FlaSoxxJim

And so say all of us. . . Tap into America! Fantastic film, good enough for 7th on my list.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 11:37 PM) I voted for Colt 45, but that's a malt liquor not a beer. I would say Steel reserve, with Old Milwaukee a close second. At least SR is almost 10% alcohol. Colt 45 is still a favorite for a good old-fashioned game of Edward Fortyhands.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 11:41 PM) I love Ed Wood movies. They're all atrocious but fun to watch. Another non-Ed Wood movie that's really bad but an all-time favorite of mine is The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?. A must see if you like bad movies, because they don't come much worse. I've seen that. Nothing EVER happens. Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 are watchable for their schlock brilliance. The Ed Wood film that had me mesmerized when i saw it was Orgy of the Dead. made in the 60s. It was basically a bunch of strippers dressed up in devil costumes and jungle queen wardrobes and doing their normal stripper routine while a becaped Crisswell (the psychic guy played by Bill Murry in the Burton film) watched on in mild bemusement from a throne. Has to be seen to be believed.

Fock me

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 09:14 PM) Crossover. I saw it was the worst rated movie on IMDB so I rented it and it lived up to expectations. To give you an idea, Wayne Brady was the bad guy, seriously. Try Dracula 3000. I thought the premise was a little thin but I gave it a try, and I'll never get that 100 minutes of my life back. Even an illustrious cast that featured Udo Kier and Coolio couldn't save this turkey. Review from Rotten Tomatoes.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 05:27 PM) The Spirit - New s*** from Frank Miller and Will Eisner. Definite Potential. Attaboy Will, nice job for a dead guy. Seriously, Miller owes a huge debt to Eisner, both stylistically and for the way Eisner pretty much single-handedly created the graphic novel as a medium in the late 1970s. Looks good.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 05:38 PM) Spaceballs sucked. I didn't jump in on the action, but did anybody list a movie that was so bad it was one of the funniest movies they ever seen? (Plan 9 from outer space?) No, but I was very tempted. There are a number of films like that for me. Maybe another list is in order. . .

Make it a good one, Jason! :cheers

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 12:48 AM) For the record, since I'll be exposed anyway, Dr. Strangelove was #1 on my list. Strangelove was good enough for 3rd on my list QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) Is Dr Strangelove seriously the "funniest" movie you've ever seen or is it just the best movie you've ever seen that's categorized as a comedy? I'm also guilty of tweaking the question, as my list is what I consider to be my 20 favorite comedies and not necessarily the 20 most laugh-out-loud movies. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 09:16 AM) The first Clerks was SOOOO much better than the first. Its not even close. That's very true, but I thought there was some great dialog in Clerks 2 as well. There were also a lot of twisted true-life biographical inclusions by Kevin Smith, most notably the story about Jason Mewes arrest while driving with a deployed airbag.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 08:30 PM) Actually Frank Thomas' contract was bought out and he was granted free agency 21 days before Jim Thome was acquired so you win nothing. I said 'Good Day' Sir!!

Swim in the East River.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Apr 21, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) Putin's obviously seen the Seinfeld epsiode where Jerry dates the Gymnist then. Yes, but he's no comedian.

make it a good one!

When asked why 55-year-old Putin would consider marrying Kabayeva, he promptly answered, "Because she's 24 and she can do THIS!!"

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Sure, just off the top of my head, how about Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box. In there he talked about several examples of what he considered to be things that were irreducibly complex. By that, it is meant that there are parts of organisms that are too complex, where their parts are too intertwined for that part to have come about due to natural selection. If you take any of the parts away, the rest of the parts are useless. Anyhow, his critiques and critiques like his have led to some good research being done on how that would be possible in the examples that he talked about. Sure, some of those things may have been discovered with time, but it, IMO, pushed that area of research. I'm not sure if something has been found for all of his examples, but IIRC, some of them have. So, some of our knowledge has been filled by that push. The majority of the scientific community has pretty much dismissed Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, just as it has rejected Dembski's argument of specified complexity. They are the cornerstones of ID, but they are largely considered as either pseudoscience (IC) or mathematically unsound (SC). Modern biologists disregard macromutation as a major evolutionary force, instead believing that even very tightly integrated and complex structures like the textbook examples of the vertebrate eye, viper envenomation apparatus, etc., evolved through accumulated small changes. Behe's IC argument is arguing a position that evoultionary biologists moved away from 30 years or so ago.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 01:39 PM) I'm a bit torn on it. On the one hand, it seems rather indisputably true that there are behavioral outputs that make a lot more sense if put in evolutionary perspective than basic learning theory. (Like a finding that animals are unable to learn associations between some sets of stimuli, but not others.) Of course, some basic theories of learning can also account for this data--but the mechanisms that they use to account for them isn't necessarily theoretically interesting. Also, I think that the points raised by Chomsky about language acquisition also are really important, valid, and have laid the ground work for modern theories of psycholinguistics. SOME of the more social evolutionary theories are also pretty interesting--I particularly like Buss' theory about love and jealousy. On the other hand, a lot of the explanations offered by EvoPsy seems really post-hoc to me (although I suppose this just goes back the general adaptationism critique that can be leveled against them or the unfalsifiable one). I also think that focusing on the neural and biological correlates of speech, auditory/visual perception/ memory is interesting--but I think it isn't necessarily as interesting as studying pure behavioral stuff. And sometimes focusing on something like a language acquisition center in the brain can take away from really interesting other phenomena. So, I guess it's more about how diversified the field is--I think EvoPsy is an important aspect of experimental psychology and other sub-disciplines should take their theories into consideration. But I don't necessarily think it is the most interesting question in Psychology (because, admittedly, we're waaaaaaaaaaay behind the hard sciences theoretically). Oh, and I should argue that I think that a lot of the EvoPsy explanation for mental illness and suicide is pretty piss poor and not convincing to me at all. That's a really good summation, Soxy. I'm not a big fan of his, but I read something by Deepak Chopra a while back that pretty much mirrors your critique and pretty well done. And while EvoPsy may be particularly guilty of it (and it sounds like it is based on your opinions), I think most evolutionary biology investigations struggle here and there to avoid the post-hoc pitfall — that they are working back from a conclusion that already exists and that has the potential makings of bad science.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 01:02 AM) That is going to an extreme there. Anyone can judge a movie without seeing it. But, it does follow that those who have seen it will have a more accurate report on it than someone who has just "read" about it. I am in the later category and would therefore not be able to give a very accurate report on it. I'm seeing a good amount of discussion and was wondering if someone has seen it because, yes, I would value their opinions about it more. The same seemed to be thought with those other films. Your opinion was more valued if you had actually seen the movies and you were seen as more open-minded. The comparison between people closed to the idea of seeing this film versus, for example, Gore's film, only works if you are willing to fully equate the reasons behind the close-mindedness. That is, you have to be willing to hold the positions of the climate-change naysayers and ID naysayers as equally valid. Maybe me and the National Science Foundation, AAAS, etc., are just a bunch of close-minded curmudgeons, but if ID has zero scientific merit then a movie pushing ID isn't going to change that. I might see it just so I can say I did, but I'll likely wait to see it on cable or DVD. I so rarely get to the theater anymore, and unless I went as part of a group of scientist-curmudgeons I doubt I'd go alone.

DownloadHelper is THE must-have extension if you need to pull flv files off of YouTube and other video sites.

I apparently experienced a couple small quakes back in college while a was awake and everything and I never noticed a thing. A bunch of friends all felt it and I would have never even knew they happened.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 09:23 AM) Edwards' "edWORDS" was HYSTERICAL! Made me remember why I supported both him and Obama. He was great. Oh, and Obama put "political distractions" on notice! Yeah, Edwards was excellent. I forgot Todd Rundgren had been put on Notice by Ric Ocasek until I saw his name on the On Notice Board.

Aarrgghh. Going in the wrong direction. Up about 3 pounds from a couple of weeks ago. Damn you and your happymaltyfoamy goodness, beer!

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 05:48 AM) Today's civics lesson: Technically, that is not a flag, that is the image of a flag. Same thing for patches and the like. Far different animal, but I honestly have a hard time understanding the distinction. Well, one is the symbol of our nation, and the other is merely the symbol of the symbol of our nation. See Simple.

Hey Soxy, You never chimed in with your own thoughts on the fields of behavioral evolution. What say you – smash or trash??

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 08:33 PM) I have no idea. I dont really care. i think he is a great man. He was an interim pick by the College of Cardinals, old enough that he shouldn't ave to long a reign, and a JPII right hand guy that knows his way around the Vatican. His biggest challenge is going to be getting Europe to return to fundamental Christian values, and that was a losing proposition even for JPII. His bulldog defense of traditional Catholic doctrine and values is going to rub most modrn Catholics the wrong way, imo, and the mass exodus from the Church is likely to continue more or less unchecked. He's a scholarly theologian for sure, and he was part of the theological consulate for Vatican II. But I don't see him as energizing the Church a whole lot.