Nope, not if the plot is so trite that a few story points actually do give away the whole plot, or the story is so boring that just a few teases don't properly whet the appetite.
It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but I thought that's what some of that hundreds of millions of dollars went toward. I have often left a theater wondering why the producers don't take 1 million out of the 100+ million FX budget and put it into hiring someone with actual talent in vague concepts like storyline, continuity, plot elements, creativity, etc.
Death Star
An unshielded exhaust port leading directly to the central reactor? Really?
I searched all the comments for this and not one person correctly pointed out that "The shaft is ray shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."
Complicated, unintended sequence breaks are sweet. I especially enjoy watching the ones for games like Super Metroid (SNES), Metroid: Fusion (GBA), and pretty much any game with a shinespark:)
I agree 100%. It's almost impossible to find a site with evenhanded moderation. Even some sites that seem to have a balance really just happen to have a similar number of extremists from each side and you can see it in the moderation (that's right Newsvine, I'm talking about you).
/. does seem to have a lot more level-headed types, people willing to do research, check data, provide citations, etc than most other sites. And that tends to lead to good discussion rather than the negative cyclic effect of partisan douchebaggery.
Perhaps the above is flamebait, but not really troll. Some useful info is offered. None of the analogies made are outright wrong and some of them seem quite correct.
The downside for the game maker is it's much harder to program/playtest, since you probably don't want any obvious sequence breaks (when someone can get to an area ahead of the sequence you've defined by the game story).
Any increase in mobility means you have to playtest more rigorously.
You're thinking too much like a man. Actually, men's bodies are designed for a lot more than "acts of violence...and moving heavy objects". I agree that we (homo sapiens) evolved during a time we were most likely nomadic, tribal, hunter-gatherer societies. What things can we then deduce from this history?
Supposedly (I read this in a book), men are better than women at abstract thinking, the kind of thing that would have helped a primitive hunter track his prey, avoid predators, intuit which plants would be bearing fruit, and when and where to move in order to survive the seasons.
Women's mental acuity evolved along the lines of multitasking, fine digit manipulation, and social intelligence. Allegedly, womens brains are more connected than mens (corpus callosum) which allows both halves to function more in tandem.
Physique-wise, I know a lot of girls that are just too "proper" to admit what they find attractive. Until they have a few drinks and then they actively admit they like a strong guy, which is that basic instinct that wants someone who can protect them. I think taller guys get more girls because they have higher than average confidence due to a perceived physical advantage. Short guys I've know with tons of confidence are always dating hot girls.
There could be something to this. A pretty girl won't have to put out in order to get guys to pay attention to her. Also, since she will have many suitors she'll quickly understand that she holds a lot of social weight, since having her on a guy's arm increases that man's social status.
She knows she can hold out and will still get plenty of attention so she'll usually only do the deed when she feels like it.
I'd mod you up if I could. I often notice many simple things a woman could do to go from plain looking to hot:
1) Lose weight.
2) Wear clothes that fit (not too tight, not too loose).
3) Find a hair style that accentuates the shape of their face.
4) Use makeup tastefully (usually meaning wear less of it), and know what colors look good with their skin tone.
I put #1 where I did because IMO it's the biggest beauty issue in America right now. There's so many girls that would be downright HOT if they weren't overweight.
That's probably because you're short, and feel threatened by a taller women. Do you drive a giant jacked-up pickup truck? Many short (under 5'5") men do.
Hah, that's pathetic! I drive an expensive European car to make up for my inadequacies, you insensitive clod!
Yeah, I think they realized that bailing out their greedy bank and wall st buddies was much more useful to humanity. If by useful you mean "likely to provide coke and strippers" and by humanity you mean "them".
Um, "identification of criminals"? Because they're always sure to have government issued ID on them at all times, and would never fake this information...
Exactly.
I don't think people who are about to commit crimes thing about how stupid it might be. Most are not being terribly rational.
Who's being stupid now?
Do you think it should be illegal to carry a manual detailing terrorist techniques? How the hell is anyone supposed to discuss and prevent these attack vectors if you can't talk about them or write them down?
Either everything is ok to say/write down or nothing is. You'll always find things people consider "objectionable" or "unsafe" whether they be objects, thought, or actions (such as speech). Unless you're actually trying to incite a riot or cause violence with your words (which would have to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt), we should be free to express ourselves however we please...
This reminds me of South Park 10.4 (Cartoon Wars II):
President Bush: Look, the fact of the matter is, the Family Guy writing staff is protected by something called the First Amendment.
Reporter 1: And what exactly is this First Amendment, Mr. President?
George W. Bush:...you know. Right to free speech.
Many of the reporters groan loudly and begin yelling
Reporter 2: Mr. President, when your administration came up with this First Amendment, did it not foresee a problem like this might happen?
George W. Bush: Well, we didn't come up with the First Amendment. It was already in place.
Reporter 3: What do you intend to do about this First Amendment, Mr. President?
Reporter 4: Forgive me, Mr. President, but this First Amendment sounds like a lot of bureaucratic jibbery-jroo.
It's Portugal. They decriminalized all drugs in 2001. There's a good write-up in Scientific American about the Cato Institute report that contains the findings:
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
If you believe that you can be in a society and not affect other members of your society (especially the young, impressionable ones, and the ones that aren't so happy with their status quo), then you've been doing drugs way too long.
You can't be a member of any system and not effect the system. That's beyond obvious. It seems like GP was talking about the harm involved to others when one imbibes a substance in a private setting. You said nothing that weakens his argument.
However, you should immediately seek to close down all bars and smoke shops so impressionable kids (think of the children!) won't be influenced into becoming adults and having to make decisions about what they do and don't put into their bodies.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no victory for them, is there?
Nope, not if the plot is so trite that a few story points actually do give away the whole plot, or the story is so boring that just a few teases don't properly whet the appetite.
It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but I thought that's what some of that hundreds of millions of dollars went toward. I have often left a theater wondering why the producers don't take 1 million out of the 100+ million FX budget and put it into hiring someone with actual talent in vague concepts like storyline, continuity, plot elements, creativity, etc.
You must have repressed your memories of Titanic, written and directed by your friend, James Cameron, ya?
Death Star
An unshielded exhaust port leading directly to the central reactor? Really?
I searched all the comments for this and not one person correctly pointed out that "The shaft is ray shielded, so you'll have to use proton torpedoes."
Slashdot, you disappoint me.
Complicated, unintended sequence breaks are sweet. I especially enjoy watching the ones for games like Super Metroid (SNES), Metroid: Fusion (GBA), and pretty much any game with a shinespark :)
ok, just kidding.
/. does seem to have a lot more level-headed types, people willing to do research, check data, provide citations, etc than most other sites. And that tends to lead to good discussion rather than the negative cyclic effect of partisan douchebaggery.
I agree 100%. It's almost impossible to find a site with evenhanded moderation. Even some sites that seem to have a balance really just happen to have a similar number of extremists from each side and you can see it in the moderation (that's right Newsvine, I'm talking about you).
Perhaps the above is flamebait, but not really troll. Some useful info is offered. None of the analogies made are outright wrong and some of them seem quite correct.
The downside for the game maker is it's much harder to program/playtest, since you probably don't want any obvious sequence breaks (when someone can get to an area ahead of the sequence you've defined by the game story). Any increase in mobility means you have to playtest more rigorously.
What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?
Hmm, that's a tough question, but I'm gonna go with the past 50 or so years of media hysterics.
"I have been and always shall be your friend."
You're thinking too much like a man. Actually, men's bodies are designed for a lot more than "acts of violence...and moving heavy objects". I agree that we (homo sapiens) evolved during a time we were most likely nomadic, tribal, hunter-gatherer societies. What things can we then deduce from this history?
Supposedly (I read this in a book), men are better than women at abstract thinking, the kind of thing that would have helped a primitive hunter track his prey, avoid predators, intuit which plants would be bearing fruit, and when and where to move in order to survive the seasons.
Women's mental acuity evolved along the lines of multitasking, fine digit manipulation, and social intelligence. Allegedly, womens brains are more connected than mens (corpus callosum) which allows both halves to function more in tandem.
Physique-wise, I know a lot of girls that are just too "proper" to admit what they find attractive. Until they have a few drinks and then they actively admit they like a strong guy, which is that basic instinct that wants someone who can protect them. I think taller guys get more girls because they have higher than average confidence due to a perceived physical advantage. Short guys I've know with tons of confidence are always dating hot girls.
There could be something to this. A pretty girl won't have to put out in order to get guys to pay attention to her. Also, since she will have many suitors she'll quickly understand that she holds a lot of social weight, since having her on a guy's arm increases that man's social status.
She knows she can hold out and will still get plenty of attention so she'll usually only do the deed when she feels like it.
I'd mod you up if I could. I often notice many simple things a woman could do to go from plain looking to hot:
1) Lose weight.
2) Wear clothes that fit (not too tight, not too loose).
3) Find a hair style that accentuates the shape of their face.
4) Use makeup tastefully (usually meaning wear less of it), and know what colors look good with their skin tone.
I put #1 where I did because IMO it's the biggest beauty issue in America right now. There's so many girls that would be downright HOT if they weren't overweight.
Well then, Mr physics expert, perhaps you'd like to explain why Dwarves get a +2 with heavy, two-handed weapons such as axes?
That's probably because you're short, and feel threatened by a taller women. Do you drive a giant jacked-up pickup truck? Many short (under 5'5") men do.
Hah, that's pathetic! I drive an expensive European car to make up for my inadequacies, you insensitive clod!
They have cable now, so it's fine.
Probably satellite based, from Dish Network no less, thus keeping this thread on topic!
Yeah, I think they realized that bailing out their greedy bank and wall st buddies was much more useful to humanity. If by useful you mean "likely to provide coke and strippers" and by humanity you mean "them".
Um, "identification of criminals"? Because they're always sure to have government issued ID on them at all times, and would never fake this information...
Exactly. I don't think people who are about to commit crimes thing about how stupid it might be. Most are not being terribly rational. Who's being stupid now?
Either everything is ok to say/write down or nothing is. You'll always find things people consider "objectionable" or "unsafe" whether they be objects, thought, or actions (such as speech). Unless you're actually trying to incite a riot or cause violence with your words (which would have to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt), we should be free to express ourselves however we please...
This reminds me of South Park 10.4 (Cartoon Wars II):
President Bush: Look, the fact of the matter is, the Family Guy writing staff is protected by something called the First Amendment. ...you know. Right to free speech.
Reporter 1: And what exactly is this First Amendment, Mr. President?
George W. Bush:
Many of the reporters groan loudly and begin yelling
Reporter 2: Mr. President, when your administration came up with this First Amendment, did it not foresee a problem like this might happen?
George W. Bush: Well, we didn't come up with the First Amendment. It was already in place.
Reporter 3: What do you intend to do about this First Amendment, Mr. President?
Reporter 4: Forgive me, Mr. President, but this First Amendment sounds like a lot of bureaucratic jibbery-jroo.
Damn constitution, always getting in our way.
Any proof that he was detained and that this happened?
You, sir, are begging for a goatse reply.
Step 1) Make graphic novel mentioning 9/11 /.
Step 2) Get detained by TSA, spread story over
Step 3) Profit!
P.S. Did I completely miss the joke?
yes :)
Do not want! (don't feed)
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
Amazing how little press it's gotten.
If you believe that you can be in a society and not affect other members of your society (especially the young, impressionable ones, and the ones that aren't so happy with their status quo), then you've been doing drugs way too long.
You can't be a member of any system and not effect the system. That's beyond obvious. It seems like GP was talking about the harm involved to others when one imbibes a substance in a private setting. You said nothing that weakens his argument.
However, you should immediately seek to close down all bars and smoke shops so impressionable kids (think of the children!) won't be influenced into becoming adults and having to make decisions about what they do and don't put into their bodies.