In the first place, the story Nightfall is about the best one written by Asimov. The movie version made in 2000 is so bad, it is as close as you can get to blasphemy for something anti- (or at least non-) religious. The basic idea is there, but you have the white scientists against the Indian temple religious people in an utter horror of bad acting and downright stupidity. It is one of the few movies on Amazon that doesn't even have a single 4-star review, let alone 5.
In fact, my favorite all-time review is one for this movie, which also references the despicable 1988 version (and no, it was *not* written by me):
Torture to endure from start to finish..., December 17, 2000
Okay, okay, this movie was as rotten as a reeking week old carcass under the blazing sun. I can lament for hours about the MANY horribly done 'effects' and the fact that it did not match the original tale, clinging only to several very BASE-ic threads to what was an Asimov Masterpiece. I could also go on and on about how this horrific movie was cast with what I would think are the dregs of the Screen Actor's Guild (if not just ordinary passers-by abducted off the streets of Calcutta and forced to perform in this heinous waste of celluloid under the threat of their demise) -- but I can only say this... As horrid as it was... as tasteless, and wasteful of cash and human life-moments as this travesty of film has been, it is not half as horrid as its 1988 predecessor. *That* movie was some product of a bodily function from a mushroom-dazed idiot, and like some movies & games have been known to induce epileptic fits, this movie nearly caused me catatonia. Anyway... this movie bites the big one, but if you enjoy MST3K as a show, and like to do as they did... it's the perfect candidate for such activities. For anyone who enjoys Sci-fi, and is looking for good entertainment, find the book by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, and read that... These film adaptations of the story (probably spawned from some evil parallel universe) should be shot into the sun.
So please, for the love of good literature, leave Asimov alone. Most of his good works cannot be properly adapted to the screen.
If he wasn't on the same label as Warren Zevon and Lynard Skynard, there would be hellishly expensive lawsuits. It isn't right that no independant artist could have recorded a similar song.
Well, this is one of the main thrusts of why the MAFIAA is trying to prop up their business model though lawsuits and buying legislators. If they have copyrights that are perpetual, or at least so long that they may as well be perpetual, no one will be able to create or even express *anything* without their permission and without paying them a hefty sum. Couple that with international cooperation in IP legislation, and the future looks incredibly grim for any kind of free expression.
No, our everyday life is based more on evidence than the kind of unreasoned trust you try to paint. It is not mere faith that convinces people that the airplane will fly; you have good reason to believe that because of physics, it will, and that because of literally millions of previous successful flights, that this one will be too. It is not blind faith that convinces people that their medication will work; it is the fact that human physiology is a certain way and that the medication has reliably had a given effect in both theory and in practice.
Our everyday life is based more on reason than on blind faith.
Plus, all you have to do is go to a country where the product safety controls are not as rigorous as in the more technically advanced countries. You will find the people there to be much more careful about what they buy and will more rigorously inspect what they buy and use before buying or using it. I can go to a random restaurant while traveling in the US and be reasonably certain I'm not going to get badly ill from the food because there are food safety and cleanliness inspections. If I'm in, say, Indonesia, I am a lot more scrupulous about where and what I eat. Hepatitis (among other diseases) is not something I would care to catch, which could happen if I were to eat at a random pushcart stand.
Anyway, the sort of reasoning that GP is advancing is typical fundamentalist nonsense. It is not serious religious scholarship, which is something the fundamentalists have a strong aversion of. They take 2000 years of serious Catholic scholarship, 1000 years of serious Orthodox scholarship, and about 500 years of serious Protestant scholarship and essentially say "That thar is just a bunch o' fancy pants talk. We here has got the Simple Bible Truth (TM)!"
For a minute there I thought this meant Duke Nukem Forever had been released, and it was about Duke fighting the RIAA in a court of law. Man, that would kick ass.
From what I heard, someone from Duke administration stopped by the RIAA office and said "I have come here to chew bubble gum and to kick ass, and I am all out of bubble gum."
And the "we've gotta get the money out of politics, money in politics is evil" drumbeat suddenly fell silent.
It's not that money in politics is evil. The problem is when corporations, lobbyists and other undemocratic organizations are able to give massive contributions to a candidate. It makes the winning candidate beholden to institutions that don't care about our democratic system of government. Obama, on the other hand, got most of his money from a bunch of small donors and has done much to limit lobbyist influence both in his campaign and in the current transition to the White House.
As opposed to a fair number of articles both glorifying and demonizing a single ethnic group that ignored the issues to make history in a Guiness Book of World Records type stunt.
Did it never occur to your feeble intellect that perhaps Americans simply like Obama more? He actually ran his campaign largely without reference to his race. Most of the times it needed to be mentioned was when McCain supporters would make a big deal about it.
The real danger for the country is that internal polling reveals that over 90% of journalists these days hold a liberal political persuasion
Since Faux News in one of the biggest news organizations around, I seriously doubt that 90% figure. I also strongly doubt it since this is the same figure quoted back in the 1970's. This "statistic" is bullshit and simply keeps getting repeated again and again ad nauseum over the decades.
This election was more about race and Obama worship by the media than anything else. 95% of Black voters voted for Obama.Black voters generally vote about 90%-95% for the Democratic presidential candidate, so that's not surprising.
This 12% loss among the majority race in the United states I think would be news worthy.
"Majority race"? Gee, do you have much trouble keeping the lint out of your black shirt? A substantial majority of *Americans* voted for Obama.
liberal dems (possibly with that "white guilt" they're always trying to make reparations for)
"White guilt" is one of those idiotic right-wing myths created by people who are still pissed off that slavery and Jim Crow laws were abolished. I mean, you just can't accept the fact that some white people might (*gasp*) actually like Obama, despite being one of "those" people. If you really thought it was inevitable for the black person to win the election, why did the Republicans not run Condelezza Rice or some other non-white person? I assure you, if it had been a white Democrat versus Condi Rice, the Democrat would still have won. Believe it or not, the election really was about the issues.
What relevance does drug use in a person's youth have to do with their competence and worth now as an adult? You're electing a human being, not Jesus Christ.
Plus, it's extremely hypocritical of Republicans to go on about it. I mean, George W. Bush, who was quite literally declared by many Repugs to have been put in the White House by God, was a massive coke fiend when he was young, as well being an alcoholic with DUI convictions. It's like Newt Gingrich bashing Clinton for committing adultery or Rush Limbaugh bashing drug addicts and divorcees.
Keep repeating that and keep showing your ignorance. Nazi's were socialists...
Nationalsozialist
You're an idiot. Just because they used "Socialist" in their name does not make it so. Or, do you really believe that North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is really a democratic republic?
So, unless that person offers you a bone-marrow transplant, it's probably still a good idea to use a rubber...
Great! So now it's gone from "Will you respect me in the morning?" to "Will you give me a bone marrow transplant in the morning?" I swear! Some women are never satisfied.
And why aren't petroleum reserves nationalized so at least the profits can do some social and environmental good.
Because whenever any country has tried this, the US and other Western powers has had the head of state assassinated and a puppet dictatorship put in place. The only exception so far is Venezuela, though not through the lack of the US government trying to assassinate Chavez. One of the more recent ones is the US support (military aid and so on) of massacres in East Timor, which allowed Western oil companies to plunder their resources.
Obama Calls For National Civilian Stasi [prisonplanet.com]
I'm not going to comment on your other links, but this one is the most egregious. You're actually quoting Alex Jones' Prison Planet as a reliable news source??? The article itself only references the frigging World Net Daily. I mean, WND makes Fox News actually seem fair and balanced.
That many European countries that have more modern democracies require it isn't going to be a selling point to much of the parts of America that are still stupid enough to like Bush.
There, fixed that for you. Also:
Keep in mind that we left Europe for a reason.
These reasons don't exist anymore. In case you hadn't noticed, the remaining European monarchies are wholly without power and are really nothing more than show pieces. It is the 21st century, not the 18th. Please make a note of it.
Good thing that we don't need their input. If enough people spread out over enough states wanted it bad enough, we could call a Constitutional convention and do it ourselves.
Good point. The only problem is that we would need a certain level of organization to get it done. I don't suppose you know of any groups that have that as its purpose, do you? (serious question, since I don't know of any but wish I did)
If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today, they'd be clawing at the insides of their coffins saying "Help help! I'm trapped inside this coffin!".
:-) And after they were let out, Lincoln's first question would be "So, how did the play end?"
Funny, the constitutional amendment restricting the president to two terms has been exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Apart from your unsupported claim, that seems to be refuted in practice, I see nothing that supports your position.
I guess what GP should have said was that *Congressional* term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. It's relatively easy for them to vote to limit the number of terms a president can serve, but how likely do think it is for Congress to vote for limiting *their* number of terms?
Don't worry, you will be getting that in the form of raised taxes and a weaker economy. Enjoy!
Yeah, just like when Clinton raised taxes and the economy went to shit. Dumbass.
Can't you right-wing nuts come up with anything original? You've been spewing that same bullshit at least since Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were both Republicans should show how far the GOP has changed. If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today and in politics, they would be skewered by the right the same way the right has been skewering Obama.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, my favorite all-time review is one for this movie, which also references the despicable 1988 version (and no, it was *not* written by me):
So please, for the love of good literature, leave Asimov alone. Most of his good works cannot be properly adapted to the screen.
You mean People Eating Tasty Aliens?
So, they are getting their chief legal advice from attorney Kurtz?
Well, this is one of the main thrusts of why the MAFIAA is trying to prop up their business model though lawsuits and buying legislators. If they have copyrights that are perpetual, or at least so long that they may as well be perpetual, no one will be able to create or even express *anything* without their permission and without paying them a hefty sum. Couple that with international cooperation in IP legislation, and the future looks incredibly grim for any kind of free expression.
How can the people know so little about how Starbucks joined the CIA, the Mafia, and the Knights Templar to take out JFK?
Sounds like you have an inherent understanding of Thoreau. "If a man comes to you with the obvious intention of doing you good, run for your life."
Plus, all you have to do is go to a country where the product safety controls are not as rigorous as in the more technically advanced countries. You will find the people there to be much more careful about what they buy and will more rigorously inspect what they buy and use before buying or using it. I can go to a random restaurant while traveling in the US and be reasonably certain I'm not going to get badly ill from the food because there are food safety and cleanliness inspections. If I'm in, say, Indonesia, I am a lot more scrupulous about where and what I eat. Hepatitis (among other diseases) is not something I would care to catch, which could happen if I were to eat at a random pushcart stand.
Anyway, the sort of reasoning that GP is advancing is typical fundamentalist nonsense. It is not serious religious scholarship, which is something the fundamentalists have a strong aversion of. They take 2000 years of serious Catholic scholarship, 1000 years of serious Orthodox scholarship, and about 500 years of serious Protestant scholarship and essentially say "That thar is just a bunch o' fancy pants talk. We here has got the Simple Bible Truth (TM)!"
"The thousand lawyers of the RIAA descend upon you. Our court filings will blot out the sun!"
"Then we will litigate in the shade."
From what I heard, someone from Duke administration stopped by the RIAA office and said "I have come here to chew bubble gum and to kick ass, and I am all out of bubble gum."
It's not that money in politics is evil. The problem is when corporations, lobbyists and other undemocratic organizations are able to give massive contributions to a candidate. It makes the winning candidate beholden to institutions that don't care about our democratic system of government. Obama, on the other hand, got most of his money from a bunch of small donors and has done much to limit lobbyist influence both in his campaign and in the current transition to the White House.
Did it never occur to your feeble intellect that perhaps Americans simply like Obama more? He actually ran his campaign largely without reference to his race. Most of the times it needed to be mentioned was when McCain supporters would make a big deal about it.
Since Faux News in one of the biggest news organizations around, I seriously doubt that 90% figure. I also strongly doubt it since this is the same figure quoted back in the 1970's. This "statistic" is bullshit and simply keeps getting repeated again and again ad nauseum over the decades.
"Majority race"? Gee, do you have much trouble keeping the lint out of your black shirt? A substantial majority of *Americans* voted for Obama.
"White guilt" is one of those idiotic right-wing myths created by people who are still pissed off that slavery and Jim Crow laws were abolished. I mean, you just can't accept the fact that some white people might (*gasp*) actually like Obama, despite being one of "those" people. If you really thought it was inevitable for the black person to win the election, why did the Republicans not run Condelezza Rice or some other non-white person? I assure you, if it had been a white Democrat versus Condi Rice, the Democrat would still have won. Believe it or not, the election really was about the issues.
Plus, it's extremely hypocritical of Republicans to go on about it. I mean, George W. Bush, who was quite literally declared by many Repugs to have been put in the White House by God, was a massive coke fiend when he was young, as well being an alcoholic with DUI convictions. It's like Newt Gingrich bashing Clinton for committing adultery or Rush Limbaugh bashing drug addicts and divorcees.
You're an idiot. Just because they used "Socialist" in their name does not make it so. Or, do you really believe that North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is really a democratic republic?
Great! So now it's gone from "Will you respect me in the morning?" to "Will you give me a bone marrow transplant in the morning?" I swear! Some women are never satisfied.
Because whenever any country has tried this, the US and other Western powers has had the head of state assassinated and a puppet dictatorship put in place. The only exception so far is Venezuela, though not through the lack of the US government trying to assassinate Chavez. One of the more recent ones is the US support (military aid and so on) of massacres in East Timor, which allowed Western oil companies to plunder their resources.
I'm not going to comment on your other links, but this one is the most egregious. You're actually quoting Alex Jones' Prison Planet as a reliable news source??? The article itself only references the frigging World Net Daily. I mean, WND makes Fox News actually seem fair and balanced.
There, fixed that for you. Also:
These reasons don't exist anymore. In case you hadn't noticed, the remaining European monarchies are wholly without power and are really nothing more than show pieces. It is the 21st century, not the 18th. Please make a note of it.
Well, at least one reputable news source has done so.
Good point. The only problem is that we would need a certain level of organization to get it done. I don't suppose you know of any groups that have that as its purpose, do you? (serious question, since I don't know of any but wish I did)
I guess what GP should have said was that *Congressional* term limits are nearly impossible to implement in practice. It's relatively easy for them to vote to limit the number of terms a president can serve, but how likely do think it is for Congress to vote for limiting *their* number of terms?
Yeah, just like when Clinton raised taxes and the economy went to shit. Dumbass.
Can't you right-wing nuts come up with anything original? You've been spewing that same bullshit at least since Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were both Republicans should show how far the GOP has changed. If Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln were alive today and in politics, they would be skewered by the right the same way the right has been skewering Obama.