They'll keep teasing you, with more, more and more vague announcements. And you and the legion of clueless fans will keep lapping it up until the next little tidbit. Not like the show is any involved with sophisticated convoluted jokes, right?

<sarcasm>If only the show had some big-name director involved, then they'd have access to Hollywood backers to make a movie a reality to its niche fans within 5 years of the show ending.</sarcasm> >> ^gwiz665:

http://news.yahoo.com/arrested-development-announces-4th-s
eason-movie-230333253.html
I want to believe.
>> ^doogle:
The won't be. Jokes on you. Keep dreaming. >> ^gwiz665:
I can't wait for more Arrested Development! quality

@aurens, One of the main techniques Ron Paul uses to manipulate people like you is by telling you that his definition of liberty is the ONLY definition, and that his interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation. By doing this, he leads you to believe that you are heroically fighting for liberty and the constitution, when in reality you are actually fighting for a very partisan and fringy set of far right political beliefs.

I find this fundamentally dishonest, whether you are aware you are doing it or not. I was mocking you, yes, but don't assume humor can't be 'part of the conversation' too.

Without using delusional 'constitution liberty, blah blah blah' type rhetoric, tell me why federal civil rights protections should be ended. Become part of the conversation.

Important point---> The constitution is like the Bible; people can use it to justify just about anything they want it to. This is fine, but when you use the circular reasoning that 'my candidate's subjective interpretation of the constitution is the ONLY interpretation of the constitution, therefore I am right and you are wrong by default', people like me might mockingly call you out on your self deception.

And, @artician, don't give me that condescending and assumptive 'you might learn something' bullshit. I've studied and discussed Ron Paul and libertarianism intensively over the last few years. The more I learn, the less I like it, which probably explains why Paul's support is wider than it is deep. I doubt you have anything more to teach be, as I seem to know more about the movement than you do, but if you have a new talking point, feel free to recite it for me. Ron Paul is a joke. If you are interested in learning about your candidate, here are some study materials: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/of1yc/why_ron_paul_is_possibly_the_worst_presidential/

As far as 'racism' goes, how many excuses are Ron Paul supporters going to come up with before they come to terms with the fact that this guy, if not racist himself, has certainly used racism for profit and political advancement?

The facts (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
-RP ran a number of racist newsletter for many years.
-RP changed his position on the letters from 'the quotes were taken out of context' to 'I didn't write them.
-Many members of his staff have attested that he signed off on these letters.
-He has been photographed with many white supremacists.
-He has received campaign contributions from big names in white supremacist circles, which he kept.
-He has appeared on white supremacist talk radio shows.
-He speaks for the John Birch society.
-He was against the civil rights act.
-Anonymous found heavy organizational ties between RP and white supremacists.
-He uses the same states rights rhetoric as white supremacists.

How much smoke do you need to inhale before you pull the fire alarm?

Enough hero worship already. Try Occam's Razor instead.

QT is the most awkward big name director. There is a Brad Pitt + Quentin Tarantino interview on the Inglourious Basterds blu-ray which I watched last night (it turns out IB is one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings). In the interview it's clear that Pitt finds Tarantino's energy irritating and draining. Apserger's + coke habit = very irritating to stoic potheads.

>> ^RFlagg:

Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.



Thanks. That's interesting.

Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.

Uh yeah. And I'm supposed to take seriously the CHILDREN that call everyone that disagrees with them racists, homophobes, warmongers, greedy, etc. How is someone racist for wanting lower taxes? I'm still trying to figure that one out...

Discounting the glass jaw and virgin ears, it would be less insulting if the left didn't pretend to embrace "tolerance" and "all points of view" while being so insolently insular.

I try to limit name-calling to big name doofs, not fellow sifters. If it makes you feel better, Alohabamarx, Cankles, Slick Willie, Je$$e Jack$on and Kucinich the communist Keebler Elf will never read these posts.



>> ^probie:

QM, with all the name-calling, you really are a nine year old when it comes to voicing your opinion. Which is why yours will never count.

When candidates that are being pushed as big names by the Republican party/Tea Party people are the ones saying this retarded crap, you kind of have to mention it as a problem with the party in general. See: Sarah Palin. Despite the fact that she likely lost the election for McCain more than anything else (I damn well hope, at least), they're STILL using the same strategies with her and similar people. No, actually, they've taken it a few steps FURTHER down the road of stupidity.

Massive spread of light pollution does affect animals, migration patterns, etc. But I won't go into the details here. But.. I am familiar with such issues being involved in Astronomy, optics, etc. A friend is also a president, and physician in a major medical society within the US. They have solid science backing such things and how light pollution can affect people and animals in negative ways.

Sure light pollution can't be rid off 100%. The 9/11 memorial isn't on 24/7 every day, so that isn't a major problem either. We're talking in a practical sense, not in an absolute sense. Most cases of light pollution is quite simple to solve. Use a full cut-off fixture. You can cut down the lumens of the bulb. Saving yourself a great deal in cost for both electricity and the fixture. Rather than blasting wasted watts into the sky, focus it where you need it, Right down the the ground. A rather simple concept really.

If only every state would take it into consideration, it would save taxpayers huge sums of money in public electricity bills. Some states in the US, and some other nations, have adopted such policies/laws and it has shown it's effectiveness. There is often resistance to such change. We always see it from one sector. The lighting industry. They throw a lot of money to prevent states from making sensible decisions to save taxpayers cash. Often presenting bogus science, or no-name experts. Unfortunately for them in our area, we have an army of professors from big name local educational institutions to call upon. Not everyone is so lucky however. Still, it is sometimes hard to bear fruit as politicians tend to be more likely to listen to money before science.

So my point is about light pollution awareness in general. Most people aren't even aware of it, so I took the opportunity to mention it in this context as you can actually see the affect it can happen on wildlife. In the case for the 9/11 monument, I'm not concerned about it. It is a memorial that is not on 24/7. If the lights were, then it certainly could become an issue.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
.... and light pollution supposedly causes no harm ....

A) Who says that?
B) Where is the harm in this instance? The lights were switched off for 20 minutes 5x to allow the birds to reorient. So, what, we wasted maybe 45 minutes of their time?

For me he's a big name actor who's average. He does the steely intensity you'd expect from a Pitt or Cruise but like them he's more movie star than accomplished actor.

I back up my case by referring to his films. He rarely makes one that I have enjoyed or would go to see.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000138/

If you look at his work since Titanic (another classic effort...) the only thing I'm seeing is that Scorsese has lost his mind.

*findthumb

If you're interested, there's a HDH invitational tournament playing at the moment (posted to both the channels I linked above). The big names in the community are duking it out for prize money.

such a dissapointing movie. big names, great idea but so poorly executed...

I agreed with Obama in not mandating insurance. I didn't think it should be done then and don't think it should be done now. Forcing people to buy these policies is a remarkable intrusion of government into our lives. Some random thoughts:



1. Regarding gaming the system: The fine is so minimal that I'll wait to get sick anyway. Nothing is going to change. There isn't a hospital in the land that is going to refuse me treatment today and there won't be a hospital that will refuse me treatment in five years.

2. Due to the coming financial impact on the bottom line, some pretty big name businesses are gearing up to shrink their employee roster. So much for creating jobs.

3. Your link is broken.

4. I just became Amish.>> ^NetRunner:

A couple points.
Obama was against the individual mandate for the reasons he said here -- he doesn't see why you should fine or go after people who can't afford insurance.
So, the bill he signed into law has an exemption from the fine for people who can't afford insurance, though subsidies make it pretty much impossible for insurance to be unaffordable to the poor.
Why did Obama flip-flop on the mandate? Because it's good policy. Ezra Klein explains pretty much everything you need to know about the individual mandate here, namely what it is, how it works, and why it's a necessary part of reform.
The short version: The way health insurance works (whether it's for-profit or not) is if you have a large pool of healthy people paying into the system to fund the medical costs for the few people who do get sick. If you make insurance companies accept people with preexisting conditions without a mandate, then people will be free to game the system and sign up for insurance only when they get sick. If there are no healthy people paying into the pool, then the premiums will be so high that paying out of pocket might be cheaper.
Sorry, I'm overthinking it. Obama's position on a specific implementation detail on health care is different now than it was two or three years ago. Clearly we should impeach him for being a big fat liar and a traitor to the American people.
Time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of people who change their minds in response to persuasive arguments from experts...

>> ^RadHazG:

so many big names with good movies under their belts and then.... Sly??? Who thought this was a good idea? More to the point, what retarded monkey cut together this hell hole of a trailer?


Sly thought it was a good idea, he wrote and directed the movie - he just wanted to get all the old 80s and 90s actions heroes together for a movie.

so many big names with good movies under their belts and then.... Sly??? Who thought this was a good idea? More to the point, what retarded monkey cut together this hell hole of a trailer?

@rosser99

I think it's impractical to think about it as right and wrong anymore. File sharing isn't going away, policing the internet is never going to be plausible or practical, lawsuits are a drop in the ocean and the measures they're using now with having ISPs in certain countries such as France disconnect you on a 3 strikes rule are bound to be circumvented in one form or another. I mean sure, you can have opinions on it either way, but moral arguments won't change the state of things. The real question should be how should the industry adapt?

What record companies should be doing is slimming down by moving towards internet distribution and promotion, and casting a wider net by relying less on one-hit wonders and more to catering to a broad range of niche audiences that they're losing by the throng. Instead they're going in the opposite direction.

I remember reading a thread in a popular music file-sharing hub by an ex-recording industry professional that back-catalogues and collectors editions are where the real dough is made. Many of the 'artists' (I use the term loosely) will be forgotten and never heard of by the end of the year. Plunging sales have meant that record companies have become more concerned with making the quick buck, extract the one hit, and move on. As a result the vast majority of artists are simply not able to develop their musical talent on big-name record companies over time because they're passed on for the next big hit. Similarly bands that are selected and promoted are the ones that have the most broad and banal appeal. You know, the ones that sound like every generic hip-hop song you've heard in last 3 years, the ones that have strippers prancing around during the entire video clip. The problem is, there's a sizable group of people who no longer have any interest in laying down money for this disposable music.

The successful ones are also generally bled dry nowadays. It used to be that live performances and merchandise profits were entirely or mostly in the purview of the artist, now that record companies are having their purse strings tightening, they're extending their contracts to include chips out of these earnings too. It'll be hard to tell what this environment will eventually lead to in terms of mainstream music progression. I think it's inevitable though that the likes of iTunes (which has more or less already adopted this model) will begin to dominate. Perhaps at that point we will see some kind of turning point.

As far as I'm concerned the ability to sample music has meant that I've been able to discover some great bands, and had the opportunity to buy their albums (I tend to buy in 10+ bulk orders every so often) and otherwise support them by going to see their shows. It has also meant that I've only paid good money for albums that stand the test of time and have been able to support bands that genuinely need the monetary support to continue their endeavor rather than reward big-name labels for their exorbitant ad campaigns.

So YEAH! I challenge you to read all that