (I always was the precocious one...) Some of us have been friends for almost 20 years, since long before Facebook was created, so how would joining Facebook now improve our lives?
I have no problem with using the Internet to meet new people and discover new things, but from what I've seen of Twitter and Facebook, the learning curve (or the signal-to-noise ratio, if you prefer) simply isn't worth it. It would just take too much time and effort to build a useful network from scratch, within the rather arcane rules of those sites.
I'm sure it would be different if I was drawn into an existing network, but that's not going to happen for the reasons given in paragraph #1.
The petulance and deluded self-importance of many replies here are all the proof we need that geeks are not suited to the serious business of war.
The protestors are all Muslims, therefore they are Muslim protests.
If you're inflating that to mean all Muslims are protestors, that's your problem. I said no such thing.
Stop thinking like a child, reducing everything to "I hit him 'cuz he hit me." This is a political statement about the nature of tolerance. Look at the sequence of events and the scale of the "response."
Step back and take a breath. Look at the sequence of events. Think. This is about provocation, retaliation, and the nature of tolerance. One man threatens to do something but has not actually done anything yet, thousands "respond" by actually doing that thing first.
The parent asked how this can be satire, so...
Islamists in other countries do stuff like that all the time; it's so commonplace that it doesn't even make the news anymore.
In fact, have you seen the videos of this week's protests? They're burning all sorts of things in response to just the announcement of this Koran burning.
Have you seen the videos of the Muslim protests against this? They're burning all sorts of things in response to just the announcement of the Koran burning.
You fail -- the plural is used with "and," the singular is used with "or." For more information, google "compound subject."
What did I blockquote at the start of this thread?
You're missing the point. Of course the government intercepts many attacks that we never even hear about, but TFA is about whether such explosive growth in the bureaucracy is giving us a good ROI.
True enough. I don't know whether to classify those as successful or unsuccessful, but as another reply pointed out, if the intent is to disrupt and terrorize more than to kill, then they were absolutely successful.
The prosecutors chose not to charge the snipers with terrorist acts, supposedly due to lack of evidence, but the snipers' own testimony and jailhouse writings indicated otherwise.
Fair enough.
Geez, it must be too early in the morning for me, because I also forgot the Washington D.C. snipers. So make that four successful attacks.
Sorry, that should be three successful attacks -- I forgot the shooting at LAX in 2002.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, two successful (e.g., Fort Hood, Little Rock) and the rest foiled only by the attackers' own incompetence (e.g., Shoebomber, Pantybomber, Times Square).
Thank you for proving my point.
Ebert wrote that movie in earnest. It's Russ Meyer's direction and simple nostalgia that has made it campy.
Furthermore, do you really want to go back 40 years to make this point? To paraphrase Janet Jackson, what has Ebert done for us lately?
Roger Ebert has always stuck me as a very humorless man. He finds no real joy in anything. Gene Siskel and then Richard Roeper always provided the smiles and laughs on their TV show, while Ebert just sat and glared. And now that he's been forced by illness to turn inward and spend more time with his own thoughts, he's just gotten even nastier.