Out of the Blue

Wow, who knew that Padme's death in Episode III was based in fact? Confused




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

114.

Dinosaur Sauron

Nov 7, 2012, 05:24

Did it have only one eye?

Are they going to change the infraorder to sauronpods?




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

113.

BSG Blood and Chrome

Nov 7, 2012, 05:22

Yeesh, most of those effect shots look rough.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

112.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 05:19

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:07:

Given how many people toke anyway - which is huge - vs. all the issues we see with booze, we're probably better off with more people toking than drinking anyway.

Cutter, Cutter, Cutter, stop making sense, will you? Think of all the jobs that would have to be cut from the prison system if we let all the pot smokers off the hook!




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

111.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 05:13

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 03:21:

Hell, I don't even toke anymore - except hash when I can find it - but it's absolutely insane that pot isn't at least decriminalized everywhere. Between pot and booze, pot is easily the lesser of two evils.

It's worse than that in the USA. Pot is a SCHEDULE 1 drug. That's the strictest classification. Yes, pot is considered ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS DRUGS IN AMERICA!!!111. Same as heroin and peyote. Hell, not even codeine or cocaine are sched 1. They're sched 2, a lower classification.

It all stems from films like Reefer Madness. "OMG teh black is smokin' MJ and commin' to steal our white womenz! We better ban that shit!" Completely ridiculous.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

110.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 05:04

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:46:
PHJF wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:42:
538 was picked up by NYT in 2010. The site has been around since 2008. It's math, it doesn't have a fucking bias.

It does when it doesn't take all polls into account. By your use of profanity, I assume I struck a nerve.. My apologies for expressing my opinion and a statement of fact.

How'd that work out for you? Oh, yeah, Nate Silver was 98% correct. So, apologies accepted. Get with the goddamn program.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

109.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 05:02

nin wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:36:
edit: I've been reading http://electoral-vote.com/ since the 04 election, and he seems to nail it, most of the time.

Yeah, I visited that site religiously until Nate came along.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

108.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 05:00

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:32:
sauron wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:20:
Unbiased political statistics analysis done with hard math - very interesting. Honestly, it really is!

As much as I hate tempting the Lord of Mordor, I find it very difficult to believe anything published at the NY Times as "Unbiased". This day and age, you'll never find a "news outlet" that isn't biased in some way. Especially seeing as though 538 is a blog. I like what he's doing with his blog, but unfortunately, I can't believe that his stats are based in reality due to lack of trust in his sources.

/shrug

You're an ignoramus. And I mean that with all due respect (as little of that as there is). Nate Silver is ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS. There is NO BIAS IN HIS WORK. If he had bias in his work, he would have given more states to Obama than he actually won. So, what was his accuracy? 98 Fucking percent. Yes, he predicted, based on statistics, which 49 out of 50 states would go to Obama and which ones wouldn't. The last state, which he predicted for Obama, and in which Obama is 50K votes ahead, but it's too close to call? Yeah, that's Rig's state of FL. If FL goes for Obama (which it looks like it will) Nate will be 50 out of 50. That's equal to guessing ALL the football game winners correct for an entire month. Without error.

So, when you say shit like "I find it hard to believe the NY Times is unbiased" you're really just revealing your own stupidity and lack of understanding. But by all means, live in your bubble. Ignore reality. Let us know how that works out for you.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

107.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 04:53

sauron wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:20:
nin wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 09:59:
Voted Friday. Now I get to sit back and watch the fireworks. And being a glutton for punishment, I'm sure I'll be following it all night.

I'm unable to vote (foreign passport - Mordor; also, the Lidless Eye has no hands). However, Ive been absolutely glued to the Five Thirty-Eight page for weeks:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Unbiased political statistics analysis done with hard math - very interesting. Honestly, it really is!

So far, Nate Silver is 49 out of 50 state-wise, and FL may still swing his way (they're still counting). The man is so good at what he does.




Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.

106.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 03:21

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:45:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:24:

I think that comes with the "and regulate" part of the "legalize and regulate" amendments. So it should certainly be something that they enact laws to cover. Not sure if they make a breathalyzer for that yet though.

Agreed. It will be interesting how they plan to implement this and how they intend to enforce it.

Probably much not different from how it is now. I lived in Vancouver for over 10 years and it was well know than unless someone had a major quantity of pot - or was just being an idiot - cops would never arrest them because it simply wasn't worth the expense in the courts, etc. I was stopped several times over the years by cops while having a toke and just given a 'Hey bud, keep it private, ok?'

Hell, I don't even toke anymore - except hash when I can find it - but it's absolutely insane that pot isn't at least decriminalized everywhere. Between pot and booze, pot is easily the lesser of two evils.




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

105.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 02:45

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:24:

I think that comes with the "and regulate" part of the "legalize and regulate" amendments. So it should certainly be something that they enact laws to cover. Not sure if they make a breathalyzer for that yet though.

Agreed. It will be interesting how they plan to implement this and how they intend to enforce it.




Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.

104.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 02:43

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:24:
Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:14:
Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:07:
Given how many people toke anyway - which is huge - vs. all the issues we see with booze, we're probably better off with more people toking than drinking anyway.

Just pointing out that tokers are lumped in with the drinkers in my book. The result is the same.. Me, angry, at their door.. =)

I think that comes with the "and regulate" part of the "legalize and regulate" amendments. So it should certainly be something that they enact laws to cover. Not sure if they make a breathalyzer for that yet though.

I'm pretty sure they do. At least that's what I understand here is they can tell. Even if they couldn't I sincerely doubt any cop worth his salt can't tell when someone is stoned.




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

103.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 02:24

Wowbagger_TIP

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:14: Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:07: Given how many people toke anyway - which is huge - vs. all the issues we see with booze, we're probably better off with more people toking than drinking anyway. Just pointing out that tokers are lumped in with the drinkers in my book. The result is the same.. Me, angry, at their door.. =) I think that comes with the "and regulate" part of the "legalize and regulate" amendments. So it should certainly be something that they enact laws to cover. Not sure if they make a breathalyzer for that yet though.

102.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 02:14

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 02:07:
Given how many people toke anyway - which is huge - vs. all the issues we see with booze, we're probably better off with more people toking than drinking anyway.

Just pointing out that tokers are lumped in with the drinkers in my book. The result is the same.. Me, angry, at their door.. =)




Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.

101.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 02:07

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:45:
Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:44:
Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:39:
That being said, if your state says it's cool.. Toke up brother.. Just not in my house. =)

And that's all anyone is asking for anyway.

As long as people realize that if one is under the influence while driving and kills/hurts one of my loved ones, I'll be at their house to exact revenge, then we're all cool. =)

Given how many people toke anyway - which is huge - vs. all the issues we see with booze, we're probably better off with more people toking than drinking anyway.




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

100.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 01:45

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:44:
Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:39:
That being said, if your state says it's cool.. Toke up brother.. Just not in my house. =)

And that's all anyone is asking for anyway.

As long as people realize that if one is under the influence while driving and kills/hurts one of my loved ones, I'll be at their house to exact revenge, then we're all cool. =)




Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.

99.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 01:44

Jeraxle wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 01:39:
That being said, if your state says it's cool.. Toke up brother.. Just not in my house. =)

And that's all anyone is asking for anyway.




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

98.

Re: Out of the Blue

Nov 7, 2012, 01:39