TBA, James Cameron's sequel to Prometheus

JIMINY_FUCKIT · 2012-05-26T14:54:16.497741+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(film)

Development on a fifth film in the Alien franchise was in progress by 2002. At the time, Scott was considering returning to the series he created with his 1979 science fiction horror film Alien, to pursue a sequel that would explore the engineered origins of the series' Alien antagonists,[47] and the "space jockey"—the extraterrestrial being, who briefly appears in Alien, as the deceased pilot of a derelict spaceship.[48] Alien star Sigourney Weaver also expressed interest in returning to the series.[49] Aliens director James Cameron discussed the potential for a sequel with Scott, and began working with another writer on a story for the film. It was then that 20th Century Fox approached Cameron with a script for a crossover film that would pit the series' monsters against the titular characters of the Predator films; what would become the 2004 science fiction film Alien vs. Predator.[50] After Fox confirmed that it would pursue the crossover, Cameron stopped working on his own project, believing the crossover would "kill the validity of the franchise".[51] In 2006, Cameron confirmed that he would not return to the project, believing that the series was Fox's asset, and he was unwilling to deal with the studio attempting to influence the potential sequel.

Kueeny · 1 day

I once had some coworkers that tried to get a goatse cake. They called up a Kroger grocery store or something. They asked for one of those cakes that have a scanned image on it. They asked the woman on the phone if they would scan dirty pictures. She said they would.

So they went up the store, warned the lady about the picture, and handed it to her. She proceeded to scream at them and told them to leave the store and never come back.

fuzzyferret · 9 days

If you really don't understand, let me explain it to you. We live in a society that actually has an attempt at a criminal justice system. The principle notion of this system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This includes the right to an attorney and a right to be judged by a jury of your peers.

An officer beating a suspect is not part of this system. It's actually an additional crime, called assault.

fuzzyferret · 9 days

That's the stupidest comparison that I've ever heard.

PutMyDickOnYourHead · 9 days

This kid obviously hasn't read the Old Testament.

PutMyDickOnYourHead · 9 days

I'm not so sure.

dc041894 · 9 days

Who the fuck is Manny Pacquiao and why the fuck do I care what he or she said?

King_Rajesh · 15 days

Here's a question: Since theoretically the money was only supposed to resolve the civil side of the case, and assuming that the civil case is still ongoing, it should be possible for him to accept some sort of settlement on the civil case, after the criminal charges against the officers are filed, right?

But I'm going to guess that the settlement is going to be worth much less to them now, since that non-disclosure clause had a lot of value to them.

King_Rajesh · 16 days

I can understand how the police department could settle out of court when they're being sued for a certain amount of money.

But short descriptions in news articles lead me to believe that the police officers would have been completely absolved of any criminal wrongdoing if the father accepted the money. Is that correct? Is public police money being used to prevent criminal justice from being carried out? Shouldn't criminal investigations and charges be carried out, regardless of any agreement with his father? And what's so special about his father compared to other relatives?

EDIT: Ok. Some articles just said that accepting the settlement would "leave the officers unpunished". However, I found this detailed article that said it was only to resolve the civil side of the case. http://www.ocregister.com/news/thomas-310255-kelly-ron.html

So I guess you're just left to wonder if the criminal charges would have ever happened if his father would have been less vocal about it.

King_Rajesh · 16 days

Isn't this some kind of misuse of funds? Where in the budget does this come from? Do they budget out money to pay off family members of people the police murder? Who is the person who offered the money? How does he have the power to do that? What's his side of the story? So many questions.

RunsWithSporks · 19 days

Something tells me that something is wrong when "Clear Channel" isn't mentioned as a media giant, specifically when they're answering a question about radio playlists.

Can someone explain that?

dnite29 · 21 days

And if you were somebody else, you wouldn't be you, you would be them.

Bondator · 21 days

Maybe people should start hiding banelings behind their baneling nests or overlords.

xero841 · 23 days

While I don't see anything wrong in what you said, it does seem like a distraction from the real question: Are there any side effects, in specific, health effects, caused by cell phone radiation?

There is some mild evidence for different side effects, and we should note them and take them seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Non-thermal_effects

Topher216 · 29 days

I bet there are some tolerant religious people that would think the sticker is about why Obama sucks.

Curll · 1 month

I think you hit the nail on the head about atheism having a new meaning. Neil deGrasse Tyson defined it as someone who actively speaks out. It seemed very clear he wants to focus on science and not religion. That's fine.

I have to disagree with you about the "true definition" of an atheist though. Atheism is defined as either a rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or as the absence of belief that deities exist.

I bet if you defined the word "atheist" in different ways, Neil deGrasse Tyson would give different answers to the question. People get too hung up on the word, without really defining what exactly they're talking about.

But it's obvious that Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't want the atheist label attached to him, which I can respect.

IWannaGetFunky · 1 month

Yup. I've seen that guy in Houston. He's "Bulldog Ministries"

http://www.bulldogministries.com/

pryce23 · 1 month

I'm curious, is this really on the same account that you've always been bronze with? I wouldn't think that would be possible.

Daaaaaaaay-o · 1 month

Yeah. The reason I included that was because I honestly think there is some kind of link between the kind of person who cheats, and the kind of person who is always possessive, controlling, and always paranoid they're being cheated on. I don't entirely understand what that link is though.

Me, on the other hand, it's just not something that I ever even thought about.

FailTactics · 1 month

I happened to be browsing proggit and I saw this link: CSI Enhance! - now available online...

I used the two screenshots that were posted in this thread. The results aren't very promising.

http://www.omattos.com/csi-image/?id=de92d9e8c1308c5e398bb34bafd1e6ae

http://www.omattos.com/csi-image/?id=545f6800c5a617e8b89238e9187a0c24

Daaaaaaaay-o · 1 month

I was in a similar situation, except without the violence part. And I didn't marry her.

She would always tell me about how faithful she is. And she would always call me exactly when it was time to leave work. She wanted to see me every day and not hang out with anyone else or else she'd think I was cheating on her. Yeah... it turns out she was cheating on me.

My advice is to take it as a learning experience, and judging by your tl;dr, you have. Now you know exactly what to look for. When you're dating a girl, and she has a huge blow up over something trivial like traffic, run away. When she starts throwing things when she's upset, run away. If she starts screaming at you because you're at a friend's house, run away. Now you know that you'd rather be single than be anywhere near this person.

Zugwalt · 1 month

2 makes a good simple symbolic icon.

4 looks the best though. But sometimes you don't want that much detail.

rosebud93 · 1 month

Are you sure this isn't a screenshot from Grand Theft Auto?

thehague67 · 1 month

You're not fixing the problem. You're making it worse.

Awfa · 1 month

Feel free to correct me, since you know way more about Starcraft than me. But I feel like it's important to make the distinction between 2 workers on a mineral patch and 3 workers on a mineral patch. 2 workers on a mineral patch gives you full utilization of each worker (but it varies by distance of the mineral patch). 3 workers gives you complete "saturation", so that you cannot gain anything by adding another worker.

Good utilization of each worker:

6 gas + 8*2 minerals = 22 on each base * 3 bases = 66 workers

Full saturation:

6 gas + 8*3 minerals = 30 on each base * 3 bases = 90 workers

The reason I wanted to point this out is because even when you have 66 drones on 3 bases, you can still benefit from more drones, although, not as much.

Edit: Oh yeah, and for anyone's mineral questions, this page is pretty good.

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Mining_Minerals

krappie

TROPHY CASE

2 makes a good simple symbolic icon.

4 looks the best though. But sometimes you don't want that much detail.

krappie

TROPHY CASE

2 makes a good simple symbolic icon.

4 looks the best though. But sometimes you don't want that much detail.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login