metadigital

I just watfched Notebook. Excellent film, the subject matter was handled with dignity and it is a beautiful film.

Yeah, heaven help the Hollywood producers; now they have to atually provide bad guys that are not a cliche. They can't just rely on an accent, look, or mannerism; now they actually have to give the writers more authority. Whatever will they do with their makrketing forecasts? Evilness based on the content of their characters? Where have I heard that before ... (That's why I like Kreia.)

I think it's: Postcount : Level <10 : 0 >=10 : 1 200 : 2 400 : 3 800 : 4 1600 : 5 3200 : 6 6400 : 7

I think we were discussing how they attached the non-CGI claws they used in the films and promo shots. I found some hi-res pics and it looks like they have a very skillfully camouflaged skin-colored attachement that fits over the entire fingertip to the first joint. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I thought Aurora was asking about the Lady Deathclaws character's actual physionomy ... :cool:

Then perhaps it depneds on your level when it spawns, in which case a level 50 item should be pretty impressive. Do you have a clue as to the stats for it (roughly)?

Random is impossible to achieve with a computer. The best that can be done is to use more and more varied "seed engines", so the nanosecond counter at the time the random function was called, plus the modulus of amount of video memory in the cache, minus the parity of the register that holds the return address for the calling subroutine ... etc. I'm making these references up, of course, but the point is you have to have loads of different stacks to pull your random numbers from, so that if you call the randomizer often it will have lots of different starting values from which to select the "pseudo-random" number. Yes, I have found multiple "Circlets of Saresh" in one game (six I think) and a couple of Fredon Nadd lightsabres, etc.

Yep, I can't help but do a "where do I know that actor/actress from" recall heuristic when I first encounter them, usually to the detriment of all screen action. Voice over is similar to acting, the still expression / everything's going on underneath act, like Pacino and Bronson: the clue is in their eyes (so it isn't quite a poker face) ... there needs to be something driving the action.

I don't agree with this. I thought K2 had more genuine "DS" moments. As for people who say they "can't" play DS because it makes them feel icky, I don't understand this. You're playing a video game. Detach yourself from being a baby and just take on a role of a villain. Do you say "I can't play this" when it comes to games like Grand Theft Auto where you have to shoot people and steal cars? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, K2 had more ways to be evil: just not enough ways to be manipulative with pretend "good" tactical actions for "bad" strategic aims. It's funny that people are quite able to pretend they are a super driver / footballer in a car racing / football sim, but not so quick to be the baddie. Yes, if nothing else it will give you some understanding of what it is like to be bad, e.g. how people treat you, if not how you feel whilst doing it (because I don't think you can immitate sociopathy ...): you will be better placed to understand why your are a good person and probably be less likely to act in a selfish way. Too true, the dialogue script is quite well done (if limited in DS options in places), so that you might easily answer in a "good" way without realising you are being selfish ... Sure, a "Chaotic Good" PC will happily use any means -- including Lightning, Poison or Life Drain -- to achieve the ultimate Good. Vrook is probably a "Lawful Good": "the end does NOT justify the means". Yep, grey areas are good, less black and white = more realism / immersion.

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that a child should be placed in an exposed situation. What I would expect to be the next step is to make society prevent the vulnerable / different from persecution. But still, according to your "lawful good" absolute moral stance (which I'm not disagreeing with, just playing Devil's Advocate), when would we know that the children in the society wouldn't victimize a child of "different" parents? At some point someone has to be the first to test the bridge by stepping on it ...

No, but I noticed that the evil Simons NPC in Deus Ex is voiced by the guy that does the intro to the sequel ... the bit at the end; the end of his speech is (the last voice in the intro) "... I told them to run!".

Merci! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Parlez vous fran

Green eggs and spam? But I want to know if Baley has been listening to Master Yoda ... Baley, repent!

Please, if you have time and patience, elaborate..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, short answerr is: I saw a news item on the tv where the reporter was walking around an orphanage full of small children who were behaving erratically, banging their heads on walls and screaming inconsoleably or just ignoring everything. The children were held in overcrowded accommodation, many to a bed, and the conditions were squalid. The main problem was the arrested development: children of six years old were the size of four-year-olds and had not developed communication / speech adequately. I'm not sure what country it was, though, as it was about ten years ago (it may have been Romania, but that doesn't seem to ring a bell: I was pretty sure it was the Bosnian/NATO crisis, not the Romanian revolution). I did find a useful piece of research in my googling: linky. Aha, I found some more evidence:

So like Fredon Nadd's then. Or a bulk-standard normal one, except it is special: "Special" in that it is not upgradeable. Way to go guys, that'll make me wanna play again and again! (Yet another good concept gone to waste ...)

Ah, well that would explain a lot of the Jedis problems, too. The failure to bond with parents at the earliest years is a major issue; very young people require a close bond in order to form some of the most fundamental mental processes, like empathy. So perhaps the real problem is this insistence in taking children (under the age of, say, seven "galactic standard years" ≡ Earth years for humans) from their parents. Recent studies of orphans that have had similarly poor upbringing (in the Balkans, due to the war -- some of them did not even feel human contact regularly) was horrific. If ever there was a training ground for psychopaths, that would be the closest humans have got to it.

How do you know so much about swallows?

Reveilled is just as entitled to believe in Eris as anyone else is entitled to believe that their God spoke directly to them through several intermediaries (instead of directly, like an all-powerful diety would). If the Earth was created six thousand years ago, why do we have evidence: mutation of languages and migration of people (genetic and geographic evidence); fossils -- by the way, a sandstone stalactite forming in decades is in no way similar to a fossilized animal; there is an opalized dinosaur skeleton in the Simpson desert (the bones of a creature have become gemstones) -- how long would that take? Fossilized animals take millions of years to become rocks. This is why I don't argue with fools. @Reveiled: this is why innumeracy is dangerous. This person is asserting that fossilization can occur in decades.

But the point is, Dill, why do we need a God to create the world? The "Watchmaker's Father falacy". It's a simple case of logic: there is no need for this being you so desperately want. But, hey! I don't mind: you believe your fairy tale. WTF? Are you telling me -- what? That carbon dating is an imprecise science? That the evolution of language is not a reliable confirmation of the migration of the populations of humans? That genetics is a coincidence? The fact that every branch of science contributes in some small way to the entire jigsaw that is the "how" of life, and they all appear to be consistently giving overwelming evidence to support evolution. Here, assuming you can read, check out a brief, simple summary. Um, what's your point? A crocodile is a living dinosaur. The coelacanth is a living missing link between fish with fins and amphibians with feet. Why does a human embryo develop gills and a tail in the early stages of development? And the legs are longer than the arms until the last trimester? Summary: If you are arguing that science hasn't proved evolution, you are an ignoramus. If you are arguing that you choose to believe that God made this world look like there is an evolutionary history going back over 4.5 Billion years, that is your perogative. I would counter with "Why?". What possible purpose would a God have to create an evolutionary history? I would further suggest that this God is not necessary to explain the universe, and I see no compelling reason to add one.

You speak from the heart, your intentions are good, but still your logic is wrong. To paraphrase your argument, you are stating that gay people should not be permited to adopt children because of the endemic bigotry shown by children in our societies. In other words, you are condoning the flaws in society, and advocating that we should not fix society, but rather minimize the damage that these flaws produce. Shouldn't we try to fix the society, to prevent children (and therefore, hopefully when they grow up, adults) from having retarded world views? Instead on enshrining the sexist / homophobic / racist values, we should challenge them and defeat them. Surely, even from a strictly socio-political viewpoint (religion aside) we want the society to be fairer to all, not more unfair. I know you didn't mean this, but let's just take your argument to an extreme: let's look at racism. Would you advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children of a different race? No, I disagree. We need to do more to fix the society. And yes, I am aware it is easy for someone who has already grown up and will never face the truly ghastly scenarios personally, but still I see this as a way -- the only way -- to reach a better society. We let young innocent men die for their country in war; well bigotry is a war, too. When this war is over, think of the young children and their society giving thanks to the pioneers for creating a fairer world.

Yeah, but you could always glue them back together with the Force.

Another concept we've all failed to mention, so far, is that "love conquers all". okay, leaving the fermeted curd to the side, it is adequately demonstrated that love can topple the most hardened despot. (Heck, it can even calm the savage breast.) I'm not advocating that it is all-powerful or 100% successful, mind. So love is the ultimate weapon. Jedi would be foolish to ignore it.

Yep, in FarimirK's words, you're calling the Force an "ammo dump" for both sides (Sith and Jedi) to pillage in their ceaseless war of attrition. (Or a small "f" force, in mine. :D ) But what if there is some hidden agenda to be served by keeping the Force in balance, something unknown to the Force sensitives ...? They are not free to decide their own fate, they are merely pawns in the space opera ( :D ) that is the SW galaxy, merely for the benefit of the Force. I saw Kreia was right! Free yourselves, free the universe: kill the Force!

Already beat you to it, Phantom: :cool: