The Lost City of Atlanta? It is where one should go to find a mer-newt.
(1:47 for Donovan)



Edit: forget Atlanta, let’s all go to Vanuatu!

And this is why it'll keep going this way...

They knew (just like most MMO or server based games do) that there was demand and completely failed to meet it, then dropped key features like cheetah speed to try and play catch up...

As for F2P with microtransactions, no, it's not worse. It's far superior depending on the transaction model. I get to play the game and if I enjoy it, I can plonk down as much dosh as I wish to. With Simcity, they just couldn't play the game they paid for. Yay...

Nevermind if you want to while away the hours on a flight playing a bit of Simcity, or if your internet drops out for the evening. Just because most people can be connected all the time doesn't mean they always are. If you want to play it single player and miss out the regional stuff, why shouldn't you be able to?

And let's not even get started on stuff like tiny city sizes, broken mechanics like miniscule employment rates in high population cities causing your retail sector to collapse, fire stations ignoring calls from places next door merrily burning away, no undo, lost cities due to the cloud save fucking up etc...

You want to bend over and let them take advantage of you sans lube, go nuts, but every time you do you let them know it's okay to try it on with everyone else.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).
Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.
Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".
Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.
Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. It all goes back to credulity--each person decides for themselves how much evidence they require to believe something. I think for the vast majority of people the evidence against the matchbox trick is overwhelming. The same can't be said for the case against most religions--the people who feel the evidence is overwhelming (or put another way, that there isn't enough evidence to justify their belief) are atheists. The problems are deciding what constitutes "evidence" and the fact, as I mentioned above, that people believe in religions for a host of other reasons besides the evidence (personal experience being probably the foremost).

Back to the original point, calling people idiots neither adds anything constructive to the discussion nor is it really even true for most people (either religious or atheist).

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.

Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".

Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.

Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.

Gunrock, what you still fail to understand or acknowledge is..

HER JOB is to be EXCLUSIVE WANK MATERIAL in order TO ATTRACT MORE EYES to the gossip in the SUN tabloid.

She's not offering her general knowledge of a particular subject.
She's not offering technical skills in a particular discipline.
She's offering her tits and hips for display in exchange for money.

She's paid to objectify herself. Meanwhile, most of us are taught that objectifying other humans is immoral.

So it doesn't matter if she's a rocket scientist that dicovered a cure for cancer, aids, alcohol & nicotine addiction, world hungry, global warming AND the lost city of Atlantis..

..if her job & what everyone knows her for.. is givin' handies behind the local bowling alley.


[Edit: I'm not equating prostitution with modeling. But it's objectification all the same.]


>> ^MarineGunrock:

"... just recently finished college where she achieved four A levels and an AS in psychology, theater studies, media studies, critical thinking, and general studies. "
Obviously she's not stupid and has more to offer than just her goodies. Maybe she actually enjoys what she does?

True,
"Gary Nelson", the director was not a true visionary but he has brought us things like "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold"

At the time was the most costly Disney film ever made, and saw the longest computer graphics shot at that point in history leaving it with nominations for cinematography and visual effects at the Academy Awards that year.

It's the Lost City (WAT!)
of Angkor, son!

I said it's the Lost City (WAT!)
of Angkor, son!

You just can't seem to get this "logic" thing down, can you? Your sabbatical was wasted, as I expected.

I would ask Africa a question, but I don't think a land mass can speak.

Were the people who hit deer and large game hunting? Because that's a lazy way to get a kill.

You're right. I go against everything that is natural. Everything. At all times. I even went into the dank forest of your mother's twat to find the lost city of Atlantis. Unfortunately, I only found crabs, lice, three plungers and a copy of the New York Post from February 17, 1963.

Try harder next time, and don't hit your head as you go back under the bridge.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Against hunting? You just don't know anything about hunting, is more like it. Ask Africa if they'd like to make hunting illegal. Ask the thousands of people who hit overpopulated deer and other large game with their vehicles. Ask animals who sometimes suffer from starvation from overpopulation. And then ask the people who eat what they kill to survive. You go against everything natural and even the people who founded this country. Go to Australia or some other asinine continent, not even Mehico or our Sisters to the North agree with you.

Zappa
Bunny Wailer
Selena
Sun Ra Arkestra
telemetry from the METSAT Kalpana-1-(weather satellite)
New Lost City Ramblers
Chaka Kahn
Bo Diddley
Chemical Brothers/Goldfrapp/Ozric Tentacles
Burl Ives
Serge Gainsbourg
....what is this list for again????


Ahhh reference muzak.....well, you need to codify a style of music with its most salient and glaring representatives or inventors..

Jazz(be-bop)-Charlie Parker-Thelonius Monk-Bud Powell
Blues-( all the subgroups) Electric/acoustic/delta, etc....
Too many to name-
Rock-he hehheh hehe, smae as blues
Electronic---John Cage, Laurie Anderson, Behrbohm??? list goes on...
Punk- Sex Pistols New York Dolls?? Ramones??
Bluegrass
electronica
trance
alternative (otherwise known as people in a constant state of imprint and drug-addled confusion-this also includes most chick rock...!)
this looks like a job for an old CRAY X-MP....

see how difficult this is??? (Where is that Ozric Tentacles.....now djsunkids got me going there......Boom!

These arguments seem like the exact same ones used for creationism.

"You cannot disprove my theory, so therefore it is right." Add some doubt in the scientific method with no basis in the real world, and voila! Aliens created the lost city of atlantis whose decendents shot JFK on the grassy knoll.

To Jason Martel who asked "how did ancients develop such advanced technologies?" in the video. My answer - there were no assholes like him on television to distract them.