Sadly, I don't think many people know of Logan's Run. Glad there were a few here who did!
I discovered the movie upon watching "Free Enterprise". Then I had to run out and rent it.
According to my parents, I said my first word ("Mama") at 6 months, and could carry on talk in full sentences and have conversations when I was about 12 months old.
Either I'm a freak, or this study hasn't been around children enough--or at all.
I spend about 50 hours minimum on the computer per week. I guess by some people's standards I would be "addicted" when in actuality that's just my typical work week as a programmer.
I can just imagine walking into my boss' office now: "Hey, my doctor says that I'm addicted to being on the computer, so I have to spend less time on it. Can you cut my hours down to 5 a day and still pay me my usual salary?" I'm sure that he'd be only too thrilled to accomodate my need for good mental health!
Heh! My parents, as liberal as they were, never would've gone for me hanging out with 20-something year olds in my early to mid teens. In fact, one of the things that they instilled in me was the belief that if they wanted to hang out with me, something was seriously wrong with the picture. Why didn't they have friends their own age? Et cetera....
I think this all comes down to parenting and what messages you send to your kids. They never *forbade* me from hanging out with older people, just got me to think about what in the world they could possibly gain from hanging out with someone who is that much younger than them.
Most likely they were concerned with my getting taken advantage of by perverts, and given the world we live in I can't honestly say that I blame them. It did NOT help that when I was 10, I looked about 15-16. Thankfully now that I am much older, I am aging backwards.:D
I was the only one in the entire elementary school who had hers. It would be my guess that most girls in elementary school are typically too young to get it.:)
As for hanging out with older people, everyone in my grade was a year older (I skipped the second grade), so it really didn't make much difference.:) And I really don't see how 16 year olds would want to hang out with a nerdy 10 year old, anyhow!
I started at seven, and oddly enough aside from having lots of angry, jealous girls when I started menses and they didn't (at aged 10), I really didn't experience life any differently. Then again, I was also a year younger than everyone in my class so the differences weren't as extreme as they might have been.
At the same time, I watched everyone else act like idiots when I was a teenager over sex and drugs and made up my mind not to join them. Early puberty doesn't make one have sex at an early age--stupidity and lack of the concept of individual responsibility will.
I love how society likes to blame everything BUT individuals for their problems and for doing stupid things. TV made me do it. Hollywood made me do it. Drugs made me do it. And now, "Puberty made me do it." It's terribly dysfunctional.
I was raised on a heavy diet of science fiction and fantasy from the time I was very, very young. I had already read books by Madeline L'Engle and Robert Heinlein long by the time I was ten.
I would find out first what the person likes and focus not on the gender but the *person*. Do they like comedy? Drama? Insightful philosophical debates? Technology? What-ifs regarding the future? If you're not certain, get a little of everything. I'd also find out what reading level they're at so that you're neither boring them nor getting them a book that they don't understand. Buy a few classics and mix them with contemporary books. That way they get to sample a little of everything and decide on their own what they like and don't like.
I think you need to improve your technique, rather than reparadigming games...
As a female gamer (yes we exist, on/. and elsewhere), I most wholeheartedly concur.
Also, if you're "racing to the finish line" with your gf instead of actually enjoying yourself, it may explain why you're dateless. Slow and steady wins the race, my friends.
It would be cities that would need this the most, given how much energy they expend already--and the majority of major cities are near sources of water. Imagine how much energy NYC, Boston, and LA could save if they used water. Heck, the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority) may even be able to improve their service.
Everyone keeps accusing the guy of being after nothing but money. This actually proves that he *ISN'T*. Let's examine why.
What part of Star Wars would people pay lots of money to see by the droves?
Darth Vader, post ep III and pre ep IV, killing lots and lots of people and generally being bad assed. It'd be better than any stupid action film that you could possibly release. And you could throw in cool Jedi for fun that you KNOW will eventually be killed by them. Maybe a few bounty hunters.
Best yet, if he really wanted top dollar--I mean to truly swim in the money, you'd see him not only finishing off the Jedi purge, but torturing and killing Jar Jar.
I'd pay serious money to see that. It'd be worth its weight in gold. In fact, ANYONE I know would. Come on, it's *DARTH VADER*. Adding Jar Jar's brutal, horrible death would only sweeten the deal.
Any idiot with a room temperature IQ would know that this would be the best money maker. Hence, Lucas either has an IQ lower than that, or is genuinely uninterested in making more money.
Re:people missing work because of SW?
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 1
Or boyfriends.:)
Oh wait, I'm supposed to pretend that only guys like Star Wars, Star Trek, science fiction in general, computers, RPGs, gaming....
This is good anyway. Last thing I want is another 7 year old girl screaming behind me like when Vader was pounding away on Luke in Cloud City during ESB (when it re-released back in theaters years ago). Of course it did add to the effect.
Am I wrong for literally laughing out loud as I'm reading that?:D
That's a good question. I'm honestly not certain. I suspect that he must've said something at this point and has on multiple occasions. I'll verify that before I stick my foot in my mouth, however.:)
If they withdrew on their own, sans political influence from a religious leader, I wouldn't see it as a "bad" thing. However, the circumstances under which they have done a turnabout face *IS* a "bad" thing.
There were many ways this could've been handled:
1) Continue to support the bill. It'd piss off the religious right, but it would continue their supposed stance in support of gays' rights.
2) Withdraw support for this AND ALL OTHER POLITICAL INFLUENCE. *THAT* would be a neutral stance.
3) Withdraw support for this bill, don't give a reason. Still suspicious, but you can at least speculate, and argue that it's a neutral stance.
4) Withdraw support due to whining^H^H^H^H^H^H^ pressure from religious right.
Now, #4 is what they chose. I can't imagine any other way to view this other than "bad," to use your judgment label. It's not a neutral stance, no matter how you slice it.
The point isn't that they should have a say, or should be forced to take a stance. The point is that they MADE a stance, and now they're backing down from it--and from pressure from a religious leader, no less. That's not being neutral in the least.
Because people of different religions get discriminated against, too. I know of people who have had problems with custody of children, have gotten fired or otherwise discriminated at work, or outright harrassed due to their religion. So quite honestly, you can't win in this scenario either.
If you aren't a Christian or a Jew--and with 9/11, being a Muslim can be a problem now too--you face the risk of getting about as much heat as any person in the GLBT community.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I don't think many people know of Logan's Run. Glad there were a few here who did! I discovered the movie upon watching "Free Enterprise". Then I had to run out and rent it.
Renewal! Renewal! Renewal!
I found one here: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811
Either I'm a freak, or this study hasn't been around children enough--or at all.
I can just imagine walking into my boss' office now: "Hey, my doctor says that I'm addicted to being on the computer, so I have to spend less time on it. Can you cut my hours down to 5 a day and still pay me my usual salary?" I'm sure that he'd be only too thrilled to accomodate my need for good mental health!
I think this all comes down to parenting and what messages you send to your kids. They never *forbade* me from hanging out with older people, just got me to think about what in the world they could possibly gain from hanging out with someone who is that much younger than them.
Most likely they were concerned with my getting taken advantage of by perverts, and given the world we live in I can't honestly say that I blame them. It did NOT help that when I was 10, I looked about 15-16. Thankfully now that I am much older, I am aging backwards. :D
As for hanging out with older people, everyone in my grade was a year older (I skipped the second grade), so it really didn't make much difference. :) And I really don't see how 16 year olds would want to hang out with a nerdy 10 year old, anyhow!
At the same time, I watched everyone else act like idiots when I was a teenager over sex and drugs and made up my mind not to join them. Early puberty doesn't make one have sex at an early age--stupidity and lack of the concept of individual responsibility will.
I love how society likes to blame everything BUT individuals for their problems and for doing stupid things. TV made me do it. Hollywood made me do it. Drugs made me do it. And now, "Puberty made me do it." It's terribly dysfunctional.
I would find out first what the person likes and focus not on the gender but the *person*. Do they like comedy? Drama? Insightful philosophical debates? Technology? What-ifs regarding the future? If you're not certain, get a little of everything. I'd also find out what reading level they're at so that you're neither boring them nor getting them a book that they don't understand. Buy a few classics and mix them with contemporary books. That way they get to sample a little of everything and decide on their own what they like and don't like.
Given I am one, quite a bit :)
Not that what happens regularly, getting pulled over, or not having your driver's license on you? ;)
-- raised from birth to be a scifi chick
As a female gamer (yes we exist, on /. and elsewhere), I most wholeheartedly concur.
Also, if you're "racing to the finish line" with your gf instead of actually enjoying yourself, it may explain why you're dateless. Slow and steady wins the race, my friends.
You have a point. I really do think that Darth Vader should be the next President of the US. :)
It would be cities that would need this the most, given how much energy they expend already--and the majority of major cities are near sources of water. Imagine how much energy NYC, Boston, and LA could save if they used water. Heck, the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority) may even be able to improve their service.
Everyone keeps accusing the guy of being after nothing but money. This actually proves that he *ISN'T*. Let's examine why. What part of Star Wars would people pay lots of money to see by the droves? Darth Vader, post ep III and pre ep IV, killing lots and lots of people and generally being bad assed. It'd be better than any stupid action film that you could possibly release. And you could throw in cool Jedi for fun that you KNOW will eventually be killed by them. Maybe a few bounty hunters. Best yet, if he really wanted top dollar--I mean to truly swim in the money, you'd see him not only finishing off the Jedi purge, but torturing and killing Jar Jar. I'd pay serious money to see that. It'd be worth its weight in gold. In fact, ANYONE I know would. Come on, it's *DARTH VADER*. Adding Jar Jar's brutal, horrible death would only sweeten the deal. Any idiot with a room temperature IQ would know that this would be the best money maker. Hence, Lucas either has an IQ lower than that, or is genuinely uninterested in making more money.
Oh wait, I'm supposed to pretend that only guys like Star Wars, Star Trek, science fiction in general, computers, RPGs, gaming....
Dammit! I've been denied my Twinkie privilege due to my twisted sense of humor. :( Next I'll be forced to read /. with a dialup connection....
Am I wrong for literally laughing out loud as I'm reading that? :D
They wouldn't happen to have those commercials recorded online, would they? I haven't seen any of them.
That's a good question. I'm honestly not certain. I suspect that he must've said something at this point and has on multiple occasions. I'll verify that before I stick my foot in my mouth, however. :)
There were many ways this could've been handled:
1) Continue to support the bill. It'd piss off the religious right, but it would continue their supposed stance in support of gays' rights.
2) Withdraw support for this AND ALL OTHER POLITICAL INFLUENCE. *THAT* would be a neutral stance.
3) Withdraw support for this bill, don't give a reason. Still suspicious, but you can at least speculate, and argue that it's a neutral stance.
4) Withdraw support due to whining^H^H^H^H^H^H^ pressure from religious right.
Now, #4 is what they chose. I can't imagine any other way to view this other than "bad," to use your judgment label. It's not a neutral stance, no matter how you slice it.
Who's kicking and screaming? They're the ones who took a stance to begin with, now they're running away with their tail between the legs.
The point isn't that they should have a say, or should be forced to take a stance. The point is that they MADE a stance, and now they're backing down from it--and from pressure from a religious leader, no less. That's not being neutral in the least.
If you aren't a Christian or a Jew--and with 9/11, being a Muslim can be a problem now too--you face the risk of getting about as much heat as any person in the GLBT community.