A flat tax will never happen. Give up that dream. The current complicated tax structure exists because it benefits the rich and the powerful.
Funny, it's been Billionare Steve "The Magazine" Forbes, Jack "4 Touchdowns in a Single Game" Kemp, Dick Armey, and the vast majority of the Republicans that support the flat tax. The reason why they support the flat tax is because it would be an insane tax break for the WEALTHIEST in the country, meanwhile the the poorest end up getting screwed.
Typically the number that's tossed around for the flat tax is 15%. Some one making $14k pays only 10%. The highest tax bracket pays somewhere around 28%. Uhh...
So how do they sell this to the poor folks. "Taxes are HARD. You have to add AND subtract. This is EASY! You like easy don't you?" Got to give it to the Republicans, they know you never go wrong by yelling "FREE MONEY!" or "YOU CAN HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WANT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!" *sigh*
When I neared the end of my high school days, and everybody and their dog was asking me what I was going to do next, if I said "engineer" I'd get something like "you mean the guys who drive trains? Don't have to go to school for that you know!" and if I said "physicist" I got "you mean like a gym teacher?" As I said, it was a pretty small town.:)
Oh my! I had almost this exact same experience. This woman, who I didn't really know calls me up out of the blue my senior year of highschool and says, "You're going to the same university with Billy (my best friend)?" "Yeah." <breathless_excitement>"Billy is going to study JOURNALISM! What are you going to major in?"</breathless_excitement> "Electical engineering." <disapointment>"Oh...Is that all?"</disapointment>.
the EM spectrum is governed by federal laws. The states have no rights whatsoever over the use of the spectrum due to its inherent interstate nature.
Just think about it for a minute. Do states have big jammers along their borders that prevent you from receiving television and radio broadcasts from another state?
Oh god no! When I had a job (Don't worry, I didn't get laid off. I quit just before the implosion to go to gradschool.) I had write a design doc in Word. Track changes absolutly sucked. It couldn't merge two documents from a common ancestor at all. It said it did, but it couldn't. The only way you could get it to was to merge them one at a time.
There used to be a wall between in my parents' house between the living room and the dining room. In '78 or '79 (probably during the summer) my dad removed that wall. I remember him getting ready to remove the wall, and then after it was knocked out, I drove my Big Wheel back and forth through it, in order to test the hole as it were.
This (the wall removal, not the hole testing) was part of larger project of adding an addition to the house. I remember him plastering over nails in the plaster board in the living room, and painting my parents' bedroom.
I guess I remember it because it was dramatic. The house in which I lived my entire life was changed forever.
his lack of ability to understand that he's getting SUPPORT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S FREE TIME makes him a candidate for/kb)
It's stop being "free time" when you volunteer. Let's take a meatspace example. Someone volunteers for a soup kitchen. A homeless guy shows up and wants some food, afterall he's been told that if he comes here, he'll get food. He looks around and says to the person behind the counter, "Hey. Where's the food?" The answer, "Fuck off you rude bastard. This is MY FREE TIME!" Ummm...
If you don't want to provide support (and everything that goes with that) then what are you doing in the channel?
Are you saying that I should just grin and bear it when my computer goes BOOM! when the soundcard gets initialized? I should say "Wow! I am so lucky to have something that just barely supports my videocard!"? And when I point this out to those that "support" these features, I'm told I should drop everything I'm doing, spend several months reading up on the low level details of my card, learn the intricacies of the kernel, learn the intricacies of CVS, write a patch, kiss ass for another month or two so that my patch is actually added, so I ineffect cleanup someone else's mess and/or stroke someone else's ego, instead of doing what brings me joy (say my own project)? Now tell me, who's more arrogant?
You seem to think having a discussion is about poking someone in the eye or being "right" or "wrong."
First off there has never been a discussion. You complelty mischaracterized the article. You have repeatedly put out falsehoods as "facts", and I've pointed them out. There is nothing to discuss, you have not been correct even once.
Excuse me for getting pissed off when someone spouts things that knowingly spouts things that are easily proven incorrect as if he is some master that has come down from off the mountain to enlighten us all. That is why you've been flamed. If you don't like it, I'd suggest you get your facts straight before spouting off half cocked.
Opening weekends for every "Star Trek" film starring Patrick Stewart: 1998's Insurrection ($22 million), 1996's First Contact ($30.7 million) and 1994's Generations ($23.1 million). The latest even-numbered sequel, Star Trek: Nemesis, has garnered the requisite good reviews. Taking inflation into account, Nemesis stands a good chance of surpassing First Contact's opening cume. Paramount will release the film in over 3,000 theaters and hopes to snag the number one spot with an estimated $32 million.
However you remain undenyably, indigently, and utterly completely wrong. And that is why it is impossible to talk to you.
You spout these things like you know what you're talking about, but each one is demonstably false. Why do you continue to do this? All it does is make you look like you at best an idiot, or at worse like you have some sort of agenda that involves spreading FUD about 'Trek.
Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.
First off, as of yet, there are no numbers since the weekend isn't over, so you where are you getting your information? Second, you destoryed your credibility when you were exposed for lying about the article you supposably read, so why should anyone believe you?
Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series.
And the article said so.
This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication.
Even adjusting for inflation doesn't do it. You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices, which have accelerated well beyond inflation. Throw that in, or look at the actual number of tickets sold, and the picture gets even grimmer.
There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.
Okay Comic Book Guy , it's time for you learn how the outside world works.
First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.
So the "serious" problem is that Berman is described as "new"? Let's examine this.
Most people don't know who he is. They know that Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek". They know that Roddenberry is dead. They have no idea who took over after his death. Couple this with the fact that Berman has replaced the famous man that led Star Trek for 25 years until his death, I'd think a relative nobody that has lead for less than half that time would still be described as "new", espcially since "new" is a relative term.
Or is your real problem that Berman isn't described as "the antichrist who destoryed 'Trek"?
Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom.
At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.
Apparently you have a very different view of what the "lead" is in this story, than everyone else. Afterall, it's so easy to think that the main point of the article is "Rick Berman sucks, and so does Enterprise", given that the article has a solid gold (or at least gold-plated) 1701-D wizzing by $100 bills.
Or perhaps your main problem with the article is that it points out that Paramount doesn't really give a damn what the freakish fans think, because they make gobs and gobs of money from the the casual fan.
The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head.
Really? I'm left scratching my head on what article you read, since it the article points out that even though Nemesis "won't make as much as, say, Spider-Man. Yet Star Trek has outlasted other brands over the years. (Suck a phaser, Batman.)".
The point of the article is that Star Trek is long running, continous, steady revenue stream. Sure it might not make bursts of money like some of the more trendy movies, but it has a staying power (and therefore merchandising lifespan) many time greater.
The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.
Perhaps you'd like to reread the article, this time without your Berman Hating Goggles(tm) on, because you are completly, and demonstrably, wrong.
What makes you think I don't know what a plot device is?
You criticized it for being "a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did". That's what plot devices are; so your criticism (on this ground at least) is completly unfounded, because you can apply that criticism to all plot devices. If you want to complain about the nexus, fine. Just find some other reason to read about.
1. The "plot dev^H^H^H nexus" was the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It was a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did.
HERESY! A plot device used soley to advance the plot? It's almost as if this is the exact definition of a plot device! I am absolutely beside myself with selfrightous indignation.
That's the fundamental arguement I keep hearing from those who doubt ADHD is a real medical condition.
I don't doubt that it exists. I doubt that it's as widespread as some would have us believe. Namely because I find it very suspicious that its found significanly more often in the United States than anywhere else in the world. So much so, that the EU has written a working draft outlining their concerns. I quote:
1. The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that increasing numbers of children in certain Council of Europe member states are being diagnosed as suffering from "attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD), "hyperkinetic disorder" or related behavioural conditions and treated by means of central nervous system stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate, which are controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances because they have been judged by the World Health Organisation to be liable to abuse, to constitute a substantial risk to public health, and to have little to moderate therapeutic usefulness.
3. Although their precise causes are unknown, the validity of ADHD and hyperkinetic disorders, defined in terms of persistent and severe behavioural symptoms centred on inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness and resulting in functional impairment, is widely recognised by professional medical, psychological and scientific organisations, including the World Health Organisation. However, the Assembly is concerned that two different sets of criteria are applied in diagnosing these disorders: one adopted by the American Psychiatric Association and used worldwide, the other, more stringent, by the World Health Organisation. The Assembly considers that the basis for these different standards should be examined with a view to clarifying and harmonising the criteria governing diagnosis and treatment.
she recognizes the symptoms in me, and cuts me some slack.
But you haven't been properly diagnosed, and thus you commit the cardinal sin of psychology 101: Never attempt to diagnose yourself. That is why you were flamed.
When a layman reads the DSM, he start to think that he's schizophrenic ("Well I do talk to myself sometimes..."), narcoleptic ("I do get tired alot, especially at the end of the day, or after working hard..."), social anxiety disorder, ("You know I don't like getting up and talking in front of large groups..."), homosexual ("I did have that one dream..."), agoraphobic ("You know, the more I read this, the more scared I'm getting..."). Or in your case, you kid gets diagnosed with ADD and so you try to figure out how he got it. You decide it might be genetic, so you start looking at yourself, and walla! You find it. ("You know, my mind tends to wonder when I'm bored. I used to think it was just daydreaming; but now that I think about, I think I've got ADD. Yeah. My mind always wonders, except for those times I'm so caught up in something so much that I can't get distracted at all...")
You sound like my 70 year old dad. You can start talking to my dad, and he won't acknowledge you, you'll have to yell to get his attention. He's not deaf, my mom made him get his hearing check, and it's fine. As exhibited by him chiming in when food is being discussed. What's going on is, he simply tunes out the world because it's the way he decompresses after work. As he his doctor told him, "You hear what you want to hear."
If you think you've got a problem, then go to a doctor, because:
You're not a trained medical practitioner, so you're not qualified to make a diagnosis
In case anyone is wondering (and I'm sure they're not), I'm INTP with INTJ tendencies (one test at keirsey.com I'm INTP all the way, the other I'm just barely INTJ.
some how I managed to avoid getting labeled, but my elementary experience was no less filled with parent-teacher conferences.
There was the 1st grade where my teacher felt that should should send a letter home because I had problems following directions. Of course my mom was worried and went and talked with my teacher.
There she learned my problem was not stopping at 10 when asked to count to 10. Why did I do this? There was more squares that could be numbered, and anyway by counting to 20, I showed that I knew how to count to 10, and isn't that what the teacher was testing us on?
Apparently not. So my mom said I should turn the paper over and then count on the back. So I did. That wasn't good enough.
I also would draw pictures on the back of my handouts when I was done with them and was forced to wait while the rest of class struggeled with how many apples were on the tree. That was also a no-no.
The of course there was the ultimate comment: "I'd like to talk to you about your son's language" "Jonathan is swearing?!?!" "Oh no! It's nothing like that. He just uses some words that the other students don't know. Could you ask him to stop?" "What's the problem? You don't know what he's talking about? There isn't a chance in hell I'm going to tell my son not to use his vocabulary. If they don't know what he's talking about perhaps you could do your job and teach them."
Then came the third grade where I got a C in reading on my report card. This was unexpected since I was an "advanced" reader. So my mom duitfully went to the teacher and asked what was going on since this just didn't make any sense.
The teacher gave my mom a copy of some homework I turned in and said, "This." My mom looked at it dumbfounded and then said, "What's wrong with it?" "He circled the topic sentence." "Isn't that what he's supposed to do?" "He's supposed to underline it." "Is that it? Because I don't understand how this warrants a C, afterall he's anwered all the questions correction. Maybe he should get a talking to about being more attentive to the directions, but not a C. He's always been a strong reader. He reads at 6th grade level. He's never had problems in reading or any other subject for that matter." The response? "Oh. He's one of THOSE kids..." My mom and I still don't know what that was supposed to mean.
Now I've had some good teachers My third grade teacher (I had two third grade teachers, a "homeroom" which taught everything but reading half a year, and then the aforementioned teacher), and my fifth grade teacher was absolutly wonderful , but I also had some real winners, and a lot of barely passable teachers. But then again what do you expect? Those entering the teaching profession generally (there are exceptions, as I noted) weren't the brightest people in school. Hell I know several teachers that laugh, "I never learned algebra, and now I'm teaching it!" "I never got better than a C in college!" "Oh I was never that good in school growing up!" I even heard one confess, "You know, I don't really like kids."
Given my experience with teachers and smart kids, and the fact that the evidence for prevalence of ADHD is highly dubious, I think you should take your kid off it, and put her in classes where she'll actually be stimulated.
For some reason ADHD is diagnosed in the United States significantly more than any other country in the world. And the increase in diagnoses track with the increased marketing of Ritalin et. al. Hmm... This is really suspcious and distrurbing. So much so, that the EU has written a working draft outlining their concerns. I quote:
1. The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that increasing numbers of children in certain Council of Europe member states are being diagnosed as suffering from "attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD), "hyperkinetic disorder" or related behavioural conditions and treated by means of central nervous system stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate, which are controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances because they have been judged by the World Health Organisation to be liable to abuse, to constitute a substantial risk to public health, and to have little to moderate therapeutic usefulness.
3. Although their precise causes are unknown, the validity of ADHD and hyperkinetic disorders, defined in terms of persistent and severe behavioural symptoms centred on inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness and resulting in functional impairment, is widely recognised by professional medical, psychological and scientific organisations, including the World Health Organisation. However, the Assembly is concerned that two different sets of criteria are applied in diagnosing these disorders: one adopted by the American Psychiatric Association and used worldwide, the other, more stringent, by the World Health Organisation. The Assembly considers that the basis for these different standards should be examined with a view to clarifying and harmonising the criteria governing diagnosis and treatment.
I can't say for sure, but looking back I'm guessing I, too, have ADHD, although milder than my son -- I learned to cope, but it's still hard to concentrate on boring tasks (e.g., work).
Who doesn't have problems concentrating on boring tasks? It's called boredom, look it up.
Not to mention the fact that he was the first (and now only) president to violate the tradition of stepping down after two terms
There was nothing illegal about it. We were in a real war, not some fearmongering like today. He was insanely popular, and is the the greatest modern president this country has ever had.
You were right to attack him for the internment camps. That was wrong, and completly indefenseable, but to bring up >2 terms is just stupid. You don't think the republicans would have run a alzhemer's ravaged Reagan a third time if the could have? Of course the would have.
What's sad is the FTC should have stepped in here. That's what Americans are paying taxes for, and they simply don't do anything.
You're right. The FTC should have done something. This is exactly why we have a regulated capitalist markets. But the FTC has been losing funds for enforcement for years, and now since we've got a Republican adminstration you can kiss any enforcement good-bye.
This lawsuit will only benefit a few already wealthy lawyers.
I don't follow. If the FTC isn't doing their job, should no one step up and do it? You agree Bonzai is breaking the law (or at least comes close enough to warrant a court ruling), but you don't actually want them to be punished? It boggles the mind.
Sure lawyers get paid alot, but they help enforce the law. They help define the limits of the law. They help to overturn bad laws. Lawyers are an intregel part of the justice system. Lawyers stepup when the government won't, or can't.
Slashdot Mirror
and now we cut the IRS staffing to 10% and save money. Works for me
Enforcement has already been gutted. So cheat on your tax return and the odds of you getting audited is the lowest it's been in 20 years.
Cutting enforcement is just dumb. It's like not putting cops on the beat.
A flat tax will never happen. Give up that dream. The current complicated tax structure exists because it benefits the rich and the powerful.
Funny, it's been Billionare Steve "The Magazine" Forbes, Jack "4 Touchdowns in a Single Game" Kemp, Dick Armey, and the vast majority of the Republicans that support the flat tax. The reason why they support the flat tax is because it would be an insane tax break for the WEALTHIEST in the country, meanwhile the the poorest end up getting screwed.
Typically the number that's tossed around for the flat tax is 15%. Some one making $14k pays only 10%. The highest tax bracket pays somewhere around 28%. Uhh...
So how do they sell this to the poor folks. "Taxes are HARD. You have to add AND subtract. This is EASY! You like easy don't you?" Got to give it to the Republicans, they know you never go wrong by yelling "FREE MONEY!" or "YOU CAN HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WANT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!" *sigh*
When I neared the end of my high school days, and everybody and their dog was asking me what I was going to do next, if I said "engineer" I'd get something like "you mean the guys who drive trains? Don't have to go to school for that you know!" and if I said "physicist" I got "you mean like a gym teacher?" As I said, it was a pretty small town. :)
Oh my! I had almost this exact same experience. This woman, who I didn't really know calls me up out of the blue my senior year of highschool and says, "You're going to the same university with Billy (my best friend)?" "Yeah." <breathless_excitement>"Billy is going to study JOURNALISM! What are you going to major in?"</breathless_excitement> "Electical engineering." <disapointment>"Oh...Is that all?"</disapointment>.
Ahhh. Southern Illinois.
the EM spectrum is governed by federal laws. The states have no rights whatsoever over the use of the spectrum due to its inherent interstate nature.
Just think about it for a minute. Do states have big jammers along their borders that prevent you from receiving television and radio broadcasts from another state?
use "Track Changes"
Oh god no! When I had a job (Don't worry, I didn't get laid off. I quit just before the implosion to go to gradschool.) I had write a design doc in Word. Track changes absolutly sucked. It couldn't merge two documents from a common ancestor at all. It said it did, but it couldn't. The only way you could get it to was to merge them one at a time.
It was an experience I wouldn't want to repeat.
There used to be a wall between in my parents' house between the living room and the dining room. In '78 or '79 (probably during the summer) my dad removed that wall. I remember him getting ready to remove the wall, and then after it was knocked out, I drove my Big Wheel back and forth through it, in order to test the hole as it were.
This (the wall removal, not the hole testing) was part of larger project of adding an addition to the house. I remember him plastering over nails in the plaster board in the living room, and painting my parents' bedroom.
I guess I remember it because it was dramatic. The house in which I lived my entire life was changed forever.
his lack of ability to understand that he's getting SUPPORT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S FREE TIME makes him a candidate for /kb)
It's stop being "free time" when you volunteer. Let's take a meatspace example. Someone volunteers for a soup kitchen. A homeless guy shows up and wants some food, afterall he's been told that if he comes here, he'll get food. He looks around and says to the person behind the counter, "Hey. Where's the food?" The answer, "Fuck off you rude bastard. This is MY FREE TIME!" Ummm...
If you don't want to provide support (and everything that goes with that) then what are you doing in the channel?
So let me get this straight.
Are you saying that I should just grin and bear it when my computer goes BOOM! when the soundcard gets initialized? I should say "Wow! I am so lucky to have something that just barely supports my videocard!"? And when I point this out to those that "support" these features, I'm told I should drop everything I'm doing, spend several months reading up on the low level details of my card, learn the intricacies of the kernel, learn the intricacies of CVS, write a patch, kiss ass for another month or two so that my patch is actually added, so I ineffect cleanup someone else's mess and/or stroke someone else's ego, instead of doing what brings me joy (say my own project)? Now tell me, who's more arrogant?
some noobie comes in *demanding* we help him fix the production mail server he just trashed by installing RH8 or the newest kernel (dev or otherwise).
My god. Someone came to IRC for support. It's not like he's been told "Linux is perfect for buisnesses. It is The Way and The Light.". So he switches, and runs into a problem. So he turns to The Community, because afterall he's been told it's friendly, informative, and always willing to help.
And what does he find? People that say: "How dare you want help from me?" , "RTFM!" , "You shouldn't have done that you idiot."
Now tell me again why linux support is so much better than anything an unnamed megacorp gives.
Perhaps, but they sure produce a great product with these attitudes...
Imagine what quality would be improved if they did listen.
Seriously. Nothing justifies an arrogant asshole.
You seem to think having a discussion is about poking someone in the eye or being "right" or "wrong."
First off there has never been a discussion. You complelty mischaracterized the article. You have repeatedly put out falsehoods as "facts", and I've pointed them out. There is nothing to discuss, you have not been correct even once.
Excuse me for getting pissed off when someone spouts things that knowingly spouts things that are easily proven incorrect as if he is some master that has come down from off the mountain to enlighten us all. That is why you've been flamed. If you don't like it, I'd suggest you get your facts straight before spouting off half cocked.
You are bizarre.
*tear*
Goodbye.
*PLONK*
I stand corrected.
However you remain undenyably, indigently, and utterly completely wrong. And that is why it is impossible to talk to you.
You spout these things like you know what you're talking about, but each one is demonstably false. Why do you continue to do this? All it does is make you look like you at best an idiot, or at worse like you have some sort of agenda that involves spreading FUD about 'Trek.
You seem to be very angry.
And you seem to have issues.
Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.
First off, as of yet, there are no numbers since the weekend isn't over, so you where are you getting your information? Second, you destoryed your credibility when you were exposed for lying about the article you supposably read, so why should anyone believe you?
Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series.
And the article said so.
This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication.
Wow. A whole 2 million?
TNG spent $1.5 million per episode during its first season. Factoring in inflation, that's a deal.
That is all that matters to Paramount - how much they can strip the series for later.
As opposed to how they've kept TOS so virginal?
Even adjusting for inflation doesn't do it. You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices, which have accelerated well beyond inflation. Throw that in, or look at the actual number of tickets sold, and the picture gets even grimmer.
Really? And where did you get your information?
There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.
Okay Comic Book Guy , it's time for you learn how the outside world works.
First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.
So the "serious" problem is that Berman is described as "new"? Let's examine this.
Most people don't know who he is. They know that Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek". They know that Roddenberry is dead. They have no idea who took over after his death. Couple this with the fact that Berman has replaced the famous man that led Star Trek for 25 years until his death, I'd think a relative nobody that has lead for less than half that time would still be described as "new", espcially since "new" is a relative term.
Or is your real problem that Berman isn't described as "the antichrist who destoryed 'Trek"?
Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom.
At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.
Apparently you have a very different view of what the "lead" is in this story, than everyone else. Afterall, it's so easy to think that the main point of the article is "Rick Berman sucks, and so does Enterprise", given that the article has a solid gold (or at least gold-plated) 1701-D wizzing by $100 bills.
Or perhaps your main problem with the article is that it points out that Paramount doesn't really give a damn what the freakish fans think, because they make gobs and gobs of money from the the casual fan.
The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head.
Really? I'm left scratching my head on what article you read, since it the article points out that even though Nemesis "won't make as much as, say, Spider-Man. Yet Star Trek has outlasted other brands over the years. (Suck a phaser, Batman.)".
The point of the article is that Star Trek is long running, continous, steady revenue stream. Sure it might not make bursts of money like some of the more trendy movies, but it has a staying power (and therefore merchandising lifespan) many time greater.
The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.
Perhaps you'd like to reread the article, this time without your Berman Hating Goggles(tm) on, because you are completly, and demonstrably, wrong.
Allow me to quote:
So "basically less" now means that that three of the last four movies each made more than the previous one? Hmm...
Etc etc
I couldn't have said it better myself.
What makes you think I don't know what a plot device is?
You criticized it for being "a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did". That's what plot devices are; so your criticism (on this ground at least) is completly unfounded, because you can apply that criticism to all plot devices. If you want to complain about the nexus, fine. Just find some other reason to read about.
1. The "plot dev^H^H^H nexus" was the most contrived thing I have ever seen. It was a construction whose sole purpose, it seems, was to allow the plot to unfold as it did.
HERESY! A plot device used soley to advance the plot? It's almost as if this is the exact definition of a plot device! I am absolutely beside myself with selfrightous indignation.
Canada should perhaps worry about becoming the 51st state instead
:)
Do we have to take Quebec?
I don't doubt that it exists. I doubt that it's as widespread as some would have us believe. Namely because I find it very suspicious that its found significanly more often in the United States than anywhere else in the world. So much so, that the EU has written a working draft outlining their concerns. I quote:
For more information on this and other "interesting" trends in ADHD diagnosis, I'd suggest checking out PBS's Frontline's "Medicating Kids"
she recognizes the symptoms in me, and cuts me some slack.
But you haven't been properly diagnosed, and thus you commit the cardinal sin of psychology 101: Never attempt to diagnose yourself. That is why you were flamed.
When a layman reads the DSM, he start to think that he's schizophrenic ("Well I do talk to myself sometimes..."), narcoleptic ("I do get tired alot, especially at the end of the day, or after working hard..."), social anxiety disorder, ("You know I don't like getting up and talking in front of large groups..."), homosexual ("I did have that one dream..."), agoraphobic ("You know, the more I read this, the more scared I'm getting..."). Or in your case, you kid gets diagnosed with ADD and so you try to figure out how he got it. You decide it might be genetic, so you start looking at yourself, and walla! You find it. ("You know, my mind tends to wonder when I'm bored. I used to think it was just daydreaming; but now that I think about, I think I've got ADD. Yeah. My mind always wonders, except for those times I'm so caught up in something so much that I can't get distracted at all...")
You sound like my 70 year old dad. You can start talking to my dad, and he won't acknowledge you, you'll have to yell to get his attention. He's not deaf, my mom made him get his hearing check, and it's fine. As exhibited by him chiming in when food is being discussed. What's going on is, he simply tunes out the world because it's the way he decompresses after work. As he his doctor told him, "You hear what you want to hear."
If you think you've got a problem, then go to a doctor, because:
In case anyone is wondering (and I'm sure they're not), I'm INTP with INTJ tendencies (one test at keirsey.com I'm INTP all the way, the other I'm just barely INTJ.
There was the 1st grade where my teacher felt that should should send a letter home because I had problems following directions. Of course my mom was worried and went and talked with my teacher.
There she learned my problem was not stopping at 10 when asked to count to 10. Why did I do this? There was more squares that could be numbered, and anyway by counting to 20, I showed that I knew how to count to 10, and isn't that what the teacher was testing us on?
Apparently not. So my mom said I should turn the paper over and then count on the back. So I did. That wasn't good enough.
I also would draw pictures on the back of my handouts when I was done with them and was forced to wait while the rest of class struggeled with how many apples were on the tree. That was also a no-no.
The of course there was the ultimate comment:
"I'd like to talk to you about your son's language"
"Jonathan is swearing?!?!"
"Oh no! It's nothing like that. He just uses some words that the other students don't know. Could you ask him to stop?"
"What's the problem? You don't know what he's talking about? There isn't a chance in hell I'm going to tell my son not to use his vocabulary. If they don't know what he's talking about perhaps you could do your job and teach them."
Then came the third grade where I got a C in reading on my report card. This was unexpected since I was an "advanced" reader. So my mom duitfully went to the teacher and asked what was going on since this just didn't make any sense.
The teacher gave my mom a copy of some homework I turned in and said, "This."
My mom looked at it dumbfounded and then said, "What's wrong with it?"
"He circled the topic sentence."
"Isn't that what he's supposed to do?"
"He's supposed to underline it."
"Is that it? Because I don't understand how this warrants a C, afterall he's anwered all the questions correction. Maybe he should get a talking to about being more attentive to the directions, but not a C. He's always been a strong reader. He reads at 6th grade level. He's never had problems in reading or any other subject for that matter."
The response? "Oh. He's one of THOSE kids..."
My mom and I still don't know what that was supposed to mean.
Now I've had some good teachers My third grade teacher (I had two third grade teachers, a "homeroom" which taught everything but reading half a year, and then the aforementioned teacher), and my fifth grade teacher was absolutly wonderful , but I also had some real winners, and a lot of barely passable teachers. But then again what do you expect? Those entering the teaching profession generally (there are exceptions, as I noted) weren't the brightest people in school. Hell I know several teachers that laugh, "I never learned algebra, and now I'm teaching it!" "I never got better than a C in college!" "Oh I was never that good in school growing up!" I even heard one confess, "You know, I don't really like kids."
Given my experience with teachers and smart kids, and the fact that the evidence for prevalence of ADHD is highly dubious, I think you should take your kid off it, and put her in classes where she'll actually be stimulated.
For some reason ADHD is diagnosed in the United States significantly more than any other country in the world. And the increase in diagnoses track with the increased marketing of Ritalin et. al. Hmm... This is really suspcious and distrurbing. So much so, that the EU has written a working draft outlining their concerns. I quote:
For more information on this and other "interesting" trends in ADHD diagnosis, I'd suggest checking out
PBS's Frontline's "Medicating Kids"
I can't say for sure, but looking back I'm guessing I, too, have ADHD, although milder than my son -- I learned to cope, but it's still hard to concentrate on boring tasks (e.g., work).
Who doesn't have problems concentrating on boring tasks? It's called boredom, look it up.
Not to mention the fact that he was the first (and now only) president to violate the tradition of stepping down after two terms
There was nothing illegal about it. We were in a real war, not some fearmongering like today. He was insanely popular, and is the the greatest modern president this country has ever had.
You were right to attack him for the internment camps. That was wrong, and completly indefenseable, but to bring up >2 terms is just stupid. You don't think the republicans would have run a alzhemer's ravaged Reagan a third time if the could have? Of course the would have.
What's sad is the FTC should have stepped in here. That's what Americans are paying taxes for, and they simply don't do anything.
You're right. The FTC should have done something. This is exactly why we have a regulated capitalist markets. But the FTC has been losing funds for enforcement for years, and now since we've got a Republican adminstration you can kiss any enforcement good-bye.
This lawsuit will only benefit a few already wealthy lawyers.
I don't follow. If the FTC isn't doing their job, should no one step up and do it? You agree Bonzai is breaking the law (or at least comes close enough to warrant a court ruling), but you don't actually want them to be punished? It boggles the mind.
Sure lawyers get paid alot, but they help enforce the law. They help define the limits of the law. They help to overturn bad laws. Lawyers are an intregel part of the justice system. Lawyers stepup when the government won't, or can't.
Could some one please tell me why you need multiple broadband connections? Some of us would be happy with one.