When right brain picks up a Rubik's cube because it was asked to, left brain has no knowledge of that. So when the Rubik's cube is passed into the hand controlled by left brain, how does left brain know to even receive the item? Is it acting on habit - i.e. it's so used to cooperating with left brain and body parts that it accepts things left brain offers? And in that case, is the incorrect explanation from left brain influenced by what it thinks right brain wants? For favourite colour - is each side influenced by what it thinks the other prefers?

I suspect viral marketing techniques like anthropomorphising body parts is taking away slightly from the truth. It's a fun conclusion that captures the imagination to say that there are two entities, one in thrall to the other, but we are talking about a malfunctioning brain so the conclusions need careful consideration. These type of things can be a little economical with the truth to paint a better picture, I know the physics ones are on occasion.

That would've been suicide. It'd be like starting the movies for the Harry Potter series on book 4. Sure, you'd have a fanbase that knows the source material and would understand what's going on, but it would alienate everyone who hasn't read the books, and now they don't wanna go see it.

At least this way with it being (somewhat relatively close to) orcs vs humans, we establish the general base for what happens, so if it's a success they can continue down the story.

There's foreshadowing in the trailer anyway, the orc that sends the baby down the river, I'm guessing the baby is Thrall.

Which already kinda mucks up the storyline.. because that more involves parts of warcraft II.. Either way, I thought it looked pretty decent. I'm hoping a bit more work goes into making the orcs look a little more.. not CGI in a couple of those scenes, but I'll probably go see it.

>> ^flechette:

All I can say is, I want to like football (or soccer, whatever it is) more than I do, but I just can't fathom watching something for half an hour before someone scores. To be fair, I think baseball is more boring to watch, but for a different reason.


Ah, this is the beauty in football. Every match is different, you'll see different approaches, different styles, different attitudes, individual skill, teamwork. It's not just about scoring goals.

But it's not easy. It's a game of skill and if you're good or the opposition is very bad then you'll score lots. Or you'll enjoy one of those humdingers where either side might score at any time.

But often we're forced to endure turgid rubbish, it just happens sometimes, but the ultimate redemption is when finally, finally someone scores a goal. It's a satisfying release of energy and there is honestly nothing much like it even if your team has been playing like utter twits.

It is really, as much about the journey as the destination.

Hopefully it's a nice ride (I'd pay good money to see a mazey Messi dribble where he failed to score, rather than someone bundle one in) but sometimes it can be perversely enjoyable to see a bad team scrape a result.

On the other hand, going back to a U.S sport like basketball I see no particular thrill from seeing two sides trade baskets ad-infintum. It's just a relentless predictable, progression to the end at which point someone wins and players can crow about their "stats". I always loved playing basketball but it doesn't work for me as a spectator sport.

Meanwhile I love Football (American Football as we Brits tend to call it). That has more in common with soccer than any other U.S sport IMO. Players are still far too in thrall to coaches but it remains a magnificent spectacle.

Baseball I don't really get - but I respect it's traditions and iconic status in sport.

Uncle Sam can't but in the UK we get free health care (Although no free soda).
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)


I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

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

It's one thing to know that - it's another thing to be under the thrall of a statistic. I'm a human being damn it.>> ^berticus:

you didn't know people trend rightward as they age?

I like vicodin...it's a subtle pleasant feeling. It's hard to catch the first time around because of how subtle it really is. It's really not worth taking every day, though. Never had a problem with these although, I can see why somebody could get caught up in its thralls. At first it's for a mild high. To feel good...next thing you know you need them to operate. You are a modern day junkie with nowhere to turn but to your dealer for more pills.

Liberty is something you beg for from your merciful government.

"Please sir, can I have some more?"
"Nooo!" says the state as it whips its thralls in their gray little lives.

You don't have it, you won't get it - freedom is an illusion: you have the choice between American Gladiators and Fox News, that's your freedom. Rebellion is quelled, free thought is stifled. Lives snuffed out in the interest of order. You are a slave to the system you are in, just as your parents were and as your children will be. High ideals are only talked about, never executed. They call them libertarianism, socialism, capitalism in the end it's always a big gray mass that ends up doing nothing but maintaining the status quo. The system rules, and the system wants to keep its power. We choose to be slaves to this, we are only slaves of our own will. Humans or ants, does not make much of a difference, just scale.

And it will never change.

O snap, Thrall's made it to the front. Booyah!

>> ^BoneyD:
If Spock spends the movie 'exploring his emotions', I'm gonna crap a brick. But I just BET Abrams can't help himself.
Yeah yeah sure, I know about pon'farr... this should not be used as a defining characteristic of Spock's character in a film. It is a mere facet of his being and I hope J.J has more talent than to cling to this for dramatic effect.


Has anyone else noticed that we seem to be in the thrall of fanboy directors these days? I can think of JJ Abrams and Zack Synder for a start and I bet there are more coming. Guys who are obsessive about the detail of making a film and the script but can't actually make anything with emotional depth or substance? They're going to make Tarantino (their lord and master) look like Francis Ford Coppola.

^ If you're a single-issue CFR voter, do you really think the non-CFR candidates would stay free of their influence if they were polling competitively?

I'm thinking any organization that's kept the US government under their thrall for a century, in secret, won't let go of that control just because people decide to vote 3rd party.

For that matter, what makes you think they're bothering to count the votes, if they wield that kind of power?

I always wondered what happened to this game....never released, huh? Too bad, it had the whole back story of Thrall.

The Panorama programme showed the museum to be apparently using images of the Holocaust to sell its message which Sweeny said had upset him before he was confronted and harrangued by Tommy Davis - not that it excuses the outburst but it makes it a little more comprehensible. I also like Sweeny's comment in the Panorama programme: "I apologised then and I apologise now. I lost my voice, but I didn't lose my mind" - sadly it gave them enough ammunition to slur him once he rose to their bait.

I have an ambivalent attitude to this Scientology stuff - I consider all religion to be a cult, it is just that some have the weight of thousands of years (and millions of lives) behind them forcing certain beliefs and attidutes on those in their thrall.

I also feel that societies are similarly 'cult based', and people have no choice in where they are born or how they are brought up, just in their preferences and groups they join later. It makes this battle between the BBC and the Scientologists a kind of a clash of culture as well, between who can utilise the media better.

Similarly the shouting fit thrown by John Sweeny and the intimidation techniques used by Tommy Davis are the kind of nasty nose-to-nose confrontations that occur between people every day of the week on the street, in bars, in offices etc.

However, having said all that, watching the Panorama programme showed Scientology to be extremely creepy. I have nothing against people, much less Hollywood stars, giving all their money away to a cult if they want to, and even have some sympathy with the Scientologists getting upset at being investigated but listening in and then interrupting interviews with people with dissenting opinions by walking up to an interview in progress and relating the interviewees faults and criminal convictions in lurid detail is incredibly rude and insulting as well as creepy.

They just seem to be incredibly insecure - if you have to follow people around and confront them if you see them speaking to 'undesireable' people then you must be worried about what they will say and perhaps even have something to hide that you might be worried about them talking about.

Surely the best way is to let people with dissenting opinions talk - even if they have a good point there is a good chance a lot of people will still sympathise with the Scientologists! The confrontation however just makes the Scientologist look weirder for acting up, and Davis immediately lost any sympathy from me when I saw him get upset at Sweeny just trying to conduct an interview. It is also interesting to see from the Panorama programme that Sweeny shouts at Tommy Davis after Davis has already tried to shout him down (and we have been shown two other incidences of Davis shouting Sweeny down and Sweeny backing off and letting him have his say previous to this)

I'll be very interested to see whether Anne Archer, Juliette Lewis "and the rest" who were interviewed for the Scientology cause but then withdrew their comments have any influence in preventing the BBC from showing their films or programmes etc or whether they will still turn up on the BBC in the future - i.e. whether their 'beliefs' are stronger than the almighty dollar.

I'm also surprised the BBC didn't have a little ticker at the bottom of the screen ticking off the number of times they used the word 'cult' in the programme! That would have lightened the tone while still pissing the Scientologists off! I counted around 14 uses of the word (15 if you count that one that described Tommy Davis, but I might have heard a 'l' instead of an 'n'!)