Amentep

The US has folk/fairy tales. And not all of them were swiped from the Native Americans. Charles Skinner collected a number of American Fairy tales in his Myths and Legends of Our Own Land.in the late 1800s, but there are others. That's not counting the old folk tales about historical figures, Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, George Washington, Johnny Appleseed, or characters like Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, or the old west mythologies created around the liked of Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill, Calamity Jane, Deadwood ****/Nat Love, etc. One might consider Baum's Oz books as a shared folk story for the US now (the series was as popular as Harry Potter is now in its day and has had a high degree of public consciousness for decades). Disney was mostly taking the old French and German fairy tales and animating them to begin with.

I think the Clone Wars cartoon showed that Maul survived and received a robotic lower-half replacement to keep on keepin' on.

Just saw about Agnes Varda myself. Also RIP to - Ranking Roger of the Beat/English Beat and General Public Shane Rimmer, actor (Thunderbirds, The Spy Who Loved Me and loads of UK television) W. H. Pugmire, author of Seattle set Lovecraftian tales

At 71, She’s Never Felt Pain or Anxiety. Now Scientists Know Why.

They are omnivorous, but I don't think I'd heard about mice (had heard they ate small frogs). Learn something new everyday! Hope you pass the food / not food test.

As far as I know the English word for Butterflies and Moths as a collective group would be lepidoptra. Carl Linnaeus coined the term for the family in 1758, using Latin (but working from Greek) as was (and is) the way of scientific classification. Old English only had the terms for the two distinct parts of the family (butorflēoge and moþþe). I don't think the language made a catch-all for the family (probably didn't realize the relation). The thing to remember about English is that what it doesn't invent it gets off the back of a lorry, no questions asked. So around 1773 the use of the Latin classification, Lepidoptra, began being used as the English word to represent butterflies and moths. But lepidoptra is not English, it's Latin or mock-Latin. There is no English word, that was the point. This is why we get projects like "Butterflies and Moths of North America", which, in many other languages, would simply have one classificatory word that includes both butterflies and moths. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with English, only that there are these interesting differences between distinctions and classifications. To give another example: Wittgenstein famously wrote that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. The interesting thing here is that in his original German, there is a single verb for "being silent", schweigen. But in English there is no word or concept for that, you can only explain it by saying that someone is silent, whereas in German and many other languages, there is a distinct verb for remaining silent. Similarly, in Finnish, for example, you cannot "ignore" someone, you can only "not notice" or "pay no attention" to them. It's almost the same, but not quite, just like in the "being silent" example. I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the English Language - as much as or moreso than other languages - just borrows words and concepts from other languages when it needs to. There was no word for butterflies and moths as a family, so it adopted the coined latin family name which now is the English word for butterflies and moths. Its why almost every exception to the rules of English are words borrowed from other languages (French or German popularly, but from many others). Its like the Epic Store has an exclusive on a word concept, and the English store waits for the exclusivity period to end so it can offer the concept for its users to play with it without learning the Epic Store Language.

As far as I know the English word for Butterflies and Moths as a collective group would be lepidoptra. Carl Linnaeus coined the term for the family in 1758, using Latin (but working from Greek) as was (and is) the way of scientific classification. Old English only had the terms for the two distinct parts of the family (butorflēoge and moþþe). I don't think the language made a catch-all for the family (probably didn't realize the relation). The thing to remember about English is that what it doesn't invent it gets off the back of a lorry, no questions asked. So around 1773 the use of the Latin classification, Lepidoptra, began being used as the English word to represent butterflies and moths.

is expunged, yes? call sealed is kinda a misunderstanding. if is expunged, there is nothing to seal as all record is, by necessity, wiped clean. we didn't bother to look for details, but our understanding is the record were expunged. given how livid is cops and mayor, am thinking is obvious who got the fuzzy end of the lollipop. HA! Good Fun! I've seen more than one news report claim Smollet's attorney's were saying "sealed" not "expunged".

^I wasn't on USENET for Atari vs Commodore like I was for Genesis vs SNES

If we can count the console wars stuff as being somewhat similar situation to storefront exclusives, I can attest that a lot of the ill will being expressed about the storefront exclusives were mirrored in comments on USENET in the early 90s regarding console exclusives (amid the "which version did it better" debates). The best example I can think of, though, comes from 1997 when Square bypassed Nintendo's Nintendo 64 in favor of Sony's Playstation for FINAL FANTASY VII. There were Nintendo fans who swore they'd never forgive Square for forsaking Nintendo (even though we know now that FFVII was never going to run properly on N64 hardware, even with the magnetic disc 64DD add-on). So its really not changed to my eyes; I didn't really "get it" then either.

Knickname of Robert Muldoon, New Zealand politician and Prime Minister.

So you're saying I'm old? GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

I get being being disappointed. Perhaps for some disappointment turns to anger. But people act like companies have betrayed them personally with these decisions to go to the Epic storefront (or to be exclusive to a system during the console wars) in expressing their ire (and doing things like trolling the PoEII steam page which has nothing to do with the decision).

Again maybe its the fact that I was there for the console wars, but exclusive titles just seem to be an odd thing to get angry over, even more so given the fact that everyone who dislikes the Epic store can just wait out the exclusive period rather than support that storefront. The easiest way to kill the Epic exclusive strategy (if one dislikes it) is to not support it; enough people do that then Epic won't have an incentive to continue throwing money at companies for times exclusives.

I dunno, maybe its because I've had a foot in the console generations all the time my other foot has been in computer gaming, but I've never seen exclusives as something to get bothered by unless you're someone who feels you're entitled to every game that comes out. As more and more things move to streaming and virtual platforms, to my mind it was inevitable that the PC market would become a battleground for the Windows market, and I'm not surprised at all that a company is trying to use exclusives to try and draw people to a particular storefront. What does surprise me, mildly I admit, is how enraged people get over something not appearing on their preferred storefront, particularly given that these aren't even forever exclusives.

The problem with the media is that there's not enough interestingly distinct news to fill the 24-hour news cycle, so they do so by having talking heads. And the only way talking heads draw ratings is if they work extreme angles to get people interested enough to watch thinking they're actually hearing something that is making news. But talking heads aren't really news or reporting on the news, and any talking head show should be seen as light entertainment and not taking with any real belief that it means anything.

Plus one of the other Enterprise doctors, Paul Fix. But no Hoyt Axton for the STTOS hat-trick...

New Thread

Start of Old Thread End of Old Thread "Gentlemen, we can refresh it. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic thread. The 'random topic' will be that thread. Weirder than it was before. Weirder...more random...more interesting." Last time on The 6 Million Dollar Bionic Thread": don't feel bad. the term "once and future" made us immediate think o' t.h. white book. near fifty and am clear still stuck in nerd mode. HA! Good Fun! we're simpatico? HA! Good Fun!

So... If there's a werewolf in Vampire the Masquarade: Bloodlines 2...will we be able to kill it? The revised WoD setting is Vampire: The Requiem, isn't it? Wouldn't them using "the Masquarade" indicate its set in the same world as the original game?

Sorry I wasn't clear - I think remakes, adaptions, and sequels can be creative. And yes "Spotless" and "Inception" aren't adaptions or sequels. My point is that there are people who think that adaptions aren't creative. There are people who think remakes aren't creative. There are people who think sequels aren't creative. And that's fine. But when a person complains that any of those things are a sign of the creative bankruptcy of today's Hollywood, all I have to say is 1916 - 1918 would like to have a word with that person.

I'm a little stumped on when people think Hollywood was "creative" when they talk about sequels and adaptions. They've been doing sequels (first generally believed in 1916) and remakes (1918) from the earliest days. Not to mention adaptions from other media (novels, short stories, folk tales, radio shows, etc) of already successful stories. RE: Crowdfunding - I like crowdfunding simply to support things I'd want to exist. But a long term model for anything but the smallest of companies or individuals it really isn't.

Can't you delete the team and the charcter you created and start over? It's been awhile and can't remember for sure.

$40M is for all the confederate stuff as I understand it from that article over ten years, but again the vast majority of the 700 monuments covered by the $40M are going to be obelisks and statues and not grand estates, cemeteries, etc. There are also - I'm assuming here - still organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy that are donating to the upkeep of some of these places as well. Also wasn't there a big mismanagement deal about ten years ago at Arlington that's led to them having to spend more to repair things that shouldn't have been allowed to fall into disrepair?

Isn't Arlington something like 600+ acres and Beauvoir 50? I'd imagine just cutting the lawn is 12 times as expensive...