 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:20:31 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me
>> the CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set
>> now.
>>
>> The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has
>> Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock
>> 'n Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink
>> Floyd". I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a
>> time, but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I
>> have the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).
>
> If it's on the LP, you're probably stuck with that, because it seems
> they lifted that bit out for copyright reasons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_
(radio_series)#Musical_copyrights
Yeah, I'd read that it was copyright issues. A real shame, but I could
swear that I had it from the radio series that way as well.
The scripts talk about it a little bit as well.
> I've never heard that version before...
It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version. You get
the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.
Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato, though, but it
was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and
to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that
character in the Star Wars films.
>>> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how
>>> badly they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty
>>> good apart from that though.
> >
>> Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all. I
>> also didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he
>> was just reading the lines.
>
> Essentially Zaphod is about right in the film, but in the previous
> versions the character managed to stay likeable, never becoming outright
> unpleasant. You just want Martin Freeman's Arthur to pummel him. In the
> other versions it's much more low-level jibing and Arthur gives as good
> as he gets in most cases. ("Well, go bang your heads together,
> foureyes!")
Well, yeah - that's why he isn't right in the film - he's a bit too
unpleasant. But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and
the TV version.
> Mos Def was actually better than I expected. Unfortunately the original
> actors' interpretations are so firmly embedded in my mind that I doubt
> anyone else will do it as well to my ears... although, as you say,
> Stephen Fry was excellent.
I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did. His interpretation was
just flat, though. I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over
all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard
to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).
I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an
outstanding job as Arthur. Given that Adams wrote the part essentially
just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for
someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone
could do the role justice.
Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan. She came
across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in
astrophysics. I remember reading somewhere that Adams originally wanted
someone of Indian ancestry to play the role - that could've worked well
as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>> I actually have no idea what you're talking about - although spending
>> 3 years evaluating the intelligence of a half-mouldy cup of yogurt
>> does seem like an amusing prospect. ;-)
>
> That could be your dissertation. :-D
And there's probably a line item for it in Obama's stimulus bill...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version. You get
> the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.
> Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato
Agreed - the idea of disaster area was very funny, but I thought the
hagunenons (far too many 'n's in that name) were better too.
> was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and
> to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that
> character in the Star Wars films.
*grin* I reckon Prowse's broad west accent sound is about the least
suitable voice for Vader I could possibly imagine!
> But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and
> the TV version.
Completely. "Hand me the rap-rod, plate captain!"
> I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did. His interpretation was
> just flat, though. I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over
> all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard
> to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).
Haha, interesting, I never knew that. I don't think I've ever seen what
he looks like IRL... :)
> I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an
> outstanding job as Arthur. Given that Adams wrote the part essentially
> just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for
> someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone
> could do the role justice.
He was very different. It didn't really spoil it for me, but I did have
trouble linking him in my mind to the character.
> Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan. She came
> across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in
> astrophysics.
Yes, the improbably-named Deschanel (how fitting!) was good in the film,
but the girl in the TV series was terrible. Far too ditzy and shallow.
As you say, the original was pretty definitive. She had such a sexy
voice too!
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.
>
> OK, you understand boolean "and" and boolean "or", right? This is called
> "propositional logic":
>
> If it rains, the street is wet.
> It is raining.
> Therefore the street is wet.
> That's propositional logic.
>
> Go the next step, and you get first order predicate logic:
> All ravens are black.
> My bird is a raven.
> Therefore my bird is black.
>
> The "all X are Y" is universal quantification.
>
> If you have "some X is Y", that's existential quantification. Usually
> it's part of an expression involving universal quantification, like
> "for all integers X, there exists a integer Y such that
> if X is prime then Y is prime and Y > X."
> That's just saying there's no biggest prime. No matter what
> number we pick, if it's prime, there's some other number that's
> also prime and larger. (It's not a proof, just a statement of
> a boolean value. Proving the boolean is true is a separate step.)
>
> Note also that the result is *one* boolean value. It's either true for
> all X, or it isn't.
Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all that
relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's just
moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is
related to reality.
> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
> "for all X, pred(X)"
> is the same as
> "not for some X, not pred(X)"
> and so on.
But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false
does not necessarily imply Y being false.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You think *that* is bad?! I used to be able to sleep properly...
>
> Heh, I've never been able to sleep properly. Better now than it used to
> be, but still pretty restless.
Oh man, I used to be *awesom* at sleeping!
Like, I'd go to sleep, and wake up the next day even if my alarm clock
was switched off, and feel wide awake and not tired at all. Like, I'd be
standing outside the university building at 7:30 AM on a Sunday waiting
for the sleepy-eyed [and most likely highly under-paid] technitions to
show up at 9 AM to open the building so I could get into the computer
room, hit the Internet, and code some serious Smalltalk. (Or possibly
Java. Or, hell, maybe just sit around all day and write LaTeX? Who knows.)
Now I just seem to be permanently tired, and every now and then I become
almost totally unable to sleep at all... I *suck* at sleeping! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that.
>> How is a PhD different?
>
> What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the captain
> of the ship? In one, you're swabbing the decks when the captain tells
> you to. In the other, you're responsible for making sure the ship gets
> where it's going.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was the ship's engineer. ;-) </sarcasm>
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I guess it's just that I've spent my entire life surrounded by people
>> telling me how stupid I am,
>
> They're wrong. All my teachers thought I was crap too. I was just bored
> for the most part, and uninterested.
Heh. I still remember my science teacher's words: "Andrew, if you don't
buck your ideas up, you're going to fail." I walk into the room holding
my B-grade - the highest possible grade for that particular paper, I
might add - and he's all "well I always said you could do well". WTF? NO
YOU DIDN'T!!
Still... that guy really did love himself. :-P
Of course, if it was just some dump-ass teacher, it wouldn't matter so
much. The problem was that *everybody* told me I was stupid. Throughout
my whole life. Hence my self-evident mental issues. x_o
>>> Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?
>> Heh. What do you have a PhD *in* though?
>
> Both our PhDs were in computers.
OK, that's pretty crazy...
...wait, are you that guy who has a Chinese wife?
>> I rather doubt there are many females who have a PhD in anything
>> remotely related to computing.
>
> In my university, it seemed pretty close to even, IIRC. At least in the
> PhD program.
OK, that's just mental. At college, we had 14 guys, 0 girls. At uni we
had [approximately] 75 guys and 5 girls [almost all married with children].
>> Like I say, I couldn't figure out the application process. Maybe
>> because I don't have a clear idea of how this stuff is supposed to
>> work...
>
> Oh. You mean, you were blocked by HR? That's not unusual.
More like, I read the webpage telling you how to apply, and I just say
there going "wuh?"
> I'm serious. Don't look at it as a destination. You want to get out of
> where you are, so think of the PhD as a place to go, have fun, meet
> people, and do exciting stuff.
Heh. My mum's first reaction was "and what are you going to do after
that?" Not that my mum's opinion is especially important. I was just
wondering how much she'd freak out. ;-)
> It doesn't matter if you finish or not,
> any more than running a marathon is about whether you come in first.
I never understood this... The ENTIRE POINT of a marathon is to finish
it! How is not finishing it still OK? Weird people...
> That's fair. Part of the fun is living in a different country, mind.
> (Not that I did, but ...) I can completely understand if it isn't fun,
> tho. Do take advantage of the fact that you speak one of the languages
> that ran rampant all over the world not too long ago, so you can get by
> language-wise pretty much anywhere. China was the only place I've been
> that people generally didn't know enough English to get by.
Ah. Is *that* why every country in the EU speaks English, but the
English can't speak any damned language except English? :-} I often
wonder about that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all that
> relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's just
> moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is
> related to reality.
Um, yes. Indeed, that's precisely exactly why you would use formal
relational calculus stuff: it's just moving symbols around with no relation
to reality. That's why you can program computers to do it - that's all
computers can do.
That's true of most all formal math, tho: everything related to algebra or
calculus is ultimately moving symbols around with no relation to reality.
>> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
>> "for all X, pred(X)"
>> is the same as
>> "not for some X, not pred(X)"
>> and so on.
>
> But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false
> does not necessarily imply Y being false.
Um, yes? :-) Was that supposed to be a relevant comment?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all
>> that relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's
>> just moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is
>> related to reality.
>
> Um, yes. Indeed, that's precisely exactly why you would use formal
> relational calculus stuff: it's just moving symbols around with no
> relation to reality. That's why you can program computers to do it -
> that's all computers can do.
>
> That's true of most all formal math, tho: everything related to algebra
> or calculus is ultimately moving symbols around with no relation to
> reality.
The trick is to be able to associate all this abstraction with reality
in your mind, so that you can use it to do Useful Stuff. ;-)
>>> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
>>> "for all X, pred(X)"
>>> is the same as
>>> "not for some X, not pred(X)"
>>> and so on.
>>
>> But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false
>> does not necessarily imply Y being false.
>
> Um, yes? :-) Was that supposed to be a relevant comment?
Apparently large numbers of people aren't aware of this particular fact.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Of course, if it was just some dump-ass teacher, it wouldn't matter so
> much. The problem was that *everybody* told me I was stupid. Throughout
> my whole life. Hence my self-evident mental issues. x_o
Yes. Getting constantly put down will eventually lead to problems.
Get over it. You're not stupid. Everyone else was, for telling you you are.
> ...wait, are you that guy who has a Chinese wife?
Yes.
> OK, that's just mental. At college, we had 14 guys, 0 girls. At uni we
> had [approximately] 75 guys and 5 girls [almost all married with children].
Undergradutate, yes. We had something like 25 guys and 3 girls in the
classes when I was undergrad.
> Heh. My mum's first reaction was "and what are you going to do after
> that?" Not that my mum's opinion is especially important. I was just
> wondering how much she'd freak out. ;-)
I think the right answer is "live far away from *you*!" :-)
>> It doesn't matter if you finish or not, any more than running a
>> marathon is about whether you come in first.
>
> I never understood this... The ENTIRE POINT of a marathon is to finish
> it! How is not finishing it still OK? Weird people...
I didn't say finish. I said "win" the marathon.
In any case, getting the PhD is a learning process. If you stop early, it's
because you decided you don't want to learn what it is you started studying,
and you're still no worse off than you were.
> Ah. Is *that* why every country in the EU speaks English, but the
> English can't speak any damned language except English? :-} I often
> wonder about that...
Yes. You didn't figure that out? That's why there's like 200 languages in
India, but everyone speaks English. And why Americans mostly speak English.
And why lots of Africa speaks English. And why lots of central and south
america speak spanish or something close to it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
