Or does anyone else not give a flying fuck about all these overanalysed, selfserving reviews. Not just Star Wars, but any movie.
Uh, there's a lot of reasons to read movie reviews. Usually I stick to professionals, but even if I think a movie looks "interesting," if 90% of the reviews say it's terrible, I'm going to hedge my bets and skip it. Especially these days, when I can't see more than one movie a week (and usually see about one or two a month, because I have an 11-month-old son), other people's opinions are very useful in determining how I should spend my very limited time.
Bravo to you for being so totally awesome that you don't ever need to pay attention to what anyone else thinks, but not everyone is in the same boat as you.
Some of the effects were decidedly ropey - the giant lizard ridden by Obi Wan was not that good (I'm not sure any CGI yet is good enough to create 100% convincing living beings yet)
Oddly, I liked the lizard -- not because of how it looked, but because it had personality. A lot more than most of the main characters, really.:)
No, he's not. I've seen him in some other stuff (notably, "Shattered Glass") and he was rather good. The difference is that 1) Lucas has a great visual sense but can't direct actors for shit, and 2) the dialogue was awful. See Christiansen in something with decent dialogue directed by someone who knows how to get a performance out of his actors, and you'll be amazed -- the kid can act.
He was certainly no worse than Natalie Portman in this, and we know she can act. See "Closer," "Garden State," heck, go back to "The Professional."
Someone made the excellent suggestion that you should watch 4, 5, and then after we learn that Vader is Luke's father, jump back and watch 1-2-3 (or even just 3, since 1 and 2 really don't establish much that you can't relate in about two minutes:
"The Jedi found this kid Anakin, who had extraordinary power, so they trained him as a Jedi. Later his mom died and he kinda flipped out. Meanwhile, the Chancellor (guy in charge of the Senate) was scheming to increase his power, and started a fake war so that the Senate would vote him emergency powers. And he's been keeping an eye on this Anakin kid. Now, let's watch Episode 3."
Your accusation of God's non-existence is without any evidence or logic.
Generally speaking, in all known systems of logic, the person making the positive assertion (such as "God exists") is the one on whom the burden of proof lies.
Nothing can never be disproven...
You've never taken a basic logic course, you've never studied it, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing can ever be disproven? Good god, some of you theists are amazingly ignorant.
Besides, God *has* been proven countless times over (no, I'm not going to Google for you).
I'm familiar with every "proof" of God's existence that's ever been offered -- far more familiar than you, I'd bet cash -- and none of them hold up to basic scrutiny.
Let's say you wanted to loft an ad into space that would last for a short time in LEO before reentering and burning up. How big would the ad have to be to be readable, assuming it had the the name of your company printed on it?
Let's say the ad orbits at the same altitude as the space shuttle -- around 185 miles (~300 km). If the banner subtends half a degree of arc -- the same as the moon -- it would have to be about 3.2 miles long (assuming I did my trig right). I think we could probably produce some kind of fabric banner that length, although it would probably require custom machinery that doesn't yet exist. Or maybe producing numerous smaller segments that are stitched together would be easier, although that might increase the volume of the banner, which would make it harder to roll up/fold up into a rocket.
Launch would be as easy as any other launch, but unfurling it and keeping it flat would probably be the trickiest part. I bet it's feasible with current tech, especially if you only require that it be aloft for a minimum of a few days. Of course, finding a company that was willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars on a single ad might be difficult, even with the insane exposure you'd get.*
* Yes, I know Super Bowl ads can be hideously expensive, but those ads don't have even a slight probability to explode in the upper atmosphere.
The reason we outlaw the killing of most human beings is because it is recognized that killing human beings is wrong not because doing so causes suffering.
Okay, then I'm forced to ask, why is it wrong?
In reality, the reason we outlaw the killing of most human beings is that societies that don't do so, don't thrive nearly as well as socities that do so. It's a form of natural selection, ironically. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be legal to kill most humans; but then, even you seem to think that it should be legal to kill some humans. Why is that?
DNA. The embryo possesses all the chromosomes of a unique human being, to the extent that its sex can be identified.
So does one of my skin cells, but there's no laws against me extracting one and then experimenting on it (or destroying it without purpose). This argument doesn't hold.
I'll save you some time: The argument you're looking for is that an embryo has the potential, on its own (assuming it has the uterine and nutritive framework) to grow into a fully-developed human. This, combined with the assumption that something with the innate potential to grow into a human should have the same rights as a fully-developed human, means that we shouldn't destroy embryos.
Restated as a syllogism:
1. Anything with the innate potential to grow into a human should have the same legal protections as a human.
2. An embryo has the innate potential to grow into a human.
3. Therefore, embryos should be protected the same as fully-developed humans.
It's a valid syllogism, assuming you agree with the assumptions. I take issue with #1. Imagine a sperm and an egg that have finished fusing into a zygote, but are still a single cell. It doesn't have feelings, emotions, thoughts; it doesn't feel pain. Destroying it might be pointless or wasteful (or it might not), but what rational reason is there to treat it as a fully-developed human?
Hell, a sperm by itself can grow into a fully-developed human; it just requires the proper environment (namely, an egg in a Fallopian tube or uterus or other adequate growth environment). How is this any different than an embryo, which just requires the proper environment in order to grow into a human?
In a case where we literally cannot tell who is right or wrong,
This is not such a case. Therefore, the rest of your argument fails.
Or, does God prefer a dozen unviable cells in a dish over paralyzed people or new mothers with degenerative neural diseases that will rob their children of a normal life?
The best part is, the same people (namely, fundamentalist Christians) who claim that God is unknowable and all-powerful then go on to say that they know exactly which of these things God would prefer.
Here's a little lesson for you guys:
1. You claim God is all-powerful. Then he doesn't need your help, does he?
2. You claim God is unknowable. If you then claim that you know what God would want, or that something is God's will, you are a fucking moron.
Allowing individual taxpayers to effectively have a line-item veto on what their personal taxes will and won't go for is a terrible idea. Go read up on the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma.
But if people actually read the article, then they wouldn't be able to blindly bash the Bush Adminstration... There's nothing in the article that could not have been done by American companies and universities, if they hand't been spending all their time whining about federal funding.
Yes, that's right, American companies and universities have been spending all their time whining about federal funding. *rolls eyes*
Basic scientific research is expensive, and private companies virtually never engage in it because it's unprofitable. Which means that pretty much only the government can afford to fund it. Except in this case, our government won't. If a university takes federal funds (and all large research universities do), and does any research on stem cells that don't use the 38 (?) approved lines, which are tainted and almost worthless, then that university loses all federal funding, even for departments that have nothing to do with stem cell research -- art, music, humanities, etc. So effectively, Bush put the kibosh on stem cell research in the U.S.
Yes, there is some work ongoing, but not a tiny fraction of what would be going on if he hadn't issued that order.
Why? An embryo hasn't got a developed enough neurological system to perceive anything, feel pain, or otherwise be even remotely similar to an average, fully-developed human. What grounds are there for treating it like a person?
And I do not believe that we can legislate that an embryo is not a human being simply because some people disagree than we can legislate that a black person is not a human being simply because some people believed so in the 1800's.
And I believe that we can't legislate that an embryo should be given all the same rights as a fully-developed human being just because some people believe it should.
Prepaid credit cards aren't credit cards. They're just a proxy for cash you've already paid. Same goes for checking accounts; the bank already has the money, you're just drawing on it. If you've got cash, the bank doesn't care how old you are. But a credit card means you're spending money against your reputation, and that makes a huge difference: They want to be sure you're a legal adult and can enter into contracts and whatnot. That's why banks will virtually never issue credit cards to minors.
Unfortunately, you never got around to your personal conspiracy theory.
Who said I have a conspiracy theory? What actually happened is that Fox handled the show badly and then cancelled it. We don't know why they handled it badly: coulda been incompetence, malice, some combination of both, or some other unknown factor.
The guy I responded to thinks Fox wanted to "destroy something popular".
Good lord! He was joking when he said that. The very next sentence is, "More realistically is that Fox just doesn't want the competition."
Presumably you have imagined some equally insane alternative to network executives uncomfortable with the shows they were getting and trying to run the ones they thought were best, even if out of sequence.
What does this have to do with the fact that Fox actually did all of the things I listed in my original post?
What is so difficult about the notion that while you enjoy a TV show, most of the world didn't want to watch it? Can't you people just accept that there weren't enough people out there who share your taste, instead of imagining some Illuminati conspiracy to keep profitable shows off the air for no logical reason?
Yes, I suppose we just imagined that they showed the episodes in a random order (imagine if they showed '24' in random order), we just imagined that they preempted it with no warning a couple of times, we just imagined that they gave it the worst possible timeslot (Friday night), we just imagined that there was essentially no publicity for the show, we just imagined that they constantly fucked with the production by doing things like going to Joss Whedon on a Friday afternoon and telling him -- after the first (2-hour) episode had already been filmed -- that they wanted a new pilot, and they wanted the script on their desks when they arrived on Monday morning. The first episode, which establishes a lot of the world and the backstory (and still has lots of action and explosions), was shown dead last, after the series was cancelled.
What if this means that a large studio (that can afford the bandwidth) could just host a copy of any indie film so that the makers see no profit?
Most small-time and "independent" content creators would kill to get one of the major content distributors to host and promote their stuff for free. That's what most of them do: spend their time trying to get the majors to pick them up, because the majors are where the money's at. ('Course, how well that applies when free redistribution is no longer copyright infringement is another story...)
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo to you for being so totally awesome that you don't ever need to pay attention to what anyone else thinks, but not everyone is in the same boat as you.
He was certainly no worse than Natalie Portman in this, and we know she can act. See "Closer," "Garden State," heck, go back to "The Professional."
Someone made the excellent suggestion that you should watch 4, 5, and then after we learn that Vader is Luke's father, jump back and watch 1-2-3 (or even just 3, since 1 and 2 really don't establish much that you can't relate in about two minutes:
"The Jedi found this kid Anakin, who had extraordinary power, so they trained him as a Jedi. Later his mom died and he kinda flipped out. Meanwhile, the Chancellor (guy in charge of the Senate) was scheming to increase his power, and started a fake war so that the Senate would vote him emergency powers. And he's been keeping an eye on this Anakin kid. Now, let's watch Episode 3."
You know, explaining the nature of your made-up invisible friend in the sky isn't likely to convince me of anything. :)
Let's say you wanted to loft an ad into space that would last for a short time in LEO before reentering and burning up. How big would the ad have to be to be readable, assuming it had the the name of your company printed on it?
Let's say the ad orbits at the same altitude as the space shuttle -- around 185 miles (~300 km). If the banner subtends half a degree of arc -- the same as the moon -- it would have to be about 3.2 miles long (assuming I did my trig right). I think we could probably produce some kind of fabric banner that length, although it would probably require custom machinery that doesn't yet exist. Or maybe producing numerous smaller segments that are stitched together would be easier, although that might increase the volume of the banner, which would make it harder to roll up/fold up into a rocket.
Launch would be as easy as any other launch, but unfurling it and keeping it flat would probably be the trickiest part. I bet it's feasible with current tech, especially if you only require that it be aloft for a minimum of a few days. Of course, finding a company that was willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars on a single ad might be difficult, even with the insane exposure you'd get.*
* Yes, I know Super Bowl ads can be hideously expensive, but those ads don't have even a slight probability to explode in the upper atmosphere.
Yes, I'm sure the U.S. government would sit there and do nothing. I mean, it's not like us to, say, blow something up if we feel it threatens us. :)
No ads in zero-gravity, eh? That means I can still write my name in the moon with a giant laser!
:(
CHA-
Aw, crap, some superheroes blew up the laser.
In reality, the reason we outlaw the killing of most human beings is that societies that don't do so, don't thrive nearly as well as socities that do so. It's a form of natural selection, ironically. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be legal to kill most humans; but then, even you seem to think that it should be legal to kill some humans. Why is that?
I'll save you some time: The argument you're looking for is that an embryo has the potential, on its own (assuming it has the uterine and nutritive framework) to grow into a fully-developed human. This, combined with the assumption that something with the innate potential to grow into a human should have the same rights as a fully-developed human, means that we shouldn't destroy embryos.
Restated as a syllogism:
1. Anything with the innate potential to grow into a human should have the same legal protections as a human.
2. An embryo has the innate potential to grow into a human.
3. Therefore, embryos should be protected the same as fully-developed humans.
It's a valid syllogism, assuming you agree with the assumptions. I take issue with #1. Imagine a sperm and an egg that have finished fusing into a zygote, but are still a single cell. It doesn't have feelings, emotions, thoughts; it doesn't feel pain. Destroying it might be pointless or wasteful (or it might not), but what rational reason is there to treat it as a fully-developed human?
Hell, a sperm by itself can grow into a fully-developed human; it just requires the proper environment (namely, an egg in a Fallopian tube or uterus or other adequate growth environment). How is this any different than an embryo, which just requires the proper environment in order to grow into a human?
This is not such a case. Therefore, the rest of your argument fails.Here's a little lesson for you guys:
1. You claim God is all-powerful. Then he doesn't need your help, does he?
2. You claim God is unknowable. If you then claim that you know what God would want, or that something is God's will, you are a fucking moron.
Allowing individual taxpayers to effectively have a line-item veto on what their personal taxes will and won't go for is a terrible idea. Go read up on the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma.
Basic scientific research is expensive, and private companies virtually never engage in it because it's unprofitable. Which means that pretty much only the government can afford to fund it. Except in this case, our government won't. If a university takes federal funds (and all large research universities do), and does any research on stem cells that don't use the 38 (?) approved lines, which are tainted and almost worthless, then that university loses all federal funding, even for departments that have nothing to do with stem cell research -- art, music, humanities, etc. So effectively, Bush put the kibosh on stem cell research in the U.S.
Yes, there is some work ongoing, but not a tiny fraction of what would be going on if he hadn't issued that order.
It's always nice to see Republicans too cowardly to post with their public personas :D
I'm content with the idea that the Scientologists came from another planet, but the rest of us evolved here.
Prepaid credit cards aren't credit cards. They're just a proxy for cash you've already paid. Same goes for checking accounts; the bank already has the money, you're just drawing on it. If you've got cash, the bank doesn't care how old you are. But a credit card means you're spending money against your reputation, and that makes a huge difference: They want to be sure you're a legal adult and can enter into contracts and whatnot. That's why banks will virtually never issue credit cards to minors.
Thank goodness Cisco finally got its source code back! Now the source code is safe and sound, never to be seen again by anyone outside Cisco.
I'm going to make a show with bearded dwarven mercenaries, just to thwart your identification scheme.
Yes, that's right: we imagined all these things.