Even if we terraform Mars, where's the water that we will need for everything (water is essential for much more than drinking, of course)? I know the Polar Caps have a nice chunk, but it's still only a tiny part of the planet. But compare it to Earth: Our planet is almost entirely covered in water, and we have a thick atmosphere with a relatively large moisture (water) content. Imagine Mars with melted ice caps. Relative to Earth, it would be like the entire planet was barren desert and had 2 lakes the size of antarctica and the artic ocean. Is that enough water for every human there, plus being the source of the water needed to vaporize and form a moist atmosphere as well?
Still, it's nice to see this. I love far-thinking goals - I think JFK's moon speech was the greatest speech in American History, or at least top 3. I really feel like it is the embodiment of the American Potential and what America is (not always with 100% success, I admit). That and the Gettys' Address.
I'm really looking forward to this. I loved the original Clone Wars and I'm looking forward to this release as well. At least it's a significant change, as opposed to those re-releases in the 1990s of the original trilogy (original, thx, ones with previews of episode 1, etc). You know, you can love something AND like it's remake as well. Remakes can be awesome too (sometimes even superior). Some examples of great remakes:
Music: Hard to Handle (Otis Redding/Black Crowes) Come Together (Beatles/Aerosmith) Hurt (Nine Inch Nails/Johnny Cash) Twist And Shout (Top Notes/Beatles) Time is on my Side (Irma Thomas/Rolling Stones) The Man Who Sold the World (David Bowie/Nirvana) Mr. Tambourine Man (Bob Dylan/William Shatner) - just kidding:)
Movies: Cape Fear Dawn of the Dead
Oceans 11 The Thing (I'll argue it is a remake) Scarface
So everyone just relax and reserve judgment until you actually see it. I know how hard that is, especially on the Internets, to not review a movie 8 months before it comes out based on 5 screenshots or something, but let's at least, um... try? If you didn't like the original, then you probably won't like this one. But if you did like Genndy's version and you're already reserving judgment, then right now you're just being close-minded (even if you do wind up disliking it later). Liking both isn't a mortal sin.
(you *DO* know that eBay owns a big chunk of craigslist... right?)
Yeah, that was unfortunate. Turns out Craig had given 20% of the site to some guy who helped him in the beginning. Unlike Craig, this guy did sell out, and eBay bought it from him in a split second.
Dude, when was the last time a *business* decided not do go with pulic opinion because it felt that the *moral* way was right? You must be new. On this planet.
Craigslist.
They have repeatedly turned down buyouts (for craploads of money) because Craig himself says he "has enough money" and wants to keep his site as a community forum.
Simpsons is like a fine wine. A little off when it's brand-new, but great as a re-run.
You nailed it. We've been hearing these "Simpsons sucks now" for about 350 of the past 400 episodes. They all suck until we've memorized the lines in re-runs, and then they rule once more (but... the new ones still "suck.")
Oh, and most of the teenagers I know (who were seven or eight when "Phantom Menace" came out) happen to think Jar-Jar rules.
You are exactly correct on this one. My cousins, who are between ages 6 and 13, LOVE the new trilogy. My uncle (their father) got them all 6 movies, and I asked them which is their favorite, since I was curious what someone would say, unexposed to fanboyism on the net and 30 years of folklore on the subject. They ALL said Episode 1. I like the new trilogy, but I was shocked at that answer. They said how they loved Jar Jar, and how the Darth Maul light saber duel was the most exciting of the entire series. The way they described being *terrified* of Darth Maul reminded me of how terrifying Darth Vader was in the 80s for me. I'd completely forgotten that. Nowadays, he's the ultimate cool/badass bad guy. But in my childhood, he was terrifying (especially before we knew there was any good in him).
I think people forget that we were young when the original trilogy came out (I wasn't born when EpIV came out), and I still love the Ewoks. And yes, I thought they were the CUTEST things ever. Lucas didn't then, and didn't now make the movies for 25 year-olds. He made them for KIDS (adult enjoyment is a bonus). That's why the first 5 movies are rated PG - Ep III is PG-13 only for the genocidal/children-killing ("juvecile?") subject matter, not actual content or blood or anything).
The crescent-like "shadow" on the surface of Saturn itself is the area where the rings block the sunlight. The reason you don't see the rear part of the rings is because Saturn itself is blocking them from the Sun's light.
It's "shocking" that game hardware sales are up since last year. New systems = new sales.
Just don't be shocked when the major motion picture released on July 4th makes more than the movie released on your college campus and 3 screens in Albuquerque.
"He claims that while he is addicted to sex and the internet, he never visited adult sites at work."
The CNN article states that this wasn't his first warning: ""Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said."
I have no idea why you were modded flamebait (well, we both do actually), but you're absolutely correct. Science != Consensus. Plain and simple.
Crichton may very-well be 100% wrong on his theories. But if so, that will be because his research was poor, not because "a lot of people with degrees disagree."
How is it biased? It seemed to me to be very balanced. They had quotes from his supporters, followed by his detractors, followed by Dr. Jahn's take. The author did this about 3 times.
This is perfectly legal and IMO even ethical behavior on both sides. Exxon can't be expected to advertise next to editorials that trash them, although they may choose to do so anyways. As always, you'll just have to trust the source when reading editorials or draw your own conclusions.
Good point, and I agree. But actually, ExxonMobil very often has ads in the NYTimes, actually on the Op-Ed page (clearly marked "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," so everyone understands its in ExxonMobil's words).
And the NYTimes is far from pro-Exxon or Big Oil in general...
First off, I think the guy is a raving jackass nutcase (this is NOT bias - see the Youtube video of him being yelled at by a judge for acting like a 5 year-old if you don't believe me), but he may actually be doing something that ONE THE SURFACE, I have no problem with.
This is the thing: I have *no problem* with denying elementary school kids the ability to buy GTA4. I don't think it should be censored at ALL, but I don't think that adults (and even teenagers, maybe 15+?) should have ANY HASSLES if they want it and can see some kind of rating on the box (M for Mature, etc).
It's like movies. I don't think it's a bad thing that any 6 year-old can't walk into a theatre and see Pulp Fiction, Saw or Hostel. But, if a parent is with their 12 year-old, or buys them the video, then I say that's fine (hell, even their 6 year-old - it should be legal, but they should be watching Bambi, not Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but that's just me). No, of course I don't buy any of the "it makes you kill people" crap, and I was allowed to watch rated-R movies that my parents approved when I was a kid (they stopped regulating that stuff when I was like in middle school or something).
We all know he won't, but if Jack was just going to launch a calm, repectful "please enforce the ESRB ratings for PURCHASE" campaign, then I seriously would have no objection. Of course, he'll rant on every TV show and newspaper he can get his claws into on how video games are responsible for all murders, rapes and even the Iraq War, 9/11 and Katrina. But in "theory," preventing "minors" (elementary school-ish age) from purchasing this (w/o an adult) isn't so bad.
What are "reasonable rights" in holding a domain name? I fully support any company, big-or-small, in suing some squatter who buys up every domain name like "Spiderman-3.com" "Spiderman3.com" and "Spidey3.com," and simply puts up a ransom-note-like "this domain name for sale - $500,000!" index.html on it.
I also see the idea of not allowing people to put up blatantly copyrighted domain names, and then holding them from the copyright owner (i.e. "cocacola.com" or buying "amazon.biz" and holding it from Amazon.com purely for profit), but something like "apple.com," while a name of a major computer manufacturer, would be perfectly valid had it been bought by a person who used it to sell bushels of apples online, or had apple-picking vacations for sale, etc. Similar to "War Games" - it is a common term. Of course, had wargames.com been squatting the site, that'd be another story.
When the U.N. decided that famous people can sue for their domain name (juliaroberts.com was the case I remember), I assume this does not apply to some 24 year-old girl whose name is Julia Roberts from Ithaca, NY - right? Surely Erin Brockovitch has no-more right to the domain name than the nobody from upstate NY. But they both have a right to it over some squatter of course. But then again, what if someone bought that site and made a legitimate Julia Roberts fan page? Would that be valid?
Yes but it's essentially 2-D. If someone were to gripe "All animation is CGI these days!" and you pointed to quality like The Simpsons, South Park and Futurama, they may counter with "Yeah, well Futurama used computer-generated shots in nearly every episode." While true, Futurama still is essentially a "traditional" animation style, even if it does use computer technology.
Same with Viewtiful Joe. It's mostly a 2-D (or... "2.5-D") but it's definitely not 3-D.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we terraform Mars, where's the water that we will need for everything (water is essential for much more than drinking, of course)? I know the Polar Caps have a nice chunk, but it's still only a tiny part of the planet. But compare it to Earth: Our planet is almost entirely covered in water, and we have a thick atmosphere with a relatively large moisture (water) content. Imagine Mars with melted ice caps. Relative to Earth, it would be like the entire planet was barren desert and had 2 lakes the size of antarctica and the artic ocean. Is that enough water for every human there, plus being the source of the water needed to vaporize and form a moist atmosphere as well?
Still, it's nice to see this. I love far-thinking goals - I think JFK's moon speech was the greatest speech in American History, or at least top 3. I really feel like it is the embodiment of the American Potential and what America is (not always with 100% success, I admit). That and the Gettys' Address.
Music:
Hard to Handle (Otis Redding/Black Crowes)
Come Together (Beatles/Aerosmith)
Hurt (Nine Inch Nails/Johnny Cash)
Twist And Shout (Top Notes/Beatles)
Time is on my Side (Irma Thomas/Rolling Stones)
The Man Who Sold the World (David Bowie/Nirvana)
Mr. Tambourine Man (Bob Dylan/William Shatner) - just kidding
Movies:
Cape Fear
Dawn of the Dead
Oceans 11
The Thing (I'll argue it is a remake)
Scarface
So everyone just relax and reserve judgment until you actually see it. I know how hard that is, especially on the Internets, to not review a movie 8 months before it comes out based on 5 screenshots or something, but let's at least, um... try? If you didn't like the original, then you probably won't like this one. But if you did like Genndy's version and you're already reserving judgment, then right now you're just being close-minded (even if you do wind up disliking it later). Liking both isn't a mortal sin.
you probably mean Padme.
Can I talk on it while holding the PSP sideways?
(you *DO* know that eBay owns a big chunk of craigslist... right?)
Yeah, that was unfortunate. Turns out Craig had given 20% of the site to some guy who helped him in the beginning. Unlike Craig, this guy did sell out, and eBay bought it from him in a split second.
Best professor and best class I took while at Cornell. Hands down.
Craigslist.
They have repeatedly turned down buyouts (for craploads of money) because Craig himself says he "has enough money" and wants to keep his site as a community forum.
Simpsons is like a fine wine. A little off when it's brand-new, but great as a re-run. You nailed it. We've been hearing these "Simpsons sucks now" for about 350 of the past 400 episodes. They all suck until we've memorized the lines in re-runs, and then they rule once more (but... the new ones still "suck.")
You are exactly correct on this one. My cousins, who are between ages 6 and 13, LOVE the new trilogy. My uncle (their father) got them all 6 movies, and I asked them which is their favorite, since I was curious what someone would say, unexposed to fanboyism on the net and 30 years of folklore on the subject. They ALL said Episode 1. I like the new trilogy, but I was shocked at that answer. They said how they loved Jar Jar, and how the Darth Maul light saber duel was the most exciting of the entire series. The way they described being *terrified* of Darth Maul reminded me of how terrifying Darth Vader was in the 80s for me. I'd completely forgotten that. Nowadays, he's the ultimate cool/badass bad guy. But in my childhood, he was terrifying (especially before we knew there was any good in him).
I think people forget that we were young when the original trilogy came out (I wasn't born when EpIV came out), and I still love the Ewoks. And yes, I thought they were the CUTEST things ever. Lucas didn't then, and didn't now make the movies for 25 year-olds. He made them for KIDS (adult enjoyment is a bonus). That's why the first 5 movies are rated PG - Ep III is PG-13 only for the genocidal/children-killing ("juvecile?") subject matter, not actual content or blood or anything).
The crescent-like "shadow" on the surface of Saturn itself is the area where the rings block the sunlight. The reason you don't see the rear part of the rings is because Saturn itself is blocking them from the Sun's light.
Just don't be shocked when the major motion picture released on July 4th makes more than the movie released on your college campus and 3 screens in Albuquerque.
How will he safety store these terrabytes?
The CNN article states that this wasn't his first warning: ""Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said."
Crichton may very-well be 100% wrong on his theories. But if so, that will be because his research was poor, not because "a lot of people with degrees disagree."
How is it biased? It seemed to me to be very balanced. They had quotes from his supporters, followed by his detractors, followed by Dr. Jahn's take. The author did this about 3 times.
Maybe there are canals on Mars, lol...
Good point, and I agree. But actually, ExxonMobil very often has ads in the NYTimes, actually on the Op-Ed page (clearly marked "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," so everyone understands its in ExxonMobil's words).
And the NYTimes is far from pro-Exxon or Big Oil in general...
First off, I think the guy is a raving jackass nutcase (this is NOT bias - see the Youtube video of him being yelled at by a judge for acting like a 5 year-old if you don't believe me), but he may actually be doing something that ONE THE SURFACE, I have no problem with.
This is the thing: I have *no problem* with denying elementary school kids the ability to buy GTA4. I don't think it should be censored at ALL, but I don't think that adults (and even teenagers, maybe 15+?) should have ANY HASSLES if they want it and can see some kind of rating on the box (M for Mature, etc).
It's like movies. I don't think it's a bad thing that any 6 year-old can't walk into a theatre and see Pulp Fiction, Saw or Hostel. But, if a parent is with their 12 year-old, or buys them the video, then I say that's fine (hell, even their 6 year-old - it should be legal, but they should be watching Bambi, not Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but that's just me). No, of course I don't buy any of the "it makes you kill people" crap, and I was allowed to watch rated-R movies that my parents approved when I was a kid (they stopped regulating that stuff when I was like in middle school or something).
We all know he won't, but if Jack was just going to launch a calm, repectful "please enforce the ESRB ratings for PURCHASE" campaign, then I seriously would have no objection. Of course, he'll rant on every TV show and newspaper he can get his claws into on how video games are responsible for all murders, rapes and even the Iraq War, 9/11 and Katrina. But in "theory," preventing "minors" (elementary school-ish age) from purchasing this (w/o an adult) isn't so bad.
you seriously realize that you have to break up with her now, right? :)
Star registry: expensive
Mars registry: free
I also see the idea of not allowing people to put up blatantly copyrighted domain names, and then holding them from the copyright owner (i.e. "cocacola.com" or buying "amazon.biz" and holding it from Amazon.com purely for profit), but something like "apple.com," while a name of a major computer manufacturer, would be perfectly valid had it been bought by a person who used it to sell bushels of apples online, or had apple-picking vacations for sale, etc. Similar to "War Games" - it is a common term. Of course, had wargames.com been squatting the site, that'd be another story.
When the U.N. decided that famous people can sue for their domain name (juliaroberts.com was the case I remember), I assume this does not apply to some 24 year-old girl whose name is Julia Roberts from Ithaca, NY - right? Surely Erin Brockovitch has no-more right to the domain name than the nobody from upstate NY. But they both have a right to it over some squatter of course. But then again, what if someone bought that site and made a legitimate Julia Roberts fan page? Would that be valid?
War Games 2: The Direct-to-DVD Adventure
1) The thousands of "plaintiffs" will split a settlement, and get like $23.59 each (remember the CD "settlement?")
2) The lawyers will take 35% of the $10 million earnings.
And, as he even said... Wiki will work fine too!
Same with Viewtiful Joe. It's mostly a 2-D (or... "2.5-D") but it's definitely not 3-D.