I can't think of a story line done in a Western live-action film which is anything even remotely like Macross.
The concept is just so. . . weird, it could only fit in an animation from Japan.
Think: Alien vessel crashes to Earth. What is the government's logical response?
1. Hush it up and give it to the tech boys in Area 51. 2. Put it into active service as the Earth's flag ship despite the fact that half the vessel hasn't even been properly explored.
Part of the mystique of Anime for Westerners stems, I think, from the incomprehensible style of logic they brew in Japan.
That being said, I thrived on Robotech when I was fifteen, and if Toby casts himself as Rick I'm going to gag. I can't, in fact, think of a single actor who would do Rick justice. The dark-haired every-teen who stars in nine tenths of all Anime just doesn't exist in our culture, but he's such a great character. Unpretentious and gentle, always screwing up, but also equipped with all the right elements to become a strong and heroic Man. For some reason, young actors in the West only seem to come in two flavors; "Way Cooler than any of You Losers, DiCaprio clones", and guys like Toby who seem somehow to be a bit testosterone deficient. --That guy who played Neo in the Matrix almost got it, but that was only because he's the King of Bland, which is probably why he can't do the, "Way Cooler Than You" schtick. I mean, can't even remember his name and he's supposedly a super-star.
A young Tom Hanks comes close, but there's too much comedy in him. Rick isn't a funny character.
I think there's a good chance that people like Rick are a product of Japanese culture. Too bad. We could use more guys like him over here. --Somebody you know you can trust in a clinch; who isn't going to have an emotional crisis or crack a nervous joke if you hand him a gun, but who also isn't a self-centered prick who would put the moves on your girlfriend if thought he could get away with it. We need more decent guys promoted in our culture.
Come to think of it. . . Luke was a decent guy in Star Wars. Despite the (popular) complaints people had about him, I thought he was the sort of guy you would really be proud to call your friend. He wasn't short on testosterone, and he was an earnest, stand-up guy. Heck, whenever he got too full of himself, it was because he was drifting to the Dark Side. And look at that! Luke practically became Jesus in Star Wars because of those qualities. That's how rare decent behavior is over here. In a nation where the fast-talking, back-stabbing jerk is the ideal, guys like Luke and Peter Parker are considered practically divine when they should by rights be the norm. Sheesh.
Can you imagine Rick Hunter being played by somebody like Tom Cruise? Ugh.
I have to agree. --But then I remember Spidey's voice as the one from the old original cartoon show from when I was a kid; strong, together and inspiring. Perhaps it's unfair, but I don't think Peter was cast very well in the films. Toby's performance was fine on an emotional level, but I really don't think I would have picked him out for the role had I been in charge of casting. Even after three films, I still can't quite buy him as the web-head. --But the one that's even weirder for me is Mary Jane. --Kirsten Dunst carries with her a whole set of mannerisms and facial expressions which are practically identical to those of a girl I dated for several months and had a really hard time with. Every time MJ looked at the camera, I felt my stomach lurch unpleasantly.
So that's two fairly hard-wired reasons I had difficulty with the casting in Spider Man. --And both reasons are totally unfair standards to gauge a movie by. Phooey.
Just to spin this waay off track, I remembered one of the funniest Wayne & Shuster comedy bits I'd ever seen. --They re-did Citizen Kane as a half hour comedy sketch, and in the second scene they had the reporter agonizing over the question, "What was Rosebud? What did he mean?" The fellow he was talking to shrugged and said, "Maybe it was the name of his sled."
It totally cracked me up. Twice, in fact. --The first time because I'd never even heard of Citizen Kane when I saw the comedy sketch and the apparent randomness of the comment struck me as utterly hilarious. I'm giggling at the memory even as I write this. --Then five years later when I began to absorb some culture and saw the Orson Wells flick, I remembered the sketch and slapped my forehead. It was kind of a let down though because, "Maybe it was the name of his sled," was ten times funnier without the proper context. It was just such a thoroughly insane thing to say. Unintended comedy. It's hard to write that well on purpose.
Following a religion is such a strange way to live one's life.
I find I react strongly to people who colour Muslims as being psychotic war-mongers when such attitudes can be found among any body of worshippers despite the root faith. Saying, "Muslims are dangerous and crazy! Just look at what line X, verse Y says!", is a dangerous road to go down, because it allows for people to see only a label and not the people. --Intention is very much the key. I know several followers of Islam, and they're sweet, totally giving people who recoil from the idea of violence. There are about a billion people who follow Islam, and I simply cannot believe that the bulk of them are lunatics. None of the people I have met would support that view, and I have seen and read enough accounts to know that those who lust for blood exist in the extreme minority. Jews and Christians are exactly the same in this regard. But I've also seen the reverse. Zionist Jews are acting terribly these days, and the entire Bush gang is Christian. It's a big mess, but it always still comes down to the people involved. Not their books.
So when I see people trying to validate their fear and hatred based on a few lines from a text which can be interpreted and followed in different ways, I always like to point out that there are other interpretations and that fear and hatred are the core problem, not what a few lines of text say in a religious document.
No, it doesn't. "Low emissions" is defined in terms of PPM of pollutants coming from the tail pipe, and is unrelated to miles per gallon. There is no reason why a vehicle with a 500 cubic inch engine delivering 8 MPG could not also have extremely low emission
Hair splitting by way of cleaving to definitions which have no application in the broad analysis can, I suppose, be a fun distraction, but it doesn't change the fact; if you burn less fuel, you output less ash. That's really not a difficult concept, and it's certainly not one which has escaped the attention of the auto industry. And if you took a moment to notice the grammar I used, I made a point to use the word "OFTEN". Not "Always" or "Exclusively" or whatever other word your internal safety filters warped my comments into so that you wouldn't have to bear the feeling of having made a mistake. --And "Often" is entirely correct. If you look at the specs of the various low-emissions vehicles out there, you will notice that good mileage is a standard feature.
Of course, to you leftists, more and bigger government is the answer and corporations are the embodiment of the evil represented by the capitalist system, so this is probably all going over your tinfoil-covered head.
People who argue hair-splitting definitions while refusing to see the actual relevant picture, (or I suppose, the head of hair), also for some reason tend to make wild assumptions. --That is, I'd be happy with much, much less government, but you assume the opposite. Oops. What else do you think you might be wrong about? I'll tell you. . .
Oil companies aren't evil, nor are they by and large even making the windfall profits they are accused of.
And if you had been paying attention to just the events of the last ten years, it would be clear to you that corporations regularly act with massive criminal negligence and outright brutality. Go spend like two minutes on Google. Honestly, the crimes are so frequent and so big, if you can't see them then it's only because you don't want to see them. Nobody connecting any number of very big and very simple dots for you is going to make much difference if that's the case.
Once again, we are offered an apt illustration of just how out of touch people who cry, 'TinFoil' can be. --Hair-splitting to avoid conceding to facts, a curious lack of grammatical cognition, making unfounded assumptions, and generally living in a state of disconnection with regard to basic reality despite the wealth of information at your fingertips.
Those translations mean pretty much the same thing, if you didn't notice.
No they don't. They're not even in the same ball park.
According to the OP's translation, "Non-Muslim" is talking only about those who do not believe in Allah. --Whereas the other translations allow generally for belief in the existence of the soul independent of any specific religion, as I read it, and promotes the idea that treating all souls with respect is noble. Oppressors who do not follow this tenet, as per the Pharoah's example in the text leading up to the quote, thereby behave like beasts. Wolves, which cannot know the difference.
As always, one's starting-point of intention has a lot to do with how things are read and perceived.
My stomach actually seized up while reading your post and I remembered why I took a pair of bolt cutters to my TV cable several years ago.
I haven't looked back. Being free of that monkey has given my life back. I have no question whatsoever that TV is a mind-control device designed to make people stupid and easily manipulated. Brrr.
Because I VALUE MY TIME(short attention span) more than other people, I am more efficient and I deal with less bullshit because I don't want to. Call it a disorder if you want, I call it an evolutionary advantage.
Maybe you don't actually have a short attention span. --If you are efficient, then that suggests to me that you have the ability to stay tuned to a problem long enough to find a quick route from A to B. Problematic short attention spans typically don't allow people to stay focused long enough to be effective in any of the tasks they attempt.
I read hundreds of pages of data on all manner of subjects every week. After many thousands of pages, certain patterns become apparent. I have learned to recognize those patterns and to skim past the fluff in order to find the meat. Often the meat itself is a reiteration of something I already know, and so I skim through that as well. It is uncommon that I will actually take the time to read through a document with my full attention from the top left word to the bottom right. When that does happen, it means I've found a document which offers something new and fascinating. Then my attention wakes up and I am riveted to the material. Otherwise, I might appear to all to be of quite a short attention span.
Does this describe you to some degree? If you are truly fascinated by a subject or task, can you focus your attention for long periods of time, or does your mind wander even then?
Although I completely agree about the foolishness of feeding kids pills to shut them up, I think it's easy to over-simplify the problem.
Having worked with children, I am in a position to say that kids before a can of Coke and after a can of Coke are like Puppies v.s. Hyenas. Is that ADD? Well, since ADD is just a label people came up with to explain a measurable phenomenon, maybe it is. I'd be tempted to call it a case of narcotics abuse, but that's just me.
There are many other substances in our food supply and pollution-rich world which cause strange psychological reactions in both kids and adults, and television certainly is one of them. This stuff is measurable.
You mentioned child obesity. Check out this short Peter Jennings report on the subject.
Yes but the quran clearly states that "all non-muslims are less than filthy animals" (chapter 8 verse 55)
Clear? Hardly.
While all the big religious texts from all corners of the globe tend to instill division among people, I did some searching and was not able to find your quote. The closest translation I was able to find, was. ..
"Indeed the worst beasts in the sight of Allah are the people who disbelieve and do not accept faith."
And also this translation. ..
"55. Indeed the worst kind of living creatures in God's sight are those who are so rooted in unbelief that they cannot believe."
Who translated the version you're quoting? Seems like cherry picking with an eye toward demonizing to me.
Take off the Big Oil tinfoil hat for a minute, consider basic economic motivations, and maybe even go read the article. It's not that oil companies don't act in their own self-interests (there'd be something wrong with them if they didn't, after all), but you're ascribing to them actions and motives that would make no sense for an oil company, while ignoring the car companies that are the ones who are deliberately avoiding selling these cars in all states and hiding behind the Clean Air Act to do so. Oil companies have no dog in this race, but Honda does.
I was going to stay out of this one despite your deeply flawed logic, but then you went and called 'tinfoil' on somebody. That nearly always screams, "Arrogance, Ignorance and the Protection of Bad Guys".
First of all. . .
"Low Emissions" usually means "Higher Fuel Efficiency", since the toxins which come from the tail pipe are the result of burned fuel, or poorly burned fuel. One of the very best ways to cut emissions is to get more miles per gallon. Big Oil, does most certainly have a dog in that race.
Secondly. . .
It's not that oil companies don't act in their own self-interests (there'd be something wrong with them if they didn't, after all)
Bullshit. Sharks must naturally behave like sharks, but corporate bodies are different. They are made up from people who have the choice as to whether or not to act with psychopathic disregard for health and community. When you personally act in the world, do you rape your surroundings, or do you try to act in harmony with them? To suggest that corporations are behaving in a natural manner with regard to their psychopathic activities, is one step away from saying that there should be no requirement for rational oversight or the prevention of their regularly dishonorable, and often brutal behavior. That slaps on the wrist and "Boys will be boys" is good enough, when it is in fact largely responsible for the miserable shape of the world today.
No, I doubt that there was a mustache-twirling oil baron sitting in on the meeting where clean-running cars were determined to be illegal outside of CA. The claims of the OP are over-simplified. But they are also still correct. --To not see that is the result of either severe myopia or stubborn ignorance. --It is very safe to say that the kinds of law-makers who have been placed in power by Oil men and Auto men and Psychopathic business leaders, etc., are why destructive, anti-human laws find their way into being. If we had sensible people in power, do you really think such ridiculous red tape would be allowed to prevent the proliferation of clean automobiles? I don't, and I am most certainly able to lay a significant part of the blame at Big Oil's feet.
The retailer could simply hand out a photocopied pamphlet which explains, "When you first start your computer, you should make a recovery disk. It's simple and can save your computer in case of a failure. Just follow these three steps. .."
There was a time when giving instructions with the device you are selling was standard practice.
Re: your oil-change metaphor. . .
This is inaccurate because I don't have all the equipment necessary to change the oil in my car without getting dirty and sore, whereas a mechanic will have a lift and an oil pan and the overalls. If a mechanic tells me, "Actually, an oil change is easy. You simply do the following. .." I'd listen with interest and then say, "Cool. So how much if you do that for me?"
Whereas everybody who buys a computer will have a blank disk and fifteen minutes. The difference is in seeding and playing on the ignorance of the consumer. Everybody knows how to make coffee, and so when they choose to buy a cup from Starbucks, they do so in full awareness. The retailer is being sneaky, and it's okay to report this to each other.
Posting in such a lucid manner as you have tends to shut down argument; when people who would argue are faced with facts and solid reason, they have little recourse but to stop talking and go home. Curiously, however, this doesn't stop them from repeating those same flawed arguments to another person, like re-booting an old hard drive. I find that kind of behavior pathetic, but also understandable since I have been guilty of it myself when I was younger; it takes a lot of work to recognize that Dogma and Reason are two very different beasts, and more work still to choose which you want to keep in your stables. When people have made the choice to cleave to lies, then the kinds of rational walls and rule systems which govern rational people simply do not apply to them. But they can still post in rational forums like everybody else, and that's fair enough. How else can people learn?
What's up with all the anonymous cowards defending intrusive governmental programs?
They know that they don't have to post onymously for the watchers to know who they are, (and thus can remain eligible for a free arm band), while still avoiding negative mod points.
Wake me when some of you actually DO bug out and become expats because your feelings were sufficiently hurt by goverment actions that don't affect you. Be brave and lead by example. Given the many overseas employment opportunities it's not that difficult, and my expat buddies make good bank.
Kinda throws a light on what the Jews went through in Germany. One of the difficult questions old surviving Jewish grannies and grandads are asked is, "Why didn't you do something? You should have known!" --Well they did; They all knew the water was getting hot, but it wasn't until very late in the game that any of them actually packed up. And the vast majority stayed to get slaughtered. Same thing here. Most of us see it, but it's a pain in the ass to actually pull up stakes.
I looked at Europe, and decided that I wanted to make my stand here, so I did the next best thing. I hauled ass and got out of the city and moved to a small town with a strong agricultural base and tight community support network. Now, at least, I don't live under the threat of starving in a locked-down city when the shit hits.
Children, if it can be done, it will be done, IF you don't grow some backbones and insist that they don't do it. They take your massive silence as assent. Put down the game controllers and pay attention before they castrate you all.
History repeats itself for a reason. Only when all the lessons are learned will people stop walking through the grinder. Half of the people I know who are aware of this stuff have moved to Europe. I considered it, but then realized that the whole "interesting times" thing was exactly that. Why wouldn't you want to be near ground-zero to experience such an amazing period of our history? This is like living in a cool sci-fi novel, getting to watch a paradigm shift actually happen. I'm all a-quiver. I love how it all relates to UFO and crop circle stuff and the various things implied by that. But that's a whole other subject, and one which usually requires an undue amount of debate before people stop to scratch their heads and say, "Really? Wow. I didn't know that about it. The news doesn't really talk about it." Bingo.
The atheism is a basical tenet of Dialectical Materialism (Marxist philosophy). If the Chinese Government accepts the existence of the absurd notion of an immaterial soull which can reincarnate (????) they implicitly say that Dialectical Materialism is wrong.
Cool point!
Although, it wouldn't be the first time a fascist government was hypocritical and irrational in its behavior.
Fear is by definition, irrational.
I should probably go and do some reading, but I don't know the history of how Marx's ideas affected the Chinese. While the proof is in the pudding, it seems a highly unlikely marriage. How the heck did it happen. . ?
And that relates to IT, geeks or geek culture how?
Ooops. But the popular Slashdot slogan doesn't actually include the term, "IT". --Except for those rare days when it mentions, "It is what IT is", (which is rather Buddhist sounding if you ask me). But that's neither here nor there since that's not the popular quote people use to define Slashdot.
Basically, in trying to understand Slashdot's mission statement, I always remember myself back to the highschool hallways when I'd hang out with other geeks. If a subject would have come up back then and have been gleefully examined and discussed, then it is fair game on this website as well. Yeah, most of my geek friends were computer lovers as well, and Slashdot being hosted on the internet usually puts computers front and center. But nevertheless. . , perhaps news of a government trying to outlaw reincarnation would not have interested you or your friends, but I know we'd have had a field day with it in my geek crew!
400+ posts can't be wrong.
Slashdot is the electronic version of the highschool geek hangout for all ages.
...used to have timely, cutting-edge news? Now, almost without exception, I have seen the articles on slashdot several days prior at other sites. As more responsive and more numerous tech-centric sites pop up, and as slashdot's political group-think becomes more pervasive and mindless, this site is becoming less relevant as a daily "must read" site.
Sour grapes.
People have been complaining about Slashdot from the day of its inception, but it's still a great place to examine the world and put your ideas through a crucible where science and rational thinking are the flames people have agreed upon as being the best human kind has to offer when deconstructing ideas. I have a tough time of it here, because my ideas are non orthodox by most standards, but you don't see me crying foul or trying to use false-rationalization to pretend to myself that the whole site is worthless simply because my ideas are picked at. I keep coming back here precisely because there are so many different kinds of stripe and opinion willing to engage in debate. That's hardly 'Group Think'.
And 'Group Think' about what exactly? 'Group Think,' appears to have become the latest term being slung around now that, 'Red', and 'Bleeding Heart' have been reduced to jokes in our culture. Say what you really mean and be prepared to back up your comments and judgments instead of skulking around. There's a soap box for you if you're brave enough to stand on it and speak clearly. But you'll have to work for it. Maybe it would be easier just to say, "Screw you guys! I'm taking my toys and going home."
I initially thought they were going to eject the saber into space. That actually made my heart stop and I thought, "Wow! That's totally cool. Who would have thought back in the 70's when they were shooting Star Wars that the humble saber prop would one day be screaming endlessly around the planet faster than a rifle shot? In orbit, for goodness sake!" (Yeah, it was a thought quickly followed by, "Humans are kind of nuts," but it was nonetheless enough to stop me in my chair and made me grin.
Then I discovered that they were just taking the prop for a ride and that it would safely be returned to the Lucasfilm vaults. Wouldn't want to lose an attachment to a piece of valuable stuff. Oh. Just a normal publicity stunt. No wow. Just calculated and corporate and Coca Cola Mac-boring.
Ugh. Does anybody else find that they actually feel sort of gasse and bloated when exposed to corporate Happy Happy PR bullshit in the same way they do after eating corporate fast food? Or is it just me?
It doesn't say "First part of your opening sentence". It says "Subject". You show your ignorance by starting your Comment with "to yourself". As a reader, I find it particularly annoying. What the hell does "to yourself" mean? ohhh the moron started his sentence in the Subject, and ended it in the Comment area.
Ha ha. That gave me a good laugh.
But seriously, when I post that way, I do it deliberately. After posting a couple thousand comments on Slashdot, I've found that it's fun to play with the medium provided in order to explore new ways to deliver thoughts. I'm sorry it irritated you, but I actually quite like the format. I think it's neat how it allows for a natural semantic rather than strictly logical flow from subject to content, and I think it's cool when others do the same. Still, perhaps it's not such a bad idea to repeat the first line just to keep everybody happy. Though, I find it sounds like a hiccup. Whatever. Your comments have been noted, and I will continue to explore in the ways I find interesting.
When the middle east is outraged by the murder of a Christian or Jewish baby as much as they are outraged by a picture of Mohammad, then there might be some progress. Until then, muslims can go fuck themselves along with their pediphile pig fucking prophet mohammad.
Oh, come now. Unplug for a minute.
I did a quick (like five minute) scope around and found a ton of stuff. Here's a sampling. ..
Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt: "Attacking innocent people is not courageous; it is stupid and will be punished on the Day of Judgment.... It is not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom; it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack." (Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001)
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, Head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey: "Any human being, regardless of his ethnic and religious origin, will never think of carrying out such a violent, evil attack. Whatever its purpose is, this action cannot be justified and tolerated." (September 21, 2001)
Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, Supreme jurist-ruler of Iran: "Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons.... carried out by any organization, country or individual is condemned.... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington. (Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001.
Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt: "We strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. We condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world." (Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001)
Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkey: "Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred."
Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, U.S: The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.
Abdal-Hakim Murad, Britain: Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Qur'anic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures. ("The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,"
Hamza Yusuf, U.S: Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs or Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it.... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, "Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, "Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, s
Prepare to be modded-down -1000000 Heretic for daring to question/. GroupThink.
Aw. . . Somebody's feeling bitter.
Don't worry. If Bush sticks around long enough, you'll have the opportunity to be issued your very own hand gun and arm band. And then you'll show them! You'll show them ALL!
This site has just jumped the shark in its liberalism... They don't even try to hide it anymore, or bother with the "tech" decoy.
Huh? Hide it? That suggests that Slashdot is fearful in some manner. I don't think anybody here can be accused of hiding their belief systems. There's certainly enough argument and debate whenever social questions come up. It takes a fearful mind to think in terms of hiding.
And by Liberalism, I assume you mean the state of mind where people think openly and do not restrict themselves to fear-based models of living. That's bad. . , how? Indeed, that's the whole mode of the Light Side, to reject fear and darkness, and if you think Slashdot is growing light, (which it might even be, but only by a few percentage points; I still see lots of ignorant and misguided commentary. I think the latest poll merely suggests that people don't like the Bush admin), then that's reason to feel a bit better about humanity as a whole. But honestly. There's still a lot of choice to be made by a lot of people. This world is still very much filled with fear and hate-driven policy.
Anyway, what does any of this have to do with Speed Racer? You seem pre-occupied.
Slashdot Mirror
The concept is just so. . . weird, it could only fit in an animation from Japan.
Think: Alien vessel crashes to Earth. What is the government's logical response?
1. Hush it up and give it to the tech boys in Area 51.
2. Put it into active service as the Earth's flag ship despite the fact that half the vessel hasn't even been properly explored.
Part of the mystique of Anime for Westerners stems, I think, from the incomprehensible style of logic they brew in Japan.
That being said, I thrived on Robotech when I was fifteen, and if Toby casts himself as Rick I'm going to gag. I can't, in fact, think of a single actor who would do Rick justice. The dark-haired every-teen who stars in nine tenths of all Anime just doesn't exist in our culture, but he's such a great character. Unpretentious and gentle, always screwing up, but also equipped with all the right elements to become a strong and heroic Man. For some reason, young actors in the West only seem to come in two flavors; "Way Cooler than any of You Losers, DiCaprio clones", and guys like Toby who seem somehow to be a bit testosterone deficient. --That guy who played Neo in the Matrix almost got it, but that was only because he's the King of Bland, which is probably why he can't do the, "Way Cooler Than You" schtick. I mean, can't even remember his name and he's supposedly a super-star.
A young Tom Hanks comes close, but there's too much comedy in him. Rick isn't a funny character.
I think there's a good chance that people like Rick are a product of Japanese culture. Too bad. We could use more guys like him over here. --Somebody you know you can trust in a clinch; who isn't going to have an emotional crisis or crack a nervous joke if you hand him a gun, but who also isn't a self-centered prick who would put the moves on your girlfriend if thought he could get away with it. We need more decent guys promoted in our culture.
Come to think of it. . . Luke was a decent guy in Star Wars. Despite the (popular) complaints people had about him, I thought he was the sort of guy you would really be proud to call your friend. He wasn't short on testosterone, and he was an earnest, stand-up guy. Heck, whenever he got too full of himself, it was because he was drifting to the Dark Side. And look at that! Luke practically became Jesus in Star Wars because of those qualities. That's how rare decent behavior is over here. In a nation where the fast-talking, back-stabbing jerk is the ideal, guys like Luke and Peter Parker are considered practically divine when they should by rights be the norm. Sheesh.
Can you imagine Rick Hunter being played by somebody like Tom Cruise? Ugh.
-FL
So that's two fairly hard-wired reasons I had difficulty with the casting in Spider Man. --And both reasons are totally unfair standards to gauge a movie by. Phooey.
-FL
Just to spin this waay off track, I remembered one of the funniest Wayne & Shuster comedy bits I'd ever seen. --They re-did Citizen Kane as a half hour comedy sketch, and in the second scene they had the reporter agonizing over the question, "What was Rosebud? What did he mean?" The fellow he was talking to shrugged and said, "Maybe it was the name of his sled."
It totally cracked me up. Twice, in fact. --The first time because I'd never even heard of Citizen Kane when I saw the comedy sketch and the apparent randomness of the comment struck me as utterly hilarious. I'm giggling at the memory even as I write this. --Then five years later when I began to absorb some culture and saw the Orson Wells flick, I remembered the sketch and slapped my forehead. It was kind of a let down though because, "Maybe it was the name of his sled," was ten times funnier without the proper context. It was just such a thoroughly insane thing to say. Unintended comedy. It's hard to write that well on purpose.
-FL
Every time I hit Ctrl 'F', I sigh and think to myself, "Damn, that's some sweet design! If only all software worked as well."
And honestly, after switching from dial-up to high-speed as I recently did, a few hundred milliseconds means exactly nothing to me.
-FL
Following a religion is such a strange way to live one's life.
I find I react strongly to people who colour Muslims as being psychotic war-mongers when such attitudes can be found among any body of worshippers despite the root faith. Saying, "Muslims are dangerous and crazy! Just look at what line X, verse Y says!", is a dangerous road to go down, because it allows for people to see only a label and not the people. --Intention is very much the key. I know several followers of Islam, and they're sweet, totally giving people who recoil from the idea of violence. There are about a billion people who follow Islam, and I simply cannot believe that the bulk of them are lunatics. None of the people I have met would support that view, and I have seen and read enough accounts to know that those who lust for blood exist in the extreme minority. Jews and Christians are exactly the same in this regard. But I've also seen the reverse. Zionist Jews are acting terribly these days, and the entire Bush gang is Christian. It's a big mess, but it always still comes down to the people involved. Not their books.
So when I see people trying to validate their fear and hatred based on a few lines from a text which can be interpreted and followed in different ways, I always like to point out that there are other interpretations and that fear and hatred are the core problem, not what a few lines of text say in a religious document.
-FL
Hair splitting by way of cleaving to definitions which have no application in the broad analysis can, I suppose, be a fun distraction, but it doesn't change the fact; if you burn less fuel, you output less ash. That's really not a difficult concept, and it's certainly not one which has escaped the attention of the auto industry. And if you took a moment to notice the grammar I used, I made a point to use the word "OFTEN". Not "Always" or "Exclusively" or whatever other word your internal safety filters warped my comments into so that you wouldn't have to bear the feeling of having made a mistake. --And "Often" is entirely correct. If you look at the specs of the various low-emissions vehicles out there, you will notice that good mileage is a standard feature.
Of course, to you leftists, more and bigger government is the answer and corporations are the embodiment of the evil represented by the capitalist system, so this is probably all going over your tinfoil-covered head.
People who argue hair-splitting definitions while refusing to see the actual relevant picture, (or I suppose, the head of hair), also for some reason tend to make wild assumptions. --That is, I'd be happy with much, much less government, but you assume the opposite. Oops. What else do you think you might be wrong about? I'll tell you. . .
Oil companies aren't evil, nor are they by and large even making the windfall profits they are accused of.
ExxonMobil Corp. reported $10 billion in net income in the third quarter, the largest ever by a U.S. energy company.
Also here,
and here.
And if you had been paying attention to just the events of the last ten years, it would be clear to you that corporations regularly act with massive criminal negligence and outright brutality. Go spend like two minutes on Google. Honestly, the crimes are so frequent and so big, if you can't see them then it's only because you don't want to see them. Nobody connecting any number of very big and very simple dots for you is going to make much difference if that's the case.
Once again, we are offered an apt illustration of just how out of touch people who cry, 'TinFoil' can be. --Hair-splitting to avoid conceding to facts, a curious lack of grammatical cognition, making unfounded assumptions, and generally living in a state of disconnection with regard to basic reality despite the wealth of information at your fingertips.
Goodbye now.
-FL
No they don't. They're not even in the same ball park.
According to the OP's translation, "Non-Muslim" is talking only about those who do not believe in Allah. --Whereas the other translations allow generally for belief in the existence of the soul independent of any specific religion, as I read it, and promotes the idea that treating all souls with respect is noble. Oppressors who do not follow this tenet, as per the Pharoah's example in the text leading up to the quote, thereby behave like beasts. Wolves, which cannot know the difference.
As always, one's starting-point of intention has a lot to do with how things are read and perceived.
-FL
I haven't looked back. Being free of that monkey has given my life back. I have no question whatsoever that TV is a mind-control device designed to make people stupid and easily manipulated. Brrr.
-FL
Maybe you don't actually have a short attention span. --If you are efficient, then that suggests to me that you have the ability to stay tuned to a problem long enough to find a quick route from A to B. Problematic short attention spans typically don't allow people to stay focused long enough to be effective in any of the tasks they attempt.
I read hundreds of pages of data on all manner of subjects every week. After many thousands of pages, certain patterns become apparent. I have learned to recognize those patterns and to skim past the fluff in order to find the meat. Often the meat itself is a reiteration of something I already know, and so I skim through that as well. It is uncommon that I will actually take the time to read through a document with my full attention from the top left word to the bottom right. When that does happen, it means I've found a document which offers something new and fascinating. Then my attention wakes up and I am riveted to the material. Otherwise, I might appear to all to be of quite a short attention span.
Does this describe you to some degree? If you are truly fascinated by a subject or task, can you focus your attention for long periods of time, or does your mind wander even then?
-FL
Having worked with children, I am in a position to say that kids before a can of Coke and after a can of Coke are like Puppies v.s. Hyenas. Is that ADD? Well, since ADD is just a label people came up with to explain a measurable phenomenon, maybe it is. I'd be tempted to call it a case of narcotics abuse, but that's just me.
There are many other substances in our food supply and pollution-rich world which cause strange psychological reactions in both kids and adults, and television certainly is one of them. This stuff is measurable.
You mentioned child obesity. Check out this short Peter Jennings report on the subject.
-FL
Clear? Hardly.
While all the big religious texts from all corners of the globe tend to instill division among people, I did some searching and was not able to find your quote. The closest translation I was able to find, was. .
And also this translation. .
Who translated the version you're quoting? Seems like cherry picking with an eye toward demonizing to me.
-FL
I was going to stay out of this one despite your deeply flawed logic, but then you went and called 'tinfoil' on somebody. That nearly always screams, "Arrogance, Ignorance and the Protection of Bad Guys".
First of all. . .
"Low Emissions" usually means "Higher Fuel Efficiency", since the toxins which come from the tail pipe are the result of burned fuel, or poorly burned fuel. One of the very best ways to cut emissions is to get more miles per gallon. Big Oil, does most certainly have a dog in that race.
Secondly. . .
It's not that oil companies don't act in their own self-interests (there'd be something wrong with them if they didn't, after all)
Bullshit. Sharks must naturally behave like sharks, but corporate bodies are different. They are made up from people who have the choice as to whether or not to act with psychopathic disregard for health and community. When you personally act in the world, do you rape your surroundings, or do you try to act in harmony with them? To suggest that corporations are behaving in a natural manner with regard to their psychopathic activities, is one step away from saying that there should be no requirement for rational oversight or the prevention of their regularly dishonorable, and often brutal behavior. That slaps on the wrist and "Boys will be boys" is good enough, when it is in fact largely responsible for the miserable shape of the world today.
No, I doubt that there was a mustache-twirling oil baron sitting in on the meeting where clean-running cars were determined to be illegal outside of CA. The claims of the OP are over-simplified. But they are also still correct. --To not see that is the result of either severe myopia or stubborn ignorance. --It is very safe to say that the kinds of law-makers who have been placed in power by Oil men and Auto men and Psychopathic business leaders, etc., are why destructive, anti-human laws find their way into being. If we had sensible people in power, do you really think such ridiculous red tape would be allowed to prevent the proliferation of clean automobiles? I don't, and I am most certainly able to lay a significant part of the blame at Big Oil's feet.
-FL
There was a time when giving instructions with the device you are selling was standard practice.
Re: your oil-change metaphor. . .
This is inaccurate because I don't have all the equipment necessary to change the oil in my car without getting dirty and sore, whereas a mechanic will have a lift and an oil pan and the overalls. If a mechanic tells me, "Actually, an oil change is easy. You simply do the following. .
Whereas everybody who buys a computer will have a blank disk and fifteen minutes. The difference is in seeding and playing on the ignorance of the consumer. Everybody knows how to make coffee, and so when they choose to buy a cup from Starbucks, they do so in full awareness. The retailer is being sneaky, and it's okay to report this to each other.
-FL
Anyway, I liked your post.
-FL
They know that they don't have to post onymously for the watchers to know who they are, (and thus can remain eligible for a free arm band), while still avoiding negative mod points.
-FL
Wake me when some of you actually DO bug out and become expats because your feelings were sufficiently hurt by goverment actions that don't affect you. Be brave and lead by example. Given the many overseas employment opportunities it's not that difficult, and my expat buddies make good bank.
Kinda throws a light on what the Jews went through in Germany. One of the difficult questions old surviving Jewish grannies and grandads are asked is, "Why didn't you do something? You should have known!" --Well they did; They all knew the water was getting hot, but it wasn't until very late in the game that any of them actually packed up. And the vast majority stayed to get slaughtered. Same thing here. Most of us see it, but it's a pain in the ass to actually pull up stakes.
I looked at Europe, and decided that I wanted to make my stand here, so I did the next best thing. I hauled ass and got out of the city and moved to a small town with a strong agricultural base and tight community support network. Now, at least, I don't live under the threat of starving in a locked-down city when the shit hits.
-FL
History repeats itself for a reason. Only when all the lessons are learned will people stop walking through the grinder. Half of the people I know who are aware of this stuff have moved to Europe. I considered it, but then realized that the whole "interesting times" thing was exactly that. Why wouldn't you want to be near ground-zero to experience such an amazing period of our history? This is like living in a cool sci-fi novel, getting to watch a paradigm shift actually happen. I'm all a-quiver. I love how it all relates to UFO and crop circle stuff and the various things implied by that. But that's a whole other subject, and one which usually requires an undue amount of debate before people stop to scratch their heads and say, "Really? Wow. I didn't know that about it. The news doesn't really talk about it." Bingo.
-FL
Cool point!
Although, it wouldn't be the first time a fascist government was hypocritical and irrational in its behavior.
Fear is by definition, irrational.
I should probably go and do some reading, but I don't know the history of how Marx's ideas affected the Chinese. While the proof is in the pudding, it seems a highly unlikely marriage. How the heck did it happen. . ?
Grin. I'm off to do some reading now!
-FL
Ooops. But the popular Slashdot slogan doesn't actually include the term, "IT". --Except for those rare days when it mentions, "It is what IT is", (which is rather Buddhist sounding if you ask me). But that's neither here nor there since that's not the popular quote people use to define Slashdot.
Basically, in trying to understand Slashdot's mission statement, I always remember myself back to the highschool hallways when I'd hang out with other geeks. If a subject would have come up back then and have been gleefully examined and discussed, then it is fair game on this website as well. Yeah, most of my geek friends were computer lovers as well, and Slashdot being hosted on the internet usually puts computers front and center. But nevertheless. . , perhaps news of a government trying to outlaw reincarnation would not have interested you or your friends, but I know we'd have had a field day with it in my geek crew!
400+ posts can't be wrong.
Slashdot is the electronic version of the highschool geek hangout for all ages.
-FL
Sour grapes.
People have been complaining about Slashdot from the day of its inception, but it's still a great place to examine the world and put your ideas through a crucible where science and rational thinking are the flames people have agreed upon as being the best human kind has to offer when deconstructing ideas. I have a tough time of it here, because my ideas are non orthodox by most standards, but you don't see me crying foul or trying to use false-rationalization to pretend to myself that the whole site is worthless simply because my ideas are picked at. I keep coming back here precisely because there are so many different kinds of stripe and opinion willing to engage in debate. That's hardly 'Group Think'.
And 'Group Think' about what exactly? 'Group Think,' appears to have become the latest term being slung around now that, 'Red', and 'Bleeding Heart' have been reduced to jokes in our culture. Say what you really mean and be prepared to back up your comments and judgments instead of skulking around. There's a soap box for you if you're brave enough to stand on it and speak clearly. But you'll have to work for it. Maybe it would be easier just to say, "Screw you guys! I'm taking my toys and going home."
-FL
I initially thought they were going to eject the saber into space. That actually made my heart stop and I thought, "Wow! That's totally cool. Who would have thought back in the 70's when they were shooting Star Wars that the humble saber prop would one day be screaming endlessly around the planet faster than a rifle shot? In orbit, for goodness sake!" (Yeah, it was a thought quickly followed by, "Humans are kind of nuts," but it was nonetheless enough to stop me in my chair and made me grin.
Then I discovered that they were just taking the prop for a ride and that it would safely be returned to the Lucasfilm vaults. Wouldn't want to lose an attachment to a piece of valuable stuff. Oh. Just a normal publicity stunt. No wow. Just calculated and corporate and Coca Cola Mac-boring.
Ugh. Does anybody else find that they actually feel sort of gasse and bloated when exposed to corporate Happy Happy PR bullshit in the same way they do after eating corporate fast food? Or is it just me?
-FL
Ha ha. That gave me a good laugh.
But seriously, when I post that way, I do it deliberately. After posting a couple thousand comments on Slashdot, I've found that it's fun to play with the medium provided in order to explore new ways to deliver thoughts. I'm sorry it irritated you, but I actually quite like the format. I think it's neat how it allows for a natural semantic rather than strictly logical flow from subject to content, and I think it's cool when others do the same. Still, perhaps it's not such a bad idea to repeat the first line just to keep everybody happy. Though, I find it sounds like a hiccup. Whatever. Your comments have been noted, and I will continue to explore in the ways I find interesting.
Cheers!
-FL
Oh, come now. Unplug for a minute.
I did a quick (like five minute) scope around and found a ton of stuff. Here's a sampling. .
Aw. . . Somebody's feeling bitter.
Don't worry. If Bush sticks around long enough, you'll have the opportunity to be issued your very own hand gun and arm band. And then you'll show them! You'll show them ALL!
-FL
Huh? Hide it? That suggests that Slashdot is fearful in some manner. I don't think anybody here can be accused of hiding their belief systems. There's certainly enough argument and debate whenever social questions come up. It takes a fearful mind to think in terms of hiding.
And by Liberalism, I assume you mean the state of mind where people think openly and do not restrict themselves to fear-based models of living. That's bad. . , how? Indeed, that's the whole mode of the Light Side, to reject fear and darkness, and if you think Slashdot is growing light, (which it might even be, but only by a few percentage points; I still see lots of ignorant and misguided commentary. I think the latest poll merely suggests that people don't like the Bush admin), then that's reason to feel a bit better about humanity as a whole. But honestly. There's still a lot of choice to be made by a lot of people. This world is still very much filled with fear and hate-driven policy.
Anyway, what does any of this have to do with Speed Racer? You seem pre-occupied.
-FL