 the same idea. After finding out that the businessman who Rakesh approached has used his idea to make money, he and Vimmi con him and take money they believe is rightly theirs. Once they realise how easy it is to con people, they decide to run some more cons to raise money to make it to Bombay. Unfortunately for India, they find the lifestyle too exciting to give up. Adopting the names of 'Bunty' and 'Babli', they successfully pull off con after con, looting rich people dressed as local guides, religious priests, health inspectors, business partners, etc. Their flamboyant antics make them famous in newspapers nationwide. Soon their friendship leads to romance and they... My question: Who pursues Rakesh and Vimmi across India?
****
[A]: Dashrath


[Q]: I am a movie director and I just received the following movie plot. Could you help me answer this question? If not, let me know by writing "Not answerable".  Plot title: King Kong Lives Movie plot: King Kong, after being shot down from the World Trade Center, is kept alive in a coma for about 10 years at the Atlanta Institute, under the care of surgeon Dr. Amy Franklin (Linda Hamilton). In order to save Kong's life, Dr. Franklin must perform a heart transplant and give Kong a computer-monitored artificial heart. However, he lost so much blood that a transfusion is badly needed, and to complicate matters, Franklin says there is no species of ape or other animal whose blood type matches Kong's. Enter adventurer Hank "Mitch" Mitchell (Brian Kerwin), who captures a giant female gorilla, who is dubbed "Lady Kong"; in Borneo (Mitchell theorizes that Borneo and the island from the first movie were once part of the same landmass), bringing her to the Institute so her blood can be used for Kong's operation. The transfusion and the heart transplant are a success, but Kong escapes along with the female. Archie Nevitt (John Ashton), an insane army lieutenant colonel, is called in with his men to hunt down and kill the two apes. Lady Kong is captured alive by Nevitt's troops and imprisoned; Kong falls from a cliff and is presumed dead. But as Franklin and Mitchell soon discover, Kong's artificial heart is beginning to give out, forcing them to try a jailbreak only to discover that Lady Kong is pregnant with Kong's offspring. The jailbreak is successful thanks to Kong, who survived his fall and breaks his mate out. After being followed, attacked, and shot by the military, Kong kills Lt. Col Nevitt and dies slowly near a military base on a farm where Lady Kong gives birth to a healthy baby son. Kong reaches out to touch his son just before dying. Returned to Borneo, Lady Kong is now living peacefully with her son in the jungle. My question: What was King Kong shot down from?
****
[A]:
World Trade CenterFor my money I thought even forcing it to have the swastikas removed was pretty ridiculous. However I see it in a somewhat different light compared to the Chinese ban, as it's coming from a social issues reasoning and what is (thought to be) at stake is preventing genocide where it's already happened once. That to me is more legitimate than banning anything for political reasons, which I can't imagine happening in any Western country - at least not without a massive uproar and backlash.  They're doubly different when the ban is happening so the current genocides can continue smoothly on their way.It's summer and important things are happening...
Anyway, we came across this Mythbusters, which is pretty darn cool. Here, take a peek...
Pretty crazy, right? Who'd of thunk it? I am a bit worried that my kids are going to try to and stick a bunch of food in the dishwasher in hopes of cooking it. I guess if they do, the next video they'll be watching is how to clean gummed up food out of your dishwasher.
Ha! This post was supposed to be about our big summer bucket lists! (OOPS!) I kind of think dishwasher lasagna deserves center stage, don't you? (SORRY!) I promise some actual content in my next post!!Given the authorities’ dousing of any inflammatory news about civil uprisings against long-standing leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East, this Bystander is not surprised that the full fire hose of state propaganda and security was directed at the putative protests called in 13 Chinese cities this weekend. They were in any event damp squibs, seemingly occurring only in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou–if gatherings where police and onlookers believing a crowd was gathering because of the presence of a celebrity heavily outnumbers demonstrators can be called a protest. Even the arrests were in single figures.
It is no secret that the Party leadership has long been concerned about threats to its legitimacy to rule coming from the tens of thousands of protests that break out every year across the country. These are born of grievances over a myriad of local complaints about everything from corrupt officialdom to land disputes and environmental degradation. President Hu Jintao’s drive to create a harmonious society and to close the growing wealth gap in the country is an attempt to nip in the bud the potential civil unrest–and political groups–that could grow from all these.
So longstanding has been this concern that Beijing has already put in place the propaganda and security tools to control the information war. Like the telecoms and cable companies in the U.S. it understands that it is the sovereign of the Internet infrastructure that rules the Internet’s content. Within the Great Firewall, Google, Twitter and Facebook can’t help grass roots activists get around official censorship in China in the way they have facilitated in the Middle East with new software services such as Speak To Tweet. The companies aren’t present in China or in Google’s case, are heavily controlled. Local equivalents, particularly the microblog services, have patriotic obligations put upon them. Independent blogs and news sites get closed down in short order. An army of official posters and censors puts up pro-governement posts and takes down any deviating from the Party line. Mainstream media is overwhelming state run and, where not, expected to follow the guidance of Xinhua, especially when it comes to news reporting and commentary. The Politburo has reinforced the rules since Hosni Murbarak was forced to resign as president of Egypt earlier this month, and the Propaganda Department stepped up enforcement, including guidance to tone down reporting of any local incidents of disturbances.
This weekend, President Hu Jintao outlined eight points for strengthening the Party’s management over social order. The reemergence of the term social management indicates some sort of compromise, or stand-off, between the Party’s hardliners and reformers. Among the eight was one calling for tighter management over what is being said over the Internet, though Harmonious Hu also stressed the need to address the underlying problems causing the societal issues:
Further strengthen and improve controls on the information web, raising our level of control over virtual society, and perfecting our mechanisms for the channeling of public opinion online.
The goal is not anything as crude and easily criticized as shutting down the Internet or even to shut down the online conversation, but to cower and control it, with the hard and well practiced power of preemptive rounding up of dissidents providing the steel within the velvet glove.
Gene Sharp, the American nonagenarian academic who wrote the handbook on the non-violent overthrow of dictators, From Dictatorship to Democracy, a pamphlet that has been used by activists from Indonesia to Serbia to oust governments, but which, equally, provides a readymade excuse for any dictator that the U.S. is behind attempts to unseat them, argues that the power of dictatorships comes from the willing obedience of the people they govern, and that regimes don’t fall until the people withhold that consent. The Party understands that and is determined not to let itself get pushed to anywhere near that point.
Beijing has got ahead of this in a way that no authoritarian ruler in the Middle East had even begun to think about until recently. In China, the outbreak of the unrest in the Middle East, and particularly the toppling of leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, has sharpened Beijing’s need to be on top of its game. But it is one that it has been playing for a long time. Sharp’s argument for not taking the violent path to revolution is that that means taking on a regime’s best weapons. In many countries where social media have helped force regime change, the authorities were not just outgunned on the Internet, they didn’t know how to fight there or even that it was a theatre of war. It is far from clear that that is the case with China. We have even heard suggestions that the calls for his weekend’s protests were no more than an elaborate official fire drill.
Authoritarian regimes don’t fall because a few activists have read a pamphlet and put out a few Tweets. Conditions within a society have to be ripe. Uprisings to overthrow the Tsars in Russia failed in 1905-06 but succeeded in 1917; Murbarak was able to put down protests against his regime in 2006 but not this year. In both cases conditions on the ground had changed. We don’t believe conditions are ripe in China at this point to support a popular uprising that could overthrow the Party non-violently. We do believe the seeds for such conditions exist. Whether they flourish of wither is as much in the hands of the Party as it is in those of the people.