The week previous we had watched apocolypse now redux..this has hands down got to be one of the worst movies of all time..it is long, it is pointless and it is very very boring My wife jokes about how no one in this town reads. You must be one of them. You know, people who, when you strike up a conversation and ask "do you read?", they say "yah, I read like, USA Today, and magazines and stuff". I'd bet you've never read any classics, like The Great Gatsby, or Heart of Darkness, unless you were forced to by your high school English teacher--- part of the 58% of americans who never read another book after graduating high school. Perhaps you might've gotten more out of Apocalypse Now if you had read Heart of Darkness, or at least had a more developed education and were capable of being intrigued by complex questions of morality. I suppose you were disappointed that it didn't have as much action as Rambo II, or The Kingdom. Clearly, you are the class of person they're aiming at when they green light another movie with Bernie Mac or Tim Allen. People like you are the reason Lost is going to irritate us with inane "didja see Lost last night?" chatter for 3 more fucking years while Firefly got the axe after only one. People like you are how Phillip-Morris, McDonalds, and Hummer dealerships stay in business.
If you get the idea that I am perhaps insinuating that you're stupid, that's because I am.
If you are in a minority, it probably is quite a large (albeit silent) minority. Actually, on talking about this with people (in the flesh, face to face), I have not yet spoken to anyone who prefers the director's cut - like me, they prefer the original release version (assuming they've seen the original version). That only proves that people with poor taste hang out together. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". See, I hang out with people who can handle a complex movie without a voice explaining what's going on, with such prize-winner lines as "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."; we all think the original cut is crap.
I much prefer the original narrated version(1). The Director's Cut release a couple of years back just removed the narrative and reversed the order of 2 scenes(2) - and was worse for it(3). As for Ripley Scott changing his story about Deckard being a replicant - he's full of it(4). Rutger Howard's(5) character would have figured this out(6). Him leaving Deckard alive at the end of the movie would be pointless if Deckard were a replicant(7). 1) What could possibly be wrong with you that you'd think that?
2)...and changed the ending, and added back the footage hinting that Deckard might be a replicant the studio suits removed.
3) Only for those too dim to follow the story, like you, and those studio suits.
4) RS didn't change his story, the studio morons did. The DC version restores it to what it was originally.
5) Rutger Hauer. I begin to see your difficulty, watching films through that fog of illiteracy.
6) Who says he didn't?
7) Why kill him if he's going to die just like Roy? You really didn't understand the movie. See, Roy wasn't a Blade Runner, he was a replicant soldier. Deckard was the Blade Runner, and his job was to go find escaped replicants like Roy and "retire" them. Roy only wanted to live. He had no particular reason to go after Deckard, regardless of Deckard's status as human or replicant.
... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone). What idiot mod modded this insightful? The cameras don't "spot" anything. They passively transmit an image to the center console screen where the driver does all the spotting.
Is it really too much to ask that people read even the/. blurb?
Or you could stop being a fat american and drive a medium sized car ( eg: ford mondeo, renault megane, etc ) Dumbass. As if any American would know any of your European medium sized cars by name. Your examples are meaningless outside of Europe. Renault doesn't even sell cars in the US.
There's also the convienent, much cheaper and simpler feature of just turning down the side-view mirrors when the car is in reverse... Tilted side mirrors don't show you how far your front and rear bumpers are from any obstructions.
But what really gets me is why it's called parallel parking, when it's the complete opposite! The reference point is the line of the road edge, not other parked cars. You are parking parallel to the curb.
I mean, Toyota has this system where the car parks itself (http://www.hiptechblog.com/2006/02/25/toyotas-parallel-parking-assist/). So tell me, how does this Nissan toy improve over that? Please. Toyota's auto-park system is a joke. It's for jackasses who never learned to parallel park and can't do it without five feet of clearance and a dozen back-and-forth motions. The Toyota system requires too much clearance front and back to be useful. The minimum space requirement is large enough that I could park in the space myself with my eyes closed. The kind of tight spaces I'd need help with, it can't figure out.
While it's an interesting concept, especially in Tokyo where you regularly see microvans in spaces with an inch to spare (it's a tax thing, not land cost), do we have anything but PR here?
This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.) This isn't the same class as the "flying car". We already have cameras and monitors in cars. This is simply an evolutionary improvement. We will be seeing this, and probably quite soon.
The crucial bug to be defeated is it must see everything yet not generate false positives, and that's a very difficult "last mile" to accomplish. Where we are right now is your ubercar backup sensor causes very expensive damage because it was confused the antique metal bar fence. This system is basically four video cameras. Video cameras are not confused by wrought iron fences. You're confusing this with purely non-visual ultrasonic proximity detection systems. This system is supplemented with sonar prox units for collision warning, but it is primarily a visible light based system.
Is it really too much to read and understand the/. blurb in its entirety?
Q: how much of contemporary physics consists of the interpretation of mathematical models? Like, say, the Friedmann metric, the Schwarzschild metric, the Schroedinger equation, the Bell inequality...
The difference is, no one is asking entire countries to make monumental changes to their economy based on the notion that a couple particles appear to decide their state only when you look at them. Quantum physics is largely only relevant to quantum physicists.
And what makes you think that Muzak doesn't have an author & copyright holder? Cripes, man, educate yourself a little. Muzak is a subscription service. That's why it starts with a capital 'M' and is a bastardized spelling of "music". No one said it doesn't have a copyright holder or author. The reason such issues are not relevant is that the very purpose of the Muzak service is to provide retail establishments with licensed material that they are allowed to play for their customers.
you know... star wars isn't real... (blink)..... (blink)..... I don't know what you mean.
Seriously, yeah, you're right; but it does have some internal consistency that parallels our own reality. And I wasn't the one who brought up the space shuttle!
I thought the same thing, but consider how important aerodynamics are to the Space Shuttle. The space shuttle is all about the transition from ground to orbit. That's the entirety of its capability, and it does so only by the slimmest of margins (in the "spacecraft" sense). X-Wing fighters and the like are hyperspace capable deep-space fleet defense craft. Trans-atmospheric flight is a minor trifle encountered at the beginning and end of the mission, and only when based on a planet.
Any ship that will need to descend to a place filled with air to drop off its passengers will need to be fairly aerodynamic. Unless it has the advantage of things like energy shields, repulsor lifts, and inertial dampeners. If the needs of friction reduction, G-force reduction, and aerodynamic lift are taken care of by "black boxes" inside the vehicle, you can make it any shape you like.
Or what about close-to-the-ground fighting on a planet with some atmosphere. As you may recall from EP5 aka SW:ESB, ground support/close air support was done with small, aerodynamic flying machines called "snow speeders". This is because X-Wing fighters et al are strictly spacecraft with trans-atmospheric capability.
If it's going to look aerodynamic, it'd better be aerodynamic. Errr.... why? The "aerodynamic look" is as valid a form of artistic design as any other. Look at some of the consumer goods from the 1950's and 60's. Lots of smooth lines, all very "space age" looking, but I seriously doubt those sleek brushed aluminum toasters would far well in a wind tunnel.
Modeling and simulation is my profession, and I'll be the first to say just because it does well in simulation might not mean anything esp if you models and simulations are messed up. Indeed, I think the error in their simulation model is glaring and obvious. Doubtless they merely modeled aerodynamic stability and the sim assumed the structure would be perfectly rigid. One look at the construction pics, though, and it's clear that 4 rockets with enough thrust to lift the vehicle were going to twist those flimsy wings right off the body. These guys are model nerds. You'd think that one of them might have enough "intuitive engineering" in 'em to see the error of their approach, but perhaps that's not as common as I've come to expect, coming as I do from a family full of engineers...
I don't think any of them actually expected it to get very far before it died. They were launching it straight up, unguided... That means it either disintegrates, or comes back down on top of them... I'd have been praying for the disintegration, personally. Then again, they were optimistic enough to install a parachute recovery system...
As much as I loved the idea, these people were not engineers or this would never have happened. Yeah, that much was obvious, I thought, from the pics linked from the original article. The thing was simply a scale model with rocket engines tacked on. The first thing I thought when I saw the build pics was "baltic birch and aluminum rods? It's going to fall apart." Just an eyeball reckoning of the stress vectors between the body and engine attachment points reveals a half dozen points of guaranteed failure. I think it's funny that they even bothered to put a parachute system in it.
If MPAA and MPA operations are so separate, then why is MPA Canada hosted on mpaa.org? Same reason you don't call the FBI field office in Texas to report a kidnapping in Arizona, you call the Arizona field office. Same general organization, different area of responsibility.
The GP painted with a broad brush but your attempt to defend the good name of giant multinationals (the main cause of that perception) in terms of your personal, ethical, hard-working, money-for-kid's-college-funds-and-grandma-and-apple-pie one-man operation is not a valid comparison. He didn't try to defend giant multinationals, he defended "most companies". Most companies are not giant, ethically impaired multinationals. Giant multinationals are the abberation that make the rest look bad.
Nice try man! All the Russians needed is one success, and they got it. So right now because of this, we Americans have to think twice or thrice whenever we think stealth. Like when we flew the B-2 unopposed and unscathed in the skies over Baghdad in 2003, despite one of the most modern air defense systems available? How many successes have the Russian systems had against the B-2? None, of course. But that explains why you keep bringing up the F-117A, a Gen I stealth design slated to be retired next year, which was shot down due to poor mission planning which gave the Serbians the opportunity to set a trap and acquire one visually with IR gear and fire during a minuscule window of radar visibility using SA-3's with radar sets tuned to an unusually long wavelength. There was no magic Russian technology there, just idiotic route planning. If you don't know where the '117A is coming from, the plan doesn't work.
Why do you think we scream when Russians send technology to Iran? I guess it's because we do not have all the answers to their technology. Given your obvious lack of understanding of the issue, I don't have much faith in the validity of your guesses. The US opposes all technology transfers to Iran on general principles, not necessarily because of a specific threat.
That aircraft is not as stealth as we think it is. From insiders, and I have access to some of them, they will not fly an un-escorted "stealth fighter" even at night. For some reason I doubt your authority on the subject, as you don't know the difference between the stealth fighter (F-117) and the stealth bomber (B-2). An inability to distinguish between a 30 year old Gen I stealth low level attack aircraft and a more modern Gen II stealth high altitude bomber indicates you didn't really understand what those purported insiders said, assuming they even exist. Frankly, I doubt any truly knowledgeable insiders would be discussing the subject with you, as they are prohibitted from discussing even those things about stealth which are considered "common knowledge".
what if the U.S. gov't really does have a lot of faith in Japan as a world citizen and an ally, and this is just a shitty way to get them to apply themselves more vigorously to the problem of defending the "western" world. Their constitution, as dictated by the US at the end of WW2, effectively prohibits any such thing. Their military is small, purely a defensive force, with a hard-coded budget.
ask the recent grad to write a tree traversal, ask the seasoned veteran what would he/she do if a project under them is stalling and shipping date is a month away. Those two questions relate to entirely different jobs. The former is for a code monkey position. The latter is for a management position.
when I answered 'I'd search for some sample code or an existing idea, then take parts of it and use what makes sense' they didn't like that answer! when they asked me math (arithmetic) style questions, I said I'd find a calculator and punch in the data. SO, in other words, you essentially said "I'd Google the answers". Three guesses why they might've not considered that to be a good answer. "Schoolboy" questions? Maybe they're looking for more than just average joes who say "I'd look it up". Maybe they're looking for those rare few can rattle off six solutions in sixty seconds off the top of their head.
Because gun and racing nutts are as sane as/. users right? No, really. Cryogenic treatment is a perfectly rational engineering technique. It's an entirely structural effect though, so it'd have no effect on the conductivity of a copper cable.
Slashdot Mirror
Lousy maple-sucking puck-slappers, coming here taking all the good jobs...
If you get the idea that I am perhaps insinuating that you're stupid, that's because I am.
That only proves that people with poor taste hang out together. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". See, I hang out with people who can handle a complex movie without a voice explaining what's going on, with such prize-winner lines as "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."; we all think the original cut is crap.
2)
3) Only for those too dim to follow the story, like you, and those studio suits.
4) RS didn't change his story, the studio morons did. The DC version restores it to what it was originally.
5) Rutger Hauer. I begin to see your difficulty, watching films through that fog of illiteracy.
6) Who says he didn't?
7) Why kill him if he's going to die just like Roy? You really didn't understand the movie. See, Roy wasn't a Blade Runner, he was a replicant soldier. Deckard was the Blade Runner, and his job was to go find escaped replicants like Roy and "retire" them. Roy only wanted to live. He had no particular reason to go after Deckard, regardless of Deckard's status as human or replicant.
... after the cameras fail to spot something (or someone). What idiot mod modded this insightful? The cameras don't "spot" anything. They passively transmit an image to the center console screen where the driver does all the spotting.Is it really too much to ask that people read even the
The reference point is the line of the road edge, not other parked cars. You are parking parallel to the curb.
This could be just another flavour of concept-car, in which case it's no more now than it was in 60s Mechanic's Illustrated. (Yes, I was promised flying cars when I grew up, and I'm kinda bitter.) This isn't the same class as the "flying car". We already have cameras and monitors in cars. This is simply an evolutionary improvement. We will be seeing this, and probably quite soon. The crucial bug to be defeated is it must see everything yet not generate false positives, and that's a very difficult "last mile" to accomplish. Where we are right now is your ubercar backup sensor causes very expensive damage because it was confused the antique metal bar fence. This system is basically four video cameras. Video cameras are not confused by wrought iron fences. You're confusing this with purely non-visual ultrasonic proximity detection systems. This system is supplemented with sonar prox units for collision warning, but it is primarily a visible light based system.
Is it really too much to read and understand the
To wit: 80% of the United States Marine Corps. I swear, I've never met so many "fag hating" closet cases in my life as I did at Camp Pendelton...
Q: how much of contemporary physics consists of the interpretation of mathematical models? Like, say, the Friedmann metric, the Schwarzschild metric, the Schroedinger equation, the Bell inequality...
The difference is, no one is asking entire countries to make monumental changes to their economy based on the notion that a couple particles appear to decide their state only when you look at them. Quantum physics is largely only relevant to quantum physicists.Seriously, yeah, you're right; but it does have some internal consistency that parallels our own reality. And I wasn't the one who brought up the space shuttle!
Any ship that will need to descend to a place filled with air to drop off its passengers will need to be fairly aerodynamic. Unless it has the advantage of things like energy shields, repulsor lifts, and inertial dampeners. If the needs of friction reduction, G-force reduction, and aerodynamic lift are taken care of by "black boxes" inside the vehicle, you can make it any shape you like.
Or what about close-to-the-ground fighting on a planet with some atmosphere. As you may recall from EP5 aka SW:ESB, ground support/close air support was done with small, aerodynamic flying machines called "snow speeders". This is because X-Wing fighters et al are strictly spacecraft with trans-atmospheric capability.
If it's going to look aerodynamic, it'd better be aerodynamic. Errr.... why? The "aerodynamic look" is as valid a form of artistic design as any other. Look at some of the consumer goods from the 1950's and 60's. Lots of smooth lines, all very "space age" looking, but I seriously doubt those sleek brushed aluminum toasters would far well in a wind tunnel.
Seriously, are you THAT dense?
No, really. Cryogenic treatment is a perfectly rational engineering technique. It's an entirely structural effect though, so it'd have no effect on the conductivity of a copper cable.