but like all other "under ground scenes" it';s hidden, and the good stuff is hard to find. Any people listen to indie music out there? You guys know what I'm talking about, you have to shuffle through loads of crap to find one gem....but damn, that one gem is fantastic.
indie gameing sites (warning 90% crap! But, RPGDX has a good reviews system, so look for the highest reviews....)
and that's all that matters. GameCube is catching up (hopefully faster....i really lvoe that system...), but not enough yet. I mean if you want the new Silent Hill, what do you buy? The new Final Fantasy? The new Xeno-game? The new Breath of Fire? not an Xbox.
Gamecube is catching up (with it's own FF release and Zelda, and RE), but it has a long way to go. PS2 has won the same reason why the PS won, and why the NES won.
I disagree...I thought the original had a much more hitchcock sense to the directing...while the US one was very much modern hollywood horror. I dunno i perfer the less is more style...
if you call creepy "silly gross out contests". I mean come on, all it was was trying to gross out the veiwer, the dead horse, the fingernail cracking, etc....
the original had a creepy atmosphere. It was creepy in an alfred hitchcock sense. And I don't udnerstand the more coherent part...her being "born evil" is coherent? Or the scene where the fly is pulled from the screen? I don't see coherency.
but an automated troll. and by the looks of it, using a malkhov chain based text algorythm. A really simple random text generator that creates psuedo english based on word pairs.
I wonder what text he used as the input....
never said that religion was a good thing
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 1
or that they bleived in god, but that they TACKLED the theme of religion, and in the most cases (well, other than PK Dick) showed it's negative side effects.
That's the whole point of a theme in literature, you can tackle it without saying it's a good thing. For example, Brave New World tackled the idea of Utopia, but did Huxley agree with Utopian societies? No. It's obv from reading the book that he did not.
I never said they had to like it
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 1
the guy was insisting that sci-fi writers rarely deal with religion in context of their writing. Which is where he is wrong. And Dune, as well as many, many, many, other scifi classics all deal with religion somehow.
In a few years his books will be seen as outdated because of the science speculation. Sceince changes at a rapid pace, while on the other hand, ideas such as religion, the concept of what is humanity/or reality, never changes....these are what is known as "big themes" in literature, and all great books contain them. I never said belief in religion, but discussion of religion and it's many facets is a big theme. Much bigger than silly speculation of what new toys we will have in 100 years or so.
I never said that there was religion in the known space books, what I was countering was your arguement that:
"I know most SF writers aren't big on religion"
and I countered with the arguement that all sf writers worth reading wrote about religion, as well as many other things "bigger" than science speculation.
WTF???? not big on religion?
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 1, Informative
How much bloody SF have you read? Almost all the greats had tons of weird religous subtexts....Vonnegut, Heinlien, PK Dick, Assimov, Carl Sagan, the list goes on and one. Any SF author worth reading talks about things greater than sceince future speculation.
BTW, this isn't a question, so don't foreward it if it gets modd'd up.
If we use our own unassigned nerves, we won't have a risk of the body rejecting the material. I'm not a sceintist, but i'm pretty sure any forign object within the body (including bacteria not their in the first place) would be rejected by the white blood cells. This could be really bad....
and not only that, but why the hell would i want mushrooms growing out of my head? Being smart as I am is already a social stigma, let alone having tubers growing out of my skull.
I agree....my wife is only a semi-geek, she uses the computer for art, and she's intellegent. That's about as geeky as she gets...and it's wonderfull. I love coming home from work and knowing i don't have to talk about programming, firewalls, routing, or any of that *work related crap*. The other shared interests are much nicer, and the fact that she has interests much diffrent then mine makes sure the conversation never gets stale.
Only problem about dating/being married to a non-geek is that if there is ever a problem with her computer, guess who has to fix it...yup.
now, now calm down. What I meant was, I was sick of geek stereo types, I'm no better than anyone else
You said yourself, you've been laid hundreds of times,
No, I've said that I've dated lots of times. I've only ever slept with one person, and that is my wife. Why, you may ask? Getting laid has not been as important to me as finding a relationship.
It's not social skills, it's confidance. That's all it boils down too. I *was* a socially inept loser before I started getting a lot of women. What happened? I started to beomce confident in who I was. I stopped worrying about rejection.
What's the worse that could happen? Your pristene obsession will turn you down? It's not as bad as you think. Talk to them.
I'm married, and have been for the past year. I dated my wife for about 5 years before we decided to "get hitched", and before that, I had many, many, many dates. Hundreds. And I'm a geek. A programmer. A reader, a nerd, someone who spends more time at the computer than with human interaction. Big deal. The only social stigmas are the ones we give ourselves....I'm really sick of the "geek who can't get a date" stereotype.
And yes, i had dates in high school, and in college. I really don't see how you people can "not get dates" or why everyone obsesses over this whole thing, like it's a sociatal curse.
Just simply put: yes, if I "switched" I would get the latest and greatest. For now. But in the future would this be the same? I've known many a Mac user that was extrememly frustrated with the lack of CD-RW support in the original MacOSX release. I guess if MS did something like this it would be a reason to switch, but since Mac did it, they've improved and it's a good thing(wait...was that sarcasm?? nah).
It's not a straw man arguement. Basicly put, Mac's are not the greatest thing in the world. I've known manya disgruntled Mac user. The fact that, in the past, they did not support something as necassary to their system (since most of my friends bought imacs, and since they came without a floppy drive, the only way they could backup info was a cdburner) in the first public release tells me that they are as untrustworthy as everyone else.
actually, i am talking from experience. I say I don't own a Mac, I never say I haven't used a Mac, or no one I've ever known has ever used a Mac. Yes, the latest OS is pretty smooth, but how many Mac users have it? How many have afforded to upgrade to it? Most Mac users bought their's during the whole iMac is pretty fiasco, and are still using an older version of the OS.
are you trying to tell me then, that Mac's are perfect, adn contain no problems? It seems to me that you are another person cuaght up in group based thinking.
as I said above, this passion for using an OS/computer comes not from personality of the individual, but an us verses them mentality from a community based mind set. See here -> bandwagon
ok, I used to get that arguement. PC's aren't for "Joe User" who wants to just do blah blah blah. But what if Joe User, in the future, finds out he wants to use the computer for more? Begins to understand and delve into it? And from what I've heard, Mac's have a learning curve as well. They crash, you have to dload and get patches to drivers (well, OS drivers anyway, i mena god, OSX originally shipped without CD-RW capibilities...come on, that's really fscking stupid when you think about it)...MAc's, unlike popular bleief, don't "just work".
Slashdot Mirror
An indie mag, like how indie movies have Gurella Film, and indie music has Rock&Roll the mag, we need an indie zine which covers and cuts the crap.
but like all other "under ground scenes" it';s hidden, and the good stuff is hard to find. Any people listen to indie music out there? You guys know what I'm talking about, you have to shuffle through loads of crap to find one gem....but damn, that one gem is fantastic.
indie gameing sites (warning 90% crap! But, RPGDX has a good reviews system, so look for the highest reviews....)
RPGDX
Dark Dreams
Allegro Games Depot
Madmonkey
ohhh is that all, 3k. Christ. That's cheap. Wait....was I being sarcastic?
and that's all that matters. GameCube is catching up (hopefully faster....i really lvoe that system...), but not enough yet. I mean if you want the new Silent Hill, what do you buy? The new Final Fantasy? The new Xeno-game? The new Breath of Fire? not an Xbox.
Gamecube is catching up (with it's own FF release and Zelda, and RE), but it has a long way to go. PS2 has won the same reason why the PS won, and why the NES won.
they really should have it user-submitted via a form and have it all automated. Or else this puppy's going to die purty darn fast.
All i found was an email address to submit to. Is there a book sudmit form I missed?
I disagree...I thought the original had a much more hitchcock sense to the directing...while the US one was very much modern hollywood horror. I dunno i perfer the less is more style...
if you call creepy "silly gross out contests". I mean come on, all it was was trying to gross out the veiwer, the dead horse, the fingernail cracking, etc.... the original had a creepy atmosphere. It was creepy in an alfred hitchcock sense. And I don't udnerstand the more coherent part...her being "born evil" is coherent? Or the scene where the fly is pulled from the screen? I don't see coherency.
I really loved the Japense version...the american remake seemd like it was trying to hard too "gross out" the audiance.
I'm not really looking foreward to a live action Lupin 3 movie, since I'm a huge fan of the manga....and live action just doesn't seem to fit.
but an automated troll. and by the looks of it, using a malkhov chain based text algorythm. A really simple random text generator that creates psuedo english based on word pairs.
I wonder what text he used as the input....
or that they bleived in god, but that they TACKLED the theme of religion, and in the most cases (well, other than PK Dick) showed it's negative side effects. That's the whole point of a theme in literature, you can tackle it without saying it's a good thing. For example, Brave New World tackled the idea of Utopia, but did Huxley agree with Utopian societies? No. It's obv from reading the book that he did not.
Just that they dealt with it.
the guy was insisting that sci-fi writers rarely deal with religion in context of their writing. Which is where he is wrong. And Dune, as well as many, many, many, other scifi classics all deal with religion somehow.
In a few years his books will be seen as outdated because of the science speculation. Sceince changes at a rapid pace, while on the other hand, ideas such as religion, the concept of what is humanity/or reality, never changes....these are what is known as "big themes" in literature, and all great books contain them. I never said belief in religion, but discussion of religion and it's many facets is a big theme. Much bigger than silly speculation of what new toys we will have in 100 years or so.
I never said that there was religion in the known space books, what I was countering was your arguement that: "I know most SF writers aren't big on religion" and I countered with the arguement that all sf writers worth reading wrote about religion, as well as many other things "bigger" than science speculation.
How much bloody SF have you read? Almost all the greats had tons of weird religous subtexts....Vonnegut, Heinlien, PK Dick, Assimov, Carl Sagan, the list goes on and one. Any SF author worth reading talks about things greater than sceince future speculation.
BTW, this isn't a question, so don't foreward it if it gets modd'd up.
If we use our own unassigned nerves, we won't have a risk of the body rejecting the material. I'm not a sceintist, but i'm pretty sure any forign object within the body (including bacteria not their in the first place) would be rejected by the white blood cells. This could be really bad....
and not only that, but why the hell would i want mushrooms growing out of my head? Being smart as I am is already a social stigma, let alone having tubers growing out of my skull.
I agree....my wife is only a semi-geek, she uses the computer for art, and she's intellegent. That's about as geeky as she gets...and it's wonderfull. I love coming home from work and knowing i don't have to talk about programming, firewalls, routing, or any of that *work related crap*. The other shared interests are much nicer, and the fact that she has interests much diffrent then mine makes sure the conversation never gets stale. Only problem about dating/being married to a non-geek is that if there is ever a problem with her computer, guess who has to fix it...yup.
now, now calm down. What I meant was, I was sick of geek stereo types, I'm no better than anyone else
You said yourself, you've been laid hundreds of times, No, I've said that I've dated lots of times. I've only ever slept with one person, and that is my wife. Why, you may ask? Getting laid has not been as important to me as finding a relationship.
It's not social skills, it's confidance. That's all it boils down too. I *was* a socially inept loser before I started getting a lot of women. What happened? I started to beomce confident in who I was. I stopped worrying about rejection.
What's the worse that could happen? Your pristene obsession will turn you down? It's not as bad as you think. Talk to them.
I'm married, and have been for the past year. I dated my wife for about 5 years before we decided to "get hitched", and before that, I had many, many, many dates. Hundreds. And I'm a geek. A programmer. A reader, a nerd, someone who spends more time at the computer than with human interaction. Big deal. The only social stigmas are the ones we give ourselves....I'm really sick of the "geek who can't get a date" stereotype. And yes, i had dates in high school, and in college. I really don't see how you people can "not get dates" or why everyone obsesses over this whole thing, like it's a sociatal curse.
Just simply put: yes, if I "switched" I would get the latest and greatest. For now. But in the future would this be the same? I've known many a Mac user that was extrememly frustrated with the lack of CD-RW support in the original MacOSX release. I guess if MS did something like this it would be a reason to switch, but since Mac did it, they've improved and it's a good thing(wait...was that sarcasm?? nah). It's not a straw man arguement. Basicly put, Mac's are not the greatest thing in the world. I've known manya disgruntled Mac user. The fact that, in the past, they did not support something as necassary to their system (since most of my friends bought imacs, and since they came without a floppy drive, the only way they could backup info was a cdburner) in the first public release tells me that they are as untrustworthy as everyone else.
actually, i am talking from experience. I say I don't own a Mac, I never say I haven't used a Mac, or no one I've ever known has ever used a Mac. Yes, the latest OS is pretty smooth, but how many Mac users have it? How many have afforded to upgrade to it? Most Mac users bought their's during the whole iMac is pretty fiasco, and are still using an older version of the OS. are you trying to tell me then, that Mac's are perfect, adn contain no problems? It seems to me that you are another person cuaght up in group based thinking.
as I said above, this passion for using an OS/computer comes not from personality of the individual, but an us verses them mentality from a community based mind set. See here -> bandwagon
well, wasn't that just sooooo intellegent. So, you sidestep any points ai made just to masterbate you own ego. Congratulations! your a dumbass!
ok, I used to get that arguement. PC's aren't for "Joe User" who wants to just do blah blah blah. But what if Joe User, in the future, finds out he wants to use the computer for more? Begins to understand and delve into it? And from what I've heard, Mac's have a learning curve as well. They crash, you have to dload and get patches to drivers (well, OS drivers anyway, i mena god, OSX originally shipped without CD-RW capibilities...come on, that's really fscking stupid when you think about it)...MAc's, unlike popular bleief, don't "just work".