It was the 2003 version with Takeshi Takano rather than Katsu Shintaro playing the lead role. Without the weird song and dance number it would have been a very solid entry (despite the digital blood).
- 帖子
- 3
- 评论
- 1222
- 加入于
- 2 yr. ago
- 帖子
- 3
- 评论
- 1222
- 加入于
- 2 yr. ago
I have NEVER watched a Hindi movie. The closest I got was the most recent Zatoichi film, which had a weird-ass song-and-dance number at the end that was totally unrelated to the entire film. But scrolling through Netflix, it still keeps suggesting Hindi films for me, "because you liked...!"
I do watch some K-horror (Train to Busan, The Wailing, Thirst, etc.), Japanese chambara (the above mentioned Zatoichi, Lone Wolf and Cub, Hanzo the Razor--which is solidly pinku-eiga--and others), and sometimes Chinese historical pieces. I've watched a few Malay and Indonesian horror films as well. Some of the Asian television series are pretty great; I was really enjoying Gyeongseong Creature and Kingdom. I've tried watching Japanese TV, and the stuff I've seen has just been bad. I don't think I've come across any Chinese TV shows that have interested me.
An M134 shoots up to 6000 rounds per minute, and it shoots 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Win). 12 seconds would be a maximum of 1200 rounds. If I'm buying some of the very best match-grade ammunition I can get (Hornady 168gr ELD-M) at $2.15/round, that works out to a maximum of $2580. Which ain't chump change, but is still about $397,420 short of $400,000.
Keep it up, Canada! If you guys can crash the economy in Florida, and kill the GOP's stranglehold there, that would be fantastic!
Man, I have such mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, it would mean that Netflix would stop trying to push shitty Bollywood films on me (seriously, if I could prevent all Hindi films from showing up on my Netflix forever, I would absolutely do that). On the other hand it would mean that the really darkly melancholic Euro films would also be off the menu.
Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program
And yet, none of the people writing laws can understand these things. Nor do cops, most people in the military, or--in all likelihood--you. But by golly, they're going to write laws about them, even if they have no idea what the laws they're writing will actually do!
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all.
Yeah, it's almost like what passes for a "political left" in the USA is a completely watered down, neutered version of the left, and is more interested in circular firing squads than actually doing something, huh?
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control.
Cops and ex-mil are not usually people I'd say know guns. When I say "know guns", I don't mean just that they know how to shoot--which most cops and mil people can't do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they're designed the way that they are. I mean, how many cops or military people can tell you exactly what the difference is between, say, a direct impingement and a piston system? Or what the different kind of delayed blowback mechanisms are? Or what the technical differences are between and AR-15 that's capable of being select fire, and one that isn't?
And, even more than that, when you look at history, it's clear that the second amendment was intended to ensure that the people had access to militarily-suitable arms. We're right at the point of gov't tyranny right NOW, and Dems want to disarm people? So, what?, we can have a King Trump I?
I would not ever call a 1911 "reliable". You need to keep up with the spring replacement (500-2000 rounds for the recoil spring), and you need to make sure that you're keeping them very clean. I've had the slide stop walk out on mine in the middle of a stage, which created a stoppage that couldn't be fixed on the clock.
It would not be my first recommendation for a carry gun.
For reliable, I'd go with a major-name striker-fired polymer framed pistol. And by "reliable" I mean a gun that you can forget to clean for 2000+ rounds, and it still works well.
That said, my carry gun is a CZ Shadow 2 Compact. It's also not 'reliable'; it's going to take a lot more work than a Glock 19. I'm okay with that. And I knew that going in.
My opinion is strictly anecdotal; I'm not a professional, I can only speak to what I've personally seen, and that may or may not be representative.
OTOH, if sex and relationship counselors are saying that the overwhelming majority of people are doing multiamory badly, then their opinions have a lot more weight. Are they necessarily correct? No, of course not, any more than the opinion of any one doctor could be full of shit (see also: any doctor that thinks trans-ideology is a woke-mind virus, or whatever they're saying now). But it has a lot more weight than opinions of non-professionals.
You will get zero people that have real knowledge and understanding of weapon systems advising legislators on ways to ban them.
AR-15 rifles also covers select fire variants. The original AR-15 made by Eugene Stoner was select fire only. The assault rifle/assault weapon distinction is functionally meaningless, and really only applies to the military. Oh, you'll get fudds that will claim otherwise, but they're also the ones claiming that a 1911 is the best gun ever because "TwO WorLD wARs!".
None of what I said is restricted to any specific form of multiamorous relationship, or any sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Most of the people trying to engage in polyerotic relationships--by which I mean the overwhelming majority--are people that have signed up for an ultramarathon before they can successfully complete a 5k fun run.
<serious>
They mostly don't. Poly people think they do, but you see far, far more relationship volatility in polyerotic relationships than you do in monogamous.Edit: I see that I'm getting downvoted by the people that are in non-monogamous relationships. Fact is that when you talk to sex-positive sex and relationship counselors, they will almost universally say that functional polyerotic relationships are the equivalent of post-doctoral work, while most people have relationship abilities equivalent to a barely-literate middle school level. It's not that multiamorous relationships are bad or wrong, or that the people that engage in them are wretched examples of humans (...although there are certainly more than a few of those) or anything like that, but to be functional that type of relationship requires a far greater level of self-awareness and honesty than most people are capable of. Hence the reason that they tend to be so volatile; more moving parts, more chances to fuck up.
In my personal experience I have found that most multiamorous relationships are more casual and less emotionally intimate (e.g., more shallow) than monogamous relationships. The people I have personally observed, including my own partners, have had less time to spend with any single person, and were more likely to jettison relationships rather than putting in the hard work to fix problems.
Oriental shorthair. They sound very unusual too.
Were you around in the heyday of bmezine when Shannon was still alive? And didn't i hear something a while back about Luna Cobra currently living somewhere in Australia?
I've known a few people that have also implanted RFID chips that they can then reprogram transdermally. They can do things like set them to have the same permissions as a security badge, for instance. Cool shit.
Too big.
The NRA gave up their 'jack-booted thugs' rhetoric and started kissing Republican asses when Bush Jr. was president. Bush very publicly renounced his lifetime membership over LaPierre's--very, very reasonable and measured--stance that the feds were shitty people. The NRA caved rather than continue to speak the obvious truth, and they've had a fetish for licking cop boots ever since.
My experience certainly does.
I've worked with some really great people. But maybe 1 in 5 or so was a loudmouthed shitbag, and when you called them on being shitty, they either threatened you, or acted like it was all a joke or a big misunderstanding, and you were at fault for being upset, etc. I can't guarantee that the shitty people I've known have harassed women, but the probability seems high.
Good managers are able to allocate resources--particularly human resources--to complete a task. I know that it's a common trope to think that managers only take value instead of adding it, but it's simply not true; processes and production are less efficient without effective management.
People working in production shouldn't have to deal with clients/customers, nor should they be expected to coordinate with vendors, or even all other people involved in production. Production people are hired for their skill/expertise in production, so they should be left to do their job rather than taking on more jobs.
The flip side is that ineffective management can make processes and production less efficient than they would be without any management at all.
I would have to look up names, but yes, all of the sex therapists and relationship counselors that I have personally heard talking about it specifically say that it's a very advanced form of relationship, that it's far, far more difficult than any conventional/monogamous relationship, and that most of the people doing them are doing them badly.
Is that authoritative? No. There definitely could be selection bias in that the podcasts and interviews that I choose to listen to, and the articles that I choose to read, that touch on sex, sexuality, and relationships are also ones that will confirm my opinion. (And this opinion, BTW, did not exist before I was in a multiamorous relationship for about 3, maybe 4 years.) I like to think that I'm pretty open about sex, sexuality, and relationships, that I don't assign any particular morality to any given practice, and that I look largely at how well people find their own individual needs being met within relationships rather than whether the structure is A or B. But, at the same time, I was raised in a culture that is primarily monogamous (often serially monogamous), and normalizes that style of relationship, so I might have unconscious implicit bias.