We have automated trolls in the world, why wouldn’t we have automated data collection and creation of websites? Granted, the automated trolls speak all languages equally horribly…
Con Air starts with a scene captioned State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, Vacaville, California:. That got a huge laugh where my son and I saw it, in Vacaville.
Vampire’s Kiss is weird. Which you’d expect from its rep… What gets me is that it’s listed as a black comedy, but it isn’t. It’s dark, sure enough, but it isn’t a comedy in either sense – it’s not funny, and it doesn’t end happily. It’s just trippy, and that’s not enough for me.
IMO, Innocent Blood is a much better sexy black comedy vampire movie from the 90s.
This seems to be the career path of Kilmer and Cusack, as well as Cage. All 3 of them have at some point in the last 5 or so years done a string of straight-to-video stuff. I watch anything they do that shows up in Redbox. For a while, Kilmer seemed to have a new movie there every month.
Script idea: facing insurmountable financial and tax difficulties, a desperate Val Kilmer, John Cusack, Nic Cage, and Wesley Snipes agree to star in one last film in hopes of a big score. Soundtrack by Willie Nelson and MC Hammer.
It used to be honestly hard to become a celebrity. The 1930’s to 1950’s celebrities had a brain, and were decently capable of keeping money together. (Shirley Temple excluded, but she was a kid. her parents ruined her).
I’ve heard so many good things about Raising Arizona from people whose opinion I respect to think I gotta get over my Nicolas Cage aversion and give it a shot.
(((Not a fan of Andy Garcia, either. To me, he and Nicolas Cage are basically the same person.)))
We are at the point where, if we hook almost any body up to a machine fast enough, we can keep it 'operating' forever.
So, back when this became possible, we already made the hard call of when we _can_ consider people dead enough to be okay with pulling life support. (Answer: When their brain isn't working.)
But we never really decided 'No, past a certain point, we aren't going to pretend this person is alive even if the people in charge of medical decisions want to'.
Should we make that decision? On one hand, it's pretty creepy to keep dead people alive, and it's often clear that the people making the decisions are living in some sort of fantasy. (There's a reason the first stage of grief is denial.)
OTOH, medical care is inherently personal, and who we let make those decisions is personal, and maybe the state has no business overriding it.
On the third hand...this wasn't some adult who decided 'Under all circumstances, keep my body functioning even after my brain is dead', or even picked someone to make medical decisions that thought that way. Maybe _adults_ have a right to do that. But this is a small child, and it's generally considered acceptable for the state to demand parents provide specific medical care for children even if they don't want to...or forbid them from providing known harmful 'medical care'.
On the fourth hand...this actually isn't a child, really. Not anymore. [Edit: Rereading that, I can see it might imply the case took so long he grew up, whereas I actually meant he's not a 'living child' anymore, because he's dead.] And the care doesn't seem 'harmful'....although that appears to be the origin of what the hospital is trying to do. The hospital put in the request to disconnect Alfie a while back, when he might have hypothetically been suffering. However, the case has been drawn out so long that it seems unlikely there could possibly be any suffering now.
--
Regardless of where we, as society, eventually come to on this complicated issue...it seems a bit disingenuous to list this as one of 'a thousand cuts' of society not valuing life. In the end, we can only value things if we know what they are, and Alfie seems already to fall outside of what we've decided is 'human life'.
+ I would go with that. I think different genres lend themselves to different recording/performing types, which is something when generalizing as I did to keep [. . .]
I would go with that. I think different genres lend themselves to different recording/performing types, which is something when generalizing as I did to keep in account.
+ no, it is not. Magazine was the term he should have went with there. "Proper Nomenclature" social media is second only to "Spelling/Grammar" social media [. . .]
no, it is not. Magazine was the term he should have went with there. "Proper Nomenclature" social media is second only to "Spelling/Grammar" social media in swiftness to correct so no dount he's barraged by now.
National School Walkout Day, 19 years after Columbine
3 hours ago
to Oscar Gordon
DavidTC
+ Last I checked, insurance companies request and get all police records with regard to traffic tickets and incidents, so they would know what happened. Yeah, that [. . .]
Last I checked, insurance companies request and get all police records with regard to traffic tickets and incidents, so they would know what happened.
Yeah, that wasn't the greatest example.
The point I was trying to make, but couldn't come up with a scenario for, is that, when people are punished via higher insurance premiums, they are punished for 'calculated risk of causing the insurance company to make payouts in the future'.
We...don't generally calculate punishment that way. It's not only a tad silly to base punishment solely off 'reimbursement of damages' instead of societal impact and risk, but it's really weird to base punishment off 'calculated future crime' to start with. Also, insurance companies often oddly forgive certain offenses, at least the first few times, because those offenses are not likely to lead to costs. Meanwhile, other things are greatly punished.
In the end, we have a system of 'punishment via increased insurance premiums' that, if you look at it from a distance and squint, seems to approximate 'punishment via fines', but does not actually operate how we'd ethically and legally set up any such system.
And, yes, we have a real system of fines for those things, also, but those are a smaller proportion of what the insurance changes can cost. So it's like 25% of a real legal system and 75% of this third party thing tacked on.
As an aside, all this money the government is going to get to act as insurer, is it going into a separate fund, or just the general highway fund? What happens when they spend it all building some new bridges, or bailing out the DOT pension fund, and then they get a 50 car pile-up and have nothing in the kitty to pay for damages?
As weird and hypocritical as it sounds, I suggest they...get insurance.
Or, more specifically, reinsurance. For people who do not know, reinsurance is just insurance for statistically unlikely insurance payouts.
So the state should get an insurance policy for if the state finds themselves paying more than a certain total a year in claims.
As nice side effect, this would result in an insurance company looking over the state's calculations of the money flow and either saying 'Yeah, you're going to spend about this much, and your likelihood of going over this higher amount is only 1% a year, and we'll insure that possiblity for $X.', or saying 'Your math is stupid, you have a 20% chance of going over each year, and we won't insure you', at which point the state might need to reevaluate some estimations.
Now, as for where the all the money comes from and goes...if the state calculate that, say, claims will average costing them $600 a person a year, and they have reinsurance to cover if people cost them over $1000 a person, that a reasonable point to set attempted collection would be maybe $800 a person. So, on average, they get an extra $200 a person (Or even more!) they can pull out each year and use for general funds, but they have a moderately low probability of that money not being there or even having to put some money back in, but only up to $200 a person.
Pickle juice has worked for me but it needs to be real pickle brine, not that neon stuff that the Vlasic is in. I'm not trying to be a pickle snob, I just don't think the neon stuff actually has the right mix of things in it.
I'm curious about the concentrated electrolytes. I've seen CVS selling what seems to be "Adult Pedialyte". @hoowgow-flask is that what you're referring to?
Report
Report
minions graduate studentsassistants to collect all of these datasets.Report
Report
– Mitch Hedberg
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
IMO, Innocent Blood is a much better sexy black comedy vampire movie from the 90s.
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
http://www.avclub.com/article/overview-all-crazy-shit-nic-cage-blew-his-money-218518
Also, Nic Cage is an Elvis superfan (having even wedded Lisa Marie), and Kilmer played Elvis’ ghost in True Romance. COINCIDENCE?! Probably.
Report
Last Ditch, coming Summer 2016.
Report
Report
Report
A fool and his money
Report
Report
What the hell? First, who knew there were albino king cobras (that you could buy!)? Second, what the hell?
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
The 1930’s to 1950’s celebrities had a brain, and were decently capable of keeping money together. (Shirley Temple excluded, but she was a kid. her parents ruined her).
Report
(((Not a fan of Andy Garcia, either. To me, he and Nicolas Cage are basically the same person.)))
Report