"Rare" because he doesn't do many screen tests? Sounds redundant.

Should just be called "Bob Dylan Screen Test". If we find others, let's compare'em.

nemesis was fine as an "epic episode".. not quite so much as a movie. Although it beat out Insurrection easily. ANY star trek fan would be doing themselves a disservice to just skip over it.

As for the first comment.. lets just say for as many people who thought the screen test was better, there are just as many who think the final cut was better. The thing is they were both great.

It's the goofy ass "alien" costume that ruins it for me. In the screen test hes got the leather jacket, but in the real scene he's got this goofy ass clown costume.

You just can't take him seriously.

Wow, the screen test was way better. The few line changes in the final were also worse.

>> ^Morganth:

The acting (especially Hardy) was much better in the screen test than the actual footage.

I was going to say the same thing. The screentest was excellent.

The acting (especially Hardy) was much better in the screen test than the actual footage.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^alien_concept:
@Barseps, I don't know what I just watched there? Or quite what you're getting at. Maybe he just means that we have taken it to new levels or something, not that we started it off.

That's precisely what I'm saying A.C. football hooliganism didn't actually start in England so it can't be "absolutely English".......That's all


Ahhh, gotcha. I didn't really think that saying something is absolutely English means it has to originate form there, I figure if you say "football hooliganism" and peoples first thought is "English fans" that would be absolutely English, but you're right really

>> ^alien_concept:

@Barseps, I don't know what I just watched there? Or quite what you're getting at. Maybe he just means that we have taken it to new levels or something, not that we started it off.


That's precisely what I'm saying A.C. football hooliganism didn't actually start in England so it can't be "absolutely English".......That's all

Yes>> ^Mammaltron:

I don't get why it's even optional to take a breath screening test there. Is it considered a search or something?

I don't get why it's even optional to take a breath screening test there. Is it considered a search or something?

I wouldn't have minded watching that one, either... lets hope the deadpool miners manage to find it

In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^oritteropo:

dead removed by user


Can't find a replacement. :

>> ^oritteropo:

dead removed by user


Can't find a replacement.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:
@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.



well, one really lacking area is in somatic complaints, which make up, i believe, the close to the majority of complaints at hospitals. things like - bad back, bad shoulder...etc. these are all complaints that often have chronic structural issues, for which western medicine is ill-equipped to deal. they often just medicate those issues until they turn into procedural issues, which is often a very incomplete treatment.
instead structural issues are left to mostly the chiro's to muck about with, and while they get some of the theory right, their quick-fix practices are also often based on a profit motive, and rather incomplete.

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:

@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^brycewi19:
Keep in mind that they're comparing apples to oranges (at least with the iphone). The iphone uses a capacitive touch screen vs. many of those others are resistive. Two different technologies; the capacitive being the newer and better tech, IMO.

That's not strictly true - they're testing smart phones against smart phones.
The technology behind it is a bit irrelevant if you're looking to buy a smartphone with a good touch screen, really. I'm not going to go "well it's less recent tech so i'll buy x phone for trying harder"

Perhaps, but in a sense some of these smartphones have a significant difference in a major tech - the screen type. Sure they're both "smartphones", but they're not the same.
It's like comparing a stickshift to an automatic. Sure, they're both cars, but their transmissions are significantly different.


Yeah i understand that, what i'm saying is this: If you're comparing a manual car to an automatic car and you say "which is the best to drive?" then the method of gear change is irrelevant to that comparison. These guys are asking "which is the most accurate touchscreen smart phone?" So the tech is moot. Mention it in passing, but you may as well mention the colour of the phone.

So yeah, just saying - it isn't apples and oranges at all.

If the title of the video said "Which smartphone uses the touchscreen technology the best?" Then you'd have a point.