>> "Despite its distance from traditional programming, and its relative 
>> lack of common use, Haskell has become one of the most talked-about 
>> languages on the Internet."
>>
>> Um, WTF? No it hasn't!
> 
> It is in this newsgroup. We even have two whole subnewsgroups devoted to 
> it even though this is a server about a totally different language.

Heh. One person talking to himself doesn't count as "discussion", 
methinks. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a812918$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>> mentions Haskell.)
>> 
>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>
> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
> of it? I haven't.
>
> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...

And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
window! Scary.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>>> mentions Haskell.)
>>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
>> of it? I haven't.
>>
>> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...
> 
> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
> window! Scary. 

Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a814f7b$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

>>>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never once
>>>>> mentions Haskell.)
>>>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
>>> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard 
>>> of it? I haven't.
>>>
>>> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...
>> 
>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
>> window! Scary. 
>
> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)

I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)

I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
mouth.

Post a reply to this message

>>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
>>> window! Scary. 
>> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)
> 
> I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)
> 
> I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
> just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
> mouth. 

The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
the film.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
> the film.)

Jurrasic Park's notion of the velociraptor is also considered flawed 
now, as it was determined that they had feathers, according to some 
fossil some scientists found.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. 
>> Perhaps just because they move around way, way more than any of the 
>> other CGI characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the 
>> balance questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor 
>> move... But then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as 
>> those seen in the film.)
> 
> Jurrasic Park's notion of the velociraptor is also considered flawed 
> now, as it was determined that they had feathers, according to some 
> fossil some scientists found.

The real velociraptor was smaller, had feathers, was of low 
intelligence, never lived in Montanna, and was basically nothing like in 
the film, yes.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:17:28 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> (E.g., XKCD makes several references to Lisp and Python, but never
>>> once mentions Haskell.)
>> 
>> But it gets talked about in xkcd's forum.
> 
> The Bellman-Ford algorithm gets talked about in that forum. Ever heard
> of it? I haven't.

In that forum. :-)

> Oh, and something called "Firefly"...

Yes, that I'm familiar with.  Good show, you should perhaps watch it 
sometime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a81758f$1@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:

> The real velociraptor was smaller, had feathers, was of low 
> intelligence, never lived in Montanna, and was basically nothing like in 
> the film, yes.

LOL! Hollywood's so accurate!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> And raptors! What on Earth are those creatures? They come through your
> >>> window! Scary. 
> >> Oh, *that* at least makes sense. Go watch Jurassic Park. ;-)
> > 
> > I know. :-) (Even though I never watched it.)
> > 
> > I love the raptors. I might even watch this jurassic movie someday
> > just to see them in motion pictures. Such is the effect of word of
> > mouth. 

> The movement of the raptors in particular isn't very believable. Perhaps 
> just because they move around way, way more than any of the other CGI 
> characters. The raptor's mass seems wrong somehow, and the balance 
> questionable. (Not that anybody's seen a real velociraptor move... But 
> then, *real* velociraptors where nowhere near as big as those seen in 
> the film.)

  Watch the third movie if you want better raptors. (Personally I like it.
It's one of the very few third parts which are actually good.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message