allonymous

I just got back from watching it, and from everything I've read on this subreddit I was expecting it to be crappy and full of plot holes, but it was actually really good.

The hate seems especially strange coming from sci-fi fans considering that there isn't a sci-fi film ever made that actually made sense from a science perspective. As far as I could tell, this movie made at least as much sense as 2001: A Space Odyssey or the original Alien or Blade Runner, so I'm not sure why you all don't like it. Anyone want to clue me in, or just circle jerk with me about how awesome it was?

It also has a slot for gameboy advance cartridges, for those of you who didn't already know that.

I have her name in my family's secret santa this year and am stumped for what to get her.

It's been asked before and didn't get many responses, but I figured there might be a lot of people like me who bought the soundtrack this last time it was on sale on steam.

They use that statistic on the news a lot, but I can't really think of a good way for how they could have tested it. With drunk driving I believe they use random traffic stops to develop a base line for how often people drive drunk, and then can compare that to how often drunk people and non-drunk people get into accidents, but I don't see how that would work for texting.

Like many people on reddit, I like a lot of Ron Paul's platform (like his foreign policy) and other parts scare me (like getting rid of environmental regulations), but what subset of the things he wants to do would he actually be able to do as president?

I read an article recently where a woman claimed that we developed steam powered farming equipment only once slavery wasn't an option (necessity is the mother of invention). I always assumed that it was the other way around, that people gave up slavery once it was no longer a necessity for farming (at least in the north). Which is correct? Or are we both equally wrong?