That's just plain ignorant and stupid, a shade racist, and more than a little insulting to anyone not city oriented. and there are a lot of high quality vehicles in american motor history.
hell, they were calling Lone Ranger a flop before its 2nd day was even over, let alone the weekend. its like it's got to make a profit in its first day or else its a flop, it's final gross being compeltely irrelevent. compared to even 10 years ago its silly as hell and makes no sense.
movie pitches need work too. Pacific Rim was fun, but the others were rather...uninspired or had inherent baggage that anyone with a brain could see, which could explain why studio execs couldnt:
RIPD = Men In Black with ghosts. seriously. how did anyone think this would justify more than a tiny budget and some unknown actors?
White House Down = Olympus Has Fallen (and it kills me how people were equating it to Air Force One in all the PR and completely ignoring the other movie with the exact same plot that JUST CAME OUT)
Lone Ranger = Capt Jack Sparrow dressed as an Indian. Johnny Depp was a mistake for this movie, his presence just smothers all other considerations. they actually stopped showing so much of him in trailers just to get the emphasis off him when people started being dismissive after the first trailer a year ago
After Earth = seens as both yet another M Knight whatshisface yawnfest movie, or another Will Smith trying to advertise his son movie. definitely both.
You speak of others ignorant, when you yourself are woefully so. You present only half the facts, or less than.
Canada 1812/1813: there was a war going on. a little thing about having our sailors impressed into the Royal Navy, our ports blockaded, etc...
Tripoli: Little thinng called the Barbary pirates that kept hijacking, robbing, and even sinking our merchant vessels in the Med. Solution: sent in the Marines, a deposed Prince, and eliminated the problem
1846 Mexico: the whole fact that Mexico was contesting ownership of Texas, after Texas had been granted and won independence from same, and then joined the US as a new state essentially in return for protection from MExico (who couldn't seem to keep its promises what with constantly changing governing rulers every few weeks).
These may seem like nitpicky points, but theyre pretty important. i dont have time for the whole list. The short version is simple: you're an idiot.
so the furthering of a paranoid conspiracy theory with zero facts to back it is "insightful" and calling it out for what it is, is flamebait? Thank you moderators, your stupidity is at least predictable.
and the reminder i was talking about was that, through the eyes of some of the people we consider disadvanteged, we can be reminded about what truly matters. about the simple truths. we are upright monkeys on a spaceship cruising the universe with the ability to do great things...or evil ones. and we have the free will to make that choice. in islam these "disadvantaged" are considered to be touched by allah, specially marked as his, with a free ticket to heaven, and both a gift and test to those of us around them. christianity holds some similiar views. i think its a pretty good viewpoint, and good reminder for us when we get too wrapped up in the negatives, in the politics, in the bashing of people different from us.
I think sometimes we as humans need a reminder about the realities of the world. It's a beautiful amazing place, that will kill you in an instant if you give it a chance. it really is a moral dilemna. at what point does the ability and responsibility to help others become an overreach and undue interference? this can be likened to the concept of an advanced civilization meeting cavemen....do they help them, uplift them? or let them develop naturally?
Yes, I'm referring to the Prime Directive, though even that harkens to the same questions that have arisen in regards to "uncontacted tribes", such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
And it's a fascinating philosophical debate. We could make their lives so much better than they are, better medicine, better health, better education, life above a subsistence level...but should we? And this here, is nearly an equivalent situation.
... then having the approval of the worst US president of the 20th century has removed all doubts from my mind.
I thought Warren G Harding and his Republican, anti-progressive platform died in 1923 ? Has he really still been pulling the strings of the party all these years? Damn, he's good, at being bad.
thats why we need honest men to be elected, and make grand decisions......and then we need those honest men to hire the Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves of the world to get it done. because all to often the honest man is at the natural disadvantage of the dishonest man.
I'm reminded of the Gap Cycle books. the space police chief, Warden Dios, is almost unfailingly loyal and honest to his people, or tries to be. But one of his chief department heads is a compeltely amoral individual, who heads his research/spying/dirtytricks section.
bloody stupid missing html tag. should read: ---- I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:
His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.
Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.
I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:
His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.
/quote>
Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.
He didnt want to get us into Vietnem v2.0, ie, Afghanistan, so soon after leaving the original. Besides which, direct intervention in Afghanistion would have led to direct and open conflict with the Soviets, turning the Cold War into a Hot one, and then we really would have found out just what species could survive a nuclear war.
as for losing to Reagan, while I admire both Presidents, the contest of the 1980 election was very much the shy smart kid vs the popular jock. Not that Carter was really that shy, but he got bogged down in details, and seemed afraid to use his position as The President at times but rather approached things "as a regular person". When you are President, and trying to get things done, that makes it rather harder to win any political conflicts.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just plain ignorant and stupid, a shade racist, and more than a little insulting to anyone not city oriented. and there are a lot of high quality vehicles in american motor history.
and you used to have to wait 6 months to a year in order to get the rentals.
quite a bit different than waiting only a month or two.
modern hollywood and news expectations are: "if you dont make a profit in the first day, it's a flop".
Starship Troopers was tremendous fun on its own merits.
dont forget the redemption and tragic end of Jaws
hell, they were calling Lone Ranger a flop before its 2nd day was even over, let alone the weekend. its like it's got to make a profit in its first day or else its a flop, it's final gross being compeltely irrelevent. compared to even 10 years ago its silly as hell and makes no sense.
movie pitches need work too. Pacific Rim was fun, but the others were rather...uninspired or had inherent baggage that anyone with a brain could see, which could explain why studio execs couldnt:
RIPD = Men In Black with ghosts. seriously. how did anyone think this would justify more than a tiny budget and some unknown actors?
White House Down = Olympus Has Fallen (and it kills me how people were equating it to Air Force One in all the PR and completely ignoring the other movie with the exact same plot that JUST CAME OUT)
Lone Ranger = Capt Jack Sparrow dressed as an Indian. Johnny Depp was a mistake for this movie, his presence just smothers all other considerations. they actually stopped showing so much of him in trailers just to get the emphasis off him when people started being dismissive after the first trailer a year ago
After Earth = seens as both yet another M Knight whatshisface yawnfest movie, or another Will Smith trying to advertise his son movie. definitely both.
Shh. you'll ruin his fantasy world where self defense is "imperialism", as is "coming to someones aid when they request it".
Shhh. You'll ruin his fantasy world, where wars and defense aren't justification for military actions.
You speak of others ignorant, when you yourself are woefully so. You present only half the facts, or less than.
Canada 1812/1813: there was a war going on. a little thing about having our sailors impressed into the Royal Navy, our ports blockaded, etc...
Tripoli: Little thinng called the Barbary pirates that kept hijacking, robbing, and even sinking our merchant vessels in the Med. Solution: sent in the Marines, a deposed Prince, and eliminated the problem
1846 Mexico: the whole fact that Mexico was contesting ownership of Texas, after Texas had been granted and won independence from same, and then joined the US as a new state essentially in return for protection from MExico (who couldn't seem to keep its promises what with constantly changing governing rulers every few weeks).
These may seem like nitpicky points, but theyre pretty important. i dont have time for the whole list. The short version is simple: you're an idiot.
I'll take paper over virtual anyday.
Seriously? Gee, I don't know... maybe it's because those private parties can't ruin your fucking life like a government can?
wanna bet?
so the furthering of a paranoid conspiracy theory with zero facts to back it is "insightful" and calling it out for what it is, is flamebait?
Thank you moderators, your stupidity is at least predictable.
that is bullshit
rofl. someone who thinks that was actually the case modded me troll. hilarious.
a flash flood has jack all to do with "source of water". the runoff from your parking lot is a "source of water".
what do you think a flash flood is? a wall of water 10 ft high? No. Not necessarily.
It only takes ~2 feet of fast moving water to move a vehicle.
It only takes 6 inches of moving water to knock over an adult.
flash floods have formed and occured on downhill city streets before and drowned kids.
we just had a similar article only what, 6 months ago?, about the same thing: using microbes to extra power from septic tanks.
and the reminder i was talking about was that, through the eyes of some of the people we consider disadvanteged, we can be reminded about what truly matters. about the simple truths. we are upright monkeys on a spaceship cruising the universe with the ability to do great things...or evil ones. and we have the free will to make that choice. in islam these "disadvantaged" are considered to be touched by allah, specially marked as his, with a free ticket to heaven, and both a gift and test to those of us around them. christianity holds some similiar views. i think its a pretty good viewpoint, and good reminder for us when we get too wrapped up in the negatives, in the politics, in the bashing of people different from us.
I think sometimes we as humans need a reminder about the realities of the world. It's a beautiful amazing place, that will kill you in an instant if you give it a chance. it really is a moral dilemna. at what point does the ability and responsibility to help others become an overreach and undue interference? this can be likened to the concept of an advanced civilization meeting cavemen....do they help them, uplift them? or let them develop naturally?
Yes, I'm referring to the Prime Directive, though even that harkens to the same questions that have arisen in regards to "uncontacted tribes", such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
And it's a fascinating philosophical debate. We could make their lives so much better than they are, better medicine, better health, better education, life above a subsistence level...but should we? And this here, is nearly an equivalent situation.
First thing I thought of was little Anthony Fremont.
(For those that don't get the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Zone) )
... then having the approval of the worst US president of the 20th century has removed all doubts from my mind.
I thought Warren G Harding and his Republican, anti-progressive platform died in 1923 ?
Has he really still been pulling the strings of the party all these years?
Damn, he's good, at being bad.
thats why we need honest men to be elected, and make grand decisions... ...and then we need those honest men to hire the Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves of the world to get it done. because all to often the honest man is at the natural disadvantage of the dishonest man.
I'm reminded of the Gap Cycle books. the space police chief, Warden Dios, is almost unfailingly loyal and honest to his people, or tries to be. But one of his chief department heads is a compeltely amoral individual, who heads his research/spying/dirtytricks section.
bloody stupid missing html tag. should read:
----
I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:
His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.
Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.
I agree with you mostly (other than assessment of Reagan whom I also admire alongside Carter), and you're right on most things, except this:
His replacement's plan of using military support to back the Taliban was a great idea that had no long term repercussions for the U.S.
/quote>
Keyword being Taliban. The Taliban did not exist and come to power until the 90's. The people that we trained and supported were the Mujhadeen (spelling?), and the majoirty of them later also opposed the Taliban, though they were defeated.
He didnt want to get us into Vietnem v2.0, ie, Afghanistan, so soon after leaving the original. Besides which, direct intervention in Afghanistion would have led to direct and open conflict with the Soviets, turning the Cold War into a Hot one, and then we really would have found out just what species could survive a nuclear war.
as for losing to Reagan, while I admire both Presidents, the contest of the 1980 election was very much the shy smart kid vs the popular jock. Not that Carter was really that shy, but he got bogged down in details, and seemed afraid to use his position as The President at times but rather approached things "as a regular person". When you are President, and trying to get things done, that makes it rather harder to win any political conflicts.