The story goes on after the movie, but there's no hint of a Legend 2: Zombie Will Smith Fights Back.
Actually, the DVD had an alternative ending in which Neville comes to realise that the zombie leader ("The Duke of New York") actually cares for the female that Neville is testing the cure on. There follows a scene where Neville in a fashion makes his peace with the zombie hoards, then later drives off into the sunset in a sports utility vehicle with Anna and the boy to find the colony in Vermot.
Naturally, I felt the theatrical ending was superior.
She read them by the box full. In no way would I say she benefited intellectually from reading these books vs. watching the same stories as films (porn for women, IMO).
I completely disagree. If she read as much as you suggested, the increase in her literacy alone was probably substantial. The act of reading is essentially a kind of aerobic exercise for the mind; it keeps you mentally "in-shape" for reading.
As someone who has tried it all, books, videos, films, lectures, websites etc, I can safely say that it is largely the material I have read in a book which I have remembered, retained and which has been most useful to me.
I can remember more from the hundred or so pages in my secondary school physics and chemistry books than I can from the thousands of pages I have read on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Perhaps it is because books are more focused and self contained. Perhaps it is some quirk of memory which associates learning with physical things and places. In either case, I can say that for me, reading is king, and books are best.
What do you do when the voters are conditioned and misinformed and the majority is wrong?
Run your nuclear planet into the ground with cost cutting operations and then when it blows up, claim everyone against the concept is a Luddite hippie of course.
Is the US preparing for another conflict or something ?
In effect yes. Societies do not simply up and go to war one morning. It's generally a process that takes some time to build up. The larger the conflict, the longer the build up.
A good example is the Libyan conflict, which took several weeks of drumming before allied forces launched air-strikes, and even still the US was quite reluctant to proceed. The Syrian conflict is currently being drummed up as we speak, but whether there's enthusiasm for air-strikes is another matter. However, I stress that no major action will be taken by the US, UK or any other western power without a build up of public interest in a conflict.
As to who is behind these build ups and ultimately these wars, while there are special interests, ultimately I think these things are emergent phenomena; and I would now be inclined to say that they are beyond a society's conscious control. Which isn't to say that they cannot be halted or indeed advanced prematurely. That is the job of the leaders of states. They are the ones that ultimately decide how these trends evolve and ultimately manifest themselves.
See also: The Second Iraq War and The Cuban Missile Crisis.
This a quintessentially equivocating bureaucratic term. It both includes and excludes precisely nothing. It is general enough to be all encompassing, and vague enough to be selectively exclusionary. It will be used by the censors office essentially at will, and at random, to enable them to exercise their powers where and how they see fit and so none may gainsay them.
not so for people below this developmental level, who may easily be swayed into unethical behaviour through emotional arguments. a society which does not make some effort to shield such people from content which might cause them to behave in antisocial ways is heading for trouble.
If we accept this argument, we must then accept that these people cannot be relied upon to participate properly in a democratic system without supervision, and it's a short step from there to disenfranchising the whole lot of them altogether.
You have to look at from a purely self serving government department point of view (The IWF is a government department in all but name). The more successful they are at their job, the less relevant they become, and they might need to scale back their operation (i.e. fire people) unless they find themselves more work to do. The devil makes work for idle departments.
So they're going to "grow their business" into general censorship in order to stay "relevant" and more importantly in order to keep getting paid. Couple this with hefty bonuses/salary increases for senior management upon such expansion, and general "market thinking" among UK government officialdom anyway, and you have an office that will grow like a tumour until its remit includes oversight and approval of every website, foreign and domestic, with the registration and bureaucratic fees alone drawing in several million pounds for the office every years.
Unless of course, someone actually calls a halt to this process. Fat chance of that though.
Look man, if you've got a console that has people coming back three and four times to buy a new one when it keeps conking out, you'd better be making money on it.
I completely agree. Assuming any kind of balanced average, the result implied that there are is a comparable number of 59 year olds playing video games as there are 15 year olds. This is not a credible statistic.
1. Join Bank Management 2. Pay yourself a bonus every time the Bank gives a loan 3. Loan out all the banks money, and when that runs out, borrow more from other banks and lend that money out in turn. 4. PROFIT! (Beyond your wildest dreams) 5. When the bank goes bust, ride away into the sunset with a handsome golden parachute.
I find less wonder in the immense goodwill and efforts that have been put into Wikipedia, than I find in the unstoppable ability of the bureaucracy there to crush those hopes and potentials.
JPEG's lossy compression patent was invalidated in 2006, so everyone can use it.
Well, since the JPEG algorithm was discovered by Fourier, Gauss and others in the early 1800s, it was somewhat surprising to see the patent granted in the first place.
Granted, the quantisation tables JPEG devised were probably novel, but my understanding is that those specific tables aren't a strictly neccessary part of the JPEG standard.
In WP:SPEAK, "Sum of all the world's knowladge" means, effectively, around 3 million articles. That's it. That, according to Wikipedia, is as much information about the world as is deemed worthy of note.
Yes, as head of the International Monetary Fund, lay the ground weeks in advance for your dastardly and elaborate plot to rape a otherwise unknown hotel chambermaid in New York.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the DVD had an alternative ending in which Neville comes to realise that the zombie leader ("The Duke of New York") actually cares for the female that Neville is testing the cure on. There follows a scene where Neville in a fashion makes his peace with the zombie hoards, then later drives off into the sunset in a sports utility vehicle with Anna and the boy to find the colony in Vermot.
Naturally, I felt the theatrical ending was superior.
I completely disagree. If she read as much as you suggested, the increase in her literacy alone was probably substantial. The act of reading is essentially a kind of aerobic exercise for the mind; it keeps you mentally "in-shape" for reading.
As someone who has tried it all, books, videos, films, lectures, websites etc, I can safely say that it is largely the material I have read in a book which I have remembered, retained and which has been most useful to me.
I can remember more from the hundred or so pages in my secondary school physics and chemistry books than I can from the thousands of pages I have read on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Perhaps it is because books are more focused and self contained. Perhaps it is some quirk of memory which associates learning with physical things and places. In either case, I can say that for me, reading is king, and books are best.
To be fair, it is different from the multi-trillion dollar loans effectively given to US banks by the Treasury via Quantitative Easing.
The Right Honourable Gentleman is misinforming the thread. With respect the Right Honourable Gentleman means bull.
I think the approximately 1/12th of the world's population using Facebook might be interested.
No design, I repeat no design is safe against corporate mismanagement.
All the engineering in the world is not going to prevent your plant from exploding when faced with an MBA CEO with a lust for profit.
Run your nuclear planet into the ground with cost cutting operations and then when it blows up, claim everyone against the concept is a Luddite hippie of course.
In effect yes. Societies do not simply up and go to war one morning. It's generally a process that takes some time to build up. The larger the conflict, the longer the build up.
A good example is the Libyan conflict, which took several weeks of drumming before allied forces launched air-strikes, and even still the US was quite reluctant to proceed. The Syrian conflict is currently being drummed up as we speak, but whether there's enthusiasm for air-strikes is another matter. However, I stress that no major action will be taken by the US, UK or any other western power without a build up of public interest in a conflict.
As to who is behind these build ups and ultimately these wars, while there are special interests, ultimately I think these things are emergent phenomena; and I would now be inclined to say that they are beyond a society's conscious control. Which isn't to say that they cannot be halted or indeed advanced prematurely. That is the job of the leaders of states. They are the ones that ultimately decide how these trends evolve and ultimately manifest themselves.
See also: The Second Iraq War and The Cuban Missile Crisis.
This a quintessentially equivocating bureaucratic term. It both includes and excludes precisely nothing. It is general enough to be all encompassing, and vague enough to be selectively exclusionary. It will be used by the censors office essentially at will, and at random, to enable them to exercise their powers where and how they see fit and so none may gainsay them.
If we accept this argument, we must then accept that these people cannot be relied upon to participate properly in a democratic system without supervision, and it's a short step from there to disenfranchising the whole lot of them altogether.
You have to look at from a purely self serving government department point of view (The IWF is a government department in all but name). The more successful they are at their job, the less relevant they become, and they might need to scale back their operation (i.e. fire people) unless they find themselves more work to do. The devil makes work for idle departments.
So they're going to "grow their business" into general censorship in order to stay "relevant" and more importantly in order to keep getting paid. Couple this with hefty bonuses/salary increases for senior management upon such expansion, and general "market thinking" among UK government officialdom anyway, and you have an office that will grow like a tumour until its remit includes oversight and approval of every website, foreign and domestic, with the registration and bureaucratic fees alone drawing in several million pounds for the office every years.
Unless of course, someone actually calls a halt to this process. Fat chance of that though.
Well, if they didn't store those, then they could be sure. As it happens, they can just lie instead.
Look man, if you've got a console that has people coming back three and four times to buy a new one when it keeps conking out, you'd better be making money on it.
I completely agree. Assuming any kind of balanced average, the result implied that there are is a comparable number of 59 year olds playing video games as there are 15 year olds. This is not a credible statistic.
Oh, the ignominy!
To have one's proof faulted is unfortunate; to have it faulted on the internet is simply mortifying.
It's even more online American Idol.
Wrong
1. Join Bank Management
2. Pay yourself a bonus every time the Bank gives a loan
3. Loan out all the banks money, and when that runs out, borrow more from other banks and lend that money out in turn.
4. PROFIT! (Beyond your wildest dreams)
5. When the bank goes bust, ride away into the sunset with a handsome golden parachute.
I find less wonder in the immense goodwill and efforts that have been put into Wikipedia, than I find in the unstoppable ability of the bureaucracy there to crush those hopes and potentials.
Well, since the JPEG algorithm was discovered by Fourier, Gauss and others in the early 1800s, it was somewhat surprising to see the patent granted in the first place.
Granted, the quantisation tables JPEG devised were probably novel, but my understanding is that those specific tables aren't a strictly neccessary part of the JPEG standard.
Wow. So that's why I left Bitcoin on for four days straight and didn't mine a single coin.
Explain to me again why anyone is going to be running background Bitcoin processes in 2015?
In WP:SPEAK, "Sum of all the world's knowladge" means, effectively, around 3 million articles. That's it. That, according to Wikipedia, is as much information about the world as is deemed worthy of note.
Pretty bleak world view when you think about it.
Cisco merely provided cost effective dissident detection solutions to global partners, for profit!
Wait, do you mean the footballers is Ryan Giggs, or the tweeter is Ryan Giggs, or is it somehow both?
Perhaps Giggs created the twitter account himself in a fit of terrible remorse for his exploitation of the legal system.
Get lost! I'm not paying hard currency for a few kilobytes, no matter what the content.
Yes, as head of the International Monetary Fund, lay the ground weeks in advance for your dastardly and elaborate plot to rape a otherwise unknown hotel chambermaid in New York.