DrNeurohax

Goddamn that was poetic, ya cunt.

All those folks in the 50+ age group that grew up with "Russia is enemy #1" are probably cycling through waves of intense work and prolonged orgasm.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first things considered in strategizing any armed conflict is whether they want Russia and China to know that we have X or are capable of Y. Russia has shown their hand. If they could do more, they would have by now.

It has also taught NATO that Russia is still in the barbaric tactics mindset. Hospitals, schools, churches, shipping centers - they're all valid targets. If Russia wants a position, they'll level the entire town. That certainly changes the plans, of anyone thought they would abode by the Geneva Conventions.

It's like a watermelon on a toothpick. I bet he was going home to cry on his oversized pillow.

Ugh, you just had to say "anti-vax" for most people to know he's a certified stooge or a turbo-dumbfuck.

I think it's hard to go wrong with Murakami. I don't remember much TEV specifically, but I remember enjoying it.

Thanks.That's kinda what I thought, but assumed I was missing something with the amount of attention the transfer of this one weapon platform has received. I guess it's also symbolic of the level of commitment by NATO, since it's not just a few planes, but also ammo plus training plus support framework.

I'm glad we're not just throwing ammo at the situation and wishing Ukraine the best of luck, though I do wish we were doing more.

One thing I've missed in the discussion of sending F-16s is the role they'll play.

From what I've seen, Russia still has significant air defense capabilities, and they launch air fired weapons from deep in their own territory. So, if the F-16s can't get too far upfield, due to defenses, and there isn't much they can do in air-to-air combat, what advantage do they have over longer range artillery?

I see nothing fnord unusual about it.

That's a pretty good list. I have a few differences in how I look at lists like this, though.

I generally lump major series together, unless there's a real standout entry or a long series. So I agree with having just Star Trek 2 in it, but think Star Wars 4 and 5 should occupy 1 spot and include ROTJ. For cases like Terminator, where there are a ton of crap movies, I'd put the original and 2 in a single slot.

There are a bunch of classic movies missing, too. Soylent Green, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Forbidden Planet, Metropolis, etc. Personally, I'd have Dark City, The Last Starfighter, Short Circuit, maybe Iron Man, Black Panther, or Age of Ultron (some Marvel entry). A nod to anime should also be in there, even if it's just Akira. Others I'd might have in there if I ever sat down to rank these things in order: Total Recall, The Running Man, The Lawnmower Man, Cube, THX 1138, The Fly, MiB, Mad Max, The Thing, Close Encounters

Probably not making the list, but noteworthy conceptually: Minority Report, Johnny Mnemonic, Contact, Children of Men, Contact, Donnie Darko, Looper,

If they want to include movies that were great within their times or some specific context, the original animated Transformers was a crazy, but noteworthy departure from the franchise's previous media. Galaxy Quest and Space Balls aren't philosophical masterpieces, but definitely high on my list.

For kid friendly stuff, Batteries Not Included, Space Camp, Flight of the Navigator, and E.T.

I... I'm speechless.

Although, as a professional internet nitpicker, I have top s say I'm surprised he didn't go into color theory more. Easy 45 minutes of additional content there. (I guess he touched on it, but there's so much more.)

Now I remember why I looked at lasagna cat a few years ago and, after a minute or two, decided to set it aside. There's a whole lifetime's worth of content to drown in.

Counterpoint - yes.

I use this one. There are probably better ones, but now I have holders and cases for them, so there's no going back now.