April 30, 2017, 06:55:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Dark Knight Spoilers Discussion Thread! on: July 30, 2008, 09:25:39 PM
People are different. 

I remember when I broke my ankle in a car accident.  Some guy in the hospital had the same injury as me, we compared notes.   Anyways, we're both in casts and no lie, if someone so much as touched my ankle I had tears in my eyes(despite my best efforts to be a tough guy).   This other guy, even though the doctor told him the same thing as me "keep all weight off that foot for now..."- this guy was walking around ON it!  I'm on crutches because that leg is useless to me, and he's using a cane because he can use both feet.

I have no idea of course how that impacted his healing(mine healed fine), but damn...

That's why I had no problem with that sequence.  The second you find yourself saying "He would have two broken legs, ankles, hips, spine..." you know you're on the wrong track because you can't possibly know that for a fact.  Especially given the interior logic of the movie(what with Batman and Rachel taking a longer plunge and not even getting injured, Batman saying "I'm counting on it" implying he picked this height because he knew it was relatively safe, etc).

Batman breaks the law to stop people from...uh, breaking the law.   That raises no protest but you are gonna sweat him for playing fast and loose with the "I won't kill you but I'll let you die, that's not as bad" approach to morality?  Hehe.

As to the hospital, look at how many people got out of the WTC in short order, even if it meant climbing stairway after stairway.    At most I think it would have been nice to have some news report mention a few evacuation related patient deaths(due to unplugging and so on), but otherwise I had no problem with it.

My favorite nonJoker line was "Accomplice? I'm going to tell them the whole thing was your idea."
2  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Dark Knight Spoilers Discussion Thread! on: July 30, 2008, 11:43:21 AM
My take on it is that the Joker tells Batman where each of them is, and let's Batman decide who to save.

Therefore, it's irrelevant who Batman is, he will go to his first choice- and either way it will be wrong since the Joker has pulled a fast one on him and given him the opposite location.

If Batman really wanted to save Rachel, he will save Dent instead.  If he really wanted to save Dent, he will wind up saving Rachel instead.   It's a twisted thing the Joker does, but the really cool thing is that it's so tempting because the Joker has been doing this the whole movie(making people decide between tough choices).  I don't blame Batman for believing the Joker would really give him the right addresses, why not since it would force Batman to let one of them die?  Haha, but how much more evil is it to force Batman to make the choice and then taking it away from him at the last second? 

About the ferry, having the detonators blow their own ships up doesn't work.   The idea is that the people making the choices have to live with the knowledge of what they did, as well as knowing other people know what they did.   For instance assuming self detonation, if it goes the Joker's way and the prison boat people push the button, the prison boat blows up.    And the 'good' people shrug, right?  If the good people push the button and they blow up, the prison boat people shrug right?

But if the good people push the button and kill the others, it's not quite a shrug.   That's because there were law enforcement(ie good) people on that boat too.   If the prison boat people push the button and kill the good boat people, it's not a shrug because law enforcement people have massacred(or allowed to be massacred) innocent people.
3  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] X Files: I want to believe...I just don't want to see your movie on: July 25, 2008, 09:48:07 PM
My concern, as a big fan of the show(pre-Dogget et al), is that the last episode of the show left Scully and Mulder in a particular set of circumstances.

If this movie takes place in time AFTER that episode, then I have a lot of things I want to see them cover, the knowledge of the impending alien invasion being item 1.  I mean, they even know the exact date for crying out loud!  How do you do anything till you deal with that?   Their baby, being on the run...all this stuff is stuff I want to see dealt with.

If the movie takes place during the time of the series, sort of like the Clone Wars cartoons and the prequels, then the monster of the week thing would work for me.
4  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Does this paypal offer sound legit? on: July 24, 2008, 07:35:59 PM
When buying or selling, I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tells me why they want to buy(or sell) an item if I didn't ask first.

If they are selling, I think "hmm, they want me to think they don't want to sell but have to...I wonder why?"

If they are buying, I think "hmm, they want me to think they REALLY want this item...I wonder why?"

Psych warfare, they want the mark(you) to convince yourself that you can't pass up this deal.
5  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Learning to drink coffee on: July 08, 2008, 04:51:46 AM
I have one of those Kcup thingies, but those can be expensive so here's what I do...

I use the Kcups when I want a Starbucks style flavored coffee, since they make those Kcups in all kinds of cool flavors(Timothy's German Chocolate Cake is my favorite, yes it tastes like chocolate cake in coffee- win/win!).

I use Nescafe Classico as my daily "cheap coffee for when I need a good jolt" drink.   It tastes decent and is pretty potent, and it's less expensive than Kcups.   I just add the coffee to the cup of perfectly heated water that comes out of my Keurig.

And yeah, coffee is an acquired taste.  You can only acquire it by drinking it(assuming we aren't talking highly flavored gimmick coffees).  So start drinking!
6  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: American Hostages Rescued in Colombia on: July 04, 2008, 09:35:08 PM
A double cross brings up the possibility of an internal power play by FARC members.   That could work. 

You arrange to give up an internal FARC competitor and his right hand man, along with some hostages that aren't doing you any good, and in exchange you get more power in FARC, plus whatever cash they paid.   In addition, in any future FARC related political party, having played ball with the government with the hostage deal, the government will back your ascension(quietly of course).
7  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Which would you prefer a chimp to chew off? on: July 04, 2008, 09:28:02 PM
I voted for face.  You could explain the face thing, "His owner swore he didn't bite..."

What about testicles?  "His owner swore he wouldn't bite..." doesn't sound as good, does it?

Fingers are out of the question, Diablo 3 is on the way for crying out loud, how are you going to click?
8  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: American Hostages Rescued in Colombia on: July 03, 2008, 10:51:08 PM
Well, I'm thinking the payment will be sent up the food chain.  In other words, my feeling is that this was a straight up deal.

I figure A) FARC has a bunch more hostages where those came from and B) these particular hostages have probably been worked for all they're worth(5 years! I bet FARC was tired of the sight of them by now).   So why not deal and get something for them?

Meanwhile,  the Columbian government gets to look good, so it's win/win for everyone.
9  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: American Hostages Rescued in Colombia on: July 03, 2008, 09:45:24 PM
The story of their rescue makes no sense to me, but that's probably because for obvious reasons they don't want to reveal how it really went down.

I mean, these high profile hostages are just handed over to some random dudes in helicopters?  Or these helicopters guys were part of FARC long enough that they could fly around and pick up hostages unchallenged? Really?

I have a feeling it was more like
Helicopter dudes:   "Hi, we're your brothers in revolution *wink wink* here to pick up those American lackeys."
FARC guys: "Here you go.  Meanwhile, as you load them on the choppers, we'll take that heavy load of supplies *wink wink* off your hands.  Pablo, grab the suitcases!"
10  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Axis&Allies and Conquest of the Empire on: July 03, 2008, 09:37:11 PM

Quote from: hepcat on July 03, 2008, 07:31:19 PM


Hehe, Robo orally.
11  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / low connectivity/no connectivity internet problem help please on: June 17, 2008, 11:08:36 PM
So I have two computers, one router, one cable connection.

Computer 1, WinXP SP2:  connects to the internet fine via direct cable modem/computer pathway.   Will not 'see' the router, I get that blank white 'page not found' error when I try to access the router setup page.

Computer 2 Winxp sp2:  connected fine to internet via cable/router/computer pathway, did not connect via direct connection to cable modem(opposite of above computer).

This situation puzzled me, as I spent my time trying to get Comp 1 to work with the router(I wanted to share the connection).  But I wasn't too worried, as I figured it was simply a matter of correctly configuring the router, which I knew I would figure out sooner or later.

So about 3 weeks ago Service Pack 3 comes out for XP.  I download and install that on Comp 2, as a test to see if I wanted to install it on both computers.   Everything seemed to work fine for about 2 hours, including online access.    Then, suddenly, I got that 'low connectivity/no connectivity' exclamation point on the network icon down by the clock on the taskbar.   No internet access for Comp 2 now.

Things I've tried: format and reinstall WinXp- same problem.  Replace both cable AND network card- same problem.   Winsock fixes- same problem.   I also took apart the computer and rebuilt it using only the parts necessary to install XP and try to go online, no dice.

I have used "ipconfig/all" on both computers and noticed something.    Comp 1, the one that can go online, has things like 'dhcp server' and 'dns servers' filled in with addresses, whereas IPconfig/all on Comp 2 doesn't even list those items.  Also, IP addresses and such are either blank on Comp 2 or different than Comp 1.  I can post the exact info if that would help.

So, I'm not a computer noob for the most part but networking stuff is mostly a weak spot in my knowledge.  Previous to this all my online and networking stuff has been plug ang play.  What am I missing here?

Also, I tried an Ubuntu live cd, and get no online access through that.   So that would seem to rule out WinXP being screwed up in some way, wouldn't it?   The problem is that I never tried to use that live cd, v 8x, to go online before this problem came up, so I can't say for sure that it should work on this connection.

I have an Abit IS7 motherboard, which I have disabled the onboard lan in bios to test using the new network card, in Comp 2.  Everything else on the computer is running fine, no strange errors or lockups.  Could it be a noncable/network card hardware problem?   All temps are fine.

Any help, including pointing me to a good home networking site, is appreciated.
12  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: What are your favorite movie death scenes? (SPOILERS) on: June 14, 2008, 08:40:14 PM

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on June 14, 2008, 07:17:36 PM

William Wallace in Braveheart. So sad.  crybaby

The thing that bugs me about that death is that in a movie that didn't shy away from depicting the carnage of the era(or at least what I picture it to be like), they sure did sugar coat what drawing and quartering really entails.   It's all well and good to have that last cry of "Freedom" at the end, it makes Wallace look all badass.   He wouldn't have come across as badass if they showed him get his junk cut off I guess.

That's why The Passion had the best death scene of all Mel Gibson movies, he didn't back off showing what happened to his character there.
13  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie]The Incredible Hulk on: June 14, 2008, 07:02:38 PM
I'd be interested in reading more comparisons with Iron Man before seeing this.   I had no familiarity with the Iron Man comic before seeing the movie and still enjoyed it immensely.   Since I'm much more familiar with the Hulk, through the Bixby tv show, I'd expect more potential enjoyment, pending execution of material.  Ang Lee's Hulk was no fun at all...okay except for seeing him play with the tanks.

One thing I think Iron Man set a standard for in these kinds of movies is having a good guy the audience immediately likes and roots for, who also has flaws that make him more interesting than a bland Superman type character could ever be, while at the same time making those flaws seem intrinsic to the character(not contrived "flaws for the sake of having flaws" crap).

This is one reason I like Iron Man, the movie, much more than even Batman Begins(which I think is awesome): The Stark guy is living the way I think a guy like that would live, so I can relate to him as in "yup, if I was him I'd be doing the same wome...things".  Wayne is not living in any way/shape/form the life I think I would even if I saw my parents murdered right in front of me.  I mean, yeah, the alter ego fighting crime part sure.   It's the emo rich guy part that comes across forced.   I have no interest in Bruce Wayne, I spend his screen time waiting for Batman to show up.   I could watch an entire movie about Stark without them even having to mention Iron Man.

With the Hulk I think the important thing is to make the audience think "yup, if I was the Hulk I'd be doing that too".  For me, the Bixby scenes in the tv show were as compelling as the Ferrigno Hulk scenes, any Hulk movie has to manage that much to be worthy.
14  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Somebody should tell Mugabe to stop killing his own people on: June 13, 2008, 12:40:50 AM
Reading that article, I notice the writer mentions a source who sounds credible saying Mandela is too old to lead crusades.   Considering what the guy went through most of his life, and considering that he may well be hurting physically after all these years, I find it mean spirited to lay this guilt trip on him.

As to the Vatican, well these are the guys who made shuffling criminals around an art.   Does anyone expect them to talk smack about a Catholic who is the leader of an entire country?   I bet they have a lot of wealth tied up in that country and alienating him is a good way to lose all of it.
15  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: (Sports) Donaghy docs allege refs altered games on: June 13, 2008, 12:30:12 AM
About the stuff where "X team got 19 calls a game while Y team got 19.3 calls a game, sounds fair to me":

Well, superficially it is.   But we all know when a call is made is just as important as IF a call is made.   A foul the first quarter, when the game is very much up for grabs no matter what the score at the time is, is entirely different than the same foul call at the end of the game when those points are the deciding points.

If I was running a team, I sure as hell would rather get less calls if I could get them at critical moments for my team, just as if I was manipulating games I'd want calls at the right moments, not just lots of calls.

This is why a team can win a game when their star has an 'off' night, scoring less than usual.   Because sometimes when you score matters more than how much you score. 

Timing is everything.   So I wouldn't look at sheer averages for clues as to legitimacy/
16  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: What are your favorite movie death scenes? (SPOILERS) on: June 12, 2008, 06:43:57 PM
King Kong, the REAL King Kong that is.

Or "I'm melting" From Wizard of Oz
17  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: (Sports) Donaghy docs allege refs altered games on: June 11, 2008, 04:35:45 PM
I'm only a sometime watcher of NBA games, that's my perspective.

I noticed last night when they showed Stern at half time, that he was smirking when answering the question about that ref.   That told me everything I need to know.

Here's a guy who, at the very least, has a ref who has been betting on games he is officiating, and been doing it for years.  So even if this gambling ref is lying in all these allegations, Stern has absolutely nothing to smirk about...unless of course it's a "ahaha, they can't prove a thing" self satisfied smirk.
18  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Bravery = openly critical of Islam on: June 10, 2008, 07:45:12 PM
Not only religions but societies in general.

It's all well and good to mock them for their malevolent backwardness, except in that even in this country people owned other people as slaves as recently as about 150 years ago.  That might seem like a long time ago but when you consider that span of time is almost half the time of this country's existence...

Even more recently than that it was against the law to sell alcoholic beverages in this country, we were so uptight.   Even more recently we had laws on who can sit where, who can drink from which fountain, who can marry who...oh wait, we still have those laws, hehe.  

Even now, as we speak(or type), we can spy on our own and make people we don't like 'disappear' with the best of them.   And we have no shortage of people who are willing to kill others to enforce those things.

So yeah, plenty of 'dark ages' to go around.
19  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Movie websites... on: June 10, 2008, 04:44:40 PM
I've been cruising online since before Quake 1  came out, which for me means I have different expectations of what a website should offer.

I can remember when a lot of websites I regularly visit first started, or were very new.  AICN is one of them.   I went there for a specific purpose, to get info on upcoming movies in the case of AICN, and that's all I expected from it.   Anything else was(is) gravy.

So now, years later, after the sites have grown and diversified in their offerings and ambitions- I don't give a crap.   I still only go there looking for those specific things and as long as the site in question offers them it's gold as far as I'm concerned.   It doesn't bother me if the content has been delivered in a juvenile fashion, is delivered in a juvenile fashion, and always will be delivered in a juvenile fashion.

In fact what bothers me most about websites is when they change and forget what made them worthwhile in the first place.   Rotten Tomatoes is one that comes to mind.   I went there to see alll the reviews on a movie gathered in one spot- that was it's value to me.   Now that site has changed so much, only a small part of a movie's page is devoted to links for reviews.   Now there are tons of links for other stuff taking up most of the page, so much so that it makes it feel like work to try and get to the content I want.
20  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Let the Hit-Piece campaigning begin on: June 09, 2008, 09:28:23 PM
Two things strike me about that:

1.  Wow, a guy can still cash in on the "Willie Horton" ad after all these years?  There is something cool, but sad, about that.   It's like if an ad guy was trying to get clients by telling prospects "I came up with the Where's the Beef concept".    Uh, good for you, I guess.

2.  Stance on crime= stance on terrorism?  So the fight against terrorism is really a fight on crime?  So then it's an issue of law, with all the associated elements(innocent till proven guilty, right to a lawyer, right to speedy trial, etc)?  Do they really want to go there?
21  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: I just saw a movie which makes Hostel look like Sesame Street on: June 09, 2008, 04:16:00 PM
I saw this movie over the weekend, French with English subtitles.  It is one seriously farked up movie*.

Wow, just wow.   It's like the people who made this movie watched Saw and Hostel and thought "wimps!"...or whatever the French equivalent of that word is.    I haven't squirmed around so much watching a movie in a long time.   It is all a bit over the top, so don't expect gritty realism.   This is more like if David Cronenberg had Peter Jackson's sense of humor while making a horror movie.  It definitely delivers the goods though, and looks damn good while doing it.

It's amusing to see that even in other countries, their horror movie characters are about as stupid as American horror movie characters.  Ennui and cigarette smoke apparently don't lead to clearer thought, who knew?

This, along with [Rec], are two imports fans of horror should not pass up.   I don't know about the dubbed version, but the French w/subtitles sounded  great.  The voices added a lot to the characters.

*this a high compliment by the way
22  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Hmmm. What if: Hilary = VP? Does That Sway Your Vote to McCain? on: June 08, 2008, 12:53:02 AM
The Democrats managed to find ways to lose what looked like sure fire opportunities in the last two elections.  Until they prove otherwise I have to pass on believing it's a foregone conclusion that they can win even in this election(which superficially at least looks as surefire as any election could ever be).

Plus I'll believe Americans in general will elect a guy named Barack Obama(a black guy no less) President when I see it.

Call me a cynic but I just don't think we, as a country, have come that far just yet.    It's one thing for people to support him when even if he 'wins' all he gets is a nomination.   It's a way of being trendy without risk.   Will they still vote for him when a win means he's actually President?  I remain unconvinced of that.

I also remain unconvinced that the people he's counting on to conteract the, to be polite, 'unfriendly to nonwhite candidate' voters will actually turn out in sufficient numbers.  A lot of those are people who don't normally take part in voting since no one who really represents them is ever on the Presidential ballot.  That's a tough habit to break, ignoring elections.

This is why I think he needs to pick someone to run with as VP who contributes to the need for change mentality, not someone like Hilary.  He really needs to sell this election to his base.  It's gotta be a "if you've never voted before, you MUST vote now" full court press of a message.
23  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Good Movies No One Has Ever Heard Of... on: June 08, 2008, 12:33:29 AM

You know how Cloverfield is basically a Godzilla movie told from the point of view of the people on the street?  And it benefits from that different perspective, since those movies are always done from the point of view of the scientists and/or government.  Well, Right At Your Door is the equivalent of that for terrorism based movies and tv shows(like 24).  It's a story about a terrorist attack on Los Angeles, told from of the point of view of regular people in one household, not government agents or terrorists or an entire town like in Jericho.

It is very low budget, so you don't get epic scenes of carnage.  It also takes place mostly in one location, it could almost be done as a play in that respect  No 28 Days/28 Weeks Later scale here.   But the director manages to still create a pretty good atmosphere of "oh crap, LA is toast!"

Plus, if you're like me and you really enjoy stories that make you wonder "what would I do if I was caught in that situation?"- this is a movie for you.
24  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Movie pet peeve on: June 06, 2008, 09:45:36 PM
I for one am sick and tired of seeing that customary shot in tv shows and movies:

In the foreground, the character or characters are grimly walking towards the camera...possibly even in slow motion.   Then suddenly in the background there is an explosion, which the characters completely ignore since they are so cool.
25  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 30 Days of Night on: June 06, 2008, 12:19:56 AM
I was completely underwhelmed.  Mainly for the same reason others had, it was a great concept that they really did not exploit.   I think Pitch Black did a better job with the concept, albeit with nonvampire monsters.
26  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: No country for old men on: June 06, 2008, 12:14:15 AM
I liked this movie better when it was called Fargo.

And not just because it had some kind of payoff, which NCFOM lacked.
27  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Lost finale is tonight! on: June 05, 2008, 01:59:58 AM
Some clarification on my questions:

My understanding of the finale is that Locke spoke to Jack and told him Jack must go back, not Ben.  Ben's contribution was merely to point out that they all had to return to be effective at whatever it is they hope to accomplish.  And Locke's message, his reason to go back, was "something bad happened on the island".

Yes Jack has been seeing things, but there is no reason for Jack to think going back to the island will fix that.   That's my point, I wished that we had been given more of an explanation of Jack's motive to go back.   In other words, what bad thing happened and how will Jack going back 'fix' it?   I understand why we, the audience, aren't given that info yet.  But shouldn't Jack, the character, have an inkling what going back will accomplish before he makes the decision to go back?

As to the guy covering up the airplane's location, Jack logic is the exact opposite of the stated goal.  Consider:

If the Oceanic 6 lie, this means the coverup can still work.  It makes sense for the bad guy to kill the ones left behind now.  Because he could kill them, place some of their bodies with the fake wreck, and no one will ever be the wiser.  The Oceanic 6 can't change their story since they have no evidence of what really happened.  The Oceanic 6 already know for a fact that the bad guys can find the island, since they already have at least once since the plane crashed.

If the Oceanic 6 tell the truth, then there is no reason for the ones left behind to be killed.  In fact, their chances improve since the authorities will certainly make a beeline for that island(or at least try).
28  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Does character matter in the NFL? on: June 05, 2008, 01:44:44 AM

Quote from: Moliere on June 04, 2008, 09:27:33 PM

Quote from: gameoverman on June 04, 2008, 08:02:04 PM

For instance, I'd expect my defensive end(if I was the owner of the team) to beat his blocks/hold his position then tackle the running back- if he was playing a run defense formation.  The 'tackle' could consist of grabbing the runner's foot and thereby tripping him up, for all I care.  As long as the runner is stopped.

In a pass defense, I'd expect the end to get past any blockers and either force the QB to get rid of the ball prematurely to avoid a sack, or actually sack the QB.  The 'sack' could consist of simply putting his arms around the QB so the QB is ruled to have been 'in the grasp' of the defense.
Roll Eyes

I'm not sure what sport you're watching. How do you suppose that the Defensive Linemen "get past any blockers"? Do you think they tap dance around with the Offensive Linemen? Do you really propose that the Defense doesn't try and tackle the QB and instead put their arms around him in a loving embrace until the Ref decides the QB has been embraced long enough? How do you think the Defensive End is holding his position against the OL and TE waiting for the Running Back? Should RB's no longer lower their shoulder and try to knock that LB over that is trying to tackle him? If a WR is doing a crossing pattern across the middle of the field do we wait until he is all set with the ball and heading up field before "tripping" him?

Lets face it, there is a certain level of violence associated with football. The NFL is trying to clean up some of the dirtier play, but football is inherently violent.

Football inherently has contact, not violence.

My example of grasping was not to suggest that's how it should be played every time, simply to point out how it is possible to make a good play WITHOUT violence.  Getting around a pass blocker requires violence?  C'mon.   There are other ways, including the use of speed, leverage, stunting, spin moves, etc- none of which require a pass rusher to commit violent acts against the offensive line.

Yes, the players can rely on brute force attacks as an option.  But that's all that is, an option for those who can't succeed any other way.  It is not a requirement built into the game.

That's why I think the thug mentality, the idea that players have to be such badasses on the field that it is impossible to be normal off the field, is also optional and not necessary to be a good player.
29  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [Pic] Holy crap! (very sad and not for the squeamish) on: June 04, 2008, 08:36:12 PM
I think the main problem with bikes on the road is that it seems patched in after the fact.   As in
"Sidewalks are for people, roads for motor vehicles"
"Okay, but what about bikes?"


"Uh, they have wheels so they can go on the roads I guess"

That's fine when the road is a 25mph residential street, but what about a 45mph one where people routinely drive 50mph+ when going from stoplight to stoplight?  I see that everyday around here and cringe when I see cyclists daring to mix in with the cars and trucks.
30  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Lost finale is tonight! on: June 04, 2008, 08:24:00 PM
I loved this season so far, and this finale, but one thing bugs me:

I guessed that the Oceanic 6 were lying to protect the ones left behind BUT

As far as they knew everyone was blown up on that ship right?  Did I miss where someone told them "So and so and X number of people are still on that island"?

Someone faked the phony wreck, therefore NO survivors are ever expected to surface.  Therefore whoever faked that wreck has reason to prevent by any means necessary the reappearance of survivors-  okay, I get that.   But once the Oceanic 6 pop up and tell the truth, that reasoning is removed.   Now there is no reason to kill either the Oceanic 6 OR the ones left behind, if you are the guy who faked the whole thing.    Your secret is out, now it's all about trying to distance yourself from the fake as best you can.   In other words, the people who are dangerous to you now are your minions, the ones who actually carried out your orders.   They are the ones who can put you in jail if they ever cooperate with the authorities  So Jack's logic made no sense to me.

Lastly, a "things got real bad on the island" vague insinuation would not be enough to get me interested in going back, sorry.   That's the old style Lost approach.  For me to buy Jack being desperate to go back it needed to be INCREDIBLE.    Something like "Your dad is on the island, he told me to say XYZ to prove it",  XYZ being a message that would confirm his dad(alive or dead) had in fact talked to Locke, because it was something only Jack and his dad knew about.  That's just an example, but you know what I mean.

edit: I just realized that Sun knew who was where, so that's one thing to scratch off the list.
31  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Heroes - season 1 on: June 04, 2008, 08:07:10 PM
That first season of Heroes was pure awesomeness.   It is a superhero comic done in live action, so you need to view it in that light to enjoy it. 

The scary thing is that the second season was crap, so if you don't like it now there is no real point of watching more.
32  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Does character matter in the NFL? on: June 04, 2008, 08:02:04 PM
I don't expect footballl players to beat the crap out of each other.  I expect them to play well, meaning execute their gameplan better than the opposing team.

For instance, I'd expect my defensive end(if I was the owner of the team) to beat his blocks/hold his position then tackle the running back- if he was playing a run defense formation.  The 'tackle' could consist of grabbing the runner's foot and thereby tripping him up, for all I care.  As long as the runner is stopped.

In a pass defense, I'd expect the end to get past any blockers and either force the QB to get rid of the ball prematurely to avoid a sack, or actually sack the QB.  The 'sack' could consist of simply putting his arms around the QB so the QB is ruled to have been 'in the grasp' of the defense.

Beating the crap out of anyone is not necessary.  A player can be fired up/motivated/with his game face on, all without a criminal mentality.  That mentality is elective, part of some people's attempts to create an image, an image totally unnecessary to good gameplay.  That image could be useful in selling something to a portion of the fanbase though, so they have that going for them, which is nice.
33  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [Pic] Holy crap! (very sad and not for the squeamish) on: June 04, 2008, 07:51:09 PM
Clearly the car driver is at fault.  Even if all those guys had been piled into a van, instead of riding bikes, the car driver would still be at fault.

That said, that's an awesome picture.   One of those "horrible but at the same time awesome" pictures that turn up once in a while.
34  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Metered Internet on: June 04, 2008, 07:38:41 PM
What I don't get is the logic behind this:

Those of us sucking up all the bandwidth are using so much more than the 'normal' users who only cruise online and do email/etc.

But isn't that how it should be?  If some guy uses 2gb per month cruising online and checking emails, how does it benefit him to have a 40gb upper limit?

Meanwhile if I'm gobbling up 50gb per month on game demos, tv shows, movies(all legal of course), streaming music and so on, I'm over the limit and have to pay more.  But I'm not hurting the web cruising/email guy because he doesn't need the bandwidth anyways.

It seems to me that they have it assbackwards.  They should continue charging one unlimited cap amount, and chuckle to themselves that the 90% of the people paying full price for miniscule use are making it more than profitable for the ISP to let the 10% bandwidth hogs go, uh, hog wild.
35  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Sad day for a friend on: June 04, 2008, 07:26:57 PM

Quote from: Moliere on June 04, 2008, 07:12:33 PM

Quote from: Booner on June 04, 2008, 07:01:04 PM

I just want to say, as someone who has dealt with the serious drug and alcohol problems with friends and absolutely did the right thing.  nod


Yeah, wow, that's pretty much how a friend needs to talk to a friend in that situation.    If he doesn't get a clue from that, he never will.   But it wasn't mean or uncaring, nicely done!
36  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: This Is Fun Pt 3: This Time It's Personal! (possibly NSFW) on: July 22, 2007, 12:06:46 PM
37  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: A prayer to the Lord my God--PLEASE get rid of Sanjaya Malakar on: April 19, 2007, 10:46:06 PM
I'm gonna miss that shaggy haired kid.   Then again, it's almost worth it just to see the perturbed looks on the faces of the rest of them as they realize that yup, even the 'good' ones are going to be kicked to the curb now.   There's no hiding, no flying under the radar now that there are so few of them.  I was surprised to see Phil do so well, I had him pegged to leave before Sanjaya.
38  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Titan Quest Expansion on: April 18, 2007, 10:11:54 PM
From my experience, as a Spellbreaker, a dual wield melee character REQUIRES some kind of pet or you will take tons of damage, it's that simple.

If you can get your pet to take the brunt of the attacks, that will cut down on your potion needs.  Even with high armor and high resistances, if the monsters have no one but you to focus on, you are going to take massive damage especially from bosses.

I myself never have less than 50 health potions on hand when I start a session.  Once I get down to around 10, I make a trip back to a merchant to get more potions, whether I have loot to sell or not.  I find that always having between 10 and 20 mana potions is enough for my needs, including recasting my pet.

I dunno, it makes sense to me.   How can you expect to have a melee character who can cast spells, have a good dps, high armor, high resistance, and never takes much damage?   There'd be no challenge to the game at all.   Something has to give.  Maybe if you went Spirit/Defense instead of Spirit/Warfare you'd take less damage, I've never played a Defense character so I don't know for sure.   But even if that worked, your offense would suffer, it's all a tradeoff.
39  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Virginia Tech and Gun Control on: April 18, 2007, 08:16:48 PM
Talking about gun control with people, and reading articles about it, the issue comes down to one question as far as I can tell:

Do you think restricting legal gun ownership would make it harder for CRIMINALS to get guns?

If you do, then restricting gun ownership makes perfect sense.  It's the trickle down theory for guns, if Joe Average can't get a gun, then Joe Criminal can't steal/buy it from Joe Average.   Joe Criminal will then have to resort to other, similarly simple weapons(knife/sword/club/etc) which will not allow him to kill as many people as he would with guns.  He wouldn't be able to kill as easily either, it's easy to 'accidentally' shoot someone to death(one shot will do it), not so easy to stab or club someone to death.

Things like bombs could kill as many, if not more, but those weapons aren't similar.  If guns were banned we wouldn't be seeing a norm of people robbing banks with hand held bombs, for example.  We wouldn't be seeing husbands killing their wives and/or families in the heat of the moment with a small bomb.   Yeah Timothy McVeigh blah blah blah, but really, how many T McVeigh type attacks have we seen since he did his?    Those kinds of weapons are just too complex to be replacements for guns in typical gun crimes.

On the other hand, if you think like I do, you might think that restricting or even banning guns won't impede anyone's ability to get a gun.  

You might look at things like illegal drugs, which any kid in elementary school can get their hands on, and ask "How are guns any different?"

What would be magical about anti-gun laws that would make them so much more effective than any other law against something people want?   Isn't it accepted that, in our society, if you have the money to pay you can get ANYTHING your heart desires?   Example:  Child porn is seen as probably the most unacceptable, over the line product anyone can dare to touch right?  And yet when these guys get busted they always have caches of thousands of images/videos.

So no, I don't think strict gun control would stop gun violence.  I bet the Mayor of Nagasaki would agree with me...if he was still alive that is.
40  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Public transportation too expensive? on: April 18, 2007, 07:52:11 PM
Here in the Los Angeles area, public transportation isn't so much too expensive as it is almost useless.   I have alot of respect for the people who use it to go to school(I did for a while) and work.

You have to wait too long for a bus, once one shows up you will almost be guaranteed to need to transfer at least once, and you will be required to walk long distances to get from bus stop to destination(or from origin to first bus).   Factor in how many stops each bus makes and you could easily have to leave two hours earlier than if you had a car and get back two hours later- four extra hours sucked out of your day just to use public transportation.   And that's assuming none of your busses are late, causing you to have to wait for the next one, which would add even more time.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.174 seconds with 21 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.082s, 1q)