Questões estratégicas no futebol português

Quem me conhece sabe que não gosto de futebol, e tirando o jogo ocasional em que de facto presto atenção, no fundo o meu único intuito está na cerveja e tremoço, e não no jogo. No entanto não pude deixar passar esta, que coloco aqui, de tão boa que está.

P.S.: A quem é do Benfica, tente ver de uma perspectiva neutra e achar piada, porque até está bem feito... Deixem-se de clubismos! Já chega.

My results on the quiz: What philosophy do you follow?

Well, nice quiz... only one big problem: the wuthor is assuming a guy is religious, or has a religion. Some 5 questions would assume that. For a person that would not believe in God, or even could believe but wouldn't believe that the scriptures would be the 100% word of God (and not even the law of God, since it resembles more the law of men), then how can you disagree or agree with things you can't have an opinnion... Well, but here it goes:

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Hedonism Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Hedonism 95% Existentialism 85% Justice (Fairness) 65% Utilitarianism 50% Kantianism 45% Divine Command 40% Strong Egoism 30% Nihilism 15% Apathy 5%

Indiana Jones 4

Well, what can you say about this movie? Like almost all recent Spielberg movies, Its only to see in theaters. I mean, if you see it this in your house, it will not be such a good experience. This is bad, since with the older Indiana Jones movies, it doesn't matter if we see them on the theater or on our TV screen, it's the same: cool entertainment. But I'm dispersing about this movie. With this I wanted to say it's a nice experience, like seeing Transformers or War of the Worlds: very nice on the theater screen, but I never want to see them again outside of it... So probably I will skip Indiana Jones 4 when its on TV on a Sunday afternoon.
Now about the movie itself, I though it was a weak plot. Yeah, with all Indiana Jones we have something esoteric happening, like the Ark of the Covenant releasing electricity, or some indian guy removing the heart with his bare hands, or a Crusader with 700 years old... Yeah, they all have these unreal stuff, but come on, it's like, 2% of the movie, not 20%. And I'm not including the nuclear explosion. In fact, that was the part I mostly liked in the film, since it had that cheesy connection to the Ark of the Covenant from the first movie. When I saw the warehouse in the theater, I almost though 'they want the ark...'. But returning to the subject, Aliens??? come on... surely Lucas could come up with something better... I mean, Indiana Jones is a arqeologist right. I know there exist lot's of speculation in people about aliens and the South American ancient cultures, but that's it, speculation. Surely they could come up with something different. The Indiana Jones I was expecting to see would have more to do with facts than fantasy.
Now, the rest of the film is very forced and predictable. Who had not though, when Shia LaBeouf refers to his mother, in Marion from the first movie? And the part when she says it was his son, come on, that was so predictable. I was really hoping for that not to happen, not that Shia LaBeouf wouldn't be a good successor, but due to the cliché!!! About the action, the movie has lots of action, and very viewable, but extremely unrealistic. Yeah, jumping from a plane in a rubber boat and surviving is not very realistic, or the several snakes scenes done in the first movie, but in this film, almost all the action is impossible. In a jungle, with almost no roads, have a sword fight on top of a vehicle going 50 km/h... And the shocks, crashes, etc. It's totally unrealistic. If the other movies where like that, this would not be negative... But the fighting scenes in the other movies are realistic. Even the famous scene with Harrison Ford going under the truck... It was filmed, there where no effects, and he had rib injures after that. This in fact is a problem of CGI, and particularly of the latest Spielberg/Lucas films (taking out the Munich). They have so much CGI available and they put it in almost every tough scene (...otherwise it would be difficult to shoot), that somewhere they've stopped asking: Is this possible? Could this really happen? Is this bullshit? (the other day I've made a post about Shoot'em Up with Clive Owen... this is the perfect example of a movie where they put the impossible and try to pass it like real).
To end, I heard there will be an Indiana Jones 5, which will also be the first double sequel to another well known set of films: Indiana Jones meets Starwars: the raiders of the lost Lightsaber. Oh yeah, now you will be able to see Indiana learning the way's of the force with Yoda.

On animal rights and sterilization: the other side

I believe many people would like that animals have rights and that there would exist laws concerning their welfare. In fact in some countries this exists and I'm also in favor of that. But It also looks like that the most active participants of this are animal owners (I mean, the domestic ones).
I should warn now that I don't have pets, that my mother always told me pets should be free and have their own lives, not their owner's lives and I also don't stand for the sentimental bullshit that some people come to me saying 'you don't know the joy of having a pet' or whatever. I know people who owns animals and In this question (as in all) I try to be rational and pragmatic when possible.
I find most confusing when people who speak for animal rights and that they are sentient beings, thus possessing will, are capable of sterilize them, some without any moral or ethical problems. I mean, isn't that hypocrisy? To say they have a will to choose a path, however they should submit to their owner's will and be sterile? Doesn't sound right to me. Of course, what most pet owner's I know would say: 'it's a matter of public health'. Well, I agree, the society is more important as collective entity than any individual entity, and thus even in life and death the society is more important. In fact, speaking in Darwinistic terms, the sterilization of an animal or human is a genetic homicide. So, in terms of public health, because the society is large enough to have a power of life or death over an individual (even if the society does not enforce it), it can say 'sterilize those animals'. Nevertheless, I don't think this is the motivation pet owner's have in mind when sterilizing them. I think this public health thing acts more like an excuse than a motivation, a pretext to the fact that it would be nice not having the cat pissing the floor to declare territory when in puberty. And who wants to have the dog horny around, or being afraid of suddenly realizing the bely of our female animal is increasing. Yeah, people don't want to be responsible for those things, those 'natural' things. All they want is a fur ball that moves and is funny. They don't really respect animals nor their natural will (and genetic mission), they want fur balls, and they will go to the point of saying 'my pet is more happy in being with me, even if he is sterile, than of living on the street. It's better for him.'. I have heard this sentence in the past, and I'm not kidding. These owner's are totally sensible for animal suffering, but not with animal rights. Who says otherwise is being hypocrite. Come on, nobody in it's perfect mind would think 'maybe I should put my son sterile, if I do this, he will never have puberty problems'. Having said this, if a owner just comes here saying 'you can't compare a children with a pet', then I hope he also says he doesn't agree with this whole thing on animal rights.
I could go on, but I've just exposed my point on the subject, and maybe I will continue on another day. But I must say that for me, the only difference in pet sterilization (due to the unwilling of the owner to cope with the animal puberty and nature), and the infamous 'bonsai cats' (some serious sick shit of having cats inside bottles during their growth to have them become small for the rest of their life's), is on the animal suffering, because on the philosophical question of respecting the animal will and nature, it's the same: these people want fur balls, not animals.
My advice: let the animals be free and live their own lifes.