When I first saw that sketch, I just thought it was typical (meaning: very funny) Python humor. But I've had several instances of "laughing so hard I almost passed out" in my life, which makes me wonder if a "killing joke" is actually possible.

One such incident involved an intentional outtake from the movie Serenity. If you've seen those, then you likely know which one I mean. I was left gasping for breath and my vision was graying out before I started to recover.

Actually... that made me curious enough to check Wikipedia while writing this. There are, apparently, a few known deaths attributed to heart failure brought on by excessive laughing. So much for laughter being the best medicine!

As a US citizen, I also find these practices unacceptable. The current mentality of complete control by our government has gotten entirely too far out of hand in this country. I vote my conscience in every election, and I write letters and am as politically active as I can be while still holding down a job, but there's only so much I can do when so many of my fellow Americans are bound and determined to allow our own government to undermine everything that our country is supposed to stand for.

Actions like this by the EU are pretty much the last hope I have of something may give the US the wake up call that we so desperately need. Unfortunately, with the US's current extremely confrontational attitude, the only reaction that I can see is a bunch of angry griping about how the rest of the world just better shut up and stay out of our business. Still, I applaud the EU and anyone else that refuses to tow the US-mandated line.

is Captain Mike Yates.

Seriously, though... a movie could be great, or it could be terrible, and I would be ok with either result. If it's good, then huzzah! I'll watch it and enjoy it. If it's terrible, then yay! We can ignore it as far as canon goes (like that terrible 80's thing... Paul McGann made a good Doctor, the Tardis set was awesome, the reinvented theme was ok... the rest sucked goat ass).

My big fear is that it will be kind of decent. Too good to ignore, but too bad to really energize the franchise.

But if this is going to be it's own continuity, then I guess do whatever you want, Hollywood. If I don't like it, I'll ignore it. Though, the influx of new Who fans who are only familiar with the movie(s) will be annoying to deal with. But that's life.

Yeah, they are a fun band to listen to, that's for sure. I saw them live just a couple nights ago (First Avenue, Minneapolis) and they were incredible. I've maybe seen technically better musicians, but these guys have a joy for playing that really comes across, and their songs are fun and interesting.

Plus it's mildly amusing to me when a fairly mellow song like "Birdhouse in your soul" causes the audience to just go WILD.

That would make that a double-abomination burger.

Sounds delicious :P

It's been quite a while since I read the Bible, but where in the actual text does it say that, as opposed to, say, that story being intended as evidence that true devotion to God should come before even the lives of your own family? Because, without any kind of qualification in the text, any kind of assumption like the one you stated is unsupported. As I recall (and, as I said, it's been a while since I read it so I could be wrong) there is nothing directly in the that story itself that supports the "doesn't require child sacrifice" stance.

You said rabbis and historians "since medieval times", which suggests that it took centuries of that story existing before people reached the conclusion that child sacrifice is not needed. If there is nothing in the Bible itself, or in writings that are contemporaneous with the Abraham and Isaac story that supports that stance, then I offer my hypothesis that people later on decided to interpret that story they way they wanted to, in a way which may not be what was originally intended by the original writer.

Which I would be fine accepting. Child sacrifice, or indeed human sacrifice in general, is completely abhorrent to me. If people decided to interpret this story from the Bible in a different way than what may have been intended, then that helps to renew my faith that people can be decent if they want to be.

Prove it.

Disobedience of God is a flaw. If they were unflawed, they would not have disobeyed God in the first place. Therefore, the "fall" could not have happened without the direct influence of God's will. Therefore, God willed the "fall" to happen and is directly responsible for all of our so-called "flaws".

If my reasoning is incorrect, please point out where I am wrong.

"Science" doesn't make any such assumption, although individual scientists may.
Personally, I reject the "all men are flawed" and "only redemption is by faith" parts of your statement. Primarily, flaws are subjective. Anything that you can consider a "flaw" in a normal, healthy human being I believe I can point to as a situation-specific survival trait. Unless, of course, you're talking about physical flaws or limitations, which is either an error in design or the result of evolution (depending on your viewpoint), and not necessarily a flaw of the person him/herself.

Furthermore, you will need to define what you mean by "redemption". As in redemption from what or for what? And you will also need to provide your proof that this redemption actually happens, if you want me to believe your book (which I am assuming is the Bible) is "100% accurate". As far as I can recall, there is no evidence of any actual "redemption" happening, outside of unverifiable statements from the book itself. So, unless you can point to this empirical evidence of yours that redemption actually exists and it only occurs via faith, then I would say the book is also 0% accurate on that point.

"Sin" is a construct of religious opinion and its existence is debatable. People can, and have been, learning to cope with and overcome what we consider baser instincts for thousands of years, even before your holy book came into existence. Civilization started developing because it was a greater survival strategy than chaos and opportunism, not because of a holy book. Though, religion in general did, of course, play a major role in the development of civilization. But keep in mind that Christianity and even Judaism were not the first or only religions to play a role in the development of civilization. There were religions that were old and well-established before the first word was written in what would eventually become the Bible.

Also, in my opinion, strict adherence to a moral code written two thousand years ago is a hindrance to the development of human society. Many things considered normal and acceptable even 100 years ago are now generally considered vulgar and unworthy of us (racism is a fine example of that). The difference between the morality of 2000 years ago and today is even greater. In areas that adhere to a strict adherence to centuries-old moral codes, things like stonings for adultery can still happen. This is behavior that is generally considered monstrous by the average member of a more religiously-relaxed society.

A holy book can't change with the times. And, by it's nature, it can't (according to most believers) be altered to fit the changing morality of society.

That said, I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, and I am aware that wisdom, inspiration, comfort and learning can come from many different sources. Just because, in my opinion, the Bible and the Quran are outdated as guides for moral living does not mean that I think the lessons contained in them are useless or pointless. I just believe that they should not be your sole guide for living, and they should be read with the understanding that life was very different when they were written.

Due to a joke by a co-worker many, many years ago, my title at work has been "Head Tech Monkey", at least according to all the tech-related junk mail I get. It's kind of funny to see, but it's also a bit alarming, getting all this mail from places I never signed up for or had any business dealings with at all, and all of them with that bad information from the same source.

Actually, that might be an interesting experiment. Purposely putting bad information out there like that, and seeing how quickly and how far it propagates.

I tried building a gauze rifle, once. It was very fluffy.

That's my viewpoint on it exactly. Being a cop is SUPPOSED to be a dangerous job. If someone is not willing or able to take the risk while still maintaining standards of ethical behavior, then the job is not for them and I wouldn't them doing it anyway. I'd rather have NO police than corrupt police.

That being said, police officers are fully entitled to take whatever actions they legally can to mitigate the risk to the public, their partners and themselves. I wouldn't expect an officer to leap in front of a bullet for me, or anything crazy like that, or to try and arrest a bunch of gun-toting gang members while using nothing but talk and a badge.

Good lord, I'm outraged.
I mean, seriously, is that how we're training our soldiers now? To take a cartridge and simply throw it at the enemy, presumably by hand, instead of actually firing them with some sort of a gun?

I mean, maybe they're putting them in some sort of a slingshot or something, which I suppose could do some damage, perhaps even making someone lose an eye. But still, using a rifle would be a FAR more effective way of hitting targets with bullets.
:P

Yes, the above was 100% sarcasm. Maybe it's because I've actually fired a gun before, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone falling for something so obviously false.

Yes. Lots of things are radioactive. Very few of them are concentrated enough to hurt you.

Alternative names? Here are a few thoughts:

Laser-powered. Hey, everyone likes lasers! Lasers are cool! (Not literally)
Heat-reactive (rather than radioactive)
And if those don't work, we'll just tell everyone that they're powered by magic rocks

Exactly, I agree 100%. There are non-military applications to this (warehouse workers, nurses using it for patient care, returning mobility to the injured/ill, and so on). This is the creation of an industry that may see big returns. The fact that the initial use for it is military doesn't mean that it is limited to that functionality forever.

Also, as cool as this looks, what we will have in fifty years will make this look like a bunch of tinker toys powered by springs and rubber bands. But the first generation is needed in order to get to the next.