Not to mention the blu-ray writers. While they aren't exactly compatible, 27 GB per side is a hell of a lot of p0rn! Think of all the multiple angles! And advertisements! But half-kidding aside, supposedly these could be in a store near me by fall 2003. How long would it really take before someone made a hybrid drive with a red and blue laser that could read both formats, and maybe write both too?
The least constitutionally responsible executive branch was probably FDR, well within your 100 years. He actually sought dominance over one of the other checks and balances by attempting to stack the supreme court, and nearly succeeded. But he was still a great president. He was as great as the republicans think reagan was.
Well then why would you expect to just recieve boons you want, but never made an effort to aquire? Hell, even with lotto I have to get off my ass and buy a ticket. And rarely? Well that's ambigious in our society, a great many people already think they have a right to not be offended, the fact that they have not had this amended into the constitution is hardly a cause for lamentation.
Ultimately, I think you're trying to stongly state that sometimes our government makes decisions that are bad, and make people unhappy, or less happy with no or painfully little justification. But what I thought was ammusing was you also added that the government never makes decisions to make people happy for the sake of nothing more than a job well done. Well that of course was silly. Don't worry, you're allowed. Who doesn't love hyperbole?
But it all reduces down to "Our government is powerful and doesn't work perfectly." Hardly a doomsday scenario:).
And FWIW, nothing, the Miranda case decided that people did have that right all along, it was provided by the constitution itself, and the Miranda warnings were a remedy. Of course in cases like that one wonders what the point of having police is. Since if they're too busy intimidating and confusing innocent people into confessing to crimes to go out and find the guilty parties how protected is a community?
You read like this was usenet. What bizzar assumptions you make. The small measure of justice is killing the guilty, the greater injustice is all the innocents killed to get them. I thought that was clearly the implicit remark. My mistake.
And if they did care for me, their university students wouldn't be queuing up for US film crews to see how fast they could each "blame the victim." They shall see from me, all the compasion they show. And if my vote matters at all, the shall see from my country what all our other adversaries have. And sure a whole lot of innocents might die, but the Germans and Japanese seem cool with it now. Ask them whether they'd go back? Its interesting how complicated morality can be.
Oh, and killing the people who want to kill you isn't a crime. It's justifiable homicide. If there is a God, maybe he doesn't see it the same way, but that's a pretty big if, and in the mean time I'm living in the real world.
Look at me! I'm reduced to responding to people who don't even think enough of their own beliefs to put a fake name to them! Now that is a crime.
Never? That's a long time. Can't black people vote? Women? 18 year olds? I'm not so sure things started out that way. What about Miranda warnings? There's a reason its named for a court case and not an amendment.
You're the kinda guy who'd call fuel rationing during WWII unconstitutional. All's fair in love war and hyperbole, no?:)
That's not exactly true. The world changes and we change with it. The test is can we cling to our ideals, and still extole the virtues we cherish when faced with such uglyness.
Make no mistake, we're not really a benevolent, peace-loving people who know only sweetness and light.
At some point it may just be too expensive to keep the ethnic groups the terrorists hide in alive. We all know what was done to the Native Americans just because our forefathers liked the idea of a country that spread from sea to shining sea. Our national anthem is about how we got our asses kicked by the british and told them to fuck-off. Even in World War II people were jailed even though they were thought to provide a nearly non-existant threat. Our ideals, are just that ideals. We frequently fail to meet them, but we never give them up, we even occasionally succeed, and exceed them. That is our might. That is the truth behind the myth we love.
Would it be right if we used our resources to annihilate whole populations to exact a small measure of justice from a much greater injustice? No. Would I loose sleep over it? Not likely. I care for them ever bit as much as they care for me. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is fine for Buddists and 50's TV, but I find doing unto others as they would do unto you is much more pragmatic.
They follow the blue book enhanced CD standard. At least a corruption of it. It might not even be something philips can do anything about.
I would intuitively think that this is a more dangerous tactic for the record companies, as it pretty clearly shows for thought and planning in their bid to actually disable peoples computers causing them a not insignificant expense in both time and money. The crippling of the computers wasn't a side effect of the 'copy protection' (such as it is) it was actually the plan. I personally can't see a difference between that and any other malicious act which damages someones computer.
But I do think going after the stores would be the way to go, with their thinner margins, it would hurt them a lot more. And they, in turn, would use their market muscle for ends that are more inline with their customers wishes. The last thing Best Buy, Sam Goodie, or any chain wants to do is end up in a court battling a former customer.
Isn't it really a corruption of the blue book standard? And that technically the CD's conform to the blue book standard just because no one ever thought of the case where someone would seek to purposefully cripple a computer?
For the record. The idea of Chi, is a little more complicated.
Chi is sort of like a cosmic force, not terribly unlike The Force. You've got your Heaven chi, which you can more or less think of as the destiny God has laid out. Your Earth Chi which can be helped along with Feng Shui The art of harnessing Sheng Chi, and avoiding Shar Chi. Then there is your personal chi.
Yes, I'm deeply sorry for failing to bend 6+ billion people to my will.
But vote for me. Elect me as your High Minister of Eugenics and I promise I will not fail in my bid to make the world a better place through better breeding. That is my solemn, heart-felt, pledge to you.
That's actually difficult question. I've shed various idealistic notions at different times. But the idea that the world is broke and no one is going to fix it, around 11 or 12.
If "Image" was truly nothing, and "Thirst" the only thing that was really important would there be any point to Sprite making commercials at all?
Image might not be objective truth, but it is a first impression. And in the case of a bad first impressions, it's also a last impression. Right or wrong, that's the way the world works.
Yes, academic credentialism is driven by publishing. So? How does that translate into your assumption that all the 'recent theorizing' is bunk? Publishing is hard work. You don't just make up crap and watch is magically traverse the gauntlet of peer review.
Well, from a certain point of view though....
At some level some publishing is, "I've noticed this quirk. It that light at the end of the tunnel illumination, or sunlight shining in my sphincter?" Sometimes in Physical Review Letters I would come across what would appear to be fairly formal flames. And other times the multitude of arguments leading to contradictory conclusions would individually be so compelling I wouldn't know what to think.
At some level all theorizing starts out as bunk, and the successful ideas percolate to the top. But I'm hardly an expert.:)
Some studies accounted for heat effects, not all. Many did not, and some of those, no doubt, play at least some role in predictions of temperature increases. But that's the point. By not being vigilent as a group, they hurt their cause (acceptance of strong research) when they tolerate poor research. When one diminishes their integrity, they diminish the integrity of everyone who is a member of the group they represent. Are there good lawyers? Sure, they're not the ones responsible for the reputation shysters now "enjoy". But they share the reputation just the same. But its even worse with a concept like glabal warming which practically has too many variables to count. The data is subject to enough interpritation under those circumstances, and a few, perhaps even well meaning, individuals cast doubt upon even the data itself.
What convinced me with respect to CFC's? It wasn't the name attached, it was having the kinetics of the reaction sufficently explained to me. Nothing is more convincing than sufficent illumination. For my part, with regaurds to global warming, I find ice cores probably the most compelling evidence. But over geologic time, as this last mini ice-age truly closes, one does have difficulty seperating the effects of man's actions from what could be the natural progression of events. Do we have AN impact? I don't think anyone disputes that. (Well maybe the PR firms that represent oil companies, and our Cheif Executive and his VP). But how much of an impact? That's difficult. And accurate forecasting of what the results of just man's contribution to what might be a natural progression, that's damn near fortune telling. Even your site, in the language that they chose, said as much. What we know now about how much we affect the climate is more guess work than actual knowledge.
It's hard to move people to action with such uncertainty, particularly when the people involved aren't seen as trustworthy or disintrested.
Some of the more extream ideas even predict the warmer temperatures will lead to more cloud formation and might trigger a new mini iceage.
For instance, that site you cite didn't blatantly contradict my tried and true beliefes, but I would have found it more persuasive, or at least more informative if they presented a confidence interval with their finding that the temperature will increase by 1 to 3.5 degrees C. Perhaps I should assume 95%, or 50%?
And given that we know so little, is that enough to bleed off resources that might grow our economies to tackle a problem we, in the end, may be unable to do anything about through controling emissions of gasses like CO2? If you have a good job that you can bike too, and you're already a vegan, it might not seem like much. Studying bovine flatulance and signing the Kyoto accords might seem to be an obvious no brainer. But if you're a lowly pizza delivery guy who lives off omitting ozone, CO, CO2, NO, and the dead cows that were flatulant, someone is asking you to not work, and by the way, after the unemployment runs out, people tell you they've done their part.
The costs are prohibitive, the benefits are far from certain, as the science that predicts them is complex, incomplete, and subject to at least some bias. Pretend this were any other decision. Would you chose the very expensive highly speculative out come, or chose to not to gamble? Me, I don't gamble. But that's only because everytime I do, I lose:). Maybe your luck runs better.
Well profit to scientists isn't always measured by a number in a bank account. Sometimes it's measured by the number of times their name comes up in appendicies.
That said, like any other large field of study there is the good and the bad. CFC's and their effect on the enviroment being an example of the good. From what I know of the studies that focus on heating of the earth due to mans activity, their predictions are more dire, and their methodes more suspect. I hear tale of scientists taking measurements in the same locations as they were taken a century ago when they could still be described as "the new world". And they don't normalize between a virgin forest and a building surrounded by an asphalt parking lot. It would be one thing if they were accounting for differences, but in many cases it seems that not factoring for those biases in measurment because they agree with personal biases the researchers may hold. And that IS junk science. It's also that practice of abusing statistics that let's someone like Bush get away with dismissing things as "fuzzy math".
The fact of the matter is, for much of it's history the Earth's temperature has been much higher, on average, than it is now. Our buring of fossil fuels is unquestionably having some effect. But there is a question to as to how much. And introducing bias, or at least not accounting for it, in measurements doesn't do anything to answer that question. And to those people who would view earth as a static, unchanging enviroment, if not for man's intervention: Everytime someone has put forth such a view point, science has eventually shown it to be overly simplistic, and unltimately incorrect.
If more of the climate researchers were more interested in making sure their data reflected the objective truth, whatever it happened to be, without any sort of political ax to grind, or name to make, perhaps they'd have the credibility you think they collectively deserve. But even you take your shots. You seem to be of the impression that all people who do research that is even partially sponsored by the fuel industry MUST sell out, and their results should be immediately discounted. Might not someone, differently inclined, be able to make a similar assertion about a climatologist so personally worried about global warming that they bike to work? Obviously, such a person has very strong personal views on the subject, and might not be as able to restrain their personal bias.
One of the best compliments I ever got on my Quake skills was being kicked off for being a reaper-bot. Nothing inflates your ego quite like the first time you're told you're too good to be human.
What is it with the kooks implying that the Iranian government is somehow doing this out of the goodness of the hearts, or some idealistic notion that "information wants to be free"?
They're permitting this for the same reason they used to, and may still, print their very own "made in Iran" US dollars. It's not a new business model, it's a new twist on old politics.
And I know I'd feel oh so secure about a company based in Iran having my credit card number.
Minolta has a color laser that's the size of a tank but is under a grand. Not the best but it's ok.
Overall I think the newer inkjets look better for photos than color laser.
Spider-man, The Force is with him.
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Spider-man 0 scenes exploring the joys of self-gratification.
AoTC 1 Jedi Hand Trick.
When I pay to see solo masturbation scenes, I do not pay to see Hayden Christensen in them, nor do I expect to see Storm troopers in beta. That's just not what floats my boat.
Also, the graininess resulting from the low light levels (it's not like movie makers haven't known about the problems with this for a few decades) early in the movie, the shortened sets shot badly enough that it shows, the shocking misuse of CGI, the fact that it was as a whole rather uninspired and plotted for the up comming video game as much as anything else, the brutally painful dialogue, the poor makeup on Anakin's mother where you can see the freaking outline of the appliance, the fact she stole her death scene from Jim Carry in The Mask, the fact that the only enjoyment to be had from the movie are the little bits of decent eye candy, laughing at (but never with) it, and Crouching Jedi, Hidden Yoda.
Was Spider-man without blemishes? No. There's some dialogue in there I find painful. Like 2 or 3 scenes could have benefited from a handful of rewrites. But for the most part the movie was fun, funny, and telling a story worth watching. I don't know if I would say it was 4 stars like some reviewers, but it was a strong 3. The blemishes are small compared with the rest of the movie, and easily overlooked. With AoTC, finding the good is about as entertaining as searching for change in the sofa, and takes about as much effort.
Maybe its me, but when I'm watching a movie, whether or not it's for the solo masturbation scene, I generally don't like to be reminded I'm watching a movie, much less a poorly made one.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the blu-ray writers. While they aren't exactly compatible, 27 GB per side is a hell of a lot of p0rn! Think of all the multiple angles! And advertisements! But half-kidding aside, supposedly these could be in a store near me by fall 2003. How long would it really take before someone made a hybrid drive with a red and blue laser that could read both formats, and maybe write both too?
The least constitutionally responsible executive branch was probably FDR, well within your 100 years. He actually sought dominance over one of the other checks and balances by attempting to stack the supreme court, and nearly succeeded. But he was still a great president. He was as great as the republicans think reagan was.
Well then why would you expect to just recieve boons you want, but never made an effort to aquire? Hell, even with lotto I have to get off my ass and buy a ticket. And rarely? Well that's ambigious in our society, a great many people already think they have a right to not be offended, the fact that they have not had this amended into the constitution is hardly a cause for lamentation.
:).
Ultimately, I think you're trying to stongly state that sometimes our government makes decisions that are bad, and make people unhappy, or less happy with no or painfully little justification. But what I thought was ammusing was you also added that the government never makes decisions to make people happy for the sake of nothing more than a job well done. Well that of course was silly. Don't worry, you're allowed. Who doesn't love hyperbole?
But it all reduces down to "Our government is powerful and doesn't work perfectly." Hardly a doomsday scenario
And FWIW, nothing, the Miranda case decided that people did have that right all along, it was provided by the constitution itself, and the Miranda warnings were a remedy. Of course in cases like that one wonders what the point of having police is. Since if they're too busy intimidating and confusing innocent people into confessing to crimes to go out and find the guilty parties how protected is a community?
You read like this was usenet. What bizzar assumptions you make. The small measure of justice is killing the guilty, the greater injustice is all the innocents killed to get them. I thought that was clearly the implicit remark. My mistake.
And if they did care for me, their university students wouldn't be queuing up for US film crews to see how fast they could each "blame the victim." They shall see from me, all the compasion they show. And if my vote matters at all, the shall see from my country what all our other adversaries have. And sure a whole lot of innocents might die, but the Germans and Japanese seem cool with it now. Ask them whether they'd go back? Its interesting how complicated morality can be.
Oh, and killing the people who want to kill you isn't a crime. It's justifiable homicide. If there is a God, maybe he doesn't see it the same way, but that's a pretty big if, and in the mean time I'm living in the real world.
Look at me! I'm reduced to responding to people who don't even think enough of their own beliefs to put a fake name to them! Now that is a crime.
Never? That's a long time. Can't black people vote? Women? 18 year olds? I'm not so sure things started out that way. What about Miranda warnings? There's a reason its named for a court case and not an amendment.
:)
You're the kinda guy who'd call fuel rationing during WWII unconstitutional. All's fair in love war and hyperbole, no?
That's not exactly true. The world changes and we change with it. The test is can we cling to our ideals, and still extole the virtues we cherish when faced with such uglyness.
Make no mistake, we're not really a benevolent, peace-loving people who know only sweetness and light.
At some point it may just be too expensive to keep the ethnic groups the terrorists hide in alive. We all know what was done to the Native Americans just because our forefathers liked the idea of a country that spread from sea to shining sea. Our national anthem is about how we got our asses kicked by the british and told them to fuck-off. Even in World War II people were jailed even though they were thought to provide a nearly non-existant threat. Our ideals, are just that ideals. We frequently fail to meet them, but we never give them up, we even occasionally succeed, and exceed them. That is our might. That is the truth behind the myth we love.
Would it be right if we used our resources to annihilate whole populations to exact a small measure of justice from a much greater injustice? No. Would I loose sleep over it? Not likely. I care for them ever bit as much as they care for me. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is fine for Buddists and 50's TV, but I find doing unto others as they would do unto you is much more pragmatic.
They follow the blue book enhanced CD standard. At least a corruption of it. It might not even be something philips can do anything about.
I would intuitively think that this is a more dangerous tactic for the record companies, as it pretty clearly shows for thought and planning in their bid to actually disable peoples computers causing them a not insignificant expense in both time and money. The crippling of the computers wasn't a side effect of the 'copy protection' (such as it is) it was actually the plan. I personally can't see a difference between that and any other malicious act which damages someones computer.
But I do think going after the stores would be the way to go, with their thinner margins, it would hurt them a lot more. And they, in turn, would use their market muscle for ends that are more inline with their customers wishes. The last thing Best Buy, Sam Goodie, or any chain wants to do is end up in a court battling a former customer.
I think they carry the enhanced CD logo.
Isn't it really a corruption of the blue book standard? And that technically the CD's conform to the blue book standard just because no one ever thought of the case where someone would seek to purposefully cripple a computer?
For the record. The idea of Chi, is a little more complicated.
Chi is sort of like a cosmic force, not terribly unlike The Force. You've got your Heaven chi, which you can more or less think of as the destiny God has laid out. Your Earth Chi which can be helped along with Feng Shui The art of harnessing Sheng Chi, and avoiding Shar Chi. Then there is your personal chi.
And thank you for keeping it that way.
Yes, I'm deeply sorry for failing to bend 6+ billion people to my will.
But vote for me. Elect me as your High Minister of Eugenics and I promise I will not fail in my bid to make the world a better place through better breeding. That is my solemn, heart-felt, pledge to you.
That's actually difficult question. I've shed various idealistic notions at different times. But the idea that the world is broke and no one is going to fix it, around 11 or 12.
If "Image" was truly nothing, and "Thirst" the only thing that was really important would there be any point to Sprite making commercials at all?
Image might not be objective truth, but it is a first impression. And in the case of a bad first impressions, it's also a last impression. Right or wrong, that's the way the world works.
Yes, academic credentialism is driven by publishing. So? How does that translate into your assumption that all the 'recent theorizing' is bunk? Publishing is hard work. You don't just make up crap and watch is magically traverse the gauntlet of peer review.
:)
Well, from a certain point of view though....
At some level some publishing is, "I've noticed this quirk. It that light at the end of the tunnel illumination, or sunlight shining in my sphincter?" Sometimes in Physical Review Letters I would come across what would appear to be fairly formal flames. And other times the multitude of arguments leading to contradictory conclusions would individually be so compelling I wouldn't know what to think.
At some level all theorizing starts out as bunk, and the successful ideas percolate to the top. But I'm hardly an expert.
Some studies accounted for heat effects, not all. Many did not, and some of those, no doubt, play at least some role in predictions of temperature increases. But that's the point. By not being vigilent as a group, they hurt their cause (acceptance of strong research) when they tolerate poor research. When one diminishes their integrity, they diminish the integrity of everyone who is a member of the group they represent. Are there good lawyers? Sure, they're not the ones responsible for the reputation shysters now "enjoy". But they share the reputation just the same. But its even worse with a concept like glabal warming which practically has too many variables to count. The data is subject to enough interpritation under those circumstances, and a few, perhaps even well meaning, individuals cast doubt upon even the data itself.
:). Maybe your luck runs better.
What convinced me with respect to CFC's? It wasn't the name attached, it was having the kinetics of the reaction sufficently explained to me. Nothing is more convincing than sufficent illumination. For my part, with regaurds to global warming, I find ice cores probably the most compelling evidence. But over geologic time, as this last mini ice-age truly closes, one does have difficulty seperating the effects of man's actions from what could be the natural progression of events. Do we have AN impact? I don't think anyone disputes that. (Well maybe the PR firms that represent oil companies, and our Cheif Executive and his VP). But how much of an impact? That's difficult. And accurate forecasting of what the results of just man's contribution to what might be a natural progression, that's damn near fortune telling. Even your site, in the language that they chose, said as much. What we know now about how much we affect the climate is more guess work than actual knowledge.
It's hard to move people to action with such uncertainty, particularly when the people involved aren't seen as trustworthy or disintrested.
Some of the more extream ideas even predict the warmer temperatures will lead to more cloud formation and might trigger a new mini iceage.
For instance, that site you cite didn't blatantly contradict my tried and true beliefes, but I would have found it more persuasive, or at least more informative if they presented a confidence interval with their finding that the temperature will increase by 1 to 3.5 degrees C. Perhaps I should assume 95%, or 50%?
And given that we know so little, is that enough to bleed off resources that might grow our economies to tackle a problem we, in the end, may be unable to do anything about through controling emissions of gasses like CO2? If you have a good job that you can bike too, and you're already a vegan, it might not seem like much. Studying bovine flatulance and signing the Kyoto accords might seem to be an obvious no brainer. But if you're a lowly pizza delivery guy who lives off omitting ozone, CO, CO2, NO, and the dead cows that were flatulant, someone is asking you to not work, and by the way, after the unemployment runs out, people tell you they've done their part.
The costs are prohibitive, the benefits are far from certain, as the science that predicts them is complex, incomplete, and subject to at least some bias. Pretend this were any other decision. Would you chose the very expensive highly speculative out come, or chose to not to gamble? Me, I don't gamble. But that's only because everytime I do, I lose
How about I call you a motherfucker? Does that increase your ego too?
I don't know. How hot is your mom?
But last I read, the Milky Way was thought to be a bared spiral.
This guy, these guys, and most convincingly, these guys, seem to all agree.
Well profit to scientists isn't always measured by a number in a bank account. Sometimes it's measured by the number of times their name comes up in appendicies.
That said, like any other large field of study there is the good and the bad. CFC's and their effect on the enviroment being an example of the good. From what I know of the studies that focus on heating of the earth due to mans activity, their predictions are more dire, and their methodes more suspect. I hear tale of scientists taking measurements in the same locations as they were taken a century ago when they could still be described as "the new world". And they don't normalize between a virgin forest and a building surrounded by an asphalt parking lot. It would be one thing if they were accounting for differences, but in many cases it seems that not factoring for those biases in measurment because they agree with personal biases the researchers may hold. And that IS junk science. It's also that practice of abusing statistics that let's someone like Bush get away with dismissing things as "fuzzy math".
The fact of the matter is, for much of it's history the Earth's temperature has been much higher, on average, than it is now. Our buring of fossil fuels is unquestionably having some effect. But there is a question to as to how much. And introducing bias, or at least not accounting for it, in measurements doesn't do anything to answer that question. And to those people who would view earth as a static, unchanging enviroment, if not for man's intervention: Everytime someone has put forth such a view point, science has eventually shown it to be overly simplistic, and unltimately incorrect.
If more of the climate researchers were more interested in making sure their data reflected the objective truth, whatever it happened to be, without any sort of political ax to grind, or name to make, perhaps they'd have the credibility you think they collectively deserve. But even you take your shots. You seem to be of the impression that all people who do research that is even partially sponsored by the fuel industry MUST sell out, and their results should be immediately discounted. Might not someone, differently inclined, be able to make a similar assertion about a climatologist so personally worried about global warming that they bike to work? Obviously, such a person has very strong personal views on the subject, and might not be as able to restrain their personal bias.
One of the best compliments I ever got on my Quake skills was being kicked off for being a reaper-bot. Nothing inflates your ego quite like the first time you're told you're too good to be human.
What is it with the kooks implying that the Iranian government is somehow doing this out of the goodness of the hearts, or some idealistic notion that "information wants to be free"?
They're permitting this for the same reason they used to, and may still, print their very own "made in Iran" US dollars. It's not a new business model, it's a new twist on old politics.
And I know I'd feel oh so secure about a company based in Iran having my credit card number.
So: reduce the need for energy of the average household.
I don't want to live in the woods and eat grass. My ancestors spent the better part of an eon building so I didn't have to.
God is playing Russian Roulette with the Unverse.
I knew he wasn't playing dice!
Don't think of it as a lie so much as an overly elaborate practical joke.
Minolta has a color laser that's the size of a tank but is under a grand. Not the best but it's ok.
Overall I think the newer inkjets look better for photos than color laser.
Spider-man 0 scenes exploring the joys of self-gratification.
AoTC 1 Jedi Hand Trick.
When I pay to see solo masturbation scenes, I do not pay to see Hayden Christensen in them, nor do I expect to see Storm troopers in beta. That's just not what floats my boat.
Also, the graininess resulting from the low light levels (it's not like movie makers haven't known about the problems with this for a few decades) early in the movie, the shortened sets shot badly enough that it shows, the shocking misuse of CGI, the fact that it was as a whole rather uninspired and plotted for the up comming video game as much as anything else, the brutally painful dialogue, the poor makeup on Anakin's mother where you can see the freaking outline of the appliance, the fact she stole her death scene from Jim Carry in The Mask, the fact that the only enjoyment to be had from the movie are the little bits of decent eye candy, laughing at (but never with) it, and Crouching Jedi, Hidden Yoda.
Was Spider-man without blemishes? No. There's some dialogue in there I find painful. Like 2 or 3 scenes could have benefited from a handful of rewrites. But for the most part the movie was fun, funny, and telling a story worth watching. I don't know if I would say it was 4 stars like some reviewers, but it was a strong 3. The blemishes are small compared with the rest of the movie, and easily overlooked. With AoTC, finding the good is about as entertaining as searching for change in the sofa, and takes about as much effort.
Maybe its me, but when I'm watching a movie, whether or not it's for the solo masturbation scene, I generally don't like to be reminded I'm watching a movie, much less a poorly made one.