I was none of these, but pretty sure I know #5 lol. Awesome!

Interesting. Talking about it openly like that seems like an honorable thing for Jay to do.

I have had a feeling for a long time that networks are way, way, way too tied to short term ratings when they make long-term decisions. Couple of examples, remember these are just my opinions:

Seinfeld is probably on the top of the list of my favorite shows I have watched during my life. However, the first season sucked. It definitely sucked in comparison to later seasons, and honestly I think that it wasn't really even good in comparison to standard TV dreck/fare that first season. It didn't get particularly good ratings, but it got picked up for a 2nd season. It then started to get better. Not extremely rapidly, but pretty quickly. It rose fast enough to get the slot after "Cheers", which introduced it to enough more of an audience that it exploded. One of the few examples of a network being nice and patient with a show that was struggling to a certain extent, and it payed off *huge*.

Lets go with Firefly specifically, but basically anything Joss Whedon has ever done fits to a certain extent. Firely comes out, and it isn't advertised very much. Fox thinks it is too cerebral and deep, it needs more things blowing up and less talky-talky. So, they cut his original pilot, rearrange episodes, and don't even provide the show with a stable timeslot, let alone a good one. It gets less than a full season to try the waters and build an audience before it is canceled. In the meantime, we've got umpteen versions of Law and Order, CSI, etc., and a very conservative guess of 2 hours of "reality" TV on in primetime per day per network. They had a show that was great and different, and at the very least could have captured a niche market of people who wanted something else beyond watching vacuous morons kick each other onto/off of "the island" etc.

It seems to me that a network that was willing to take some risks, go with their actual opinions instead of instantaneous market research ratings, and give any new show at least 1-2 seasons to catch its balance would quite possibly make for some great shows with dedicated audiences.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^It's an interesting idea - and you wonder why nature selects for symmetry- when it would seem to make more sense to have arms that had specialized abilities. I guess right-handedness is a nod in that direction- but pretty subtle.

Christ-like? No. But pretty friggin cool all the same.

>> ^thepinky:
... Some of the most popular and internationally highest-grossing American movies of all time are not only very American (Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Forrest Gump) but pretty ethnocentric. Independence Day, Transformers, The Matrix, and Armageddon are all enormously popular movies overseas. And guess what? They're all about American heroes defeating international threats! What is UP with that?

I think Transformers was about space robots defeating other space robots. As for the other movies, they're all pre-Bush. The international perception of american patriotism has taken a turn for the worse thanks to Dubya.

Also, while some movies might seem very american to you, they sell well abroad because they have an easily relateable theme. Matrix told the story of man vs. machine, Independence Day man vs. aliens, Armageddon man vs. giant rock etc...

Yeah, Earth! I like Earth. I got these boots on Earth.

When I say that it is ridiculous to completely alter G.I. Joe, I'm not saying, "AMERICA ROOLZ!" I'm not suggesting that this is evidence of a dark plot or frightening trend. You're right, Chilaxe. This was a business decision. But I think that it is a misguided business decision based on the assumption that in order for G.I. Joe to be more acceptable to global culture, it must be altered beyond recognition. This isn't true. Some of the most popular and internationally highest-grossing American movies of all time are not only very American (Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Forrest Gump) but pretty ethnocentric. Independence Day, Transformers, The Matrix, and Armageddon are all enormously popular movies overseas. And guess what? They're all about American heroes defeating international threats! What is UP with that?

I have no problem with filmmakers making our movies less ethnocentric. I welcome it. But G.I. JOE?!? Come on! I think that their marketing decision not only killed this movie in the states, but internationally. Domestic G.I. Joe fans hated this movie because of the alteration. It was a bad business decision that might possibly stem from a misguided "I hate America and so does everyone else" attitude. If they had just made a movie about G.I. Joe, people might have liked it.

Well, he not entirely without surgery, he did need it to remove all that loose skin. But pretty damn impressive. And you certainly hope that whatever mental issues he had to get to that state to begin with are handled, as how DOES someone get THAT large? Really scary to think.

And how exactly does he sound fat ponceleon? I hear no 'fatness' to his voice.

Definitely not the Nicholas Brothers- they're not good enough, but pretty damned fantastic nonetheless!

We get some pretty wicked storms in the North East. Nothing like the tornados of the mid-west but pretty potent. A few times in your life you might even witness an electrical storm (where lightning is constantly flashing across the clouds every few miliseconds. It's spectacular.)

But yea, you can tell that people are loving the storm until a strike hits close. Then they are confronted with their mortality and bolt haha.

Not really jazz, but pretty close.

Pretty basic, but pretty funny.

She's like, you know, like, completely, like, missing the point.

Like

Really..

Yes: She would not be pregnant if she had remained abstinent

BUT

Also: She also would not be pregnant if she used condoms or the pill

To try to suggest the everyone should refrain from having sex until their 20s is insane, she knows that, she had sex. I'm not surprised that they think they way they do. Their religious upbringing makes them think that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and wrong and should not be succumbed to.

When in fact, there's nothing wrong with it, can be wonderful, can bring you closer to someone, can help you grow as a person.

BUUUUT.

There is, obviously, a maturity level (not necessarily linked with age, but pretty close) that needs to be reached before you start. Too young and you've turned sex into far less than it should be. Waiting is fine if that's what you want to do, but don't do it on some misguided notions of religion or that it's the only way to not get pregnant.

Wait if you don't feel like you're ready, that you'd like to experience other things more before you move into the realms of having sex. If you do it for those reasons, huge respect from me, and utmost support. Never cave into peer pressure to have sex. That's what should be taught at school... how sex works in a purely mechanical sense, and also what can and does get ascribed to it in an emotional sense. And teach kids it's OK to say no, but at the same time that if they want to that there are ways to make it a safe thing to do.

Hollywood Bob said "And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people."

That sounds like a "broken window fallacy." If these people weren't doing unnecessary work, they'd be doing work that society actually has need for, which enriches everyone.

The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

I'm pretty sure this is a parody. Not convinced, but pretty sure.

If it is, bravo, you made me smile. )

I fell in love with them at the Reading/Leeds festival in England in 2007. I had catagorized them with Strokes and other annoying 'hip' bands, but the last 2 albums are fucking awesome.

It's funny that they are really big in England but pretty small in the States. Considering where they are from and what they sound like.. it should really be the opposite.