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

Man, only mammals would be turned on by modified sweat gland sacks that secrete nutritional sap.

(not a breast man)

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

I thought Indy 4 was almost there....
a) The two best Indy movies (1 & 3) had their roots in Biblical myths, this made them feel sort of 'legit', a nice sort of 'what if' these stories were true. Temple of Doom lacked this with him not searching for anything really, just stumbling across the Thuggees. The crystal skulls could have been a pretty good myth to work with, but there wasn't enough decoding scripture or writings or anything really to _do_ with the myth... I think that's where the two weak films initially fail, they aren't a good 'search for a lost item' story.

b) Far too much CGI, the chase through the jungle, while having some nice action and set pieces, just feels like a cgi scene, doesn't feel based in reality.

c) Too much lame humour. It's where Lucas failed a lot with the Star Wars prequels too... resorting to fart jokes and bad slapstick when the originals had a semblance of subtlety to them.

d) The end... just... a spaceship... really? The first one, we have ghosts... that's good, honest, old school movies. The second has some heart ripping and glowing stones, the third has life giving/sapping cups... but none of them have alien creatures coming to life and a space ship taking off... just doesn't work. That really should have been played down a lot, lot more. Some sort of alien power source that activated and made a whole lot of ancient machinery come to life would have been more in keeping.

I really enjoyed the motorcycle chase, I like Shia, I think he does well with whatever he's given. I think Harrison is still excellent in the role, there were some great action pieces. It's just really annoying to see a film get so close... so close and miss out due to what feels like just not having one more person look over the script and say 'Hey guys... you're kinda missing a few key "Indy" things here... and a few of these scenes are really very hokey'

But yeah, not as bad as some would make it out to be.

>> ^Chaucer:

Actually, Yogi, it is your opinion that you think (or would like) a majority of the scientific community to agree about climate change being man driven. I have not seen you offer any proof to back up your claim. Therefore, it is your opinion.
Personally, I dont believe the climate change is man driven. From what I have read, it is driven more by solar activity and other natural causes. It's already proven that we have hot spells then ice ages and back to hot spells (called cycles). This is just one of those hot stages. Now I do believe that man can contribute to the environment is negative and positive ways but do not feel we are the majority factor.
A friend of my uncle used to work for the government as a scientist. One of the projects he was on was to figure out why there was acid rain around the New York area. I cant remember exactly what they found but it was something wierd like sap from the trees from further north was causing the rain to be acidic. Regardless, it was the normal course of nature. When they turned in their report to the government, the report was rejected because it did not align with the governments view that the acidic rain was cause by global warming.
The government needs and promotes global warming because it causes hysteria and takes away focus from issues that the public should really be concerned about.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

See this is the easiest way to argue. Deny the fundamental facts and you cannot even have the argument. Jon Stewart pointed this out awhile ago, there are facts and then their are opinions. It is a FACT that a vast majority of the scientific community agrees Climate Change is caused by mankind. Yet if you deny this, the argument is over...it's very smart, good on you QM.



I'm sorry...who the fuck are you?

Actually, Yogi, it is your opinion that you think (or would like) a majority of the scientific community to agree about climate change being man driven. I have not seen you offer any proof to back up your claim. Therefore, it is your opinion.

Personally, I dont believe the climate change is man driven. From what I have read, it is driven more by solar activity and other natural causes. It's already proven that we have hot spells then ice ages and back to hot spells (called cycles). This is just one of those hot stages. Now I do believe that man can contribute to the environment is negative and positive ways but do not feel we are the majority factor.

A friend of my uncle used to work for the government as a scientist. One of the projects he was on was to figure out why there was acid rain around the New York area. I cant remember exactly what they found but it was something wierd like sap from the trees from further north was causing the rain to be acidic. Regardless, it was the normal course of nature. When they turned in their report to the government, the report was rejected because it did not align with the governments view that the acidic rain was cause by global warming.

The government needs and promotes global warming because it causes hysteria and takes away focus from issues that the public should really be concerned about.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

See this is the easiest way to argue. Deny the fundamental facts and you cannot even have the argument. Jon Stewart pointed this out awhile ago, there are facts and then their are opinions. It is a FACT that a vast majority of the scientific community agrees Climate Change is caused by mankind. Yet if you deny this, the argument is over...it's very smart, good on you QM.

I'm such a sap, was getting misty before the real part even started.

This show is identical in every country. It scares me that all cultures are equally defenseless to the power of extreme sap.

somehow korea has defeated america in the battle of hyper-exaggerated sap.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

This is a short clip of one of the floating villages off the Cambodian side of Tonle Sap Lake. The first floating building you see there on the left had a goal at the back and a group of kids goofing around with a football. Further down the estuary was a concrete barge with a full court basketball cage on it. Now that was sweet. I can't tell you how pissed I am that I didn't get a photo of it.

Btw, that link is to the travelblog-ish thing my girl and I put together over the last couple years. Hasn't been updated in a while. The big goofy white guy is me, and the beautiful babe is my lady.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

larger societal issues
OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.
Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"
The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?
Church.
Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.
I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.
I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?


it is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution.
do as we say not as we do.
you pointed this out so lets try a different exercise.
lets change "church" to "community".
and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

i know many amazing christians who live by their religious faith.they teach by example and judge noone and then you have the people you mentioned hiding behind cherry picked scripture in order to admonish and judge those they disagree with and is a huuuuge reason why many ignore some of the great teachings.
hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

i believe it all starts with parenting.
the way i see my job as a father is to instill in my boys integrity,character.
to have the courage to stand by their convictions and the humility to accept when they are wrong.
to realize the world does not revolve around them.
that choices have consequences and if they choose wrongly to accept those consequences without whining.

the question you seek to tackle is a societal one and will take far more than a comment thread to address but if you are refering to "church" as a community which could be a positive force in not only a growing childs development but also as a benefit for families in general.then i would tend to agree with you.
but many walked away from the religion due to the hypocrisy and in doing so lost that very vital part of raising a family.

thats my take on your comment...though it may appear off topic i agree with you that it is a vital component.

larger societal issues

OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.

Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"

The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?

Church.

Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.

I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.

I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?

Neil Patrick Harris has been building an enormous balance in my respect account over the last few years.

He has now sapped that balance to $0.00 in a single, horrible career move.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dudes, you won't believe this, except someone sifted it around here....the "sappy" ending of A.I. was NOT Spielberg's idea...it was Kubrick's!


Be that as it may, I'd have been much more willing to endure Kubrick at the helm of that ending than Spielberg. What's written in the treatment matters less than you think. What matters is HOW the story is told. For instance, can you imagine a voice over narration explaining the ending of 2001? That's what Gilliam is describing here: the nice explanatory bow that wraps everything up. The "sap" at the ending of A.I. belongs solely to Spielberg, I assure you.