@NetRunner
Yes to reboot, no to reality tv.

I can see NBC making it again possibly cbs since its in the paramount association. in the meantime, we will have to donate to new voayges and their work.

I already posted it here:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Movie-Airplane-With-All-The-Gags-Taken-Out

Or at least until Paramount came along and pissed on the party.

The original user on youtube believes he's within the bounds of Fair Use.

Perhaps someone can help him answer his question posted here:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=47c034a8cc271911&hl=en

Fuck you, Paramount. We're still going to watch your goddamn movie.

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.

Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.

I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.

Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.

They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.

And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.

I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.


>> ^Throbbin:

Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

If a human female opens to sex with a human male, and a human male opens to sex with a human female, and political or racial disclosure is paramount instead of human male to human female and human female to human male intercourse, then BOTH are perverted and engaging in (instead of honest and real human sex) political, racial , agendas, NOT a human agenda.

The song's lyrics (and title) are both a tribute to Ayn Rand's novella Anthem, who deeply influenced Neil Peart - Rush's lyricist - at the time:

Know your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward, no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down

Chorus:
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
New wonders in the world, wonders in the world,
Wonders in the world they wrought

Live for yourself -- there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more

[Chorus]

Well, i know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, i
Came to write this song

[Chorus]

From a Q&A with fan questions in 1993:

Q. It's fairly well known that you've been influenced to a great extent by the writings of Ayn Rand. Knowing that her philosophy places a great deal of emphasis on individualism and creative integrity, particularly in the realm of art, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the music of Rush is written collectively? What happens if one of you has your heart set on a particular part, but the other two are dead-set against it?

Eric Simpson
Miami Springs, FL

A. Well, I saved this one until last, and you can see why! Eric and other people often send long lists of questions, and I hope they understand that I just can't justify spending half a page on a complex answer for each arcane question (for myself or for the general reader) so I have to be selective. Since I'm giving my time to this as a service to others, I go about it in my own way -- like the selfish bum I am.

Sometimes I choose questions which a few people have asked about, but which are unlikely to appear in an interview; sometimes I choose questions I think are interesting; sometimes I head off a growing myth and debunk it for you; other times I just say "what the heck" and answer any old one. So okay...

For a start. the extent of my influence by the writings of Ayn Rand should not be overestimated -- I am no one's disciple. Yes, I believe the individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty, but in philosophy, as Aristotle said long ago, the paramount good is happiness. My self-determination as an individual is part of the pursuit of happiness, of course, but there's more to it than that.

In this particular example, working together with Alex and Geddy is a more important part of my pursuit of happiness than is my attachment to any line of lyric or phrase of music. Thus the conflict you describe would not arise -- if we disagree on such a detail, we work on it until it satisfies everybody, and if (very) occasionally one of us has to sacrifice a petty preference, they hey -- it's no big deal. Especially when you compare such an issue against the satisfaction we get from the big picture, the sum of our work together, it would be foolish to sacrifice long-term happiness for a small difference in taste.

I've said before that in regard to my own work, the lyrics, I am more often excited by the input from the other two than I am disappointed by it, and I certainly never feel compromised by it.

And there you can see how complicated it is to identify and pursue happiness, and how complicated it can be just to answer one question (out of twenty submitted by the curious Mr. Simpson, though others often rival him.)

You see what I'm up against...

Bye for now,

N. Peart

November 4, '93, Toronto

Gotta make sure our rigged Democracy at least counts the votes of the corporate vetted well enough. The illusion of democracy is most paramount to our society.

This one is on the sift already:
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Star-Trek-vs-Star-Wars-II

... although that one has been killed off by Paramount.

HD version:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/thelastairbender/

Too bad it is in shitty quicktime format, but I couldn't find a better source.

Thanks for your thoughts, Nordlich . That was a very interesting exploration of the issue.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Hey Nordlich, that reminds me I wanted to ask you since I know you have a lot of martial arts experience...

In the event of an unavoidable fight, what do you think about striking someone in the neck instead of the skull? The advantages might be 1. less likely to injure your hand or arm and 2. the fight ends more quickly.

What's your take on it?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^FancyL:
It seems to me that computers could pretty easily take the job of an umpire by now. It'd be much harder to argue with a computer/robo-ump.


If you do the robo-ump could beat the bloody shit out of you!

I'm assuming the assailant is ambiguous, where a nut shot isn't viable (baggy pants, or whatever). The neck is a good target for shocking the assailant giving the victim enough time to flee, or followup. I'm not a fan of knife hand because of the 5th metacarpal being a small bone but it is effective at striking the arteries*. A closed hammer first is good for causing more blunt damage to the neck it is also good. I think that the closed fist would cause more damage with the amount of force involved, to the throat itself. These are all coming from the side striking the arteries of the neck.

Front on strikes seem to be more fatal. But they are very effective much more so than any of the side strikes, I think. I feel that the force required to cause an assailant to quit is less. An interesting thing about getting hit in the front of the throat is that it feels very disturbing. After getting hit in the throat (the person didn't intend to hit me) it feels like there is a lump inside the throat. It felt like that for 2 days, this was caused by the swelling. It doesn't take a very hard hit to cause that, sensation(citation 2).

I did some quick research on Tracheobronchial Injury (wikipedia) and from the tone of the article it seemed that high impact causes massive trauma. However other sites seem to suggest it would be rather easy to cause massive trauma.

Here's what I really think, and it mirrors the answer given by the guy in the yahoo link. If the assailant is not expecting the throat strike it can be very effective (This kind of strike is the one that you always want, like the unexpected left hook.) It seems that since they aren't expecting it then they are ill prepared to be struck meaning less force can be used, but accuracy is paramount. If they are ready to be struck then, I would assume, that the assailant and victim are already throwing. At which point any hard strike to the neck area will be very effective(citation 3).

I have to agree and say; I really think that any strike to the neck area, especially the anterior neck is going to cause enough damage to make the assailant quit. However it can be lethal, as you probably already know. It seems to me that accuracy is more important than power in this kind of situation, aim small miss small (citation 4).


1. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1479666X06800909
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphagia
3. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090531080328AALIIO9
4. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/trivia

*If the person using the technique is a long time veteran of Karate Do (traditional) and have done body hardening the technique can be deadly. Then again the person could get lucky, and strike just right.

I'm convinced Enterprise wouldn't have been canceled if it weren't on UPN. Back in the TNG and DS9 days the shows were syndicated, and they did great. Even the devoted fans who looked up when and where to view it, on a channel they'd never otherwise watch, often couldn't see it because it was on some crappy UHF station. Now that Paramount's experiment with running a TV station has failed, I don't know why they don't greenlight another syndicated series.
/tangent

Also, yes, horrible music.

In reply to this comment by chilaxe:
Hey Nordlich, that reminds me I wanted to ask you since I know you have a lot of martial arts experience...

In the event of an unavoidable fight, what do you think about striking someone in the neck instead of the skull? The advantages might be 1. less likely to injure your hand or arm and 2. the fight ends more quickly.

What's your take on it?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^FancyL:
It seems to me that computers could pretty easily take the job of an umpire by now. It'd be much harder to argue with a computer/robo-ump.


If you do the robo-ump could beat the bloody shit out of you!

I'm assuming the assailant is ambiguous, where a nut shot isn't viable (baggy pants, or whatever). The neck is a good target for shocking the assailant giving the victim enough time to flee, or followup. I'm not a fan of knife hand because of the 5th metacarpal being a small bone but it is effective at striking the arteries*. A closed hammer first is good for causing more blunt damage to the neck it is also good. I think that the closed fist would cause more damage with the amount of force involved, to the throat itself. These are all coming from the side striking the arteries of the neck.

Front on strikes seem to be more fatal. But they are very effective much more so than any of the side strikes, I think. I feel that the force required to cause an assailant to quit is less. An interesting thing about getting hit in the front of the throat is that it feels very disturbing. After getting hit in the throat (the person didn't intend to hit me) it feels like there is a lump inside the throat. It felt like that for 2 days, this was caused by the swelling. It doesn't take a very hard hit to cause that, sensation(citation 2).

I did some quick research on Tracheobronchial Injury (wikipedia) and from the tone of the article it seemed that high impact causes massive trauma. However other sites seem to suggest it would be rather easy to cause massive trauma.

Here's what I really think, and it mirrors the answer given by the guy in the yahoo link. If the assailant is not expecting the throat strike it can be very effective (This kind of strike is the one that you always want, like the unexpected left hook.) It seems that since they aren't expecting it then they are ill prepared to be struck meaning less force can be used, but accuracy is paramount. If they are ready to be struck then, I would assume, that the assailant and victim are already throwing. At which point any hard strike to the neck area will be very effective(citation 3).

I have to agree and say; I really think that any strike to the neck area, especially the anterior neck is going to cause enough damage to make the assailant quit. However it can be lethal, as you probably already know. It seems to me that accuracy is more important than power in this kind of situation, aim small miss small (citation 4).


1. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1479666X06800909
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphagia
3. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090531080328AALIIO9
4. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/trivia

*If the person using the technique is a long time veteran of Karate Do (traditional) and have done body hardening the technique can be deadly. Then again the person could get lucky, and strike just right.

Oh, and *Dead!

I'm sure there is another version around, but until then...,
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You have to define terms when talking about such things, which usually makes talking about them on internet forums hard, and that is why I stopped commenting there because I saw the conversation tending to be negative.

While the nature of Buddhism is complex, no doubt, I garner most of the basic precepts of Buddhism. For instance, Karma, is not part of divine salvation but of ones life. There is nothing a higher power can do to restore you Karma as it is the direct action of your life. Karma is one of the essential elements of the rebirth cycle, so the fact that it is the direct consequence of your life, forgiveness (for an over all moralistic stand point, not living at peace with your neighbor) isn't available.

More over, Buddhists do not believe in the unchanging soul. An idea steaming from Dharma, that there is no such thing as self. This is a small but important point as this basic notion isn't really applicable to most people whom live in the west. Self reliance, determination, and ultimately identification all point to a one unique self...it is just the western way. This doesn't go to say that an American couldn't be a Buddhist, but the culture here is very toxic to it.

Anyway, mostly, from my perspective, Buddhism is about fundamentally different ideals that Christianity. Christianity stresses the need for an external power to rescue you from yourself. The Buddhist doesn't belief in self, or salvation, and as a consequence, forgiveness (we are talking about moralist forgiveness not about your neighbor stealing your car). I think this is where my point was being missed. Of course most every religion has a "golden rule", be at peace mindset, that wasn't what I was addressing though.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.

And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.

And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

i dont think you truly understand buddhism my friend.
many people take a myopic approach when dealing with different religions.it is really just a perspective thing i would presume.but buddhism is a far more rich religion than you are alluding to in your comment.
so just like christianity may have many variables,facets and understanding for you due to you actually BEING a christian,buddhism in all its variables offers a rich contextualization of theosophy.

while never confirmed by tangible evidence but only by hints and historical references there are some theologians that believe that jesus not only studied with the assenes and greeks but also buddhists.which if you read the gospels it is not so large a leap considering much of jesus's teaching have a buddhists element.
and yes..forgiveness is paramount.

sighs...ok man.
thank you for your thoughtful reply.
namaste.