I was lucky enough to catch Cold Mountain in a sneak preview in Richmond a week ago, and it was, by far, the best movie I've seen all year. A lot of/.ers want to say Matrix or LOTR simply for goal of justifying the construction of those movies. Personally, only LOTR looks to be decent this year. Matrix blew major ass, was a total disappointment. The second one was decent, but failed in comparison to the first one. Kill Bill was decent, but was also overly simplistic. It's only redeeming quality was Uma Thurman and the direction- other than that the story was stupid, the gore was ridiculous and the dialogue was the same as every other Tarantino movie.
After a certain point, I would surmise for most people it's when they hit about 22 or 23 - they start to realize all the hollywood B.S. is mainly recycled crap from two decades ago. Rarely does a real gem come across, and Cold Mountain is that gem. Taken from Charles Frazier's brilliant book, and wonderfully acted, the dialogue, shots and characters really remind one what the silver screen can be like when it's done well.
Lord of the Rings will undoubtedly be great, don't get me wrong. But fantasy always takes second fiddler to a really great story set in the 'real world.' It's disappointing to see so many on here focusing on fantasy and comic books, losing the really good stories that are based in reality.
the point isn't that one side is good or bad, but rather that nations do things that are in their interests and not in the interests of others. An international criminal court is attempting to establish norms and standards which aren't present- one man's racism is another's nationalism; one's cultural uniqueness is another's cultural genocide. There are nations to serve the interests of the nationals who live inside it, and bequeathing ultimate power and judicial jurisdiction to an international criminal court is not a good idea- because it destroys the ability for nations to make their own laws and protect their own interests. Imagine if there were 40 Jewish states, and they all maneuvered to sit on the ICC, and declared anyone working on Saturday to be in violation of the Sabbath. Imagine a Muslim court declaring universal fasting during Ramadan. It's not that the U.S. is inherently right or wrong, but that no one is so inherently right as to be able to rule justice over the entire planet.
because they won't get their citizens hauled into the court for saving the world, again.
should U.S. isolationists during WW2 be charged with 'prolonging' WW2?
See, in America, we have freedom of speech. That means you can say whatever you want about anything political. You can be wrong, stupid and otherwise, but as long as it is speech- in that it is an idea, concept or argument- we won't throw you in jail for it. That's hard for other people to believe, and harder still for Americans to understand that that right is so fleeting in the world, that most are too scared even to challenge the idea.
I don't like Peter Arnett. I think he's a toolbox. But I'm not going to execute him over giving an interview to the Iraqi government, even though he did spout their lies and was a puppet for their regime. That we already have an international criminal court, are you willing to haul in Peter Arnett? Even though he's a shatbox, I hope you don't.
or better yet, let's haul in Chirac for helping to build Iraq's nuclear reactor. That was surely a war crime, right?
States aren't such a bad thing. Let's keep them around because all those other ones are so bad. If you don't believe me, then why don't you go live in Zimbabwe, and leave me the hell alone.
That is why membership of the security council is limited and the permanent members have veto power.
But short of an outright veto, the ten other rotating members of the security council can outweigh the permanent five. And, frankly, the French and the British don't belong on the Security Council anymore. India does, maybe Germany.
But this isn't a matter for the security council, it's a power grab. And the importance of the grab isn't the authority it really has, it's the authority that's perceived. Look at the Supreme Court here in the U.S., how many armies does it command? And yet, unquestionably, it's the most powerful branch. Just the perception of authority can leverage one's claims over another's.
For as much as people bitch and moan about the U.S., I'd still rather have American flunkies than Chinese tyrants or a hodgepodge of third world countries determining whether I can register www.UNsuckzAzz.com or not. What's the UN's motivation for taking control, any control, over the internet? It's about money and power. Neither of which I want in a body that has equal representation between the Seychelles and India.
and so at the end of your post, we come to some moralistic argument about the inherent value of diversity of languages. I mean, come on. You could just as easily make the same claim about English being the standard for airline pilots. But if you're really that worked up over ancient Mayan, why don't you figure out a practical market-oriented way in which to preserve those languages, or perhaps design a site that does. Nothing that the UN does will help that end, it can only stunt growth. Government is like the ring from LOTR, it only has the power to destory.
the problem with the U.N., as contrasted to the U.S., is that the U.N. is entirely composed of states that have no equality, it is a body of unequals. No one could possibly claim that India, Russia, China and the U.S. are on par with Liberia, Syria, the Seychelles? If you were so inclined, you could probably bulldoze the Seychelles in a day. Maybe two. That the Seychelles should have the same vote in the General Assembly, and outside of the Security Council, have the same voice as a country like India with a billion people is, at the least, a bit ridiculous. Not even to get into the fact that a democratically elected government like Britain or the European parliamentary countries, or composite government like the U.S., is any way equal to governments like the dictatorial tyrants like Mugabe, Quaddafi is, again, a bit ridiculous. The requisite for being a state in the U.S. is a democratically elected government and a constitution (not to mention the subjugation of that constitution to the rights in the federal constitution). The world doesn't operate the same way. So when you try to marginalize this argument by making false comparisons, and then having the audacity to claim the U.N. is somehow superior to the U.S., is false on many fronts. Rethink your position, and acknowledge the inherent inequity within the United Nations, to the point that it makes it an almost irrelevant body.
Think about what you're doing...
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 2, Funny
2002: It starts with innocent sharing of music, Johnny thinks it's swell.
2006: Apple announces a series of biometric implants that will do radio and mp3s connected directly to your brain stem. This has the noble intent to allow coma patients to listen to music and speeches, to allow people to learn while asleep and always have music in the background. I would personally add the law and order "BUM-BUM" to my head whenever I entered a room. My friend, Johnny, likes music, and so he gets one in his head to listen to the Ramones all the time.
2008: The Franchise Wars. All fast food restaurants become Taco Bell.
2009: Apple and XM Radio combine forces to form new form of an always-on IPOD downloadable songs via satellite, they call it SkyNet.
2011: SkyNet launches, and promptly kills my friend, John Connor.
2015: BORG COLLECTIVE!
2236: The Borg matrix unravels after Bobcat Goldwaithe's program falls into a terminal loop. Some fools credit this to a 'prophet' named Neo.
Slashdot Mirror
I was lucky enough to catch Cold Mountain in a sneak preview in Richmond a week ago, and it was, by far, the best movie I've seen all year. A lot of /.ers want to say Matrix or LOTR simply for goal of justifying the construction of those movies. Personally, only LOTR looks to be decent this year. Matrix blew major ass, was a total disappointment. The second one was decent, but failed in comparison to the first one. Kill Bill was decent, but was also overly simplistic. It's only redeeming quality was Uma Thurman and the direction- other than that the story was stupid, the gore was ridiculous and the dialogue was the same as every other Tarantino movie.
After a certain point, I would surmise for most people it's when they hit about 22 or 23 - they start to realize all the hollywood B.S. is mainly recycled crap from two decades ago. Rarely does a real gem come across, and Cold Mountain is that gem. Taken from Charles Frazier's brilliant book, and wonderfully acted, the dialogue, shots and characters really remind one what the silver screen can be like when it's done well.
Lord of the Rings will undoubtedly be great, don't get me wrong. But fantasy always takes second fiddler to a really great story set in the 'real world.' It's disappointing to see so many on here focusing on fantasy and comic books, losing the really good stories that are based in reality.
the point isn't that one side is good or bad, but rather that nations do things that are in their interests and not in the interests of others. An international criminal court is attempting to establish norms and standards which aren't present- one man's racism is another's nationalism; one's cultural uniqueness is another's cultural genocide. There are nations to serve the interests of the nationals who live inside it, and bequeathing ultimate power and judicial jurisdiction to an international criminal court is not a good idea- because it destroys the ability for nations to make their own laws and protect their own interests. Imagine if there were 40 Jewish states, and they all maneuvered to sit on the ICC, and declared anyone working on Saturday to be in violation of the Sabbath. Imagine a Muslim court declaring universal fasting during Ramadan. It's not that the U.S. is inherently right or wrong, but that no one is so inherently right as to be able to rule justice over the entire planet.
and so where does it end? should we jail the French who sold Mirage fighters to Saddam? Or perhaps the Soviets who gave him loans?
because they won't get their citizens hauled into the court for saving the world, again.
should U.S. isolationists during WW2 be charged with 'prolonging' WW2?
See, in America, we have freedom of speech. That means you can say whatever you want about anything political. You can be wrong, stupid and otherwise, but as long as it is speech- in that it is an idea, concept or argument- we won't throw you in jail for it. That's hard for other people to believe, and harder still for Americans to understand that that right is so fleeting in the world, that most are too scared even to challenge the idea.
I don't like Peter Arnett. I think he's a toolbox. But I'm not going to execute him over giving an interview to the Iraqi government, even though he did spout their lies and was a puppet for their regime. That we already have an international criminal court, are you willing to haul in Peter Arnett? Even though he's a shatbox, I hope you don't.
or better yet, let's haul in Chirac for helping to build Iraq's nuclear reactor. That was surely a war crime, right?
AND guess what happens when you exercise freedom of the press, and then all of the sudden the tyranny you wrote for goes out from under you?
BAM- The international court comes in charging the JOURNALISTS with genocide!
States aren't such a bad thing. Let's keep them around because all those other ones are so bad. If you don't believe me, then why don't you go live in Zimbabwe, and leave me the hell alone.
That is why membership of the security council is limited and the permanent members have veto power.
But short of an outright veto, the ten other rotating members of the security council can outweigh the permanent five. And, frankly, the French and the British don't belong on the Security Council anymore. India does, maybe Germany.
But this isn't a matter for the security council, it's a power grab. And the importance of the grab isn't the authority it really has, it's the authority that's perceived. Look at the Supreme Court here in the U.S., how many armies does it command? And yet, unquestionably, it's the most powerful branch. Just the perception of authority can leverage one's claims over another's.
For as much as people bitch and moan about the U.S., I'd still rather have American flunkies than Chinese tyrants or a hodgepodge of third world countries determining whether I can register www.UNsuckzAzz.com or not. What's the UN's motivation for taking control, any control, over the internet? It's about money and power. Neither of which I want in a body that has equal representation between the Seychelles and India.
and so at the end of your post, we come to some moralistic argument about the inherent value of diversity of languages. I mean, come on. You could just as easily make the same claim about English being the standard for airline pilots. But if you're really that worked up over ancient Mayan, why don't you figure out a practical market-oriented way in which to preserve those languages, or perhaps design a site that does. Nothing that the UN does will help that end, it can only stunt growth. Government is like the ring from LOTR, it only has the power to destory.
Star Trek 6, see it, love it, understand the joke .
"His science officer reports that he has confirmed the location of Praxis but cannot confirm it's existence."
I can confirm its location... but not its existance.
the problem with the U.N., as contrasted to the U.S., is that the U.N. is entirely composed of states that have no equality, it is a body of unequals. No one could possibly claim that India, Russia, China and the U.S. are on par with Liberia, Syria, the Seychelles? If you were so inclined, you could probably bulldoze the Seychelles in a day. Maybe two. That the Seychelles should have the same vote in the General Assembly, and outside of the Security Council, have the same voice as a country like India with a billion people is, at the least, a bit ridiculous. Not even to get into the fact that a democratically elected government like Britain or the European parliamentary countries, or composite government like the U.S., is any way equal to governments like the dictatorial tyrants like Mugabe, Quaddafi is, again, a bit ridiculous. The requisite for being a state in the U.S. is a democratically elected government and a constitution (not to mention the subjugation of that constitution to the rights in the federal constitution). The world doesn't operate the same way. So when you try to marginalize this argument by making false comparisons, and then having the audacity to claim the U.N. is somehow superior to the U.S., is false on many fronts. Rethink your position, and acknowledge the inherent inequity within the United Nations, to the point that it makes it an almost irrelevant body.
2002: It starts with innocent sharing of music, Johnny thinks it's swell.
2006: Apple announces a series of biometric implants that will do radio and mp3s connected directly to your brain stem. This has the noble intent to allow coma patients to listen to music and speeches, to allow people to learn while asleep and always have music in the background. I would personally add the law and order "BUM-BUM" to my head whenever I entered a room. My friend, Johnny, likes music, and so he gets one in his head to listen to the Ramones all the time.
2008: The Franchise Wars. All fast food restaurants become Taco Bell.
2009: Apple and XM Radio combine forces to form new form of an always-on IPOD downloadable songs via satellite, they call it SkyNet.
2011: SkyNet launches, and promptly kills my friend, John Connor.
2015: BORG COLLECTIVE!
2236: The Borg matrix unravels after Bobcat Goldwaithe's program falls into a terminal loop. Some fools credit this to a 'prophet' named Neo.