An elderly man with medical devices that include metal components would make an excellent suicide bomber. The metal components of his bomb? "Oh, that's my pacemaker
Yes, all elderly men should be required to remove their pacemakers at the airport... Its a foolproof plan!
"One thing that did happen at exactly the same time was the reversing of the Earth's magnetic field." Darn so the water hasn't always drained the same direction?
Magnetism has nothing to do with the direction in which water flows in a drain. That would be the rotation of the planet.
Does the magnetic field being reversed actually affect anything important?
Yes. Things like radiation reaching the planet's surface, stuff like that.
they can find new ways to advertise (read: more intrusive)
But all those FLaShIng BanNeRS are REALLY starting to annoy the hell out of me, and I think I'll start blocking soon.
You're *forced* to view the ad, because you're viewing their site. If you like the site, click the ad.
I won't do it to be a moocher, I'll do it because the ads get in the way of the content.
Its damn hard to read something when its surrounded by banners that flash in very bright and contrasted colours.
Its bad enough I've had to abandon a few sites that had become 99% annoying ads, and I send a nasty email to the webmaster of every site that BLASTS SOME NOISE AT ME THROUGH AN AD explaining to them that this is why I will never come to their site again.
If advertisers were playing fair and respecting people, there would not be any ad blocking software, there wouldn't be a need for it. But they are jamming their advertisement down our throats, and its only fair that we fight back.
Apple is in fact a monopoly when it comes to online music.
Damn, you been hit HARD with the stupid stick boy!
Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -lies Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control
Is the iTunes music store the only online music store? No? Then its not a monopoly. This whole discussion is based on the fact that it is NOT a monopoly! Real wants the music sold from its store to play on iPods. The music from THEIR store! Get it? The store that ISN'T iTunes.
Everyone likes iPods including myself. I want one. If I get one I have to buy music from Apple.
I have one, and I have never bought music from the iTMS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY FROM THE DAMN APPLE STORE! I have CDs, they go in the computer, the computer transfers it to the iPod.
I am in fact starting to dislike Apple. They are monopolizing the online music sales industry. I have been buying music online for sometime and have stayed clear from iTunes
Wow! What a monopoly they have where you can buy similar products from other vendors to your heart's content!
sort of looking directly at it but maybe looking over it, Jar Jar Binks style in Star Wars I...
In ep1, they are looking directly at the FREAKING ACTOR IN FRONT OF THEM over which the CGI was superimposed afterwards.
There's an actual guy there. If they're looking at him funny, its probably because they were aware of how stupid it all was, not because there was nothing there.
Alex Jones. He's a bitter pill at first, but once you realize he backs up 100% of what he says with public, mainstream news sources, you can't help but know he's right.
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)
This is why I've always scratched my head about people that scream so loudly about privacy issues as they relate to advertising. I'm sure advertisers honestly don't want to waste their time (or money) trying to sell you a product that you have no use in (except spammers, who cost-per-view is negligible so they don't care).
Oh, but they do. Many are rational and want to advertise to those who are interrested, but there others, others whose wares no one really wants or needs, and these are the ones fueling most of the advertising revenue.
These are the ones that are going to use this information not to target interrested people, but to specifically target uninterested consumers. They will look at their sales statistics, see which segments of the population are not giving them enough money, and agressively attempt to artificially create a need or desire for their product within that demographic.
I know this from listening to my former pointy-haired employer, from whom I learned many depressing things about the world of business and advertising. His goal was to reach those whom aren't interrested, since those that are don't need further coaxing.
I'm a guy, yet every time I see an ad for a feminine hygene product on TV, its a wasted space as far as I and the advertiser are concerned (although I do like looking at the girls).
Amen, the day they garantee that targeted advertising will mean that I shall never ever again see an ad for feminine hygiene products (unless watching a chick show with my girlfriend), then I will jump in the bandwagon. But until such assurances can be granted with promises of harsh retributions should they fail on their word, I'm not giving them my precious personnal info so they can better attempt to remove my money from my wallet.
Oh come on! Look at the Zardoz-vomits-riffles scene with a critical eye. You can obsiously see that guns are simply thrown out by the handfull by someone off camera, its laughable! They could have had a few people throwing them constantly to mask the very noticable pause when the person was picking up another handfull of guns, that would have been competant. Having just one guy throw a handfull, pause to pick up more, throw another handfull, repeat, was not a moment of competant film making. Of course, this is 1970's sci-fi, of which only Star Wars was good, so its is almost forgivable...its at least understandable.
I think you can watch the movie and get something out of it.
I love Zardoz, I love it for its all-out, honest, face value cheezy badness. And the boobies;-)
It shares a similar feel to another great late 60's/early 70's weirdfest, The Prisoner (the tv show).
If by that you mean that its creators were OBVIOUSLY really, really high when they concieved it, then yes : ) But at least they waited until they sobered up before making the Prisoner, Zardoz looks like it was written, shot and edited while under the influence of various and diverse psychotropic substances : )
Well there is just no accounting for taste. Zardoz has always been one of my favorite movies.
Don't get me wrong, I love it and I try to get as many people to watch as possible, but it is BAD, bad bad bad, in a good way : )
See, it is honestly bad, they were trying to make something good, and failed miserably. So I applaud the effort, I enjoy the vision, I laugh at the result.
Christian conservatives use their faith to guide their entire life.
So do muslim extremists.
So you call them fanatics.
Yes you do.
Christian conservatives are the main political force behind both the anti-slavery movement and the pro-women voting movement.
Nope. By definition, liberals are for changes like that.
Main Entry: conservatism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m Function: noun 1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
Of course, a few generations after liberals have enacted a dramatic change such as emancipation or woman's lib, then the conservatives want things to be the way they are, but the change is not a conservative move, my delusional friend.
Al-Queda argues for violent forced conversions
So do republicans
pet-like treatment of women
So do republicans (not ALL republicans, of course)
and terrorism against civilians.
So do republicans, though they call it "liberating" and "regime change", but getting your country blown up by foreigners is as terrifying no matter who does the bombing. Of course, republicans think that blowing up Americans is wrong, and blowing up foreigners is ok...
Sounds like you are the bigot with the discrimination problem. But prove me wrong. Explain why Republicans (which I assume you mean Christian conservatives) are racist religious fanatics.
Wow! You put words in my mouth, then say that these imaginary things you make believe I said mean that I am something bad, then demand I prove you wrong! I am SURE that you won't keep trolling me post after post after post, so I will gladly bite and reply to those things you prented I said as if they were my words! Really!
But do you really need someone to tell you why christian *somethings* are religious *somethings*?
P.S. Jesus is against the death penalty, and against war. If you want to throw the first sone, you are NOT following the word of Christ. Simple as that. Terrorist fly planes in your buildings? Turn the other cheek. If you want revenge, stop pretending to be Jesus' buddy.
[war] generally tries to limit killing to military participants and the fewest number of noncombatants necessary to get them to fall into line
No.
War generally does not go out of its way to kill non-combattant (that would be a waste of ammo). But will gladly kill as many non combattants as is necessary (or easiest) to achieve its goal.
They only try to limit civilian killings when they plan to take over the land and expect to controll these people later on. That is a subclassification of war. War in general kills whomever is in the way. There is war with genocide, where you plan to replace the population with your own, and there is war to controll another population. one will kill as many civilians as possible, the other will kill as few as possible. And there is war where you don't care either way, in which will you kill more than if you were being carefull but much less than if you were exterminating them.
You could call him a Documentarist or Propagandist if you want, but the AC who called him a Terrorist has been at the bad crack again.
I think he meant that he has caused terror to spawn in the hearts of republicans, not that he has used violence to achieve his goal. An unusual use of the word "terrorist"...
Yeah, the movie was quite bad, but the book is a bit better
That can be said of all book-to-movie adaptation. : )
That is why when one of these is coming up and you have not yet read the book, it is better to wait until you have seen the movie before you read the book, that way to see the movie, you (hopefully) enjoy it, and then you read the book and its better.
If you do it the other way around, you read the book, you (again, hopefully) enjoy it, and then you see the movie and you are disapointed (or outraged, reactions vary) because it is inevitably less enjoyable than the book.
Heed my words fellow slashdotters: See the movie first, take a chance for double enjoyment. Else you only set yourself up for inevitable disapointement.
What the fuck does lines of coke snorted or bottles of hard liquor drunk have to do with your ability to govern a nation? I hate dubya's cluelessness as much as the next guy but supporting war-on-drugs propaganda puts you solidly in the same asinine class.
He did the crime, he didn't do the time, he wants others to do the time for the same "crime" he commited.
Willingness to commit crimes, getting away with them, and prosecuting others harshly for something you did yourself is relevant to your ability to be a good leader.
This is not even close to being the worst movie of all time, this is a movie you didn't like and you feel the need to troll on the many people who did like it. I was one of them, it was a haunted house...in space. It was something to do for 2 hours.
Now, if you want bad, go rent Zardoz. THAT, my friend, is a bad movie. THOSE are bad special effects. THAT is a cheesy, incosistent plot. Its redeeming qualities (to be fair): Boobies, and Sean Connery in full shaggy chest glory. + its hilariously bad.
Mild spoiler: It features a giant flying rock head that vomits guns on barbarians. I am not making this up. Giant flying head made of stone, guns are projected from its mouth...
Al Qaeda are basically a load of racist religous fanatics.
So is the republican party...
Sorry, I see no common ground there
Maybe not, but there sure is a common mindset.
no reason to compromise and no particular reason to take their views into account.
So, what you propose then? Death to the indfidels? If you do not take their views into account, what other course of action do you have besides total anihilation?
In the US, poeple believe that SUVs are the safest
If two small cars hit each other, nobody dies. If a small car and a SUV hit each other, the person in the small car dies.
Clearly, the SUV is safer, since the person in the small car dies and the person in the SUV survives. Surviving is better if others did not, apparently...
Slashdot Mirror
Define the "test of time" and demonstrate how the movie "Star Wars" has failed to pass it.
So far, we've got three movies which don't stand the test of time (the orignal three)
That would be why we're still talking about them 27 years later?
An elderly man with medical devices that include metal components would make an excellent suicide bomber. The metal components of his bomb? "Oh, that's my pacemaker
Yes, all elderly men should be required to remove their pacemakers at the airport...
Its a foolproof plan!
The notion that the Coriolis force causes water to drain in opposite directions, in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, is a fallacy.
Dear god, if something is repeated enough...
Well, I'm off to filling my tub and experimenting for myself, thanks.
"One thing that did happen at exactly the same time was the reversing of the Earth's magnetic field." Darn so the water hasn't always drained the same direction?
Magnetism has nothing to do with the direction in which water flows in a drain. That would be the rotation of the planet.
Does the magnetic field being reversed actually affect anything important?
Yes.
Things like radiation reaching the planet's surface, stuff like that.
I don't block ads (well, no pop ups)...
they can find new ways to advertise (read: more intrusive)
But all those FLaShIng BanNeRS are REALLY starting to annoy the hell out of me, and I think I'll start blocking soon.
You're *forced* to view the ad, because you're viewing their site. If you like the site, click the ad.
I won't do it to be a moocher, I'll do it because the ads get in the way of the content.
Its damn hard to read something when its surrounded by banners that flash in very bright and contrasted colours.
Its bad enough I've had to abandon a few sites that had become 99% annoying ads, and I send a nasty email to the webmaster of every site that BLASTS SOME NOISE AT ME THROUGH AN AD explaining to them that this is why I will never come to their site again.
If advertisers were playing fair and respecting people, there would not be any ad blocking software, there wouldn't be a need for it. But they are jamming their advertisement down our throats, and its only fair that we fight back.
look at the bottom of the ocean where there is no sun
I tried. I can't see anything.
Its dark in here...I'm scared.
unless you WANT a subscription based Internet
And here I was paying my internet bill every month like a sucker!
Damn, you been hit HARD with the stupid stick boy!
Is the iTunes music store the only online music store? No? Then its not a monopoly.
This whole discussion is based on the fact that it is NOT a monopoly! Real wants the music sold from its store to play on iPods. The music from THEIR store! Get it? The store that ISN'T iTunes.
Everyone likes iPods including myself. I want one. If I get one I have to buy music from Apple.
I have one, and I have never bought music from the iTMS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY FROM THE DAMN APPLE STORE!
I have CDs, they go in the computer, the computer transfers it to the iPod.
I am in fact starting to dislike Apple. They are monopolizing the online music sales industry. I have been buying music online for sometime and have stayed clear from iTunes
Wow! What a monopoly they have where you can buy similar products from other vendors to your heart's content!
sort of looking directly at it but maybe looking over it, Jar Jar Binks style in Star Wars I ...
In ep1, they are looking directly at the FREAKING ACTOR IN FRONT OF THEM over which the CGI was superimposed afterwards.
There's an actual guy there. If they're looking at him funny, its probably because they were aware of how stupid it all was, not because there was nothing there.
Alex Jones. He's a bitter pill at first, but once you realize he backs up 100% of what he says with public, mainstream news sources, you can't help but know he's right.
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)
This is why I've always scratched my head about people that scream so loudly about privacy issues as they relate to advertising.
I'm sure advertisers honestly don't want to waste their time (or money) trying to sell you a product that you have no use in (except spammers, who cost-per-view is negligible so they don't care).
Oh, but they do. Many are rational and want to advertise to those who are interrested, but there others, others whose wares no one really wants or needs, and these are the ones fueling most of the advertising revenue.
These are the ones that are going to use this information not to target interrested people, but to specifically target uninterested consumers.
They will look at their sales statistics, see which segments of the population are not giving them enough money, and agressively attempt to artificially create a need or desire for their product within that demographic.
I know this from listening to my former pointy-haired employer, from whom I learned many depressing things about the world of business and advertising. His goal was to reach those whom aren't interrested, since those that are don't need further coaxing.
I'm a guy, yet every time I see an ad for a feminine hygene product on TV, its a wasted space as far as I and the advertiser are concerned (although I do like looking at the girls).
Amen, the day they garantee that targeted advertising will mean that I shall never ever again see an ad for feminine hygiene products (unless watching a chick show with my girlfriend), then I will jump in the bandwagon.
But until such assurances can be granted with promises of harsh retributions should they fail on their word, I'm not giving them my precious personnal info so they can better attempt to remove my money from my wallet.
It's weird, but not bad. It was competently made
;-)
Oh come on! Look at the Zardoz-vomits-riffles scene with a critical eye. You can obsiously see that guns are simply thrown out by the handfull by someone off camera, its laughable!
They could have had a few people throwing them constantly to mask the very noticable pause when the person was picking up another handfull of guns, that would have been competant. Having just one guy throw a handfull, pause to pick up more, throw another handfull, repeat, was not a moment of competant film making.
Of course, this is 1970's sci-fi, of which only Star Wars was good, so its is almost forgivable...its at least understandable.
I think you can watch the movie and get something out of it.
I love Zardoz, I love it for its all-out, honest, face value cheezy badness. And the boobies
It shares a similar feel to another great late 60's/early 70's weirdfest, The Prisoner (the tv show).
If by that you mean that its creators were OBVIOUSLY really, really high when they concieved it, then yes : )
But at least they waited until they sobered up before making the Prisoner, Zardoz looks like it was written, shot and edited while under the influence of various and diverse psychotropic substances : )
Well there is just no accounting for taste. Zardoz has always been one of my favorite movies.
Don't get me wrong, I love it and I try to get as many people to watch as possible, but it is BAD, bad bad bad, in a good way : )
See, it is honestly bad, they were trying to make something good, and failed miserably. So I applaud the effort, I enjoy the vision, I laugh at the result.
I bet you do...
Christian conservatives use their faith to guide their entire life.
So do muslim extremists.
So you call them fanatics.
Yes you do.
Christian conservatives are the main political force behind both the anti-slavery movement and the pro-women voting movement.
Nope. By definition, liberals are for changes like that.
Of course, a few generations after liberals have enacted a dramatic change such as emancipation or woman's lib, then the conservatives want things to be the way they are, but the change is not a conservative move, my delusional friend.
Al-Queda argues for violent forced conversions
So do republicans
pet-like treatment of women
So do republicans (not ALL republicans, of course)
and terrorism against civilians.
So do republicans, though they call it "liberating" and "regime change", but getting your country blown up by foreigners is as terrifying no matter who does the bombing.
Of course, republicans think that blowing up Americans is wrong, and blowing up foreigners is ok...
Sounds like you are the bigot with the discrimination problem. But prove me wrong. Explain why Republicans (which I assume you mean Christian conservatives) are racist religious fanatics.
Wow! You put words in my mouth, then say that these imaginary things you make believe I said mean that I am something bad, then demand I prove you wrong! I am SURE that you won't keep trolling me post after post after post, so I will gladly bite and reply to those things you prented I said as if they were my words! Really!
But do you really need someone to tell you why christian *somethings* are religious *somethings*?
P.S. Jesus is against the death penalty, and against war. If you want to throw the first sone, you are NOT following the word of Christ. Simple as that.
Terrorist fly planes in your buildings? Turn the other cheek. If you want revenge, stop pretending to be Jesus' buddy.
[war] generally tries to limit killing to military participants and the fewest number of noncombatants necessary to get them to fall into line
No.
War generally does not go out of its way to kill non-combattant (that would be a waste of ammo). But will gladly kill as many non combattants as is necessary (or easiest) to achieve its goal.
They only try to limit civilian killings when they plan to take over the land and expect to controll these people later on. That is a subclassification of war. War in general kills whomever is in the way. There is war with genocide, where you plan to replace the population with your own, and there is war to controll another population. one will kill as many civilians as possible, the other will kill as few as possible. And there is war where you don't care either way, in which will you kill more than if you were being carefull but much less than if you were exterminating them.
You could call him a Documentarist or Propagandist if you want, but the AC who called him a Terrorist has been at the bad crack again.
I think he meant that he has caused terror to spawn in the hearts of republicans, not that he has used violence to achieve his goal.
An unusual use of the word "terrorist"...
Yeah, the movie was quite bad, but the book is a bit better
That can be said of all book-to-movie adaptation. : )
That is why when one of these is coming up and you have not yet read the book, it is better to wait until you have seen the movie before you read the book, that way to see the movie, you (hopefully) enjoy it, and then you read the book and its better.
If you do it the other way around, you read the book, you (again, hopefully) enjoy it, and then you see the movie and you are disapointed (or outraged, reactions vary) because it is inevitably less enjoyable than the book.
Heed my words fellow slashdotters: See the movie first, take a chance for double enjoyment.
Else you only set yourself up for inevitable disapointement.
terrorism against civilians. So you equate them with Christian conservatives.
Shock and Awe.
I had forgotten about that piece of shit...damn that was bad.
Oh god, flashbacks of its badness...
NO! Mod parent down! We must not be reminded of the horrorible movie! Its unclean!
What the fuck does lines of coke snorted or bottles of hard liquor drunk have to do with your ability to govern a nation? I hate dubya's cluelessness as much as the next guy but supporting war-on-drugs propaganda puts you solidly in the same asinine class.
He did the crime, he didn't do the time, he wants others to do the time for the same "crime" he commited.
Willingness to commit crimes, getting away with them, and prosecuting others harshly for something you did yourself is relevant to your ability to be a good leader.
Just saying : )
Ok, no.
This is not even close to being the worst movie of all time, this is a movie you didn't like and you feel the need to troll on the many people who did like it.
I was one of them, it was a haunted house...in space. It was something to do for 2 hours.
Now, if you want bad, go rent Zardoz.
THAT, my friend, is a bad movie. THOSE are bad special effects. THAT is a cheesy, incosistent plot.
Its redeeming qualities (to be fair): Boobies, and Sean Connery in full shaggy chest glory. + its hilariously bad.
Mild spoiler: It features a giant flying rock head that vomits guns on barbarians. I am not making this up. Giant flying head made of stone, guns are projected from its mouth...
Al Qaeda are basically a load of racist religous fanatics.
So is the republican party...
Sorry, I see no common ground there
Maybe not, but there sure is a common mindset.
no reason to compromise and no particular reason to take their views into account.
So, what you propose then? Death to the indfidels?
If you do not take their views into account, what other course of action do you have besides total anihilation?
In the US, poeple believe that SUVs are the safest
If two small cars hit each other, nobody dies.
If a small car and a SUV hit each other, the person in the small car dies.
Clearly, the SUV is safer, since the person in the small car dies and the person in the SUV survives. Surviving is better if others did not, apparently...