That's exactly what Lucas has said several times. Given your sig I'm suprised you've missed the SEVERAL times over the years that he's said that.
The original plan for Starwars had it opening as a mother wookie telling it to her child.
The original wookie was much smaller and more primitive, but that got modified into Chewbaca, and later the Ewoks came into it as a kind re-introducing of the original Wookie idea.
Not that I'm trying to attack you, I'm just honestly suprised you never caught that fact, especially since your sig points to that era.
I still have memorized: poke 543280,<color> or 543281,<bordercolor> and poke 54296,<volume> and sys 64738 lO"*",8,9
I think Lea's adopted father would explain how she wound up in the alliance.
If you recall his part in what happened at the end of EP:III what with helping two now wanted Jedi to escape the emperor and taking on Lea as an infant knowing who she was.
Just because Chewie believes something and claims to have seen it at work doesn't mean he'd convince Han it was so.
Got any friends who believe in ufo's or a different religeon than you?
I just thought Anakin had built C3PO out of spare parts or as kit (like how some people used to build heath-kit computers).
All Obi-Wan actualy said was he didn't remember ever owning any droids. Though admitedly him not eventually realizing these were the SAME r2 unit and protocal droid is a bit odd, especially after getting Lea's message from R2. The only explanation I could give here is to point to obvious 'droids for everything' fetish the republic/empire seems to have (good grief, if they use droids instead of a chunk of explosive in missles it has to be a culturual blind spot of ENORMOUS proportions) and with the short names for them assume that they mentally think 'joe's r2d2 not freds' like we might think Jane's Mustang Not Alberts.
Because Captain was his title/job and not his rank.
He was Captain of the ship, not a Captain in the military.
Of course it's just possibly you making a joke with the play on words. In wich case I donate this post to the rest of the people who wondered that for real.
Mycroft
Re:one of the most successful bad writers in histo
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 1
Actually I'd dissagree with mr cranky there.
It's gotta be one of several lines.
"I've got a bad feeling aobut this"--virtually every character at some point
"Impressive, most impressive"--Vader after Luke super-jumps away from being frozen.
"I find you're lack of faith most distrubing"--Vader early in epIV
"The more you tighten your grasp the more systems will slip through your fingers"--Lea in epIV just before Alderan is blasted.
"Help me obi-wan, You're my only hope"--Lea's holomessage in epIV
and the top two contenders imho are:
"Luke, I am your father"--Vader to Luke at the climax of epV
"Use the force Luke" -- Obi-Wan's ghost to luke just before he takes out the Death Star in ep:IV
So you are saying some people might have the same first or last name and not be the same person. UNPOSSIBLE.
Seriously though I wonder if they're intended to be relatives, or is Antillies just very common like Smith or Brown or Jones.
Lea is not a Jedi however. She has the potential to be eigther Jedi or Sith, and while her actions sofar have pretty much sided with the Jedi way of doing thing, she hasn't really put her 2cents in on the matter of the force itself.
The actual count (as of end of epIII/start of epIV) Yoda and Obiwan
vs Palapatine and Vader Obi-Wan dies shortly after Lukes training has began (at vaders hands I might add, here Vader/Anakin is STILL acting to keep it balanced)
It isn't untill Vader/Anaking fullfills the other part of the prophecy by tossing palpy overboard and taking a leathal jolt (thus ending the sith) that things get unbalanced again.
I would submit that the bit about destroying the sith is why Yoda and co. thought balance meant all sweetness and light (pretty niave of them, but I've notice most people involved in prophesies in fiction are pretty blind to the obvious).
I didn't care for the mitichlorian thing myself.
However the GP did use deconstruct correctly. It can refer to a form of criticism. And has been used in general to looking at some work of fiction by taking apart the elements that make it up and analysing them.
Just one question. If the force was out of balance, which way was it out of balance.
Seems to me untill Vader/Anaking saved Palpatine from justice(well from M.W.(what is with everyone loosing thier hands?)) the Jedi councill was seriously ascendant, not the sith.
I'd say it was indeed Anakin. Further evidence is that it was Anaking, not luke, who destroyed the sith (Luke was pretty much taking on some fatal shock therapy at the time) in ROTJ by tossing palpy and taking a leathal jolt himself.
Though I can see the argument that Luke was the catalyst for that last bit, It was still Anakin who did the deed.
You know Yoda said they might not have gotten it interpreted right.
Now consider this, Yoda and co. thought balance ment more good. But did it occure to them that as influential and powerfull the Jedi councill had gotten that light side was seriously ascendant and balance would imply rise in the dark side and/or decline in the light side. HMMM Anakin converts to sithdom and slaughters the younglings and helps hunt down a LOT of jedi, CHECK one balancing of the force.
Also it's mentioned that the chosen one is supposed to destroy the sith, well in rotj he converts back killing Palpy and himself, check again.
Just because Anakin didn't do it how they wanted doesn't mean he's not The One.
If it's not a closed loop then it's not a loop at all.
HOW can it not be closed and still be? Only if time is more than one dimension.
Try this, using a piece of paper use the horizontal axis as temporal position and assume the vertical as representative of the 3 spacial dimesions we're all used to. Now draw your loop.
Since the horizontal represents the moment in time, how doese the loop repeat, or start, or end? it can't because it's already there.
The judgement to understand right from wrong isnt' a magical occurance. Nor automatic.
And if they were understanding the emotions they'd actually get Mom/Dad are worried/concerned/upset, If they're mistaking discipline for hate then there is a whole different problem going on.
If spanking were half as bad as you seem to think it is howcome we didn't start having the kind of 12-16 year packs of kids shooting each other till it fell out of favor?
Pyscology is still a very infant science, barely above the level alchemy. The human mind and brain are still very much a black box.
The only Psycologist I've ever met who had half a clue was a child and family psycologist and laughed outright the concept of spanking being in of itself bad. She did say it should be a VERY rare occurance by the time a child is in first grade. If not then something is likely wrong, eigther with the parenting or the child.
But the reason why it should be rare is it should have accomplished the primary task of imprinting the child with the importance of listening and heeding the parents direction.
With centuries of it's use you'd think we would have noticed all this lashing out and self mutilation you talk of, yet most older persons seem to rember children as better behaved in the past.
Number one contradicts itself and puts up a paradox of it's own.
The problem is there is no before the loop in the sense your trying to say.
You are always your grandfather, the dude who 'appears in the past is YOU.
The only way I can think to try and explain it is to ignore time, treat it as a 4dimensional construct, it has a fixed shape.
There might be a way to use the many worlds interpretation or a construction with TWO time dimensions, to create a something resembling itteration or 'repeated' looping. But without that there is only one loop, it didn't happen and won't happen it just is.
It may be infinite in that it has no beginning and no end, but duration wise it's singular, not itterative.
Any other view implies that a single instant of time is itself moving through time, a non-sensical notion.
Calling it time travel is actually a misnomer in one respect. Travel implies continuos physical displacement over a (relativly, pun intended) constant duration. What we're talking about here is displacement in time, you are litterally changing when.
Essentially every discussion of temporal loops that follows causality through the loop itself more than once eigther assumes 2d time or instantaneous resolution to a stable state with the multiple passes and artifact of calculation to determine the actual state of the loop.
Problem is the bad guy already has the gun and trying to restrict them just means that disproportionately more bad guys have them than good guys for a long time at best. And should get possesion down to where even a bad guy with one is very rare, that still doesn't save granny from the 18 year old buff dude with a bat.
The thing about 'less guns in circulation' is that the bad guys guns get pulled last, much later than anyone elses (even the cops).
I'm not for ditching the police and fbi, but if it was them or gun ownership I'd vote them out first. Much more likely to have a long happy life not suddenly shortned by a nutcase that way.
Heh, you ran afoul of when does TIME happen. Or at least that's one name I have for it.
Plot all the events in a loop on paper showing when they happen.
Now WHEN does it oscillate. I'm sorry if this is confusing, english isn't bad for describing such things, it's much worse.
The loop is a single track, not a repeating event, thus no oscillation. Besides each moment is once so how do you oscillate it.
You need a second line to measure time along other than the one we use with our clocks and callendars.
Though I suppose many-worlds might allow such.
The amazing thing is the post you are responding to got modded up insightfull, but your post explaining his vague (and incomplete) recollection of just one theory still sits at one.
I've already posted on this or I'd mod you up myself.
But then I know better than to assume I can resist putting my two cents in on a time travel subject.
I sincerely hope the article totaly scrambled the explanation.
Elsewise all they said was you can back but just not change anything according to QM. Even though Qm says observation changes things. Just the microscopic gravity you produce changes things.
Frankly this article sounded like the tired old plot device where the hero, having arived in the past, winds up causing what he went back to stop because of paradox.
Kinda going back to early 1964 and trying to talk Oswald out of shooting Kennedy only to have him say "wow what a great Idea, I'll be famous".
One last thing, spanking is nonviolent or it's a beating. And without the foundation for discipline spanking provides the rest is just words with very little emotional backing to make it work.
Yes spanking past a certain age should become rapidly rarer.
But the point is that spanking serves to use the built in mechanisms to teach a child in ways that are hard to overide. The primary thing you teach is to listen to momy and daddy and place great importance on thier instructions. Not a reasoned importance, but a deeply seated emotional response that morals should have (what you thought morals were inborn?!?, beyond some family level instincts they are not).
Your claim that because YOU became highly rebelious prove that spanking is a bad idea is just anectedotal, and besides one could argue that you simply weren't spanked enough. Not that I would make such an argument.
I was spanked as a child, but each and every time it was an event. That's how it should be, any lesson worthy of a spanking should be an event so the importance is driven home and made an eviceral response. I wasn't a very rebelious child, and when my parents put thier foot down I KNEW better than to go very far dissagreing.
A good example might be to stop a very young child from grabbing at hot/sharp/dangerous things, a little pain and a few tears are far preferable to an ER visit. Especially when the one spanking can make lesson that lasts when momy and daddy aren't hovering over the child. Saying "NO" to a toddler lasts about as long as they can see you (unless they've learned to take a NO very seriously).
The problem occures when it's taken to far and becomes simply a beating, eigther because the parent/guarding/sitter/nanny lost it and acted while angry, or have some other mental malfunction.
Except WHEN would this happen. That's the thing people do with temporal loops like this, see them like an old lp skipping repeating over and over again.
Except that's not what happens, it's a single loop in time, not a repeating event.
I am not shure how to explain this in any meaningfull way in english in less than WAY too many words. English (and afaik most spoken language) assumes normal time flow and thus that's how we think.
Look at it this way, the self-ancestor dna isn't going through a loop, but IS the loop.
If the loop consists of say 100 years of inheriting the gene, then a time travelor goes back 101 years experienceing a trip duration of 4 hours, then spend a short time woe-ing and mating his ancestor passing on the gene. The whole loop is approximately 101years + four hours. ONCE.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem, just stare at this wide-eye 3d illusion picture till you see a sailboat.
And stay away from potheads with bat-grapples.
Mycroft
That's exactly what Lucas has said several times.
Given your sig I'm suprised you've missed the SEVERAL times over the years that he's said that.
The original plan for Starwars had it opening as a mother wookie telling it to her child.
The original wookie was much smaller and more primitive, but that got modified into Chewbaca, and later the Ewoks came into it as a kind re-introducing of the original Wookie idea.
Not that I'm trying to attack you, I'm just honestly suprised you never caught that fact, especially since your sig points to that era.
I still have memorized:
poke 543280,<color> or 543281,<bordercolor>
and poke 54296,<volume>
and sys 64738
lO"*",8,9
Mycroft
I think Lea's adopted father would explain how she wound up in the alliance.
If you recall his part in what happened at the end of EP:III what with helping two now wanted Jedi to escape the emperor and taking on Lea as an infant knowing who she was.
Mycroft
Just because Chewie believes something and claims to have seen it at work doesn't mean he'd convince Han it was so.
Got any friends who believe in ufo's or a different religeon than you?
Mycroft
I just thought Anakin had built C3PO out of spare parts or as kit (like how some people used to build heath-kit computers).
All Obi-Wan actualy said was he didn't remember ever owning any droids. Though admitedly him not eventually realizing these were the SAME r2 unit and protocal droid is a bit odd, especially after getting Lea's message from R2. The only explanation I could give here is to point to obvious 'droids for everything' fetish the republic/empire seems to have (good grief, if they use droids instead of a chunk of explosive in missles it has to be a culturual blind spot of ENORMOUS proportions) and with the short names for them assume that they mentally think 'joe's r2d2 not freds' like we might think Jane's Mustang Not Alberts.
Mycroft
Because Captain was his title/job and not his rank.
He was Captain of the ship, not a Captain in the military.
Of course it's just possibly you making a joke with the play on words. In wich case I donate this post to the rest of the people who wondered that for real.
Mycroft
Actually I'd dissagree with mr cranky there.
It's gotta be one of several lines.
"I've got a bad feeling aobut this"--virtually every character at some point
"Impressive, most impressive"--Vader after Luke super-jumps away from being frozen.
"I find you're lack of faith most distrubing"--Vader early in epIV
"The more you tighten your grasp the more systems will slip through your fingers"--Lea in epIV just before Alderan is blasted.
"Help me obi-wan, You're my only hope"--Lea's holomessage in epIV
and the top two contenders imho are:
"Luke, I am your father"--Vader to Luke at the climax of epV
"Use the force Luke" -- Obi-Wan's ghost to luke just before he takes out the Death Star in ep:IV
Mycroft
So you are saying some people might have the same first or last name and not be the same person. UNPOSSIBLE.
Seriously though I wonder if they're intended to be relatives, or is Antillies just very common like Smith or Brown or Jones.
Mycroft
Lea is not a Jedi however. She has the potential to be eigther Jedi or Sith, and while her actions sofar have pretty much sided with the Jedi way of doing thing, she hasn't really put her 2cents in on the matter of the force itself.
The actual count (as of end of epIII/start of epIV)
Yoda and Obiwan
vs
Palapatine and Vader
Obi-Wan dies shortly after Lukes training has began (at vaders hands I might add, here Vader/Anakin is STILL acting to keep it balanced)
It isn't untill Vader/Anaking fullfills the other part of the prophecy by tossing palpy overboard and taking a leathal jolt (thus ending the sith) that things get unbalanced again.
I would submit that the bit about destroying the sith is why Yoda and co. thought balance meant all sweetness and light (pretty niave of them, but I've notice most people involved in prophesies in fiction are pretty blind to the obvious).
Mycroft
I didn't care for the mitichlorian thing myself.
However the GP did use deconstruct correctly. It can refer to a form of criticism. And has been used in general to looking at some work of fiction by taking apart the elements that make it up and analysing them.
Mycroft
Just one question. If the force was out of balance, which way was it out of balance.
Seems to me untill Vader/Anaking saved Palpatine from justice(well from M.W.(what is with everyone loosing thier hands?)) the Jedi councill was seriously ascendant, not the sith.
I'd say it was indeed Anakin.
Further evidence is that it was Anaking, not luke, who destroyed the sith (Luke was pretty much taking on some fatal shock therapy at the time) in ROTJ by tossing palpy and taking a leathal jolt himself.
Though I can see the argument that Luke was the catalyst for that last bit, It was still Anakin who did the deed.
Mycroft
You know Yoda said they might not have gotten it interpreted right.
Now consider this, Yoda and co. thought balance ment more good. But did it occure to them that as influential and powerfull the Jedi councill had gotten that light side was seriously ascendant and balance would imply rise in the dark side and/or decline in the light side. HMMM Anakin converts to sithdom and slaughters the younglings and helps hunt down a LOT of jedi, CHECK one balancing of the force.
Also it's mentioned that the chosen one is supposed to destroy the sith, well in rotj he converts back killing Palpy and himself, check again.
Just because Anakin didn't do it how they wanted doesn't mean he's not The One.
Mycroft
If it's not a closed loop then it's not a loop at all.
HOW can it not be closed and still be? Only if time is more than one dimension.
Try this, using a piece of paper use the horizontal axis as temporal position and assume the vertical as representative of the 3 spacial dimesions we're all used to. Now draw your loop.
Since the horizontal represents the moment in time, how doese the loop repeat, or start, or end? it can't because it's already there.
Mycroft
I just followed that link.
Sorry but those people are just plain loony tunes nuts.
Mycroft
The judgement to understand right from wrong isnt' a magical occurance. Nor automatic.
And if they were understanding the emotions they'd actually get Mom/Dad are worried/concerned/upset, If they're mistaking discipline for hate then there is a whole different problem going on.
If spanking were half as bad as you seem to think it is howcome we didn't start having the kind of 12-16 year packs of kids shooting each other till it fell out of favor?
Pyscology is still a very infant science, barely above the level alchemy. The human mind and brain are still very much a black box.
The only Psycologist I've ever met who had half a clue was a child and family psycologist and laughed outright the concept of spanking being in of itself bad. She did say it should be a VERY rare occurance by the time a child is in first grade. If not then something is likely wrong, eigther with the parenting or the child.
But the reason why it should be rare is it should have accomplished the primary task of imprinting the child with the importance of listening and heeding the parents direction.
With centuries of it's use you'd think we would have noticed all this lashing out and self mutilation you talk of, yet most older persons seem to rember children as better behaved in the past.
Mycroft
Number one contradicts itself and puts up a paradox of it's own.
The problem is there is no before the loop in the sense your trying to say.
You are always your grandfather, the dude who 'appears in the past is YOU.
The only way I can think to try and explain it is to ignore time, treat it as a 4dimensional construct, it has a fixed shape.
There might be a way to use the many worlds interpretation or a construction with TWO time dimensions, to create a something resembling itteration or 'repeated' looping. But without that there is only one loop, it didn't happen and won't happen it just is.
Mycroft
It may be infinite in that it has no beginning and no end, but duration wise it's singular, not itterative.
Any other view implies that a single instant of time is itself moving through time, a non-sensical notion.
Calling it time travel is actually a misnomer in one respect. Travel implies continuos physical displacement over a (relativly, pun intended) constant duration. What we're talking about here is displacement in time, you are litterally changing when.
Essentially every discussion of temporal loops that follows causality through the loop itself more than once eigther assumes 2d time or instantaneous resolution to a stable state with the multiple passes and artifact of calculation to determine the actual state of the loop.
Mycroft
No offence dude but could you shut up and stop blocking the /.
Thanks
*crunch* *crunch*
Mycroft
Problem is the bad guy already has the gun and trying to restrict them just means that disproportionately more bad guys have them than good guys for a long time at best. And should get possesion down to where even a bad guy with one is very rare, that still doesn't save granny from the 18 year old buff dude with a bat.
The thing about 'less guns in circulation' is that the bad guys guns get pulled last, much later than anyone elses (even the cops).
I'm not for ditching the police and fbi, but if it was them or gun ownership I'd vote them out first. Much more likely to have a long happy life not suddenly shortned by a nutcase that way.
Mycroft
Heh, you ran afoul of when does TIME happen. Or at least that's one name I have for it.
Plot all the events in a loop on paper showing when they happen.
Now WHEN does it oscillate.
I'm sorry if this is confusing, english isn't bad for describing such things, it's much worse.
The loop is a single track, not a repeating event, thus no oscillation. Besides each moment is once so how do you oscillate it.
You need a second line to measure time along other than the one we use with our clocks and callendars.
Though I suppose many-worlds might allow such.
Mycroft
The amazing thing is the post you are responding to got modded up insightfull, but your post explaining his vague (and incomplete) recollection of just one theory still sits at one.
I've already posted on this or I'd mod you up myself.
But then I know better than to assume I can resist putting my two cents in on a time travel subject.
Mycroft
I sincerely hope the article totaly scrambled the explanation.
Elsewise all they said was you can back but just not change anything according to QM. Even though Qm says observation changes things. Just the microscopic gravity you produce changes things.
Frankly this article sounded like the tired old plot device where the hero, having arived in the past, winds up causing what he went back to stop because of paradox.
Kinda going back to early 1964 and trying to talk Oswald out of shooting Kennedy only to have him say "wow what a great Idea, I'll be famous".
Mycroft
One last thing, spanking is nonviolent or it's a beating. And without the foundation for discipline spanking provides the rest is just words with very little emotional backing to make it work.
Mycroft
Yes spanking past a certain age should become rapidly rarer.
But the point is that spanking serves to use the built in mechanisms to teach a child in ways that are hard to overide. The primary thing you teach is to listen to momy and daddy and place great importance on thier instructions. Not a reasoned importance, but a deeply seated emotional response that morals should have (what you thought morals were inborn?!?, beyond some family level instincts they are not).
Your claim that because YOU became highly rebelious prove that spanking is a bad idea is just anectedotal, and besides one could argue that you simply weren't spanked enough. Not that I would make such an argument.
I was spanked as a child, but each and every time it was an event. That's how it should be, any lesson worthy of a spanking should be an event so the importance is driven home and made an eviceral response. I wasn't a very rebelious child, and when my parents put thier foot down I KNEW better than to go very far dissagreing.
A good example might be to stop a very young child from grabbing at hot/sharp/dangerous things, a little pain and a few tears are far preferable to an ER visit. Especially when the one spanking can make lesson that lasts when momy and daddy aren't hovering over the child. Saying "NO" to a toddler lasts about as long as they can see you (unless they've learned to take a NO very seriously).
The problem occures when it's taken to far and becomes simply a beating, eigther because the parent/guarding/sitter/nanny lost it and acted while angry, or have some other mental malfunction.
Mycroft
Except WHEN would this happen.
That's the thing people do with temporal loops like this, see them like an old lp skipping repeating over and over again.
Except that's not what happens, it's a single loop in time, not a repeating event.
I am not shure how to explain this in any meaningfull way in english in less than WAY too many words. English (and afaik most spoken language) assumes normal time flow and thus that's how we think.
Look at it this way, the self-ancestor dna isn't going through a loop, but IS the loop.
If the loop consists of say 100 years of inheriting the gene, then a time travelor goes back 101 years experienceing a trip duration of 4 hours, then spend a short time woe-ing and mating his ancestor passing on the gene. The whole loop is approximately 101years + four hours. ONCE.
Mycroft