I miss King of the Hill

This makes a lot of sense. In 2000, The Simpsons predicted President Trump. King of the Hill historically aired after The Simpsons. Mike Judge created King of the Hill. A few years after The Simpsons predicted Trump's presidency, Judge also created Idiocracy, in which Terry Crews played Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comacho, five-time Ultimate Smackdown champion, porn superstar, and President of the United states.

I'd totally vote for him in Election 2020, brought to you by Carl's Jr.

American Dad and King of the Hill too!

Well technically they got king of the hill taken away by a completely free to play game that you don't even have to buy. League of legends soared past them in active monthly users last November and they haven't slowed down. There was an article on forbes about this time last year where LoL had double the amount of monthly gameplay hours. I think WoW is finally dying.>> ^RFlagg:

If WoW would just adopt the Buy to Play model like Guild Wars 2 I would come back (if they kept the price low, say $30...$40 tops for this expansion as I've got the ones before it). With Guild Wars 2, Planetside 2, trying learn DOTA 2 and LoL and the host of Free to Play stuff, it is getting harder to justify the monthly fee. I liked Cataclysm, and I would be all over this, but money is too tight to waste when there are high quality titles out there that are buy to play or free to play. I predict an uptick in subscribers for a few months then the continual bleed of subscribers to other titles... though they'll still be king of the hill as even if they drop to 6 or 8 million by this time next year, they'll still be ahead of everyone else... I'll wager around 7 million left, around 5 or 6 million they might start thinking of making the move to another business model to test it out for Titan and get the bugs of the model worked out. I think Blizard's high quality justifies a Buy to Play over the Free to Play model...
As to the movie. Sam Raimi was slated to direct it, and may still be producing a part of it... last I heard Charles Leavitt was taking over the script and then they were going to call for a new director.

If WoW would just adopt the Buy to Play model like Guild Wars 2 I would come back (if they kept the price low, say $30...$40 tops for this expansion as I've got the ones before it). With Guild Wars 2, Planetside 2, trying learn DOTA 2 and LoL and the host of Free to Play stuff, it is getting harder to justify the monthly fee. I liked Cataclysm, and I would be all over this, but money is too tight to waste when there are high quality titles out there that are buy to play or free to play. I predict an uptick in subscribers for a few months then the continual bleed of subscribers to other titles... though they'll still be king of the hill as even if they drop to 6 or 8 million by this time next year, they'll still be ahead of everyone else... I'll wager around 7 million left, around 5 or 6 million they might start thinking of making the move to another business model to test it out for Titan and get the bugs of the model worked out. I think Blizard's high quality justifies a Buy to Play over the Free to Play model...

As to the movie. Sam Raimi was slated to direct it, and may still be producing a part of it... last I heard Charles Leavitt was taking over the script and then they were going to call for a new director.

Well said I'm glad I'm not the only Texan here that knows that our state isn't embodied by the spirit of "King of the Hill".
>> ^chingalera:

Shouldn't we be talkin' shit about countries when no-one's here to defend said country???.....Feel the same when someone talks shit about Texan's in lame-ass generalizations. I got a general-i-zation for yas....Most people don't know shit about Uzbekistan OR Texas!!
Awww MAN!! That little Uzlett tried to throw his fuckin' grammy down the escalator!!??

It reminded me of King of the Hill series. Not a fan of it, but upvote for the pilot online.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hank hill, king of the hill, dubstep, skrillex' to 'hank hill, king of the hill, dubstep, skrillex, mother of god, toilet sounds' - edited by calvados

Is it just me or did King of the Hill animation get worse as it got better...

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?



Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?

Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.

If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!

If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)

Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

something worth noting, he is losing in every one of these matches. It's pretty easy to play king of the hill and get a ton of kills if you aren't trying to score where it matters.

In the infamous words of "King of the Hill's" Boomhauer - "Dang'ol ...aww.."

And consider the characters in TV shows. The females are mostly "straight men" (so to speak) for the funny male characters. Take Two and a half Men, for example: the hot woman (Claudia, I think) is not funny, and usually neither is the effeminate guy (Alan). Most of the good lines are reserved for Charlie Sheen's character, the boy, and the fat ugly woman (Roberta). Again, in that stupid Jim Belushi show, the two hot wives never make the jokes. Women don't even seem to have any funny parts written for them on TV unless it's called The <woman's name> Show. Even in cartoons, Lisa and Marge Simpson, all the women on Family Guy, maybe Lou-Ann on King of the Hill...

I haven't seen a really funny woman since Much Ado About Nothing. And even then, they're not delivering it like it's comedy.

Much to think about.