Mine DID. Then I started living with another human. She does not appreciate the electronic junkyard look. SO now its all condensed into the spare room. I know there's a bed under there somewhere...
I worked in marketing at the studio for a very short time before I was...err...it didn't work out. Anyway, from what I know of the studio, if anyone on earth can totally fuck up decent source material its disney. That's what they do. (see bicentennial man). It could be great, against all odds. But please, do not get your hopes up. Its better to be pleasantly suprised that disappointed.
This is something that irritates me. People seem to assume that economic efficiency is always good. They free market doesn't care about people, it cares about working out the most effecient way to move goods around. The most efficient thing, however, is not always the best thing. Witness the slow death of small town america as it is crushed by the much more efficient wal-mart.
If you have a mid 90s cavalier or neon there is only one way to make it go faster:
Step 1: Apply huge after marker rear wing on FWD car
Step 2: After buying cheap new springs to lower it and a primer-colored front air dam and/or ground effects bottom out on the first speed bump you see and smash up your new air dam. This makes a fast car.
Ok mr Pedantic AC, some feminists may be more worked up about women in beer ads then burkas. If so, who cares? Does that somehow invalidate the point about the beer ads? Everytime I get upset about something do I need to consult the global hierarchy of bad things and make sure I'm worked up to the correct degree for each one? What's odd from my perspective is why some men get so worked up when feminists speak. How does it affect you? When a woman wants equal rights does that take rights away from men? I just don't understand. How some (mostly white) males have decided that they are a persecuted minority is completely incomprehensible to me.
You seem to know very little. As some other AC noted, groups are not monolithic entities. Also feminist issues aren't about men, so why should they discuss them? The arguement, "You are upset about X, but what about Y? Y is such a big problem!" is fallacial. When I say that I find the portrayal of women in beer ads offensive I am saying merely that. I am not commenting on men, or squirrels or whatever. Perhaps some feminists (such as myself) actually do object to ALL forms of unrealistic body image. But everytime I say "women in beer ads are offensive to me" I don't have to temper that statement by mentioning all the other things that are also offensive.
For the record I find basically all gender stereotypes annoying, offensive and basically stupid.
Now, what I wonder about is where did you get this enormous chip on your soldier? An angry male such as your self is every bit as obnoxious in my mind as a man hating feminist. I would say that most men don't feel threatened by feminism like you seem to, just like most women (and men) that call them selves feminists do not hate men. I think we should deserve gender equality. That means holding no one to stereotype about gender. The image of the six foot muscled man that can fix a car and can hardly contain his libido is every bit as offensive as the bikini-clad sex toys of the Coors marketing strategy.
I guess this is meandering. But I would like to say to you and other men reading this: feminism is not a personal attack on you! Just because women really do face a pay gap or gender discrimination does not mean they hate or blame you personally. I think that men (and women) who perpetuate gender stereotypes are as much victims of this system as those who are stereotyped.
Now go to this page: and read about what feminism ought be about. And guess what, most feminist women are straight and love men. So please stand up straight and stop acting like a wounded puppy everytime a woman asks to be treated as an equal. (by the way, could men please put together a movement against gender stereotyping that isn't a reactionary response to feminism?)
This, as mentioned by other posters is not true. Not even a little bit true. All feminists deplore the treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia.
The real problem here is that you don't really understand feminism. A lot of feminists support a woman's right to appear in sexy ads to her heart's content, as long as she is in control of her career. What they object to is not the women involved in modeling, but the peddling of unrealistic images of beauty for women. Also the implication in beer ads that women are not actual people, but merely objects for sexual gratification. Furthermore, few feminists would advocate actually censoring such imagery, but merely attempt to speak out at let people hear that there may be other ways to look at things.
But I get what you are saying. Liberals don't hate muslims enough.
"marxist instituitions like the World Bank, the IMF"
That is hilarious. The far left and the far right agree that the World Bank and the IMF are evil! Far lefties like the World Workers Party and ANSWER think the World Bank and the IMF are merely the tools of international corporations and capitalists. You think they're Marxist. The political spectrum really is a circle.
I would KILL for one of these The aren't catching on because they are not intended for consumers but for "creative professionals" but $1500 for a tablet is too pricy for me.
That's a bold statement. Fifty times. My rough count is that it was a slow day in Iraq and 22 people died as a result of the occupation or the insurgency. So you are claiming that at least 1,100 people died without cause when Saddam was in power. Meaning that as a result of Saddam's rule roughly 9.6 million people were killed. This is quite clearly not true. This wasn't a holocaust. Saddam was a bad man but you are giving him more credit than he deserved. Around 5,000 people were killed in Saddam's gas attack on the kurds. There are no exact numbers on the shi'a uprising in 1991, but it wasn't millions. A horrible moment in history, but you seem to be alleging that this happened every five days in Iraq under saddam, which it didn't.
I am guessing you were exagerating and I am being a pedant. But I am willing to bet that Iraq is more dangerous for the average Iraqi today that it was two years ago.
Now, possibly you are refering to the situation during the sanctions, a time during which something between 350,000 and 1.2 million excess deaths are alleged to have been caused by the economic sanctions on iraq. A serious toll to be sure. The situation that caused this resulted also from a severly damaged infrastructure which has not been repaired, so it is unclear how much better things are in terms of sanitation, food supply and water in comparison to the under sanctions. Whether or not the infratructure and food suppy issues have been since resolved are unclear, so it is hard to say whether the humanitarian situaion during sanctions has really been alieviated. It is very difficult to pronounce "net gains" for the people of iraq in terms of death. Regardless it is not the kind of arithmatic you want to be doing. Even if there is a net improvment in death in Iraq, these deaths are our fault now. Saying that more would have died had we not invaded is a tenuous assertion at best. More difficult still is to argue that we are not responsable for the death that continues in iraq because it may have been worse had we done nothing. If someone jumps from a building and you shoot them on the way down you are still guilty of murder.
I still feel like someone with the disposabal income to drop $800 on a portable media player is in need of some kind of moneyectomy. It just seems really extravagent to me.
The problem with the electoral college for me is that effectivly someone in california gets one vote and someone in South Dakota gets two. And that's the part that is just a little unfair. The real problem is that a republican in California is completely disenfranchised in the presidential election. Their vote will not affect the outcome of the election, because even if california went 50.1% to Kerry and 49.9% to bush it will be rounded off to the nearest 100% and every Californians vote is counted as a vote for Kerry. The fact that only a handful of states have any impact on the election is, in my opinion, perhaps worse than rural voters only having an equal say in elections, rather than a weighted vote.
I don't think that's true. There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere waiting for us to tap. No one is proposing we switch to only wind power, but hopefully a combination of wind, solar, hydro and maybe some nuclear for a nice balanced grid that doesn't spew poison into the air. I think the ultimate power solution is orbital solar, but that won't be cost effective for a long long time. Anything has to be better than coal and oil.
Rural voters get to have votes that are worth significantly more than the votes of city dwellers and they are worried about being disenfranchised? City voters are the majority of americans and their votes count for less. Please explain to me how that makes sense.
As it stands the president must pander to a tiny minority of americans while the concerns of a majority of americans are sidelined - you know those who design, manufacture market and manage everything that isn't grown on a farm. The people that actually drive the economy of a nation that's biggest exports are ideas. But yeah, you are right, we should give rural voters a greater influence because god forbid the needs of americans urban centers were actually met.
Yes, you are right. The system his hopelessly broken. Really, really broken. We need to implement serious election reform and we need to do it now. Single Transferable Vote for real proportional representation in the house (and make the constituencies the states, not these easily gerrymandered districts)
We should adopt some kind of ranked voting method (runoff, instant runoff) for the president, governers, etc. This will make third parties instantly viable.
We can flush a lot of corruption in this system by public subsidies for elections (including regulated free airtime and public advertising space). Of course, the people who need to impliment these changes benefit from the same changes not being made....
Only "th" every appears in superscript. "st" does not. This might happend of the typewriter had a "th" key. Or it had all the keys and the typist did not always use them. (or they were typed by different typists, one of which was not familiar with the features of the typewriter). The baseline is also a little wobbly, consistant with a typewriter that was in nead of a little servicing. The other documents were not memos and certainly did not and would not have been typed on this person's typewriter. This probably was a nice (if maybe old) excutive series typewriter, with a "th" key.
Again, the question is, why would a forger, who would have seen other documents from the service record and the era not try to actually forge the document to look like the others? Why not type it on a generic selectric?
This issue to me makes me think that they aren't forgeries. Same reason I don't think the "anomolies" in the nick berg video reveal it as a fake. If I was going to forge or fake something I would do it right.
Especially if I was asked to forge a memo from the seventies. I would probably go find a 70s era typewriter and type it up. I woudn't open up word and whip something out in freakin' times new roman and print it. Either this is real from a nice high end typewriter. Or it is the worst damn forgery in history.
For the record, I am doing just great. I actually agree that the president doesn't have much to do with unemployment. But I can't help but think that money the president spent on fighting wars and cutting taxes would have been better spent bailing out the state and local governments that were very hard hit. But that's just my opinion. On economics I accept that I just disagree with conservatives on how best to do things. Not because I don't think people shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions...I just have a different view of what government should do. Read Galbraith if you want to understand my viewpoint on that.
I am NOT sitting and crying and blaming the president for my own problems. I jsut don't like his policies.
You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.
I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.
Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".
You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.
Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
Mine DID. Then I started living with another human. She does not appreciate the electronic junkyard look. SO now its all condensed into the spare room. I know there's a bed under there somewhere...
I worked in marketing at the studio for a very short time before I was...err...it didn't work out. Anyway, from what I know of the studio, if anyone on earth can totally fuck up decent source material its disney. That's what they do. (see bicentennial man). It could be great, against all odds. But please, do not get your hopes up. Its better to be pleasantly suprised that disappointed.
This is something that irritates me. People seem to assume that economic efficiency is always good. They free market doesn't care about people, it cares about working out the most effecient way to move goods around. The most efficient thing, however, is not always the best thing. Witness the slow death of small town america as it is crushed by the much more efficient wal-mart.
So wait, Kyoto doesn't go far enough. Therefore we shouldn't sign it. I mean, its a start, right?
If you have a mid 90s cavalier or neon there is only one way to make it go faster:
Step 1: Apply huge after marker rear wing on FWD car
Step 2: After buying cheap new springs to lower it and a primer-colored front air dam and/or ground effects bottom out on the first speed bump you see and smash up your new air dam. This makes a fast car.
Well said. I think I get to upset sometime to say things this clearly.
Ok mr Pedantic AC, some feminists may be more worked up about women in beer ads then burkas. If so, who cares? Does that somehow invalidate the point about the beer ads? Everytime I get upset about something do I need to consult the global hierarchy of bad things and make sure I'm worked up to the correct degree for each one? What's odd from my perspective is why some men get so worked up when feminists speak. How does it affect you? When a woman wants equal rights does that take rights away from men? I just don't understand. How some (mostly white) males have decided that they are a persecuted minority is completely incomprehensible to me.
You seem to know very little. As some other AC noted, groups are not monolithic entities. Also feminist issues aren't about men, so why should they discuss them? The arguement, "You are upset about X, but what about Y? Y is such a big problem!" is fallacial. When I say that I find the portrayal of women in beer ads offensive I am saying merely that. I am not commenting on men, or squirrels or whatever. Perhaps some feminists (such as myself) actually do object to ALL forms of unrealistic body image. But everytime I say "women in beer ads are offensive to me" I don't have to temper that statement by mentioning all the other things that are also offensive.
For the record I find basically all gender stereotypes annoying, offensive and basically stupid.
Now, what I wonder about is where did you get this enormous chip on your soldier? An angry male such as your self is every bit as obnoxious in my mind as a man hating feminist. I would say that most men don't feel threatened by feminism like you seem to, just like most women (and men) that call them selves feminists do not hate men. I think we should deserve gender equality. That means holding no one to stereotype about gender. The image of the six foot muscled man that can fix a car and can hardly contain his libido is every bit as offensive as the bikini-clad sex toys of the Coors marketing strategy.
I guess this is meandering. But I would like to say to you and other men reading this: feminism is not a personal attack on you! Just because women really do face a pay gap or gender discrimination does not mean they hate or blame you personally. I think that men (and women) who perpetuate gender stereotypes are as much victims of this system as those who are stereotyped.
Now go to this page: and read about what feminism ought be about. And guess what, most feminist women are straight and love men. So please stand up straight and stop acting like a wounded puppy everytime a woman asks to be treated as an equal. (by the way, could men please put together a movement against gender stereotyping that isn't a reactionary response to feminism?)
This, as mentioned by other posters is not true. Not even a little bit true. All feminists deplore the treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia.
The real problem here is that you don't really understand feminism. A lot of feminists support a woman's right to appear in sexy ads to her heart's content, as long as she is in control of her career. What they object to is not the women involved in modeling, but the peddling of unrealistic images of beauty for women. Also the implication in beer ads that women are not actual people, but merely objects for sexual gratification. Furthermore, few feminists would advocate actually censoring such imagery, but merely attempt to speak out at let people hear that there may be other ways to look at things.
But I get what you are saying. Liberals don't hate muslims enough.
"marxist instituitions like the World Bank, the IMF"
That is hilarious. The far left and the far right agree that the World Bank and the IMF are evil! Far lefties like the World Workers Party and ANSWER think the World Bank and the IMF are merely the tools of international corporations and capitalists. You think they're Marxist. The political spectrum really is a circle.
I would KILL for one of these The aren't catching on because they are not intended for consumers but for "creative professionals" but $1500 for a tablet is too pricy for me.
That's a bold statement. Fifty times. My rough count is that it was a slow day in Iraq and 22 people died as a result of the occupation or the insurgency. So you are claiming that at least 1,100 people died without cause when Saddam was in power. Meaning that as a result of Saddam's rule roughly 9.6 million people were killed. This is quite clearly not true. This wasn't a holocaust. Saddam was a bad man but you are giving him more credit than he deserved. Around 5,000 people were killed in Saddam's gas attack on the kurds. There are no exact numbers on the shi'a uprising in 1991, but it wasn't millions. A horrible moment in history, but you seem to be alleging that this happened every five days in Iraq under saddam, which it didn't.
I am guessing you were exagerating and I am being a pedant. But I am willing to bet that Iraq is more dangerous for the average Iraqi today that it was two years ago.
Now, possibly you are refering to the situation during the sanctions, a time during which something between 350,000 and 1.2 million excess deaths are alleged to have been caused by the economic sanctions on iraq. A serious toll to be sure. The situation that caused this resulted also from a severly damaged infrastructure which has not been repaired, so it is unclear how much better things are in terms of sanitation, food supply and water in comparison to the under sanctions. Whether or not the infratructure and food suppy issues have been since resolved are unclear, so it is hard to say whether the humanitarian situaion during sanctions has really been alieviated. It is very difficult to pronounce "net gains" for the people of iraq in terms of death. Regardless it is not the kind of arithmatic you want to be doing. Even if there is a net improvment in death in Iraq, these deaths are our fault now. Saying that more would have died had we not invaded is a tenuous assertion at best. More difficult still is to argue that we are not responsable for the death that continues in iraq because it may have been worse had we done nothing. If someone jumps from a building and you shoot them on the way down you are still guilty of murder.
Could you explain to me how the tag destroyed the internet?
I still feel like someone with the disposabal income to drop $800 on a portable media player is in need of some kind of moneyectomy. It just seems really extravagent to me.
The problem with the electoral college for me is that effectivly someone in california gets one vote and someone in South Dakota gets two. And that's the part that is just a little unfair. The real problem is that a republican in California is completely disenfranchised in the presidential election. Their vote will not affect the outcome of the election, because even if california went 50.1% to Kerry and 49.9% to bush it will be rounded off to the nearest 100% and every Californians vote is counted as a vote for Kerry. The fact that only a handful of states have any impact on the election is, in my opinion, perhaps worse than rural voters only having an equal say in elections, rather than a weighted vote.
I don't think that's true. There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere waiting for us to tap. No one is proposing we switch to only wind power, but hopefully a combination of wind, solar, hydro and maybe some nuclear for a nice balanced grid that doesn't spew poison into the air. I think the ultimate power solution is orbital solar, but that won't be cost effective for a long long time. Anything has to be better than coal and oil.
Rural voters get to have votes that are worth significantly more than the votes of city dwellers and they are worried about being disenfranchised? City voters are the majority of americans and their votes count for less. Please explain to me how that makes sense.
As it stands the president must pander to a tiny minority of americans while the concerns of a majority of americans are sidelined - you know those who design, manufacture market and manage everything that isn't grown on a farm. The people that actually drive the economy of a nation that's biggest exports are ideas. But yeah, you are right, we should give rural voters a greater influence because god forbid the needs of americans urban centers were actually met.
Our goverment already does this. They do it right here in denver in fact, at Buckly "Air National Guard Base".
That was really damn funny man. I am laughing here.
Yes, you are right. The system his hopelessly broken. Really, really broken. We need to implement serious election reform and we need to do it now. Single Transferable Vote for real proportional representation in the house (and make the constituencies the states, not these easily gerrymandered districts)
We should adopt some kind of ranked voting method (runoff, instant runoff) for the president, governers, etc. This will make third parties instantly viable.
We can flush a lot of corruption in this system by public subsidies for elections (including regulated free airtime and public advertising space). Of course, the people who need to impliment these changes benefit from the same changes not being made....
Only "th" every appears in superscript. "st" does not. This might happend of the typewriter had a "th" key. Or it had all the keys and the typist did not always use them. (or they were typed by different typists, one of which was not familiar with the features of the typewriter). The baseline is also a little wobbly, consistant with a typewriter that was in nead of a little servicing. The other documents were not memos and certainly did not and would not have been typed on this person's typewriter. This probably was a nice (if maybe old) excutive series typewriter, with a "th" key.
Again, the question is, why would a forger, who would have seen other documents from the service record and the era not try to actually forge the document to look like the others? Why not type it on a generic selectric?
If it had a superscript "th" key it could. Anyone have one?
This issue to me makes me think that they aren't forgeries. Same reason I don't think the "anomolies" in the nick berg video reveal it as a fake. If I was going to forge or fake something I would do it right.
Especially if I was asked to forge a memo from the seventies. I would probably go find a 70s era typewriter and type it up. I woudn't open up word and whip something out in freakin' times new roman and print it. Either this is real from a nice high end typewriter. Or it is the worst damn forgery in history.
For the record, I am doing just great. I actually agree that the president doesn't have much to do with unemployment. But I can't help but think that money the president spent on fighting wars and cutting taxes would have been better spent bailing out the state and local governments that were very hard hit. But that's just my opinion. On economics I accept that I just disagree with conservatives on how best to do things. Not because I don't think people shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions...I just have a different view of what government should do. Read Galbraith if you want to understand my viewpoint on that.
I am NOT sitting and crying and blaming the president for my own problems. I jsut don't like his policies.
You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.
I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.
Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".
You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.
Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?