By telling theaters that they're free not to screen the movie? Several hundred of which have taken them up on the offer? How does that drum up support for the movie?
I'm not part of Hollywood dude. I rarely go to the movies; maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I own less than 10 DVDs; how many movies are really good enough that you care to re-watch them with enough frequency to justify owning them? My television service comes from an antenna and that exists primarily so I have access to local news.
My issue here is with the spineless theaters that are actually going to pull the movie over vague online threats. Because of that I am going to reward the nearest one that chooses to screen the movie despite these threats. If I happen to be dating someone at the time who is into this sort of lowest common denominator comedy I'll take them with; $20 is a worthwhile investment to get laid. Otherwise I go by myself. The 2nd Amendment comment was mostly "because I can", not because I actually think I'll need my legally carried firearm, though the saying "It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." comes to mind.:)
It will be a stinker. But I view this the same way I viewed Comedy Central's cowardice regarding the South Park episodes with Muhammad in them. Free speech is the defining civil liberty of Western Civilization. We used to regard it as something worth fighting and dying for. Now we're so cowardly that we pull movies from being screened over vague online threats by undefined groups that most likely lack any ability to back up those threats or even to encourage lone wolves (as could have theoretically happened with South Park) to do the same.
I will be going to see this movie, wherever it screens, even that entails a significant drive or other inconvenience on my part. If the movie sucks as badly as I think it will I'll just play with my cell phone for two hours. And since some assholes have gone and made threats I'll be exercising my 2nd Amendment rights at the same time.
If I broke into your house, and dug up all your secrets, revealed them to the world, and then threatened to murder anyone doing business with you, should I be applauded if I find out you where doing something 'wrong'?
I saw the previews months ago for that movie and thought to myself "That looks stupid." but now I'm going to go see it anyway. You should really encourage all of your friends to do the same. Blackmail resulting in self-censorship is not something that needs to be encouraged.
Instead recycled water plants are being built instead to treat effluent and return it to the reservoirs.
How'd they make that happen on the West Coast, where people are so paranoid that they drain entire reservoirs simply because someone peed in them?
Who all all I had to do to destroy New York City's water supply was drive half an hour and take a piss. I hope the terrorists haven't figured this out, they'll be in the Catskills drinking beer in no time.
I've looked at the San Francisco annul rainfall for the past 150 years, and this drought was no more severe than the last few in the early 90s and late 70s, among other droughts.
You're forgetting how weather reporting has become as sensationalized as every other aspect of journalism. Cheat sheet to modern TV meteorology:
1) Every unusually cold spell is the result of a polar vortex.
2) Every severe weather event is the result of anthropologic climate change.
3) The only proper way to cover a tropical cyclone is to have a guy standing on a sea wall in a rain coat. Bonus points if you can barely understand him due to the effects of wind on his microphone.
4) Buzzwords poorly understood by the broader population (this includes most meteorologists and practically all of the ones on television) must be thrown in to consume airtime. See Item #1 and add "El Niño" and "La Niña" to the list.
I have no idea what the point of that link is, but in response to:
Only Americans think their states are like countries.
That's because very few non-Americans have actually studied our political system or our history in depth. Have you actually read our Federal Constitution? I'm sure I know the answer to the question if I pose it regarding a State Constitution. You do know that the 13 original colonies each had their own charters? Or that two of the American States (Vermont and Texas) existed as Independent Republics prior to joining the United States? Have you ever wondered why things like drivers licenses are done at the State level rather than the Federal level? Or why alcohol policies vary so broadly across the United States? Gambling? And so forth?
These are all rhetorical questions of course. I don't know where you're from but I'm almost certain I know more about the political/legal system in your country and the history thereof than you do about the United States of America. Look, the answer is even in the name....
It's not as big of a difference as you would think. The 50 American States retain all powers except for those specifically surrendered to the Federal Government. They are every bit as sovereign as the members of the EU. The critical difference is they've surrendered more powers to the central government than EU members have. In certain areas US States have more power to flip the bird to the central government than EU members do. They're certainly more powerful than any political subdivision of a European State, unless you want to talk about special cases like Åland.
We don't have a fence. And if you think the US wasn't going to increase security after 19 foreigners got into the country (legally I might add) and killed nearly 3,000 people you're crazy. What country on this planet wouldn't have tightened border controls after such an incident?
We can argue about the need for some of these measures (I would do away with the fingerprint requirement, at least for people holding Schengen Area passports and those from other countries we have excellent relations with) or even their effectiveness but the equation to the Berlin Wall is both offensive and laughable. I'm guessing the person that made it didn't have the privilege of actually living in the East Bloc and is a spoiled Westerner.....
Then after 9/11, the US began to build its version of the Berlin wall.
Umm, the Berlin Wall was to meant to keep East Bloc citizens in, not to keep Westerners out. I've never had any issues whatsoever leaving the United States. In fact it's easier to exit the United States than it is to exit the Schengen Area; we don't make you wait in line to get your passport stamped on your way out of our country.
As a Brit I could move to France without asking permission. I don't think that's true for a US citizen to move to Mexico or Canada.
They're not part of the United States. *shrug*
I'm not sure why you're trying to equate the relationship between the US and her neighbors to the relationship between EU members. A better equation is between the 50 States and in that instance we can move about with more ease than EU citizens can. If you insist on said equation I could point out that you're not exactly free to move to Russia without documentation as an EU citizen...
Incidentally, if you're British you should be aware of what your PM is doing. To listen to him tell it people are using the freedom of movement to abuse your social safety net. I don't know enough about British domestic politics to say whether or not this is true or he's using it to advance another political agenda; I have followed it at a distance though. I did see people from the former East Bloc abusing freedom of movement in the Nordic Countries and it did result in a fair amount of resentment from the locals.
Notably us white Northerners were not suddenly beset with swarthy skinned Southerners taking our jobs.
Which explains why David Cameron is trying to amend the freedom of movement to gain the ability to deport EU nationals that move to the UK without first securing employment. Or the borderline racism I personally observed in Sweden and Finland directed at EU nationals who moved there from the former Eastern Bloc.
You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.
You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State. Common language and all, plus there's no such thing in the States as a residency permit for American citizens. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conceptions.:)
I am actually not sure how TFA comes to the conclusion that spanish would be a good second language. The question should be "assuming I already speak English, which second language should I speak."
That question can't really be answered on its own. If you live in the United States Spanish is probably a solid choice for you. If you live in Finland not so much...
It's a shame that it will likely be centuries before mankind figures out how to be more informationally efficient and come up with some sort of "basic" language. I'd even go along with Esperanto if the powers that be would just pick something and move the human race to it.
What "powers that be" do you suppose there are who have the wherewithal to move the entire human race to a single language? What do you do with the multitude of words that can't neatly be translated? Words that carry a special meaning for the underlying culture? Your desired future sounds oppressive, monolithic, and dull. And I say that as a native English speaker...
You can talk to dogs in any language. They cannot understand complex sentences
That depends on what breed of dog and how you define 'complex'. Border Collies are well known for their grasp of vocabulary; we could give our BC commands along the lines of "Go into Steve's room and get the red toy." and she'd do it. That sentence is complicated enough to place it out of reach for many humans who have only limited English abilities.
If she is earning more, then she needs to suck it up and pay her taxes
If you seriously pay tax on all of your income you're either lying or insanely anal retentive. Do you pay taxes on lottery winnings <$600? That's income, so if you didn't you're stealing. What about odd jobs you do for friends? Are you going to claim with a straight face that you keep track of such monies to the penny and claim them on your State and Federal taxes? I doubt it very much.
Few people would try to earn a living without paying any taxes whatsoever. But nearly everyone is going to accept cash in lieu of a check when the opportunity presents itself; why should I pay taxes on some extra cash I earned helping the neighbor with their PC? Or watching their kid for them when they were in a jam? You may be retentive enough to track such money to the penny but you're squarely in the minority there my friend.
The "paying the babysitter" scenario was the one I conceded was easier in the EU than the States. It would be nice to have such functionality here but I hardly feel like I'm living the dark ages for not having it. It goes one of two ways:
1) She gets cash. This is usually the preference in the States for such transactions because it's tax free income. I certainly prefer cash for the various side gigs I have.
2) She gets a check. Funds are available next business day 99% of the time.
As I said, it's not as sexy, but it gets the job done. Person-to-person payments are pretty low on the list of things I'd fix with regards to the American financial system. And yes, there are problems with paper checks, and they should go away, but on balance there's not a lot of fraud being committed with them. The bigger fraud issue is cloned credit cards, which I did point out.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So which is worse, being a failed communist state or what Cuba was before the revolution: America's whorehouse?
C) None of the above.
When Comrade Fidel gets a cold, the doctors that treat him are flown in from Spain via charter jet.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
By telling theaters that they're free not to screen the movie? Several hundred of which have taken them up on the offer? How does that drum up support for the movie?
The tinfoil hat is strong with this one....
Might as well play to the base and show America what happens if both parties start appeasing their base.
The vast majority of Americans that aren't partisan asshats get whacked in the head every 2/4/6 years as pendulum swings back and forth?
Hooray for Gerrymandering and first past the post!
I love how people can rationalize anything around these parts if the target of a crime is someone that's unpopular. *sigh*
You're about 26,000 feet off the mark my friend.
Will you also be quoting the National Enquirer in your quest to demonize anyone questioning the MPAA and/or Sony's behavior?
MPAA's asshattery does not justify cyber-vigilantism (best case), cyber-terrorism (worst case), and threats of physical violence.
Do you believe that vigilantism is always wrong?
In this case? With regards to an industry that could be killed tomorrow if enough people simply voted with their wallet? Yes, I do think it's wrong.
I'm not part of Hollywood dude. I rarely go to the movies; maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I own less than 10 DVDs; how many movies are really good enough that you care to re-watch them with enough frequency to justify owning them? My television service comes from an antenna and that exists primarily so I have access to local news.
My issue here is with the spineless theaters that are actually going to pull the movie over vague online threats. Because of that I am going to reward the nearest one that chooses to screen the movie despite these threats. If I happen to be dating someone at the time who is into this sort of lowest common denominator comedy I'll take them with; $20 is a worthwhile investment to get laid. Otherwise I go by myself. The 2nd Amendment comment was mostly "because I can", not because I actually think I'll need my legally carried firearm, though the saying "It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." comes to mind. :)
It will be a stinker. But I view this the same way I viewed Comedy Central's cowardice regarding the South Park episodes with Muhammad in them. Free speech is the defining civil liberty of Western Civilization. We used to regard it as something worth fighting and dying for. Now we're so cowardly that we pull movies from being screened over vague online threats by undefined groups that most likely lack any ability to back up those threats or even to encourage lone wolves (as could have theoretically happened with South Park) to do the same.
I will be going to see this movie, wherever it screens, even that entails a significant drive or other inconvenience on my part. If the movie sucks as badly as I think it will I'll just play with my cell phone for two hours. And since some assholes have gone and made threats I'll be exercising my 2nd Amendment rights at the same time.
If I broke into your house, and dug up all your secrets, revealed them to the world, and then threatened to murder anyone doing business with you, should I be applauded if I find out you where doing something 'wrong'?
Fixed it for you.
I don't know who actually is behind this attack, but I'm starting to applaud them.
You might want to hold your applause.
I saw the previews months ago for that movie and thought to myself "That looks stupid." but now I'm going to go see it anyway. You should really encourage all of your friends to do the same. Blackmail resulting in self-censorship is not something that needs to be encouraged.
Have fun with that when IPV6 goes mainstream. :)
Instead recycled water plants are being built instead to treat effluent and return it to the reservoirs.
How'd they make that happen on the West Coast, where people are so paranoid that they drain entire reservoirs simply because someone peed in them?
Who all all I had to do to destroy New York City's water supply was drive half an hour and take a piss. I hope the terrorists haven't figured this out, they'll be in the Catskills drinking beer in no time.
I've looked at the San Francisco annul rainfall for the past 150 years, and this drought was no more severe than the last few in the early 90s and late 70s, among other droughts.
You're forgetting how weather reporting has become as sensationalized as every other aspect of journalism. Cheat sheet to modern TV meteorology:
1) Every unusually cold spell is the result of a polar vortex.
2) Every severe weather event is the result of anthropologic climate change.
3) The only proper way to cover a tropical cyclone is to have a guy standing on a sea wall in a rain coat. Bonus points if you can barely understand him due to the effects of wind on his microphone.
4) Buzzwords poorly understood by the broader population (this includes most meteorologists and practically all of the ones on television) must be thrown in to consume airtime. See Item #1 and add "El Niño" and "La Niña" to the list.
I have no idea what the point of that link is, but in response to:
Only Americans think their states are like countries.
That's because very few non-Americans have actually studied our political system or our history in depth. Have you actually read our Federal Constitution? I'm sure I know the answer to the question if I pose it regarding a State Constitution. You do know that the 13 original colonies each had their own charters? Or that two of the American States (Vermont and Texas) existed as Independent Republics prior to joining the United States? Have you ever wondered why things like drivers licenses are done at the State level rather than the Federal level? Or why alcohol policies vary so broadly across the United States? Gambling? And so forth?
These are all rhetorical questions of course. I don't know where you're from but I'm almost certain I know more about the political/legal system in your country and the history thereof than you do about the United States of America. Look, the answer is even in the name....
It's not as big of a difference as you would think. The 50 American States retain all powers except for those specifically surrendered to the Federal Government. They are every bit as sovereign as the members of the EU. The critical difference is they've surrendered more powers to the central government than EU members have. In certain areas US States have more power to flip the bird to the central government than EU members do. They're certainly more powerful than any political subdivision of a European State, unless you want to talk about special cases like Åland.
We don't have a fence. And if you think the US wasn't going to increase security after 19 foreigners got into the country (legally I might add) and killed nearly 3,000 people you're crazy. What country on this planet wouldn't have tightened border controls after such an incident?
We can argue about the need for some of these measures (I would do away with the fingerprint requirement, at least for people holding Schengen Area passports and those from other countries we have excellent relations with) or even their effectiveness but the equation to the Berlin Wall is both offensive and laughable. I'm guessing the person that made it didn't have the privilege of actually living in the East Bloc and is a spoiled Westerner.....
Then after 9/11, the US began to build its version of the Berlin wall.
Umm, the Berlin Wall was to meant to keep East Bloc citizens in, not to keep Westerners out. I've never had any issues whatsoever leaving the United States. In fact it's easier to exit the United States than it is to exit the Schengen Area; we don't make you wait in line to get your passport stamped on your way out of our country.
As a Brit I could move to France without asking permission. I don't think that's true for a US citizen to move to Mexico or Canada.
They're not part of the United States. *shrug*
I'm not sure why you're trying to equate the relationship between the US and her neighbors to the relationship between EU members. A better equation is between the 50 States and in that instance we can move about with more ease than EU citizens can. If you insist on said equation I could point out that you're not exactly free to move to Russia without documentation as an EU citizen...
Incidentally, if you're British you should be aware of what your PM is doing. To listen to him tell it people are using the freedom of movement to abuse your social safety net. I don't know enough about British domestic politics to say whether or not this is true or he's using it to advance another political agenda; I have followed it at a distance though. I did see people from the former East Bloc abusing freedom of movement in the Nordic Countries and it did result in a fair amount of resentment from the locals.
Notably us white Northerners were not suddenly beset with swarthy skinned Southerners taking our jobs.
Which explains why David Cameron is trying to amend the freedom of movement to gain the ability to deport EU nationals that move to the UK without first securing employment. Or the borderline racism I personally observed in Sweden and Finland directed at EU nationals who moved there from the former Eastern Bloc.
You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.
You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State. Common language and all, plus there's no such thing in the States as a residency permit for American citizens. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conceptions. :)
I am actually not sure how TFA comes to the conclusion that spanish would be a good second language. The question should be "assuming I already speak English, which second language should I speak."
That question can't really be answered on its own. If you live in the United States Spanish is probably a solid choice for you. If you live in Finland not so much...
It's a shame that it will likely be centuries before mankind figures out how to be more informationally efficient and come up with some sort of "basic" language. I'd even go along with Esperanto if the powers that be would just pick something and move the human race to it.
What "powers that be" do you suppose there are who have the wherewithal to move the entire human race to a single language? What do you do with the multitude of words that can't neatly be translated? Words that carry a special meaning for the underlying culture? Your desired future sounds oppressive, monolithic, and dull. And I say that as a native English speaker...
You can talk to dogs in any language. They cannot understand complex sentences
That depends on what breed of dog and how you define 'complex'. Border Collies are well known for their grasp of vocabulary; we could give our BC commands along the lines of "Go into Steve's room and get the red toy." and she'd do it. That sentence is complicated enough to place it out of reach for many humans who have only limited English abilities.
If she is earning more, then she needs to suck it up and pay her taxes
If you seriously pay tax on all of your income you're either lying or insanely anal retentive. Do you pay taxes on lottery winnings <$600? That's income, so if you didn't you're stealing. What about odd jobs you do for friends? Are you going to claim with a straight face that you keep track of such monies to the penny and claim them on your State and Federal taxes? I doubt it very much.
Few people would try to earn a living without paying any taxes whatsoever. But nearly everyone is going to accept cash in lieu of a check when the opportunity presents itself; why should I pay taxes on some extra cash I earned helping the neighbor with their PC? Or watching their kid for them when they were in a jam? You may be retentive enough to track such money to the penny but you're squarely in the minority there my friend.
The "paying the babysitter" scenario was the one I conceded was easier in the EU than the States. It would be nice to have such functionality here but I hardly feel like I'm living the dark ages for not having it. It goes one of two ways:
1) She gets cash. This is usually the preference in the States for such transactions because it's tax free income. I certainly prefer cash for the various side gigs I have.
2) She gets a check. Funds are available next business day 99% of the time.
As I said, it's not as sexy, but it gets the job done. Person-to-person payments are pretty low on the list of things I'd fix with regards to the American financial system. And yes, there are problems with paper checks, and they should go away, but on balance there's not a lot of fraud being committed with them. The bigger fraud issue is cloned credit cards, which I did point out. :)