Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What was the point of this exercise? (Score -1) 943

A unicorn, if it were to exist, would be observable to someone. It would seem reasonable to suggest that something as large as a unicorn would probably have been observed at some point by a reliable person in recent times.

This is a wild-assed assumption.

Hey, why don't I just say, a unicorn that exists outside of our universe and does not want to be observed is inherently unobservable, so it is unreasonable to suggest that if one existed it would probably have been observed.

Comment Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score -1) 277

I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.

Would you feel the same way if you were the innocent person in the example? Or one of your kids?

The Due Process model, in my opinion, is eminently preferable to the Crime Control model (see Herbert L. Packer), but it is hard to understand for those who have trouble taking the role of the other.

Comment Re:What's a bus full of lawyers going off a cliff? (Score -1) 246

Q: Whadda call a lawyer giving good head?

A: A choking brief.

Q: If a lawyer and a priest are in a sinking canoe, what can be done?

A: Sodomize the priest and hire the lawyer.

Q: If a lawyer were speaking in front of Congress, how would you stop him?

A: Tell him his Bentley is full of drowning school kids.

Q; What's the best thing your can do with a lawyer?

A: Get him some hookers and blow. Then blow his fucking head off. Then bill him.

Thank you! I'll be here all night! Tip your server!

Comment Re:In other words... (Score -1) 662

I read a lot of old school X-Men comic books growing up, and while there were plenty of inconsistencies both when measured against the X-Men canon and even internally, I found that the overall excellent writing and clever use of mutant powers won me over. This movie was a lot more subtle than its predecessors, from the 60's touches to the stronger focus on the characters, and I appreciated that...not!

They made some weird choices for characters. I don't know if Jesus even has a precedent (probably not, given his character's treatment), but who was the guy who blew the tornadoes? George Bush? Louis Theroux was also an odd choice. He doesn't really belong in the Hellfire club, from what I can tell, though he does set up Nightcrawler fairly well.

And...what the HELL happened to all of that energy Shaw sucked out of the submarine? I felt his powers were somewhat poorly defined to begin with, but when you suck a nuclear submarine's batteries dry, doesn't that energy go *somewhere*? Even up your ass?

I suppose it could be explained away in one way or another...like a fart....but it would have made a lot more sense if there were an explosion or some other kind of awesome manifestation of the power he ate (like a magic mushroom).

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...