It's a shame the Matrix "ate" 13th floor at the box office, it was actually a really entertaining film that would likely be enjoyed by similar demographics.
Glad you brought up GE, because it's the story I specifically had in mind when I claimed Dickens' work was the model the soap opera is based on. The same network of characters are used for everything, with the web of how each relates to the other getting more and more contorted as it draws to a close - if you draw a character relationship web for "Dallas" and "Great Expectations" you'd find a clear similarity. The original ending was also rewritten in response to feedback, as it was thought to be too gloomy for the times, but recovered from proof slips, here's the original:
"
It was four years more, before I saw herself. I had heard of her as leading a most unhappy life, and as being separated from her husband who had used her with great cruelty, and who had become quite renowned as a compound of pride, brutality, and meanness.
I had heard of the death of her husband (from an accident consequent on ill-treating a horse), and of her being married again to a Shropshire doctor, who, against his interest, had once very manfully interposed, on an occasion when he was in professional attendance on Mr. Drummle, and had witnessed some outrageous treatment of her. I had heard that the Shropshire doctor was not rich, and that they lived on her own personal fortune.
I was in England again -- in London, and walking along Piccadilly with little Pip -- when a servant came running after me to ask would I step back to a lady in a carriage who wished to speak to me. It was a little pony carriage, which the lady was driving; and the lady and I looked sadly enough on one another.
"I am greatly changed, I know; but I thought you would like to shake hands with Estella, too, Pip. Lift up that pretty child and let me kiss it!" (She supposed the child, I think, to be my child.)
I was very glad afterwards to have had the interview; for, in her face and in her voice, and in her touch, she gave me the assurance, that suffering had been stronger than Miss Havisham's teaching, and had given her a heart to understand what my heart used to be."
Which would have made it the perfect soap opera plot, the down ending, but that simply would not due in Dickens' time, so his original notion had to be changed to suit the palate of the day. I like the story quite better with the original ending, and actually liked the radically different updated movie version quite a bit.
I agree, but Dickens is a terrible example... his characters aren't so much deep, as they are manipulated continually after the fact due to that he was writing serial publication literature, not novels. The characters have "depth" and are "multifaceted" because they were continually adjusted for consumption of the audience. Dickens' work is the model the modern soap opera is based on, from the contrived, unlikely relationships revealed between the characters to the padding added to the story to stretch the plot over as much publication times as possible. I think they are so popular because they resonate with certain aspects of modern life... they reaffirm industrialism and capitalism(Scrooge doesn't give away all his money, he uses it to make himself and others happy, rather than miserly stowing it away)while arguing for the wealthy to act as caretakers to watch after the interest of the needy, something else which still resonates.
My parents had no cell phones or anything growing up in queens and elmont, and there was really no way for their parents to keep track of them at all, starting as soon as they were old enough to walk down the block on their own. My mother said "Back then you could get away with anything, and we DID!"
If it tastes anything like a broiler steak, I'll stick with my hardwood charcoal, burns way hotter than briquet's and way hotter than this emitter, anyway.
We have a local fried chicken shack here on eastern LI, Spicys Chicken (http://www.lioddities.com/Roadside/spicys.htm), that is the best chicken, the reason KFC needs to stay in business is to provide me with their gravy, that stuff is the crack cocaine of fast food toppings.
Freedom of opinion does not mean all opinions are equally valid, the point is that making drugs illegal does not prevent anyone from using them(If it did, you would not have a personal anecdote about a family members drug addiction), so the only difference would have been that perhaps if drugs were legal and your family member was able to get help instead of being treated like a criminal the "cycle of addiction" would not have been so much of a problem, treating sick people like criminals instead of getting them help is the real problem.
The reason to legalize drugs hard or impossible to use safely is it's still easier to deal with socially than criminally, and btw, while heroine is one of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, it causes no brain or other cellular damage of any sort, which is interesting because antidrug types seem to use damaging the brain as absolute assurance a substance is too deadly to be available.
You seem to be under the delusion that drugs control you after you take them, which tells me you are either 1) very psychologically vulnerable, and had a bad experience with drugs due to you unstable psyche, or 2) You have been told Bad Things(tm) about drugs since you were little, and/or had a bad experience involving someone you cared about and drugs, and thus Know(tm) they are bad. Drug policy DOES NOT change levels of drug addiction. It's a simple cycle, and over time holds at a stable 1-1.5%, regardless of laws in place, for the past 100 years.
The solution to overcrowded prisons full of nonviolent drug offenders who can't get proper jobs when they get out, violence in the drug trade, murderous cartels, harm from bad quality drugs, and heroine money paying for Afghani terrorist training camps is decriminalization and legitimization of Americas' drug trade. We can use half the money we currently spend on the drug war for addict treatment facilities, that ought do the job, unlike prison, where we also save another fortune through reduced incarceration. Then we can take the other half of the drug war money, combine it with the money we saved on prisons, and use it to actually EDUCATE our youth, which is probably the one thing we can do to actually REDUCE drug abuse.
What kind of sound card do you have, and what kind of speakers/headphones? I found that while the jitteryness of the compound words was highly evident, every word was perfectly clear, so it only took a second afterwards to process each sentence.
I agree with most of that, but poor families not being able to get an education? With the exception of some big city schools with no funds, children in this country have every opportunity to learn, and they simply do not value it the way many other nations do. And even in the bad schools, if you are MOTIVATED, you can go very far, and learn all you want. Most of these kids just don't care, some because they come from a culture of poverty where education is looked down on, others because they are too lazy even though they see the value, but I don't feel the public should have to make some massive effort to motivate kids to pay attention in school, the opportunity is there, most children of poor families are simply uninterested in it. Yes, I am from a poor family and attended a diverse high school in a bad neighborhood, the only difference between me and the kids smoking and playing handball behind the shopping mall across from the schoolyard instead of going to class was I WANTED to learn. That being said, the current public school system is an assembly line designed to bang out walmart clerks unless you navigate it very carefully and look for real learning opportunities, but thats the whole system end to end, not just in bad neighborhoods.
My family never had an answering machine(My parents said "who wants to have to return calls? If they really need anything they'll call back")and I still don't have a cell phone.
I must have heard it backwards, thanks, thinking about it any oxidation it causes would decrease the cylander diameter and immediately be plied off by the piston into the oil, taking any buildup with it and leaving a pretty clean surface.
There's a difference, electric cars use no significant petrolum resources, but more efficient cars mean they can sell us the less of the same commodity for the same money, and do it for longer because the supply will last longer.
I don't believe oil companies have any incentive to kill things that reduce the quantity of oil we need... they know as well as we do that there is a limited amount of oil they will ever find, and it's always getting more expensive to extract... the more efficient everything oil fueled works, the longer they will be able to keep taking our money, they'll just make sure within notime we're paying as much as we are now to fuel our more efficient engines. Oil isn't a standard commodity that basic economic models apply to, we buy as much gas as we need, no matter how much it costs, so no matter what improvements are made in efficiency the buck is never going to go back to the consumer over any timespan the companies care about.
I believe he means there is nothing you can do to lower your insurance rates if they can charge you more for that defect, obviously you'd only be wise to take steps to not get it, since it might, you know, kill you. But insurance companies aren't going to have to lower your rate because you are trying to mitigate.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame the Matrix "ate" 13th floor at the box office, it was actually a really entertaining film that would likely be enjoyed by similar demographics.
Glad you brought up GE, because it's the story I specifically had in mind when I claimed Dickens' work was the model the soap opera is based on. The same network of characters are used for everything, with the web of how each relates to the other getting more and more contorted as it draws to a close - if you draw a character relationship web for "Dallas" and "Great Expectations" you'd find a clear similarity. The original ending was also rewritten in response to feedback, as it was thought to be too gloomy for the times, but recovered from proof slips, here's the original: " It was four years more, before I saw herself. I had heard of her as leading a most unhappy life, and as being separated from her husband who had used her with great cruelty, and who had become quite renowned as a compound of pride, brutality, and meanness. I had heard of the death of her husband (from an accident consequent on ill-treating a horse), and of her being married again to a Shropshire doctor, who, against his interest, had once very manfully interposed, on an occasion when he was in professional attendance on Mr. Drummle, and had witnessed some outrageous treatment of her. I had heard that the Shropshire doctor was not rich, and that they lived on her own personal fortune. I was in England again -- in London, and walking along Piccadilly with little Pip -- when a servant came running after me to ask would I step back to a lady in a carriage who wished to speak to me. It was a little pony carriage, which the lady was driving; and the lady and I looked sadly enough on one another. "I am greatly changed, I know; but I thought you would like to shake hands with Estella, too, Pip. Lift up that pretty child and let me kiss it!" (She supposed the child, I think, to be my child.) I was very glad afterwards to have had the interview; for, in her face and in her voice, and in her touch, she gave me the assurance, that suffering had been stronger than Miss Havisham's teaching, and had given her a heart to understand what my heart used to be." Which would have made it the perfect soap opera plot, the down ending, but that simply would not due in Dickens' time, so his original notion had to be changed to suit the palate of the day. I like the story quite better with the original ending, and actually liked the radically different updated movie version quite a bit.
I agree, but Dickens is a terrible example... his characters aren't so much deep, as they are manipulated continually after the fact due to that he was writing serial publication literature, not novels. The characters have "depth" and are "multifaceted" because they were continually adjusted for consumption of the audience. Dickens' work is the model the modern soap opera is based on, from the contrived, unlikely relationships revealed between the characters to the padding added to the story to stretch the plot over as much publication times as possible. I think they are so popular because they resonate with certain aspects of modern life... they reaffirm industrialism and capitalism(Scrooge doesn't give away all his money, he uses it to make himself and others happy, rather than miserly stowing it away)while arguing for the wealthy to act as caretakers to watch after the interest of the needy, something else which still resonates.
Not that I disagree, quite the opposite, but you're using a simple slippery slope fallacy here.
My parents had no cell phones or anything growing up in queens and elmont, and there was really no way for their parents to keep track of them at all, starting as soon as they were old enough to walk down the block on their own. My mother said "Back then you could get away with anything, and we DID!"
If it tastes anything like a broiler steak, I'll stick with my hardwood charcoal, burns way hotter than briquet's and way hotter than this emitter, anyway.
We have a local fried chicken shack here on eastern LI, Spicys Chicken (http://www.lioddities.com/Roadside/spicys.htm), that is the best chicken, the reason KFC needs to stay in business is to provide me with their gravy, that stuff is the crack cocaine of fast food toppings.
Freedom of opinion does not mean all opinions are equally valid, the point is that making drugs illegal does not prevent anyone from using them(If it did, you would not have a personal anecdote about a family members drug addiction), so the only difference would have been that perhaps if drugs were legal and your family member was able to get help instead of being treated like a criminal the "cycle of addiction" would not have been so much of a problem, treating sick people like criminals instead of getting them help is the real problem.
The reason to legalize drugs hard or impossible to use safely is it's still easier to deal with socially than criminally, and btw, while heroine is one of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, it causes no brain or other cellular damage of any sort, which is interesting because antidrug types seem to use damaging the brain as absolute assurance a substance is too deadly to be available.
You seem to be under the delusion that drugs control you after you take them, which tells me you are either 1) very psychologically vulnerable, and had a bad experience with drugs due to you unstable psyche, or 2) You have been told Bad Things(tm) about drugs since you were little, and/or had a bad experience involving someone you cared about and drugs, and thus Know(tm) they are bad. Drug policy DOES NOT change levels of drug addiction. It's a simple cycle, and over time holds at a stable 1-1.5%, regardless of laws in place, for the past 100 years.
Only drug illegality creates the far more of the social evils poisoning society than drug use, or even drug abuse, does..
I think there is limited production of this during passover, as it's kosher.
The solution to overcrowded prisons full of nonviolent drug offenders who can't get proper jobs when they get out, violence in the drug trade, murderous cartels, harm from bad quality drugs, and heroine money paying for Afghani terrorist training camps is decriminalization and legitimization of Americas' drug trade. We can use half the money we currently spend on the drug war for addict treatment facilities, that ought do the job, unlike prison, where we also save another fortune through reduced incarceration. Then we can take the other half of the drug war money, combine it with the money we saved on prisons, and use it to actually EDUCATE our youth, which is probably the one thing we can do to actually REDUCE drug abuse.
Ahh, I have an older audigy, but it's hooked up to the main input on a sansui 9090 receiver, and then piped into ipod headphones.
What kind of sound card do you have, and what kind of speakers/headphones? I found that while the jitteryness of the compound words was highly evident, every word was perfectly clear, so it only took a second afterwards to process each sentence.
I agree with most of that, but poor families not being able to get an education? With the exception of some big city schools with no funds, children in this country have every opportunity to learn, and they simply do not value it the way many other nations do. And even in the bad schools, if you are MOTIVATED, you can go very far, and learn all you want. Most of these kids just don't care, some because they come from a culture of poverty where education is looked down on, others because they are too lazy even though they see the value, but I don't feel the public should have to make some massive effort to motivate kids to pay attention in school, the opportunity is there, most children of poor families are simply uninterested in it. Yes, I am from a poor family and attended a diverse high school in a bad neighborhood, the only difference between me and the kids smoking and playing handball behind the shopping mall across from the schoolyard instead of going to class was I WANTED to learn. That being said, the current public school system is an assembly line designed to bang out walmart clerks unless you navigate it very carefully and look for real learning opportunities, but thats the whole system end to end, not just in bad neighborhoods.
My family never had an answering machine(My parents said "who wants to have to return calls? If they really need anything they'll call back")and I still don't have a cell phone.
I must have heard it backwards, thanks, thinking about it any oxidation it causes would decrease the cylander diameter and immediately be plied off by the piston into the oil, taking any buildup with it and leaving a pretty clean surface.
There's a difference, electric cars use no significant petrolum resources, but more efficient cars mean they can sell us the less of the same commodity for the same money, and do it for longer because the supply will last longer.
Doesn't water vapor injection result in terrible corrosion over time in iron based(nearly all) engine blocks?
I don't believe oil companies have any incentive to kill things that reduce the quantity of oil we need... they know as well as we do that there is a limited amount of oil they will ever find, and it's always getting more expensive to extract... the more efficient everything oil fueled works, the longer they will be able to keep taking our money, they'll just make sure within notime we're paying as much as we are now to fuel our more efficient engines. Oil isn't a standard commodity that basic economic models apply to, we buy as much gas as we need, no matter how much it costs, so no matter what improvements are made in efficiency the buck is never going to go back to the consumer over any timespan the companies care about.
I believe he means there is nothing you can do to lower your insurance rates if they can charge you more for that defect, obviously you'd only be wise to take steps to not get it, since it might, you know, kill you. But insurance companies aren't going to have to lower your rate because you are trying to mitigate.
Even in the grocery store, by far the cheapest calories are garbage food that makes you fat but contains few nutrients, causing your body to crave to eat more. Examine this times article on the subject, should you have completed free registration: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytime s.com/mem/gatekeeper.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26URIQ3DhttpQ3 AQ2FQ2Fwww.nytimes.comQ2F2007Q2F04Q2F22Q2Fmagazine Q2F22wwlnlede.t.htmlQ26OQ51Q3D_rQ513D2Q5126eiQ513D 5087Q51250AQ5126emQ513DQ5126enQ513D66cff38fe969430 5Q5126exQ513D1177732800Q5126pagewantedQ513DallQ512 6orefQ513DsloginQ26OPQ3D489ccfa3Q512FQ512BzQ513F!Q 512BIeFpQ513BeewyQ512By99Q512FQ512B9,Q512ByyQ512Bd Q515BQ515DQ515BQ517BSQ5123Q513FQ512Byyzz(Q5123(Q51 3FIQ513FZwZQ5151wd(&OP=129f9f62Q2FQ2BQ51FBQ2BAQ5EQ 3CFQ7ErHQ2B!Q3CvQ7EVVA6Q2BVQ7DUQ3CF!Q3CFrQ2BQ20Q7E Q3CFRFFVFQ7Da!Q3Cv
I have gin..
Only that never made sense, because they don't drown, they can just walk around underwater if weighted.