Here's a valid alternative: Require warrants for wire taps, and stop acting like TEH TERRORISTS are going to destroy us if we can't tap every communication in the country on the whim of law enforcement.
Oh and about "warrants before every snoop" -- Yeah that ship has sailed because decades ago they passed FISA which created a court where you could apply for a warrant up to 72 hours after actually conducting the snoop.
So either the feds actually know who these "handful of suspects" are, and can track their communications no matter what form they take so long as they can justify doing so after the fact, or your saying they have no idea who they are or how to find them and the only way to get at them is to log everything and sift through that continent-sized haystack for a handful of needles. Which is a ridiculous fool's errand. The problem with 9/11 was not a lack of information, it was not a lack of extra-constitutional police powers.
Yet you and the morons in power who thought like you used 9/11 as an excuse for exactly such an extra-constitutional power grab, and as a back-handed justification for getting us into a retarded war that was the opposite of helping with the terrorist problem. I already know how much "help" your way of thinking is to the cause, and sorry we don't need that kind of help.
Now you think the only issue is transparency? No, fool, it's the 4th Amendment assurance of a right to privacy (that's what being free from unreasonable searches and seizures means, a reasonable right to be left alone). Spying on people without reasonable suspicion -- i.e. what is required to get a warrant for a tap -- IS an abuse.
So yes we absolutely need more transparency in the process, and the ability to stop abuses. But your claim that they must be allowed to conduct warrantless and thus meritless searches, so what you're really saying is that they should be allowed to abuse our rights, but this is okay as long as we know about it?! That's pure idiocy of the worst anti-freedom kind.
If you really think the Feds shouldn't need a warrant to listen in on private communication, then start arguing for an Amendment and join the ranks of those anti-gay marriage amendment retards in trying to actively remove freedoms from this country.
Because then and only then we'll be safe from TEH BOOGEYMAN? Sorry you're a little too late for that idiotic bullshit to come even close to flying.
Wow, I had no idea this would've been taken as an anti-CFL rant.
Really?! Well then for future reference, the sentence "Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks." sounds pretty anti-CFL, and does not in any way suggest "CFLs are good in some situations, but perhaps suboptimal in others and thought should be applied in using them."
That's funny considering the original article is talking about the low power factor of CFLs meaning that power plants have to produce MORE power due to loss on the grid.
A little bit more power than the stated wattage on the box due to transmission losses, NOT more power than an equivalent incandescent bulb, Tardcakes.
Sorry, but then you are not really better. You just have a better excuse.
In a world where human beings have violent base instincts. You know of those animals called humans, right?
Being better is not about simply lacking negative urges. The urge for vengeance, the catharsis that comes from seeing a hated enemy die, all these things are not uncommon in humans at all.
What makes you better isn't that you simply lack any motivation to do bad. How are you a great person for not doing what you have no desire to do? No what makes you a better is that you realize what you want to do is wrong, and therefore don't do it.
I was always against the Iraq invasion, but I hated Saddam Hussein. I would have loved to see him dragged into the street and beaten to death, torn limb from limb, and various other nasty things that the primitive part of my brain tells me he deserved and that I probably would have even gotten a kick out of. But I know, mentally and morally in my higher brain, that this is not how we should treat anyone no matter how heinous of a criminal they are, and so I am glad that didn't happen. If it had, any glee I felt would have quickly been replaced by sadness and guilt at my own moral failing. I am saddened that the marines, our government, the Iraqi government, and those who executed him were unable to suppress their desire for petty revenge. Having that desire is perfectly natural, but morality requires that we resist it.
You aren't morally superior just because you're a Vulcan and never have any negative emotions to fight. If that was the case then you wouldn't need morality at all.
Try doing some basic research, he did have WMD after the second war.
For the last time, unmaintained chemical weapon warheads that were long past their shelf life -- dating from prior to or shortly after the first Gulf War -- and thus ineffective do not count.
Before you drop too much on premium cuts, remember the article said the ones who gave meat gifts had twice as much sex. You might want to think about how much you have now and do the math before deciding if that's worth it.;)
I doubt this is new at all. Maybe a new discovery.
Um well yeah, obviously it's news in the sense of us discovering it, not that chimps suddenly started doing it.
Isn't this what evolution is based upon? The strong get laid, procreate and the weak don't get laid and don't procreate?
Sure, but not every animal or mammal for that matter used food gifts to express that strength to a mate, and we didn't know chimpanzees did, as tfa says. And it isn't necessarily the case that the ones that share are getting more meat, they might just be more generous. Not necessarily a bad trait for females to select for! Though sexual selection throws a weird kink (giggity) in the basic "survival of the fittest"... Sometimes it seems more like a female thinks "gee if you can survive like that, you must be healthy!" like in for example peacocks.:P
And anyways, if you're going to restart the show in the middle, it's a good idea to run the action a few minutes before where the break took place, and you couldn't do that without repairing the splice then and there.
This behavior has been quite well documented in bonobos, which until recently were considered chimps or dwarf chimps. I'm not sure what makes this article newsworthy, except that we all like to read about meat and sex...
What makes it newsworthy is that despite what they used to be called, a Bonobo or Pigmy Chimpanzee is not a Common Chimpanzee. The article only says "chimpanzee" but quotes from scientists using the same term makes it obvious they're using the common name for common chimpanzee otherwise they'd specify.
The part where the male gives the female meat but doesn't have sex until later (yet still averages twice as much sex as selfish males) sounds interesting, and maybe is news for a zoologist too, but I don't know.
I can believe this is a new discovery for the Common Chimpanzee. But for their close relatives the Bonobos, I saw documentaries decades ago showing not just the long term pair-bonding/mating-behavior related food-giving described in TFA, but outright prostitution. As in a male chimp comes up to a female with a banana in his hand, kinda tugs on her, she reacts neutrally, he hands her the banana and tugs again, they go off and have sex. And lest you hold on to the notion that this was still mating-related behavior, the sex in question was oral.
Ah, Bonobos. Gotta love those crazy nympho primates. I could be wrong but I think the Common Chimp is closer to us genetically, but I think the Bonobo is closer to us psychologically. I was going to say socially, but I don't know many human societies where genital rubbing is used as a greeting or where orgies break out whenever they acquire food.
Ah, okay, so it sounds like they didn't necessarily have to stop the show, they could have taken the remaining film and stuck it in another projector with only a tiny break in the film -- this was a matinée and there were a couple theaters with nothing showing at that time. It was also the very last showing of the film in town anywhere, so maybe they just decided it was easier to give us refunds and send us on our way, though I wish they would given us the option of staying and watching even if we had to wait a while. The movie was a good one, The Fugitive, and the bulb blew up right as it was getting exciting halfway through, and obviously this was a long time back when movies didn't come out on VHS until long after they had left the theaters.
And yeah I guess it was pretty obviously not silver nitrate film.:)
Thanks for the info, that was informative. BTW, I'm rather naive about film -- if you didn't care about preserving the beginning of the movie, could you just thread the remaining film into the machine and go rather than splicing? Or bad idea?
Newspaper quality has gone down because of two main factors: unwillingness of users to pay for information, and dependence on advertising. What gave you the idea that an advertiser is the best decider of what you learn? Because that's what you're getting.
And you'd have me believe that this phenomenon of dependence on and thus dominating influence of advertisers did not exist before the internet. You don't really think that $0.25 you paid at the news stand actually paid for anything more than the printing costs, do you?
It is to laugh.
Google is destroying the independence of newspapers by reducing the value of their content below what it costs to generate it.
And how did they do that? Perhaps by revealing that 90% of the papers were crap either reprinting AP pieces for everything, or directly publishing press releases? Or perhaps by making it easy to go from one online newspaper who wants to charge you a subscription for their AP-and-press-release-reprintings to another paper that gives you the same thing?
Explain how Google is devaluing actual content, other than by revealing what it was really worth all along?
This opens the field to special interests - the "news" promoted by Rupert Murdoch, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the RIAA and all the other shills for one industry or another.
Ah yes. Because before Google News, there was no Fox News, and media talking heads never breathlessly repeated what some "expert" from a special interest group or government official said on a subject as though it were the gospel truth. They never disguised press releases or product advertisements as 'news'. And they would never, ever refuse to run a story or cover up the truth because an advertiser didn't like it.
what is the new model of news media that we are conceiving if all or most of the traditional news media go down.
I honestly don't know. What I do know is that my inability to come up with a good business model for news media does not in any way make the news papers' similar inability my problem. Or Google's for that matter.
Google News (the only news aggregator I use) may die off without news to feed them, but Google would probably not much care. They don't put adds on the news page, and while it does drive some viewers to other portions of Google it's probably responsible for a very small fraction of their ad revenue. So Google has little reason to care, and whatever the 'right' answer may be forcing Google to pay news agencies isn't it.
Maybe if the news media agencies continue to fail to find viable business models, they'll die off until either the smart ones figure out a way, or there's few enough of them left that they have a chance of making their currently unrealistic models actually work. If the AP or Guardian were one of only a few sources of real news left, then they wouldn't need the aggregators to drive traffic to their site, and could more easily count on small inoffensive subscriptions to fuel them since they'd automatically hold much more of the market.
Or not. I guess my point is, the future will be what it will be, and if the news media can't figure out how to survive, then they won't. We may consider this to be a bad thing, but that's not a reason for us to bend over backwards subsidizing a broken revenue model, or inventing new legally mandating ones for them.
Last time I played enough to quote rules with precision was early 2nd edition, and I believe there 0 hp was unconscious and -1 was dead. A lot of people used a 'house rule' where you would bleed 1hp a round and die at -10. This might have become standard in 3rd or something...
Old copies? They will be there, sure. But they will not release new stuff as it was obvious that new stuff will be either leaked or just pirated by "customers". Why continue giving them freebie? Why continue competing with "free as beer" P2P while supplying em with new content at same time?
So you think there's more money in not competing at all, eh? Yeah that's smart. People were buying the.pdfs. And let me repeat, the leaks came from publishers, who could easily create a.pdf to leak to p2p networks when given the book to print in dead-tree format. And barring that, digital copies will still be made. Face it, they will be online and there's nothing you or Hasbro can do about it.
Given that, why would you make the illegal copies the only copies online?
What would you propose, keep current service as "legacy"? To compete with piratebay? With no future? No profitability? Waste of manpower.
Today, you have some people getting copies off of p2p, and some purchasing them legitimately. In the future, everyone who wants a digital copy will pirate it because that will be their only recourse.
How much effort do you think there is in creating a.pdf to throw online once you've already created the book? Is some money more or less than no money?
In their rush to prevent piracy, they are pushing their legitimate customers to it. This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
DM: Okay you take 5 damage, you only have 4 hp so you die.
Me: That's bullshit! Sorcelatony the Sorcelator is an expert in incomprehensibility! He even has the Gibberish and Excessive Verbosity feats! He should be immune to incomprehensibility damage.
DM: Just because he spouts it doesn't mean he can take it.
Me: Bullshit!
DM: Fine, fine, I'll let you try to save for half damage. Roll against a DR of 25 with your int bonus.
Yet people still want D&D while they have plenty of options (and are not shy to rationalize torrenting it)
And so, logically, they should respond to piracy by removing the ability to pay for a legitimate copy? And you think this will put the djinni back in the bottle and there will no longer be any pirated copies on the internet?
Yes, they will add DRM, just like your library. And people here will cry and conveniently forget reason why it was added.
I'll remember why: Because they were too thick to realize that the initial leaks to p2p came from publishers, not legitimate.pdf purchasers, and that the DRM isn't going to actually do anything to prevent the guides from being available on p2p.
How the cells come together is regulated but it still isn't like pixels, the junctions between the cells are not a perfect grid, there are irregularities. The cells compensate for that. I haven't read in depth but that seems to be the gist.
I know you're correct without reading the article, since I've seen the grid of my own optic cells myself in all its organic beauty -- the term 'grid' is still useful if you don't assume straight Cartesian lines separating rows and columns but rather swooping arcs and spirals -- while tripping balls.
Paramount created about six minutes of brand-new Khan film that included a simulated melt/burn. This was what they played. It was all part of the show.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a valid alternative: Require warrants for wire taps, and stop acting like TEH TERRORISTS are going to destroy us if we can't tap every communication in the country on the whim of law enforcement.
Oh and about "warrants before every snoop" -- Yeah that ship has sailed because decades ago they passed FISA which created a court where you could apply for a warrant up to 72 hours after actually conducting the snoop.
So either the feds actually know who these "handful of suspects" are, and can track their communications no matter what form they take so long as they can justify doing so after the fact, or your saying they have no idea who they are or how to find them and the only way to get at them is to log everything and sift through that continent-sized haystack for a handful of needles. Which is a ridiculous fool's errand. The problem with 9/11 was not a lack of information, it was not a lack of extra-constitutional police powers.
Yet you and the morons in power who thought like you used 9/11 as an excuse for exactly such an extra-constitutional power grab, and as a back-handed justification for getting us into a retarded war that was the opposite of helping with the terrorist problem. I already know how much "help" your way of thinking is to the cause, and sorry we don't need that kind of help.
Now you think the only issue is transparency? No, fool, it's the 4th Amendment assurance of a right to privacy (that's what being free from unreasonable searches and seizures means, a reasonable right to be left alone). Spying on people without reasonable suspicion -- i.e. what is required to get a warrant for a tap -- IS an abuse.
So yes we absolutely need more transparency in the process, and the ability to stop abuses. But your claim that they must be allowed to conduct warrantless and thus meritless searches, so what you're really saying is that they should be allowed to abuse our rights, but this is okay as long as we know about it?! That's pure idiocy of the worst anti-freedom kind.
If you really think the Feds shouldn't need a warrant to listen in on private communication, then start arguing for an Amendment and join the ranks of those anti-gay marriage amendment retards in trying to actively remove freedoms from this country.
Because then and only then we'll be safe from TEH BOOGEYMAN? Sorry you're a little too late for that idiotic bullshit to come even close to flying.
Maybe next time we will take European advise and let the Germans have at you all.
Yeah cus that would have ended so well for us.
But I guess that's the American way -- being stupidly self-defeating in the name of pride.
Oh and the germans start wars you arrive to late.
Ah, that explains that classified ad that said "Woman seeks man for romance, invasion of Poland"
Wow, I had no idea this would've been taken as an anti-CFL rant.
Really?! Well then for future reference, the sentence "Until they fix these issues, I'll hold on to my incandescents and carbon arc lamps, thanks." sounds pretty anti-CFL, and does not in any way suggest "CFLs are good in some situations, but perhaps suboptimal in others and thought should be applied in using them."
That's funny considering the original article is talking about the low power factor of CFLs meaning that power plants have to produce MORE power due to loss on the grid.
A little bit more power than the stated wattage on the box due to transmission losses, NOT more power than an equivalent incandescent bulb, Tardcakes.
'fun'?
In what world may vengeance ever be fun?
Sorry, but then you are not really better. You just have a better excuse.
In a world where human beings have violent base instincts. You know of those animals called humans, right?
Being better is not about simply lacking negative urges. The urge for vengeance, the catharsis that comes from seeing a hated enemy die, all these things are not uncommon in humans at all.
What makes you better isn't that you simply lack any motivation to do bad. How are you a great person for not doing what you have no desire to do? No what makes you a better is that you realize what you want to do is wrong, and therefore don't do it.
I was always against the Iraq invasion, but I hated Saddam Hussein. I would have loved to see him dragged into the street and beaten to death, torn limb from limb, and various other nasty things that the primitive part of my brain tells me he deserved and that I probably would have even gotten a kick out of. But I know, mentally and morally in my higher brain, that this is not how we should treat anyone no matter how heinous of a criminal they are, and so I am glad that didn't happen. If it had, any glee I felt would have quickly been replaced by sadness and guilt at my own moral failing. I am saddened that the marines, our government, the Iraqi government, and those who executed him were unable to suppress their desire for petty revenge. Having that desire is perfectly natural, but morality requires that we resist it.
You aren't morally superior just because you're a Vulcan and never have any negative emotions to fight. If that was the case then you wouldn't need morality at all.
Try doing some basic research, he did have WMD after the second war.
For the last time, unmaintained chemical weapon warheads that were long past their shelf life -- dating from prior to or shortly after the first Gulf War -- and thus ineffective do not count.
I need to head to the closest butchers shop!
Before you drop too much on premium cuts, remember the article said the ones who gave meat gifts had twice as much sex. You might want to think about how much you have now and do the math before deciding if that's worth it. ;)
I doubt this is new at all. Maybe a new discovery.
Um well yeah, obviously it's news in the sense of us discovering it, not that chimps suddenly started doing it.
Isn't this what evolution is based upon? The strong get laid, procreate and the weak don't get laid and don't procreate?
Sure, but not every animal or mammal for that matter used food gifts to express that strength to a mate, and we didn't know chimpanzees did, as tfa says. And it isn't necessarily the case that the ones that share are getting more meat, they might just be more generous. Not necessarily a bad trait for females to select for! Though sexual selection throws a weird kink (giggity) in the basic "survival of the fittest"... Sometimes it seems more like a female thinks "gee if you can survive like that, you must be healthy!" like in for example peacocks. :P
And anyways, if you're going to restart the show in the middle, it's a good idea to run the action a few minutes before where the break took place, and you couldn't do that without repairing the splice then and there.
I would have waited for them to do it. :)
If you ever find such a human society, can you let us know? Thanks.
If websites that require a credit card don't count, then I'm still looking my friend. Still looking.
This behavior has been quite well documented in bonobos, which until recently were considered chimps or dwarf chimps. I'm not sure what makes this article newsworthy, except that we all like to read about meat and sex...
What makes it newsworthy is that despite what they used to be called, a Bonobo or Pigmy Chimpanzee is not a Common Chimpanzee. The article only says "chimpanzee" but quotes from scientists using the same term makes it obvious they're using the common name for common chimpanzee otherwise they'd specify.
The part where the male gives the female meat but doesn't have sex until later (yet still averages twice as much sex as selfish males) sounds interesting, and maybe is news for a zoologist too, but I don't know.
I can believe this is a new discovery for the Common Chimpanzee. But for their close relatives the Bonobos, I saw documentaries decades ago showing not just the long term pair-bonding/mating-behavior related food-giving described in TFA, but outright prostitution. As in a male chimp comes up to a female with a banana in his hand, kinda tugs on her, she reacts neutrally, he hands her the banana and tugs again, they go off and have sex. And lest you hold on to the notion that this was still mating-related behavior, the sex in question was oral.
Ah, Bonobos. Gotta love those crazy nympho primates. I could be wrong but I think the Common Chimp is closer to us genetically, but I think the Bonobo is closer to us psychologically. I was going to say socially, but I don't know many human societies where genital rubbing is used as a greeting or where orgies break out whenever they acquire food.
Ah, okay, so it sounds like they didn't necessarily have to stop the show, they could have taken the remaining film and stuck it in another projector with only a tiny break in the film -- this was a matinée and there were a couple theaters with nothing showing at that time. It was also the very last showing of the film in town anywhere, so maybe they just decided it was easier to give us refunds and send us on our way, though I wish they would given us the option of staying and watching even if we had to wait a while. The movie was a good one, The Fugitive, and the bulb blew up right as it was getting exciting halfway through, and obviously this was a long time back when movies didn't come out on VHS until long after they had left the theaters.
And yeah I guess it was pretty obviously not silver nitrate film. :)
Thanks for the info, that was informative. BTW, I'm rather naive about film -- if you didn't care about preserving the beginning of the movie, could you just thread the remaining film into the machine and go rather than splicing? Or bad idea?
Way to link to a typo troll site. The real Meriam-Webster is spelled with only one 'r', Captain Gulible. :)
Newspaper quality has gone down because of two main factors: unwillingness of users to pay for information, and dependence on advertising. What gave you the idea that an advertiser is the best decider of what you learn? Because that's what you're getting.
And you'd have me believe that this phenomenon of dependence on and thus dominating influence of advertisers did not exist before the internet. You don't really think that $0.25 you paid at the news stand actually paid for anything more than the printing costs, do you?
It is to laugh.
Google is destroying the independence of newspapers by reducing the value of their content below what it costs to generate it.
And how did they do that? Perhaps by revealing that 90% of the papers were crap either reprinting AP pieces for everything, or directly publishing press releases? Or perhaps by making it easy to go from one online newspaper who wants to charge you a subscription for their AP-and-press-release-reprintings to another paper that gives you the same thing?
Explain how Google is devaluing actual content, other than by revealing what it was really worth all along?
This opens the field to special interests - the "news" promoted by Rupert Murdoch, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the RIAA and all the other shills for one industry or another.
Ah yes. Because before Google News, there was no Fox News, and media talking heads never breathlessly repeated what some "expert" from a special interest group or government official said on a subject as though it were the gospel truth. They never disguised press releases or product advertisements as 'news'. And they would never, ever refuse to run a story or cover up the truth because an advertiser didn't like it.
Again, I am filled with mirth.
what is the new model of news media that we are conceiving if all or most of the traditional news media go down.
I honestly don't know. What I do know is that my inability to come up with a good business model for news media does not in any way make the news papers' similar inability my problem. Or Google's for that matter.
Google News (the only news aggregator I use) may die off without news to feed them, but Google would probably not much care. They don't put adds on the news page, and while it does drive some viewers to other portions of Google it's probably responsible for a very small fraction of their ad revenue. So Google has little reason to care, and whatever the 'right' answer may be forcing Google to pay news agencies isn't it.
Maybe if the news media agencies continue to fail to find viable business models, they'll die off until either the smart ones figure out a way, or there's few enough of them left that they have a chance of making their currently unrealistic models actually work. If the AP or Guardian were one of only a few sources of real news left, then they wouldn't need the aggregators to drive traffic to their site, and could more easily count on small inoffensive subscriptions to fuel them since they'd automatically hold much more of the market.
Or not. I guess my point is, the future will be what it will be, and if the news media can't figure out how to survive, then they won't. We may consider this to be a bad thing, but that's not a reason for us to bend over backwards subsidizing a broken revenue model, or inventing new legally mandating ones for them.
Last time I played enough to quote rules with precision was early 2nd edition, and I believe there 0 hp was unconscious and -1 was dead. A lot of people used a 'house rule' where you would bleed 1hp a round and die at -10. This might have become standard in 3rd or something...
Old copies? They will be there, sure. But they will not release new stuff as it was obvious that new stuff will be either leaked or just pirated by "customers". Why continue giving them freebie? Why continue competing with "free as beer" P2P while supplying em with new content at same time?
So you think there's more money in not competing at all, eh? Yeah that's smart. People were buying the .pdfs. And let me repeat, the leaks came from publishers, who could easily create a .pdf to leak to p2p networks when given the book to print in dead-tree format. And barring that, digital copies will still be made. Face it, they will be online and there's nothing you or Hasbro can do about it.
Given that, why would you make the illegal copies the only copies online?
What would you propose, keep current service as "legacy"? To compete with piratebay? With no future? No profitability? Waste of manpower.
Today, you have some people getting copies off of p2p, and some purchasing them legitimately. In the future, everyone who wants a digital copy will pirate it because that will be their only recourse.
How much effort do you think there is in creating a .pdf to throw online once you've already created the book? Is some money more or less than no money?
In their rush to prevent piracy, they are pushing their legitimate customers to it. This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Incomprehensible sentence hits you for 1d6+1!
*DM rolls die*
DM: Okay you take 5 damage, you only have 4 hp so you die.
Me: That's bullshit! Sorcelatony the Sorcelator is an expert in incomprehensibility! He even has the Gibberish and Excessive Verbosity feats! He should be immune to incomprehensibility damage.
DM: Just because he spouts it doesn't mean he can take it.
Me: Bullshit!
DM: Fine, fine, I'll let you try to save for half damage. Roll against a DR of 25 with your int bonus.
*rolls die, comes up 1*
Me: Such bullshit...
Random Party Member: Dibs on his stuff!
I love D&D. :)
Yet people still want D&D while they have plenty of options (and are not shy to rationalize torrenting it)
And so, logically, they should respond to piracy by removing the ability to pay for a legitimate copy? And you think this will put the djinni back in the bottle and there will no longer be any pirated copies on the internet?
Yes, they will add DRM, just like your library. And people here will cry and conveniently forget reason why it was added.
I'll remember why: Because they were too thick to realize that the initial leaks to p2p came from publishers, not legitimate .pdf purchasers, and that the DRM isn't going to actually do anything to prevent the guides from being available on p2p.
How the cells come together is regulated but it still isn't like pixels, the junctions between the cells are not a perfect grid, there are irregularities. The cells compensate for that. I haven't read in depth but that seems to be the gist.
I know you're correct without reading the article, since I've seen the grid of my own optic cells myself in all its organic beauty -- the term 'grid' is still useful if you don't assume straight Cartesian lines separating rows and columns but rather swooping arcs and spirals -- while tripping balls.
Of course it isn't, because gulible is only spelled with one 'l'.
I dunno, ask the AC who said it was the day before release. Guess that's what I get for believing them instead of googling.
Paramount created about six minutes of brand-new Khan film that included a simulated melt/burn. This was what they played. It was all part of the show.
Those clever bastards. That's sweet. :)