 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/11/09 03:16, Invisible wrote:
>>> From what I've seen, Lisp, Earlang and Clean get *way* more publicity
>>> than little old Haskell. Even ML is more widely known.
>>
>> Hadn't heard of Clean till today.
>
> Yeah, Erlang is more widely known.
And as an FYI, the only place I encounter people talking about Erlang
is on this newsgroup (namely, Darren). Haskell I see elsewhere.
>> Lisp used to be the king, but I'm sure if you look at the rate over
>> the last 2 years, Haskell exceeds it.
>
> I don't know about that - ever heard of Emacs?
I meant exceeds it in terms of online posts about it.
--
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-8-2009 10:18, Invisible wrote:
>>> "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. ;-)
I think you are confusing yourself with aQ
<ducks/>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Yes, that I'm familiar with. Good show, you should perhaps watch it
> sometime.
Definitely so.
BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would
have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).
Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined
by short-sighted TV bosses. Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one
of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD
collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even
better), though it's a totally different genre of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:23:41 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Yes, that I'm familiar with. Good show, you should perhaps watch it
>> sometime.
>
> Definitely so.
>
> BTW, I found the movie not so great. It was ok, but didn't have what I
> liked most about the TV show. Maybe some more serenity (literally) would
> have done good (and less death and dying among the crew of course).
I liked the movie, but actually didn't get to see the release version
until after the DVD came out. We got to go to a pre-release screening of
it, and not all the sound effects or music were finished when we saw it.
But there was a lot in the TV series that didn't make it in, and of
course too bad about what happened to a couple of the main characters
(trying not to spoil) - I think that affected the feel quite a lot, too.
River still kicked ass, though, and that's always fun to watch. :-)
> Too sad it got scraped after so few episodes - another great show ruined
> by short-sighted TV bosses.
Agreed.
> Like "Space: Above and Beyond" - another one
> of my all time TV favorites (and soon to be an addition to my DVD
> collection). "Band of Brothers" ranks on par with them, too (if not even
> better), though it's a totally different genre of course.
I remember watching a few eps of S:AaA but never really got into it. My
younger brother loves Band of Brothers, though - he's on a big WWII kick
at the moment because my dad was in Europe for part of it (though looking
at his discharge paperwork, only about 7 months or so, right around the
time the war ended).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
