*related=http://videosift.com/video/Seven-Nation-Army-Postmodern-Jukebox-ft-Haley-Reinhart

Remake of a 1960 film by the same name, which was an adaptation of the classic Kurosawa film Seven Samurai. I haven't seen the 1960 film, though I have seen Seven Samurai, which lived up to its vaunted reputation.

This definitely looks entertaining at least, based on the trailer.

First Contact has three unforgivable flaws.

1. The time travel plot makes zero sense. Why do the Borg need to go back to that particular time to assimilate humanity? Why don't they go back to pre-WW3, where there were a) more humans to assimilate and b) lower tech weapons? Why do they need to interrupt the moment of humanity's first contact with the Vulcans? Why do they give themselves such a tiny margin of error by only giving themselves a few days to assimilate Earth before the deadline? Why don't they send Borg down to begin assimilating humanity straight away? And the Enterprise conceals itself from the Vulcans by hiding behind the fucking moon.

2. The writers fundamentally ruin the idea of the Borg by giving it a figurehead it doesn't need. They are not a collective if they have a Queen; they are subjects.

3. Worst of all, Picard's characterisation is a complete volte face. Seven seasons of the TV show proved that Picard just isn't a man who stoops to revenge. Only a year or so after recovering from his own assimilation, Picard has the chance to cripple or destroy the Borg forever and he doesn't take it, because he's a man of balance and pragmatism, not of blind rage. His sudden change into Captain Ahab is lazy and it's unearned. Picard, like everything else in the film, is dumbed-down for the sake of the action, and the character as written undermines the work done over the course of the TV series, amputates him from Roddenberry, and is frankly unworthy of being performed by Patrick Stewart.

Star Trek: First Contact is fucking dumb.

Of course I have to concede to subjectivity and some of the action is very exciting (if still stupid; the "no firing at the deflector dish oh except when you do" incident is a prime example). But it's only possible to enjoy it as an action movie if you like your action movies to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

I've got some bad news for you dude, you've been eating vegan food all of your life. All of that stuff on your plate that isn't beef, poultry, fish or dairy is vegan. DUH DUH DUUUUUUUH!

Tofu is also highly dependent on what flavors it's absorbing, it doesn't have any flavor itself. I rarely eat myself, mostly using it as a substitute for mayo (+bit of mustard and tabasco makes a pretty convincing substitute)

I know what you mean though some of the older vegan processed food is awful and card board like.

Give these a go one day https://gardein.com/recipes/seven-grain-tenders-with-chipotle-mayo/
(it's not like real chicken patties have much chicken in them anyway...)


EDIT: BTW there is a perfectly good way to eat animals and be vegan. Road kill.... or if you're in the field at the right time to see an old buffalo collapse.... or if a shark has bitten a fish in 1/2 and you take the other 1/2. Technically all vegan since no animals were exploited by humans. There is always breast milk too assuming you've asked for the mothers consent. (don't do it mad max style).

Your video, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN - Teaser Trailer (HD), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Double down on snake... How in the seven hells it got there, dunno, but that looks to be snake.

Eh, why?

The Magnificent Seven was a remake of Seven Samurai... ok, cool. Take a foreign language film and transpose it to a different place and time. Samurai is still a better movie (because Kurosawa), but at least the original Magnificent Seven attempted to do an interesting cover.

Why should I watch this instead of the original, which might I remind you had STEVE FUCKING MCQUEEN in it (the coolest human ever to walk this earth)?

This has a decent cast, but I just don't see the point.

Yes...I knew this...that's why I called it a remake of The Seven Samurai....although it's really a remake of a remake of The Seven Samurai.
Both great movies. I somehow doubt this will hold up as a remake though.

It's a remake from 1960 here is the trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwMykCREW0 starring Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson. Which was a remake of The Seven Samurai.

I think it was just yesterday I read someone here say that soon we'll be casting a remake of The Seven Samurai with an all Western cast....and here we are.

Footage released by the FBI of the confrontation and shooting/arrest of those Oregon malita dudes.
Start at about the seven minute mark.

*promote 7 years. S E V E N Y E A R S ! Seven! Years!

If you're in the mood for some economic common sense, Michal Kalecki's insightful paper on the political aspects of full employment (what would it take, what stands in opposition) is always worth a few minutes.

That's MMT/post-Keynesian economics, published in 1943. The fact that it took close to seven decades before the likes of Adair Turner pushed this back into the mainstream makes me want to sent whole economics departments at universities into the bogs to cut peat with nothing but a spade.

What I get as the "point" of the One Ring is
A) backup / fallback plan in case Sauron is killed so he won't be completely destroyed (containing some of his soul / essence)
B) a trap to facilitate his control of the other races by tempting and corrupting them

And I think your take on the reason for the invisibility is correct according to the way Tolkien intended it. But it still doesn't sit real well with me. To me it feels better to imagine the whole ring story as a take on "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The other rings of power are interesting. The three for the elves are largely free of the influence of the one, because Celebrimbor was already very suspicious of Sauron / Annatar when he made them. So the elves can and do continue to use them, though warily.

The seven for dwarves aren't discussed a lot, but hinted that they help corrupt the dwarves natural appreciation for gems and gold into a darker greed for those things. That dovetails into stuff in The Hobbit pretty well. So, while they don't corrupt dwarves in the same way they do men, they DO lead to isolation and and factionalization of the dwarves, which I suppose could have been Sauron's intent.

The nine for humans seem to work quite well as judged by Sauron's intent for them.


I guess that overall, I just feel like temptation and corruption of wearers of the one ring seems like a very elegant way to achieve Sauron's goals when he made it. A ring that grants the wearer the single ability that they most desire but also will be most tempted to abuse would be very difficult for people (and elves or dwarves or whoever) to resist. Gandalf and Galadriel are directly offered the ring but refuse only because they both *know* that they would be corrupted by it. I don't see invisibility as enough of a game-changing ability for either of them to be so confident that they couldn't handle it.

The actual quote is even better.

"Anybody who teaches a skill, which coaches do, is admirable. But sport doesn't build character. Character is built pretty much by the time you’re six or seven. Sports reveals character. Sports heightens your perceptions. Let that be enough." - Heywood Hale Broun