The film adaptation looked nice, and it was certainly dark and miserable enough to be taken 'seriously' by film critics at large, but honestly, I got the same message out of Terminator II. "Humans are paradoxical and life sucks after nuclear war."
Not meaning to flame, but... if you're too dense to get it, you can't very well blame the filmmakers.
Hey, cut him some slack. He thinks crop circles aren't made by pranksters stomping down crops with boards.
t-shirts, jeans, dress shirts, basic business suits, etc. rarely change much What? Sure they do! In 1985, the waist of jeans was up to women's rib cages. In 2005 the waist was halfway down the asscrack. Tight, straight legged jeans were in in the 80's, bell bottoms in the 70's, and giant baggy ones in the 90's.
70's dress shirts had collar tips that reached to (or past!) the shoulders. Business suits of the 70's had absurdly wide ties and huge lapels, and the colors were all hideous earth tones and the patterns were horrid herringbones and tweeds. In the 80's ties were an inch wide and lapels nearly vanished. Instead of big collars we had padded shoulders. Colors went all shiny and/or pastel.
No, there's just not any truly timeless style. Even if you pick the most muted examples of contemporary fashion, at some point they're going to be out of fashion enough to be painfully obvious. That's how the fashion industry guarantees itself a steady income. We just have to accept that old movies will always look old, even when they're futuristic.
Actually, Vancouver is in the southwest of Canada. It's not really in the northwest of anything. It's in the northwest quadrant of the north american continent
Isn't there a statute of limitations on spoilers of 25 year old movies based on 39 year old novels? Plus, it's not even in the movie, it's speculation based on the movie. I'd say it depends on which Blade Runner movie you're talking about. If you mean the original theatrical release, where the studio execs said "cut out that confusing unicorn, give it a lame happy ending, and add fucking idiotic narration because we are stupid men who got where we are via nepotism rather than talent and couldn't follow what was going on so we assume no one else would be able to either", then yeah, it's not really in the movie. If you mean the '92 Director's Cut version, or this Final Cut version, then it's undeniably more than just "speculation" that Deckard is a replicant, it's strongly suggested, to the point of obviousness even. Crimony, what the heck do you think all those unicorn dream sequences were about? Why did Gaff leave that origami unicorn for Deckard at the end, if not to telegraph the obvious, that Deckard is a replicant? Why would we hear Deckard "remember", when he finds the origami unicorn, the line from Gaff "It's too bad she won't live; But then again, who does?" Sure it's just implied, but it's implied with a sledgehammer.
Maybe he thinks "America" is something that stretches form Terra Fuego in the south to the frozen wastes of Canada in the North?We are geeks: We need precise term and the popular definition of American as someone from the United States is not that. The precise term is American. You have to look at it in terms of other similar usages. First, when referring to the two continents in the western hemisphere, people use the separate terms "North America" and "South America", or the plural "the Americas". They're two continents. They're not a singular entity. Second, calling citizens of the United States of America "Americans" follows the same logic as that of other countries' naming conventions, e.g. Federal Republic of Germany, "Germans". The fact that the US does not entirely encompass the geographic area in its name carries the potential for confusion, but since no other country in the Americas does the same, there is no collision. "Popular definition" is all that matters. Our language is descriptive, not prescriptive. When someone says "American", it is understood that they're saying "citizen of the United States of America". Nobody uses the term to indicate continental mass of origin. There is no confusion. There is only a bunch of etymological pedants griping about a non-issue.
Yep, they can do that but without the help from state law enforcement which is a big let down for them. The DEA has heavier things to do than bust every nickel and dime dealer, or even semi-respectable pot growing operations. If they didn't we would have heard of MANY more busts in California and also would have heard of many of the "clubs" shutting down because of them but that's not the case. Yep, with no local law enforcement help, the feds have reallygiven up.
The Predator had the same life. Initially recon only, then they stuck a single hellfire missile on it for targets of opportunity because frequently if it sees something that really needs to be hit it will be able to engage the target LONG before any kind of support would be available. That said the Predator is not designed to engage anything beyond small targets of opportunity. I would imagine that this is exactly the same thing except it goes faster now. You're letting your imagination run away with you. There's nothing inherent to unmanned vehicles that creates a logical progression from unarmed to armed. The Predator was armed because it operates in an envelope shared with armed close air support aircraft. I doubt one could name a single armed aircraft that flies at 100K feet at Mach 6. That's recon craft territory.
I replied to a comment that said that "leftists" compensate for slavery by favoring Black people. The other context is your creation. Mine was not a reference to Republican history, but to current events - so not historically inaccurate. You did imply. When one says "We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression", the implication is that if one does go back and look at slavery, one does find Republican oppression. Whether that implication was intentional is irrelevant. Your choice of words creates that implication regardless. My correction is intended for anyone who might take the same implication and believe it. Nothing more.
Like I said, if you have to go back to the 1860s, you're ignoring the oppression. Talking about these parties as if they're anything like their century and a half old incarnations is a convenient way to ignore their history of the past several generations, and the next years which that history predicts. Be that as it may, the wording of your statement "We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression" implies that if one does go back to slavery, one finds Republican oppression. Whatever you may have intended to say, this statement is highly misleading. The Democratic party was the party of slavery, and they Republican party was the anti-slavery offshoot of the Whig party. If you're talking about Republican oppression and looking to offer a 19th century example of it, mentioning slavery is getting it exactly wrong.
And I didn't say that oppressive White jackasses are a specific feature of one party. Sorry. Those who believe "Republicans=former slave owners" tend to be history-ignorant folks who think Democrats have always been the shining paragons of racial equality, while the Republicans have always been the oppressors of the colored folk. Perhaps your historically inaccurate slavery comment was merely a semantic error, but what came out made you sound like one of those ignorant folk.
I said that the Republican Party is a party of oppressive White jackasses. Which even you have not been able to deny. Shrug. Wasn't trying to deny it. I pointed it out, in fact. I hate all the bastards. I do, however, know my US history and feel compelled to offer corrections to misleading statements, whether they were intentionally misleading or not. I'm not addressing your main point because I don't disagree with it. I merely point out an implication that is greatly at odds with history.
We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression FWIW, given that Republican was the party of Lincoln, going back to slavery is the wrong place to look for Republican oppression. Democrat was the party of slavery. Heck, it was almost exclusively southern Democrats opposing civil rights legislation up into the 60's. Oppressive white jackasses are not a specific feature of either party, per se.
Please tell me the government has tools to automate something like this. Given that redistricting is something that happens at the state level, and that there are generally no objective rules to districting, the extent of automation likely is no greater than exhibited by this game. Most districts are probably still drawn by hand.
It seems funny that the state best known for it's part in the American revolution has an all democratic house..... Are the Republicans too much like the king.... yes, because neither the demographics of Massachusetts, nor the nature of the government have changed a bit in 231 years.
A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. As much as this scenario is bandied about, it's extraordinarily rare. We don't live in the middle ages, where a man with no means of support can only beg or steal. Dozens of organizations, both government and private, operate hundreds of programs for (at the very least) getting food to the hungry. As for anyone who steals to pay their rent, I guarantee that anyone who's industrious enough to steal enough to pay their rent, is capable of holding down a job, but chooses not to. The "good man forced to crime by circumstances" card is overplayed.
Thank you for your contribution, especially since all those stupid die-hard communists seem to think infant mortality in Cuba is less than that of the US.
For instance:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html... oops The statistics are skewed because in the US, births that would end up as "stillborn" or "miscarriage" in Cuba are kept alive through heroic measures, which puts them in the "infant mortality" column when they die anyway. Cuba also doesn't register births under 1000g as even existing for statistical purposes (per WHO recommendation), while the US counts ALL births, regardless of weight. So yeah, Cuba does better in statistics, but olybecause they manage to exclude a big chunk of births of living and breathing newborns as "not a live birth" via arbitrary technical definitions.
If it's not immediately critical. You are on the waiting list.
My mother had knee replacement surgery at Mayo Clinic, and she had to schedule it 6-9 months in advance. Please. That's because it's the Mayo Clinic, arguably the top-rated hospital in the entire US. Drive into Minneapolis and you can get into one of the hospitals there inside a week. Saying we have waiting lists here just like Canada because your mom had to wait for a slot at the Mayo is like saying we have bread lines here in the US just like the old Soviet Union because people wait in line 45 minutes for Pink's Hot Dogs
Totally a strawman argument. What the quote specifically says is "all the various kinds of property crimes", and you've started on about rape. Care to explain what makes rape a property crime? It's as much a property crime as copyright infringement.
Property is a violation of a natural right. When we recognize the concept of bourgeois property we are ceasing to recognize the rights to free association and democratic control of the means of production. Respecting the baker's property is a violation of the starving man's right to live, and what can be more natural then that right to life? Property law is just as wrong as copyright law. You marxists crack me up. Nobody has the right to "life" in the form of free food at the expense of someone else's servitude.
all that means is that once water gets in, it never comes out. From the article linked to by the post you replied to:
Excavators found water halfway up the car's fenders and evidence that water could have been to the top of the vault at some time, said Couch. Well yeah, the bit about "waterproof" meaning "once it gets in, it doesn't come out" is fairly tongue-in-cheek. The point is more that you're better off providing a quick and harmless way for water to get OUT, rather than spending an inordinate amount of resources trying to keep water from getting IN. The lights we removed were like plastic buckets with clear plastic lids through which the light shined. They'd have fared better with a couple drain holes at the bottom.
It looks to me like whoever designed the vault didn't think about water, or at least had little idea about underground vaults. One thing I've noticed working as an electrician on exposed enclosures is that if a product is labeled "watertight", all that means is that once water gets in, it never comes out. The Luxor hotel in Las Vegas (the pyramid one) was originally built with in-ground floodlights shining onto each palm tree. These lights were hellaciously expensive because they were supposedly completely waterproof. I was on the crew replacing them with standard above-ground floods, and every single one of those triple-sealed waterproof lights was full of water. Water is insidious and never gives up.
The answer to your first question is because you already do pay for lots of things that you don't use, and other people pay for things that they use, but you don't. No, you're avoiding the real issue here. The real question is "why should the arts qualify for this sort of funding?" Taxes for roads? Sure. Police, fire, health care, and other emergency services? Yeah, arguably. But where do you draw the line? Why not fund "plumbing services" through taxation? Sure, some people rent and don't have any plumbing they'd otherwise be responsible for, but they benefit indirectly and they also might gain on other things that plumbing owners do not. Absurd? You bet. Just as absurd as paying artists out of tax money. Funding things through taxation should be reserved for those few things that cannot be effectively managed by individuals, things that are deemed critical in a complex society. Funding activities that are merely inconvenient for the practitioners to make a predictable living from is just plain stupid.
will help sort the candidates out. The ones who contrive 'fake' knowledge of COBOL can be rooted out and eliminated. Those who are willing to say 'I am not sure I know, but that's an interesting queston' get points, those who automatically start thinking about where to find the answer get even more points. We're talking about multiple choice tests.
The predictions were based on the computer models. In hindsight, they went back and analyzed the atmospheric data and found that there was a lot of dust in the atmosphere, being carried by the prevailing winds. The dust was coming from the sahara. It appears that the dust had the affect of reducing storm intensity. That's the kind of thing that's hard to account for in a model. Especially when it the variables can change significantly from year to year.
Wait... others here say it was El Nino that kept the hurricanes away. Which is it then? Both? If so, why have I never seen anyone mention both in the same explanation?
You know you can make nitrocellulose out of car batteries,d slaughterhouse dirt and sawdust?
Don't get too comfy. Did you know nitrocellulose is a low impulse explosive, really only dangerous when used as a projectile propellant? Yep, you might as well not waste your time with making it, just go buy a can of smokeless gunpowder. But then all you have is a can of gunpowder.
I suspect what you were trying for was ANFO - Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel oil. This is a high impulse explosive, and fairly easy to make. Heck, you can make it from horse dung and diesel fuel, in a pinch.
Get a little education, kid. Your anarchist threats would be much less laughable if you actually knew enough for them to sound credible.
There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. Wow, I've never heard any rational pro-nuke power folks make that argument. Only an ignorant fool would argue that "nuke power is safe because Chernobyl was the worst accident and it wasn't all that bad". The proper argument is and has always been:
"Chernobyl doesn't prove nuke power is unsafe because only a bunch of fucktard Soviet blockheads would build a flammable graphite shielded reactor with a huge positive void coefficient and then run it with all the safety systems turned off. France generates 78% of its electricity with safe plants of a standardized design. The USSR is useful only as an example of exactly how to NOT be responsible and/or environmentally conscious."
Slashdot Mirror
Not meaning to flame, but ... if you're too dense to get it, you can't very well blame the filmmakers.
Hey, cut him some slack. He thinks crop circles aren't made by pranksters stomping down crops with boards.70's dress shirts had collar tips that reached to (or past!) the shoulders. Business suits of the 70's had absurdly wide ties and huge lapels, and the colors were all hideous earth tones and the patterns were horrid herringbones and tweeds. In the 80's ties were an inch wide and lapels nearly vanished. Instead of big collars we had padded shoulders. Colors went all shiny and/or pastel.
No, there's just not any truly timeless style. Even if you pick the most muted examples of contemporary fashion, at some point they're going to be out of fashion enough to be painfully obvious. That's how the fashion industry guarantees itself a steady income. We just have to accept that old movies will always look old, even when they're futuristic.
I replied to a comment that said that "leftists" compensate for slavery by favoring Black people. The other context is your creation. Mine was not a reference to Republican history, but to current events - so not historically inaccurate. You did imply. When one says "We don't have to go back to slavery to find Republican oppression", the implication is that if one does go back and look at slavery, one does find Republican oppression. Whether that implication was intentional is irrelevant. Your choice of words creates that implication regardless. My correction is intended for anyone who might take the same implication and believe it. Nothing more.
And I didn't say that oppressive White jackasses are a specific feature of one party. Sorry. Those who believe "Republicans=former slave owners" tend to be history-ignorant folks who think Democrats have always been the shining paragons of racial equality, while the Republicans have always been the oppressors of the colored folk. Perhaps your historically inaccurate slavery comment was merely a semantic error, but what came out made you sound like one of those ignorant folk. I said that the Republican Party is a party of oppressive White jackasses. Which even you have not been able to deny. Shrug. Wasn't trying to deny it. I pointed it out, in fact. I hate all the bastards. I do, however, know my US history and feel compelled to offer corrections to misleading statements, whether they were intentionally misleading or not. I'm not addressing your main point because I don't disagree with it. I merely point out an implication that is greatly at odds with history.
If you've seen the original political cartoon in which the term "Gerry-mander" was coined, yeah, the intent is fairly obvious and clearly intentional.
The tongue in cheek correlation I see is that of an alligator. Gerrymandering...alligator...swing state...surely not
Yeah... probably not, since I have no idea what you're talking about.
My mother had knee replacement surgery at Mayo Clinic, and she had to schedule it 6-9 months in advance. Please. That's because it's the Mayo Clinic, arguably the top-rated hospital in the entire US. Drive into Minneapolis and you can get into one of the hospitals there inside a week. Saying we have waiting lists here just like Canada because your mom had to wait for a slot at the Mayo is like saying we have bread lines here in the US just like the old Soviet Union because people wait in line 45 minutes for Pink's Hot Dogs
The predictions were based on the computer models. In hindsight, they went back and analyzed the atmospheric data and found that there was a lot of dust in the atmosphere, being carried by the prevailing winds. The dust was coming from the sahara. It appears that the dust had the affect of reducing storm intensity. That's the kind of thing that's hard to account for in a model. Especially when it the variables can change significantly from year to year.
Wait... others here say it was El Nino that kept the hurricanes away. Which is it then? Both? If so, why have I never seen anyone mention both in the same explanation?Don't get too comfy. Did you know nitrocellulose is a low impulse explosive, really only dangerous when used as a projectile propellant? Yep, you might as well not waste your time with making it, just go buy a can of smokeless gunpowder. But then all you have is a can of gunpowder.
I suspect what you were trying for was ANFO - Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel oil. This is a high impulse explosive, and fairly easy to make. Heck, you can make it from horse dung and diesel fuel, in a pinch.
Get a little education, kid. Your anarchist threats would be much less laughable if you actually knew enough for them to sound credible.
"Chernobyl doesn't prove nuke power is unsafe because only a bunch of fucktard Soviet blockheads would build a flammable graphite shielded reactor with a huge positive void coefficient and then run it with all the safety systems turned off. France generates 78% of its electricity with safe plants of a standardized design. The USSR is useful only as an example of exactly how to NOT be responsible and/or environmentally conscious."