"He gives proof". As the whole problem with the belief in god or gods is the lack of any proof, I think we'd all be grateful if you could point us at this proof. It would certainly save a lot of debate!
Your sig. "Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." In the words of Doctor Leonard McCoy "I think that's my line". Seriously: Isn't this one for the non-believers? It's a great summary of the way I feel about the term "atheist", which means a non-believer in the whole god thing. I don't believe there is any sort of creator or god, however I fail to see why that should define me as a person. I don't, for example believe refrigerators can be used to transform lead into gold, but I don't go around saying I'm an a-refrigoalchemist either. In fact there's a whole bunch of nonsense I don't believe. I'm a normal guy. It's the people who believe in the whacky stuff with no evidence that need the labels (if only so I can see em coming:P)
I'm not sure if you mentioned "God" there in jest, or if you are a real believer. If you are, I'd like to know how you reconcile your sig. "Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid." with a blind belief in a doctrine (the whole divine creator thing) that has been "corrected" many times as we've discovered more about the universe. Faith abhors correction - you must believe - despite any evidence to the contrary, in whatever it tells you surely.
If you were joking, and your sig is aimed at pointing this out to the faith guys - please accept my apologies for being a bit slow on the uptake. I don't have the answers around how the bees do this, but that doesn't mean the answer is automatically "There's a god, and he/she/it did it".
One of the things I love about nethack is that items (and monsters, and dungeon features...) interact with each other in so many ways. Wielding a cockatrice corpse as a weapon will make short work of many monsters -- as long as you're wearing gloves. Just be careful not to fall down the stairs because you're carrying too much load...
This is what kept me playing Nethack for many years - to see if some obscure piece of logic had been accommodated. It usually was.
I once "died" in Nethack of a "thermonuclear explosion", largely due to a series of unfortunate events (coulda been a Darwin contender:P):-
I had a room full of demons to deal with, and adopted my usually successful room clearing move which goes like this: having acquired teleportation and a ring of teleport control, I teleport into the room; then using my magic whistle, I summoned my 3 tame dragons (Huey, Dewey and Louie - when you absolutely have to kill off every last m**** f**** in the goddam dungeon...). This where it all went wrong though as on the next turn, the dragons breathed fire at the demons, I got caught in the cross fire, which wasn't a problem as I had many many HP by then and was fireproof (you need to be to descend to the "hell" levels), but I was also carrying so many spellbooks, wands, potions, scrolls etc which all went up causing a critical mass of magic...
I also remember a friend of mine who thought he'd be clever and hack his save file in an early Nethack and give himself max HP. He was very pleased with himself until he went up a level, gained 8hp, and the signed integer rolled over...
Too true - which was why I was less than impressed a few years back, when, as I was accelerating up the slip road (on ramp) to the M60 in Manchester at around 70mph surrounded by cars doing the same speed, my 1999 BMW 535iSA "boinged" at me and the display read "Engine safe mode", at which point, it shut down...
So, no brakes, no power steering and a hefty V8 sitting over the front axle and 235mm tyres.. Plus, the view out of the window was now in 16 colours.
OK I made that last bit up, but it was "inconvenient" to say the least:P
As it had an auto box, I then had to shift to neutral (car won't start in Drive) turn the key to off, and then start the engine again - which it did thankfully. Then - of course to get it back to Drive, I had to momentarily touch the brake as it won't go to Drive without the foot brake on...
And the cause? Turned out to be a faulty air meter. Quite common on BMWs of that year - I got through 3 of them before I sold it.
Too right - all these "hide behind a box and shoot at each other with endless variations of sniper rifles and other slug throwers" whilst shuffling around the map at the speed of an asthmatic donkey, slavishly carrying out "the mission" really put me off playing FPS.
Let's get back to running around at ludicrous speed like demented Ninjas firing weapons of biblical proportions, in shiny locations, with no plan other than to kill the other guys more than they kill you!
That's not to say there are no subtleties to that plan - Quake (1 2 or 3) is a game where the tactics and strategic objectives aren't so bloomin obvious, that they're spelt out in the manual!
Or maybe my attention span has shortened with age:P
why would Ferrari license their trademark out to be slapped on something that any reasonable person could tell is a piece of crap just by looking at it.
Because - it pays. Ferrari will stick their label on any piece of crud going if it will make them a buck. I had a look round the "Ferrari Store" in Rome last week and was amazed at the tat on offer with a Ferrari badge on it. A cheapo Olympus compact digital camera for example - normally retails at £100, but produced in red with Ferrari badge - 895 euro (about £700). They definitely "saw you coming". http://www.isawyoucoming.org/
Reminds me of a sketch show I saw years ago (might have been Smith and Jones) where they demonstrated how, in prisons, with a few simple modifications, a standard hair comb could be converted to a deadly weapon. It turned out to be a hair comb with an M16 rifle taped to it....
"I think you'll agree - this comb could now be used to take down prison guards with ease.."
I do remember Smith and Jones. Now I see that sketch again I do vaguely remember it - "you can bash it, smash it hit it with a hammer and you still can't...... get the box open". Too true!
Good point - there was really no need to single out phones for specific legislation, and interpretation of what constitutes "due care and attention" was left to traffic officers. On the whole though, I feel the introduction of specific legislation about mobile phone usage was a "good thing", even though most of the distraction comes from actually having the conversation, not holding the phone - but then banning talking in cars altogether? Another one on the "good luck with that" pile:P
I'm not a US resident, but the effects are still felt here in the UK, so I feel able to make some comment.
There are some things that are just never gonna happen - there's a critical mass of progress or just practicality that prevents it. If the "RIAA" thinks people will go back to carrying around hundreds of 5 inch plastic discs (yes, I typed "discs" - lets check that again - yes phew:P) in their bulky unwieldy boxes (who designed those things: they either break, won't open or the disc inside flies across the room) they are insane.
This is a little bit like having to run software from the installation disc all the time. The software industry more or less solved this, with other means of licensing other than ownership of the physical delivery media and allowed users to "copy" the software to their PC's internal storage. Yes there is theft, but software vendors know that if they insisted on having the install disc present for every piece of software in your PC, users would vote with their feet and go use something else (plus of course, everyone would just mount ISO images of the discs, or if that wouldn't work, a solution would be found - that's the power of a connected and talented user base).
So if these guys think I'm going to have the install-disc in the stereo for whatever music I'm listening to, I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
Consider car audio - in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a hand-held telephone whilst operating a vehicle (even if you're stopped at the lights etc). And yet, it's still OK for us to eject a CD, fumble around for a new CD, open the box (all with one hand) and insert it into the player. Now, as anyone who has done this will know, after 2 days, none of the CD boxes will contain the music advertised on the outside - so to play a specific album, you could be fumbling about for quite a while, and at the same time, you must control your vehicle at road speeds, amongst other traffic etc. etc. Madness. Auto changers did a bit to address this, but I can guarantee you most people will take the same 6 CDs out of the car when they sell it, that they put in the day they bought it. It's just too much of a planned activity to firtle around in the boot of your car with those CD magazines, and by the time you think "hmm must change the discs" you're cruising down the M6, so you never do it.
The problem was neatly solved by having a big fat SD card sticking out of your dashboard with all the music you ever wanted at a quality that exceeds that of the acoustic environment that is your car. (Unless you drive the Albert Hall, in which case, you're on your own). This is so good in fact, I never want to see a CD again after I've installed the music on it.
The RIAA's primary objective is "to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists". All very laudable, but I wonder if they consult these artists before they issue these proclamations? After all, sales of billions with some loss due to illegal re-production has to be better financially, than sales of only thousands with no loss. Surely? Would the artists prefer to remain penniless, safe in the knowledge that no one has illegally copied their material?
The RIAA needs to find a better solution if they want to attain any credibility: "go back to a time when this wasn't an issue" is not acceptable. They may as well suggest we all go back to the horse and cart to solve vehicle emissions, or that banks use ledger books and quill pens to avoid all those troublesome data centre issues. Technically, and qualitatively all these things would still work, but none of em are gonna happen, any time this side of a global apocalypse anyway (and maybe not on the other side either - there maybe a shortage of horses...).
Now, excuse me while I go break some laws with my Squeezebox.
Make it so? Oh yeah? Ever tried ordering a drink at Starbucks using a name that in any way describes what you'd like? It'd go like this:-
Data: Captain, acting on the last crew feedback survey, we've done away with the replicator coffee and installed a branch of Starbucks on every deck - would you care to try it out? Picard: Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Starbucks: Do you mean Breakfast Tea(TM) sir? or Tazo? Picard: ermm what is "breakfast tea" ? Starbucks: It's tea - like you drink at Breakfast(TM) sir. Picard: Is it hot? Starbucks: We accept no liability for injury caused by our product. The container does carry a full warning in most tea drinking languages sir. Picard: urm... very well: breakfast tea then Starbucks: A Tall one sir? Picard: er.. no just a regular sized tea please. Starbucks: Tall is the smallest we do sir. Picard: er.. of course (note to self, ask LaForge to look at the universal translator). Righto then. Starbucks: That'll be $23.55 sir. Picard: For a teabag and some water in a cup?!? Mr Worf - have we crossed into another dimension, or is this coffee shop in a future bubble of economic anomaly? Worf: No captain, it's just fucking expensive. Picard: Isn't that a bit expensive for a cup of tea? (and wait: we don't have currency in the 23rd century!) Starbucks: It's not just the tea sir, it's the bewildering experience too sir... would you like shaving foam on it?
Crewman: I'd like a Grande skinny chocha mocha egg-nog latte with romulan syrup and angel dust on top with a bakewell slice.
Buck Queen: We are the Buck. Asking for coffee is futile. Prepare to be granulated.
"This is unique, and there are probably more," said Dr Neukum.
If this was a line in a movie, no audience would ever buy it unless it was untitled "Ride My Red Rocket" and starred Mike Meyers as the mission leader, and the evil Dr Neukum.
I agree: the subjects of "what is life then exactly?" and quality versus quantity (of life) were central to the theme - Roy craved more, and Tyrell pointed out to him (in the film) that "the light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and you have burned so very brightly". I guess at this point, Batty figured that Tyrell had burned way too long, and in any case, was a smug git, and crushed his skull..
You are quite right about the re-cut, and I felt the way the doubt was removed was pretty crude too. If you've ever watched Star Trek IV and noticed the random stock footage of some humpback whales added at the end, this is how the dream sequence seemed to me - "and now some footage of a white horse we found on the cutting room floor of "Gay Cowboys Eat Beans III", which we've slowed down and drawn a unicorn's horn on". It's so out of whack with the style of the rest of the photography, there may as well have been a big flashing sign across that scene saying "remember this bit - it's an important clue"...
Annoyingly, I can't find my copy of the book - I'll have to go and buy another and read this again though.
Yes I have read it although it was along time ago. Yes it is called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" as I mentioned later in my post.
"recycled hearsay" hmm as I said, I read it some time ago so apologies if I mis-remembered some of it. I do seem to remember there being a very large question over Deckard's origins though. And didn't another cop from Russia come looking for Deckard? (perhaps for this reason). Maybe you're right - I shouldn't comment if I'm not sure. The curse of late night posting.
I preferred the narrative too. I thought it lent a sort of gumshoe quality to the mood at the start. I feel you're a little confused though "about a great many things" to quote a bad guy from another galaxy. "Ripley" (Ellen) was a character in another movie - also by *Ridley* Scott. Rutger *Hauer* played the android Roy Batty. In the final scenes on the roof top, Batty came to realise he values *all* life, not just his own artificially short one. It makes perfect sense for him to save Deckard's life, replicant or not.
Not only was Deckard a replicant in the Philip K. Dick story the movie is based on, another bladerunner comes looking for Deckard. In the original release, the audience is left to wonder if Deckard may have been a replicant. In the 1991 cut, the decision is made for us by the inclusion of the unicorn "dream sequence" - which also clears up why Gaff leaves the paper unicorn for Deckard to find at the end - which implies he knew Deckard was a replicant, and had seen his dreams (or maybe even provided them). When I saw the dream sequence in the director's cut on DVD, I thought I'd sat on the TV remote and switched to a TV channel - it was badly integrated. The plot in the film is simplistic compared to the plot of "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", but works really well.
I'm looking forward to getting a new copy of this - the current DVD is a really bad print - it doesn't even fill the frame in some scenes. I just hope Holden doesn't shoot first.....
You know I'm not sure which bit puzzles me the most - the "designed for irritation" menu system, or the absolutely dire performance.. Just to put my comments into context - my PC, whilst not exactly cutting edge, is not ancient either, and probably quite typical of PC specs out there today. It's 2-3 years old and runs a 3.2Ghz Prescott P4, with 1Gb of dual channel DDR2, and an nVidia 6800 ultra (in an AGP slot).
I started off by turning up all the dials to maximum - max detail, texture detail, and maximum res for my Samsung panel - 1600x1050. I knew this was more than my video card could handle from a playable frame rate perspective, but I wanted to see what I was missing, looks-wise and if it was worth spending some cash on a new PCI express board, a quad core cpu, 2Gb of ram and an 8800. I can't say I was impressed to be honest: whilst the detail on some of the models - especially the gun models was nice, the overall effect was quite flat. The lighting didn't look at all impressive, and to me, doesn't measure up to HL2 or Quake4. Nothing jumps out at me to say "wow this is the next level up from Q3/Unreal2 engined games"
I started backing things off then to get the game up to speed. I ended up with everything at minimum and the screen res at 640x480 with 50% rendering (the minimum)and it not only looked worse than the original Doom, but still ran like a 3 legged dog after a night out on the ale. No where near playable speeds. Is this thing written in bash or something? This coupled with the UI problems (the mouse pointer moves like it's in treacle, the selections in the key config screen move about whilst your trying to get your sluggish pointer on them, it takes several layers of menus to get to anything if you try it whilst a game is in progress, and of course, no frigging @ symbol) left me thinking : "and they call this progress? - bring back Unreal2 XMP". Then, just to confirm my conclusion, the game hung. It's capped at 60fps, which back in the Q2 days was widely accepted as the *minimum* frame rate for competitive play.
I know it's labelled as a beta, and I can let them off the @ sign thing, but it's a monumentally bad move to release anything that performs this badly for public review - beta or not. It's a shame, as I think it actually has the makings of a half decent game (although they need to rationalise the weapons: dump all the gloop guns, and 34 different plasma rifles).
BTW - I'm sure most of the Slashdot audience already know this, but you can type an "@" by holding ALT and typing it's ASCII code: 64 on the numeric pad. This worked for me, and then it made me go and set up my keys again once I'd registered....
In summary - it's a nice looking game, and has some good features, but it isn't all that, and doesn't make me want to rush out and buy it (and a new PC:P)
Oh no - its way worse than that - I bought an optical SPDIF cable to connect my Squeezebox to my Yamaha amp. It was made by JVC and says this on the box "Gold plated contacts for maximum signal transmission".
Yes - now if you want to play a noble paladin you will need to prove you've taken the right vows and can supply your own armour.
And absolutely no playing spell casting characters until you can supply video evidence of at least some sort of magic missile or lightning bolt spell.
And even if you are a real woman, you're absolutely not allowed to wear any skimpy outfits in the game unless you can carry this look off on your web cam... (says the game admins)
I can see the next big game now: "World Of Everyday-Drudgery-Craft". Where everyone hands over a monthly subscription to do whatever they do in real life...
I really like GIMP too - and in some areas I find it easier to comprehend than photoshop. It's the lack of speed I can't get on with though - GIMP is very slow with large image files compared to photoshop on the same machine.
Slashdot Mirror
"He gives proof". As the whole problem with the belief in god or gods is the lack of any proof, I think we'd all be grateful if you could point us at this proof. It would certainly save a lot of debate!
Your sig. "Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." In the words of Doctor Leonard McCoy "I think that's my line". Seriously: Isn't this one for the non-believers? It's a great summary of the way I feel about the term "atheist", which means a non-believer in the whole god thing. I don't believe there is any sort of creator or god, however I fail to see why that should define me as a person. I don't, for example believe refrigerators can be used to transform lead into gold, but I don't go around saying I'm an a-refrigoalchemist either. In fact there's a whole bunch of nonsense I don't believe. I'm a normal guy. It's the people who believe in the whacky stuff with no evidence that need the labels (if only so I can see em coming :P)
Cheers,
Scoot.
I'm not sure if you mentioned "God" there in jest, or if you are a real believer. If you are, I'd like to know how you reconcile your sig. "Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid." with a blind belief in a doctrine (the whole divine creator thing) that has been "corrected" many times as we've discovered more about the universe. Faith abhors correction - you must believe - despite any evidence to the contrary, in whatever it tells you surely.
If you were joking, and your sig is aimed at pointing this out to the faith guys - please accept my apologies for being a bit slow on the uptake. I don't have the answers around how the bees do this, but that doesn't mean the answer is automatically "There's a god, and he/she/it did it".
Cheers,
Scoot.
One of the things I love about nethack is that items (and monsters, and dungeon features...) interact with each other in so many ways. Wielding a cockatrice corpse as a weapon will make short work of many monsters -- as long as you're wearing gloves. Just be careful not to fall down the stairs because you're carrying too much load...
This is what kept me playing Nethack for many years - to see if some obscure piece of logic had been accommodated. It usually was.
I once "died" in Nethack of a "thermonuclear explosion", largely due to a series of unfortunate events (coulda been a Darwin contender :P):-
I had a room full of demons to deal with, and adopted my usually successful room clearing move which goes like this: having acquired teleportation and a ring of teleport control, I teleport into the room; then using my magic whistle, I summoned my 3 tame dragons (Huey, Dewey and Louie - when you absolutely have to kill off every last m**** f**** in the goddam dungeon...). This where it all went wrong though as on the next turn, the dragons breathed fire at the demons, I got caught in the cross fire, which wasn't a problem as I had many many HP by then and was fireproof (you need to be to descend to the "hell" levels), but I was also carrying so many spellbooks, wands, potions, scrolls etc which all went up causing a critical mass of magic...
I also remember a friend of mine who thought he'd be clever and hack his save file in an early Nethack and give himself max HP. He was very pleased with himself until he went up a level, gained 8hp, and the signed integer rolled over...
This one of the great ironies of legislation - the criminals don't abide by it :)
Too true - which was why I was less than impressed a few years back, when, as I was accelerating up the slip road (on ramp) to the M60 in Manchester at around 70mph surrounded by cars doing the same speed, my 1999 BMW 535iSA "boinged" at me and the display read "Engine safe mode", at which point, it shut down...
So, no brakes, no power steering and a hefty V8 sitting over the front axle and 235mm tyres.. Plus, the view out of the window was now in 16 colours.
OK I made that last bit up, but it was "inconvenient" to say the least :P
As it had an auto box, I then had to shift to neutral (car won't start in Drive) turn the key to off, and then start the engine again - which it did thankfully. Then - of course to get it back to Drive, I had to momentarily touch the brake as it won't go to Drive without the foot brake on...
And the cause? Turned out to be a faulty air meter. Quite common on BMWs of that year - I got through 3 of them before I sold it.
Too right - all these "hide behind a box and shoot at each other with endless variations of sniper rifles and other slug throwers" whilst shuffling around the map at the speed of an asthmatic donkey, slavishly carrying out "the mission" really put me off playing FPS.
Let's get back to running around at ludicrous speed like demented Ninjas firing weapons of biblical proportions, in shiny locations, with no plan other than to kill the other guys more than they kill you!
That's not to say there are no subtleties to that plan - Quake (1 2 or 3) is a game where the tactics and strategic objectives aren't so bloomin obvious, that they're spelt out in the manual!
Or maybe my attention span has shortened with age :P
2 beered up surgeons in theatre:-
"Check it out - I even closed!"
"OK smart arse - so you can do an appendectomy with your eyes huh? - let's see you do one using your tongue then!"
Because - it pays. Ferrari will stick their label on any piece of crud going if it will make them a buck. I had a look round the "Ferrari Store" in Rome last week and was amazed at the tat on offer with a Ferrari badge on it. A cheapo Olympus compact digital camera for example - normally retails at £100, but produced in red with Ferrari badge - 895 euro (about £700). They definitely "saw you coming". http://www.isawyoucoming.org/
Reminds me of a sketch show I saw years ago (might have been Smith and Jones) where they demonstrated how, in prisons, with a few simple modifications, a standard hair comb could be converted to a deadly weapon. It turned out to be a hair comb with an M16 rifle taped to it....
"I think you'll agree - this comb could now be used to take down prison guards with ease.."
Also see "nail soup"
"vast sheets of dark matter"
Or did they just forget to take the lens cap off?
"I don't know if World War III will be fought with railguns or belt-fed airport screening devices"
:P
Depends on the value of DMFLAGS
I do remember Smith and Jones. Now I see that sketch again I do vaguely remember it - "you can bash it, smash it hit it with a hammer and you still can't...... get the box open". Too true!
Good point - there was really no need to single out phones for specific legislation, and interpretation of what constitutes "due care and attention" was left to traffic officers. On the whole though, I feel the introduction of specific legislation about mobile phone usage was a "good thing", even though most of the distraction comes from actually having the conversation, not holding the phone - but then banning talking in cars altogether? Another one on the "good luck with that" pile :P
Cheers,
Scoot.
I'm not a US resident, but the effects are still felt here in the UK, so I feel able to make some comment.
:P) in their bulky unwieldy boxes (who designed those things: they either break, won't open or the disc inside flies across the room) they are insane.
There are some things that are just never gonna happen - there's a critical mass of progress or just practicality that prevents it. If the "RIAA" thinks people will go back to carrying around hundreds of 5 inch plastic discs (yes, I typed "discs" - lets check that again - yes phew
This is a little bit like having to run software from the installation disc all the time. The software industry more or less solved this, with other means of licensing other than ownership of the physical delivery media and allowed users to "copy" the software to their PC's internal storage. Yes there is theft, but software vendors know that if they insisted on having the install disc present for every piece of software in your PC, users would vote with their feet and go use something else (plus of course, everyone would just mount ISO images of the discs, or if that wouldn't work, a solution would be found - that's the power of a connected and talented user base).
So if these guys think I'm going to have the install-disc in the stereo for whatever music I'm listening to, I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
Consider car audio - in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a hand-held telephone whilst operating a vehicle (even if you're stopped at the lights etc). And yet, it's still OK for us to eject a CD, fumble around for a new CD, open the box (all with one hand) and insert it into the player. Now, as anyone who has done this will know, after 2 days, none of the CD boxes will contain the music advertised on the outside - so to play a specific album, you could be fumbling about for quite a while, and at the same time, you must control your vehicle at road speeds, amongst other traffic etc. etc. Madness. Auto changers did a bit to address this, but I can guarantee you most people will take the same 6 CDs out of the car when they sell it, that they put in the day they bought it. It's just too much of a planned activity to firtle around in the boot of your car with those CD magazines, and by the time you think "hmm must change the discs" you're cruising down the M6, so you never do it.
The problem was neatly solved by having a big fat SD card sticking out of your dashboard with all the music you ever wanted at a quality that exceeds that of the acoustic environment that is your car. (Unless you drive the Albert Hall, in which case, you're on your own). This is so good in fact, I never want to see a CD again after I've installed the music on it.
The RIAA's primary objective is "to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists". All very laudable, but I wonder if they consult these artists before they issue these proclamations? After all, sales of billions with some loss due to illegal re-production has to be better financially, than sales of only thousands with no loss. Surely? Would the artists prefer to remain penniless, safe in the knowledge that no one has illegally copied their material?
The RIAA needs to find a better solution if they want to attain any credibility: "go back to a time when this wasn't an issue" is not acceptable. They may as well suggest we all go back to the horse and cart to solve vehicle emissions, or that banks use ledger books and quill pens to avoid all those troublesome data centre issues. Technically, and qualitatively all these things would still work, but none of em are gonna happen, any time this side of a global apocalypse anyway (and maybe not on the other side either - there maybe a shortage of horses...).
Now, excuse me while I go break some laws with my Squeezebox.
Cheers,
Scoot.
Make it so? Oh yeah? Ever tried ordering a drink at Starbucks using a name that in any way describes what you'd like? It'd go like this:-
Data: Captain, acting on the last crew feedback survey, we've done away with the replicator coffee and installed a branch of Starbucks on every deck - would you care to try it out?
Picard: Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Starbucks: Do you mean Breakfast Tea(TM) sir? or Tazo?
Picard: ermm what is "breakfast tea" ?
Starbucks: It's tea - like you drink at Breakfast(TM) sir.
Picard: Is it hot?
Starbucks: We accept no liability for injury caused by our product. The container does carry a full warning in most tea drinking languages sir.
Picard: urm... very well: breakfast tea then
Starbucks: A Tall one sir?
Picard: er.. no just a regular sized tea please.
Starbucks: Tall is the smallest we do sir.
Picard: er.. of course (note to self, ask LaForge to look at the universal translator). Righto then.
Starbucks: That'll be $23.55 sir.
Picard: For a teabag and some water in a cup?!? Mr Worf - have we crossed into another dimension, or is this coffee shop in a future bubble of economic anomaly?
Worf: No captain, it's just fucking expensive.
Picard: Isn't that a bit expensive for a cup of tea? (and wait: we don't have currency in the 23rd century!)
Starbucks: It's not just the tea sir, it's the bewildering experience too sir... would you like shaving foam on it?
Crewman: I'd like a Grande skinny chocha mocha egg-nog latte with romulan syrup and angel dust on top with a bakewell slice.
Buck Queen: We are the Buck. Asking for coffee is futile. Prepare to be granulated.
"This is unique, and there are probably more," said Dr Neukum.
If this was a line in a movie, no audience would ever buy it unless it was untitled "Ride My Red Rocket" and starred Mike Meyers as the mission leader, and the evil Dr Neukum.
Have you Meta-Judged recently? :P
Congratulations - you can count.
I agree: the subjects of "what is life then exactly?" and quality versus quantity (of life) were central to the theme - Roy craved more, and Tyrell pointed out to him (in the film) that "the light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long, and you have burned so very brightly". I guess at this point, Batty figured that Tyrell had burned way too long, and in any case, was a smug git, and crushed his skull..
You are quite right about the re-cut, and I felt the way the doubt was removed was pretty crude too. If you've ever watched Star Trek IV and noticed the random stock footage of some humpback whales added at the end, this is how the dream sequence seemed to me - "and now some footage of a white horse we found on the cutting room floor of "Gay Cowboys Eat Beans III", which we've slowed down and drawn a unicorn's horn on". It's so out of whack with the style of the rest of the photography, there may as well have been a big flashing sign across that scene saying "remember this bit - it's an important clue"...
Annoyingly, I can't find my copy of the book - I'll have to go and buy another and read this again though.
Yes I have read it although it was along time ago. Yes it is called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" as I mentioned later in my post.
"recycled hearsay" hmm as I said, I read it some time ago so apologies if I mis-remembered some of it. I do seem to remember there being a very large question over Deckard's origins though. And didn't another cop from Russia come looking for Deckard? (perhaps for this reason). Maybe you're right - I shouldn't comment if I'm not sure. The curse of late night posting.
I preferred the narrative too. I thought it lent a sort of gumshoe quality to the mood at the start. I feel you're a little confused though "about a great many things" to quote a bad guy from another galaxy. "Ripley" (Ellen) was a character in another movie - also by *Ridley* Scott. Rutger *Hauer* played the android Roy Batty. In the final scenes on the roof top, Batty came to realise he values *all* life, not just his own artificially short one. It makes perfect sense for him to save Deckard's life, replicant or not.
Not only was Deckard a replicant in the Philip K. Dick story the movie is based on, another bladerunner comes looking for Deckard. In the original release, the audience is left to wonder if Deckard may have been a replicant. In the 1991 cut, the decision is made for us by the inclusion of the unicorn "dream sequence" - which also clears up why Gaff leaves the paper unicorn for Deckard to find at the end - which implies he knew Deckard was a replicant, and had seen his dreams (or maybe even provided them). When I saw the dream sequence in the director's cut on DVD, I thought I'd sat on the TV remote and switched to a TV channel - it was badly integrated. The plot in the film is simplistic compared to the plot of "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", but works really well.
I'm looking forward to getting a new copy of this - the current DVD is a really bad print - it doesn't even fill the frame in some scenes. I just hope Holden doesn't shoot first.....
You know I'm not sure which bit puzzles me the most - the "designed for irritation" menu system, or the absolutely dire performance.. Just to put my comments into context - my PC, whilst not exactly cutting edge, is not ancient either, and probably quite typical of PC specs out there today. It's 2-3 years old and runs a 3.2Ghz Prescott P4, with 1Gb of dual channel DDR2, and an nVidia 6800 ultra (in an AGP slot).
:P)
I started off by turning up all the dials to maximum - max detail, texture detail, and maximum res for my Samsung panel - 1600x1050. I knew this was more than my video card could handle from a playable
frame rate perspective, but I wanted to see what I was missing, looks-wise and if it was worth spending some cash on a new PCI express board, a quad core cpu, 2Gb of ram and an 8800. I can't say I was impressed to be honest: whilst the detail on some of the models - especially the gun models was nice, the overall effect was quite flat. The lighting didn't look at all impressive, and to me, doesn't measure up to HL2 or Quake4. Nothing jumps out at me to say "wow this is the next level up from Q3/Unreal2 engined games"
I started backing things off then to get the game up to speed. I ended up with everything at minimum and the screen res at 640x480 with 50% rendering (the minimum)and it not only looked worse than the original Doom, but still ran like a 3 legged dog after a night out on the ale. No where near playable speeds. Is this thing written in bash or something? This coupled with the UI problems (the mouse pointer moves like it's in treacle, the selections in the key config screen move about whilst your trying to get your sluggish pointer on them, it takes several layers of menus to get to anything if you try it whilst a game is in progress, and of course, no frigging @ symbol) left me thinking : "and they call this progress? - bring back Unreal2 XMP". Then, just to confirm my conclusion, the game hung. It's capped at 60fps, which back in the Q2 days was widely accepted as the *minimum* frame rate for competitive play.
I know it's labelled as a beta, and I can let them off the @ sign thing, but it's a monumentally bad move to release anything that performs this badly for public review - beta or not. It's a shame, as I think it actually has the makings of a half decent game (although they need to rationalise the weapons: dump all the gloop guns, and 34 different plasma rifles).
BTW - I'm sure most of the Slashdot audience already know this, but you can type an "@" by holding ALT and typing it's ASCII code: 64 on the numeric pad. This worked for me, and then it made me go and set up my keys again once I'd registered....
In summary - it's a nice looking game, and has some good features, but it isn't all that, and doesn't make me want to rush out and buy it (and a new PC
Cheers,
Scoot.
Oh no - its way worse than that - I bought an optical SPDIF cable to connect my Squeezebox to my Yamaha amp. It was made by JVC and says this on the box "Gold plated contacts for maximum signal transmission".
Yes - now if you want to play a noble paladin you will need to prove you've taken the right vows and can supply your own armour.
And absolutely no playing spell casting characters until you can supply video evidence of at least some sort of magic missile or lightning bolt spell.
And even if you are a real woman, you're absolutely not allowed to wear any skimpy outfits in the game unless you can carry this look off on your web cam... (says the game admins)
I can see the next big game now: "World Of Everyday-Drudgery-Craft". Where everyone hands over a monthly subscription to do whatever they do in real life...
I really like GIMP too - and in some areas I find it easier to comprehend than photoshop. It's the lack of speed I can't get on with though - GIMP is very slow with large image files compared to photoshop on the same machine.