Yeah, I'll admit it, though only grudgingly, I used to sorta enjoy the comics Nintendo Power published. I mean, they got actual manga artists to do them. They took a lot of liberties with the game stories, but then again, it's a different medium.
That doesn't stop me from sincerely wishing I never enjoyed them these days. Perhaps I've drunk one too many potions of Gain Level since then.
Wait a second, was that a Nethack reference?! My god, I'm still a geek.
Hey wow, I know a professor here at Georgia Southern, Dr. Janice Walker, who I believe I heard the other day musing about coming up with a method of citing video games in college papers. Don't know if she's come up with anything yet, however when she does it'll probably make it into a reference manual somewhere.
A feature in a game like this doesn't mean much unless it adds to the gameplay.
Is it possible for real-time tree growth to improve gameplay? In fact, yes. Remember, Nintendo was planning something a little like that in the (vaporware) N64 sequel to Earthbound/Mother, where the player could plant a seed in a location and come back later, when the passage of time detected from the machine's real-time clock would tell the game when it had grown to a point where it could be harvested for useful fruit. Not quite the same thing that Molyneux's talking about perhaps, but indicative of the kinds of ways tree growth can improve a game. However, if the tree growth is merely decorative it doesn't influence the game *that* much.
I was actually fairly jazzed up about Fable until recently. The more I read about it the more I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't be so excited after all. I was hearing things before about a world that evolves around the player and dynamic gameplay, but now I'm hearing things that sound more like a 3D Zelda with Harvest Moon elements mixed in. Perhaps an interesting game still (HM isn't *that* bad, and if you're gonna copy, copy the best -- it's still better than almost anything else I'm aware of for X-Box), but it no longer is making me consider buying an X-Box again to check it out.
This is the third time I've posted this link on Slashdot. Oy.
This page is referred to, now, on the fifty-nine deceits page, and prefaced with words from Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett, talking about how so much care was taken with Fahrenheit 9/11 to say only true things:
Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's "deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought.
When I read this, what do I think? I think this sounds exactly like what someone would say were they to hear facts that cannot be disputed, that lead up to a conclusion that they cannot correlate with what they believe in strongly.
If you believe one thing, and you come across information that blatantly contradicts it, you have three choices: pretend you haven't heard it (the "la-la-la" method), be convinced by it (these days? unlikely), or claim that it's supremely, purposely deceitful (the "Satan" approach).
Despite everything that's been said about Michael Moore, I don't think he's ever been purposely deceitful. He believes what he's saying. I don't think the Great Deceiver label sticks to him, and thus the movie stands with me. I think most people who aren't already indoctrinated conservatives or haven't thrown up their hands politically have that view of him.
That's what makes Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore so dangerous to the powers-that-be: in such a surpremely close election, they're scared that Moore could actually influence the election. Who fretted about that fat man being unfair to GM in Roger & Me?
While now, we have an entire cable news channel that overtly and obviously spins right on every damn thing they air. If we didn't have a Michael Moore out there countering (inefficently, if you ask me) that kind of thing, I'd be wondering very hard about why there wasn't one.
Strictly logically, you are correct. But my point was (or was intended to be, at least), there is little value in saying that a person is a one-trick pony sometimes: this is true of all people who have A. executed a trick at some time in their lives, and B. did not do it concurrently with another trick.
Argh, hell with it! You're clearly better at this than I am. I dispense one kudo to your account.
Considering that I also posted in a thread entitled "RE: How about History of the World Part I", I really have no excuse for forgetting about this one.
My opinion is that Spaceballs is the dividing line in Brooks' output. Most of the stuff before it ranges from great to awesomely brilliant (with the highlights being Young Frankenstein and the movie version of The Producers), most of the stuff after is rather lame.
- The good ones -
The Producers: We still watch this one. We even own the soundtrack from the Broadway show and have obsessively read through the book of the show. One of the funniest movies ever made, I'd put it up there with Duck Soup.
Young Frankenstein: Almost as great, but in a very different way. It goes back and forth between working as a Frankenstein movie and being a brilliant parody of them.
Blazing Saddles: This is the one that hit it big, and the production values are very high. I actually think the humor is a little too random in places, the bugs bunny "telegram" scene sticks out in my mind, and the movie almost melts down at the end, but all in all I still like it.
Silent Movie: I like this one a lot, but it's not seen much these days. Worth seeing for Marty Feldman, Young Frankenstein's Igor, in his only other Brooks-directed role.
Other earlier movies include High Anxiety (Hitchcock parody), To Be Or Not To Be (which I've never even seen in a video store) and The Twelve Chairs (which I know nothing about).
- So-so movies -
Spaceballs: Some people I know who used to really like this one, including myself, have changed opinions recently. It certainly has some great moments, but sometimes it seems taken with its own cleverness. The "Mega Maid" bit doesn't really work for me, John Candy seems a little too taken with his own lines ("Funny, she doesn't look Druish"), and while Rick Moranis is perfectly cast as Dark Helmut, the leading man and lady (whose names I can't even remember) are really bland. This is the beginning of that phase in Brook's career where he started attracting big-name stars, and his films tend to suffer for it. I'd pay *money* (well, ticket-money, not movie production-money) to see another Mel Brooks/Gene Wilder collaboration, but Mel's tone on the Young Frankenstein DVD commentary makes it sound like that's unlikely.
- Robin Hood: Men in Tights - I really disliked this one, though the staff-fighting scene on the bridge is very clever there isn't a lot I enjoyed.
- Dracula: Dead and Loving It - Haven't seen it, and there is probably no force on earth that could make me.
Somewhere in there is Life Stinks, which I want to see but can't seem to find.
I love Mel Brooks as much as the next geek, but it's amusing to see what a one-trick pony he is sometimes.
Ah-ha, caught you! You can't be a one-trick pony "sometimes," you either are or you aren't.
To only be a one-trick pony sometimes implies the existance of more than one trick, existing outside the time period refered to. Thus, the question is moved to, how are you defining the one-trick period?
Anyway, seriously, it's not an uncommon tune structure, and Brooks has written enough other songs that I think he can be forgiven for repeating a melody once in a while. After all, he gave us Springtime for Hitler....
My god, I just realized what that sounds like to the uninitiated. Um, er... I'm not a Nazi!!
This is because the person who submitted the story included only the broadband-only surround-sound links. (I'm still using dial-up, you insensitive clod!) There are other links on Radio 4's site that are better suited for dial-up users.
Actually, you can feed the dog the sandwich later, when you go back in time to play Ford's scenario. A far worse problem is failing to get the Atomic Vector Plotter, which really will screw you over, or failing to get the junk mail, or missing one of the several tools in your house at the beginning of the game and then having Marvin request it for the game-winning puzzle at the very end.
I think the best way to play the Hitchhiker's game is to have clues handy, or to be playing the version with built-in hints (like I had). Unlike many other Infocom games, the Hitchhiker's game is still perfectly enjoyable if the game elements are spoiled for you. In fact, due to the sheer amount of extra material lurking around for when you do weird things (try typing "panic", "don't wait" or "escape" sometime), the game may indeed be more enjoyable when you don't have to worry about figuring out the puzzles.
Now it's emulating an Amiga, and it still can't emulate a SNES at full speed.
Before anyone chime in again with why, yep, it's because of all the special hardware. Also, the Atari ST and Amiga emulators don't have sound, while SNES emulation on a DC with sound is at pretty good speed, so it's not quite the same thing after all.
No, Mario 64 (and thus the N64) predated Crash I'm pretty sure. And it's not even the same thing, as Mario 64 has free-roaming spaces while Crash is 3D only in a narrow path.
"All the games on the C64" isn't enough to upstage Nintendo's innovation, examples and dates are needed. Further, it's unlikely Nintendo borrowed from Commodore games, which for all their popularity in Europe, were less famous in the U.S., and rare in Japan.
No, I dispute that, and it's easy to dispute it: WarioWare is unquestionably unique. But there are other examples, too. One might be able to find previous examples of game types before Nintendo made them, but in most cases it's difficult to make a case that Nintendo actually copied them but created it independently, and usually Nintendo did it so much better that the previous game's obscurity seems justified.
And, I'm unaware of a game of Metroid's type that predates it. Ditto Zelda. And I can't name one (though it seems like there must be one) for Super Mario Bros.
Consider this a friendly challenge: can anyone name the "prior art" in the single-screen platformer (DK), side-scrolling platformer (SMB), world-exploration platformer (Metroid) and action-adventure (Zelda) genres? I know of at least one 3D platformer before Mario 64 (Jumping Flash), but the others I'm not as sure of.
...because I am a huge fan of the few genres that they have come up with.
- sputter -
Like platformers (Donkey Kong) , scrolling platformers (Super Mario Bros.) 3D platformers (Mario 64), world-exploration platformers (Metroid) and action-adventures (Legend of Zelda)?
If you can come up with even one genre you're a genius. How long has id ridden that first-person shooter pony? Nintendo's come up with many.
Couldn't these people just lead an everyday life? I mean, wanting to play Doom3 I understand. In your life, how often do you get to run around with a BFG shooting monsters?
Not too often, though judging by the hundreds of games devoted to that premise, it's a common fantasy.
But anyway there is a degree of screwed-upedness in becoming that addicted to computer games. But I don't see how it's related to The Sims itself.
The true addicting power of a game is unrelated to its presentation or theme. Nethack is one of the most addicting games known to man, after all. The presentation gets the player in the door, so to speak, gets him started playing, but after that what makes a game addictive is the interaction between his mind and the design.
The very, very best games are interesting for multiple levels of involvement.
1. At first, they're fun to play.
2. As the player plays more, they get interested in doing better, and figuring out tricks that conserve resources. The original visceral thrill of the game begins to fade as the player becomes interested in playing well. This is essentially an involvement with an abstract process.
3. The player discovers elements of the game that had never occurred to him before, and uses them to greatly refine his approach. Really involved gamers may even devise artificial tests and "records" for himself, such as speed runs.
4. Eventually he reaches a point where further optimization of his play yields no further benefit, and interest begins to wane. Hearing about new strategies on the Internet may cause interest to spike again for a short time.
What's important to note about this process is that, beyond the initial contact between player and game, the player is basically optimizing an abstract process. This is almost like an academic pursuit. The same human drive that pushes a mathematician to create and prove theorems is at work here.
I don't think it even matters what the process is, anything can be fashioned into an addictive game, if the player can be persuaded to work through the "interface" phase and become addicted.
As a/.er showed yesterday, in the vast majority of cases Microsoft releases security patches either before a vulnerability has been announced or on a 0-day basis.
Think carefully about that statement. It means that Microsoft knows about the security holes ahead of time and doesn't announce them, in order to have a patch ready for the announcement.
The real problem, of course, is with hackers who discover the holes and don't announce them.
Of course, Mozilla has problems as well. There are very few bug-free software projects. (I don't buy into the opinion that *no* programs are bug-free; "Hello World" programs, for example, are difficult to get wrong.) But there have been many, many fewer security flaws found in Mozilla and its progeny than in Internet Explorer, despite the fact that Mozilla's source is available for inspection and IE's is, for most people, not.
You didn't follow any of the links already supplied in the grandparent post, did you? Is your mind so made up that you don't want to be confused by any facts?
Dude, there was a total of one link in that post, and I did follow it. Siting text references doesn't work so well in a web-based forum; please endevor to find web-based versions of the articles, or paraphrase them in your own post.
On your opinion that I should make up my mind and not getting confused by facts:
Sir, I've already thought myself through a major philosophy shift once in my life, away from the very things you are arguing for and towards a more skeptical outlook on the world. That itself should point out to you that I am convincible, though I doubt you will take me at my word.
But you are NOT going to convince me by saying "Follow the bouncing ball very slowly and carefully!" I've been careful not to talk down to you through all this, you can at least have the courtest to do so. And you are not going to convince me *easily*, I'll tell you that for free.
A Google search for: "Stephen Meyer" "Discovery Institute" "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" turned up the following very interesting link:
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal : Déjà vu All Over Again by Chris Mooney. It sheds some much-needed light over this paper, and the drive to get Intelligent Design published in reputible journals. (Here's a hint: it all boils down to politics.) It reveals that the three reviewers who approved the article are unnamed, and that the editor of the journal was sympathetic to the Intelligent Design cause. It is interesting reading, more interesting than your link in any case. And linked from that article is The Panda's Thumb : Meyer's Hopeless Monster, by three named, mainstream scientists refuting the article you presented, and the Biological Society of Washington itself has repudated the article.
It is trivial to show that self-creation by accident is mathematically well beyond impossible. There's not nearly enough time (1E17 seconds) and materials (1E81 atoms) available under even the most stupidly optimistic of circumstances to achieve the required result.
I disagree -- those are huge, huge numbers you're talking about. You're going to have to explain that one to me.
The Atom number, while nineteen zeros short, is not far in length to actually giving us a use for the word googol. The seconds number is a bit suspect: there is an average of around 31557600 seconds in a year (including leap years). Diving your number by that brings up a figure of about 3.17 billion years, which is short of the period of time the Earth has been around, and is far short of the universe's estimated age.
But you should realize that the scientific community is far from certain about their numbers. I don't think anyone stakes definite claims for either of them. Science works by trying to figure things out, not being certain about them beforehand. Otherwise, how would Einstein have been possible?
Bring on the self-structuring molecules, bring them all together and interact them at incredible rates in amazing quantities, do what you please, it still falls utterly flat.
Again, those are not small numbers up there. Rates do not have to be amazing within that time frame. And even if they are, it's possible that those processes got an accidental boost to bring forth life on Earth, due to the so-called anthropic principle: it happened, because we
>>...your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion.
Of course it's a religion, else English ain't English... or Latin ain't Latin, take your pick.
Your analogy does not help your case.
Religion : Atheism:: Language : ?
The answer to this problem is not English, Latin or any language. It's not using a language at all. When you choose not to speak, you are using no language. When you do not believe in a supernatural force ordering the universe, then you have no religion.
This discussion has bounced back and forth in this forum many times already, and I've already argued against this point two or three times.
Yes, especially Atheism - but that science is somewhat ruthlessly suppressed by the Atheist/Humanist scientific establishment.
I am aware of some of this "science," back from my days as a student at a Christian private school with a proselytizing science curriculum. It does not impress me. I'm rather sure that this research isn't "suppressed" for being anti-Athiest, but for being non-scientific. The article you provide, if it merely reported that current theories are inadequate to explain the diversity of life, would likely have been better than it also posing intelligent design as their source.
Scientists, at the moment, are rightly concerned that more and more science is being driven for rhetorical ends, rather than as an honest search for information. Through enough money and effort at something, with a mind towards getting evidence for something you're already determined is true, and you can damn near "prove" anything. That is not how true science works.
Meanwhile, while a small but vocal minority of these religious "researchers" continue to try to get their propaganda published in journals, and complain about "censorship" when it doesn't make it, those same journals have a great many other things to worry about. No doubt before long they'll create their own journals on the topic, if they haven't already, just as conservatives created their own alternate-reality news network so that they may further delude themselves.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) promptly complained, and they and others browbeat Proceedings into promising never to publish an article from an ID or Creationist proponent again. Such science! Such impartiality! A threat to Atheism arises and they face it with... logic? No! With an Index Librorum Prohibitorum! Welcome back to the dark ages and the reign Pope Me.
Now this is something you're going to have to link to, or provide some other proof for. In any case, the article isn't technically censored; there's nothing preventing the people from publishing it elsewhere. They made an editorial decision not to publish it, it's up to them. If the paper really is good science, then they made an error in not publishing it, and in the long run it'll work to their detriment.
The crowning glory of this hypocrisy is that NCSE claims that neither ID nor Creationism are scientific. Why not? Because you don't see their articles in peer-reviewed journals!
ID and Creationism, while perhaps not identical, are, as far as I am aware, practically the same thing. I'm not sure why you list them separately.
I don't know about the precise facts behind the case of circular logic you supply, but I do know you certainly don't have to use such logic to come up with a case against Creationism. The very fact that it tries to use science to prove something that is logically not proveable makes it suspect in my eyes. Even more suspect is the fact that "Creationist science" got the order of science all wrong, instead of starting with evidence and trying to come up with a hypothesis to support it, it started with something the reseachers regard as a certainty, and looks for whatever facts can be found to support its case.
There is a third possible ending: both sides eventually laugh to themselves about what idiots they're being and the problem goes away on its own.
It does happen, but because it's a long period of time with nothing happening instead of a sudden Muppet News Flash, people tend to not notice it's going on.
Revscat is correct. Whatever the Democrats did, the Republicans have escalated it far and away beyond that level. The Dems at least left the systems in place. They *didn't* outlaw fillibustering federal judge appointments even when it would have behooved them to do so.
The Republicans have been grasping for (even more) power a lot lately. Remember them passing a law that said it, itself, could not be declared unconstitutional? How is that different from giving yourselves a way to pass an amendment to the Consitution with only a simple majority?
This has happened far too much lately. And the worst thing about it: when the Democrats, inevitably, get back into power, they'll surely remember what the Republicans have been doing, and be even less inclined to compromise than they were before. Even if they don't attempt to be politically revisionist, they'll still have the use of all the new "powers" being granted. And so the spiral will continue, until wiser heads prevail. (And who really thinks that will happen any time soon?)
I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.
Actually it's not, I apologize if it seems sig-like.
*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.
The way I see it, Bush is a known quantity, and a hideous one. The fact that he's stupid and easy to manage is not a point in his favor -- he's being managed by big business and his cabinet. Bush himself hasn't done *that* much, but his administration has been extremely revisionist towards the role of the President, deadly for the environment, friendly towards big business above all other sectors of the economy, engaging in stupid, pointless wars over evidence that, had it existed, would have been silly and aggressive even then, poisoning our relations with other nations, repressive towards many sectors of our population, everything just short of censorous of the press, demanding that press conference questions be pre-approved or the organization (not just the reporter) loses access to them, giving us secret laws and delaying the release of presidential documents for iffish reasons, censoring a wide array of material including Supreme Court decisions (!) for spurious reasons... and I can very well go on, that's how many reasons there are to not vote for Bush. But don't take my word for it, check out McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.
Kerry could be an *awful* president, but he'd still be better than Bush is. In the long run, if Bush is seen by history as anything more than awful, I'm convinced that it'll mean that a trained monkey could do the job and be remembered fondly for it.
I think it's nuts, but if the Democrats claim that his Vietnam stint qualifies him to be president, then it's certainly inbounds for questioning.
I think there's a very wide array of qualification for president. But "idiot" isn't within bounds. Which is why I (and a lot of other people) am voting for Kerry.
VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!
In which direction? When I saw this story on BoingBoing, I figured it must have been anti-Bush, but isn't the document supposedly forged against him?
I'm frankly confused. Am I supposed to be happy or sad about this? Answer: sad, of course, no matter who did it. Assuming they did. Which is probable. Whoever it is. Oy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'll admit it, though only grudgingly, I used to sorta enjoy the comics Nintendo Power published. I mean, they got actual manga artists to do them. They took a lot of liberties with the game stories, but then again, it's a different medium.
That doesn't stop me from sincerely wishing I never enjoyed them these days. Perhaps I've drunk one too many potions of Gain Level since then.
Wait a second, was that a Nethack reference?! My god, I'm still a geek.
Hey wow, I know a professor here at Georgia Southern, Dr. Janice Walker, who I believe I heard the other day musing about coming up with a method of citing video games in college papers. Don't know if she's come up with anything yet, however when she does it'll probably make it into a reference manual somewhere.
A feature in a game like this doesn't mean much unless it adds to the gameplay.
Is it possible for real-time tree growth to improve gameplay? In fact, yes. Remember, Nintendo was planning something a little like that in the (vaporware) N64 sequel to Earthbound/Mother, where the player could plant a seed in a location and come back later, when the passage of time detected from the machine's real-time clock would tell the game when it had grown to a point where it could be harvested for useful fruit. Not quite the same thing that Molyneux's talking about perhaps, but indicative of the kinds of ways tree growth can improve a game. However, if the tree growth is merely decorative it doesn't influence the game *that* much.
I was actually fairly jazzed up about Fable until recently. The more I read about it the more I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't be so excited after all. I was hearing things before about a world that evolves around the player and dynamic gameplay, but now I'm hearing things that sound more like a 3D Zelda with Harvest Moon elements mixed in. Perhaps an interesting game still (HM isn't *that* bad, and if you're gonna copy, copy the best -- it's still better than almost anything else I'm aware of for X-Box), but it no longer is making me consider buying an X-Box again to check it out.
THIS again!
How many more times is this link going to come up? Moore's already responded with a line-by-line backup of everything in the movie:
Here.
This is the third time I've posted this link on Slashdot. Oy.
This page is referred to, now, on the fifty-nine deceits page, and prefaced with words from Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett, talking about how so much care was taken with Fahrenheit 9/11 to say only true things:
Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's "deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought.
When I read this, what do I think? I think this sounds exactly like what someone would say were they to hear facts that cannot be disputed, that lead up to a conclusion that they cannot correlate with what they believe in strongly.
If you believe one thing, and you come across information that blatantly contradicts it, you have three choices: pretend you haven't heard it (the "la-la-la" method), be convinced by it (these days? unlikely), or claim that it's supremely, purposely deceitful (the "Satan" approach).
Despite everything that's been said about Michael Moore, I don't think he's ever been purposely deceitful. He believes what he's saying. I don't think the Great Deceiver label sticks to him, and thus the movie stands with me. I think most people who aren't already indoctrinated conservatives or haven't thrown up their hands politically have that view of him.
That's what makes Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore so dangerous to the powers-that-be: in such a surpremely close election, they're scared that Moore could actually influence the election. Who fretted about that fat man being unfair to GM in Roger & Me?
While now, we have an entire cable news channel that overtly and obviously spins right on every damn thing they air. If we didn't have a Michael Moore out there countering (inefficently, if you ask me) that kind of thing, I'd be wondering very hard about why there wasn't one.
Strictly logically, you are correct. But my point was (or was intended to be, at least), there is little value in saying that a person is a one-trick pony sometimes: this is true of all people who have A. executed a trick at some time in their lives, and B. did not do it concurrently with another trick.
Argh, hell with it! You're clearly better at this than I am. I dispense one kudo to your account.
Considering that I also posted in a thread entitled "RE: How about History of the World Part I", I really have no excuse for forgetting about this one.
I think HotW1 is probably one of the better ones.
My opinion is that Spaceballs is the dividing line in Brooks' output. Most of the stuff before it ranges from great to awesomely brilliant (with the highlights being Young Frankenstein and the movie version of The Producers), most of the stuff after is rather lame.
- The good ones -
The Producers: We still watch this one. We even own the soundtrack from the Broadway show and have obsessively read through the book of the show. One of the funniest movies ever made, I'd put it up there with Duck Soup.
Young Frankenstein: Almost as great, but in a very different way. It goes back and forth between working as a Frankenstein movie and being a brilliant parody of them.
Blazing Saddles: This is the one that hit it big, and the production values are very high. I actually think the humor is a little too random in places, the bugs bunny "telegram" scene sticks out in my mind, and the movie almost melts down at the end, but all in all I still like it.
Silent Movie: I like this one a lot, but it's not seen much these days. Worth seeing for Marty Feldman, Young Frankenstein's Igor, in his only other Brooks-directed role.
Other earlier movies include High Anxiety (Hitchcock parody), To Be Or Not To Be (which I've never even seen in a video store) and The Twelve Chairs (which I know nothing about).
- So-so movies -
Spaceballs:
Some people I know who used to really like this one, including myself, have changed opinions recently. It certainly has some great moments, but sometimes it seems taken with its own cleverness. The "Mega Maid" bit doesn't really work for me, John Candy seems a little too taken with his own lines ("Funny, she doesn't look Druish"), and while Rick Moranis is perfectly cast as Dark Helmut, the leading man and lady (whose names I can't even remember) are really bland. This is the beginning of that phase in Brook's career where he started attracting big-name stars, and his films tend to suffer for it. I'd pay *money* (well, ticket-money, not movie production-money) to see another Mel Brooks/Gene Wilder collaboration, but Mel's tone on the Young Frankenstein DVD commentary makes it sound like that's unlikely.
- Robin Hood: Men in Tights -
I really disliked this one, though the staff-fighting scene on the bridge is very clever there isn't a lot I enjoyed.
- Dracula: Dead and Loving It -
Haven't seen it, and there is probably no force on earth that could make me.
Somewhere in there is Life Stinks, which I want to see but can't seem to find.
What have I missed?
I love Mel Brooks as much as the next geek, but it's amusing to see what a one-trick pony he is sometimes.
Ah-ha, caught you! You can't be a one-trick pony "sometimes," you either are or you aren't.
To only be a one-trick pony sometimes implies the existance of more than one trick, existing outside the time period refered to. Thus, the question is moved to, how are you defining the one-trick period?
Anyway, seriously, it's not an uncommon tune structure, and Brooks has written enough other songs that I think he can be forgiven for repeating a melody once in a while. After all, he gave us Springtime for Hitler....
My god, I just realized what that sounds like to the uninitiated. Um, er... I'm not a Nazi!!
This is because the person who submitted the story included only the broadband-only surround-sound links. (I'm still using dial-up, you insensitive clod!) There are other links on Radio 4's site that are better suited for dial-up users.
Actually, you can feed the dog the sandwich later, when you go back in time to play Ford's scenario. A far worse problem is failing to get the Atomic Vector Plotter, which really will screw you over, or failing to get the junk mail, or missing one of the several tools in your house at the beginning of the game and then having Marvin request it for the game-winning puzzle at the very end.
I think the best way to play the Hitchhiker's game is to have clues handy, or to be playing the version with built-in hints (like I had). Unlike many other Infocom games, the Hitchhiker's game is still perfectly enjoyable if the game elements are spoiled for you. In fact, due to the sheer amount of extra material lurking around for when you do weird things (try typing "panic", "don't wait" or "escape" sometime), the game may indeed be more enjoyable when you don't have to worry about figuring out the puzzles.
Now it's emulating an Amiga, and it still can't emulate a SNES at full speed.
Before anyone chime in again with why, yep, it's because of all the special hardware. Also, the Atari ST and Amiga emulators don't have sound, while SNES emulation on a DC with sound is at pretty good speed, so it's not quite the same thing after all.
No, Mario 64 (and thus the N64) predated Crash I'm pretty sure. And it's not even the same thing, as Mario 64 has free-roaming spaces while Crash is 3D only in a narrow path.
"All the games on the C64" isn't enough to upstage Nintendo's innovation, examples and dates are needed. Further, it's unlikely Nintendo borrowed from Commodore games, which for all their popularity in Europe, were less famous in the U.S., and rare in Japan.
No, I dispute that, and it's easy to dispute it: WarioWare is unquestionably unique. But there are other examples, too. One might be able to find previous examples of game types before Nintendo made them, but in most cases it's difficult to make a case that Nintendo actually copied them but created it independently, and usually Nintendo did it so much better that the previous game's obscurity seems justified.
And, I'm unaware of a game of Metroid's type that predates it. Ditto Zelda. And I can't name one (though it seems like there must be one) for Super Mario Bros.
Consider this a friendly challenge: can anyone name the "prior art" in the single-screen platformer (DK), side-scrolling platformer (SMB), world-exploration platformer (Metroid) and action-adventure (Zelda) genres? I know of at least one 3D platformer before Mario 64 (Jumping Flash), but the others I'm not as sure of.
...because I am a huge fan of the few genres that they have come up with.
- sputter -
Like platformers (Donkey Kong) , scrolling platformers (Super Mario Bros.) 3D platformers (Mario 64), world-exploration platformers (Metroid) and action-adventures (Legend of Zelda)?
If you can come up with even one genre you're a genius. How long has id ridden that first-person shooter pony? Nintendo's come up with many.
Couldn't these people just lead an everyday life? I mean, wanting to play Doom3 I understand. In your life, how often do you get to run around with a BFG shooting monsters?
Not too often, though judging by the hundreds of games devoted to that premise, it's a common fantasy.
But anyway there is a degree of screwed-upedness in becoming that addicted to computer games. But I don't see how it's related to The Sims itself.
The true addicting power of a game is unrelated to its presentation or theme. Nethack is one of the most addicting games known to man, after all. The presentation gets the player in the door, so to speak, gets him started playing, but after that what makes a game addictive is the interaction between his mind and the design.
The very, very best games are interesting for multiple levels of involvement.
1. At first, they're fun to play.
2. As the player plays more, they get interested in doing better, and figuring out tricks that conserve resources. The original visceral thrill of the game begins to fade as the player becomes interested in playing well. This is essentially an involvement with an abstract process.
3. The player discovers elements of the game that had never occurred to him before, and uses them to greatly refine his approach. Really involved gamers may even devise artificial tests and "records" for himself, such as speed runs.
4. Eventually he reaches a point where further optimization of his play yields no further benefit, and interest begins to wane. Hearing about new strategies on the Internet may cause interest to spike again for a short time.
What's important to note about this process is that, beyond the initial contact between player and game, the player is basically optimizing an abstract process. This is almost like an academic pursuit. The same human drive that pushes a mathematician to create and prove theorems is at work here.
I don't think it even matters what the process is, anything can be fashioned into an addictive game, if the player can be persuaded to work through the "interface" phase and become addicted.
As a /.er showed yesterday, in the vast majority of cases Microsoft releases security patches either before a vulnerability has been announced or on a 0-day basis.
Think carefully about that statement. It means that Microsoft knows about the security holes ahead of time and doesn't announce them, in order to have a patch ready for the announcement.
The real problem, of course, is with hackers who discover the holes and don't announce them.
Of course, Mozilla has problems as well. There are very few bug-free software projects. (I don't buy into the opinion that *no* programs are bug-free; "Hello World" programs, for example, are difficult to get wrong.) But there have been many, many fewer security flaws found in Mozilla and its progeny than in Internet Explorer, despite the fact that Mozilla's source is available for inspection and IE's is, for most people, not.
You didn't follow any of the links already supplied in the grandparent post, did you? Is your mind so made up that you don't want to be confused by any facts?
Dude, there was a total of one link in that post, and I did follow it. Siting text references doesn't work so well in a web-based forum; please endevor to find web-based versions of the articles, or paraphrase them in your own post.
On your opinion that I should make up my mind and not getting confused by facts:
Sir, I've already thought myself through a major philosophy shift once in my life, away from the very things you are arguing for and towards a more skeptical outlook on the world. That itself should point out to you that I am convincible, though I doubt you will take me at my word.
But you are NOT going to convince me by saying "Follow the bouncing ball very slowly and carefully!" I've been careful not to talk down to you through all this, you can at least have the courtest to do so. And you are not going to convince me *easily*, I'll tell you that for free.
A Google search for: "Stephen Meyer" "Discovery Institute" "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" turned up the following very interesting link:
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal : Déjà vu All Over Again by Chris Mooney. It sheds some much-needed light over this paper, and the drive to get Intelligent Design published in reputible journals. (Here's a hint: it all boils down to politics.) It reveals that the three reviewers who approved the article are unnamed, and that the editor of the journal was sympathetic to the Intelligent Design cause. It is interesting reading, more interesting than your link in any case. And linked from that article is The Panda's Thumb : Meyer's Hopeless Monster, by three named, mainstream scientists refuting the article you presented, and the Biological Society of Washington itself has repudated the article.
It is trivial to show that self-creation by accident is mathematically well beyond impossible. There's not nearly enough time (1E17 seconds) and materials (1E81 atoms) available under even the most stupidly optimistic of circumstances to achieve the required result.
I disagree -- those are huge, huge numbers you're talking about. You're going to have to explain that one to me.
Seconds: 100,000,000,000,000,000.
Atoms:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000.
The Atom number, while nineteen zeros short, is not far in length to actually giving us a use for the word googol. The seconds number is a bit suspect: there is an average of around 31557600 seconds in a year (including leap years). Diving your number by that brings up a figure of about 3.17 billion years, which is short of the period of time the Earth has been around, and is far short of the universe's estimated age.
But you should realize that the scientific community is far from certain about their numbers. I don't think anyone stakes definite claims for either of them. Science works by trying to figure things out, not being certain about them beforehand. Otherwise, how would Einstein have been possible?
Bring on the self-structuring molecules, bring them all together and interact them at incredible rates in amazing quantities, do what you please, it still falls utterly flat.
Again, those are not small numbers up there. Rates do not have to be amazing within that time frame. And even if they are, it's possible that those processes got an accidental boost to bring forth life on Earth, due to the so-called anthropic principle: it happened, because we
>> ...your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion.
:: Language : ?
Of course it's a religion, else English ain't English... or Latin ain't Latin, take your pick.
Your analogy does not help your case.
Religion : Atheism
The answer to this problem is not English, Latin or any language. It's not using a language at all. When you choose not to speak, you are using no language. When you do not believe in a supernatural force ordering the universe, then you have no religion.
This discussion has bounced back and forth in this forum many times already, and I've already argued against this point two or three times.
Yes, especially Atheism - but that science is somewhat ruthlessly suppressed by the Atheist/Humanist scientific establishment.
I am aware of some of this "science," back from my days as a student at a Christian private school with a proselytizing science curriculum. It does not impress me. I'm rather sure that this research isn't "suppressed" for being anti-Athiest, but for being non-scientific. The article you provide, if it merely reported that current theories are inadequate to explain the diversity of life, would likely have been better than it also posing intelligent design as their source.
Scientists, at the moment, are rightly concerned that more and more science is being driven for rhetorical ends, rather than as an honest search for information. Through enough money and effort at something, with a mind towards getting evidence for something you're already determined is true, and you can damn near "prove" anything. That is not how true science works.
Meanwhile, while a small but vocal minority of these religious "researchers" continue to try to get their propaganda published in journals, and complain about "censorship" when it doesn't make it, those same journals have a great many other things to worry about. No doubt before long they'll create their own journals on the topic, if they haven't already, just as conservatives created their own alternate-reality news network so that they may further delude themselves.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) promptly complained, and they and others browbeat Proceedings into promising never to publish an article from an ID or Creationist proponent again. Such science! Such impartiality! A threat to Atheism arises and they face it with... logic? No! With an Index Librorum Prohibitorum! Welcome back to the dark ages and the reign Pope Me.
Now this is something you're going to have to link to, or provide some other proof for. In any case, the article isn't technically censored; there's nothing preventing the people from publishing it elsewhere. They made an editorial decision not to publish it, it's up to them. If the paper really is good science, then they made an error in not publishing it, and in the long run it'll work to their detriment.
The crowning glory of this hypocrisy is that NCSE claims that neither ID nor Creationism are scientific. Why not? Because you don't see their articles in peer-reviewed journals!
ID and Creationism, while perhaps not identical, are, as far as I am aware, practically the same thing. I'm not sure why you list them separately.
I don't know about the precise facts behind the case of circular logic you supply, but I do know you certainly don't have to use such logic to come up with a case against Creationism. The very fact that it tries to use science to prove something that is logically not proveable makes it suspect in my eyes. Even more suspect is the fact that "Creationist science" got the order of science all wrong, instead of starting with evidence and trying to come up with a hypothesis to support it, it started with something the reseachers regard as a certainty, and looks for whatever facts can be found to support its case.
A full-speed Atari ST emulator for Dreamcast? This is really, really cool guys. There isn't even a full-speel SNES emulator for DC yet.
There is a third possible ending: both sides eventually laugh to themselves about what idiots they're being and the problem goes away on its own.
It does happen, but because it's a long period of time with nothing happening instead of a sudden Muppet News Flash, people tend to not notice it's going on.
Because the Demos damn sure will as soon as they have the minority.
They sure will... now that the Repubs have "innovated in that field."
Revscat is correct. Whatever the Democrats did, the Republicans have escalated it far and away beyond that level. The Dems at least left the systems in place. They *didn't* outlaw fillibustering federal judge appointments even when it would have behooved them to do so.
The Republicans have been grasping for (even more) power a lot lately. Remember them passing a law that said it, itself, could not be declared unconstitutional? How is that different from giving yourselves a way to pass an amendment to the Consitution with only a simple majority?
This has happened far too much lately. And the worst thing about it: when the Democrats, inevitably, get back into power, they'll surely remember what the Republicans have been doing, and be even less inclined to compromise than they were before. Even if they don't attempt to be politically revisionist, they'll still have the use of all the new "powers" being granted. And so the spiral will continue, until wiser heads prevail. (And who really thinks that will happen any time soon?)
I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.
Actually it's not, I apologize if it seems sig-like.
*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.
The way I see it, Bush is a known quantity, and a hideous one. The fact that he's stupid and easy to manage is not a point in his favor -- he's being managed by big business and his cabinet. Bush himself hasn't done *that* much, but his administration has been extremely revisionist towards the role of the President, deadly for the environment, friendly towards big business above all other sectors of the economy, engaging in stupid, pointless wars over evidence that, had it existed, would have been silly and aggressive even then, poisoning our relations with other nations, repressive towards many sectors of our population, everything just short of censorous of the press, demanding that press conference questions be pre-approved or the organization (not just the reporter) loses access to them, giving us secret laws and delaying the release of presidential documents for iffish reasons, censoring a wide array of material including Supreme Court decisions (!) for spurious reasons... and I can very well go on, that's how many reasons there are to not vote for Bush. But don't take my word for it, check out McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.
Kerry could be an *awful* president, but he'd still be better than Bush is. In the long run, if Bush is seen by history as anything more than awful, I'm convinced that it'll mean that a trained monkey could do the job and be remembered fondly for it.
I think it's nuts, but if the Democrats claim that his Vietnam stint qualifies him to be president, then it's certainly inbounds for questioning.
I think there's a very wide array of qualification for president. But "idiot" isn't within bounds. Which is why I (and a lot of other people) am voting for Kerry.
VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!
In which direction? When I saw this story on BoingBoing, I figured it must have been anti-Bush, but isn't the document supposedly forged against him?
I'm frankly confused. Am I supposed to be happy or sad about this? Answer: sad, of course, no matter who did it. Assuming they did. Which is probable. Whoever it is. Oy.
I'm going back to sleep now. Zzzzzz.