Is Hriders.com going to be AROUND in five years, or have they overextended and set themselves up for a good, old-fashion dot-com crash? And will they take all of my emails down with them in a blaze of glory?
100 GB doesn't mean squat if they don't have some financial muscle behind them. Google, I trust to be around. Hriders.com, I'm not sure about.
True, SW:ANH also had some bad acting in it, but it had a charm that the prequels don't. Farm boy gets caught up in a galactic struggle and realizes that his destiny is to change the universe. That's powerful stuff.
I think part of the problem of the prequels is that they are focusing too much on Anakin Skywalker. Thre's no surprises coming, and no tension building.
Remember when the original trilogy came out, and there were a lot of questions about it? "Is Obi-Wan's name really Old Ben 1? Is he a clone?" "Is Vader really Luke's father, or did he lie to him?" "Who's this Boba Fett guy and why's he so important?" And on and on. Some of the buzz Lucas never really did anything with (like the first question). But the prequels have NO mystery to them, no plot twists that engage us, no burning questions that non-fanboys are eager to find the answer to. No cleverness at all.
Ok, I just thought this up, but suppose in the prequels there had been TWO padawans who had a more-than-friendly competition going on... one of them happens to be named Skywalker, and everybody thinks, "Ooo, he's going to be Darth Vader!" Except that he's always doing right, and it's the other padawan that seems to have some ethical issues. Then in the third movie, the other padawan kills Skywalker and assumes his identity. BAM, you just floored the audience.
Come on, where's the plot twists, Lucas?!? Something... anything! I mean, fer cryin out loud, don't show me DARTH VADER as a happy, well-adjusted little slave boy!
What he's giving us is a plodding march towards the obvious. Bleh.
You're absolutely right! How could the man who gave us Howard the Duck ever do wrong?
Sarcasm aside, Episodes I and II are dumbed-down versions of Star Wars. They were more about the special effects than about the story. I find it ridiculously simplistic that Senator Palpatine could so easily engineer the takeover of the Empire; are there no other senior politicians who are in this with him? And the acting is wooden; even Ewan McGregor, one of my favorite actors, stumbles through these movies like he's not quite sure how to handle the material. Given how gifted McGregor is, I have to assume that it's Lucas's direction and writing that are the problem.
Thr first trilogy was made in the late 70's/early 80's, before the tech revolution. For most of us, it pushed the boundaries of science fiction. Two decades later, the tech concepts of the prequels are ho-hum. Lucas really needed to hand these off to someone who had a little more of a vision than he did.
Can you imagine if Lucas had contracted the Wachowski Brothers to write and direct the prequels? Even the least favored movie in the Matrix trilogy blows away the Star Wars prequels.
The best of the five Star Wars movies, SW:TESB, was not directed by Lucas. I think that that speaks volumes.
My daughter's school sends stuff home with her all the time that I have to help her with. I happen to be in one of the better public school systems in the country. Parental involvement is seen as a requirement.
I think that a balanced school program would put together a packet that the student must complete with the parent in order to get a passing grade. It could be something as simple as a video and a discussion guide, and then have the student write a paper about how the parent views sexuality. Make it as easy as possible on the parent. I bet upwards of 90% of parents would participate.
Me, personally, I don't view sex as something so mechanical as, "Ok, kids, here's how ya do it. Now here's your condoms. Go get your freak on and don't get pregnant. Oh, and make sure you love the person. Have fun." I view sex as a very high level of intimacy that even most adult couples rush into without building the proper emotional and relational foundation. Teenagers have sex for all kinds of reasons, and I'm willing to bet that it's never because they've taken the time to build a loving, committed, mature friendship first. They go through so many changes up through their 25th birthday, anyway. I want my kids to grow up and be able enter into emotionally healthy relationships.
I'm not unrealistic. I know that my kids might decide to be sexually active. It's not my first choice for them, which is why I will be discussing birth control along with my values. Maybe the message won't sink in right away, but eventually it will.
However, if abstinence is not a significant part of the curriculum, then all they are doing is encouraging sexual activity. And for some people, that's their value system; that's unfortunate. It's not mine, though, and I don't want it thrust upon me and my kids.
See, this is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. Just start passing out the condoms and, after an instructive tutorial, tell the kids to go have fun. This is why parents don't want to entrust strangers with something so delicate as their child's sexuality.
Your answer shows your ignornace. Every doctor already carries malpractice insurance. However, because of lawsuits the insurance premiums can rise to the point where his practice is insolvent.
The problem stated in the question is really about the financial burden on the entire health care system.
There does need to be some common sense reform to the way damages are awarded.
This question is very vague. In the author's high school, were they teaching abstinence or was there no sex ed at all? It sounds as if there was no sex ed, and he's trying to equate abstinence with it.
Secondly, when did all of "our children" become wards of the state? Why is it that the state must analyze the failure of parents to raise their children properly and take over for them? And why is it that discussions of sex ed never talk about involving the parents in a meaningful way?
The problem with the state of sex ed today is that it fails to take into account the values of the parents; either your kids are in the class, or they are taken out of the class. Why is there no curriculum that gives the parents materials that they can discuss with their children?
As a parent of two, I would much, much rather prefer that the school system would educate me on being a better parent and let me make the value choices, than for the state to just assume that I'm an unfit parent.
And yes, I am all for the teaching of abstinence. I will talk to my children about teen pregnancy, STD's and birth control, but my emphasis will be abstinence. Why do people who oppose the teaching of abstinence always treat it as if its mutually exclusive of the teaching of birth control?
JERRY: You're doing this yourself? KRAMER: It's a simple job. Why, you don't think I can? JERRY: Oh, no. It's not that I don't think you can. I know that you can't, and I'm positive that you won't.
Why was Newsweek correct not to break the Lewinsky story? It was true, wasn't it? The President lied under oath about his relationship with her, didn't he? Aren't you the least bit concerned that President Clinton was getting his axel greased in the Oval Office while foreign dignitaries are sitting around waiting on him? Does it not bother you that the President was using improper influence for sexual favors on an intern? People get fired over that kind of stuff every day, but we aren't going to hold the President accountable? Doesn't it bother you that numerous women have come forth to label the President a "sexual predator"? What happened to Women's Rights?
No wonder you posted as AC....
And for the record Matt Drudge is also accountable to the news community at-large, including the internet bloggers. He's gotten stories wrong before and has been called on it.
The stories that have merit will rise to the top. That's exactly what has happened with Memo-gate. Stories that don't have merit will collapse under scrutiny. That's what happened when Drudge reported that Kerry had "intern problems".
Based on your comment about the Lewinsky scandal, I can see though that your main objection is probably the toppling of the liberal media establishment by the internet blogging community, which is much closer to being apolitical in its aggregate than the Mainstream Media ever was.
I don't know what your talking about. There are fewer news companies today than every before; just look at the ownership.
Thus the term "monopoly".
If they hated it so much why was the story propogated so much, and helping them earn so much revenue in advertising dollars.
This is exactly my point. The Big Media can't ignore the bloggers today because of their huge readership. The liberal news outlets may be pulling for Kerry, but they also have to have an audience to sell advertising to, and they have to maintain some guise of journalistic credibility. The major news outlets actually sat on the Memo-gate story for a few days, wondering if it was going to blow over. It wasn't, so they had to report on it.
Drudge also reported that CBS News viewership dropped by two-thirds in some major markets. That, my friend, is the power and influence of bloggers on the internet.
It's the "stupidest question ever," because everyone already knows that politics and journalism are linked.
A more salient question for the day would have been "How has the internet changed the relationship between politics and journalism?" Ten years ago, it was unthinkable that grass-roots journalism could question the authenticity of a CBS News report, and even more unthinkable that they could cause CBS News to flinch.
Six years ago, Matt Drudge scooped a news story that Newsweek was sitting on. Newsweek had the Monica Lewinsky story and did not want to run it, possibly because of the potential of the story to upset politics in an election year. Then there was also the possibility of the story to impact Paula Jones's civil suit against Bill Clinton, and the impeachment of the President by Congress.
Whichever side of the fence you were on politically, it was this story that marked the end of an era. The end of the Big Media News monopoly on the news business, and the beginning of grass-roots checks and balances.
Big Media hates people like Matt Drudge and the "bloggers in their pajamas". Granted, they don't have the investigative resources that the big news organizations have, but they have the power to raise questions about the direction of the news.
It used to be said that the liberal NY Times set the headlines across the nation every day. I doubt this is the case any more. The internet is able to provide reporters with far more story options, and provides readers with vastly more story choices.
I agree with the op-ed pieces that have looked at Memo-gate and procaimed the era of Broadcast News to be over.
Of course, much of the legal dispute has gone on between lawyers and is not a matter of public record, so it's not very complete.
I do remember, though, what crummy audio hardware the Mac had in the early 90's, thanks to Apple Corps. Apple always had to lag behind the industry, for fear of being sued. It's only since Jobs came back in '97 that his attitude was, "Screw it, we're going full steam ahead."
What would you accept as sufficient evidence of their untruth?
Two things:
1) Release all of his war journal that he kept. That doesn't mean that it's a credible source, but it can be fact checked against what happened back then, and against what Kerry is claiming today.
2) Sign the release form for ALL of his military records. Of the 100 pages that the military has, only 6 are available to be released to the public. Everything else, Kerry has selectively revealed. That's not acceptable. For example, we know that he used his influence as a politician to get two additional write-ups for one of his Purple Hearts; the original write-up has not been released to the public. Why? It sounds as if he has been carefully honing and reworking his Vietnam record for the day he would run for president as a war hero. Releasing all of the original documents would clear this up.
And keep in mind, I'm not asking for anything that the Kerry camp hasn't also asked of George W. Bush. Kerry has similarly requested that Bush reveal all of his military records, and to my knowledge Bush has complied.
I would also argue that Republicans supporting Nader is not an ethical problem. A peculiarity, yes. But it's the electorate who pulls the lever, not the Republican party. Every voter makes their own decision.
Suppressing a candidate from appearing on a ballot is a far, far more serious charge than informing the public about an opposition candidate.
And see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Forget the truth, just bash the other side and hope that it sticks. Democrats are loathe to attack the substance of what the Swift Vets have to say. There are numerous, specific charges that Kerry could easily refute, if they were untrue.
However, it seems that the more that is revealed about Kerry's time in Vietnam, themorequestionsitproduces.
OK, so the Daily Show showed that most of the funding for the Swift Vets came from Republicans... did you honestly think that Democrats were going to fund them? That still doesn't have any bearing on the substance of the attacks which, again, could be easily refuted if they were false. Turn your brain on.
And probably another little bit of truth that wasn't revealed on the Daily Show... did you know that John O'Neill, the author of Unfit for Command, voted for Al Gore in 2000 because he thought that George Bush was just an "empty suit"?
He has said repeatedly that the Swift Vets would still be doing what they're doing, even if Kerry were running on the Republican ticket. He's not pro-Bush, he's just anti-Kerry.
First of all, this painting with a broad brush does not help, saying, "Yes well, the other side does it too." There's some specific dirty tricks here that need to be addressed, and there is a specific party that is guilty.
Secondly, I believe that the people that the Deomcrats have chosen as their leadership are wholly dishonest. Case in point is the scandal going on right now with the forged documents that CBS produced on 60 Minutes. Without a shred of evidence, Terry McCauliff immediately hits the cable news shows and starts accusing Karl Rove and the Republicans of fabricating this evidence and planting it, knowing full well that it had been passed onto 60 Minutes by the Kerry Campaign.
I love folks like Pat Cadell. He's not a "win at any cost" Democrat. It's too bad that he and folks like him don't have more influence in their party.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Hriders.com going to be AROUND in five years, or have they overextended and set themselves up for a good, old-fashion dot-com crash? And will they take all of my emails down with them in a blaze of glory?
100 GB doesn't mean squat if they don't have some financial muscle behind them. Google, I trust to be around. Hriders.com, I'm not sure about.
True, SW:ANH also had some bad acting in it, but it had a charm that the prequels don't. Farm boy gets caught up in a galactic struggle and realizes that his destiny is to change the universe. That's powerful stuff.
I think part of the problem of the prequels is that they are focusing too much on Anakin Skywalker. Thre's no surprises coming, and no tension building.
Remember when the original trilogy came out, and there were a lot of questions about it? "Is Obi-Wan's name really Old Ben 1? Is he a clone?" "Is Vader really Luke's father, or did he lie to him?" "Who's this Boba Fett guy and why's he so important?" And on and on. Some of the buzz Lucas never really did anything with (like the first question). But the prequels have NO mystery to them, no plot twists that engage us, no burning questions that non-fanboys are eager to find the answer to. No cleverness at all.
Ok, I just thought this up, but suppose in the prequels there had been TWO padawans who had a more-than-friendly competition going on... one of them happens to be named Skywalker, and everybody thinks, "Ooo, he's going to be Darth Vader!" Except that he's always doing right, and it's the other padawan that seems to have some ethical issues. Then in the third movie, the other padawan kills Skywalker and assumes his identity. BAM, you just floored the audience.
Come on, where's the plot twists, Lucas?!? Something... anything! I mean, fer cryin out loud, don't show me DARTH VADER as a happy, well-adjusted little slave boy!
What he's giving us is a plodding march towards the obvious. Bleh.
There is no pleasing the star wars fans.
You're absolutely right! How could the man who gave us Howard the Duck ever do wrong?
Sarcasm aside, Episodes I and II are dumbed-down versions of Star Wars. They were more about the special effects than about the story. I find it ridiculously simplistic that Senator Palpatine could so easily engineer the takeover of the Empire; are there no other senior politicians who are in this with him? And the acting is wooden; even Ewan McGregor, one of my favorite actors, stumbles through these movies like he's not quite sure how to handle the material. Given how gifted McGregor is, I have to assume that it's Lucas's direction and writing that are the problem.
Thr first trilogy was made in the late 70's/early 80's, before the tech revolution. For most of us, it pushed the boundaries of science fiction. Two decades later, the tech concepts of the prequels are ho-hum. Lucas really needed to hand these off to someone who had a little more of a vision than he did.
Can you imagine if Lucas had contracted the Wachowski Brothers to write and direct the prequels? Even the least favored movie in the Matrix trilogy blows away the Star Wars prequels.
The best of the five Star Wars movies, SW:TESB, was not directed by Lucas. I think that that speaks volumes.
My daughter's school sends stuff home with her all the time that I have to help her with. I happen to be in one of the better public school systems in the country. Parental involvement is seen as a requirement.
I think that a balanced school program would put together a packet that the student must complete with the parent in order to get a passing grade. It could be something as simple as a video and a discussion guide, and then have the student write a paper about how the parent views sexuality. Make it as easy as possible on the parent. I bet upwards of 90% of parents would participate.
Me, personally, I don't view sex as something so mechanical as, "Ok, kids, here's how ya do it. Now here's your condoms. Go get your freak on and don't get pregnant. Oh, and make sure you love the person. Have fun." I view sex as a very high level of intimacy that even most adult couples rush into without building the proper emotional and relational foundation. Teenagers have sex for all kinds of reasons, and I'm willing to bet that it's never because they've taken the time to build a loving, committed, mature friendship first. They go through so many changes up through their 25th birthday, anyway. I want my kids to grow up and be able enter into emotionally healthy relationships.
I'm not unrealistic. I know that my kids might decide to be sexually active. It's not my first choice for them, which is why I will be discussing birth control along with my values. Maybe the message won't sink in right away, but eventually it will.
However, if abstinence is not a significant part of the curriculum, then all they are doing is encouraging sexual activity. And for some people, that's their value system; that's unfortunate. It's not mine, though, and I don't want it thrust upon me and my kids.
See, this is exactly the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. Just start passing out the condoms and, after an instructive tutorial, tell the kids to go have fun. This is why parents don't want to entrust strangers with something so delicate as their child's sexuality.
Your answer shows your ignornace. Every doctor already carries malpractice insurance. However, because of lawsuits the insurance premiums can rise to the point where his practice is insolvent.
The problem stated in the question is really about the financial burden on the entire health care system.
There does need to be some common sense reform to the way damages are awarded.
This question is very vague. In the author's high school, were they teaching abstinence or was there no sex ed at all? It sounds as if there was no sex ed, and he's trying to equate abstinence with it.
Secondly, when did all of "our children" become wards of the state? Why is it that the state must analyze the failure of parents to raise their children properly and take over for them? And why is it that discussions of sex ed never talk about involving the parents in a meaningful way?
The problem with the state of sex ed today is that it fails to take into account the values of the parents; either your kids are in the class, or they are taken out of the class. Why is there no curriculum that gives the parents materials that they can discuss with their children?
As a parent of two, I would much, much rather prefer that the school system would educate me on being a better parent and let me make the value choices, than for the state to just assume that I'm an unfit parent.
And yes, I am all for the teaching of abstinence. I will talk to my children about teen pregnancy, STD's and birth control, but my emphasis will be abstinence. Why do people who oppose the teaching of abstinence always treat it as if its mutually exclusive of the teaching of birth control?
That's why R2-D2 is shaped like a trash can.
JERRY: You're doing this yourself?
KRAMER: It's a simple job. Why, you don't think I can?
JERRY: Oh, no. It's not that I don't think you can. I know that you can't, and I'm positive that you won't.
http://www.lucianne.com/
Why was Newsweek correct not to break the Lewinsky story? It was true, wasn't it? The President lied under oath about his relationship with her, didn't he? Aren't you the least bit concerned that President Clinton was getting his axel greased in the Oval Office while foreign dignitaries are sitting around waiting on him? Does it not bother you that the President was using improper influence for sexual favors on an intern? People get fired over that kind of stuff every day, but we aren't going to hold the President accountable? Doesn't it bother you that numerous women have come forth to label the President a "sexual predator"? What happened to Women's Rights?
No wonder you posted as AC....
And for the record Matt Drudge is also accountable to the news community at-large, including the internet bloggers. He's gotten stories wrong before and has been called on it.
The stories that have merit will rise to the top. That's exactly what has happened with Memo-gate. Stories that don't have merit will collapse under scrutiny. That's what happened when Drudge reported that Kerry had "intern problems".
Based on your comment about the Lewinsky scandal, I can see though that your main objection is probably the toppling of the liberal media establishment by the internet blogging community, which is much closer to being apolitical in its aggregate than the Mainstream Media ever was.
I don't know what your talking about. There are fewer news companies today than every before; just look at the ownership.
Thus the term "monopoly".
If they hated it so much why was the story propogated so much, and helping them earn so much revenue in advertising dollars.
This is exactly my point. The Big Media can't ignore the bloggers today because of their huge readership. The liberal news outlets may be pulling for Kerry, but they also have to have an audience to sell advertising to, and they have to maintain some guise of journalistic credibility. The major news outlets actually sat on the Memo-gate story for a few days, wondering if it was going to blow over. It wasn't, so they had to report on it.
Drudge also reported that CBS News viewership dropped by two-thirds in some major markets. That, my friend, is the power and influence of bloggers on the internet.
It's the "stupidest question ever," because everyone already knows that politics and journalism are linked.
A more salient question for the day would have been "How has the internet changed the relationship between politics and journalism?" Ten years ago, it was unthinkable that grass-roots journalism could question the authenticity of a CBS News report, and even more unthinkable that they could cause CBS News to flinch.
Six years ago, Matt Drudge scooped a news story that Newsweek was sitting on. Newsweek had the Monica Lewinsky story and did not want to run it, possibly because of the potential of the story to upset politics in an election year. Then there was also the possibility of the story to impact Paula Jones's civil suit against Bill Clinton, and the impeachment of the President by Congress.
Whichever side of the fence you were on politically, it was this story that marked the end of an era. The end of the Big Media News monopoly on the news business, and the beginning of grass-roots checks and balances.
Big Media hates people like Matt Drudge and the "bloggers in their pajamas". Granted, they don't have the investigative resources that the big news organizations have, but they have the power to raise questions about the direction of the news.
It used to be said that the liberal NY Times set the headlines across the nation every day. I doubt this is the case any more. The internet is able to provide reporters with far more story options, and provides readers with vastly more story choices.
I agree with the op-ed pieces that have looked at Memo-gate and procaimed the era of Broadcast News to be over.
This is a good thing.
If he was truly evil...
Not only would he have preserved Jar Jar's life, but he would have given him a prominent role in Episodes 4, 5 and 6.
If he killed Jar Jar, then he couldn't have been all bad.
Jar Jar Binks: "Luke, meesa is your father!"
Luke: (turning lightsaber onto himself) "Nooooooo!"
As you can imagine, we get many, many resumes every day, so we developed this little process to increase the signal to noise ratio.
Yes, that is, until somebody posted your link on Slashdot...
that, and their password was "PASSWORD"
Or just go to Carowinds and ride the Drop Zone ride, which drops 16 stories, straight down.
Total cost = $33 admission
Keep the other $2,967 in your pocket.
of the Apple/Beatles legal battles is here."
Of course, much of the legal dispute has gone on between lawyers and is not a matter of public record, so it's not very complete.
I do remember, though, what crummy audio hardware the Mac had in the early 90's, thanks to Apple Corps. Apple always had to lag behind the industry, for fear of being sued. It's only since Jobs came back in '97 that his attitude was, "Screw it, we're going full steam ahead."
Either that or Toad the Wet Sprocket.
Absolutely. If John Kerry can definitively prove that he's right and they're wrong, I have no problem with that.
What would you accept as sufficient evidence of their untruth?
Two things:
1) Release all of his war journal that he kept. That doesn't mean that it's a credible source, but it can be fact checked against what happened back then, and against what Kerry is claiming today.
2) Sign the release form for ALL of his military records. Of the 100 pages that the military has, only 6 are available to be released to the public. Everything else, Kerry has selectively revealed. That's not acceptable. For example, we know that he used his influence as a politician to get two additional write-ups for one of his Purple Hearts; the original write-up has not been released to the public. Why? It sounds as if he has been carefully honing and reworking his Vietnam record for the day he would run for president as a war hero. Releasing all of the original documents would clear this up.
And keep in mind, I'm not asking for anything that the Kerry camp hasn't also asked of George W. Bush. Kerry has similarly requested that Bush reveal all of his military records, and to my knowledge Bush has complied.
I would also argue that Republicans supporting Nader is not an ethical problem. A peculiarity, yes. But it's the electorate who pulls the lever, not the Republican party. Every voter makes their own decision.
Suppressing a candidate from appearing on a ballot is a far, far more serious charge than informing the public about an opposition candidate.
And see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Forget the truth, just bash the other side and hope that it sticks. Democrats are loathe to attack the substance of what the Swift Vets have to say. There are numerous, specific charges that Kerry could easily refute, if they were untrue.
However, it seems that the more that is revealed about Kerry's time in Vietnam, the more questions it produces.
OK, so the Daily Show showed that most of the funding for the Swift Vets came from Republicans... did you honestly think that Democrats were going to fund them? That still doesn't have any bearing on the substance of the attacks which, again, could be easily refuted if they were false. Turn your brain on.
And probably another little bit of truth that wasn't revealed on the Daily Show... did you know that John O'Neill, the author of Unfit for Command, voted for Al Gore in 2000 because he thought that George Bush was just an "empty suit"?
He has said repeatedly that the Swift Vets would still be doing what they're doing, even if Kerry were running on the Republican ticket. He's not pro-Bush, he's just anti-Kerry.
First of all, this painting with a broad brush does not help, saying, "Yes well, the other side does it too." There's some specific dirty tricks here that need to be addressed, and there is a specific party that is guilty.
Secondly, I believe that the people that the Deomcrats have chosen as their leadership are wholly dishonest. Case in point is the scandal going on right now with the forged documents that CBS produced on 60 Minutes. Without a shred of evidence, Terry McCauliff immediately hits the cable news shows and starts accusing Karl Rove and the Republicans of fabricating this evidence and planting it, knowing full well that it had been passed onto 60 Minutes by the Kerry Campaign.
I love folks like Pat Cadell. He's not a "win at any cost" Democrat. It's too bad that he and folks like him don't have more influence in their party.