Funniest mindless movie of the last few years. McLovin is the best, and the other guys grew on me. 
In his job he needs to undervalue the suffering of others in order to make more money. Then there’s the smell, the ass and the eye. The degree of objectification of desire is in direct proportion to the self-debasement of the indulger. By degrading the other, he nullifies himself. The very indifference to the overjealous ones, the suppressed recalcitrant losers of the world, is what causes their victims to exist. Great disturbing movie.
A lost science fiction PBS movie with Taoist undertones is a real find, right? A guy discovers his dreams change reality—when he wakes up he finds himself in a world where the content of his dreams have actually happened. He of course gets scared after a couple of nightmares, seeks relief in drugs, and then, because of them, is lead to a psychiatrist. 
Here's for all the sissy Apple lovers out there... This is the ultimate design for my old Duron, which faithfully downloaded well over one terabyte (mostly movies, 1300+) always on 24/7/365 over the last four years. It also runs Apache and is a file and printer server, as well as a router for my home network (with four, also damn old and beautiful computers). Sometimes I dust it off with a vacuum cleaner.
I really enjoyed 
I have read the article on 
In imdb a user commented: "Annoying little transition into some sort of regurgitated independent film values finds this shallow project from Brad Silberling offering little and providing less in this embarrassingly exploitive work." I agree, yet it is still watchable — even more so if you understand how clichê is the fabricated spontaneity in it. It is as if independent movie has aquired its own hollywood-like formulaicism. So it kind of becomes an interestingly consumated aesthetic portrail of so many cult-status fabricated stylishness examples we see around. Many people liked 
2005.09.11 • 17:17 • 4 com
Bill Maher made Unistat politics interesting and also proves that HBO is the less worse programming in television these days1.
He is extremely politically incorrect — hates children, smokes pot (and says so outloud and clear), pro-abortion, anti-gay-marriage (but only because he's against marriage in general!), atheist and anti-(organized)religion2. And I know, in some circles the last two wouldn't be considered PI, and in others, none. But for Unistat TV standards, is very PI, and that's the HBO niche so it seems.
What scares me is that he is so damn entretaining, and the left in Unistat is so dull and fragmented nowadays that the more centrist views will be soon forgotten3.
That is, I'm of course pro-(organized)religion, anti-abortion, anti-pot, but not in the same sense the ones Maher criticizes are. Maher's religion is Science, and he makes a compelling argument against the conservative jesus-freaks. But how would he stand in the more agnostic views of Dharma? We can't kill fetuses (or any tissue blob, may that be) without knowing, for sure, there is no consciousness there. Scientists cannot measure or find any consciousness. So, while they can't, we cannot kill, since we don't know scientifically when a human being becames a human being and has at least the same rights as is mother. Is it 24.4 seconds after conception? Is it at 8 years old? No device for measuring consciousness yet.
Evolution, of course, is the leading theory today (and the jesus-freaks theory is of course bullshit, I know). But what do we make of it? In some views that account evolution as an intrinsic value, someone like the Dalai Lama or Mother Theresa are failures, and a rapist that impregnates the woman he rapes is a complete success! We need more than a simple biological theory, we need the values that the genes themselves cannot have, but we already do — so they don't come out of genes alone, but of that other elusive thing called consciousness.
Anyway, he is funny as hell, although now I'm getting slightly tired of some of the repetition (I have watched every one of the more than 50 episodes in the last two months). The New Rules segment is a riot by itself, and you can read it at HBO's site.
New Rule: Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: lucky bastards.
He is extremely politically incorrect — hates children, smokes pot (and says so outloud and clear), pro-abortion, anti-gay-marriage (but only because he's against marriage in general!), atheist and anti-(organized)religion2. And I know, in some circles the last two wouldn't be considered PI, and in others, none. But for Unistat TV standards, is very PI, and that's the HBO niche so it seems.
What scares me is that he is so damn entretaining, and the left in Unistat is so dull and fragmented nowadays that the more centrist views will be soon forgotten3.
That is, I'm of course pro-(organized)religion, anti-abortion, anti-pot, but not in the same sense the ones Maher criticizes are. Maher's religion is Science, and he makes a compelling argument against the conservative jesus-freaks. But how would he stand in the more agnostic views of Dharma? We can't kill fetuses (or any tissue blob, may that be) without knowing, for sure, there is no consciousness there. Scientists cannot measure or find any consciousness. So, while they can't, we cannot kill, since we don't know scientifically when a human being becames a human being and has at least the same rights as is mother. Is it 24.4 seconds after conception? Is it at 8 years old? No device for measuring consciousness yet.
Evolution, of course, is the leading theory today (and the jesus-freaks theory is of course bullshit, I know). But what do we make of it? In some views that account evolution as an intrinsic value, someone like the Dalai Lama or Mother Theresa are failures, and a rapist that impregnates the woman he rapes is a complete success! We need more than a simple biological theory, we need the values that the genes themselves cannot have, but we already do — so they don't come out of genes alone, but of that other elusive thing called consciousness.
Anyway, he is funny as hell, although now I'm getting slightly tired of some of the repetition (I have watched every one of the more than 50 episodes in the last two months). The New Rules segment is a riot by itself, and you can read it at HBO's site.
New Rule: Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: lucky bastards.
Also in politics: The Comedians Coup d'État on Bush's Dictatorship • Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause
As to "no device for measuring consciousness yet", I think it won't ever exist, and we'll struggle with the dilemma for the rest of our human lives. Only a hard-core reductionist can believe something like that can be made :)
Did you read about researchers turning skin cells into stem cells and creating an embryo afterwards? There's a single stem cell involved on the beginning, of course, but a large number of stem cells are generated in the process.
DOES SKIN HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS? Oh gosh. I'm not taking a bath ever again.
(Not that I would miss it).
As a matter of fact, this is very close to why great yogis don't take baths, don't cut their hair and don't ejaculate. In the tantric system it is said that millions of Dakinis live in a yogis hair, in his nails, in his skin and in his semen. So it is Dakini genocide when he does take a bath or cut his nails.
Since we still have impure vision and see bacteria and not Dakinis, then maybe we have a little less karma in killing what are only projections of a highly realized yogi while engaging in ultimate trainings of mind — things that anyway are beyond our present understanding.