From what I know about sci-fi, if you are going to be shot with a laser that gives you super powers, it's likely to be from a scientist named something like Director Persis Drell.
I don't want to be that old guy who bitches about how easy kids have it these days, but when I was a college freshman, we didn't have anything like this. If I wanted to distract the class with an absurdly large cock, I had to whip out my own.
Just a point on the Amazon service. I've used it with my Tivo, and the prices are really good. Actually, I just opened another tab to check the current prices, and ended up renting Transformers for $0.99 and Waitress for $1.99. Most of the rental* prices are around that. The really nice thing about Amazon's downloads is that it's just the movie. While this means no special features, it means no previews and no annoying menus getting between you and the movie.
*And yes, I said rental. Semantic arguments are teh lame.
The idea of being embarrassed to tell a computer you're cheap is so, well, Radiohead.
I know this is Slashdot, but I'm surprised how much of the chatter regarding this release has been about nerd issues, such as the bitrate or "pirated" downloads, and so little about what a good album it is.
Don't give up on the "Getting Cougars by Geeks" idea though. You could pitch a T.V. show where nerds try to fuck horny forty year olds. I smell an Emmy!
First, let me thank you for posing a good question in an intelligent way. It's why I posed this question to/. instead of someplace else.
Honestly, it's mostly the latter, but not because they're GOP candidates. Rather I feel the overwhelming problem in politics on both sides is a refusal to look at facts. After 6+ years of the Bush administration, there has been almost constant controversy regarding the administration's refusal to admit things that are painfully obvious to a critical observer. (e.g., Saddam's involvement in 9/11, the WMD justification, etc.) We would not tolerate this of judges or police, but politicians are given a pass. If this is a chance to make someone defend what I feel is an indefensible position, I feel it is important to take it.
As another poster already said, it's a question of character. When a candidate goes on record saying something like this, it's because they are either pandering for votes, or because they truly deny the mountain of physical evidence that shows how evolution works. I feel that in either case, it shows someone who is unfit to lead this nation.
As an aside, my personal favorite example of someone who dealt with science in politics correctly was a Republican: Eisenhower. He responded to the Soviets in the space race by increasing the funding for science education, showing the USSR that we were up to the challenge to being more brilliant than them. I would modern presidential hopefuls would demonstrate the same kind of character.
I believe that this issue is quite related to the global warming issue, in that it is an example of a politician claiming their uninformed opinion is of equal or greater value than the informed opinion. I think it is no coincidence that many of the evolution deniers are also global warming deniers. To a certain extent, this kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism is why we're in Iraq today, burning through that Social Security money.
The more biting version of my viewpoint would be: "If our government leaders are not moved by hard evidence, but rather the superstitions of religious extremists, what makes us any better than Iran?"
Slashdot Mirror
From what I know about sci-fi, if you are going to be shot with a laser that gives you super powers, it's likely to be from a scientist named something like Director Persis Drell.
Karl Rove, is that you?
Hey, that's why I like this site. It makes me feel like I get laid all the time. H.
So, how many pages for the biggest murder case in Sweden?
This only raises the question, who the fuck is karma whoring on AC posts? I bet it's like, a Zen master or something.
I don't want to be that old guy who bitches about how easy kids have it these days, but when I was a college freshman, we didn't have anything like this. If I wanted to distract the class with an absurdly large cock, I had to whip out my own.
Just a point on the Amazon service. I've used it with my Tivo, and the prices are really good. Actually, I just opened another tab to check the current prices, and ended up renting Transformers for $0.99 and Waitress for $1.99. Most of the rental* prices are around that. The really nice thing about Amazon's downloads is that it's just the movie. While this means no special features, it means no previews and no annoying menus getting between you and the movie.
*And yes, I said rental. Semantic arguments are teh lame.
However, Texas did give us the Dairy Queen with a quarter acre of floorspace. That's got to count for something.
Maybe they'll just start somestonersblog.slashdot.org and we can opt out of those stories.
Do you mind if I use that line next time I'm at a bar?
I used to work with a guy who was fooled by those. He would brag about how they were so much hotter than the chicks I knew.
The MLB could never get the trains to run on time.
I want a google maps mashup that tells me who in my neighborhood has herpes.
In the meantime, you might like to consider learning how to spell.
Nevur!
It's not the number that's important, it's what the number represents. Measuring your cock in cm instead of inches doesn't mean it's any bigger.
Imagine the Slashdot posts on the "Man invents fire" story.
Requires fuel. Less light than the daytime. Lame.
Wait, gamers aren't geeks?
The idea of being embarrassed to tell a computer you're cheap is so, well, Radiohead. I know this is Slashdot, but I'm surprised how much of the chatter regarding this release has been about nerd issues, such as the bitrate or "pirated" downloads, and so little about what a good album it is.
Dear eTrade.
Can I invest in call-girl futures? I have a good feeling about this one...
H.
Don't give up on the "Getting Cougars by Geeks" idea though. You could pitch a T.V. show where nerds try to fuck horny forty year olds. I smell an Emmy!
I've been sitting on this link for years waiting for the subject of Ayn Rand parodies to come up. It's about time.
The Fountainhead - starring Skull Force
I'd hoped Spanish Slashdot was 4 hours long, and intercut with dance numbers, singing and astonishingly hot models.
First, let me thank you for posing a good question in an intelligent way. It's why I posed this question to /. instead of someplace else.
Honestly, it's mostly the latter, but not because they're GOP candidates. Rather I feel the overwhelming problem in politics on both sides is a refusal to look at facts. After 6+ years of the Bush administration, there has been almost constant controversy regarding the administration's refusal to admit things that are painfully obvious to a critical observer. (e.g., Saddam's involvement in 9/11, the WMD justification, etc.) We would not tolerate this of judges or police, but politicians are given a pass. If this is a chance to make someone defend what I feel is an indefensible position, I feel it is important to take it.
As another poster already said, it's a question of character. When a candidate goes on record saying something like this, it's because they are either pandering for votes, or because they truly deny the mountain of physical evidence that shows how evolution works. I feel that in either case, it shows someone who is unfit to lead this nation.
As an aside, my personal favorite example of someone who dealt with science in politics correctly was a Republican: Eisenhower. He responded to the Soviets in the space race by increasing the funding for science education, showing the USSR that we were up to the challenge to being more brilliant than them. I would modern presidential hopefuls would demonstrate the same kind of character.
I believe that this issue is quite related to the global warming issue, in that it is an example of a politician claiming their uninformed opinion is of equal or greater value than the informed opinion. I think it is no coincidence that many of the evolution deniers are also global warming deniers. To a certain extent, this kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism is why we're in Iraq today, burning through that Social Security money.
The more biting version of my viewpoint would be: "If our government leaders are not moved by hard evidence, but rather the superstitions of religious extremists, what makes us any better than Iran?"
"Right because as we all know, that a man will only have one female sexual partner in his whole life..."
This is Slashdot. Some guys should be so lucky.