JKane

I like the Panasonic 3D TVs. (Wouldn't buy a Vizio, but they ARE cheap and Costco's return policy is pretty generous.) I believe there are a couple games on the PlayStation that support 3D, and plenty of 3D movies on Blu-ray (though for now you can ONLY get Avatar in 3D if you buy Panasonic!). BUT, for TV shows, don't hold your breath. There's no broadcast standard for 3D and given how stupid the HD broadcast standard was I wouldn't hold my breath. There are several 'demonstration' channels (think early days of HD), but their availability is limited and they are tied to cable/satelite providers. I don't see those stations getting major network shows... *Maybe* the one on Comcast getting a couple specially done 3D episodes of NBC shows--at best. A 3D sports network or two are pretty likely (might be one already but expect to pay for it as a premium channel), but otherwise I'd expect pay-per view and maybe a movie channel or two. Maybe eventually a network or cable network might get interested (HBO would be great) but it's likely a long way off.

It was an Op-Ed in Pravda, not just some random blogger as you imply. Pretending that the rest of the world's opinion of us didn't merit any attention was a Bush/Cheney trademark which the American electorate repudiated. Further, who cares what source the truth? How is it less valid for not having come from Rupert Murdock's media empire? You'd agree they deserve to be dismissed out of hand for being foreign-owned?

Why is the Russian Press so much better at covering her??? And now she turns not only against the fibre and backbone of her country, but against its democratically-elected President, accusing him of being incompetent for not stopping Wikileaks. Where was she and where was her GOP before and during the 9/11 attacks?

Wow, I guess I'm the only one that still holds the opinion Bill Mahr put so well: A more bland centrist you could not find. Given that the Clintons gave us both DADT and DOMA I had no reason to expect they'd stand for anything in this bite at power either. Though the other reason I opposed her--that she'd be needlessly polarizing and end up deadlocked in any efforts by rabid right-wing opposition, well, it's hard to imagine they could be any worse than they've been to the President... I have liked her as Sec. State though.

I saw The Warrior's Way over the weekend. Don't think most of the audience cared for it, think a couple may have walked out. It's stylized a bit (but not as much as 300 or Sin City), and a bit predictable, didn't quite have the finesse of a good Hong Kong-type movie either. But I kinda liked it as a popcorn Ninja movie, would be better with a few beers first (or during--why can't we have those kinds of theaters here?). It's a little surprising that Unstoppable is still going strong (though after 4+ weeks I expected its total numbers to be higher!), but I guess it's because there's just not much out there at the moment.

I use EZTV.it all the time. Has anybody ever had problems with dowloads of TV shows getting them a cease-and-desist (or worse)? Why would customs have a problem with TV shows on a hard drive? They wouldn't if it were Media-Center recordings... Having downloads of stuff that's been broadcast or cablecast (especially if you do pay for cable) is the same as having a video tape of it. (In my mind at least it is) clearly 'fair use' copyright-wise and doesn't fall under DMCA because it can be recorded unencrypted. Now having stuff before it airs, PPV, or from stations you don't pay for (HBO) may be a bit dicier, but is CUSTOMS really going to go through each TV show on your hard drive and debate it with you?? Half my stuff is from the BBC, is US Customs really going to have a problem with that? I keep thinking about dropping cable, but I do still watch some and also need them for Internet. I'm only paying $100/mo with fast Internet though.

I came to the conclusion that places like Borders and B&N were doomed when I went to my local B&N and they were shilling the Nook practically in the doorway. I wanted to ask the employees and manager what in the world they thought could come from that other than losing all their customers... Places like Half Price Books (huge chain of used and clearance books, inexplicably don't have anything like it in SoCal) will probably hold on for quite a while though.

It has been 99 weeks (not 104 which would be two years) for a couple years. There has been no real push to extend that by anybody serious whom I know of. A growing number of people who lost their jobs near the beginning of this thing have been out of benefits for months now. When people talk about congress extending again it is to re-enable the program that takes over after 26 weeks--not something that will help anybody who's been out of work over 2 years already. Agree with you on the leadership, I suppose. But he's shouted down so often I tend to assume he's tried to do more than we remember hearing about. Maybe some of his main thrusts were misguided and the effort would've been better spent on jobs/economy, but I'm not sure which ones. I'm very glad the first step in correcting healthcare has been taken, for example. I also ask you to remember that HE ACTED to save GM. How much worse would unemployment be with all those workers and those of all their suppliers jobless right now? And the government's way ahead of schedule on being paid back on that, yet people either don't remember it or inexplicably think of it as a failure! Asking companies to do the right thing... he's begged and pleaded with banks (who *should* feel quite indebted to him!) to be more reasonable in granting small business loans to keep main street-type businesses alive. The Republicans are all but filibustering a motion to declare the sky blue; certainly anything that would require something of business or regulate trade they'd stop dead long before it even got to the floor... As much as blame seems unproductive laying it all on the current president seems more so. And I'm not at all sure we want to have a trade war with China... would only hasten the time when the world accepts China as the preeminent economic superpower. But he *has* spoken about most of these things in depth, unlike the Republicans who just pay jobs lip-service as justification for yet another tax cut...

At the moment somebody unemployed in California will only get the usual 26 weeks from the fund they and their employer paid into. The Republicans are unconcerned about this but apoplectic about people having to pay an estate tax on inheritance more than 1 (or is it 10?) million dollars. And to my knowledge nobody has ever received more than 99 weeks. I too would rather see more people back to work, but the question is what exactly can the president do? Over 100 filibusters from Senate Republicans the last 2 years. Widespread derision for his program putting people to work making homes more energy efficient or learn trades which make our nation more energy independent... House full of Republicans who are overcome with the vapors at the deficit implications of the slightest mention of a large public-works program (that's not in their district, at least) while simultaneously insisting we continue to spend billions even on weapons systems the military no longer desires. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you about some of his priorities, but what could the President do to fix unemployment? Extend the tax cuts? By definition that will not have any effect as they were in place through all of this occurring in the first place! What else, exactly, has the President's opposition proposed? How do you think the Republicans would respond to a bill that closed tax loopholes for companies doing business here unless they de-outsourced jobs?

I really tire of your tone. You manage to be dismissive and 'superior' quite often despite no evidence of anything special or novel, intelligence-wise. You throw your contrary 2-cents in at every opportunity, but when people make the effort to refute any counter-points you... make is too strong a word--insinuate is usually more apt, you just move on to shit on the next thread. Sensational? Those of us who read Patrick Smith regularly know he's anything but; if YOU had read the article with any comprehension you'd have realized it actually started as an apology for having been dismissive of the incident at first glance. "Software Issues" huh? In a plane with no mechanical linkage between the cockpit and the control surfaces you don't think issues with the computer which sits between the two is the least bit worrisome? Especially when a new Airbus has crashed before, seemingly because it's computer failed to respond to unexpected inputs? I am not saying the A380 is a flying deathtrap, I'm saying that there were several serious failures on that flight which could've easily combined to cause disaster and that until there's been a little more time to work them out *I'd* chose other equipment to travel on, where possible. And I had already referenced the uncontained failure aboard United Airlines Flight 232 via link earlier in the thread. But thanks again for your contrarian two cents before you agree with half of what I said anyway!

More alarming is the cascade of unexplained failures that flight experienced. I think I'd avoid A380s of either engine type until that's been thoroughly investigated. Though on the other hand, even in the last 20 years aircraft safety has improved tremendously. There were 2 or 3 A320s lost when they were introduced in the 90s. Every new military aircraft used to routinely lose several prototypes/test models. Now people are more afraid then ever with less reason then ever.

Hmm, it seems odd to me that knowing what people like enough to actually bookmark isn't profitable...

It's a little amusing how it breaks down among the branches... Now I've got In the Navy stuck in my head. I'm entirely for repeal but am often amused when a stereotype coincides with reality.

I've seen Skyline, Unstoppable and Harry Potter recently. Skyline, wow. They should give it acting and writing Raspberries now! But I was really surprised by how great the visual effects were. Not the design, also CRAP, but the implementation--that things could look that well integrated to the real world on a reasonable budget is pretty surprising. And they added amazing detail in the background without calling attention to it, like the carrier battle group (later shown destroyed). But everything else in this movie is a lesson on how to make a baaad Sci-Fi movie. Unstoppable, I agree with both views. It is way over-directed, there's too much chaos added to create extra tension that's really not needed. Nor does the movie need another damn shot of a helicopter! And yet, it got me. It's edge of the seat stuff performed very well. Harry Potter is what it is. I haven't read the books but have generally enjoyed the movies, as popcorn though--not as a deep engrossing thing. This movie is amazingly dark, but I'm looking forward to the next. I don't think I could bring myself to see 127 hours. Having read a synopsis of the event back around when it happened was enough for me. Saw a funny comic about it though.

Sounds exactly like here! Except that those without the bucks get a *much* better baseline there...

Bible's *much* older and yet many agree it'd be OK to out a high-ranking Catholic. In fact, the two antigay passages in the bible are pretty tame and many believe superseded (like the rest of Leviticus). Verses it being the recent basis of CoS that homosexuality is a perversion to be cured. And where it can't be cured ( ) it can be used as a means of control.

More Michigan news, also ends surprisingly positively.

I agree absolutely, but was glad to see that they may be coming around and eventually stop telling people in places like Africa that they'll go to hell if they use a condom.

I know teabaggers just discovered the constitution, but assuming you can read it like you "read" the bible (i.e. it says whatever you want it to say as long as you say so loudly enough) doesn't fly. Constitutional argument 1: Exactly where in the constitution does it say a foreigner gets to control all our media outlets? I'd suggest the section on presidential eligibility makes clear that non-native born Americans are to be restricted certain things. Constitutional argument 2: Freedom of the press... anybody reasonable looking at a list of Murdock's holdings quickly comes to the conclusion it equals the opposite of a free press. And there have been restrictions on media ownership in this country (and anti-trust laws) for a very long time. With very good reason. But those who cannot remember the past... yellow journalism and the Spanish-American war seeming very familiar to those of us who closely watched the drive to the Iraq war. Constitutional argument 3: Further, federal regulation of interstate commerce is clearly established in the constitution, and you don't get more interstate then broadcast networks (radio and TV) and satellite TV. But keep railing for this foreign Billionaire to continue plundering our society! Maybe one day one of the many like you will find a crumb he dropped as a reward!

The FCC is toothless and the things they have had power over (media ownership and the HD broadcast standard) they usually fuck up royally. But there should be some major anti-trust action against Murdock. He owns the major paper(s) in how many cities? Plus WSJ! Plus radio stations. Plus local broadcast stations and a national broadcast network. Plus several cable networks. That's very extreme in itself (and there USED to be ownership rules to prevent that). BUT THEN he also owns DirectTV, and can be clearly seen leveraging his media monopolies to benefit them! Ads on cable all the time in places about "your cable company will soon lose Fox Sports and local Fox 4, please consider switching to [DirectTV]!" How long 'till DirectTV drops MSNBC? How long 'till Murdock controls every media outlet more than 50% of Americans subscribe to--IF IT HASN'T ALREADY HAPPENED?

It's actually quite simple, states like California and New York pay far more overall and get less than 100% back. 95-98%. Massachusetts too. Then they also have high state and local taxes and provide a lot of services like healthcare. Meanwhile, the southern states have almost no locally provided services so the federal spending is more desperately needed. THEN THEY HAVE THE GALL TO BE UNGRATEFUL FOR IT! The thing that really gets me, HOW MANY CONTINUOUS YEARS OF COMPLETE REPUBLICAN RULE has Texas had now??? Yet somehow that state's budget crisis is the fault of a just-barely 2-years into his term Democratic president?? And it needs to be made up on the back of the most desperately poor and sick in the state! COULDN'T be all the unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy in the state, or the complete refusal to responsibly tax or regulate the energy industry in that state, no...

I agree with this sentiment 110% but would classify Travolta *as a pious type*. He was the first "major" celebrity to embrace Scientology and proselytized it throughout Hollywood (and the world). Even after Scientology's batshit opposition to psychiatric drugs *resulted in the death of his SON* he hasn't disavowed it. And while Scientology is no LDS when it comes to gays, I get the feeling it's not something they really approve of--more something they can use to blackmail members (hmm, two biggest celebrity advocates: Travolta and Tom Cruise...).

I was mystified by what little I heard of the statement as well. Any other examples? Why not all sex with prostitutes? Is it because the condom blocks a chance at conception? But then why not all gay sex?

I swear Feinstein is on the wrong side of everything. I'd sooner vote for a potted plant! Is she up in 2 years? Does Fiorina want to blow the rest of the money she looted from HP?