Man, I'm suuuper late to this party....
Anyways, Die Hard is and is not a Christmas movie at the same time. And it depends on your definition what makes a Christmas movie.
I'm gonna take an insane detour here that'll make sense.
Is Star Wars Episode 4 a science fiction movie?
That setting is futuristic, sure, must be sci-fi then. Lasers, Spaceships, Robots, the works. The checklist is done. Sci-Fi.
But what are the themes it touches upon, what is the story?
A young farmer's boy (naturally an adoptred orphan) named Luke is dragged into a rebellion against an evil king (Palpatine) by accident. When the boy get's hold of a pretty princess' (RIP Carrie Fisher) message to an old ally and menthor (Obi) through the fault of her two comic-relief servants (Robot-slaves), he decides to seek the adventure he's yearning for. He finds the old man (by fucking up) and both seek the next harbor to board a ship to join the resistance. The hire smuggler/pirate/bandit/nerfherder Han and his foreign friend Chewie and cross paths with the black knight Lord Vader, the evil kings enforcer. Hijinks ensue, princess rescued, the magic castle/ship/train of the evil king get's destroyed and everyone gets a medal.
What's exactly sci-fi here?
That could play out in medieval times. Or ancient greece. Or the wild west. Or on Christmas.
The setting and the genre are two different things and both determine what you'll label a story with.
Alien is a horror movie, a slasher. Aliens is a war movie. Alien³ is a horror movie of the animal-gone-maneater kind. Alien: Resurrection is a disaster movie (hihi).
They're all sci-fi, like Star Wars. Because of the setting.
Now look at Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2 Episode 9 'The Measure Of A Man'.
Lasers, spaceships, robots, the usual. What is it about?
A Robot who's so sophisticated that he has to go to trial to prove he's not property but a real boy. Sure, you'll say, I've seen Pinocchio and I can see african men argue the same stuff in the 18th century. The point of the story is not only that is humanity is questioned, the point is he's an artificial lifeform. The question is not only 'What makes you a person?' but also 'When does artificial intelligence become an artificial person?'
That shit won't work in a setting without spaceships and robots. That's sci-fi because of its story.
So, setting and story are both what makes you label a movie a certain way but they're not the same.
Die Hard. Happens on Christmas. Could be Thanksgiving too. Setting interchangeable.
Story? Doesn't contain any christmas-related themes beyond two estranged family members become closer again. That could happen at a funeral as well.
I'm in my mid-thirties and I love Die Hard. It's one of the best 80's action movies. I can watch it anytime and I've seen it at least 20 times (noit joking here). But mostly in the summer. But I understand the question and its diverse answers perfectly well.
Die Hard is a christmas movie if it feels like one to you. For me, Lord of the Rings (especially Fellowship) feels like a Christmas movie to me. I've seen them all in theatres in December, I watched them on VHS and Blu-Ray only in December so far. They have fuck all to do with the occasion but this year was the first one I didn't watch any of them in December. And I feel I missed something this year. I'm not sure I can watch them at this time of the year.

I want the next plane I fly on to be made outta this stuff.

I wouldn't wanna artificial vagina made out of that stuff, 'tho -- I mean, not at the moment, anyway.

First, to be clear, the T 800 ballsack isn't artificial. It is 100% real human tissue with sweat glands and hair. Unless T 800 have manscaping capabilities. Not sure about their programming concerning this. However, an argument could be made that the sack comes without marbles. I'm not clear to what extent interior organs are required and provided for insuring appropriate operation conditions. I'd have to refer you to the documentation.
Second, why in drag? Is that a certain preference you have or just a necessity to maintain the required amount of eroticism of your fantasy? While I have to inform you I'm a cis hetero male, I do not feel threatened by ideas of genderqueerness or homosexual actions. Feel free to fantasize about me and Arnold Schwarzenegger to your heart's content. The mind is free to make imaginary world's your oyster.
“The mind is endless. You put me in a dark solitary cell, and to you that's the end, to me it's the beginning, it's the universe in there, there's a world in there, and I'm free.”
Charles Manson

k, see you post comments like that around the sift and now I can't stop fantasizing about Freddy Krueger in drag licking a T-800's artificial ballsack. Do you think a T-800 produces sperm?

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

The list of possible covariates or confounders is unknown and practically infinite for climate. Weather - anything beyond three days is guesswork, climate - more complicated.

Science is about repeatability (and disprovability), and it is true, correlation can provide false repeatability. You sure win that one. Correlation can be a good lead sometimes to find real relationships, but you cant base science solely on correlation.

"If we assume the risks are real" - (sigh) just dont assume. Also I would not speculate about future risks, the current situation is already bad enough to warrant action. The conflation of climate science and economic science worries me deeply, having a degree in the latter. Pollution is not an economic benefit/cost, it is a side-effect, it becomes a cost only if it is artificially designated as one ("taxed") and is better dealt with not by incentives, but by strict "safety" regulations of technology. Economic subjects can deal with pollution taxes with economic tools, rather than change of technology.

Like the ozone hole, the hype alone, or economic measures, would not have stopped people from using sprays. "Safety" legislation and the induced introduction of an alternative technology did.

Hype will generate irrational responses.

Given how politics works goverments go after soft targets only, unless pressured. What should be hyped are not dire predictions of the future but A) polluters and what can be done about them and B) implementation of new technologies that replace polluting ones (thats where tax breaks can help).

Your video, Are You Ready To Be Outpaced By Machines? Quantum Computing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Because I'm broken, so I have free time but no real physical capabilities, and because I don't think most of the world deserves or wants my help.

I did my good here at home, where being a good citizen starts. I grow much of my own food at home using poo, not artificial fertilizers, I make my own electricity (mostly, by solar), and most important of all, I got fixed without having children. That's far more good for the world than 99.99% of people can be expected to do in their lifetimes, so I'm waiting for the rest of you to catch up. ;-)
Besides, I'm of the opinion that it's all over at this point, that global warming is far beyond solvable at this point, not that humans are trying. I firmly believe that land, water, and food shortages are in the near future for most people, so all these little arguments are moot. The animals have less of a chance than man, and man has no chance. The methane is melting, in my eyes that's game over, out of time. It's time to party like it's 1999.

"Genetically engineered" in the same way he was genetically engineered to be an idiot.... by selective breeding, which is not artificial genetic modification as he intends to imply.
Having just come home from visiting Iceland, and after visiting farms there, and also farms in New Zealand, I can say unequivocally that most farms in those countries are what you think of, peaceful sheep in large bucolic fields enjoying their lives and not being injured during once a year sheering of wool that's otherwise a problem for them to shed naturally. I won't speak to Australia, since I've never been there...maybe all sheerers are dicks there.
No farmer would accept the behavior shown, you can't sell wool from a dead or bloody sheep. He needs to get his theory straight...are they only interested in maximum profit, or do they abuse their animals without concern, because it can't be both.
If he really wants to do good for the animals of the world, he should refrain from breeding himself. His kids will probably wear nothing but fur when they leave home just to spite him.

Irresponsible, non-compassionate, and unmotivated? I think your artificial system is very flawed if it picks those leaders.

Again democracy cant decide the death penalty, abortions, taxes, religion, defense spending and all the other puny details. Democracy can choose leaders, agendas and assign responsibility.

Noocracy is just a new name for despotism, you let inteligent people have their way, the first thing they do is take care of themselves. Stupid people must have a fair representation. Experiments are being conducted to just let them think they have a fair representation, but I am afraid they may not be that stupid. I mean I hope they (we) are not.

Democracy is fairly simple and straightforward - either there is a way to change the ruler or there is not. Putin cant lose. Erdogan cant lose. Chinese communist party cant lose. Castro cant lose. Not democracy. Obviously the details of implementation are very nuanced, like if there are only two parties is that democracy? Etc.

Basically if the ruler makes it impossible for himself to be deposed peacefully democracy ends.

So let us assume some artificial system to pick perfect leaders could be devised. They would have no responsibility (after all they are the best possible leader) no compassion (everyone else is stupid) and no motivation (Im no. 1 so why try harder). Add a secret police and Stalinist Russia is born.

The ignorant herd is painfully hit and miss, but so is the stock market. This is still preferable to any dictator, even a clever one.

Artificial volcano! With steel!

That artificial hand target for strikes looks pretty terrifyingly real in the video.

Made me think they had some psycho volunteering to take a hit and then "test" the antivenom, at least at first.

OK, yes. That's correct. I have no personal experience in grain farming (except corn, but grown to eat on the cob, so that's also different).
I still say the same applies to OVER use of chemical fertilizers and the environment, but perhaps that's much less of an issue with grain crops.

As I said above, I admit that new crop genes paired with new chemicals could produce greater yields on more damaged land. Roundup/roundup ready crops are a prime example of this, as they artificially eliminate competition for the remaining nutrients and root space, leaving it all for the crop. That doesn't eliminate the damage though, it only hides it from the farmer. When they stop working (and they will eventually), we'll have serious trouble.

I think perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking, not my logic.
I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the overworked employees being worked into a stupor...or didn't understand that it's because they have to work 2 or 3 full time jobs to afford both food and shelter that they are overworked zombies, unable to think well enough to stop the other higher ranking employees from instructing them to do stupid things. Increase the base pay so full time employees can afford food and shelter in the area they work in (or near) and you increase base competence because they no longer have to work 120 hour work weeks to survive.

AHHHH, but those at the top HAVE had their 'wages' go up far more than inflation, but not those at the bottom who would be making about $22 an hour if minimum wages were tied to inflation since their start.
A rising tide lifts all ships, OK, except for those already artificially 'lifted' WAY above the tide line. If all 'ships' floated on the tide, that saying would mean something. They don't.
OK, I'll go there, lets say everyone deserves to make >3 times what they used to make when the national minimum wage was started. That means a HUGE pay cut for those at the top, probably a 90%+ pay cut in most cases. Do that, and there's no problem at all affording the cost of paying the bottom 50% a living wage, which means anyone working full time is paid above the poverty line, no exceptions.
Yes, doing that will raise prices, which will require raising wages, which will raise prices...IF the top don't stop taking an obscenely unfair slice of the pie. If THEY pay themselves in the same manner they pay employees, there's no problem. They won't though.