That last scene was horrible on many levels. Here you have Padme - a strong female character - who suddenly decides that she's going to die if she can't have her man. And does. Completely disregarding that she has two babies on the way that need her. Nope. Her man's gone to the Dark Side so it's time for her to die. Every time I think of that scene, I want to rip Jar-Jar's tongue from his mouth and use it to whip Lucas. (Bonus: Without his tongue, perhaps Jar-Jar won't be able to speak.)
I'm really hoping Disney will put out a series of Star Wars movies that tie together the way the Marvel movies do - that is, they stand on their own (for the most part) but also weave together into a vast universe that builds upon itself. If they do it right, we could enter a golden age for Star Wars fans. Maybe it will finally scrub THE FILMS THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED from our memories.
You just need to use a time machine to work three times during the same day. WORST. TARDIS. TRIP. EVER!
Suppose the winds change direction, those in charge offer Snowden a deal, and he accepts it. The problem here is that the winds could change again and Snowden could find himself in the US and suddenly a wanted man again. There's also the possibility that he is officially pardoned of any wrongdoing, but unofficially his life is made a living hell - if not simply ended.
I even wonder what the status of any deal would be over the course of an administration change. Let's say Obama and AG Lynch do a 180 and decide to grant Snowden a deal: Return to the US, sit in on some Oval office and congressional meetings regarding everything that took place, and no charges will be filed. For the sake of argument, let's say Snowden accepts the deal and returns to the US. Now, the 2016 elections take place and new President takes office. How bound would this new President (and his AG) be by the previous President and AG's deal? Could the new President and AG decide "deal's off" and haul Snowden in under a charge of treason? Or would they have to trump up some charge to do this? (Not a big deal for them, I'm sure. It would likely rank as "minor annoyance" versus just saying "the deal is null and void.")
And yet, it's still better than pretty much any reality show on TV. Not saying much, I know, but I'd rather watch Battlebots (poorly put together or not) than Survivor: Yet Another Location.
*Takes out Items To Ban List*
So what you're saying is we also need to ban bench drills, metal drilling bits, and metal cutting and welding tools as well.
(The sad part is that I'm joking but all too many people would say this completely seriously.)
What's your bot? (My boys and I are watching the show on ABC.)
For awhile, I refused to become interested in any new TV shows. I had some shows I loved and they kept getting cancelled one after another (Futurama, Pushing Daises, etc). Meanwhile, reality shows like Survivor kept getting season after season. The one reality show that I liked - The Mole - was cancelled as well. That was the only show where using your brain was rewarded more than physical challenges and backstabbing. I've been slowly getting interested in shows again, but now that we've cut cable it's on my terms. I'll find a show on Netflix/Amazon/Hulu and will watch a bunch of the episodes back-to-back. I've found some really good shows this way and I know in advance how many episodes there are (at least) so there's no "oops, that was the last one" surprise.
In the political sphere, my mother used to be a Presidential race harbinger of doom. Everyone she voted for for President lost. She voted against Carter and he won. Then she voted FOR Carter and he lost. She voted against Reagan in his re-election and he won. I believe her streak was broken in the Bush-Gore race. She voted for Bush which I felt meant that Gore was assured victory. We all know how that turned out. Since then, she's voted for Bush again in his re-election and against Obama twice so it looks like Bush might have been the only anomaly in her voting streak.
In my case, a diagnosis would cost money when our budget is tight. I already have my coping mechanisms so it wouldn't help me. My son's getting his help so a diagnosis for me wouldn't help him. I'm comfortable knowing that I have Asperger's without having the diagnosis.
At this point, a diagnosis would mainly be to show other people to quiet them up if they claim I'm just making it up. Quite honestly, there is a limited group of people whose opinions I care about. If $RANDOM_PERSON or even $RANDOM_FAMILY_MEMBER refuses to believe me until I get a diagnosis, that's their problem.
I do know others who have gotten the diagnosis in adulthood and more power to them. For me, though, unless I don't have to spend a lot of money on it (or unless money isn't that tight anymore), it's not going to be a priority for me.
I can see "watching coding" when it comes to instructional videos. I've had good experiences with some of those. However, watching someone code as a form of entertainment? I love to code but I'd be bored if I had to watch someone else code.
It isn't a psychological condition, but my son was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. Since the diagnosis (aka knowing what we're dealing with and not just taking random actions hoping something works), we've made a lot of progress dealing with my son's behaviors and helping him be a more effective student in school. (He's crazy smart so before supports he wound up "dropping down" to normal. Now he's getting high 90's in almost all his classes.)
Despite all of this, my father keeps insisting that this is something he'll grow out of (you don't grow out of Autism), or that he doesn't really have it because he had a good accomplishment (no, going whitewater rafting doesn't mean you've been cured of Autism). My parents get even more defensive when I bring up that I think I'm an undiagnosed Aspie. (It wasn't diagnosed when I was young and all the signs fit how I've been for as long as I can remember.) They act as though my claiming that I am Autistic is an insult directed at them. (If anything, it's a testament to their parenting that I turned out well despite the lack of a proper diagnosis/supports.)
I'm sure people who deal with depression or other psychological issues encounter similar people. There are just some folks who think that just because it's a psychological issue, it's "all in your mind" and you can just try harder and make it go away. Suffer from depression? Just be happy! Having an anxiety attack? Just be calm! Do you have OCD? Just let it go. And if you get treatment for any of this stuff, these people will act as though you're weak for seeking help and not just taking it on alone. In truth, though, trying to take it on alone can be the worst thing to do. Get help. Get as much help as you need. Get professional help and help from family and friends. Ignore those people who try to act like you're just making it all up and can overcome it by just deciding not to have that condition. Those people should be tuned out and interacted with as little as possible.
Is the "default search provider for AOL" really that prestigious a title to seek? It's been quite some time since AOL had a decent user group. Next up: Microsoft's Bing to become the official search provider of MySpace!
If they scrap it now, then they have to admit that they wasted a trillion dollars. But if they invest a few more hundred million then maybe that Nigerian Prince will send the money... I mean, maybe that airplane will work right.
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
Right after you: 1) File a lawsuit against Google for this, 2) prove just WHY Google must pay you money using currently applicable laws (bonus if you cite legal precedents), 3) win said lawsuit against Google and get a judgement awarded.
Step 1 is easy. Anyone can do this. Step 2 is a bit harder. Especially if your claim has no legal merit (for example "Google should pay me for all of their freely available products"). You might be able to spin some law to fit, though. Step 3 would be even harder.
In the case of the Yelp reviews, the company is claiming that these reviews were fake reviews by one individual. The court should order Yelp to turn over the information on these users to a third party - chosen by the court and sworn to secrecy. This party would review the records (perhaps in cross referencing the company's customer list) and come back with a report detailing whether or not they were one person and whether or not they were customers. The report wouldn't personally identify anyone. If the company's claims were disproved by the report, the case would be tossed (and the company would need to pay costs for the third party). If their claims held up, the case could proceed and the Yelp identities might be revealed to the company (and Yelp might wind up on the hook for the third party's report costs).