Yahoo has its own spam filter. Spam messages automatically get put into the Junk Mail folder. Anything in this folder gets deleted once it's been there 30 days.
$94 million invested in a movie that many people said couldn't be done for any price. Those people so far have been proven right. The Lord of the Rings is just too much for a trilogy of movies, no matter how big your budget. To properly do it, it would have to be a TV series, probably spread out over three seasons for a total of 72 hours of film.
You seem to be stuck in fantasy if you expected a perfect complete adapation. See, that's your huge false assumption. I never said that, nor even implied it. I never expected any adaptation, let alone a perfect one. Personally, I wish they'd never made the movies.
No one said you didn't understand reality. But this debate isn't about reality - it's about whether the movies accurately reflect Tolkien's world, and the answer is a resounding "No". All the excuses in the world won't change that.
The thing that really irks me about the movies is how they spawned a whole generation of people who talk about the Lord of the Rings as if they actually knew the story and understood Tolkien's world. And to these people, the movies *are* the Lord of the Rings, and they couldn't care less about the books. I'm sorry guys, but Aragorn is not someone who looks like Viggo Mortensen, and Legolas is not someone who looks like Orlando Bloom with elf ears. Oh, and dwarves are some of the best endurance runners that exist, second only to elves. Dwarves can run for days with no sleep to get to a battle, and then spend the next few days fighting. They're not fat little men that can barely keep up and run out of breath all the time.
No one's calling you an idiot, and the GP is definitely not being a pretentious snob. He was trying to give you a dignified way out of the hole you're digging yourself into.
The LotR movies may be a somewhat less poor adaptation than past such endeavors, but to call it a "fine adaptation" is doing Tolkien a terrible disservice. In the movies, everything is more or less cute and cuddly (yes even the orcs, which are portrayed as the type of "baddies" that you would dress up as for Halloween, and are altogether different from the way Tolkien portrays them even in the LotR trilogy). Even hobbits are not cute and cuddly in Tolkien's world. Their lifestyle might be considered quaint, but even the nicest of them can have a nasty edge when put to it. Just look at some of the notes Bilbo wrote for the "presents" he left behind in his house when he passed it on to Frodo. The movies are a handful of snapshots of a few action scenes; the books are a grand epic that develops slowly as the author leads you on. Beyond that, it's kind of difficult to explain the difference to someone who just doesn't care and doesn't want to see, but to those of us who do care the difference is like night and day. And yes, this is all still just talking about The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It becomes even far grander an epic when you add in the rest of Tolkien's works as well.
Darkfall is the game that's going to be exactly what we're looking for... IF it ever gets released. So far it's been 6+ years in development, and there's yet to be a beta.
I wish I had mod points for you. You hit the nail right on the head there.
All my friends really like the LotR movies, and I suppose they're good movies, if you've never read Tolkien's books and/or don't care about Tolkien's world. However I happen to like Tolkien's world, and The Silmarillion, and as a result I don't care for the movies at all.
Newsflash, even today the average new PC bought by a home user still does not have a CPU as good as any of the ones used in the benchmarks.
Whether AMD and Intel care about sub $100 CPUs I don't know. But considering that by far the majority of inexpensive new PCs being sold today have precisely this range of CPUs in them, I'd say it's very relevant.
I'm an AMD fan, but I have to strongly disagree with you. That may have been true when comparing Athlons with P4s, but the Core processors are a whole different ballgame.
It's incredibly ignorant to assert that AMD still has the better design when their CPUs have less processing power while consuming more electricity.
AMD may still be able to work with their current architecture and make it competitive with the Core 2 design, but only time will tell. It is worth noting that only now are they starting to convert to a 65nm fabrication, and they may well be able to significantly improve the work per watt ratio in doing this, however it's naive to assume that Intel isn't already working on similar improvements with an even smaller fabrication process or something similarly effective.
So though I tend to prefer AMD, in the end my spending dollars will go to whoever can give me the best performance at the price point I can afford. Currently, that is not yet Intel.
And anything Intel has that's lower than that is still pwned by AMD CPUs that sell for half the price.
Just last night I finally bought some kit to get my system into the dual-core/DDR2 generation, and with AMD I was able to squeak in at a mere $300 at Newegg, including CPU, motherboard, RAM, and video card. The entrance fee with Intel (albeit with a significantly better CPU perhaps, but a 3600+ X2 will do what I need just fine)using a similarly equipped motherboard would have been nearly $394, or about 32% more. Easy choice for me.
Well, the one hopeful thing to keep in mind is that it's only in the last 12-18 months that they've started making games incompatible with Win2K. And even that is a "fake" incompatibility, where the only reason the games don't work is because they're coded to do a check for XP, and if they don't find it refuse to install. Most of them have work-arounds that do let you install them under Win2K, and then they work fine.
My personal prediction is that it will be at least 2 years before we see popular "must-have" games that include support for DX10 only.
Really? My primary use for my Windows machine is gaming, and I know damn well I won't be *forced* to upgrade to Vista, ever. If and when the time comes that new games will require DX10 (and therefore Vista) I'll see what the state of Vista is then. If I still don't like it, I'll simply do without those games.
At first glance they look contradictory. But I'm guessing by "not being patient enough" he means not taking the time to do that second glance into the lane he's about to switch to, forgetting to use turn signals occasionally, and in general just not paying enough attention to driving because of other things occupying the mind.
The answer may be easy for you, but that doesn't mean your opinion is shared by everyone.
One thing I would like to point out is that regardless of how legal or moral such "piracy" is, it's very thoroughly American.
Anyone who knows their American history will recall that the main catalyst for the founding of America was precisely this kind of rebellion against ridiculous overpricing on luxury goods. The only difference is, back then the people who took your perspective were called Tories and quite often got tarred and feathered.
I'm guessing the issue you're running into is that you're using an OEM key with a Retail CD or vice versa. I work in a PC repair shop, and I've been using the same SP2 CDs since they were first available. Out of hundreds of windows reinstalls, I have yet to see any deviation from what I'm describing. A normal, official OEM WinXP install CD with SP2 will work with any OEM key. And a normal, official Retail WinXP install CD with SP2 will work with any Retail key. Now, if you've got an older CD that does *not* include SP2, it most likely will not work with a key that came with an SP2 install CD.
Yes I know full well how most ISPs hand out IP addresses. I also know that most of the time, even when you don't pay for a static address you'll still have the same address for months or years at a time. They could change them every 24 hours, but most don't. (Unless we're talking about dialup, which pretty much sucks for gaming anyway.) Furthermore, if you want you can easily block the whole IP address range of the ISP the offender uses, so that even if he does manage to pick up a new dynamic address, he won't be able to reconnect. But you didn't know that either, did you?
Yes I've not admitted to using Live. I've also admitted to using plenty of services that are similar. Taking the description of Live and judging it with my past experiences with very similar services is not that big of a leap. It's not quite like saying "You know what, I'm GREAT at driving a car and using a flight sim, I bet I can just jump in a Cessna and start flying!"
Maybe you should stick to arguing about things you understand.
Really? You're so sure? I'm glad you know how often I run into these types in my daily gaming routine. I play maybe 4 hours a day... at this point on an average week I might block 1... maybe 2 people. I've only had to report maybe 3 people total over the last year. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong games. Obviously it wont get rid of everyone but in my experience it works and works well. There seems to only be so many people that are in my skill range, in my "zone", play the kinds of games I play, and play during the same hours that I play... that narrows the pool down quite a bit, beyond that once you've got 30 or so people on your block list the number of undesirables you encounter plummets to almost nothing. I'm not making some unfounded claim... THIS IS MY ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. The "zone" filtering does wonders too as it seems almost all of the ass hats game in the "underground" zone. Fine. Everyone's online experience is different, I'll grant you that. However most people aren't as lucky as you are, even with Live. No, I don't use it myself but I know plenty of people who do.
How is banning someone's IP any different from blocking them on Xbox Live? If someone is in a room with me I push my guide button select their name out of the recent player list and hit the "Avoid this player" option. I never see that person again, not matter what game I play with. If they want to come back they have to drop another $50 to do so, not to mention they wont even know that I've blocked them, the system will just quietly put us in separate lobbies and they're none the wiser. If the person drops another $50 to get another account, the system might just as quietly put him in the same lobby and the same game with you again, and you would be none the wiser. If you ban someone's IP, pretty much the only way they're getting back on your server is if they find another ISP. That's a great deal more hassle than just dropping another $50 to buy another account.
And if I don't have a clan? I don't know anyone IRL who likes playing the same games I do. I live in the friggin woods, I'm lucky if I can find another gamer nevermind someone who shares my tastes and is at my skill. I turn around games quickly too... I might spend a month with a game before moving on to another. How much work would I have to do to configure a server and find a good group of people to play on it? Are we at relative skill levels to make the game enjoyable without feeling dragged down or pulled along? To me that's a whole lot of time wasted setting up a decent gaming experience when I could just be playing instead. If you're a hardcore gaming group of friends then yeah running your own private server is ideal, but what about people like myself that while I game frequently I really just want to pop online and have a fun casual game with people who aren't so good they annihilate me or people so new they don't even know the basic concepts of playing the game. Then I really do feel sorry for you. Being "hardcore" is not a requirement to have a clan. In my clan, there's about half a dozen of us that regularly game together, and another dozen or so that show up occasionally. When there's a FPS that we really like, we set up a server for it, for as long as we feel like playing it. Other times we just hang out on TeamSpeak and play our own separate games. Or sometimes we play games like GW. Yeah, we pay to have our own website/game/VOIP server hosted, which costs around $15 a month per person. But that's not even a requirement. It's easy enough to find a place to have a website hosted for free, and use something free like Xfire for text and voice chat. It's about gaming with people you actually get to know, instead of just always playing with 20 more people you never met before.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo has its own spam filter. Spam messages automatically get put into the Junk Mail folder. Anything in this folder gets deleted once it's been there 30 days.
No one said you didn't understand reality. But this debate isn't about reality - it's about whether the movies accurately reflect Tolkien's world, and the answer is a resounding "No". All the excuses in the world won't change that.
The thing that really irks me about the movies is how they spawned a whole generation of people who talk about the Lord of the Rings as if they actually knew the story and understood Tolkien's world. And to these people, the movies *are* the Lord of the Rings, and they couldn't care less about the books. I'm sorry guys, but Aragorn is not someone who looks like Viggo Mortensen, and Legolas is not someone who looks like Orlando Bloom with elf ears. Oh, and dwarves are some of the best endurance runners that exist, second only to elves. Dwarves can run for days with no sleep to get to a battle, and then spend the next few days fighting. They're not fat little men that can barely keep up and run out of breath all the time.
No one's calling you an idiot, and the GP is definitely not being a pretentious snob. He was trying to give you a dignified way out of the hole you're digging yourself into.
The LotR movies may be a somewhat less poor adaptation than past such endeavors, but to call it a "fine adaptation" is doing Tolkien a terrible disservice. In the movies, everything is more or less cute and cuddly (yes even the orcs, which are portrayed as the type of "baddies" that you would dress up as for Halloween, and are altogether different from the way Tolkien portrays them even in the LotR trilogy). Even hobbits are not cute and cuddly in Tolkien's world. Their lifestyle might be considered quaint, but even the nicest of them can have a nasty edge when put to it. Just look at some of the notes Bilbo wrote for the "presents" he left behind in his house when he passed it on to Frodo. The movies are a handful of snapshots of a few action scenes; the books are a grand epic that develops slowly as the author leads you on. Beyond that, it's kind of difficult to explain the difference to someone who just doesn't care and doesn't want to see, but to those of us who do care the difference is like night and day. And yes, this is all still just talking about The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It becomes even far grander an epic when you add in the rest of Tolkien's works as well.
www.darkfallonline.com for more info
I wish I had mod points for you. You hit the nail right on the head there.
All my friends really like the LotR movies, and I suppose they're good movies, if you've never read Tolkien's books and/or don't care about Tolkien's world. However I happen to like Tolkien's world, and The Silmarillion, and as a result I don't care for the movies at all.
Newsflash, even today the average new PC bought by a home user still does not have a CPU as good as any of the ones used in the benchmarks.
Whether AMD and Intel care about sub $100 CPUs I don't know. But considering that by far the majority of inexpensive new PCs being sold today have precisely this range of CPUs in them, I'd say it's very relevant.
I'm an AMD fan, but I have to strongly disagree with you. That may have been true when comparing Athlons with P4s, but the Core processors are a whole different ballgame.
It's incredibly ignorant to assert that AMD still has the better design when their CPUs have less processing power while consuming more electricity.
AMD may still be able to work with their current architecture and make it competitive with the Core 2 design, but only time will tell. It is worth noting that only now are they starting to convert to a 65nm fabrication, and they may well be able to significantly improve the work per watt ratio in doing this, however it's naive to assume that Intel isn't already working on similar improvements with an even smaller fabrication process or something similarly effective.
So though I tend to prefer AMD, in the end my spending dollars will go to whoever can give me the best performance at the price point I can afford. Currently, that is not yet Intel.
Couldn't agree more. Intel's cheapest Core 2 Duo CPU is still $169 on Newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16819115013
And anything Intel has that's lower than that is still pwned by AMD CPUs that sell for half the price.
Just last night I finally bought some kit to get my system into the dual-core/DDR2 generation, and with AMD I was able to squeak in at a mere $300 at Newegg, including CPU, motherboard, RAM, and video card. The entrance fee with Intel (albeit with a significantly better CPU perhaps, but a 3600+ X2 will do what I need just fine)using a similarly equipped motherboard would have been nearly $394, or about 32% more. Easy choice for me.
Official release date for a browser is June 4. It's going to be a version of Opera.
http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=11634
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2006/02/15/
Yeah that's pretty much where I come in.
When I started reading the summary, I got as far as "Symantec". And that was enough for me.
Well, the one hopeful thing to keep in mind is that it's only in the last 12-18 months that they've started making games incompatible with Win2K. And even that is a "fake" incompatibility, where the only reason the games don't work is because they're coded to do a check for XP, and if they don't find it refuse to install. Most of them have work-arounds that do let you install them under Win2K, and then they work fine.
My personal prediction is that it will be at least 2 years before we see popular "must-have" games that include support for DX10 only.
Really? My primary use for my Windows machine is gaming, and I know damn well I won't be *forced* to upgrade to Vista, ever. If and when the time comes that new games will require DX10 (and therefore Vista) I'll see what the state of Vista is then. If I still don't like it, I'll simply do without those games.
Problem is I liked her looks better before the face-lift, and the 'no sex' is permanent. :(
Yeah. Kinda like as if you had to give up sex so your gf could get a face-lift.
Well said.
At first glance they look contradictory. But I'm guessing by "not being patient enough" he means not taking the time to do that second glance into the lane he's about to switch to, forgetting to use turn signals occasionally, and in general just not paying enough attention to driving because of other things occupying the mind.
So nice to see clueless people on the loose with mod points.
It worked for me.
One thing I would like to point out is that regardless of how legal or moral such "piracy" is, it's very thoroughly American.
Anyone who knows their American history will recall that the main catalyst for the founding of America was precisely this kind of rebellion against ridiculous overpricing on luxury goods. The only difference is, back then the people who took your perspective were called Tories and quite often got tarred and feathered.
I'm guessing the issue you're running into is that you're using an OEM key with a Retail CD or vice versa. I work in a PC repair shop, and I've been using the same SP2 CDs since they were first available. Out of hundreds of windows reinstalls, I have yet to see any deviation from what I'm describing. A normal, official OEM WinXP install CD with SP2 will work with any OEM key. And a normal, official Retail WinXP install CD with SP2 will work with any Retail key. Now, if you've got an older CD that does *not* include SP2, it most likely will not work with a key that came with an SP2 install CD.
Yes I know full well how most ISPs hand out IP addresses. I also know that most of the time, even when you don't pay for a static address you'll still have the same address for months or years at a time. They could change them every 24 hours, but most don't. (Unless we're talking about dialup, which pretty much sucks for gaming anyway.) Furthermore, if you want you can easily block the whole IP address range of the ISP the offender uses, so that even if he does manage to pick up a new dynamic address, he won't be able to reconnect. But you didn't know that either, did you?
Yes I've not admitted to using Live. I've also admitted to using plenty of services that are similar. Taking the description of Live and judging it with my past experiences with very similar services is not that big of a leap. It's not quite like saying "You know what, I'm GREAT at driving a car and using a flight sim, I bet I can just jump in a Cessna and start flying!"
Maybe you should stick to arguing about things you understand.
Where did I say you can't create private games with Live? Oh, that's right. I didn't.
What I did say is that that being able to create private games is not a benefit exclusive to Live. Most PC multiplayer games already have that option.
Yes. It even works for Windows Solitaire. Hard to get much more single-player than that.
You really don't see why it would change anything?
One word for you. Marketing.