If you actively pursue telling others you'll just annoy them and get labeled as a wacko. So it's pretty much up to you and your money. If the opportunity presents itself to discuss the topic without having to stretch for relevance (e.g. -- a friend/colleage/random stranger complains about a CD not working on their computer or something), then go for it. Otherwise keep to yourself.
I disagree a little. I, as a nerd, take it upon myself to say something when people ask me specific advice about a product. That's sort of what people expect of us. If someone asks me about laptops I say, "I like IBM and Toshiba, because the experience I have with Dell and HP shows inconsistency in product quality. Sony sometimes makes great laptops, sometimes they're terrible and unsupported and Sony doesn't care. I don't buy Sony because they put on the market a virus that invades their consumers right to privacy."
Lots of times it affects people's buying decision and appreciate being told in a non-offensive manner.
But I don't walk up to people and say, "SS-S-SSO-OO-ON-N-NY'S EVIL!!! AAAHHH!" if that's what you're talking about.
Anyway the real issue isn't so much health as it is the addictive nature of nicotine. Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin.
But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of the typical stoner campaigner is a damning indictment of the negative effects of marijuana.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that one side has high-powered rifles and amphetamines and is fighting a WAR AGAINST A PLANT by shooting the people who like the plant, and the other side just likes the stupid plant. Also, does it not seem weird to you that one might be put in a cage with murderers for smoking pot? It seems kind of harsh.
If the government would stop shooting people for carrying plants around with them, then the druglords wouldn't be in business. And I could get my pot from someone who wasn't a criminal, and my life would be safer, but people would rather make money off the loss of liberty of the largely peaceful masses than have them be safe.
I've never heard of a pot smoker who smoked a joint and crashed his car into a tree.
Or a child, for that matter. Did any of the scifi nerds ever read Piers Anthony's Letters to Jenny? It gives a good, real-world example of what a girl's life can become because of one irresponsible Alcohol-head.
If your doctor prescribed it to you to cure an anxiety disorder, then most likely: yes. If you are talking about recreational purposes, I would prefer you to use marihuana.
Xanax is a nasty drug. All I'm saying about marijuana is that it's not nearly as bad for you as most of the things we in society would have people stuffing in their various orifices.
If someone asked me how to get the most out of life, I would give an answer very different from yours, I'm sure. It wouldn't be "smoke marijuana," but I would prefer people smoke marijuana rather than use other drugs, including alcohol.
My point about marijuana attracting smart people is that recreation attracts people, period. And when you call all people who smoke marijuana stoners, or potheads, you're discounting all the people who smoke pot the way many others drink a glass of wine at night. There's such a thing as overindulgence, but that doesn't mean food should be illegal or that it's bad for you.
Everyone I've ever known that has taken antidepressants has a)gotten more depressed, and b)had a hard time coming off the antidepressants. Please, please don't take antidepressants. They're poorly manufactured chemicals in the vein of dextromethorphan, MDMA, 2-ci, and crack that are designed to create a codependency.
One of my favorite pharmaceuticals is Depro Provera (sp?): A single shot renders a woman so barren she doesn't have a period for 6 months. Hurrah for federal food and drug safety bodies, no? There's also the acne medication that you HAVE to be on birth control to take due to the birth defects it causes.
I think people who would rather pump toxic chemicals into their body than try and figure out an actual problem to their acne should be getting stoned rather than walking the streets and rubbing their personalities off on my children.
The fact is: most people I've come across that smoke mariuhana on a regular or semiregular basis: (a) isn't someone I would characterize as "smart" or "clever", (b) tends to focus a lot of their attention to it (as opposed to more productive things, like work, studies, or family).
Um, ok. So like video games are an analogy, right? And computer programmers? They don't have lives, right? Unhappy and all that? Here's a list: http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm
This leaves us with two options: (a) Marihuana makes you stupid, or (b) Marihuana attracts stupid people. I don't know which one is most important, but I guess they both contribute to the picture.
Marijuana, like all potentially fun experiences, attracts "stupid people." Stupid people have a right to live, too. Much like it attracts smart people. Without "stupid people," you wouldn't have many of the commodities you so very much enjoy today. Also, stupid people are worse at hiding that they do illegal things. So maybe that's a factor.
I find it weird that people think that pot is bad. No, really. Because people don't seem to have a problem with alcohol, which is more destructive to your body and more likely to cause depression and/or physical aggression.
Many of the same people don't have a problem with pharmaceutical antidepressants, when they increase the incidence of suicide. Oh, and homicide. And if you try and quit them, you might have seizures. But it's OK, because the people we're paying to kill people so we can drive our H2s tell us it's OK.
Many of the same people think there's no problem with coffee, which I would say is about as destructive as pot. Coffee also has many positive effects, as does marijuana.
Marijuana has a tendency to make me give in to what my body is asking for, I've noticed. Sometimes that means I overeat, but then again, I used to overeat all the time before I started smoking. Usually it means after I've been running around all week stressing out, I relax, with no excuses. If I'm repressing energy, when I smoke I start expressing it, with no excuses.
It's illegal for no good reason, and the only reason prohibition of marijuana works where prohibition of alcohol didn't is that potheads aren't violent like alcoholics.
Oh, and what's the deal with those people torturing their kids--crushing their fingers, beating them, etc.--who are only getting like 10 years? Carrying one hit of acid in GA gets you 15 years firm. Hmmm.... I'll take the drug user over the child torture artist. Really. Why don't all you start your own tribe somewhere?
Before it hits the bump the car has kinetic energy (mv^2). The bump slows it down, to some extent by lifting it up (giving it some potential energy, mgh), it drops, squashing the tube, transfering that potential energy to your tank of compressed air, with enormous losses, heating the rubber, making a big BUMP noise &c.
Finally a response. If you respond by using words, then people might understand them. See how that works? You're learning!
And still, you seem unable to notice the phrase "speed bumps." Or "methane digester." Or, "Your handle is Eunuchswear." I gave examples of lost energy in cars as an example, since you seemed to think they didn't exist, Mr. Inappropriate-Application-of-the-First-Law-of-Ther modynamics
Anyway, thats the limit of my patience will innumerate (wrong word, maybe a-physical?) trolls.
Wrong spelling of the wrong word, in an improperly formed sentence, to boot. To quote a wise man, "I'm unwilling to believe that you can be as stupid as this implies."
The unfocused energy in a car? The heat, the rotation of the tires, the vibration from the relative lack of application of aerodynamic principles. And on and on. I think cars are pretty damn inefficient.
A car travelling a certain direction ---}, when hitting a bump, does not receive the force in the opposite direction {---, rather it is absorbed partially by the shocks while the tire laterally climbs the bump. The extra distance travelled by the car is so minimal such that it would be undetectable in most situations, and would harness more energy from the falling of the top wall of the malleable pressurized air container.
(Speed Bumps)
That's my theory, and you don't seem to offer actual data in counter.
The only energy going into your rubber tube comes from the kinetic energy of the car. So the car slows down as it goes over the bump[SPEED BUMP, perhaps?]. So it has to burn more gas to speed back up again.
I'm not saying that the rubber tube is the only place energy is being expended, I'm saying that its an additional expense.
So apply it in speed bumps. Then, you WANT the car to slow down, and the energy harnessed from the weight of the car would be much greater.
Besides, you're pretending that the only expenditure of energy is going into the rubber tubing. You're also pretending that harnessing unfocused energy makes a system less efficient, which is not true.
And again, in case you're right, use my idea in speed bumps, and shut the hell up.:-)
I'm unwilling to believe that you can be as stupid as this implies:
OK, I missed this part. Here's help:
And while we're on the unrelated topic of perpetual motion, just because they don't work doesn't mean they can't work.
I imagine the part after the comma was the hard part for you. "They don't work," said in the present tense refers to the perpetual motion machines that exist (rather than the ones that don't), and, "They can't work" refers to the CONCEPT of perpetual motion machines, including those that don't exist.
Might I add that while I am named after a majestic creature of nature, your handle is "Eunuchswear."
So all you've got is an extremely inefficient transfer of energy from the IC engine in the car to your pressurised tank.
You keep ignoring everything but the single idea you can muster up enough to disagree with.
If the transferrence of energy is in the energy harnessing system is more efficient than the transferrence of energy from the point at which I harnessed it to the point at which it is applied in the drive system of the car, it is more efficient than less. So prove me wrong.
The difference between perpetual motion machines and harnessing available energy is that one is the universe and the other is a transferrable component of the universe. And while we're on the unrelated topic of perpetual motion, just because they don't work doesn't mean they can't work.
And energy transferred by the weight of a car obliquely would not transfer the energy from the forward momentum of the car as much as it would the pressure from gravity.
Since you bring up gyms, why not hook all those bikes up to efficient electrical generators. Or just realize that a)the USA is 1st in obesity worldwide, and b)all the skinny fuckers need more exercise too, and just use a WEE bit of your body energy every day creating enough electricity to run a light bulb for a couple hours.
It's nice to know that the greedy people are still stupid.
First off, thanks for taking one sentence out of my post to ridicule. I'd take more from yours, but you seem to not have mastered the whole multiple thoughts right in a row thing.
Is the alternator the most inefficient electical electricity generator invented by man? Are you aware that sometime a system wastes energy, and collecting billions of tons worth of lost pressure every day would be MORE efficient, not less efficient? The idea is mainly meant to be illustrative.
Did you know that patent requests are often sent in with simplified drawings of the actual product in question?
Another illustrative idea is a bunch of small piezoelectric generators floorplate in a busy doorway. For example. You know when we walk, we transfer 2 or 3 times our body weight down each leg?
I wouldn't put it past the US government to use biological weapons. You know, since we already do. And we think the Geneva conventions are quaint.
The Truth, however, is the government is only responding to economic pressure from the populace. What would happen if we ran out of gasoline? I think most people AGAINST the war would use it as even more ammo against the current administration.
Things to do:
Write your senators (in English, with all the letters) Write MY senators Express your disillusionment with everyone you meet Actively work on harnessing free energy from the environment
There's lots of talk about zero point energy, and harnessing free energy from non-matter. That's all well and good, but are you ready for another list?
Green Technology That Reduces Your Reliance on the Industrial Military Economic Monster (DIY Projects For Those of You Who Think You're Smart):
1. Attach a methane digester to your septic tank. Use it to heat your house or generate electricity. Imagine if McDonald's or some hotel chain started doing this. A methane digester costs about $2000, and for under $300, you can convert your car to run on it.
Hmm...
2. Water falls from the sky. This is not news. Your house probably already funnels it down one pipe.
3. Run rubber tubing accross a semi-busy road, and have the pressure fill a tank (this is probably illegal without a permit, mind you). There are plenty of appliances that run on air pressure, and you could run a turbine to get electricity.
4. Biodeisel. Dead cats, spent oil from McDonalds. Word to your mother.
That's it. And get the word out. The ENERGY CRISIS does not exist, and it's there so the people stay scared and easy to control.
The only thing anybody could ever prove is that Firefox's security is about as bad as IE's, and that still doesn't make it a worse choice. Right now, with Firefox making up less than 10% and IE making up about 80%, the majority of the exploits that are marketable are IE exploits.
So people should keep using alternate browsers based on their merit up until they stop becoming alternate browsers. Then, maybe IE's GLORIOUS interface and GLORIOUS functionality can Lure Us Back.
Um... because money isn't information. And donating information is different than donating money.
I'm a computer techinician, and I share ALL information I have freely and free of charge. If someone wants to pick my brain for long, they can pay me for my time and experience, which is the only thing I bill for. The more information is kept free, the freer the world will be.
I would LOVE my job to become obsolete, because it would mean we're getting somewhere.
I was a stand-in during the Mexican leg of shooting Troy (a Bad Movie, by the way), and there were a few things I noticed:
1. There were tons of people getting paid tons of money to squirt makeup on the extras. 2. More food got thrown out than I've even seen. 3. They ALL use more paper towels than they should.:-) 4. Nobody has any idea about anything in the natural world, and the powerful people don't like you unless you're afraid of them, which I was not.
So I tend to agree with the "Hollywood is greedy" thing. Because it's true. And the movie would NOT have been made if there weren't thousands of glory whore Little People for them to exploit.
It was sick and disgusting. People would do some photo doubling and all of a sudden think they were Jesus or something.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actively pursue telling others you'll just annoy them and get labeled as a wacko. So it's pretty much up to you and your money. If the opportunity presents itself to discuss the topic without having to stretch for relevance (e.g. -- a friend/colleage/random stranger complains about a CD not working on their computer or something), then go for it. Otherwise keep to yourself.
I disagree a little. I, as a nerd, take it upon myself to say something when people ask me specific advice about a product. That's sort of what people expect of us. If someone asks me about laptops I say, "I like IBM and Toshiba, because the experience I have with Dell and HP shows inconsistency in product quality. Sony sometimes makes great laptops, sometimes they're terrible and unsupported and Sony doesn't care. I don't buy Sony because they put on the market a virus that invades their consumers right to privacy."
Lots of times it affects people's buying decision and appreciate being told in a non-offensive manner.
But I don't walk up to people and say, "SS-S-SSO-OO-ON-N-NY'S EVIL!!! AAAHHH!" if that's what you're talking about.
Anyway the real issue isn't so much health as it is the addictive nature of nicotine. Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin.
You mean not at all?
For exmaple, one potential use is getting stoned out of your mind.
I hadn't thought of that one. Get this man a box of Fig Newtons!
But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of the typical stoner campaigner is a damning indictment of the negative effects of marijuana.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that one side has high-powered rifles and amphetamines and is fighting a WAR AGAINST A PLANT by shooting the people who like the plant, and the other side just likes the stupid plant. Also, does it not seem weird to you that one might be put in a cage with murderers for smoking pot? It seems kind of harsh.
If the government would stop shooting people for carrying plants around with them, then the druglords wouldn't be in business. And I could get my pot from someone who wasn't a criminal, and my life would be safer, but people would rather make money off the loss of liberty of the largely peaceful masses than have them be safe.
I've never heard of a pot smoker who smoked a joint and crashed his car into a tree.
Or a child, for that matter. Did any of the scifi nerds ever read Piers Anthony's Letters to Jenny? It gives a good, real-world example of what a girl's life can become because of one irresponsible Alcohol-head.
If your doctor prescribed it to you to cure an anxiety disorder, then most likely: yes. If you are talking about recreational purposes, I would prefer you to use marihuana.
Xanax is a nasty drug. All I'm saying about marijuana is that it's not nearly as bad for you as most of the things we in society would have people stuffing in their various orifices.
If someone asked me how to get the most out of life, I would give an answer very different from yours, I'm sure. It wouldn't be "smoke marijuana," but I would prefer people smoke marijuana rather than use other drugs, including alcohol.
My point about marijuana attracting smart people is that recreation attracts people, period. And when you call all people who smoke marijuana stoners, or potheads, you're discounting all the people who smoke pot the way many others drink a glass of wine at night. There's such a thing as overindulgence, but that doesn't mean food should be illegal or that it's bad for you.
Everyone I've ever known that has taken antidepressants has a)gotten more depressed, and b)had a hard time coming off the antidepressants. Please, please don't take antidepressants. They're poorly manufactured chemicals in the vein of dextromethorphan, MDMA, 2-ci, and crack that are designed to create a codependency.
One of my favorite pharmaceuticals is Depro Provera (sp?): A single shot renders a woman so barren she doesn't have a period for 6 months. Hurrah for federal food and drug safety bodies, no? There's also the acne medication that you HAVE to be on birth control to take due to the birth defects it causes.
I think people who would rather pump toxic chemicals into their body than try and figure out an actual problem to their acne should be getting stoned rather than walking the streets and rubbing their personalities off on my children.
And boy, that Bill Shakespeare must have been stupid.
Newt Gingrich, who you don't have to like, is on there. THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, for example, are on there.
Does that mean we're more of a marijuana nation than a Christian nation? BAH! MORE QUOTES!
http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
The fact is: most people I've come across that smoke mariuhana on a regular or semiregular basis: (a) isn't someone I would characterize as "smart" or "clever", (b) tends to focus a lot of their attention to it (as opposed to more productive things, like work, studies, or family).
Um, ok. So like video games are an analogy, right? And computer programmers? They don't have lives, right? Unhappy and all that?
Here's a list:
http://www.slatts.fsworld.co.uk/famous.htm
This leaves us with two options: (a) Marihuana makes you stupid, or (b) Marihuana attracts stupid people. I don't know which one is most important, but I guess they both contribute to the picture.
Marijuana, like all potentially fun experiences, attracts "stupid people." Stupid people have a right to live, too. Much like it attracts smart people. Without "stupid people," you wouldn't have many of the commodities you so very much enjoy today. Also, stupid people are worse at hiding that they do illegal things. So maybe that's a factor.
Here's my question. Should I use Xanax instead?
I find it weird that people think that pot is bad. No, really. Because people don't seem to have a problem with alcohol, which is more destructive to your body and more likely to cause depression and/or physical aggression.
Many of the same people don't have a problem with pharmaceutical antidepressants, when they increase the incidence of suicide. Oh, and homicide. And if you try and quit them, you might have seizures. But it's OK, because the people we're paying to kill people so we can drive our H2s tell us it's OK.
Many of the same people think there's no problem with coffee, which I would say is about as destructive as pot. Coffee also has many positive effects, as does marijuana.
Marijuana has a tendency to make me give in to what my body is asking for, I've noticed. Sometimes that means I overeat, but then again, I used to overeat all the time before I started smoking. Usually it means after I've been running around all week stressing out, I relax, with no excuses. If I'm repressing energy, when I smoke I start expressing it, with no excuses.
It's illegal for no good reason, and the only reason prohibition of marijuana works where prohibition of alcohol didn't is that potheads aren't violent like alcoholics.
Oh, and what's the deal with those people torturing their kids--crushing their fingers, beating them, etc.--who are only getting like 10 years? Carrying one hit of acid in GA gets you 15 years firm. Hmmm.... I'll take the drug user over the child torture artist. Really. Why don't all you start your own tribe somewhere?
'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage
Primarily, this will open up trades route with Hell, which incidentally is short on handbaskets.
(Not to mention Trillian's got a user interface only a crackhead could love...)
Crackheads need to IM, too, man. Once crack goes digital, that's it.
Before it hits the bump the car has kinetic energy (mv^2). The bump slows it down, to some extent by lifting it up (giving it some potential energy, mgh), it drops, squashing the tube, transfering that potential energy to your tank of compressed air, with enormous losses, heating the rubber, making a big BUMP noise &c.
r modynamics
Finally a response. If you respond by using words, then people might understand them. See how that works? You're learning!
And still, you seem unable to notice the phrase "speed bumps." Or "methane digester." Or, "Your handle is Eunuchswear." I gave examples of lost energy in cars as an example, since you seemed to think they didn't exist, Mr. Inappropriate-Application-of-the-First-Law-of-The
Anyway, thats the limit of my patience will innumerate (wrong word, maybe a-physical?) trolls.
Wrong spelling of the wrong word, in an improperly formed sentence, to boot. To quote a wise man, "I'm unwilling to believe that you can be as stupid as this implies."
Apply it in speed bumps.
Where is the "unfocused energy"?
The unfocused energy in a car? The heat, the rotation of the tires, the vibration from the relative lack of application of aerodynamic principles. And on and on. I think cars are pretty damn inefficient.
A car travelling a certain direction ---}, when hitting a bump, does not receive the force in the opposite direction {---, rather it is absorbed partially by the shocks while the tire laterally climbs the bump. The extra distance travelled by the car is so minimal such that it would be undetectable in most situations, and would harness more energy from the falling of the top wall of the malleable pressurized air container.
(Speed Bumps)
That's my theory, and you don't seem to offer actual data in counter.
The only energy going into your rubber tube comes from the kinetic energy of the car. So the car slows down as it goes over the bump [SPEED BUMP, perhaps?] . So it has to burn more gas to speed back up again.
I'm not saying that the rubber tube is the only place energy is being expended, I'm saying that its an additional expense.
So apply it in speed bumps. Then, you WANT the car to slow down, and the energy harnessed from the weight of the car would be much greater.
So shut up.
:-)
Besides, you're pretending that the only expenditure of energy is going into the rubber tubing. You're also pretending that harnessing unfocused energy makes a system less efficient, which is not true.
And again, in case you're right, use my idea in speed bumps, and shut the hell up.
I'm unwilling to believe that you can be as stupid as this implies:
OK, I missed this part. Here's help:
And while we're on the unrelated topic of perpetual motion, just because they don't work doesn't mean they can't work.
I imagine the part after the comma was the hard part for you. "They don't work," said in the present tense refers to the perpetual motion machines that exist (rather than the ones that don't), and, "They can't work" refers to the CONCEPT of perpetual motion machines, including those that don't exist.
Might I add that while I am named after a majestic creature of nature, your handle is "Eunuchswear."
So all you've got is an extremely inefficient transfer of energy from the IC engine in the car to your pressurised tank.
You keep ignoring everything but the single idea you can muster up enough to disagree with.
If the transferrence of energy is in the energy harnessing system is more efficient than the transferrence of energy from the point at which I harnessed it to the point at which it is applied in the drive system of the car, it is more efficient than less. So prove me wrong.
The difference between perpetual motion machines and harnessing available energy is that one is the universe and the other is a transferrable component of the universe. And while we're on the unrelated topic of perpetual motion, just because they don't work doesn't mean they can't work.
And energy transferred by the weight of a car obliquely would not transfer the energy from the forward momentum of the car as much as it would the pressure from gravity.
Since you bring up gyms, why not hook all those bikes up to efficient electrical generators. Or just realize that a)the USA is 1st in obesity worldwide, and b)all the skinny fuckers need more exercise too, and just use a WEE bit of your body energy every day creating enough electricity to run a light bulb for a couple hours.
It's nice to know that the greedy people are still stupid.
First off, thanks for taking one sentence out of my post to ridicule. I'd take more from yours, but you seem to not have mastered the whole multiple thoughts right in a row thing.
Is the alternator the most inefficient electical electricity generator invented by man? Are you aware that sometime a system wastes energy, and collecting billions of tons worth of lost pressure every day would be MORE efficient, not less efficient? The idea is mainly meant to be illustrative.
Did you know that patent requests are often sent in with simplified drawings of the actual product in question?
Another illustrative idea is a bunch of small piezoelectric generators floorplate in a busy doorway. For example. You know when we walk, we transfer 2 or 3 times our body weight down each leg?
Science, it's a wonderful thing.
I wouldn't put it past the US government to use biological weapons. You know, since we already do. And we think the Geneva conventions are quaint.
The Truth, however, is the government is only responding to economic pressure from the populace. What would happen if we ran out of gasoline? I think most people AGAINST the war would use it as even more ammo against the current administration.
Things to do:
Write your senators (in English, with all the letters)
Write MY senators
Express your disillusionment with everyone you meet
Actively work on harnessing free energy from the environment
There's lots of talk about zero point energy, and harnessing free energy from non-matter. That's all well and good, but are you ready for another list?
Green Technology That Reduces Your Reliance on the Industrial Military Economic Monster (DIY Projects For Those of You Who Think You're Smart):
1. Attach a methane digester to your septic tank. Use it to heat your house or generate electricity. Imagine if McDonald's or some hotel chain started doing this. A methane digester costs about $2000, and for under $300, you can convert your car to run on it.
Hmm...
2. Water falls from the sky. This is not news. Your house probably already funnels it down one pipe.
3. Run rubber tubing accross a semi-busy road, and have the pressure fill a tank (this is probably illegal without a permit, mind you). There are plenty of appliances that run on air pressure, and you could run a turbine to get electricity.
4. Biodeisel. Dead cats, spent oil from McDonalds. Word to your mother.
That's it. And get the word out. The ENERGY CRISIS does not exist, and it's there so the people stay scared and easy to control.
-The Man in The Tinfoil Hat
The only thing anybody could ever prove is that Firefox's security is about as bad as IE's, and that still doesn't make it a worse choice. Right now, with Firefox making up less than 10% and IE making up about 80%, the majority of the exploits that are marketable are IE exploits.
So people should keep using alternate browsers based on their merit up until they stop becoming alternate browsers. Then, maybe IE's GLORIOUS interface and GLORIOUS functionality can Lure Us Back.
Oh, please.
Um... because money isn't information. And donating information is different than donating money.
I'm a computer techinician, and I share ALL information I have freely and free of charge. If someone wants to pick my brain for long, they can pay me for my time and experience, which is the only thing I bill for. The more information is kept free, the freer the world will be.
I would LOVE my job to become obsolete, because it would mean we're getting somewhere.
I was a stand-in during the Mexican leg of shooting Troy (a Bad Movie, by the way), and there were a few things I noticed:
:-)
1. There were tons of people getting paid tons of money to squirt makeup on the extras.
2. More food got thrown out than I've even seen.
3. They ALL use more paper towels than they should.
4. Nobody has any idea about anything in the natural world, and the powerful people don't like you unless you're afraid of them, which I was not.
So I tend to agree with the "Hollywood is greedy" thing. Because it's true. And the movie would NOT have been made if there weren't thousands of glory whore Little People for them to exploit.
It was sick and disgusting. People would do some photo doubling and all of a sudden think they were Jesus or something.
Every time somebody clicks on the link to the song GOD kills a kitten.
...... .....
....... *click*..... *click* ...c k**click*c lick*i ck**click*
.......... *click*
.... hmmmmm
..*click*.*click*..*click**click**click**cli
*click**click**click**click*
*click**
*click*
*click**click**click**click*
*cl
MUAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
...everyone at slashdot seems to think they know more than the NASA scientists.
"Doesn't it seem stupid that they'd have to drop the engine? Why not just work on it IN THE CAR?"
Heck, I'd even take another Jackson story in preference to this.
Michael Jackson acquitted!
Posted by JackalMickson on Tuesday, June 14, @12:07PM