But in any case, it's our opinion, you have yours, and there's no need to use uncivilized language.
The problem is people who dislike the movie tend to present their opinion as widely accepted fact, and bring the "uncivilized language" upon themselves.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
I suppose the facts that A) the ring was having more and more of an effect on Frodo, B) making him more possessive and paranoid about the ring and C) Gollum tricking him sailed over your head?
Or as others have pointed out, movies show rather than tell. Books only tell.
But the scientists (as a group) are NOT saying that. Only some politicians and various media outlets are.
One problem: you have that backwards. Yes, scientists are basically unanimous in saying that global climate change is happening, and yes, humans are the driving cause. Only some politicians and some media outlets are claiming otherwise, and they generally are generally shills for polluting industries.
If you were paying attention, I already mentioned that the FCC is regulating the matter.
And if you were paying attention instead of looking for a chance to get snippy, you'll know that leaving it in the hands of the overly corporate friendly FCC is a bad idea. Deregulation? Broadcast flag? Continuing to call a 256 Kbps connection "high speed" when people in foreign countries have 100 Mpbs to their homes? Reclassifying broadband from "telecommunications service" to "information service" to shut out small compeditors?
Look, we already know what the telecom companies want to do and what will happen if they aren't kept in check. The only variable involved is how greedy they will get in blackmailing Google and other content providers. Nipping this in the bud now will save hundreds of millions for consumers, content providers and even the telecoms - no sense in them buying all new bandwidth controlling equipment if later regulation makes it worthless. The only winner here would be Cisco.
On the other hand, if an actual Net Neutrality law gets passed, it will either kill time-sensitive services outright (bye, bye VoIP) or have so many loopholes that the law would be effectively impotent.
Nonsense. Just write the law to allow prioritizing certain kinds of traffic (VOIP, video) while preventing ISPs from blocking compeditors or double charging for access. It's really not that hard.
I'm flattered that you can infer my position from a statement which says nothing about it. Like I've been saying a lot recently, "You can say a lot of crap if you ignore what's actually being said."
Ah, I understand now. You have no point to make, nothing meaningful to say, you're just using rhetorical masturbation while you wallow in the muck of your smug self-superiority. How's that working out for you?
Classic flat-earther responce. Just more handwaving so you can continue to ignore the problem - 100% stupid. But don't listen to me, try listening to the 30+ years of research and overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.
dKos is a community. Therefore 'they' was an appropiate way to describe it.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a complete fucking idiot. No, "they" is not an appropriate way to describe it - that would require it to be a majority opinion. Less than 1% is pretty fucking far from being a majority opinion. And that's assuming you are right in saying that 15-20 posts were calling for the banning of third parties, and I doubt you are.
Would it be fair for me to say that Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV? Upon being pressed, it would turn out I was just talking about Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, and unfairly denigrating the hundereds of Republicans who appear on TV every day. If I don't add the word some in there, as in "some Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV", I would be a liar, and an asshole.
This discussion is terminated until you can grow up.
Liars and idiots should not throw stones in asshole glass houses.
Science isn't biased, but that doesn't mean scientists aren't.
You seriously think that 100% of climatologists are going to ignore the evidence to support a hidden agenda? That they've been marching in lockstep for the last 30+ years?
Yes, 100% - try finding a climatoligist today that dismisses global warming who isn't on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. The scientific debate on wether or not global warming is happening, and wether humans are the driving cause, was settled a decade or two ago. Much like with Intelligent Design, there is no scientific debate on the subject, only a political one.
Climate sceptics are either A) on the payroll of the oil and gas industries or B) the new flat earthers. Which one are you?
There are plenty of scientists who's research shows this is part of a larger natural cycle.
No, there aren't. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the global climate is changing and humans are the driving cause. The ones that aren't are on the payroll of fossil fuel companies.
Much of the time dicipline has nothing to with misbehavior, but rather with establishing dominance or plain old power tripping. Any person who went to public or private school can probably recall a dozen cases off the top of their heads of being yelled at or given detention for something that wasn't against the rules, wasn't wrong, or wasn't their fault. Add paddling to the mix will just make it worse.
What pisses me off, is that the teachers are in a money hungry union.
Yeah, wanting a decent salary is so greedy. Way to tear down fellow members of the middle class, buddy.
Well, what do you think happened after the dot-com bust? I didn't get as big of a raise, yet the teachers did.
So teachers should bend over to show solidarity with the dot com workers who had to take one up the ass? What kind of sense does that make?
They are protected by a union contract, get a nice raise...oh and we cannot fire them.
Myth. You can certianally fire bad teachers, you just have to prove that they are bad teachers, as opposed to a couple affluent families complaining about why their kids have to repeat a grade.
You said "They're calling for the banning of all third parties," not ".0001% of a days postings on an open message board were from yahoos calling for the banning of third parties", asshole.
Reagen ran up a huge deficit because he knew the Russians couldn't keep up. He ended the Cold War by doing so. I am glad we had a budget problem and not nukes flying our way.
Wishful revisionist Republican thinking. Any war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. was going to be one of mutual destruction. The Soviet Union collapsed because of Gorbechav and glasnost, not because of anything the Big Gipper did. No, Reagan's tax cuts were passed for just one reason, the same as Bush's: putting more money in the pockets of the rich.
The bad news is we may have a Democratic president and congress without checks and balances. Then we are back in the same boat with a different captain.
And what did Clinton and the Democratic Congress do from 1992 until Republicans took over in 1994 that was so bad? Did they do anything that was even on the same planet as: Katrina, Iraq, NSA warrentless spying, torture, suspending habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, adding trillions to the debt, etc etc. Frankly, we NEED the Democrats to have both Congress and the White House for a few years to undo all the damage Republicans have caused over the last six. And unlike the Republican Party, many Democratic politicans and large parts of the Democratic base will not stand for the sort of incompetence and corruption that the GOP has displayed over the last twelve years.
...most of your "leftists" are actually firmly conservative. Like Clinton, paid any attention to how she has positioned herself since getting elected? McCain is no centrist - he has sterling conservative credentials. He only appears "centrist" to you because the far right wing has dived into the deep end of facism. Torture, no trials, indefinite detentions, warrantless spying...yup, facism.
If you want an actual "far left" politician, you'll have to go to Cuba to find one.
Slashdot Mirror
I trust you voted for Gore then?
But in any case, it's our opinion, you have yours, and there's no need to use uncivilized language.
The problem is people who dislike the movie tend to present their opinion as widely accepted fact, and bring the "uncivilized language" upon themselves.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
I suppose the facts that A) the ring was having more and more of an effect on Frodo, B) making him more possessive and paranoid about the ring and C) Gollum tricking him sailed over your head?
Or as others have pointed out, movies show rather than tell. Books only tell.
And anyone who writes more Liv Tyler With Elf Ears scenes onto the screen can't be all that bad.
Yeah he can. They should have recast Arwen when they recast Aragorn. Would have been far less annoying if Cate Blanchett had done it instead.
why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies...
Better than Liv frikkin "look at me I gloooow" Tyler.
I mean, why so much Jar-Jar slashing out there, and not a comment on roller-skating and oliphaunt-riding Legolas?
Obviously, because Legolas didn't stink up every scene he was in, as opposed to Jar Jar.
But the scientists (as a group) are NOT saying that. Only some politicians and various media outlets are.
One problem: you have that backwards. Yes, scientists are basically unanimous in saying that global climate change is happening, and yes, humans are the driving cause. Only some politicians and some media outlets are claiming otherwise, and they generally are generally shills for polluting industries.
If you were paying attention, I already mentioned that the FCC is regulating the matter.
And if you were paying attention instead of looking for a chance to get snippy, you'll know that leaving it in the hands of the overly corporate friendly FCC is a bad idea. Deregulation? Broadcast flag? Continuing to call a 256 Kbps connection "high speed" when people in foreign countries have 100 Mpbs to their homes? Reclassifying broadband from "telecommunications service" to "information service" to shut out small compeditors?
Look, we already know what the telecom companies want to do and what will happen if they aren't kept in check. The only variable involved is how greedy they will get in blackmailing Google and other content providers. Nipping this in the bud now will save hundreds of millions for consumers, content providers and even the telecoms - no sense in them buying all new bandwidth controlling equipment if later regulation makes it worthless. The only winner here would be Cisco.
On the other hand, if an actual Net Neutrality law gets passed, it will either kill time-sensitive services outright (bye, bye VoIP) or have so many loopholes that the law would be effectively impotent.
Nonsense. Just write the law to allow prioritizing certain kinds of traffic (VOIP, video) while preventing ISPs from blocking compeditors or double charging for access. It's really not that hard.
I'm flattered that you can infer my position from a statement which says nothing about it. Like I've been saying a lot recently, "You can say a lot of crap if you ignore what's actually being said."
Ah, I understand now. You have no point to make, nothing meaningful to say, you're just using rhetorical masturbation while you wallow in the muck of your smug self-superiority. How's that working out for you?
Classic flat-earther responce. Just more handwaving so you can continue to ignore the problem - 100% stupid. But don't listen to me, try listening to the 30+ years of research and overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.
dKos is a community. Therefore 'they' was an appropiate way to describe it.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a complete fucking idiot. No, "they" is not an appropriate way to describe it - that would require it to be a majority opinion. Less than 1% is pretty fucking far from being a majority opinion. And that's assuming you are right in saying that 15-20 posts were calling for the banning of third parties, and I doubt you are.
Would it be fair for me to say that Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV? Upon being pressed, it would turn out I was just talking about Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, and unfairly denigrating the hundereds of Republicans who appear on TV every day. If I don't add the word some in there, as in "some Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV", I would be a liar, and an asshole.
This discussion is terminated until you can grow up.
Liars and idiots should not throw stones in asshole glass houses.
Science isn't biased, but that doesn't mean scientists aren't.
You seriously think that 100% of climatologists are going to ignore the evidence to support a hidden agenda? That they've been marching in lockstep for the last 30+ years?
Yes, 100% - try finding a climatoligist today that dismisses global warming who isn't on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. The scientific debate on wether or not global warming is happening, and wether humans are the driving cause, was settled a decade or two ago. Much like with Intelligent Design, there is no scientific debate on the subject, only a political one.
Climate sceptics are either A) on the payroll of the oil and gas industries or B) the new flat earthers. Which one are you?
There are plenty of scientists who's research shows this is part of a larger natural cycle.
No, there aren't. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the global climate is changing and humans are the driving cause. The ones that aren't are on the payroll of fossil fuel companies.
Fix it? Fix what?
Carbon emissions. Duh.
So far the science has not been able to tell us what is wrong.
The hell it hasn't. To much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and humans are the cause.
What we DO know is that we have had cold periods in the past and warm periods in the past.
Yes there have been climate changes before. Go have a cookie. But previous changes were driven by human activity, as we know to be the case today.
There are people who have been doing unbiased studies for decades. They're called scientists.
Much of the time dicipline has nothing to with misbehavior, but rather with establishing dominance or plain old power tripping. Any person who went to public or private school can probably recall a dozen cases off the top of their heads of being yelled at or given detention for something that wasn't against the rules, wasn't wrong, or wasn't their fault. Add paddling to the mix will just make it worse.
What pisses me off, is that the teachers are in a money hungry union.
Yeah, wanting a decent salary is so greedy. Way to tear down fellow members of the middle class, buddy.
Well, what do you think happened after the dot-com bust? I didn't get as big of a raise, yet the teachers did.
So teachers should bend over to show solidarity with the dot com workers who had to take one up the ass? What kind of sense does that make?
They are protected by a union contract, get a nice raise...oh and we cannot fire them.
Myth. You can certianally fire bad teachers, you just have to prove that they are bad teachers, as opposed to a couple affluent families complaining about why their kids have to repeat a grade.
I believe that would be a bad thing.
And continuing to pay teachers dirt salaries is a good thing?
Dramatically increasing teacher salaries will attract a completely different set of people to the profession.
Yeah - people who want to teach kids, but who also want to pay off their student loans, support a family, buy a house. Why is that so unreasonable?
You said "They're calling for the banning of all third parties," not ".0001% of a days postings on an open message board were from yahoos calling for the banning of third parties", asshole.
Reagen ran up a huge deficit because he knew the Russians couldn't keep up. He ended the Cold War by doing so. I am glad we had a budget problem and not nukes flying our way.
Wishful revisionist Republican thinking. Any war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. was going to be one of mutual destruction. The Soviet Union collapsed because of Gorbechav and glasnost, not because of anything the Big Gipper did. No, Reagan's tax cuts were passed for just one reason, the same as Bush's: putting more money in the pockets of the rich.
I would be more impressed by that argument if they didn't air unsourced Republican accusations at Democrats on a day to day basis.
The bad news is we may have a Democratic president and congress without checks and balances. Then we are back in the same boat with a different captain.
And what did Clinton and the Democratic Congress do from 1992 until Republicans took over in 1994 that was so bad? Did they do anything that was even on the same planet as: Katrina, Iraq, NSA warrentless spying, torture, suspending habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, adding trillions to the debt, etc etc. Frankly, we NEED the Democrats to have both Congress and the White House for a few years to undo all the damage Republicans have caused over the last six. And unlike the Republican Party, many Democratic politicans and large parts of the Democratic base will not stand for the sort of incompetence and corruption that the GOP has displayed over the last twelve years.
...most of your "leftists" are actually firmly conservative. Like Clinton, paid any attention to how she has positioned herself since getting elected? McCain is no centrist - he has sterling conservative credentials. He only appears "centrist" to you because the far right wing has dived into the deep end of facism. Torture, no trials, indefinite detentions, warrantless spying...yup, facism.
If you want an actual "far left" politician, you'll have to go to Cuba to find one.
As they say... The Government that Governs least, governs best!
Katrina should have retired that old chestnut.