A little bit of sanity there. I myself have always been baffled by the portrayal of Ahmadinejad as a mad person because he seeks nuclear weapons. His country is flanked on both sides by an incredibly powerful, incredibly aggressive military force. He would be insane to not want nuclear weapons.
And, for all the bad stuff happening in the Iran - Iranians are a shitload better off than Iraqis of Aghans. I for one hope, for the sake of the Iranian people not their government, that Iran develops a deterrent before the US is ready to launch another genocidal invasion.
a) You are a fucking retard. Of course the movie answers the question. The military themselves are never anything but good guys. And as for your other point, you could use that idiotic 'reasoning' to say that no movie says anything because it doesn't cover every single example of that thing.
b) He stops when he discovers some untermench have got their hands on them. He is quite happy for these weapons to be used by America, and quite gung-ho about it too.
c) Who cares if they approve his lifestyle? This movie is there to tell teenage boys that to have sex with hot girls they have to get rich.
You are a moron. A simple-minded drone who lacks the capacity to question things handed to you (such as it being absurd to you why anyone would question consumerism, or the casual racism of western society). Continue to eat your fast food and watch TV, you will never change.
Being a dick does not get you laid past high school. In the adult world, you have to use either the strength of your personality to get laid. Perhaps when your balls drop you might discover this for yourself.
The message this film and others is trying to convey to impressionable little boys such as yourself is that you don't need to grow up and develop a personality, you just need to be rich and you will get all the sex you could ever want.
The protaganist has a moral crisis when, and only when, he discovers that someone who isn't either white or his house nigger gets their hands on these weapons. How is that not racism?
Its a run-of-the-mill wankfest of American nationalism, which tries to tell the world:
a) The US is awesome, but a few bad apples mess it up.
b) High-tech weaponry that destroys hillsides is cool, so long as ragheads don't get their dirty hands on it
c) Being rich is awesome. Rich people are better than you. Women only love rich men, and they do so even when the rich man is a dick.
I could probably overlook the racism, nationalism, and consumerism that this movie is knee deep in if it were entertaining to watch, but it isn't. Its soporific, predictable, and flat.
I hear you. I'm a republican (which usually means almost the complete opposite of what it does in the United States, most of us are left-wing) so every time its left to a bunch of over-privileged landed gentry to push the case for liberty in this country I want to crawl under a rock.
What do you think the chance of this affecting the use of voting machines is? How often is anything of great significance altered due evidence being presented that it is inadequate?
Rationality is on the defensive. It certainly doesn't have much place in public policy any more. In every aspect of life, people are being convinced that the universe is not subject to laws which can inform our actions by predicting consequences, but that we are at the mercy of outside forces beyond our understanding, let alone control.
The 'Invisible hand' of the market means we must accept everything capitalism throws at us. The 'Intelligent designer' controls all life and we must not meddle with it. The natural rhythms or the Earth/Sun are responsible for global warming, so environmentalism is futile.
In the face of such a widespread campaign to render people helpless and reason impotent, no amount of evidence will achieve anything.
Fair enough, but you do have to enjoy her writing to get all the way through Atlas Shrugged, and reading that piece of shit made me feel like I was trapped in a conversation with a drunk old man.
It actually pains me that the unelected house is the only thing keeping the governments nastiest instincts in check now. British people have become so politically impotent that we rely on the munificence of aristocrats to safeguard our liberty.
That said, there is probably no legislative body on Earth so qualified to stand up for deviant sexual practices.
I'm getting sick of nerds quoting Ayn Rand. It just irritates me how otherwise intelligent people could buy into her garbage.
I can understand how her idea of 'prime movers' might have appealed to the average computer geek when they were 13 years old and getting beaten up at school, but I thought most people here were grown adults, and over that shit now.
Yeah, it did look pretty cool. I just hope they don't do what they've done with Doctor Who, try and upgrade the special effects and some of the original character of the series. New Doctor Who is very hit and miss, depending on who writes a particular episode, and reeks of just trying to hard.
The fact is, UK productions will never be able to match the budget of US productions so we can't expect to produce the same standard of special effects. Trying to inevitably fails and, to make things worse, usually causes the story, character and humour to suffer.
This is apparent to me every Sunday morning, when I watch Doctor Who on iPlayer back to back with a torrented episode of Battlestar Galactica. Makes me wonder why so many Americans love Doctor Who.
That is being quite kind if I remember Blake's 7 correctly (unless NASA have suddenly discovered that cardboard is a really good material to make spacecraft out of)
If it was a ballistic re-entry, then for as long as they had the service module stuck to their rear end they would've had no choice but to go hatch first as that is the most aerodynamically stable position of the two modules, as was discovered during the Soyuz 5 re-entry, which if I understand correctly was an almost identical malfunction. This is why capsules>>spaceplanes, and sadly its taken NASA 7 deaths to figure this out.
I get modded troll for making a valid point and this joker gets modded insightful for not knowing what I'm referring to when I say 300,000 troops have mental disorders?
After displaying a horrific ignorance and having that ignorance mistaken as insight by lobotomised moderators, you then go on to accuse me of politicising the issue. Fuck you, twat face. I wasn't talking about people coming back with conservative beliefs, I was talking about people coming back with PTSD.
Being able to do something and being willing to pay for it are two seperate things. Just because the military is pioneering this research doesn't mean they are going to make it available for free to the young men and women they are responsible for maiming. They could just try and make a profit from it.
Furthermore, 300,000 soldiers are coming back from Iraq with some kind of mental disorder. You can't grow a new happy mind in a petri dish.
Rubbish. All the people you mention learnt the existing theories extensively and then began to overturn them. Newton studied and understood the physics of his day (such as it was) and obtained his degree before he began the work he is now famous for. Einstein was well aware of the aether, and only overturned it because experimental evidence 20 years prior had shown aether to be nonsense. Schroedinger developed the ideas of quantum theory to fill in the theoretical gap left by the Bohr atom, and had to draw on his knowledge of both that and classical wave theory to do it. Simply put, you cannot extend the boundaries of scientific knowledge without first being understanding all that knowledge.
None of them intentionally lied in order to attack the scientific and educational institutions from within. How dare you compare these great men to creationists? Part of the comment you just made suggests you may be one of them yourself. Can I ask how old you think the Earth is? The Universe?
Thankyou for providing the facts behind this bit of disinformation.
The fact that people are willing to be so blatantly dishonest with figures demonstrates what is at stake between science and those who wish twist science into supporting their ideological and often authoritarian positions.
If some prick was lobbying schools to teach aether theories in classrooms as a viable alternative to special relativity, physicists would be spitting blood. The only reason this isn't happening is because aether theory has little utility to religious fundamentalists.
There are a lot of stealth creationists out there that conceal their idiotic beliefs in order to pass through the academic establishment. I recently met a physics graduate who when sufficiently interrogated admitted that he thought the universe was less than a million years old. He had got through his exams and coursework simply by lying about what he really thought.
So I say lets do as they are accusing us of doing anyway and persecute the motherfuckers. Thinking one thing and saying another to get ahead is entirely antithetical to the principles of science, so it isn't at all out of order for us to expel these intellectually dishonest retards from out midst.
Prominently featured in the propaganda reel of a trailer is a straw-man science teacher being unable to answer Steins question, and the same question being addressed to Professor Dawkins and his admission that science doesn't know for sure being portrayed as an admission of God.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so aggressive. Maybe its the wisdom teeth I currently have erupting from my gums like a pack of angry xenomorphs, but these people make me feel extremely confrontational and aggressive.
Yes, and then their fork petered out whilst Spanish Wikipedia recovered ground.
It isn't a matter if people agree with you - if they want a source of information they are going to go to the most extensive encyclopaedia out there, and editors will generally go to the most read encyclopaedia out there, creating a feedback loop. New stuff doesn't stand a chance.
Yes, I too have run across articles where there are sections promoting not just a conservative viewpoint, but the Heritage Foundation in particular - as if they'd set some interns to editing Wikipedia. However, while there are pockets where a conservative/right bias prevails, the overall tenor of Wikipedia leans left. David Gerard above agrees with this, and pointed out that one reason is that non-US editors also tend to the left, a point I forgot to make.
Rubbish. Most nation pages dwell at length on economic issues, from a very right/libertarian point of view whilst barely touching on social issues.
The political trends of generations are cyclical, and there is no question that the young are influenced by what they see of the leaders of the day. In the Reagan years, the youth vote was attracted to the Republicans. Even you must agree that more young people are rejecting conservatism because of what they've seen from Bush.
You seem to deny the existence of free will, suggesting that people could only possibly oppose your opinions not because they've rationally analysed the situation and come to different conclusions, but because they are mindlessly caught up in a historical trend.
And while I am a conservative, it's interesting that you would spin my statement that Bush is a bungler as evidence that I am too blinded by my ideology "to offer a balance[d] viewpoint."
Most conservatives now blame Bush for their woes, and cite him as the only reason people disagree with them.
Left-wing bias in Wikipedia? Hardly. If found statements lifted from the Heritage Foundation website repeated in the editorial voice, in several prominent articles.
Your painting a picture of young people only disagreeing with libertarian/conservative positions because of Bush (as if they have no thought processes of their own) suggest you are significantly to the right of the population therefore unable to offer a balance viewpoint yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when people used to talk about 1000 year empires. Where is McCains ambition?
A little bit of sanity there. I myself have always been baffled by the portrayal of Ahmadinejad as a mad person because he seeks nuclear weapons. His country is flanked on both sides by an incredibly powerful, incredibly aggressive military force. He would be insane to not want nuclear weapons.
And, for all the bad stuff happening in the Iran - Iranians are a shitload better off than Iraqis of Aghans. I for one hope, for the sake of the Iranian people not their government, that Iran develops a deterrent before the US is ready to launch another genocidal invasion.
a) You are a fucking retard. Of course the movie answers the question. The military themselves are never anything but good guys. And as for your other point, you could use that idiotic 'reasoning' to say that no movie says anything because it doesn't cover every single example of that thing.
b) He stops when he discovers some untermench have got their hands on them. He is quite happy for these weapons to be used by America, and quite gung-ho about it too.
c) Who cares if they approve his lifestyle? This movie is there to tell teenage boys that to have sex with hot girls they have to get rich.
You are a moron. A simple-minded drone who lacks the capacity to question things handed to you (such as it being absurd to you why anyone would question consumerism, or the casual racism of western society). Continue to eat your fast food and watch TV, you will never change.
Being a dick does not get you laid past high school. In the adult world, you have to use either the strength of your personality to get laid. Perhaps when your balls drop you might discover this for yourself.
The message this film and others is trying to convey to impressionable little boys such as yourself is that you don't need to grow up and develop a personality, you just need to be rich and you will get all the sex you could ever want.
The protaganist has a moral crisis when, and only when, he discovers that someone who isn't either white or his house nigger gets their hands on these weapons. How is that not racism?
Its a run-of-the-mill wankfest of American nationalism, which tries to tell the world:
a) The US is awesome, but a few bad apples mess it up.
b) High-tech weaponry that destroys hillsides is cool, so long as ragheads don't get their dirty hands on it
c) Being rich is awesome. Rich people are better than you. Women only love rich men, and they do so even when the rich man is a dick.
I could probably overlook the racism, nationalism, and consumerism that this movie is knee deep in if it were entertaining to watch, but it isn't. Its soporific, predictable, and flat.
I hear you. I'm a republican (which usually means almost the complete opposite of what it does in the United States, most of us are left-wing) so every time its left to a bunch of over-privileged landed gentry to push the case for liberty in this country I want to crawl under a rock.
What do you think the chance of this affecting the use of voting machines is? How often is anything of great significance altered due evidence being presented that it is inadequate?
Rationality is on the defensive. It certainly doesn't have much place in public policy any more. In every aspect of life, people are being convinced that the universe is not subject to laws which can inform our actions by predicting consequences, but that we are at the mercy of outside forces beyond our understanding, let alone control.
The 'Invisible hand' of the market means we must accept everything capitalism throws at us. The 'Intelligent designer' controls all life and we must not meddle with it. The natural rhythms or the Earth/Sun are responsible for global warming, so environmentalism is futile.
In the face of such a widespread campaign to render people helpless and reason impotent, no amount of evidence will achieve anything.
Fair enough, but you do have to enjoy her writing to get all the way through Atlas Shrugged, and reading that piece of shit made me feel like I was trapped in a conversation with a drunk old man.
It actually pains me that the unelected house is the only thing keeping the governments nastiest instincts in check now. British people have become so politically impotent that we rely on the munificence of aristocrats to safeguard our liberty.
That said, there is probably no legislative body on Earth so qualified to stand up for deviant sexual practices.
I'm getting sick of nerds quoting Ayn Rand. It just irritates me how otherwise intelligent people could buy into her garbage.
I can understand how her idea of 'prime movers' might have appealed to the average computer geek when they were 13 years old and getting beaten up at school, but I thought most people here were grown adults, and over that shit now.
Yeah, it did look pretty cool. I just hope they don't do what they've done with Doctor Who, try and upgrade the special effects and some of the original character of the series. New Doctor Who is very hit and miss, depending on who writes a particular episode, and reeks of just trying to hard.
The fact is, UK productions will never be able to match the budget of US productions so we can't expect to produce the same standard of special effects. Trying to inevitably fails and, to make things worse, usually causes the story, character and humour to suffer.
This is apparent to me every Sunday morning, when I watch Doctor Who on iPlayer back to back with a torrented episode of Battlestar Galactica. Makes me wonder why so many Americans love Doctor Who.
That is being quite kind if I remember Blake's 7 correctly (unless NASA have suddenly discovered that cardboard is a really good material to make spacecraft out of)
If it was a ballistic re-entry, then for as long as they had the service module stuck to their rear end they would've had no choice but to go hatch first as that is the most aerodynamically stable position of the two modules, as was discovered during the Soyuz 5 re-entry, which if I understand correctly was an almost identical malfunction. This is why capsules>>spaceplanes, and sadly its taken NASA 7 deaths to figure this out.
I get modded troll for making a valid point and this joker gets modded insightful for not knowing what I'm referring to when I say 300,000 troops have mental disorders?
Go educate yourself, fucking moron:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/troops_mental_healthAfter displaying a horrific ignorance and having that ignorance mistaken as insight by lobotomised moderators, you then go on to accuse me of politicising the issue. Fuck you, twat face. I wasn't talking about people coming back with conservative beliefs, I was talking about people coming back with PTSD.
Being able to do something and being willing to pay for it are two seperate things. Just because the military is pioneering this research doesn't mean they are going to make it available for free to the young men and women they are responsible for maiming. They could just try and make a profit from it.
Furthermore, 300,000 soldiers are coming back from Iraq with some kind of mental disorder. You can't grow a new happy mind in a petri dish.
Rubbish. All the people you mention learnt the existing theories extensively and then began to overturn them. Newton studied and understood the physics of his day (such as it was) and obtained his degree before he began the work he is now famous for. Einstein was well aware of the aether, and only overturned it because experimental evidence 20 years prior had shown aether to be nonsense. Schroedinger developed the ideas of quantum theory to fill in the theoretical gap left by the Bohr atom, and had to draw on his knowledge of both that and classical wave theory to do it. Simply put, you cannot extend the boundaries of scientific knowledge without first being understanding all that knowledge.
None of them intentionally lied in order to attack the scientific and educational institutions from within. How dare you compare these great men to creationists? Part of the comment you just made suggests you may be one of them yourself. Can I ask how old you think the Earth is? The Universe?
Thankyou for providing the facts behind this bit of disinformation.
The fact that people are willing to be so blatantly dishonest with figures demonstrates what is at stake between science and those who wish twist science into supporting their ideological and often authoritarian positions.
If some prick was lobbying schools to teach aether theories in classrooms as a viable alternative to special relativity, physicists would be spitting blood. The only reason this isn't happening is because aether theory has little utility to religious fundamentalists.
There are a lot of stealth creationists out there that conceal their idiotic beliefs in order to pass through the academic establishment. I recently met a physics graduate who when sufficiently interrogated admitted that he thought the universe was less than a million years old. He had got through his exams and coursework simply by lying about what he really thought.
So I say lets do as they are accusing us of doing anyway and persecute the motherfuckers. Thinking one thing and saying another to get ahead is entirely antithetical to the principles of science, so it isn't at all out of order for us to expel these intellectually dishonest retards from out midst.
Prominently featured in the propaganda reel of a trailer is a straw-man science teacher being unable to answer Steins question, and the same question being addressed to Professor Dawkins and his admission that science doesn't know for sure being portrayed as an admission of God.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so aggressive. Maybe its the wisdom teeth I currently have erupting from my gums like a pack of angry xenomorphs, but these people make me feel extremely confrontational and aggressive.
That would be a cutting retort if it had anything the fuck to do with what I wrote
Yes, and then their fork petered out whilst Spanish Wikipedia recovered ground.
It isn't a matter if people agree with you - if they want a source of information they are going to go to the most extensive encyclopaedia out there, and editors will generally go to the most read encyclopaedia out there, creating a feedback loop. New stuff doesn't stand a chance.
Left-wing bias in Wikipedia? Hardly. If found statements lifted from the Heritage Foundation website repeated in the editorial voice, in several prominent articles.
Your painting a picture of young people only disagreeing with libertarian/conservative positions because of Bush (as if they have no thought processes of their own) suggest you are significantly to the right of the population therefore unable to offer a balance viewpoint yourself.
All forks of Wikipedia fail. It's utility comes in part from it dominating the field, so any small upstart has no chance.