First, the reason Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie is the title is because of the name. People know it's a fantasy movie. It carries an immense amount of branding as well, for good or bad.
From reading comments here, it seems people are thinking this is going to be some sort of view of a RPG-session. It's not. It is a movie done somewhat close to the rules/spells/etc. of DnD.
One of the biggest flaws in other fantasy movies (besides the lack of actors and actresses who could, well, *ACT*) was the lack of any real idea what the boundaries of magic are. By basing it on DnD, Corey ("the man" behind the movie) has given *SOMETHING* to the magic system besides "well, he can do magic!"
We aren't going to be watching someone DM any more than X-Men was watching someone GM in the Marvel Universe (I've got the Marvel RPG).
Give it a shot. It's just a movie, after all, and hey, it may be quite cool.
He bitches about the "discussion" quality here, yet does exactly the thing he's bitching about.
It was a simple question, and a flame in kind to the insults he was flinging directly at Rob and the/. crew, to which he never replied. The reasonable implication is that he knows it's baseless and posted strictly to impunge/. and its operators.
This is mostly from memory, so if it's wrong, let me know, but I suspect it's fairly correct.
Their government makes not even a token gesture to any sort of rights beyond those government can give. There is no idea of an "inalienable right," it's all what we call "priviledge." IOW: anything a British citizen does is by the government's leave. If the government were to decide that officials didn't need warrents to search, suddenly officials don't need warrents to search *AT ALL*.
There is no court deciding (in the U.S.' case, often deciding wrongly) whether something is illegal or not.
I think it was (un)officially TOS (that other site), but it was firmly tounge through cheek. No animosity that I noticed, ever. That's exactly what I was saying ("TOS" not withstanding).
It's an honest question and your unwillingness to answer it says just how much of a liar and a mud-slinger you are. You have no proof/. is involved and yet you claim they are behind the K5 attacks. WHERE *IS* YOUR PROOF?
It's like how good friends mock each other and pick on each other, etc. K5 and/. do that. K5 constantly puts up things like "at a certain other discussion site" and so forth.
It's been my experience that whenever someone incorrectly claims another person is in school (and implies it's H.S. or earlier), that person is, himself a High Schooler.
Either that or you have absolutely no ability for an original insult, and no ability to debate your own stance.
The source of a proposition is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that proposition. This is not true. The source of a statement of fact is irrelevent to the truth or falsehood of that statement. You, however, are making no such statement.
This is a fact. This is how logic works. I know that you don't understand that fact, and I sympathize: You're young, and school is hard for somebody like you. Was this a deliberate drop for the obvious grammar flame?
However, the reliability of an UNSUPPORTEDaccusation is directly tied to the source of an accusation. Where are the objective facts supporting your accusation? That's right... You have none. Your only support is that K5 is "competition" for Slashdot, despite Slashdot's maintainers disagreeing with you.
For now, just repeat after me: If somebody with a nick says the sky is green, and an AC says it's blue, the guy with the nick is still a moron and the AC is still right, regardless of which statement is associated with which name. You ever been to L.A.? I've seen what can only be called a "green sky" there. Yes, I get the point you're trying to make, too bad it's irrelevent.
Let's see, Malda and Rusty are having discussions about fixing it, VA (owners of Andover and Slashdot) is donating hardware, and the reason they don't have the dorks (you used "penis bird") like you posting is because you shits didn't care to go fuck it up, *YET*.
Oh, given time, you'd get over there and post crap, like the message to which I'm replying, but you hadn't, yet.
Are you just bitter that Malda did Slashdot and you didn't get in on it?
The lack on a decent, stable, full-featured browser for Linux is what's holding me back from using it on all of my machines. A Win 2000 with Internet Explorer remains... The lack of a decent, stable browser for Win 2000 doesn't seem to phase you?
And MAPS will be destroyed. MAPS postures itself as a "voluntary" thing, but if you actually read how it works, you get put on the list for blocking MAPS' looking around.
Gee.... MAPS can't be any more hypocritical there. MAPS' whole reason to be is because they claim spammers are tresspassing on peoples' net connections. Yet, if you ban MAPS, no matter whether you have an open relay *OR NOT*, you are listed as being an open relay.
It's astounding how many otherwise intelligent people think this is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
First, the reason Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie is the title is because of the name. People know it's a fantasy movie. It carries an immense amount of branding as well, for good or bad.
From reading comments here, it seems people are thinking this is going to be some sort of view of a RPG-session. It's not. It is a movie done somewhat close to the rules/spells/etc. of DnD.
One of the biggest flaws in other fantasy movies (besides the lack of actors and actresses who could, well, *ACT*) was the lack of any real idea what the boundaries of magic are. By basing it on DnD, Corey ("the man" behind the movie) has given *SOMETHING* to the magic system besides "well, he can do magic!"
We aren't going to be watching someone DM any more than X-Men was watching someone GM in the Marvel Universe (I've got the Marvel RPG).
Give it a shot. It's just a movie, after all, and hey, it may be quite cool.
There wouldn't have been the need to insult.
He bitches about the "discussion" quality here, yet does exactly the thing he's bitching about.
It was a simple question, and a flame in kind to the insults he was flinging directly at Rob and the /. crew, to which he never replied. The reasonable implication is that he knows it's baseless and posted strictly to impunge /. and its operators.
Happy now?
This is mostly from memory, so if it's wrong, let me know, but I suspect it's fairly correct.
Their government makes not even a token gesture to any sort of rights beyond those government can give. There is no idea of an "inalienable right," it's all what we call "priviledge." IOW: anything a British citizen does is by the government's leave. If the government were to decide that officials didn't need warrents to search, suddenly officials don't need warrents to search *AT ALL*.
There is no court deciding (in the U.S.' case, often deciding wrongly) whether something is illegal or not.
The Canadian government just hasn't gotten around to doing anything about it.
That was sarcasm, right? I mean, there's no way Britian's government would want to impunge upon an English citizen's privacy, right?
Yes, THAT was sarcasm, folks.
But funny.
I think it was (un)officially TOS (that other site), but it was firmly tounge through cheek. No animosity that I noticed, ever.
That's exactly what I was saying ("TOS" not withstanding).
It's an honest question and your unwillingness to answer it says just how much of a liar and a mud-slinger you are. You have no proof /. is involved and yet you claim they are behind the K5 attacks. WHERE *IS* YOUR PROOF?
How hard can that be to answer?
You're casting unsupported accusations around. Where's your proof? Can I get any clearer?
It's like how good friends mock each other and pick on each other, etc. K5 and /. do that. K5 constantly puts up things like "at a certain other discussion site" and so forth.
It's that simple. Where is your evidence that the Slashdot maintainers are behind, or in any way supportive, of the action of the script kiddie?
It's been my experience that whenever someone incorrectly claims another person is in school (and implies it's H.S. or earlier), that person is, himself a High Schooler.
Either that or you have absolutely no ability for an original insult, and no ability to debate your own stance.
The source of a proposition is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that proposition.
This is not true. The source of a statement of fact is irrelevent to the truth or falsehood of that statement. You, however, are making no such statement.
This is a fact. This is how logic works. I know that you don't understand that fact, and I sympathize: You're young, and school is hard for somebody like you.
Was this a deliberate drop for the obvious grammar flame?
However, the reliability of an UNSUPPORTEDaccusation is directly tied to the source of an accusation. Where are the objective facts supporting your accusation? That's right... You have none. Your only support is that K5 is "competition" for Slashdot, despite Slashdot's maintainers disagreeing with you.
For now, just repeat after me: If somebody with a nick says the sky is green, and an AC says it's blue, the guy with the nick is still a moron and the AC is still right, regardless of which statement is associated with which name.
You ever been to L.A.? I've seen what can only be called a "green sky" there. Yes, I get the point you're trying to make, too bad it's irrelevent.
No proof. No evidence. No reason for believing something other than you have a personal gripe against /. for some reason.
I note you're afraid to stake *ANY* name behind what you say.
That deserves troll-ness immediately.
Let's see, Malda and Rusty are having discussions about fixing it, VA (owners of Andover and Slashdot) is donating hardware, and the reason they don't have the dorks (you used "penis bird") like you posting is because you shits didn't care to go fuck it up, *YET*.
Oh, given time, you'd get over there and post crap, like the message to which I'm replying, but you hadn't, yet.
Are you just bitter that Malda did Slashdot and you didn't get in on it?
of /.'s loss of quality.
Thank you for proving your stupidity.
But he got raised on 3DSMax because it was what the school had.
My current background which he rendered. (It's a bit big, though, you've been warned)
(grr, nothing here)
....that Apple was dead in the graphics market. And yes, I've heard constantly that there was no need for Apples anymore for doing graphics.
The people saying it were wrong, but hey, nothing new there.
Or are you going to demand 3DS Max on Linux before you switch. :) All I can say is (ObAOL): "This is cool!"
The lack on a decent, stable, full-featured browser for Linux is what's holding me back from using it on all of my machines. A Win 2000 with Internet Explorer remains...
The lack of a decent, stable browser for Win 2000 doesn't seem to phase you?
In *THAT* case, I reverse my stance. MAPS is the good one. It's ORBS that is evil.
Thanks. Useful link added to bookmarks.
And MAPS will be destroyed. MAPS postures itself as a "voluntary" thing, but if you actually read how it works, you get put on the list for blocking MAPS' looking around.
Gee.... MAPS can't be any more hypocritical there. MAPS' whole reason to be is because they claim spammers are tresspassing on peoples' net connections. Yet, if you ban MAPS, no matter whether you have an open relay *OR NOT*, you are listed as being an open relay.
It's astounding how many otherwise intelligent people think this is a good thing.
Course, the point has probably been missed....