There was a clear problem in that you didn't care for any characters. The most likable character was the homicidal robot, which is a failure in my book. In the original Aliens, you grow to like Ripley and you like the camaraderie going on in the beginning of the movie, even if most of them were fucktards. The marines in Aliens were also likeable, even if you sorta recognized them as the dickheads from high school - some of them were our hook into the world, ripley, hicks, hudson all good. Even in alien 3, you still ahve ripley to hang on to, even if it's a desolate despairing film. Alien 4 you have Winona Ryder-robot to like, where ripley is more.. well, alienated.

in prometheus, I liked the Captain Janek and in a twisted way Fassbender-bot, because he was played well. All their motivations didn't make all that much sense though. I hated Holloway, hated Shaw, hated Vickers, fucking hated all of them. Gah, it's so irritating, because the universe of it is so interesting! aaargh.
>> ^Fletch:

In reply to this comment by EvilDeathBee:
I think there could have been a much better movie with the same source material, I think the concept could be really cool, but it's beyond a simple reedit repair job. The characters need a total rewrite to not be selfish, unlikable fucktards. There needs to be a lot more explanation and more time spent soaking in each of the more important subject matters and not this jump from one scene to the next with no flow and no reason.

I don't know. It seemed like it needed more "epicness". Like you said (or, as I understood you), more time for the viewer to parse the implications of the much bigger picture before they throw up a scene of some slimesnake tickling someone's uvula. Maybe a scene where they just stand around and go "OMFG! We've discovered the greatest discovery in the history of mankind! Oh, shit! That's a fucking alien structure! The first one ever discovered!! This is fucking amazing!!" They just didn't seem too impressed with anything. And I wish they had left the Alien stuff out completely. They didn't need it. There's just a bigger, better story here than the one we've already seen again and yet again in the sequels. Most of the characters did have that ST:TOS red-shirt aura about them, and really served little purpose outside of biting it in creative ways. Could have been better, but I still dug it, and I think the sequel(s) has a chance to be great. I just hope the Engineer homeworld isn't overrun with alien queens or some dumb shit like that.

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

*promote

This is most likely the most AMAZING filament eruption to be caught on video. It is caused by a little process called magnetic reconnection. It's a little process that gives us our solar flares, these filaments, CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections), auroras, and the possible potential for very dangerous radiation storms every few millennium--give or take a few. Basically, plasma flows along these field lines of magnetism. When things get out of hand, then those field lines distort and change and all of a sudden things get very dangerous (AND sometimes beautiful). The faster the magnetic field changes the faster the particles will travel making them more and more dangerous as the events unfold fast enough giving them more energy (kinetic & heat), which in turn if directed at us means it penetrates much further into our protective field and anything outside of the field, crispy--in the shredded DNA, cells, you name it sense.

Occasionally, Earth's magnetic field breaks down a bit (if I remember why correctly it was a certain "sequence" within our magnetic shield and it reacts badly with the Sun's--don't quote me though, I really need to look it back up again it was a very long time ago I remember this from), if a large solar flare directed towards Earth ever happened before Earth had enough time to fully build back it's strength we would be FAR more in trouble than usual, but this would be a rare event. Usually what happens is that the charged particles follow Earth's magnetic lines and go to the poles, which is the one place on Earth where you do suffer the most radiation from the Sun (basically wherever the poles are as the plasma follows the polarity or "field lines" of Earth's magnetic field). It's also why the closer you are to the poles the better your view is of the aurora as the particles streaming in, if there is a sufficient quantity moving very fast (the more energy, especially kinetic--speed, the farther the penetration into the atmosphere and the lower the aurora becomes visible), will enter the atmosphere and begin to be absorbed by various elements that our atmosphere is compromised of like Nitrogen.

Here's a quick explanation. Basically, the particles collide with atoms of molecules/elements or anything in the higher atmosphere, exciting their electrons into higher energy levels, which is known fundamentally in science as quantum leap/atomic transition/electron transition it's one of the atom's most fundamental abilities dealing with "extra energy" being pushed into a system that wants balance (this is a very common process that happens ALL DAY long, EVERYWHERE around you; it transfers photons essentially--pure energy--BUT, what is the energy in the form of as it's energy level makes it do very many different things; you could see things, what you consider the normal range of light--it's EXACTLY how light goes THROUGH a window--it doesn't go through the window it is transferred via the atoms from one side to the next, this is ALSO why people are trying to get invisibility to work as it just might; HEAT is another one that is transferred all the time--it literally radiates outwards from our bodies and then we are surrounded by excited electrons and the infrared range of light we are putting out, the heat of a human body...or any animal; this goes on and on, it happens everywhere and as I said ALL-THE-TIME, it's perhaps one of the most critical processes and abilities of the atom and how photons also transfer their energy between areas in a direction; a little off-topic information for those that don't realize how much is going on, everywhere, all the time, at any given second...it's a complicated, but beautiful world)), and making them give off light that we see when the charge they've taken on finally returns the molecule/element's electrons to their normal orbits in the electron shell; the color depends on what molecule/element was being bombarded and how much energy was involved from the particle that hit it). This of course transfers all the energy that those particles had and we get a nice light show.

/I thought I'd fill my promote with something useful; ...on why these happen...
//edit-For a little more clarity, grammar and a bit more information that I hope some will appreciate if it helps anyone learn something or atleast go look up some of this and learn some on their own; taking an interest in science, it's one of the most important things in the world that we have.
///Spreading science is just as important; it's the one literal thing we do/use that has ever allowed us to deal with the worst problems we have: fear, pain, death, disease, sorrow, despair, ignorance, etc... Science IS the light in the dark. It is our best hope for mankind's continued existence and a good life. It is the single most important activity we now do as a group; it's our savior from us and what's out there...

@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.

Don't do the Crime, if you can't Pay the Fine.

otherwise... game on for profits!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasso_financial_smuggling_case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9089268/Italian-police-seize-6-trillion-of-fake-US-bonds-in-Switzerland.html

http://www.cfr.org/uk/understanding-libor-scandal/p28729

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

and those above are just the ones we KNOW were out to screw us... the veil has been lifted on big pharma... and we're all to sick to do anything about it so we buy more pills! yay cycles of despair

accept science and legalize cannabis, in conclusion. anytime now... would be great... thx DEA

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^A10anis:
I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).

There's a pretty serious contender on the ticket, actually.
Ever heard of this guy named Barack Obama?

You know, friends of mine, quite rightly, castigate me for bothering to post. I'm starting to agree that it is pointless. Yes, you moron, I am well aware of Obama. However, he is not a contender, he is the incumbent.

>> ^A10anis:

I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).


There's a pretty serious contender on the ticket, actually.

Ever heard of this guy named Barack Obama?

I despair at the lack of serious contenders for the highest political position in the world. The fact that he is a mormon, should, given their tenets, automatically exclude Romney (unless we want to go back to the bronze-age, when religion dictated every facet of life).

Ah, I understand now. You like to condescend to me to feel better about yourself.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^BoneRemake:
At least you people make me laugh.
Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.

You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

You make me despair for the human race. On a general, wholly unpersonal level.

You just in general make me happy because I know there is someone else more fucked up than I am.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>> ^BoneRemake:
At least you people make me laugh.
Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.

You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

You make me despair for the human race. On a general, wholly unpersonal level.


You just in general make me happy because I know there is someone else more fucked up than I am.

Good vid. But it makes me despair at the lack of intelligent options voters are given.

Cuts off right before the cat hangs itself in despair. Sad.

This leaves me in despair. I'm sure it will be fine, but for fucks sake, give us at least a new film, if not a new concept!

We must be such a bunch of fucking morons that Hollywood knows it can make more money without originality than with it.

There's no point in getting into it, because it's tiresome, long-winded and probably futile. But sometimes when I see people wanking on about how shit Obama and the state of affairs in the US is, I want to bellow from the rooftops, "YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT BAD??????" I despair danny, half the time I don't know what to think. I'm thinking about retreating back into my bubble...

Having said that, I'm so glad you're up for using your vote this time, too. This is what needs to be pushed forward now, people using their votes to bolster the other parties, bring them into the spotlight so that people at least consider other options. The Labour/Cons/Dems need some competition, they need to be put in a position where they have to TRY HARDER! We simply cannot survive with the choices we've got now. Well we can, but I'd rather fucking not!
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
WOW...still regret that I voted for him, but he's a knowledgeable guy.

Hey mate, don't worry about it, you did the right thing, something had to keep the republicans out. I urge you to do it again.

No I didn't. You don't choose the lesser of two evils, you make the system work and produce better results. Obama is a war criminal.

I agree, so I guess a non-vote would have been in order, considering your two-party system. However, I like to look at the silver linings and in my opinion, your vote ensured that things didn't get as bad as they probably would have had McCain/Palin gotten in to power. And, all leaders are war criminals, or just criminals...

I've never voted in my life, because I refuse to pick the best of a bad bunch... but I will be using my vote next election tactically, because until other parties have a chance in hell, we're all doomed.


One day we're gonna find out we're long lost twins or something @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/alien_concept" title="member since February 14th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffa2">alien_concept..

I've not voted either, ever. I detest the system, i think the voting system and potentially democracy is flawed or limited and we'll end up in a species-rut because of it, working against each other until we run out of resources and die.

But i know i can't sit here complaining about the rich fucking manor-born tories stealing our country from under us if i didn't help to keep them out. I know me and everyone like me is responsible for them getting in.

I should have at least spoiled my paper or been more active in my protest if i wanted to protest the system in that way.

I was hoping the riots were the start of something. Change has to come from the youth and i suppose soon i won't be in that category anymore!