http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PnpGwlSu35kJ:www.myspace.com/JoE_BoNeS+JoE_BoNeS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca I especially like the message someone left on his "fridge".
Wow..worst myspace page ever. And I've seen some bad ones. I don't know if he deserves increased jail time for the pictures, but I do know on a moral, if not legal, level, he deserves to be taken out back and have the stupid slapped out of him.
I don't know about preventing prosecutors from using photos. However . . . to deter employers from viewing and abusing social networking pages, employees might post legal terms of service under which employers agree to scram. This idea should not be taken as legal advice for anyone, just fodder for public discussion. --Ben
Unless there's some sort of splash screen restricting access if the terms aren't accepted, I can't see a prospective employer being bound by a user's legal terms of service on a myspace page.
Does it matter if the average Iranian thinks that, when the people who run the place, write the checks to people who DO think that way, and are willing to deploy armed insurgents who operate with that notion in mind? No, it doesn't. Not of the people who do NOT think like that aren't willing to tear that murderous theocracy down. Which they aren't willing to do. They support them, by continuing to give them power.
The average Iranian people were making a lot of important steps to dismantling the theocratic power structure. Now the theocracy has been able to use the US' unpopularity because of the war to solidify their power.
Also, just what has he ever got done without congress.
He suspended habeas corpus despite the Constitution explicitly mandating that only Congress could do that.
So. How would have Kerry ( or Obama ) handled Iraq, and how exactly would
that have been better for the US's future?
They wouldn't have invaded Iraq. We would have a trillion dollars more in our pocket than we do now, we wouldn't have seriously damaged international relations and lost as much clout as we have, and about a half million Iraqis would probably still be alive.
Should we ignore the problem represented
by the *entire* mideast, till someone pops a nuke in an American city?
Here's where your lack of knowledge of the situation really kicks in. The "mideast" isn't a monolithic entity out for blood, it's a highly fragmented mix of different nations, ethnicities, and ideologies. We don't have the resources to invade every country, so we have to actually deal with the mideast problems individually. Afghanistan needed to be invaded. Nobody, including Obama, has criticized Bush on the subject of invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was an idiotic mistake. Now if Iran gets close to developing nuclear weapons, invasion might be necessary; however, since we've spent so much militarily and diplomatically on Iraq, we might not be able to deal with Iran.
The weapons inspector program worked. Saddam didn't have WMD and he wasn't building them. All invading did was show the rest of the world that not having nuclear weapons makes you vulnerable. North Korea simply announced that they had nuclear weapons and would use them if they felt like it, and Bush knuckled under and suddenly insisted on diplomacy rather than force. This is a kind of cowardice that severely undercuts our ability to deal with future despots with nuclear weapons.
I've usually found./ to be populated with people who are a step above the median
in intellegence. Why don't we see many people taking the long term view,
looking 20-50 years down the line, and the kind of world we want to live in
then? You think a festering cesspool of little dictators with access to nukes
or radiological bombs would be a bright place to live? If nothing else, Iraq 2
has started to drain the swamp.
You've missed another point. There aren't a finite amount of terrorists, and if we kill them all we win. New ones are created every day, and all using overwhelming force like we have done in Iraq does is create new ones. Invading Iraq was the wrong move to make. It made the world less safe of a place. If your judgment is so faulty that you can't see that simple fact, then you're certainly not someone I can trust to look 30-50 years in the future.
Why is it that nobody seems to understand that the DoJ is an executive agency, therefore an extension of the President. There is no "politicizing" DoJ. It is inherently a political agency. Its purpose is to carry out the President's policy.
The purpose of the Attorney General under U.S. law is to represent the United States, not the President.
Why does it need to be a (wholly irrelevant) Bush hate-fest?
Because the president of Diebold publicly stated that he would do everything he could to elect Bush president? Because Bush's flunkies have been inappropriately pushing prosecutors to investigate purported election fraud when it benefitted them? Because Bush has created such a culture of cronyism and corruption that's trickled down throughout the entire DOJ has basically become completely unreliable?
Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.
That guy's nothing. When I do a pushup, I'm not lifting myself up, I'm pushing the earth down.
You're forgetting about gritty ex-cops who retired in protest
You have to be careful about retiring; if your partner is grittier than you, then that makes you the sidekick. And if you announce your plans to retire, you're getting offed your last day.
Have you ever seen the old Aeon Flux shorts? Not the TV series, with its sometimes-fun, sometimes-cheesy dialogue laced heavy with sexual innuendo, but the original shorts that preceded that... I've found these to be great examples of the advantage of story-telling without dialogue. Conversely, the TV series is a good example of how dialogue isn't necessarily an improvement. Or, if you've ever played the game "Out of this World" (AKA "Another World") - very nice use of no-dialogue.
Look at the anime movie Daft Punk made based on their Discovery album; not a single word of dialogue but the story is relatively clear.
ago. Having a separate category for documentaries makes sense to me, but splitting out animation and not action, romance, western, etc. does not
Agreed. Know how to get an animated movie an oscar nomination? Just make the movie. Hollywood produces sufficiently few animated movies that most of the ones with theatrical releases get nominated.
That doesn't detract from the quality of WALL-E, but it's a hard sell if you're producing what is basically a cartoon feature and your name is not Hayao Miyazaki.
I'll open myself up to shocked cries of alarm, but I think Wall-E is better than anything Miyazaki ever did.
I think the end credits were my favorite part of the movie. In addition to the coolness-of-the-evolution-of-art aspect, and the perfect Peter Gabriel song, it just added emotionally to the story seeing (even if in more abstract shapes) the people learning to live off the earth.
The only individuals (and heroes) were the robots and the captain, plus John and Mary that broke out of the sameness.
Ok, spoilers I guess:
Actually one thing I really liked about Wall-E was how all the humans were shown as fundamentally decent people willing to give up ultimate comfort once an alternative was offered to them.
Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded
I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.
Cars - taking a different path is a good thing
I wish the writers had taken a different path instead of hitting every cliche along the way. Five minutes into Cars you know everything that's going to happen in the rest of the movie.
Yes. Sales were on the whole, poor; the only thing that eventually saved it was LaserWriter and the desktop publishing market, and that niche market is what sustained Apple for the next 20 years.
Folks, I was around back then; Apple wasn't trying to corner a niche market, they were going for the mainstream. It was their failure, despite Jobs' and Sculley's best efforts, that led to Apple's low market share. If it wasn't for the desktop publishing aspect they would be a distant memory.
What the modern Apple fanatic doesn't seem to get is back then there wasn't this huge pool of desktop computers. Apple had the opportunity to dominate, but they didn't; they had the technical expertise (Wozniak deserves his reputation) but Jobs' ego and control freak-nature forced them into a market that they never escaped until the ipod came around.
Because that's the last product Jobs worked on before returning.
And the disappointing sales of the mac was one of the reasons Jobs was forced out.
utterly turned Apple around from a company on its way to failure into a company that is flourishing and growing
Ummm...he was the one who led Apple into failure initially. Though I'll freely admit he did a good job of turning it around when he came back. But he shouldn't get that much credit for cleaning up his own mess.
I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time. How many times have we thrown our votes away on the major party candidates only to get the same old status quo, regardless of the promises made?
I voted for people I wanted in office. And you know what, just because they were members of a major political party, I really don't think I was throwing my vote away. And I've never voted for an independent candidate because I've never encountered one who I thought would do a good job.
At a certain point in your life you have to start looking at things with a little more nuance. If you actually inform yourself about history you'll find that different presidents have taken drastically different actions in office. If either Gore or Kerry had won, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We just wouldn't. Now whether you support the war or are against it, I think you can agree that it's a pretty major event that has wide-ranging consequences both domestically and internationally.
I'm not elderly but I'm not a kid anymore. I've voted in the past three presidential elections, and I've tried to educate myself about the candidates each time. I've also tried to educate myself about history and learn how different ideologies produced different leadership styles and choices, and how these choices affected our country. And I kind of resent having wild-eyes 19 year olds, who until a few months ago were spending all their mental energy hanging out in the mall, suddenly lecturing me on politics. If you don't understand the difference between politicians, teach yourself--don't just assume there is no difference.
Scientists and engineers are, by and large, very reasonable and logical people who are persuaded by logical argument, sound evidence, and excellence and good work in their areas of inquiry or expertise.
Slashdot Mirror
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PnpGwlSu35kJ:www.myspace.com/JoE_BoNeS+JoE_BoNeS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca I especially like the message someone left on his "fridge".
Wow..worst myspace page ever. And I've seen some bad ones. I don't know if he deserves increased jail time for the pictures, but I do know on a moral, if not legal, level, he deserves to be taken out back and have the stupid slapped out of him.
I don't know about preventing prosecutors from using photos. However . . . to deter employers from viewing and abusing social networking pages, employees might post legal terms of service under which employers agree to scram. This idea should not be taken as legal advice for anyone, just fodder for public discussion. --Ben
Unless there's some sort of splash screen restricting access if the terms aren't accepted, I can't see a prospective employer being bound by a user's legal terms of service on a myspace page.
Does it matter if the average Iranian thinks that, when the people who run the place, write the checks to people who DO think that way, and are willing to deploy armed insurgents who operate with that notion in mind? No, it doesn't. Not of the people who do NOT think like that aren't willing to tear that murderous theocracy down. Which they aren't willing to do. They support them, by continuing to give them power.
The average Iranian people were making a lot of important steps to dismantling the theocratic power structure. Now the theocracy has been able to use the US' unpopularity because of the war to solidify their power.
Cite this ... you know, just give me a Bush quote that supports this in any way ...
./ to be populated with people who are a step above the median
in intellegence. Why don't we see many people taking the long term view,
looking 20-50 years down the line, and the kind of world we want to live in
then? You think a festering cesspool of little dictators with access to nukes
or radiological bombs would be a bright place to live? If nothing else, Iraq 2
has started to drain the swamp.
Here.
See above.
Here.
Also, just what has he ever got done without congress.
He suspended habeas corpus despite the Constitution explicitly mandating that only Congress could do that.
So. How would have Kerry ( or Obama ) handled Iraq, and how exactly would that have been better for the US's future?
They wouldn't have invaded Iraq. We would have a trillion dollars more in our pocket than we do now, we wouldn't have seriously damaged international relations and lost as much clout as we have, and about a half million Iraqis would probably still be alive.
Should we ignore the problem represented by the *entire* mideast, till someone pops a nuke in an American city?
Here's where your lack of knowledge of the situation really kicks in. The "mideast" isn't a monolithic entity out for blood, it's a highly fragmented mix of different nations, ethnicities, and ideologies. We don't have the resources to invade every country, so we have to actually deal with the mideast problems individually. Afghanistan needed to be invaded. Nobody, including Obama, has criticized Bush on the subject of invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was an idiotic mistake. Now if Iran gets close to developing nuclear weapons, invasion might be necessary; however, since we've spent so much militarily and diplomatically on Iraq, we might not be able to deal with Iran.
The weapons inspector program worked. Saddam didn't have WMD and he wasn't building them. All invading did was show the rest of the world that not having nuclear weapons makes you vulnerable. North Korea simply announced that they had nuclear weapons and would use them if they felt like it, and Bush knuckled under and suddenly insisted on diplomacy rather than force. This is a kind of cowardice that severely undercuts our ability to deal with future despots with nuclear weapons.
I've usually found
You've missed another point. There aren't a finite amount of terrorists, and if we kill them all we win. New ones are created every day, and all using overwhelming force like we have done in Iraq does is create new ones. Invading Iraq was the wrong move to make. It made the world less safe of a place. If your judgment is so faulty that you can't see that simple fact, then you're certainly not someone I can trust to look 30-50 years in the future.
Why is it that nobody seems to understand that the DoJ is an executive agency, therefore an extension of the President. There is no "politicizing" DoJ. It is inherently a political agency. Its purpose is to carry out the President's policy.
The purpose of the Attorney General under U.S. law is to represent the United States, not the President.
Why does it need to be a (wholly irrelevant) Bush hate-fest?
Because the president of Diebold publicly stated that he would do everything he could to elect Bush president? Because Bush's flunkies have been inappropriately pushing prosecutors to investigate purported election fraud when it benefitted them? Because Bush has created such a culture of cronyism and corruption that's trickled down throughout the entire DOJ has basically become completely unreliable?
Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.
That guy's nothing. When I do a pushup, I'm not lifting myself up, I'm pushing the earth down.
The magical pixie dust created everytime an OSS program runs.
You're forgetting about gritty ex-cops who retired in protest
You have to be careful about retiring; if your partner is grittier than you, then that makes you the sidekick. And if you announce your plans to retire, you're getting offed your last day.
'hire nearly 25,000 experienced police officers.'
By definition, won't most experienced police officers already have jobs? Say, as police officers?
"I wish I were your derivative so that I could lay tangent to your curves" that fail.
But that's my best line!
My high school girlfriend was a runner-up and spirit award winner for Miss Teen VA when we were 16
Alright, that does not add to the conversation. You're just using this opportunity to gloat.
Have you ever seen the old Aeon Flux shorts? Not the TV series, with its sometimes-fun, sometimes-cheesy dialogue laced heavy with sexual innuendo, but the original shorts that preceded that... I've found these to be great examples of the advantage of story-telling without dialogue. Conversely, the TV series is a good example of how dialogue isn't necessarily an improvement. Or, if you've ever played the game "Out of this World" (AKA "Another World") - very nice use of no-dialogue.
Look at the anime movie Daft Punk made based on their Discovery album; not a single word of dialogue but the story is relatively clear.
ago. Having a separate category for documentaries makes sense to me, but splitting out animation and not action, romance, western, etc. does not
Agreed. Know how to get an animated movie an oscar nomination? Just make the movie. Hollywood produces sufficiently few animated movies that most of the ones with theatrical releases get nominated.
That doesn't detract from the quality of WALL-E, but it's a hard sell if you're producing what is basically a cartoon feature and your name is not Hayao Miyazaki.
I'll open myself up to shocked cries of alarm, but I think Wall-E is better than anything Miyazaki ever did.
The ending was one of the coolest parts.
I think the end credits were my favorite part of the movie. In addition to the coolness-of-the-evolution-of-art aspect, and the perfect Peter Gabriel song, it just added emotionally to the story seeing (even if in more abstract shapes) the people learning to live off the earth.
Gee, maybe that's because it doesn't rely on low-brow humor to get its point across?
I think in essence Wall-E was the first Pixar movie that wasn't really meant to be a comedy; it was a drama with comedic elements.
The only individuals (and heroes) were the robots and the captain, plus John and Mary that broke out of the sameness.
Ok, spoilers I guess:
Actually one thing I really liked about Wall-E was how all the humans were shown as fundamentally decent people willing to give up ultimate comfort once an alternative was offered to them.
Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded
I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.
Cars - taking a different path is a good thing
I wish the writers had taken a different path instead of hitting every cliche along the way. Five minutes into Cars you know everything that's going to happen in the rest of the movie.
I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.
Really? I thought Cars was actually Pixar's only truly bad movie. Horribly boring and cliched.
That is an excellent analogy which I plan on stealing and using if I ever have the need.
Well maybe not best movie EVER, but close to it. And I'm someone who's always found Pixar's stuff way overrated.
No. I just judge the man based on his work.
And that's a lousy way to judge him. If he's not about the money, then why did he screw over Wozniak over Breakout? Go ahead, justify that lie.
The original Macintosh was a failure?
Yes. Sales were on the whole, poor; the only thing that eventually saved it was LaserWriter and the desktop publishing market, and that niche market is what sustained Apple for the next 20 years.
Folks, I was around back then; Apple wasn't trying to corner a niche market, they were going for the mainstream. It was their failure, despite Jobs' and Sculley's best efforts, that led to Apple's low market share. If it wasn't for the desktop publishing aspect they would be a distant memory.
What the modern Apple fanatic doesn't seem to get is back then there wasn't this huge pool of desktop computers. Apple had the opportunity to dominate, but they didn't; they had the technical expertise (Wozniak deserves his reputation) but Jobs' ego and control freak-nature forced them into a market that they never escaped until the ipod came around.
Because that's the last product Jobs worked on before returning.
And the disappointing sales of the mac was one of the reasons Jobs was forced out.
utterly turned Apple around from a company on its way to failure into a company that is flourishing and growing
Ummm...he was the one who led Apple into failure initially. Though I'll freely admit he did a good job of turning it around when he came back. But he shouldn't get that much credit for cleaning up his own mess.
I hear one definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result each time. How many times have we thrown our votes away on the major party candidates only to get the same old status quo, regardless of the promises made?
I voted for people I wanted in office. And you know what, just because they were members of a major political party, I really don't think I was throwing my vote away. And I've never voted for an independent candidate because I've never encountered one who I thought would do a good job.
At a certain point in your life you have to start looking at things with a little more nuance. If you actually inform yourself about history you'll find that different presidents have taken drastically different actions in office. If either Gore or Kerry had won, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We just wouldn't. Now whether you support the war or are against it, I think you can agree that it's a pretty major event that has wide-ranging consequences both domestically and internationally.
I'm not elderly but I'm not a kid anymore. I've voted in the past three presidential elections, and I've tried to educate myself about the candidates each time. I've also tried to educate myself about history and learn how different ideologies produced different leadership styles and choices, and how these choices affected our country. And I kind of resent having wild-eyes 19 year olds, who until a few months ago were spending all their mental energy hanging out in the mall, suddenly lecturing me on politics. If you don't understand the difference between politicians, teach yourself--don't just assume there is no difference.
Scientists and engineers are, by and large, very reasonable and logical people who are persuaded by logical argument, sound evidence, and excellence and good work in their areas of inquiry or expertise.
Hahaha, good one. Oh wait, you were serious.