There is a fine line between commenting and belittling, I think you continue to do the latter. I do not expect others to have the same views as mine, however that does not mean they could arrive at conclusions on why I hold those views - that's my own damn problem.
You do not like them? Fine, you've let it be known. But do not tell me what you think of me just because my views differ from yours.
Personally, I think you are a narrow-minded person who has trouble accepting the fact that people may somehow have preferences of their choosing which could be quite different from yours - is that so hard to see? It could be for any number of reasons, but the fact remains that I'm quite picky and puritanical about adaptations - that's just the way I'm wired.
Just because you disagree with my views does not mean you should disrespect them - you would do well to learn some courteousness.
Well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Peter Jackson's movie was well made as a fantasy movie, just not LoTR.
It's not the compressed part that got to me, but the fact that he changed a lot of things that need not have been changed - making Gimli into a comical character, portraying Faramir as someone who gives into temptation, horrible portrayal of Lady Galadriel, Aragorn and a lot of others. Not to mention tonnes of inconsistencies (Glorifendel's role, for instance) and such.
PJ did not have to make these changes, yet he did - that is what irritated me.
If you'd read my entire comment, you would have noted that I'd mentioned the trailer that I'd seen (and hated).
The fact that even at the very basic level all the characters looked exactly not like what I'd imagined them to be, the fact that they spoke American accents and the bad humor pissed me off.
My primary grudge with LoTR was that while it was a good story on its own, it wasn't in any way related to Tolkien's world.
One of the things that made LoTR powerful was the strength of the characters - I find that missing in LoTR. I felt that almost all the characters were trashed and made to appear rather simplistic or even comical.
For instance - both Ghost in the Shell and Sincity weren't bad adaptations, and both held quite true to the spirit of the books.
I'm sorry, I cannot see a movie that is so badly skewed from the original that it made me grimace the first time I watched the trailer. People did not even have British accents, for cryin' out loud.
And LoTR - it was a nice movie by itself, but a bad adaptation. An adaptation is something that's based on the original, and Peter Jackson's version had so many flaws in comparison to the books.
Like I said, I'm a purist in these things - and it's my opinion.
While I do not particularly expect the movies to be true to the word, I expect them to be true to the spirit. LoTR was neither true to the word nor true to the spirit of the book -- and that is merely my opinion.
And yeah, to each his own. Perhaps I'm indeed unimaginative, but that's none of your problem. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine and dandy. But it's none of your fucking business in telling me what I should or should not like.
I've had every other favorite book of mine trashed - Lord of the Rings, Dune, I, Robot and a quintillion others.
I'm not ready to watch the movie and destroy what I've treasured all this while. And most importantly, when I re-read the book, the images from the movie will stick in my mind - something I really do not want to happen.
I'll go with the earlier review -- I'm a purist of sorts in this regard, and I'm fairly certain I'll hate the movie.:-)
I wasn't aware of that - but that could be more of an infrastructural issue, don't you think? Something like combining a new technology with an older basis.
Even in the minimal setting of just one LED powering the headlamp, it can be quite blinding. If you made a cluster of slightly more powerful versions of these LEDs, making a projector would not be hard at all.
Because there are many facets to what can be defined as the fittest, and these are under constant flux.
A few thousand years ago it was brawn, then it was a combination of both brain and brawn, today it is mostly brain -- but still, good looking folks do find it easier to find mates, due to reasons that go back in the evolutionary chain.
That was my original point.
We do not know what will constitute the "fittest" of tomorrow as we advance as a species and as a civilization, however that does not mean the non-fittest will be wiped out. Yes, maybe they will be -- but not overnight. Over genetic pool is far too interbred and mixed up for something like that to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
You're mistaken.
Depending on where one is applying from, one has to appear for a personal interview for B-1 as well.
Taxes might have to be paid based on which country's passport you hold.
I'm sure there're international laws for nutheads like this.
> or neutronium or naquada, or has a quantum black hole
Dude, I must tell you that this is Real Life (TM) and not Stargate. I know, I have trouble too.
=)
Nah, he's not a writer.
;-)
He just plays one on Slashdot.
There is a fine line between commenting and belittling, I think you continue to do the latter. I do not expect others to have the same views as mine, however that does not mean they could arrive at conclusions on why I hold those views - that's my own damn problem.
You do not like them? Fine, you've let it be known. But do not tell me what you think of me just because my views differ from yours.
Personally, I think you are a narrow-minded person who has trouble accepting the fact that people may somehow have preferences of their choosing which could be quite different from yours - is that so hard to see? It could be for any number of reasons, but the fact remains that I'm quite picky and puritanical about adaptations - that's just the way I'm wired.
Just because you disagree with my views does not mean you should disrespect them - you would do well to learn some courteousness.
Well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Peter Jackson's movie was well made as a fantasy movie, just not LoTR.
It's not the compressed part that got to me, but the fact that he changed a lot of things that need not have been changed - making Gimli into a comical character, portraying Faramir as someone who gives into temptation, horrible portrayal of Lady Galadriel, Aragorn and a lot of others. Not to mention tonnes of inconsistencies (Glorifendel's role, for instance) and such.
PJ did not have to make these changes, yet he did - that is what irritated me.
Not particularly.
If you'd read my entire comment, you would have noted that I'd mentioned the trailer that I'd seen (and hated).
The fact that even at the very basic level all the characters looked exactly not like what I'd imagined them to be, the fact that they spoke American accents and the bad humor pissed me off.
The review was the proverbial straw.
Oh that's just part of the problem.
My primary grudge with LoTR was that while it was a good story on its own, it wasn't in any way related to Tolkien's world.
One of the things that made LoTR powerful was the strength of the characters - I find that missing in LoTR. I felt that almost all the characters were trashed and made to appear rather simplistic or even comical.
For instance - both Ghost in the Shell and Sincity weren't bad adaptations, and both held quite true to the spirit of the books.
Then again, maybe it's just me.
Eh?
I'm sorry, I cannot see a movie that is so badly skewed from the original that it made me grimace the first time I watched the trailer. People did not even have British accents, for cryin' out loud.
And LoTR - it was a nice movie by itself, but a bad adaptation. An adaptation is something that's based on the original, and Peter Jackson's version had so many flaws in comparison to the books.
Like I said, I'm a purist in these things - and it's my opinion.
While I do not particularly expect the movies to be true to the word, I expect them to be true to the spirit. LoTR was neither true to the word nor true to the spirit of the book -- and that is merely my opinion.
And yeah, to each his own. Perhaps I'm indeed unimaginative, but that's none of your problem. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine and dandy. But it's none of your fucking business in telling me what I should or should not like.
Unfortunately, I will not be.
:-)
I've seen the BBC series and it simply rocks.
I've had every other favorite book of mine trashed - Lord of the Rings, Dune, I, Robot and a quintillion others.
I'm not ready to watch the movie and destroy what I've treasured all this while. And most importantly, when I re-read the book, the images from the movie will stick in my mind - something I really do not want to happen.
I'll go with the earlier review -- I'm a purist of sorts in this regard, and I'm fairly certain I'll hate the movie.
Wow, thanks! I wasn't aware of that -- I just wasn't sure if he was kidding or was serious.
I wasn't aware of that - but that could be more of an infrastructural issue, don't you think? Something like combining a new technology with an older basis.
West coast, eh? Already 8 here.
Even in the minimal setting of just one LED powering the headlamp, it can be quite blinding. If you made a cluster of slightly more powerful versions of these LEDs, making a projector would not be hard at all.
Oh yeah... and if you're one of those mutants with a fourth color receptor, you'll hate these lights.
Fourth color receptor?
Actually, rock climbers & spelunkers who do lots of caving have been using LED based headlamps for a while now.
They have excellent focus and can illuminate pretty darned well, projecting the light to a good distance as well as a very effecient battery usage.
I do not even remember the last time I used a lightbulb based headlamp.
So, to answer your question - current LEDs can probably do that already.
Jesus Fucking Christ! You should have said that, sheesh! I was wondering wtf you were talking about.
Cheers.
Everytime such trolls post, I'm tempted to flame.
Henceforth, there is a better idea - if this is the best you can come up with, I'd much rather not read any other posts from such folks.
Better to foe ya'll and mark your comments -1 than bother reading such crap.
Because there are many facets to what can be defined as the fittest, and these are under constant flux.
A few thousand years ago it was brawn, then it was a combination of both brain and brawn, today it is mostly brain -- but still, good looking folks do find it easier to find mates, due to reasons that go back in the evolutionary chain.
That was my original point.
We do not know what will constitute the "fittest" of tomorrow as we advance as a species and as a civilization, however that does not mean the non-fittest will be wiped out. Yes, maybe they will be -- but not overnight. Over genetic pool is far too interbred and mixed up for something like that to happen.
Okay, bad ones - but hey, it's 1 AM in the middle of the night.
Ofcourse it does.
A few thousand years ago, strength was largely physical - today it's intellectual.
There are many facets to survival.
Bah, who cares for semantics when you can have sensationalism?
Is it me or does the Red Queen Hypothesis also sound a lot like good ole' survival of the fittest thing that Darwin fella' had put forward?
Poached or Bulls Eye? Over easy?
Nope, I like 'em alive and kicking.
Jokes aside, this is cool - but wasn't it already known that only the fittest survive? How is the Red Queen Hypothesis any different?
Or are they both saying the same thing, and the resurrection ecology is merely confirming it?
It's spelt Israel, not Isreal.