April 18, 2015, 09:15:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 41
1441  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / RSS- am I missing something? on: June 28, 2005, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
RSS is a godsend -- its helped me find and keep track of content I never would have seen back in the days when I just browsed through my bookmarks.

I guess this is what Im not getting.  What exactly is different?  How does it differ from your bookmarks?

Let's say I had the 100 sites I've got RSS feeds from in NNW in my bookmarks. How would I tell if they were updated? How would I know when new content was posted? NNW pings the feeds of those sites every 30 minutes. I know pretty much instantly whenever news breaks in the Mac world, or when Corey Doctorow publishes a new story or novel, etc. It would take me more than 30 minutes just to browse each of those 100 sites to see if they've been updated. NNW aggregates all that information into a unified interface and does all the work for me. I'm never out of touch, never out of date.
1442  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / RSS- am I missing something? on: June 28, 2005, 03:08:34 AM
RSS is transglorious. It's "push" done right. I use RSS to keep track of around 100 different feeds, ranging from technology news to political news to websites hosted by my friends. And since my aggregator includes a built in implementation of Apple's WebKit, I don't even have to leave it to feeds in their HTML form or visit linked sites.

Of course, this is on a Mac. I've yet to find an RSS reader worth spitting on in the Windows world (Thunderbird sort of comes close).

Click for larger version.

That's NetNewsWire 2.0 on Mac OS X Tiger. Along the left are groupings and individual feeds, as well as "Smart Lists" at the top -- lists which aggregate all instances of certain words (such as "Tiger") in all of my feeds and present them in an extrapolated list.

You can also browse sites directly in NetNewsWire:

Click for larger version.

I'd say I spend close to 50% of my "Web" time in NetNewsWire, as opposed to Safari. RSS is a godsend -- its helped me find and keep track of content I never would have seen back in the days when I just browsed through my bookmarks.
1443  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Serenity Trailer - HOLY CRAP!!!! on: June 25, 2005, 03:45:25 PM
Not only should the intro be on the DVD, I wish there were a way to show a shortened, or reshot, version of it before the actual theatrical release. That was a great introduction, and even choked me up a bit.

The movie was a rollercoaster -- an absolutely fabulous rollercoaster. I can't say enough good things about it .... or much more about it in a spoiler-free thread.
1444  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 21, 2005, 04:07:13 PM
Quote from: "unbreakable"
I havent read any Superman in a really long time, but I dont remember Kent being an insecure weenie in the comics, and he wasnt in the cartoon either.  IMO, the DC cartoons are much closer to canon than the movies ever were.

The cartoons, and likely the comics you've read, were all Post-Crisis. The Post-Crisis Clark Kent is very much not a weenie, is the dominant personality and in the end is the one who gets the girl.

The Pre-Crisis Clark Kent was inconsistent, but was often the meek, bumbling bufoon Quentin Tarantino's Bill talks about.
1445  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 20, 2005, 11:48:12 PM
The worstest thing about Crusade is that we were PROMISED a show about rangers, and what we got was a Gilligan's Island plot (ie, no resolution or its all over) and Gary Cole in a very un-Office Space (ie, sucky) performance.

Galen the Techno Wanker was the deathblow.

Of course, I have very little interest in any B5 story or show without Londo, so I could be biased.
1446  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 20, 2005, 11:38:22 PM
Quote from: "Dafones"
Ehh, watch the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 to hear Tarantino's opinion on Kal-El's identity.

Actually, the dialogue from Kill Bill v.2 was taken, if not word for word, then certainly thoguht for thought, from Stanley Kauffmann's review of the first Superman movie for the 13 January, 1979, issue of the New Republic.
1447  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 20, 2005, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: "Jumangi"
Don't bother with the movies. They range from ok, to crap IMO. Just felt like weak/cheap addons that didn't add anything to the B5 universe.

And the same goes for "Crusade."
1448  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 07:40:21 PM
In 1985, DC rebooted its continuity. Many characters, including Superman, were completely revamped. Superman's powers were drastically scaled down, the Superman/Clark Kent dominant personality dynamic was inverted, Lex Luthor was changed dramatically, Lois Lane was made a more direct love interest for Clark, not Superman, etc, etc, etc.

Pre-Crisis (a la the Donner film) Superman had powers from the word "goo goo." His parents were dead. He could travel through time. There were all varieties of Kryptonite. Lex Luthor was  mad-man/scientist.

Post-Crisis, Superman's powers developed gradually over time. Green kryptonite is the only "real" form of Kryptonite -- though other varieties can be artificially created. Superman cannot travel through time at will, nor is he anywhere near as strong as he was in 1984. Lex Luthor was an award-winning scientist, a billionaire industrialist, the US President, and now the leader of an international organization of supervillains.

In effect, there are two very different characters which to the public seem like the same character: Superman. Whether one is discussing pre- or post-Crisis Superman makes a large difference in the nature of the character. Things that would have been sacrelige in the pre-Crisis era (such as asserting that Superman was a fake identity for Clark Kent, not vice versa) are part of the basic continuity of the post-Crisis era.

Umm... as an on-topic comment, Batman didn't change much as a result of Crisis.
1449  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 05:02:16 PM
Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Doesn't anyone except me have a problem with the idea of Lex Luthor being portrayed as some loner wacko hanging around in an abandoned subway station, ranting to himself and his two lackeys and antagonizing Superman for no apparent reason?  I'm no comic book buff, but Gene Hackman's version of Lex Luthor seems pretty radically different from every other version of the character I've seen -- it couldn't have been much campier if they'd cast William Shatner.

Yeah, Hackman's Luthor was a bit too campy. Of course, pre-Crisis Luthor was a lot campier than post-Crisis Luthor.
1450  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 18, 2005, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: "Dafones"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.

Wait, waa? Why would he have to be on earth for 12 years? Superman as a wee child lifted up the Kents' truck moments after landing on Earth.

Brodie's conversation takes place post-Crisis.
1451  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: "farley2k"
I think it is fair to say that Fireball cares more about Superman 2 than I have ever cared about a movie.

It's not Superman 2. I like Superman 2 just fine -- but it's only a silly, meaningless movie. It's Superman 1 that matters. It's a seminal film, one that created a genre, one that still stands up today because it has a powerful, coherent story, despite aged special effects.

I wrote a course paper on Superman as part of my film minor in college.
1452  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
Fireball1244 - you sure have it in for Lester don't you? :wink:

If I had a dollar for each time you mentioned Lester vs. Donner...

That's because the difference in style between Lester and Donner is the entire reason Superman II fails to match the original -- it has no coherent theme, no consistent tone, and lurches from Donner's more serious picture to Lester's hokey nonsense (epitomized by Superman III) from scene to scene.

Anyway, the green crystal thing.  Come on use some imagination here. :wink:

When the audience has to "use imagination" and come up with rationalizations that contradict the universe as presented on screen in order to make the plot coherent, that's called bad screenwriting.

He picked up the green crystal and used it to re-construct the crystal control panel so that he can get back into the chamber and bring his powers back!

How? The chamber was contained "red sun" energy -- that energy could NOT be used to restore Superman's powers.

Yes, they don't show this on film, but it is implied.

Implied major changes for characters -- in this case, half of Kal-el's arc for Superman 2 is being "implied" -- is BAD writing.

He just didn't "magically hold the crystal" and his powers came back.

From the story presented on screen, that's precisely what happened.

If the crystal can create the entire Fortress of Solitude then it can certainly rebuild the crystal control panel.

Which, from what we've seen of that panel and the devices in the Fortress, gets Superman NO closer to having his powers restored.

What's wrong with comprehending the powers in that kiss?

The fact that Superman doesn't have those powers. In any case, it was the coffee, not the kiss. I  checked my copy of the original screenplay.

Like I said, if he can shoot lasers from his eyes, blow subzero breaths, and disappear/reappear, then we can suspend some disbelief and accept the "forgetfullness" powers of the kiss.  At least I can.

You seem far too willing to suspend disbelief of things that fly completely against the character.

The idea about losing your powers to "be" with a human is also implied and again I used my imagination.

Everytime you have to "use your imagination" to rationalize away a plot point that doesn't make sense based solely on the film is an indictment of the incompetence of the filmmakers. You're not supposed to "imagine" the character arc.

I really got attached to Lois Lane, Ursa, & Zod.  Terrence Stamp was brilliant as Zod.  Ursa was gorgeous and kick ass.  Lois Lane, well, I always loved Margot Kidder and her raspy voice! :wink:

You are right about Superman III.  Now there was bad casting - Richard Prior???

It should be pointed out that Donner cast everyone you liked. And Lester cast Richard Pryor in Superman III. smile
1453  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 06:32:20 PM
Brodie's funny, but wrong. It would take Superbaby 12 years or so of direct contact to sunlight to "power up" enough to have superstrength.
1454  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Scary stuff - Big Brother wants to watch your ISP on: June 17, 2005, 06:25:18 PM
The notion that only people who "have something to hide" should be concerned about such egregious violations of our privacy is spurious at best, dangerous at worst.
1455  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 06:16:47 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
I rather liked this beginning.  Besides, making the sequal a part of the first movie would have just watered them both down in my opinion.  For me this is an example of getting too much information.  The same thing happened with KOTOR 2.  Until people starting reading about what was cut they really liked the game.  I'm just wondering if you didn't somehow find and read about the proper draft would you have still liked the way the movie opened?

The movie's opening is bad because it's poorly written and executed. The reason it's poorly written and executed is because it was directed by Richard Lester, not Richard Donner, because the Salkinds screwed with the story and fired Donner when he wouldn't go along.

I don't think Superman and Superman II would have worked as one film. However, creating redundant elements in Superman II (yet ANOTHER nuclear explosion in space) simply because Lester wanted the film to be more "his" separates the film from Superman needlessly, and weakens the story.

I thought it was his kiss that had some kind of power to affect the mind and make her forget.

Superman doesn't have that power. It is untrue to the character to just up and give it to him.

A stretch I know, but anyone who can shoot lasers from their eyes I guess we can't really complain about the power in that kiss.

Yes we can. It's not a Superman power. Superman can't do that. Superman has a fairly specific set of powers. Magic superkiss is not one of them.

I believe he had to give up his powers because he could not have "physical relations" with a human due to his super abilities.  His father or mother (can't remember who) told him this when he was studying one of the crystals.

That is nowhere in the film.

This is how I saw it.  Did you notice the first time he takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude he shows her the green crystal, trying to explain to her how it "called to him".  Then she says she is hungry and he says I will be right back.  When he gets back she puts the crystal down on the ice and the camera focuses on it.  That's a clue right there because when he goes back later to try and get his powers back, seeing the main control panel burnt out he realizes all is lost.  Until he notices the green crystal lying on the ice right where she left it.  What luck!  So there is reasoning behind getting his powers back.

That's not reasoning. Reasoning would explain or at least indicate how it is that the green crystal can do that. We all know it was the green crystal that gave Superman back his powers. That's right there on the screen. But it appears that just finding it gave them back -- that's not a journey, that's not an accomplishment -- that's certainly NOT drama. He walks to the Fortress, picks up the green crystal, and from all we know, magically his powers are instantly restored -- which completely contradicts what his mother was saying in the crystal message. That is poor writing. Pathetic writing, even.

And no suffering?  How about the three villians rampaging around destroying everything, taking over the White House, and he himself getting punched out in the diner.  Plus, the fact that he realizes too late that what he did (losing the powers) was wrong and he realizes now why he is here.  Seems like suffering enough to me.

That's NOT suffering to GET his powers back -- that's suffering BECAUSE his powers are gone. Getting beaten up in the bar was not a step towards what should have been his final acceptance of his destiny as Superman. At that point, he wasn't trying to become Superman again. We never see him try. It just happens. This is so wrong from a screenwriting point of view that its painful to watch.

As far as the rest of the stuff concerning the two directors and the details you noted or observed, I'm not that picky when it comes to things like that in movies.

But what you're calling "picky" IS what makes a reel of celluloid either a film or just a movie. Superman is a film, Superman II is just a movie. A fun movie, but ultimately meaningless. Cinema would be less than it is were it not for Superman. You could remove Superman II from history, and it wouldn't change a thing.

If it was entertaining and I got attached to the characters then it was a great movie.

Which characters did you get attached to? Zod? Most of his scenes were Donner. Luthor? All Donner.

Now I feel like watching both Superman I & II back to back!!!

Just don't watch Superman III afterwards. Yikes.

(Well, Superman III did have one great scene in it: the fight between Superman and Clark Kent that scandalously implied that CLARK is the true, proper personality -- quite controversial at the time).
1456  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Tom Cruise proposes on: June 17, 2005, 04:19:38 PM
And she's converting to Scientology.

I'm sure she'll be happy as a clam.
1457  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 17, 2005, 03:38:34 PM
Quote from: "Starshifter"
Wow.  I never seen anyone who didn't think Superman II was great or at least better than the first.  Superman II was so much more action packed than the first one and it enabled Superman himself to actually put his powers to the test.

Well, the first one actually employed Superman's greatest pre-Crisis power -- time travel. But beyond that, being "action packed" does NOT make a movie good. I'm not bashing Superman II here... it's cheap fun. But it's only a superhero movie. Superman is, as of yet, the only real superhero film to ever be produced. It is epic in scope and theme and remarkably true to the source material.

Superman II suffers because of the hack job that was its birth. It was originally supposed to be the third act of the first movie, but it was later broken off. However, between the original shoot and the shooting done to make Superman II into a full story in its own right, the Salkinds fired Richard Donner and brought in Richard Lester.

Everything directed by Lester, with the exception of the reallly cool fight in the streets of Metropolis, was inferior to the material directed by Donner. And I think even that fight scene isn't as good as the finale scene in the Fortress -- most of which was directed by Donner. The easy way to tell who was directing what is that Donner directed all the scenes with Lex Luthor -- Gene Hackman never worked with Lester.

Lester directed the needlessly stupid opening in Paris (in the proper draft, the nuclear missile Superman deflected from New Jersey was what released the supervillains). Lester directed the painful "romance" between Clark and Lois -- which was only painful because it is totally sold out at the end using a power Superman doesn't have (Super-make-her-forget-coffee?).

And then there's the stupid "give up the powers for the girl" meme. Again, a not-bad-idea, but totally whiffed in execution. Kal El gives up his powers and becomes Clark (without ever establishing WHY he would have to do that to be with Lois), and is told he can never get his powers back. And then he does, with no real effort or suffering or cost. He just goes north and finds the green crystal. That's bad storytelling.

Lester was a hack. There are moments that shine in Superman II, but they're all Donner moments. Having studied both films, it is painfully obvious who was directing what: the performances in the Lester material are hammy, the story is inconsistent.

The first Superman flick is one of the best science fiction films ever made, and the standard by which all other superhero films are judged. The second one is just a serviceable action movie. Thematically, artistically and dramatically, they are not even remotely in the same league.

I'm actually looking forward to the new Superman movie and I hope they do it justice - and dedicate the film to Christopher Reeve.

I want to see the script to the new movie before I get excited. So many of the previous drafts toyed with the character of Superman or Luthor -- Jesus, one even "revealed" that Luthor was also from Krypton -- that I will have no confidence in this production until someone gives me a reason to.
1458  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:52:48 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
Another guy missing the point - I'm not debating it because there is no debate.

There certainly IS a debate on the war on "terror." It's one of the main debates in this country right now.

We disagree and I'm not about to tell you your wrong. I respect your opinion.

Then why are you here?

Can we disagree without me going into some diatribe to prove to you how much I know about something when you, in turn, will post something showing how smart you are and, in the end, we'll just disagree like we did before we started posting in here?

So you're saying that human beings are incapable of learning or changing their opinions? Then why do we, as a society, have debates on issues at all?
1459  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:45:00 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
It's fun!

...and I think the war on terror is going just fine!

Well, then you should be discussing, instead of just thumbing your nose at those who don't agree with you.

Frankly, it just seems as if you're incapable of actually debating the issue, the way you seem to go to great lengths to avoid doing so.
1460  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 17, 2005, 01:37:41 AM
Quote from: "Devil"
You'll see what you want to see.

So you claim. Yet you've no evidence of this, either.

It seems the only one not trying to have an actual conversation here is you. So why keep posting?
1461  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Superman vs. Superman II on: June 16, 2005, 08:10:19 PM
On every level except the "gee whiz" factor -- acting, pacing, writing, direction, tone -- Superman II is inferior to Superman. Richard Lester was a hack. Dropping Donner was a huge mistake -- the only parts of Superman II that really worked (again, aside from the fight on the streets) were the ones he directed.
1462  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / The HiddeN Cost of War on: June 16, 2005, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: "MrZubbleWump"
I'm trying to get a handle on what you just said and filter out the propaganda.  I wonder what the Middle East would be like if it did not sell oil to the west? I'm thinking a poor under developed country.  I'm trying to understand why I should feel bad about buying oil from these nations?

Feel bad? You shouldn't. However, you should feel concerned, because a great deal of that money, particularly when dealing with Saudi Arabia, goes directly towards the funding of anti-American groups and terrorist networks. Oil dependency is a major security risk. We're literally funding our enemies.

You do understand that in Iraq the U.S. is attempting to make sure that the people share in the oil wealth not just a handfull of the elites.

There is no evidence of that, unless by "the people" you mean the American companies we have had the interim government give longterm, extremely nice contract to.

Do you think the U.S. should support regime change in Saudi Arabia?

Regime change in Saudi Arabia at least would make sense -- unlike Saddam, the House of Saud is a major threat to our nation.

How would that work?

It probably wouldn't. The history of externally-imposed democracies is very uninspiring.

The answer to this puzzle of yours is to switch our electrical grid to be far more dependent upon nuclear energy than it is today.  Combine that with hydrogen fuel for our cars and we begin to remove the west from depending upon foreign fuel.  I'm just trying to figure out how the people of those Middle Easter nations will feel when their oil becomes worthless in about 100 years.

Well, oil will always be needed for the production of polymers and plastics. We'd best hope that we're not still fuel-dependent upon oil in 50 years, much less 100.
1463  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 16, 2005, 07:53:23 PM
Quote from: "Devil"
Bottom line, and personally agree with it or not, Iraq was a war of Dubya's choice and Saddam posed no threat what so ever to the security of the United States, period.

Another knee slapper!! Where do you guys get this stuff, much less pass it off as cold, hard facts.

Evidence to the contrary? The Bush Administration certainly hasn't been able to show that the war on Iraq was anything BUT a choice. Nor has there been one shred of evidence presented that indicates ANY sort of threat against the US from Saddam.

In fact, basically everything Bush and his cabal claimed prior to the needless invasion has since been shown to have been untrue: there was no link to al-Qaeda, there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, why, precisely, are we over there? What compelling national interest was there to throw away 1,700 American lives?
1464  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / The HiddeN Cost of War on: June 16, 2005, 06:35:34 PM
Just because they attacked those voting doesn't mean they specifically hate democracy. Terrorists look for predictable targets -- lines of those waiting to vote is a pretty good target. So would lines of folks waiting for Star Wars: Episode III, were there to be a big release in Baghdad.

Now, I'm sure that the insurgents have a low opinion of democracy. Tehy're more of the theocratic bend.

But anyone who actually thinks the terrorists don't like "our freedom" and that's the reason they attack us is many steps removed from reality. Terrorists hate America because, well, for one thing they follow insane leaders. For another thing, American foreign policy in that area of the world has sown a whole lot of reasons for those people to hate us.

Of course, I'm sure I'll be accused of hating my country because I have the audacity to admit that we've treated those people like shit, and now they're trying to get revenge. In Bush's America, honesty about America's checkered role in the world is one step removed from sedition.
1465  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 16, 2005, 05:14:04 AM
Quote from: "Zarkon"
So we invade Iraq basically because Saddam is a Bad Person...which is true, but we're the one who put him there.

Technically, the Soviet Union put him in power. Saddam's Iraq was originally a Soviet client state. However, when the Shah was deposed, we cajoled him with weapons and money to switch over to our side.

We also trained some of what would become Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

You know, if we want to stop fighting monsters, we should probably stop giving them weapons.
1466  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 15, 2005, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: "MrZubbleWump"
I don't want to sound like the ugly American but why should I care about terrorism in another country besides the U.S?

US citizens and US companies are often targets and/or collateral damage. And the spread of terrorism ANYWHERE increases its "acceptance" and thus the chance of it being used basically everywhere. Plus, all human life is of equal intrinsic value, be it American, Argentinian or Armenian. We in this nation used to be the leading champion for human rights around the world, fighting what was literally a good fight. Not so much anymore.

I pay taxes to the U.S. gov't to provide security to this coutry (not another country).  

Ah. Isolationism. Yeah. That's worked so well everytime we've tried it.

What choice targets where conveniently moved to the Middle Easter sphere? Do you mean U.S. soldiers?

Yes. US Soldiers in Iraq, where we have no business being, and US civilians in the same arena, are the present targets of anti-US terrorist attacks.

So you think we should have left the U.S. soldiers in the U.S. so that the terrorists could fight them in the U.S. and blow up U.S. citizens?

That's just an incredibly stupid proposition. We should have kept our army, and our entire foreign policy establishment, focused on actual terrorist threats, and not dropped most of them into the meaningless, pointless quagmire that is Iraq. There are about a hundred things we could have used the foreign policy clout that we've now lost and the military might that we've now squandered that would actually have made our nation truly more secure. But the imbeciles running our country in the ground decided it was better to go after a big, splashy, meaningless "bad guy" who we could visibly knock down rather than fight the true, less visible, less poll-bumping fights that actually need to be fought.

How exactly would that make you feel about winning the war on terrorism?

The whole notion of a "war on terrorism" is asinine. Terrorism isn't a group, it isn't a collective, it isn't a country. It's an illegitimate military tactic (you know, like torture). Fighting a "war on terrorism" is as stupid as fighting a "war on strategic bombing raids."

What we need to have been fighting is a careful, focused assault on those specific networks which pose a true threat to the Western world. You do that by first toppling their puppet government -- the Taliban. Good job on that, unfortunately we've completely screwed up the postgame. We also need to be securing and destroying the world's nuclear stockpiles. Bush has totally ignored that threat. But mostly we need to be building a strong, unified Western front, and Bush has made it impossible to do that.

Do you know we now claim the right to swoop in anywhere in the world, grab anyone we want, hold them for as long as we like and never charge them with anything or even let them speak to counsel? What gives us that right?

The pointless War on Iraq, and now the torture revelations, have been such staggeringly huge mistakes. We now have more enemies in the Middle East than we ever did before 2001. Bush has recruited an entire new generation of terrorists who hate the Western world, and the uprise in terrorist attacks shows what the Bush doctrines have wrought.

We had a real moment in September 2001 to rally the world to a great purpose. We just didn't have the real leadership necessary to do it, and now we're worse off than we were before.
1467  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / So how's the War on Terra going, George? on: June 15, 2005, 09:29:26 PM
Quote from: "MrZubbleWump"
I'll feed the troll.

I'd say that the war on terror is going good.  If this was a war against Osama Bin  Laden then I would say that the war has been a draw but it's not.  The fact that there have not been any acts of terror against the U.S. since 9/11 pretty much speaks for itself.

Nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense. There have been more terrorist attacks against US citizens since 9/11 than before -- it's just that we've conveniently relocated some choice targets to the Middle Eastern sphere.

The number of terrorist attacks worldwide has SKYROCKETED since 2001. Through the roof. The White House was so humiliated by the State Department's 2004 terrorism report that they forbade the Department from ever issuing another.

America is less respected, has less allies and is generally less safe than it was before Bush's Folly in Iraq. Bush's torture scandals (and yes, the authorizations for torture go up to the highest levels of the Administration) have destroyed America's moral authority. This country's international reputation has never been lower. And we're not one bit safer.

But hey, at least the government can now sneak and peek into anyone's home whenever they want without due process or even informing the person. That's what freedom's all about, right?
1468  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Deep Throat Revealed on: June 02, 2005, 05:13:22 PM
From my Weblog:

I'm telling you, they should have talked to me. I would have helped them turn this into a true media event:

"The Informer" This Fall on CBS!

Thirteen suspects compete to be America's choice for "Deep Throat" in such thrilling competitions as "The Nixon White House Crime Trivia Contest" and "Talking to Bob Woodward in a Dark Garage." As the American people vote and eliminate one contestant each week, everyone is counting down to the final episode, where both America's Choice and the Real Deep Throat are revealed to all!

13 episodes, 30 minutes a piece. Hosted by Hal Holbrook.
1469  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 02, 2005, 05:12:03 PM
Quote from: "JayG"
I hated the first season. Thought the acting was dreadful, the stories tedious and felt it looked incredibly cheap. I have no idea why I brought season 2, yet it's a huge improvement and by season 4 It was one of my all tine favorite series. Season 5 is also rubbish though.

Well, the first half of Season 5 is rubbish. The latter portions are actually very good. Sigh... I need to go back and watch my B5 DVDs again. I forget sometimes how much I loved this show (and how much I hated Crusade). Londo Mollari is by far one of the greatest characters in television history.

"You are touched by darkness, ambassador. I could warn you, but you would not listen. I could kill you, but another would simply take your place."

Babylon 5 rocks.
1470  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Wow! Not liking Babylon 5 so far... on: June 02, 2005, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: "whiteboyskim"
The first season blows, pure and simple. Skip to the final two or three and you'll be fine. Season 2 is a lot better, Seasons 3 and 4 are terrific for the most part, and Season 5 blows until the final 6 episodes.

Yes, the first season is lame -- but this is terrible advice. DO NOT SKIP anything. The show builds as it moves forward. Skipping will leave you lost, confused and unhappy. Suffer through. Its worlds better in Season 2.
1471  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / LOST Season 1 Finale - Nice on: May 26, 2005, 08:44:59 PM
I don't see how you can say we haven't started moving yet. We know a great deal more about the characters, and the island, than we did at the start of the season. We know Locke's motivations, Jack's motivation, Kate's motivation. In just this past episode, we learned tidbits about the Others, the Tree Crushing Monster and the hatch. Did we learn a lot? No. Did everything we learn lead to more questions? Yes. I'm still not sure that's a bad thing.

And I, for one, learned a great deal about dynamite from Arzt.

I don't know if anyone's seen it, but given the smokey glimpse of the monster we saw last night, it seems interesting:

I need to Tivo and rewatch the first episode, see if that's real or just some nonsense someone made up.
1472  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / What's your home page? on: May 26, 2005, 03:56:44 PM
On my Mac at home, with OmniWeb, I have a default workspace that includes Google News, and my Gmail and Yahoo mail pages. At work, I use Firefox, and while I've had Google News as my homepage for months, I've now switched over to Google/ig.

Very much liking the Google pseudo-portal.
1473  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Where did your online name come from? on: May 24, 2005, 08:35:30 PM
The first part of my name, Fireball, comes from my summer a staff member at Boy Scout camp. Apparently, I developed something of a reputation for having a temper, and thus was renamed "Fireball."

The next fall, when I first signed onto AOL, I adopted that as my nom de Net, as FireballKM -- my nickname and my initials.

When I went to college, I joined a fraternity. My scroll number for my House was Alpha Phi 1244. Being all "Go Teke!" at the time, I dropped my initials and put my scroll number at the end, and thus Fireball1244 has been my most-used nick for, well, everything, since about 1997.
1474  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Star Wars - Episode III Impressions (OMG SPOILERS) on: May 22, 2005, 06:10:42 AM
I never said they were a good addition. In fact, in the post above yours I called them "silly." Just because Lucas botched the concept doesn't mean the concept was necessarily doomed to be botched.
1475  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Star Wars - Episode III Impressions (OMG SPOILERS) on: May 22, 2005, 03:38:13 AM
Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "Fireball1244"
Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "Driver"

You know, what?  I really liked it. smile  That midichlorian bullshit kind of makes sense.

I liked the ROTS allot too but thats still going to stay as a dumb idea on his part along with Jar jar. The force reduced to bactieria? No thats just lame.

"The Force reduced to bacteria" is also a very inaccurate description of what midichlorians are. Midichlorians do not create the Force.

midichlorians having the force or being what gives it is lame, period. He added this on later obviously since Obi-wan in the origioanl trilogy says nothing ever about it. It was origionally a mystical force that all life has that binds etc etc. Thats fine. Dropping in bactieria as the part of it was just dumb. It makes the whole Jedi/Force thing start to sound cheesy, just keep it the way it was.

Wow, did you just ignore my last post? The midichlorians are not "bacteria," and describing them as such, or describing them as the "source" of the Force, is simply inaccurate.

Do I think they're somewhat silly? Yes. Did they have to be? No. Lucas screwed that one up, wrote unclear exposition and created a silly "controversy."
1476  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Star Wars - Episode III Impressions (OMG SPOILERS) on: May 21, 2005, 06:28:46 PM
You could no more transfuse midichlorians through a blood infusion than you could transfer your own DNA through the same. Midicholorians live within the cells of Jedi -- they are effectively mitochondria, which are basically separate organisms that live within the cells of all animals here on Earth and make our manner of life possible.  Without them, we'd not be able to process sugars for energy, and thus evolution would not have produced the animal life we have around us.

Now, what you end up with is a philosophical argument. Since sentients are born, seemingly randomly, with midichlorians or without them, there's not a clear cause or effect relationship. Do the midichlorians produce Force sensitivity, or are they attracted to and colonize Force sensitive sentients?

In either case, their presence or absence is indicative of Force sensitivity. But it is not necessarily a causal relationship.
1477  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Politics] Do you live in Dallas, TX? If so, PLEASE READ! on: May 21, 2005, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: "Crowley"
Though as a Houstonian I'll see what I can do about this.

I appreciate it.
1478  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Politics] Do you live in Dallas, TX? If so, PLEASE READ! on: May 21, 2005, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: "unbreakable"

Holy dogshit! Texas! Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy! And you don't look much like a steer to me, so that kinda narrows it down!


Sorry, couldnt resist  Tongue   If I lived in Texas, I would help you out.  Gunny seems to think it's a non-issue as well, albeit for a different reason.

I'm glad we dont have those sorts of problems here in Illinois.

And you have the Cubs and Wrigley Field. I'm sort of jealous all around. smile
1479  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Politics] Do you live in Dallas, TX? If so, PLEASE READ! on: May 21, 2005, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: "mytocles"
Hey, I live in Massachusetts, and I still read the post, but wouldn't you want to say "Texas" instead of "Dallas" in the title?  It's a statewide proposal, correct?  The more the merrier!

Good Luck Tongue

Yes, it's a statewide proposal, but the key votes appear to be coming from Dallas County. I'm not certain who the swayables are in other counties. smile
1480  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Star Wars - Episode III Impressions (OMG SPOILERS) on: May 21, 2005, 04:46:01 AM
Quote from: "Jumangi"
Quote from: "Driver"

You know, what?  I really liked it. smile  That midichlorian bullshit kind of makes sense.

I liked the ROTS allot too but thats still going to stay as a dumb idea on his part along with Jar jar. The force reduced to bactieria? No thats just lame.

"The Force reduced to bacteria" is also a very inaccurate description of what midichlorians are. Midichlorians do not create the Force.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.318 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.047s, 1q)