Bill Murray went through a terrible divorce last year where he lost a significant amount of his wealth. And sure, he was in Rushmore, Lost in Translation, Broken Flowers, etc. but he we also the voice of Garfield. So it's not like he's above taking a big, fat paycheck to make a turd.
My Name Is Earl was on for four season, Scrubs has been on for eight seasons and was renewed for a ninth (it hasn't been canceled yet), Frasier was on for 11 seasons. Pick better examples.
And network TV has *always* sucked. Always. If anything, it's gotten better in the last ten years with the competition from cable networks that are producing fantastic TV shows. Even as little as ten or fifteen years ago you didn't see single camera sitcoms without laugh tracks on network TV, now nearly all the top-rated shows are shot that way.
Now is a really fantastic time to be a fan of television, relax a little and look for the good instead of focusing on the bad.
Nevada's experiment with legal prostitution shows that, unless legal prostitution can compete on price with illegal prostitution, you still get plenty of street walkers.
No Nevada city that has legalized prostitution has any significant amount of street walkers or off-the-books prostitutes. I grew up there and know the normal type of people that would have those connections (drug dealers, ex-cons, etc.) and have never heard of anything of the like. Maybe it would be different in a city large enough to matter (it's illegal in both Washoe and Clark counties), but I don't think there's any reason to believe that it would be a huge social problem like it is now. And I think you will find that prices with illegal prostitutes are pretty comparable with legal ones. The risk associated with performing an illegal activity costs just as much or more as "regulatory overhead."
Legalized prostitution in Nevada is better for johns (safety, both from dealing with criminals and possible VD), better for the prostitutes (better working conditions, access to legal solutions in case of abuse, generally better pay, legally legitimate), and society (they get to regulate where brothels are located, brothels can't advertize so there's not tacky ads on all the taxis, cops have more time to deal with real crimes). The only people who don't benefit are pimps. I really don't understand why this is still an issue in our country. Legalize it already.
in many cases was that they were unreliable and often written by third parties trying to promote an agenda...Often those gospels also were folk tales written down which can be attributed to the area of folk legends nothing more!
And how, exactly does this differ from the Catholic-approved books? I'm not trying to be insulting here, just making a point. The Pauline epistles are letters written to various peoples arguing specific aspects of early Christian theology. The gospels include many aspects that were part of common Middle Eastern "folklore" (the messiah, virgin birth, resurrection, consumption of flesh, the Logos/Arche, etc.).
At GameStop it all depends on the employees/manager of the store. The store near me let me boot up a bunch of old xboxes and check their firmware/DVD drives. I imagine at your local GameStop they don't sell many xboxes and would be very accommodating. Small-time game shops I would imagine certainly would let you. The only question is who still sells used xboxes? Last year when I modded mine pawn shops wouldn't even carry them and GameStop was nearly ready to get rid of them.
Friends is supposed to be about losers, too. It's just that the writers never bothered with making the show realistic, which is why they can spend all their time together and they all can afford large Manhattan apartments while working part time in a coffee shop.
He's already left once (got kicked out more accurately), and Apple completely dropped off as a company. If he hadn't come back when he did the company probably would've been chopped up and sold off in the tech bust. But he almost immediately turned the company around, now becoming one of the most successful hardware companies in the world (the most successful?). Unlike most Apple/Jobs speculation, this is one actually has a pretty sound basis in reality. Hopefully the company has been smart enough to lay out contingency plans so they can still be successful without Jobs micromanaging and making every important decision.
Lot was the nephew of Abraham, a larger figure than Moses, and is a key character in many of the stories of Abraham. He is also the main person in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Out of the entire Old Testament, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably one of the two or three most repeated stories. According to the Bible his sons found the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab. Lot is even considered a prophet in Islam.
Looks like someone needs to touch up on their Old Testament before flaming.
This is one of the best/. comments I've read in a while. You may be king shit programmer and a great worker, but generally speaking the best jobs are all given out due to personal connections. That doesn't mean you can get by without knowing anything (although sometimes you can) but your biggest asset when looking for a better job is *networking*.
All of my best jobs (mostly non-IT or programming) have been ones where I was referred by a friend or colleague. The interview process is terribly inconsistent at most companies, and if you have someone who has seen you do good work and can vouch for you personally, it will pay off much more than solving a simple programming test at interview time.
Vegas isn't any more vulnerable than other cities. If you really think New York or LA or any other place are less dependent on modern transport of electricity/water/food/etc. from distances very far away you're delusional. Unless you live in Alaska or somewhere else hundreds of miles away from a metropolis, we'll all be equally fucked if modern infrastructure were to fail. How many people do you think New York City or London can support naturally? Ten thousand, a hundred thousand? Either way there would be 20 million and ten million very desperate people respectively without food or fuel.
For the most part, there was no way to save most of the victims of the tsunami.
Yes there is. Early warning systems and communication networks could have given people enough time to escape inland. It still would have been a very deadly natural disaster, particularly near the epicenter, but people would have been able to make it at least a couple miles away, and wouldn't have been dragged off the beach like they were. Sri Lanka and India were hundreds of miles away and they lost almost 50,000 people. They certainly could've evacuated the low-lying areas if there was an early warning system in place. Add a proper government/aid response that could've brought food and clean water immediately and the death count almost certainly would've been orders of magnitude less.
On the down side however, christians are responsible for numerous and well documented heinous atrocities specifically due to their religion (crusades, inquisition, witch burning, annihilation of heretics, etc.).
I don't think this is really what the GP poster meant, but those things (particularly the Inquisition) are where our legal system got its start. There are also some pretty deep roots going back to Rome and earlier, but the majority of it is Christian. Think of Christian ideals such as repetence (ever wonder why you get a lesser sentence for confessing?), rehabilitation, parole, that sort of thing, and it's pretty easy to see the large influence of Christianity on the legal system, even in modern, secular society. Also, some of our most fundamental civil rights are responses to overly restrictive Christian governments. So the GP was right, just not in the way he thought he was. The fact is that our society is a mostly Christian society, and it is descended from millennia of all-Christian society. It's understandable if most longstanding institutions have roots in Christianity.
So, yes, if you vote for the sister-rapers in order to get/keep the baby-killers out of office, that is, indeed *not* an endorsement of the sister raper's platform. And yes, everyone has a choice about lots of things. While technically open, some of those choices are unlikely to be picked as practical considerations make them unpalatable.
That is the nature of democracy. There is no system for marking off all the different positions of a party in the voting booth, it's just a yes or no. Whether or not they agreed with Hamas 100% is irrelevant, they still voted for them. They knew exactly what they were getting, as Hamas is doing exactly what they said they were going to do. If they had lied or deceived the public that would be another matter.
The stated purpose of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel and the implementation of Islamic law in the region. Their vote was, quite literally, a perfect endorsement of Hamas' platform, just like your vote for Obama was a perfect endorsement of his platform. If you play the game, you have to take responsibility for the results.
I'm well aware of that. Part of the problem in Israel is that people think there can only be one side that is wrong. Damn near everybody in power in Israel/Gaza/Lebanon/etc. is guilty of committing terrible atrocities against humanity regardless of nationality, race, or religion.
Hold on there cowboy. RIM is based in Ontario. That's in Canada for the geographically challenged. They actually have greater securities for workers rights and benefits (universal healthcare) than the good 'ol US of A.
It is, actually. If the people voted for Hamas, they endorsed Hamas' platform. Plain and simple. There are "real" alternatives other than voting in a party that believes in the destruction of Israel and establishment of Islamic law.
The baby-killers in power are corrupt, so I'll vote for the sister-rapers. But that doesn't mean I endorse the sister-rapers platform.
That's assuming they actually want peace. Certainly there are Palestinian people that want that, but Hamas et al have proved again and again that they won't rest until Israel as a country is eradicated and Sharia law is setup throughout the region. They're just as crazy as the Zionists. No amount of good publicity will convince the outside world of their right to an independent state as long as they're blowing up night clubs and killing innocent people.
I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey.
The Godfather movies, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Wizard of Oz, The Graduate, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, and hundreds of other movies prove your point wrong. Generally speaking if you try to make a shot for shot remake of the book, then the movie will be awful (although sometimes it happens, like last year's No Country for Old Men). But if you manage to build a unique version of the *story* or the *point* of the book, then you can build and add on to the story rather than diminish it. The filmmakers have to understand how to tell the story from a filmmaker's perspective, not just simply copy the book. Whether or not Zack Snyder can do it with Watchmen remains to be seen.
No one's really made a version of 1984 or Animal Farm that matches up to the books, and it has nothing to do with the density or length of the plot. Those stories just don't translate easily into a visual format. No one has really ever made a great movie version of any Shakespearean play (IMHO of course), just because the theatrical format doesn't translate into a great movie. Hundreds of great movies have been based off of those same plays, however. They just have to be changed to reflect the unique style of storytelling films require.
Can we wait until the guy actually takes office to see if his administration will do anything before calling him a liar?
The Democratic party has been largely incompetent for the last ten years, and George Bush evicted nearly everybody with a liberal bent from his administration. If he wants anybody with experience running things, he doesn't have many options. He basically has to choose from Clinton era holdovers, Congressmen, and high-level state politicians. Most of his appointments have come from those positions, but he's also made many picks like Dr. Chu.
It's very complicated, but basically they snuck it in the backdoor over a hundred year time period (starting well before prohibition). There are hundreds of legal issues but AFAIK the issue has never been brought before the Supreme Court in a direct manner. The court cases are about medical marijuana or something tangential to the question you're asking. In one case, Leary v. US, the court unanimously found the current laws unconstitutional. Congress then wrote a new law that was much more restrictive than before, but I'm pretty sure a case vs. the new act has never made it to the Supreme Court.
But the real reason why this has been successful is public support. Drug laws, while loosening at certain times, have always been overwhelmingly supported by citizens. Even a bare minimum of support for legalization in the most liberal of states is nearly always destroyed at the polls. Other than medical marijuana, nearly every decriminalization measure put on a ballot anywhere in the US has been crushed. There are signs that might be changing, but I'll believe it when i see it.
Not too mention that it's a hell of a red herring for politicians too use when reality threatens to ruin their campaign promises. Poverty and crime getting too much to handle? Well, it's those damn drug dealers and users. If we increase their prison sentence, that should fix everything, right?
In fact, I'd call it one of the truest representations of the ancient Greek epic storytelling style to ever see the big screen.
Maybe you're correct, because the style was the only reason to go see it, as it had absolutely no substance. Glorifying a fascist, militaristic society. Intentionally misleading thing suchs as calling Athenians "boy lovers". All of the characters were unlikeable (even Leonidas), the story was laughably disconnected with the real one (I guess that was the point though?) and the hot pants....oh God, the hot pants. Hot pants and capes for everybody!
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Murray went through a terrible divorce last year where he lost a significant amount of his wealth. And sure, he was in Rushmore, Lost in Translation, Broken Flowers, etc. but he we also the voice of Garfield. So it's not like he's above taking a big, fat paycheck to make a turd.
[SPOILER ALERT] Jesus dies! [/SPOILER ALERT]
My Name Is Earl was on for four season, Scrubs has been on for eight seasons and was renewed for a ninth (it hasn't been canceled yet), Frasier was on for 11 seasons. Pick better examples.
And network TV has *always* sucked. Always. If anything, it's gotten better in the last ten years with the competition from cable networks that are producing fantastic TV shows. Even as little as ten or fifteen years ago you didn't see single camera sitcoms without laugh tracks on network TV, now nearly all the top-rated shows are shot that way.
Now is a really fantastic time to be a fan of television, relax a little and look for the good instead of focusing on the bad.
No Nevada city that has legalized prostitution has any significant amount of street walkers or off-the-books prostitutes. I grew up there and know the normal type of people that would have those connections (drug dealers, ex-cons, etc.) and have never heard of anything of the like. Maybe it would be different in a city large enough to matter (it's illegal in both Washoe and Clark counties), but I don't think there's any reason to believe that it would be a huge social problem like it is now. And I think you will find that prices with illegal prostitutes are pretty comparable with legal ones. The risk associated with performing an illegal activity costs just as much or more as "regulatory overhead."
Legalized prostitution in Nevada is better for johns (safety, both from dealing with criminals and possible VD), better for the prostitutes (better working conditions, access to legal solutions in case of abuse, generally better pay, legally legitimate), and society (they get to regulate where brothels are located, brothels can't advertize so there's not tacky ads on all the taxis, cops have more time to deal with real crimes). The only people who don't benefit are pimps. I really don't understand why this is still an issue in our country. Legalize it already.
And how, exactly does this differ from the Catholic-approved books? I'm not trying to be insulting here, just making a point. The Pauline epistles are letters written to various peoples arguing specific aspects of early Christian theology. The gospels include many aspects that were part of common Middle Eastern "folklore" (the messiah, virgin birth, resurrection, consumption of flesh, the Logos/Arche, etc.).
Yes, actually he is.
At GameStop it all depends on the employees/manager of the store. The store near me let me boot up a bunch of old xboxes and check their firmware/DVD drives. I imagine at your local GameStop they don't sell many xboxes and would be very accommodating. Small-time game shops I would imagine certainly would let you. The only question is who still sells used xboxes? Last year when I modded mine pawn shops wouldn't even carry them and GameStop was nearly ready to get rid of them.
Friends is supposed to be about losers, too. It's just that the writers never bothered with making the show realistic, which is why they can spend all their time together and they all can afford large Manhattan apartments while working part time in a coffee shop.
He's already left once (got kicked out more accurately), and Apple completely dropped off as a company. If he hadn't come back when he did the company probably would've been chopped up and sold off in the tech bust. But he almost immediately turned the company around, now becoming one of the most successful hardware companies in the world (the most successful?). Unlike most Apple/Jobs speculation, this is one actually has a pretty sound basis in reality. Hopefully the company has been smart enough to lay out contingency plans so they can still be successful without Jobs micromanaging and making every important decision.
That's not a qualifier, that changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Lot was the nephew of Abraham, a larger figure than Moses, and is a key character in many of the stories of Abraham. He is also the main person in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Out of the entire Old Testament, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably one of the two or three most repeated stories. According to the Bible his sons found the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab. Lot is even considered a prophet in Islam.
Looks like someone needs to touch up on their Old Testament before flaming.
This is one of the best /. comments I've read in a while. You may be king shit programmer and a great worker, but generally speaking the best jobs are all given out due to personal connections. That doesn't mean you can get by without knowing anything (although sometimes you can) but your biggest asset when looking for a better job is *networking*.
All of my best jobs (mostly non-IT or programming) have been ones where I was referred by a friend or colleague. The interview process is terribly inconsistent at most companies, and if you have someone who has seen you do good work and can vouch for you personally, it will pay off much more than solving a simple programming test at interview time.
Vegas isn't any more vulnerable than other cities. If you really think New York or LA or any other place are less dependent on modern transport of electricity/water/food/etc. from distances very far away you're delusional. Unless you live in Alaska or somewhere else hundreds of miles away from a metropolis, we'll all be equally fucked if modern infrastructure were to fail. How many people do you think New York City or London can support naturally? Ten thousand, a hundred thousand? Either way there would be 20 million and ten million very desperate people respectively without food or fuel.
Yes there is. Early warning systems and communication networks could have given people enough time to escape inland. It still would have been a very deadly natural disaster, particularly near the epicenter, but people would have been able to make it at least a couple miles away, and wouldn't have been dragged off the beach like they were. Sri Lanka and India were hundreds of miles away and they lost almost 50,000 people. They certainly could've evacuated the low-lying areas if there was an early warning system in place. Add a proper government/aid response that could've brought food and clean water immediately and the death count almost certainly would've been orders of magnitude less.
I don't think this is really what the GP poster meant, but those things (particularly the Inquisition) are where our legal system got its start. There are also some pretty deep roots going back to Rome and earlier, but the majority of it is Christian. Think of Christian ideals such as repetence (ever wonder why you get a lesser sentence for confessing?), rehabilitation, parole, that sort of thing, and it's pretty easy to see the large influence of Christianity on the legal system, even in modern, secular society. Also, some of our most fundamental civil rights are responses to overly restrictive Christian governments. So the GP was right, just not in the way he thought he was. The fact is that our society is a mostly Christian society, and it is descended from millennia of all-Christian society. It's understandable if most longstanding institutions have roots in Christianity.
That is the nature of democracy. There is no system for marking off all the different positions of a party in the voting booth, it's just a yes or no. Whether or not they agreed with Hamas 100% is irrelevant, they still voted for them. They knew exactly what they were getting, as Hamas is doing exactly what they said they were going to do. If they had lied or deceived the public that would be another matter.
The stated purpose of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel and the implementation of Islamic law in the region. Their vote was, quite literally, a perfect endorsement of Hamas' platform, just like your vote for Obama was a perfect endorsement of his platform. If you play the game, you have to take responsibility for the results.
I'm well aware of that. Part of the problem in Israel is that people think there can only be one side that is wrong. Damn near everybody in power in Israel/Gaza/Lebanon/etc. is guilty of committing terrible atrocities against humanity regardless of nationality, race, or religion.
Hold on there cowboy. RIM is based in Ontario. That's in Canada for the geographically challenged. They actually have greater securities for workers rights and benefits (universal healthcare) than the good 'ol US of A.
It is, actually. If the people voted for Hamas, they endorsed Hamas' platform. Plain and simple. There are "real" alternatives other than voting in a party that believes in the destruction of Israel and establishment of Islamic law.
The baby-killers in power are corrupt, so I'll vote for the sister-rapers. But that doesn't mean I endorse the sister-rapers platform.
That's assuming they actually want peace. Certainly there are Palestinian people that want that, but Hamas et al have proved again and again that they won't rest until Israel as a country is eradicated and Sharia law is setup throughout the region. They're just as crazy as the Zionists. No amount of good publicity will convince the outside world of their right to an independent state as long as they're blowing up night clubs and killing innocent people.
The Godfather movies, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Wizard of Oz, The Graduate, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, and hundreds of other movies prove your point wrong. Generally speaking if you try to make a shot for shot remake of the book, then the movie will be awful (although sometimes it happens, like last year's No Country for Old Men). But if you manage to build a unique version of the *story* or the *point* of the book, then you can build and add on to the story rather than diminish it. The filmmakers have to understand how to tell the story from a filmmaker's perspective, not just simply copy the book. Whether or not Zack Snyder can do it with Watchmen remains to be seen.
No one's really made a version of 1984 or Animal Farm that matches up to the books, and it has nothing to do with the density or length of the plot. Those stories just don't translate easily into a visual format. No one has really ever made a great movie version of any Shakespearean play (IMHO of course), just because the theatrical format doesn't translate into a great movie. Hundreds of great movies have been based off of those same plays, however. They just have to be changed to reflect the unique style of storytelling films require.
Can we wait until the guy actually takes office to see if his administration will do anything before calling him a liar?
The Democratic party has been largely incompetent for the last ten years, and George Bush evicted nearly everybody with a liberal bent from his administration. If he wants anybody with experience running things, he doesn't have many options. He basically has to choose from Clinton era holdovers, Congressmen, and high-level state politicians. Most of his appointments have come from those positions, but he's also made many picks like Dr. Chu.
It's very complicated, but basically they snuck it in the backdoor over a hundred year time period (starting well before prohibition). There are hundreds of legal issues but AFAIK the issue has never been brought before the Supreme Court in a direct manner. The court cases are about medical marijuana or something tangential to the question you're asking. In one case, Leary v. US, the court unanimously found the current laws unconstitutional. Congress then wrote a new law that was much more restrictive than before, but I'm pretty sure a case vs. the new act has never made it to the Supreme Court.
But the real reason why this has been successful is public support. Drug laws, while loosening at certain times, have always been overwhelmingly supported by citizens. Even a bare minimum of support for legalization in the most liberal of states is nearly always destroyed at the polls. Other than medical marijuana, nearly every decriminalization measure put on a ballot anywhere in the US has been crushed. There are signs that might be changing, but I'll believe it when i see it.
Some fun karma whore links.
Not too mention that it's a hell of a red herring for politicians too use when reality threatens to ruin their campaign promises. Poverty and crime getting too much to handle? Well, it's those damn drug dealers and users. If we increase their prison sentence, that should fix everything, right?
Maybe you're correct, because the style was the only reason to go see it, as it had absolutely no substance. Glorifying a fascist, militaristic society. Intentionally misleading thing suchs as calling Athenians "boy lovers". All of the characters were unlikeable (even Leonidas), the story was laughably disconnected with the real one (I guess that was the point though?) and the hot pants....oh God, the hot pants. Hot pants and capes for everybody!