I think it will be to an extent especially at the beginning but... at the same time, the majority of people who will see this movie (as was the case with LOTR) will never, ever read a book (I'm looking at YOU americans!). So, they would not understand why The Hobbit is so ridiculous and childish as compared to LOTR. I for one would be disappointed if the movie were done in exactly the same spirit/tone as the novel (the book was for kids after all).

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat; it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.



I'd feel like I was watching teletubbies if the movie were presented in such a way

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It should be lighter, funnier and more whimsical than its sequel.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

What's the comedic value in this exactly? "It's funny because it's so ridiculously annoying?"


You must not have children. And you seem pretty crotchety.

What's the comedic value in this exactly? "It's funny because it's so ridiculously annoying?"

So promising stuff gets you the vote?
Who here thinks that he is actually going to do all these things?
I don't get why you people are getting so excited about ANY candidate...

Or is it because $1 Trillion sounds so ridiculous it might even be true?

Good sportsmanship is great, and a good thing to encourage. However, this rule doesn't punish "bad" sportsmanship, unless your standards for "bad" sportsmanship are so ridiculously hair-triggered that you'd prefer to watch all sports being played by Robots versus Vulcans.

It is possible to be a gracious winner and yet remain visibly happy that you won. What does any any Olympic athlete do after winning a race, landing a tough jump, setting a new record, or having any other momentary success? They give themselves a little fist-pump, grin like idiots, puff out their chest and hold their head high -- and that is probably the bare minimum for even the most stoic competitor ever. Is that bad sportsmanship? No.

What happens at the end of every World Series, Superbowl, or Championship of any sport ever played? One team jumps up and down in a mass hug, acting like schoolgirls and completely unashamed of doing so, while the other team has their arms at their sides and stares blank-faced at the ground 3 feet in front of their feet. Is that bad sportsmanship by the winners? No.

I love the tradition in NHL hockey where at the end of any playoff series, the entire roster of both teams lines up and shakes hands with every member of the opposing team. This can happen after 7 games fueled by hatred and bad blood, bench clearing brawls, or whatever. They put that aside, line up, shake hands, and congratulate each other on a well-fought series. Is that good sportsmanship? Yes!

Encouraging good sportsmanship makes sense. Coming up with punishments that can potentially alter the outcome of games for some behavior that is arbitrarily decided is "bad" sportsmanship is crazy.

why do they have to make the ears look so ridiculous though?

>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no other creation account which postulates a creation from no prior material.

Ok, aside from the fact that you are wrong, even if you were correct that only Yahweh created the universe from nothing, it still doesn't disprove all the other glaring inaccuracies in the bible.

Unless you really want to argue that the earth is 6000 years old, which is so conclusively disproved I am honestly unable to comprehend the kind of broken thinking that goes into believing something so ridiculous.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

Poppycock. The whole concept of sin is just so ridiculous, it makes no sense whatsoever.

no more tax $
YOUR DREAM IS AMERICA'S NIGHTMARE
SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK LOOK AT THE WORLD ECONOMY

I would lol if this wasn't so ridiculously, aggressively ignorant.

>> ^EMPIRE:
this video is just full of moronic ideas, and personal beliefs (and some of them down right insulting towards certain nationalities).


If they're so moronic, surely you can point out why they are so ridiculous. (also i just now made sure video started at michael hudson interview)

>> ^peggedbea:

i definitely want something faster to access than a laptop, ill get phone calls from people who want appointments while im shopping for groceries or picking my kids up from camp, i want to be able to open the calendar app quickly and book an appointment. also when im checking clients out at my wellness center and i have to wait for 3 other people who work out of there to check out their clients before i can use the comp to check my client out and see my schedule to book their next appointment.... and i see a laptop being too bulky to set on a dresser and play ambient music during sessions.
and gaahhh the ridiculousness of CD's that get lost, or scratched or borrowed (i don't mind sharing, it's just that they always seem to return scratched)... so sure i could get an ipod, but id rather just buy one gadget to take care of everything...
also, sometimes at night when i'm closing up or batching out or whatever i like to sit in the floor and figure out what stock i have/need, how much money i have/owe/made that day, what percentage of it i want to reinvest and what new equipment i'd like to get when its time... instead of doing that with tons of tiny pieces of paper and my shitty memory to rely on, i think a tablet in my lap with my bank accounts and quick books and schedule and the websites of my suppliers on it would minimize my time at work.
im so ridiculously right brained i have to work super hard to stay organized and on top of my business so i don't revert to my ways of winging it on the fly and crash my business into the ground or get so stressed out by all the psychic clutter that i burn it all down catharticly
also, how reliable is it in terms of memory? am i going to overload it making it play music and book appointments all day? is it going to crash in the middle of my last session and force me to pull out the 1990's technology?
>> ^dag:
Laptops are just so damn cheap these days, it's true - and generally a lot more functionality than a tablet.
The benefit of a tablet over a laptop for me are two things:
1. Form factor - I can take it to bed and read it like a book, whip it out on the bus - or in economy class seats on a plane - with a lot less fuss than a laptop.
2. Quickness - I don't mean processor speed, I mean just getting to a bit of functionality that I need at that moment. If I want to open a calendar app on a laptop, I need to open up the laptop, wait for it to unhibernate- hunt for the app and then wait for it to launch. About a minute to do that. Versus about 10 seconds on tablet.



A big part of this for you is how the thing feels in your hand and how it handles in the scenarios you envisage. The operating system is quite solid I'm led to believe. It should be very reliable.

But I'm not sure how well joined up it will be if you're trying to run an entire business of it where you need data from one app to cross over to another. This strikes me as fundamentally basic and obviously straightforward on a personal computer but you'll need an actual living, breathing ipad owner to confirm this is possible.

i definitely want something faster to access than a laptop, ill get phone calls from people who want appointments while im shopping for groceries or picking my kids up from camp, i want to be able to open the calendar app quickly and book an appointment. also when im checking clients out at my wellness center and i have to wait for 3 other people who work out of there to check out their clients before i can use the comp to check my client out and see my schedule to book their next appointment.... and i see a laptop being too bulky to set on a dresser and play ambient music during sessions.

and gaahhh the ridiculousness of CD's that get lost, or scratched or borrowed (i don't mind sharing, it's just that they always seem to return scratched)... so sure i could get an ipod, but id rather just buy one gadget to take care of everything...

also, sometimes at night when i'm closing up or batching out or whatever i like to sit in the floor and figure out what stock i have/need, how much money i have/owe/made that day, what percentage of it i want to reinvest and what new equipment i'd like to get when its time... instead of doing that with tons of tiny pieces of paper and my shitty memory to rely on, i think a tablet in my lap with my bank accounts and quick books and schedule and the websites of my suppliers on it would minimize my time at work.

im so ridiculously right brained i have to work super hard to stay organized and on top of my business so i don't revert to my ways of winging it on the fly and crash my business into the ground or get so stressed out by all the psychic clutter that i burn it all down catharticly

also, how reliable is it in terms of memory? am i going to overload it making it play music and book appointments all day? is it going to crash in the middle of my last session and force me to pull out the 1990's technology?
>> ^dag:

Laptops are just so damn cheap these days, it's true - and generally a lot more functionality than a tablet.
The benefit of a tablet over a laptop for me are two things:
1. Form factor - I can take it to bed and read it like a book, whip it out on the bus - or in economy class seats on a plane - with a lot less fuss than a laptop.
2. Quickness - I don't mean processor speed, I mean just getting to a bit of functionality that I need at that moment. If I want to open a calendar app on a laptop, I need to open up the laptop, wait for it to unhibernate- hunt for the app and then wait for it to launch. About a minute to do that. Versus about 10 seconds on tablet.

>> ^Issykitty:

Yeah, and excuse me, but I am kind of upset, probably due to my hubby being out of town at length and being an raging hormonal cauldron. Oh, and I just moved and the movers stole something from me. I probably shouldn't be looking at stupid blogs that piss me off.


I'm upset too. I don't like fighting with everyone over something so ridiculous.