"Fog of War"

@alexgreat:

Horta, Tholians, Sheliak, Species 8472, Calamarain, Tribbles, to name a few on the top of my head. And then there are aliens like Gorn, which I guess could pass as humanoids in a way.

Just because those pretty dancers have lekku doesnt mean they are non-humanoid, and the same goes for wings of Geonosians.

Comparing not only screened aliens (would be unfair I guess) but all things in the books as well, I dont think that Star Wars has more biodiversity. And in any case humanoids cannot come cooler than Romulans :)

And as Wheat said, Star Trek explained why there are so many humanoids, in I guess another attempt to picture our similarities, not our differences.

So having said all that, both franchises are great if you include the books, but Star Trek is maybe richer overall, with more time devoted to more cultures.

Agree with Wheat, SciFi cannot come better than as DS9.

@wheatbeer:

@amanntai:

I just find the aliens in Star Trek boring. They all look like humans. Vulcans are humans with pointy ears. Klingons are humans with weird foreheads.
Star Wars has more biodiversity in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

This episode sort of explained away the similarities but saying that life was seeded by some earlier species.

Most Star Wars aliens are still bipedal, with heads featuring eyes/nose/mouth/ears, who communicate with vocalizations. A truly alien creature wouldn’t be able to emote for a human audience.

(and just in case, I didn’t geek out enough already, Star Trek aliens have more deeply developed cultures than Star Wars aliens)

I wasn’t thinking of Twi’leks. I was thinking of Hutts, Ortolans, Wampas, or the Sarlacc (which is indeed a sapient creature in the Star Wars universe).

I also believe the humanoid species in Star Wars are considerably less human than the humanoids in Star Trek. Dugs are technically humanoid, but don’t really look like humans.

Also, Geonosians aren’t really humanoid. Just take a look at the Geonosian Queen, she doesn’t resemble humans at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-Jd_gV_oQ

Hard to top that.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Just saw Skyfall. Horrible movie. Bad script. Boring movie. Don’t waste your money.

You’re right, I was being to nice in my last post…. it sucked.

@Amon:

@cyan:

@Petrucci08:

The indian Sepoy mutiny of 1857.

…. and if you stretched it enough i suppose you could call the reformation a civil war in the church  :-D

they forgot a lot of them without haveing to strech. like all the english civil wars and the glorious revolution. and they forgot the war where more americans died than any other war. (also happens to be the second modern war) the Civil War. (what a creative name) Does the Hungarian Revolution count as one and all the other minor communist revolts. Does Italian Renuifaction count as a civil war. because it just this one dude going around and forcing others to join the great italian cause. but someone said something about Greece. they did have a civil war right after world war I i think.

Greece had its civil war after WWII

the communists tried to seize power

the USA and UK backed up anticommunist forces which eventually win

very important event was closing the borders of Yugoslavia and Albania to Greece, that how Greek communists found themselves trapped
-it happened after the Tito-Stalin split

and the Greek communists were i think ideologicaly connected to Soviets

yeah i think that happened after both wars. first the brits and the french were dividing up Turkey and the Russians and Americans created the coldwar.

even if the mexicans didnt really contribute that much, due to PC, we need to have revisionist history to make the mexicans happy.

LOL! spot on but  its better to just leave it as American contribution and leave out the race BS. 85% of those who fought as US GI were Anglos anyway why even bother to mention the others? Vietnam was another story.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/52966.htm

Who needs Pierce Brosnan when you got de real thing?

I think he’s absolutely correct.
Many Canadians deplore Jean Cretien (Canada’s P.M.) for stating at the recent G8 meetings some similar things (i.e. it is unrealistic and dangerous for a member to have this kind of a deficit - especially in an increasing world economy where we all rely on each other to some degree). At the same time, i agree that this has the potential to be extremely problematic.
At the same time, in periods of economic downturn - which the US has seen in spades (not the least of its causes were 9/11) - it is economically viable (and good sense) to run a deficit - the depth of which is difficult to determine. Presumably GWB has a few half-decent economists working with him. The problem is - are they saying “oh, great idea boss” to appease GWB, or because in their estimation it’s a good idea?
As for his tax-cutting strat - i completely agree. Basic economic theory demonstrates that if you wish to stimulate the economy you have better growth by injecting money than by cutting taxes DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR. Also he’s correct by stating that the tax cuts to the poor would provide better economic stimulus than to the wealthy.
Which brings us to ask - why these types of economic decisions? As i said - certainly he has the best economists in the nation helping out. Is he relying on political - rather than economical - advisors?
(my guess is “yes”)

Y,
Try some Zappa,Metallica, or Pink.
–-------------------------------------------------------------
NAME THAT QUOTE
“…and the survey says…”