Well, I'm certainly not going to skip the movie. You're absolutely right about how it should have been done, but what PJ did put together is still good.
...assuming, of course, that some of the most crucial scenes haven't been screwed up. My favorite scene in the books is when Merry and Eowyn take on the witch king. If they did it right, it's going to rock!
Definitely should have been 6 movies though, and without all of the totally unnecessary plot changes and action scenes.
Yeah, that's pretty annoying. I spent a lot of time on voyages to save points in Metroid Prime. Better to be able to put the game down when you want to.
A shorter game isn't necessarily going to alleviate this, though. It's a design issue.
"I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Uh, what is he referring to as the "best visual entertainment?" Comic books? Can't be anything on TV, from what I hear these days.
"It'd be like watching the first half an hour of a movie or reading the first ten chapters of a book"
Now here's a thought. Should all books be comic books? Of course not. So the Lord of the Rings is too long to read over a weekend. Should it have been shorter? I would argue that it should not. I, for one, enjoy epics. If it takes me weeks to finish a book or a game, then those are just weeks in which I don't play/read anything else.
I don't have huge piles of half-finished games, I have short piles of finished games. Of course I don't have time to play everything, so I discriminate. I only play games that I feel are worth my time, and I take as much time as necessary to complete them.
Not that episodic or short games would be *bad*, of course. It's an interesting concept, and I would be interested to try out a "comic book" game that comes out once a month and takes me a few hours to finish (and costs about 5 bucks an episode). What I disagree with is the argument that long games are bad.
I enjoy comic books, but I happen to enjoy "real" books a lot more. I wouldn't want to do without either one.
I think we're splitting hairs here. When I say "absolute" I mean "I'm never going to reconsider," as you say.
The confusion that continues is merely our subtle differences in the use of words. When I use the word "believe," I mean to take utterly on faith. Therefore you don't have to "believe" in gravity, because you have evidence of it. I suppose you still could take it on faith, but such a thing would be pointless and unnecessary. God, magic, or anything supernatural, on the other hand, *must* be taken entirely on faith.
When you put these two concepts together, you get my statement that no conclusion is absolute. Since we're using the word "conclusion" to mean an idea that is based on evidence (rather than belief), then it cannot be "absolute" as defined above. To say that it is an absolute truth is to take it on faith (believe it even in the face of contradictory evidence), which doesn't fit the definition of "conclusion" as we're using it.
Absolutely correct. However, to believe that something is bunk is to take it on faith that said thing is bunk, without any evidence.
The other thing is that no conclusion is absolute. I can't believe in gravity, but I conclude it exists because I can feel it, measure it, etc. I can never absolutely prove that it exists (I could be hallucinating), but it's a damn safe assumption.
The universe is defined as that with which we can interact.
If we can't test it, it's not part of the universe. How can something exist if it can in no possible way have an effect on anything that we can observe? How can we consider such a thing to be a part of our universe? We can't.
Of course believers won't be swayed, because they're basing their view of the world on faith.
Science is not about faith, it's about observation of the universe.
I'm not saying that prayer doesn't work, or that there are no gods, but that it's pointless to discuss this philisophically. I could say that I believe that my pet rock created the universe and my argument would be just as strong as *any* argument based on faith.
Looks like an interesting Wired article. If prayer or psychic power or any other kind of magic could be consistently scientifically observed to work, it would be a huge breakthrough. Nothing like breaking our model of the universe to really make some huge discoveries. Seriously.
Until some strong evidence is discovered, though, it's meaningless to me. Surely faith can be shown to help those who are convinced it's helping them (as in the power that your mind has over your own body), but they're only fooling themselves. And yes, I realize that the study in the Wired article was supposedly double-blind (nobody knew who was being prayed for), which is why it's interesting.
There's no need for this to be a philisophical debate. This is an article about science. It concerns the real, measurable world with which we can interact. If a person believes in prayer, then he/she believes in it based on faith, not based on the real world. Faith does not require anything to be at all tangible or in any way "real".
You are dividing people into "those who believe X" and "those who beleive Y." Of course, there are those who believe neither.
Beleiving that prayer is bunk is just as silly as believing that it's not bunk. You're taking something as a given without any evidence.
It's much more sensible to *think* that prayer is bunk, based on observation. Maybe you think right, maybe you think wrong. You can never be sure, so the best you can do is make an assumption based on input from the universe. To believe something is to live in a fantasy world.
Re:What to do if you happen upon one of these
on
Martial Arts Robots
·
· Score: 1
You should try out Firebird. Even though it's still early (there are a few annoying bugs) it's far less annoying than IE.
It's lightweight (unlike mozilla) yet it still has numerous features that I now can't live without. Particularly tabbed browsing, the fully configurable toolbar/menu, and (via an extension) the ability to right-click on *anything* on a page and remove it.
This is a feature that I've been waiting for forever. Don't you hate when you're trying to read something and there's a flashing gif right next to it? Right click and kill it. Of course. It's my browser, it should be under my control, and I should be able to tell it not to render something. Excellent.
Depending on your genre preference, I would highly recommend F-Zero GX, Ikaruga, Eternal Darkness, and Rogue Squadron II - Rogue Leader (although you'd be better off holding out for RS III, which includes everything from II).
Viewtiful Joe also looks to be an excellent game, although I haven't played it yet.
Mario Sunshine is good, and IMO Wind Waker was excellent (although too easy), but there are a lot of other top-notch games available for the cube.
By Zelda 3, do you mean "LOZ: A Link to the Past" for the SNES? If so, then I agree that it's possibly the best Zelda game.
As for it not being a part of the package, it's probably because the game is available for GBA. Wouldn't make sense to give away something they're still selling.
As far as remakes go, I would love to see Zelda 1 remade. What the new 3D zeldas are lacking IMO is the size/difficulty of the original dungeons.
Exactly. Congress made a big show of passing the previous bill, with the "50 million Americans can't be wrong," etc etc. I'll bet those same 50 million would be more than happy to see the exemptions removed.
Why aren't they making a big show of crossing out the exemptions? Gee, I wonder.
So how do sharers cover their butts? I wonder why P2P clients don't have a click-through before you start downloading that says something like "by clicking OK you confirm that you have the rights to this information" or something. If a downloader "lies" to the sharer, the sharer's responsibility could be mitigated.
Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.
Slashdot Mirror
I have two opposable thumbs. It's pretty cool.
Yeah, PJ definitely opened up a lot of plot holes by unnecessarily changing things.
Merry's sure going to be screwed without his Barrow-Blade.
Well, I'm certainly not going to skip the movie. You're absolutely right about how it should have been done, but what PJ did put together is still good.
...assuming, of course, that some of the most crucial scenes haven't been screwed up. My favorite scene in the books is when Merry and Eowyn take on the witch king. If they did it right, it's going to rock!
Definitely should have been 6 movies though, and without all of the totally unnecessary plot changes and action scenes.
Not very many people are too dumb to be allowed to vote, but 60% of Americans are so dumb that they don't vote anyway.
Yeah, that's pretty annoying. I spent a lot of time on voyages to save points in Metroid Prime. Better to be able to put the game down when you want to.
A shorter game isn't necessarily going to alleviate this, though. It's a design issue.
"I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Uh, what is he referring to as the "best visual entertainment?" Comic books? Can't be anything on TV, from what I hear these days.
"It'd be like watching the first half an hour of a movie or reading the first ten chapters of a book"
Now here's a thought. Should all books be comic books? Of course not. So the Lord of the Rings is too long to read over a weekend. Should it have been shorter? I would argue that it should not. I, for one, enjoy epics. If it takes me weeks to finish a book or a game, then those are just weeks in which I don't play/read anything else.
I don't have huge piles of half-finished games, I have short piles of finished games. Of course I don't have time to play everything, so I discriminate. I only play games that I feel are worth my time, and I take as much time as necessary to complete them.
Not that episodic or short games would be *bad*, of course. It's an interesting concept, and I would be interested to try out a "comic book" game that comes out once a month and takes me a few hours to finish (and costs about 5 bucks an episode). What I disagree with is the argument that long games are bad.
I enjoy comic books, but I happen to enjoy "real" books a lot more. I wouldn't want to do without either one.
I think we're splitting hairs here. When I say "absolute" I mean "I'm never going to reconsider," as you say.
The confusion that continues is merely our subtle differences in the use of words. When I use the word "believe," I mean to take utterly on faith. Therefore you don't have to "believe" in gravity, because you have evidence of it. I suppose you still could take it on faith, but such a thing would be pointless and unnecessary. God, magic, or anything supernatural, on the other hand, *must* be taken entirely on faith.
When you put these two concepts together, you get my statement that no conclusion is absolute. Since we're using the word "conclusion" to mean an idea that is based on evidence (rather than belief), then it cannot be "absolute" as defined above. To say that it is an absolute truth is to take it on faith (believe it even in the face of contradictory evidence), which doesn't fit the definition of "conclusion" as we're using it.
I hope I'm not making my point more confusing.
Absolutely correct. However, to believe that something is bunk is to take it on faith that said thing is bunk, without any evidence.
The other thing is that no conclusion is absolute. I can't believe in gravity, but I conclude it exists because I can feel it, measure it, etc. I can never absolutely prove that it exists (I could be hallucinating), but it's a damn safe assumption.
Which should I prove first, that God does not exist or that the Pink Unicorn Orbiting Mars does not exist?
The burden of proof lies on the hypothesis that God does exist, as nothing exists by default. Apply occam's razor.
The universe is defined as that with which we can interact.
If we can't test it, it's not part of the universe. How can something exist if it can in no possible way have an effect on anything that we can observe? How can we consider such a thing to be a part of our universe? We can't.
Of course believers won't be swayed, because they're basing their view of the world on faith.
Science is not about faith, it's about observation of the universe.
I'm not saying that prayer doesn't work, or that there are no gods, but that it's pointless to discuss this philisophically. I could say that I believe that my pet rock created the universe and my argument would be just as strong as *any* argument based on faith.
Looks like an interesting Wired article. If prayer or psychic power or any other kind of magic could be consistently scientifically observed to work, it would be a huge breakthrough. Nothing like breaking our model of the universe to really make some huge discoveries. Seriously.
Until some strong evidence is discovered, though, it's meaningless to me. Surely faith can be shown to help those who are convinced it's helping them (as in the power that your mind has over your own body), but they're only fooling themselves. And yes, I realize that the study in the Wired article was supposedly double-blind (nobody knew who was being prayed for), which is why it's interesting.
There's no need for this to be a philisophical debate. This is an article about science. It concerns the real, measurable world with which we can interact. If a person believes in prayer, then he/she believes in it based on faith, not based on the real world. Faith does not require anything to be at all tangible or in any way "real".
You are dividing people into "those who believe X" and "those who beleive Y." Of course, there are those who believe neither.
Beleiving that prayer is bunk is just as silly as believing that it's not bunk. You're taking something as a given without any evidence.
It's much more sensible to *think* that prayer is bunk, based on observation. Maybe you think right, maybe you think wrong. You can never be sure, so the best you can do is make an assumption based on input from the universe. To believe something is to live in a fantasy world.
Hey, only what you see pal.
Uh, maybe some people can change their opinions when conditions change? What a strange thought.
Build a browser that's better than Firebird, and I'll start telling people to use it.
You should try out Firebird. Even though it's still early (there are a few annoying bugs) it's far less annoying than IE.
It's lightweight (unlike mozilla) yet it still has numerous features that I now can't live without. Particularly tabbed browsing, the fully configurable toolbar/menu, and (via an extension) the ability to right-click on *anything* on a page and remove it.
This is a feature that I've been waiting for forever. Don't you hate when you're trying to read something and there's a flashing gif right next to it? Right click and kill it. Of course. It's my browser, it should be under my control, and I should be able to tell it not to render something. Excellent.
Depending on your genre preference, I would highly recommend F-Zero GX, Ikaruga, Eternal Darkness, and Rogue Squadron II - Rogue Leader (although you'd be better off holding out for RS III, which includes everything from II).
Viewtiful Joe also looks to be an excellent game, although I haven't played it yet.
Mario Sunshine is good, and IMO Wind Waker was excellent (although too easy), but there are a lot of other top-notch games available for the cube.
Throw in a Hori digital controller and you're totally set.
By Zelda 3, do you mean "LOZ: A Link to the Past" for the SNES? If so, then I agree that it's possibly the best Zelda game.
As for it not being a part of the package, it's probably because the game is available for GBA. Wouldn't make sense to give away something they're still selling.
As far as remakes go, I would love to see Zelda 1 remade. What the new 3D zeldas are lacking IMO is the size/difficulty of the original dungeons.
With all of the humans at the movies, we'll have to leave it to the programs to battle it out.
Maybe TRON will save the day.
Exactly. Congress made a big show of passing the previous bill, with the "50 million Americans can't be wrong," etc etc. I'll bet those same 50 million would be more than happy to see the exemptions removed.
Why aren't they making a big show of crossing out the exemptions? Gee, I wonder.
I like the machine in the picture with the 5.25" floppy drive. Perhaps these "hackers" can only blow up 286s? Perhaps the exploit depends on DR-DOS?
Don't you know that The Onion is a joke too?
:D
You should get out more.
I believe that should be
46 55 43 4B 20 59 4F 55 21 21 21
Although I think your point is pretty clear.
I think this is a good idea. Simple to implement, and it would increase the sharer's security.
So how do sharers cover their butts? I wonder why P2P clients don't have a click-through before you start downloading that says something like "by clicking OK you confirm that you have the rights to this information" or something. If a downloader "lies" to the sharer, the sharer's responsibility could be mitigated.
Pretty gray area, but I've seen it used for ROM downloads and whatnot.