Secondly, Joker is not a scarred, scary looking clown. He LOOKS like a merry prankster.

He doesn't growl menacingly, he doesn't strike threatening tough-guy poses.

He capers, prances, dances, and laughs. While shooting people in cold blood. Using a gun with a "BANG" flag sticking out of its barrell.

Heath isn't playing the Joker. Maybe he's channeling Clown from Spawn, or one of those Joker imitators from the Batman Beyond cartoon. But not the real Joker.

Secondly, the Tim Burton Batman, while MUCH better than what followed was still waay off base. Batman is NOT angsty, or emo. He's too driven, too focused on his obsessive war on crime to mope. His emptions are tightly controlled and channelled. Angst is the opposite of emotional control.

Absolutly correct; schools don't need money, they need better salaries so they can attract better educated teachers, up to date textbooks, better classroom facilities like science labs, school buildings that aren't falling apart, supplies, computers, etc.

Of course, all of that costs money.

"Throwing money at the problem," is no solution. Of course, neither is refusing to spend money where it IS needed.

WTF? Slave labor from Thailand?

I'd rather "spend" my tax money to be used as kindling than to be used to help these people survive.

Forget the myth of someone who's just down and out, and needs a little help to get back on their feet. Those kinds of homeless don't stay homeless for long.

The ones who are out there month after month, year after year, are worthless. They will never get off the streets so long as they can keep taking the handouts from enablers like you.

Being too kind can be cruel.

No, the current food crisis has to do with drought in Australia, and poor crops elsewhere. It's primarily rice which is in short supply, not corn. Corn is a little short, due to diversion to bio-fuel use, but it's not the real problem.

First chickens, now fish? It's a Racist Animal epidemic!!

Ha, HA! I don't HAVE a girlfriend, wife or sister! So THERE!

I'm so lonely....

Requiring those who disbelieve a claim to bear the same burden of proof as those making the claim is a form of dishonest reasoning.

If the problem currently is that vat meat can't be produced cheaply and in quantity, maybe ease it into the market as a low supply luxury item. Make it a desirable luxury by cultivating rare and exotic meats. Lobster. Abalone. Shark Fin. Bears Paw. Monkey Brain. Endangered animals. Ooohhh, or what about cultivating human flesh. Not a whole clone or anything, but just like a thigh, or something. Guilt free cannibalism? It could even be your own flesh. Or would that be creepy?

The conflict of interest would be if they allowed the court, which decides the case and the award amount, to keep the money. Think about it. So if not the courts, or by extension the government, or the plaintiff, then who gets the money?? HMMMM?

I don't think Tampa is a State. The City is the plaintiff, not the state.

I've always been amused that the acronym SOL works both for Statutes of limitations and S#!+ Out of Luck.

Roaches have gathered a number of urban myths about themselves. Another myth is that they'd survive a nuclear explosion. They're much more resistant to radiation than we are, but not THAT resistant. And other insects are more resistant than they are, so they wouldn't be the "only survivors" either.

No, that was back in 1996, so I don't think Erica meant that by "recent decision." Besides, all that said was that a $2 mil punitive damage award was excessive for a badly retouched paint job on a new car, so exceswsive as to violate the constitutional "due process" clause. IOW, the punitive award has to be reasonably proportionate to the actual harm suffered. A bad paintjob was not worth punishing them to the tune of $2 mil. Paraplegia, OTOH, is another story, and even an award of this size is still reasonably proportionate.

No reason that decision should affect this case. Philip Morris vs. Williams said that jurors should not base their damage award amounts on the potential harm to OTHERS not part of the suit, but just on the damages to the plaintiff. Nothing in this case indicates the jury based their award on harm to other people, just on the harm done to the plaintiff.

Personally I wouldn't ever buy a Kindle for the same reason I won't buy an IPod; my smart phone already does both, so why carry another two devices?

Amazing? It only reads text or HTML files. That's pathetic, not amazing.

I HATE the Kindle, because it locks up it's content in its proprietary format. With the selection they have on e-book, if they'd open up the format to other readers, which can be read on smart phones and palms, they'd sell more books. But of course, they'd rather sell their damn hardware. Bastards.

Bear in mind that crime statistics by their nature can only include REPORTED crimes, and are subject to manipulation.

Or crawling under a car held up by ANY jack for that matter. That's what lifts are for.

To make a right hand turn one should stop BEFORE the crosswalk, then slowly ease forward. SOemthing like this wouldn't interfere with that.

Not to mention how much more durable the plastic bags are; you're much more likely to have a paper bag break on you.

Hmmm, putting out liscenced software/hardware without permission of the liscence owners, under an untested legal theory. What part of that is NOT shady? What part is legitimate? Boasting that they will fight apple in court does not equate to their legal claims being true. Fight it in court and win. Then their legal theory would give them the right to proceed. THAT would be legitimate and not shady.

The old saying, "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission," is UNETHICAL, not clever.

@winexprt:
Excuse me? The towers fell at free fall speed in a vacuum? That is purely impossible unless they were actually in a vacuum.

If your support for the assertion that they fell due to demolition is that they fell at an impossible speed, then that's no support at all.

First you'd have to prove that they actually fell faster than possible in an atmosphere, then you'd have to prove that it was possible to do the impossible because.... WHAT? Demolition charges? How do demolition charges do that exactly?

Sorry, I don't usually cherry-pick a single point in an argument to dispute, but that is such an amazingly dumb statement, I had to challenge it. Objects which are falling in an atmosphere do not fall at the same rate that they would in a vacuum REGARDLESS of the cause of the fall.

Yeah, right. "Dropped it under a race car," just sounds waay cooler than the truth; "Dropped it in the toilet while taking a dump."

LOL! That was a reference to the new Harold & Kumar movie. :-)