>> Plus, most of Ravenholm is of the form "you walk down a dark alleyway. 
>> Suddenly 12 zombies stagger towards you, coming from all directions." 
>> Plus, it takes time to kill the first one, time to kill the second 
>> one, more time to kill the third one... gee, the rest are getting 
>> quite close now...
> 
> Don't kill them then, you don't get points or experience for doing so. 
> If the objective is to get from point A to point B then that's what you 
> do, don't go looking for trouble.

Kinda hard to get from point A to point B with several vicious creatures 
standing directly in your way. :-S

>> Yeah, but if you miss, you now have no ammo. Good luck...
> 
> The grav-gun (when it works) can pull things from a reasonable distance 
> and as I've mentioned it's a toggle on the console.

And as I've mentioned, when I use it it tends to pick up tiny splinters 
of wood or individual blades of grass rather than the thing I'm pointing 
it directly at...

>> Heh. And I thought *I* was strange for having a signed picture in my 
>> room of Major Carter wearing only a USA flag...
> 
> Ah Stargate:Franchise never could get into that from day one "Greetings 
> we've been cut off from Earth for thousands of years and yet can quite 
> clearly speak American English" at least prior to the ret-con Star Trek 
> had the excuse for being made 40 years ago and just not knowing better 
> :-) Now the film on the other hand, that was good.

LOL!

I think both the film and the series suck. Amanda, however, is fairly 
pretty. And it was on the shelf for £4. So I bought it...

> I've got the box-set and that sort of memory.

My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?

>> Mildly amusing sometimes, yeah.
> 
> Better then Charmed, more scantily clad women too.

Heh. I hadn't really noticed...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Plus, most of Ravenholm is of the form "you walk down a dark alleyway.  
>>> Suddenly 12 zombies stagger towards you, coming from all directions."  
>>> Plus, it takes time to kill the first one, time to kill the second  
>>> one, more time to kill the third one... gee, the rest are getting  
>>> quite close now...
>>  Don't kill them then, you don't get points or experience for doing so.  
>> If the objective is to get from point A to point B then that's what you  
>> do, don't go looking for trouble.
>
> Kinda hard to get from point A to point B with several vicious creatures  
> standing directly in your way. :-S

Not really. If it's a confined space then shotgun or grav-gun+sawblade; if  
it's not then the majority of zombies are slow enough to run past.

>>> Yeah, but if you miss, you now have no ammo. Good luck...
>>  The grav-gun (when it works) can pull things from a reasonable  
>> distance and as I've mentioned it's a toggle on the console.
>
> And as I've mentioned, when I use it it tends to pick up tiny splinters  
> of wood or individual blades of grass rather than the thing I'm pointing  
> it directly at...

Yeah as I said when it works.

>>> Heh. And I thought *I* was strange for having a signed picture in my  
>>> room of Major Carter wearing only a USA flag...
>>  Ah Stargate:Franchise never could get into that from day one  
>> "Greetings we've been cut off from Earth for thousands of years and yet  
>> can quite clearly speak American English" at least prior to the ret-con  
>> Star Trek had the excuse for being made 40 years ago and just not  
>> knowing better :-) Now the film on the other hand, that was good.
>
> LOL!
>
> I think both the film and the series suck.

I liked the film, I found it internally consistent.

> Amanda, however, is fairly pretty. And it was on the shelf for £4. So I  
> bought it...

She's not bad.

>> I've got the box-set and that sort of memory.
>
> My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?

Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the GiTS:SACs,  
Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar Galactica's. Note  
however how I don't mention Star Trek.

>>> Mildly amusing sometimes, yeah.
>>  Better then Charmed, more scantily clad women too.
>
> Heh. I hadn't really noticed...

Well actually thinking about the female stars in Charmed perhaps not so  
much so, more leather definitely - well maybe. Whips and swords though!

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
> 
> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the 
> GiTS:SACs, Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar 
> Galactica's. Note however how I don't mention Star Trek.

I have Star Wreck.

>> Heh. I hadn't really noticed...
> 
> more leather definitely - well maybe. Whips and swords though!

...OK, I'm worried. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:39:59 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> I demand a step-by-step account of you playing Half-Life2+Eps1 and 2
>>>> on your blog!
>>>
>>> Uh... why? It's not like anybody would read it...
>> 
>> Ditto Nicolas.
> 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/140
> 
> Points of note:
> 
> 1. This was posted several months ago.
> 
> 2. Nobody read it.

I read it.  I didn't reply to it.

>> Wait one second you've seen this episode? *You've* watched Buffy the
>> Vampire Slayer?
> 
> Ooo, you're quick today. :-P
> 
> I have watched several, yes. I know somebody who is an utter Buffy
> nutter. Personally I don't find it all that entertaining...

Same here.

> I prefer Charmed.

<barf>

But then again, I prefer things like Law and Order, Torchwood, BSG, etc.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I played HL2 once, and didn't enjoy it very much. The scenary is far too
> > drab and boring.
>
>   You must have played a different HL2 than I did.

you know, I think perhaps Andrew is not as ignorant as he wants us to believe.
Perhaps he's just a troll and enjoys seeing us annoyed at his statements...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> <Derelict trackway overlooked by deserted block of flats>
> <Deserted waterway>
> <Derelict dockyard overlooking deserted waterway>

ah, so that's it.  A mathematician annoyed at beautiful scenary when it should
be much more exciting if it was a dark room full of boxes and cylinders...

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
> > My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
>
> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the GiTS:SACs,
> Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar Galactica's. Note
> however how I don't mention Star Trek.

I have Seinfeld and X-Files until about season 6, for both.  It seems after
season 5/6 all series seem to become a shadow of their former selves.

BG had an amazing headstart.  Then came season 2...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>> did spake, saying:
>> > My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
>>
>> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the
>> GiTS:SACs, Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar
>> Galactica's. Note however how I don't mention Star Trek.
> 
> I have Seinfeld and X-Files until about season 6, for both.  It seems
> after season 5/6 all series seem to become a shadow of their former
> selves.
> 
> BG had an amazing headstart.  Then came season 2...

I thought BSG's second season was pretty good.  I can't wait for the 
final season, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>>> did spake, saying:
>>> > My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
>>>
>>> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the
>>> GiTS:SACs, Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar
>>> Galactica's. Note however how I don't mention Star Trek.
>>
>> I have Seinfeld

Never got on with that.

>> and X-Files until about season 6, for both.  It seems
>> after season 5/6 all series seem to become a shadow of their former
>> selves.

For the X-Files it seems to be a reversed normal curve they did start to  
pick up again at the end.

>> BG had an amazing headstart.  Then came season 2...
>
> I thought BSG's second season was pretty good.  I can't wait for the
> final season, though.

I agree, I found the third season the most jarring probably because of the  
sudden jump in time.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> <Derelict trackway overlooked by deserted block of flats>
>> <Deserted waterway>
>> <Derelict dockyard overlooking deserted waterway>
> 
> ah, so that's it.  A mathematician annoyed at beautiful scenary when it should
> be much more exciting if it was a dark room full of boxes and cylinders...

OK, clearly I'm going to have to find some pictures of HL1 for 
comparison. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>>>> did spake, saying:
>>>> > My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
>>>>
>>>> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the
>>>> GiTS:SACs, Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar
>>>> Galactica's. Note however how I don't mention Star Trek.
>>>
>>> I have Seinfeld
> 
> Never got on with that.

Ditto.  I've watched it a few times, and it just seemed unfunny to me.

>>> and X-Files until about season 6, for both.  It seems after season 5/6
>>> all series seem to become a shadow of their former selves.
> 
> For the X-Files it seems to be a reversed normal curve they did start to
> pick up again at the end.

The weird thing is that it's something of an anomaly for Carter's works.  
He managed to build a mythology that worked, even though it had some 
inconsistencies; it wasn't planned out at all, but it worked.  The Lone 
Gunmen could've been good, but he tried not planning that as well, and it 
just kinda flopped.

I never got into Millenium, so I don't know if that series worked or not.

>>> BG had an amazing headstart.  Then came season 2...
>>
>> I thought BSG's second season was pretty good.  I can't wait for the
>> final season, though.
> 
> I agree, I found the third season the most jarring probably because of
> the sudden jump in time.

Yes, that was certainly true.  But the thing that I really like about it 
is that it's not clear-cut on some morality issues.  The good guys don't 
always behave in a way that's consistent with being the good guys.  They 
make bad decisions sometimes.

I like shows like that.  Spooks is another that I *really* liked.  How 
cool is it that they were perfectly fine killing off main characters?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:59:55 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:42:33 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>>>>> did spake, saying:
>>>>> > My God - you have the boxed set of Xena?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup and all the Buffy's, B5's, and X-Files. Not to mention the
>>>>> GiTS:SACs, Blake's Seven (seasons 1-3) and the new Battlestar
>>>>> Galactica's. Note however how I don't mention Star Trek.
>>>>
>>>> I have Seinfeld
>>
>> Never got on with that.
>
> Ditto.  I've watched it a few times, and it just seemed unfunny to me.
>
>>>> and X-Files until about season 6, for both.  It seems after season 5/6
>>>> all series seem to become a shadow of their former selves.
>>
>> For the X-Files it seems to be a reversed normal curve they did start to
>> pick up again at the end.
>
> The weird thing is that it's something of an anomaly for Carter's works.
> He managed to build a mythology that worked, even though it had some
> inconsistencies; it wasn't planned out at all, but it worked.  The Lone
> Gunmen could've been good, but he tried not planning that as well, and it
> just kinda flopped.

The Lone Gunmen were never front-room people; they were always better in  
the background.

> I never got into Millenium, so I don't know if that series worked or not.

I vaguely recall seeing an episode and thinking "What the hell is this  
s***?"

>>>> BG had an amazing headstart.  Then came season 2...
>>>
>>> I thought BSG's second season was pretty good.  I can't wait for the
>>> final season, though.
>>
>> I agree, I found the third season the most jarring probably because of
>> the sudden jump in time.
>
> Yes, that was certainly true.  But the thing that I really like about it
> is that it's not clear-cut on some morality issues.  The good guys don't
> always behave in a way that's consistent with being the good guys.  They
> make bad decisions sometimes.

But then that's always been a part of BSG

> I like shows like that.  Spooks is another that I *really* liked.  How
> cool is it that they were perfectly fine killing off main characters?

Went off it after season... 3 I think it was, just started to seem to  
repeat itself with bigger and more ridiculous storylines; a bit like 24.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:42:17 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> The weird thing is that it's something of an anomaly for Carter's
>> works. He managed to build a mythology that worked, even though it had
>> some inconsistencies; it wasn't planned out at all, but it worked.  The
>> Lone Gunmen could've been good, but he tried not planning that as well,
>> and it just kinda flopped.
> 
> The Lone Gunmen were never front-room people; they were always better in
> the background.

Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his other 
program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.

>> I never got into Millenium, so I don't know if that series worked or
>> not.
> 
> I vaguely recall seeing an episode and thinking "What the hell is this
> s***?"

That was kinda my reaction as well.  Some people really got into it, 
though, and apparently there was something that made sense.

>> Yes, that was certainly true.  But the thing that I really like about
>> it is that it's not clear-cut on some morality issues.  The good guys
>> don't always behave in a way that's consistent with being the good
>> guys.  They make bad decisions sometimes.
> 
> But then that's always been a part of BSG

True enough.  But compared to the 1970's series, this one is I think a 
lot better.  I tried watching the old series, and just couldn't get into 
it (though I remember really liking it, in spite of the fact that they 
had only 3 battle "scenes").

But then again, there was also Galactica 1980, here's hoping we don't see 
a remake of that again.

Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap.  There's 
2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.  The effects weren't bad, but 
they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And it 
got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with scenes 
that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an apparent 
lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some throwaway bimbo 
- but then we get scripture quoted at us partway through the programme.  
Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum.  If I wanted a morality 
tale, I'd have gone to church instead.

>> I like shows like that.  Spooks is another that I *really* liked.  How
>> cool is it that they were perfectly fine killing off main characters?
> 
> Went off it after season... 3 I think it was, just started to seem to
> repeat itself with bigger and more ridiculous storylines; a bit like 24.

Well, yeah, I did prefer the earlier seasons, but I have to admit that 
series 6 was pretty good - they were talking about doing more 
disconnected stories, but instead they went the other direction and built 
a real story arc.

I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so* farfetched 
it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just watch and 
enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real world that it 
actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and nitpick the stuff 
that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>> I have Seinfeld
>> Never got on with that.
> Ditto.  I've watched it a few times, and it just seemed unfunny to me.

I'm not surprised.  You guys seem not funny at all.  *ducks*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> no, but Toyotas and Fords are built from standard industrial 
>>>> mechanical components.
>>>
>>> So ... I can just simply drop a Ford engine into a Toyota? or use a 
>>> steering wheel from a Corolla in a Focus? I had no idea...
>>
>> no, but those are built out of pretty much all the same components.
> 
> Steel?  Yeah, I suppose.

no. Standard industrial mechanical components like bolts and nuts of 
standard sizes?  standards.

>> Like I said about OpenGL, it's not a "competitor's product",
> 
> Sure it is. Who do you think created it?  Then they opened the standard 
> to make it competitive with MS.

SGI, when still relevant in the industry, created OpenGL.  That was well 
before DirectX and Direct3D went into existence.  It was an industry 
standard pretty much everywhere until M$ (ab)used its monopoly to spread 
another proprietary standard into the marketplace.

That's why all games today run primarily on Windows, id Software 
notwithstanding with their longtime OpenGL support...

It's an industry standard and M$ could just have simply embraced it like 
everyone else, but chose to go the Sony way and their own formats...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:48:12 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:42:17 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> The weird thing is that it's something of an anomaly for Carter's
>>> works. He managed to build a mythology that worked, even though it had
>>> some inconsistencies; it wasn't planned out at all, but it worked.  The
>>> Lone Gunmen could've been good, but he tried not planning that as well,
>>> and it just kinda flopped.
>>
>> The Lone Gunmen were never front-room people; they were always better in
>> the background.
>
> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his other
> program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.

Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded interesting  
never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.

>>> Yes, that was certainly true.  But the thing that I really like about
>>> it is that it's not clear-cut on some morality issues.  The good guys
>>> don't always behave in a way that's consistent with being the good
>>> guys.  They make bad decisions sometimes.
>>
>> But then that's always been a part of BSG
>
> True enough.  But compared to the 1970's series, this one is I think a
> lot better.  I tried watching the old series, and just couldn't get into
> it (though I remember really liking it, in spite of the fact that they
> had only 3 battle "scenes").

Sorry in context that should have read as 'always been a part of the new  
BSG'

> But then again, there was also Galactica 1980, here's hoping we don't see
> a remake of that again.
>
> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap.  There's
> 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.

They remade Knight Rider - sacrilege ;-)

> The effects weren't bad, but
> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And it
> got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with scenes
> that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an apparent
> lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some throwaway bimbo
> - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway through the programme.
> Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum.  If I wanted a morality
> tale, I'd have gone to church instead.

But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?

>>> I like shows like that.  Spooks is another that I *really* liked.  How
>>> cool is it that they were perfectly fine killing off main characters?
>>
>> Went off it after season... 3 I think it was, just started to seem to
>> repeat itself with bigger and more ridiculous storylines; a bit like 24.
>
> Well, yeah, I did prefer the earlier seasons, but I have to admit that
> series 6 was pretty good - they were talking about doing more
> disconnected stories, but instead they went the other direction and built
> a real story arc.
>
> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so* farfetched
> it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just watch and
> enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real world that it
> actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and nitpick the stuff
> that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.

I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps  
because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:09:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his
>> other program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.
> 
> Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded
> interesting never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.

I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.

>> True enough.  But compared to the 1970's series, this one is I think a
>> lot better.  I tried watching the old series, and just couldn't get
>> into it (though I remember really liking it, in spite of the fact that
>> they had only 3 battle "scenes").
> 
> Sorry in context that should have read as 'always been a part of the new
> BSG'

:-)

>> But then again, there was also Galactica 1980, here's hoping we don't
>> see a remake of that again.
>>
>> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap. 
>> There's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.
> 
> They remade Knight Rider - sacrilege ;-)

What's more "The Hoff" was part of it.  He really should have known 
better. ;-)

>> The effects weren't bad, but
>> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And
>> it got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with
>> scenes that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an
>> apparent lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some
>> throwaway bimbo - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway
>> through the programme. Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum. 
>> If I wanted a morality tale, I'd have gone to church instead.
> 
> But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?

Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they 
continue it.

>> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so*
>> farfetched it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just
>> watch and enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real
>> world that it actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and
>> nitpick the stuff that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.
> 
> I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps
> because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.

Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't thought 
of that.  But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist 
unit in LA is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda 
like Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the 
world. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:11:16 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:54:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>> And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:24 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:07:32 -0500, nemesis wrote: I have Seinfeld
>>> Never got on with that.
>> Ditto.  I've watched it a few times, and it just seemed unfunny to me.
> 
> I'm not surprised.  You guys seem not funny at all.  *ducks*

<throws nearby object at Nemesis - and scores!>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:23:54 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:09:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I think that's part of the reason it failed.  Of course, his
>>> other program - Harsh Realm, I think it was called - total flop.
>>
>> Was that one of his, I can't a preview and thought it sounded
>> interesting never got broadcast on terrestrial here though.
>
> I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.

Now what am I thinking of... oh yeah Dark Skies; basically an Invaders  
knock-off, but of lower quality.

>>> Last night, we watched the remake of Knight Rider.  Utter crap.
>>> There's 2 hours of my life I'm not getting back.
>>> The effects weren't bad, but
>>> they call *that* acting?  Shit, my cats can act better than that.  And
>>> it got a bit too preachy for my tastes - well, it starts off with
>>> scenes that looked like they could be out of Baywatch, then cut to an
>>> apparent lesbian scene between one of the main characters and some
>>> throwaway bimbo - but then we get scripture quoted at us partway
>>> through the programme. Oh, and marriage/divorce statistics.  Ho hum.
>>> If I wanted a morality tale, I'd have gone to church instead.
>>
>> But would you have got the lesbian scene at church?
>
> Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they
> continue it.

I always thought if they threw in more sex scenes during church services  
attendance would rise.

>>> I have watched 24 - the thing about that one is that it's *so*
>>> farfetched it shorts my brain out and I can actually sit back and just
>>> watch and enjoy the explosions.  The tech is *so* far from the real
>>> world that it actually kinda works for me, because I can't sit and
>>> nitpick the stuff that's wrong because it's ALL wrong.
>>
>> I have the opposite reaction for the same reasons you cite. Also perhaps
>> because it's so American; I had similar problems with The West Wing.
>
> Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't thought
> of that.

We've only got an hour before X happens...

Spooks: 'Set-up a survellance unit, hack into his email accounts and tap  
his phones'
24: 'Go and beat him up'

I exaggerate of course, sort of :-)

> But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist
> unit in LA is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda
> like Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the
> world. ;-)

"Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over  
there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack  
Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.

Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/  
didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they  
never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:07 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> I believe it was - Yep, IMDB shows that it was created by Carter.
> 
> Now what am I thinking of... oh yeah Dark Skies; basically an Invaders
> knock-off, but of lower quality.

Oh, yes, I don't think I've seen that one, but I've heard of it.

>> Not yet, but who knows, maybe that's coming in the series, if they
>> continue it.
> 
> I always thought if they threw in more sex scenes during church services
> attendance would rise.

Hehehehehehe.

>> Now that's certainly true (about it being "so American") - hadn't
>> thought of that.
> 
> We've only got an hour before X happens...

True....Probably has something to do with there being an hour's worth of 
program. :-)

> Spooks: 'Set-up a survellance unit, hack into his email accounts and tap
> his phones'
> 24: 'Go and beat him up'
> 
> I exaggerate of course, sort of :-)

But not really.  That was the nice thing about the last series of Spooks, 
though - because it wasn't constrained to the 1-hour format.  It became 
more of a serial - there was a plot to solve in each show, but they all 
were tied together very nicely.  Oh, and a main character or three was 
killed off before the end.

>> But I find it really really funny that the counter-terrorist unit in LA
>> is one of the least secure facilities on the planet.  Kinda like
>> Torchwood being the least secret secret organisation in the world. ;-)
> 
> "Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over
> there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack
> Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.

Surely you mean Coupling, not Spooks.  Jack didn't appear in Spooks. :-P

> Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/
> didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they
> never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.

I'll have to check it out - I don't think it did ever show over here, at 
least not on my stations.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:32:03 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:07 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>> "Bloody Torchwood" Train of thought - did you ever get Ultraviolet over
>> there? No not the film with Mila Whosavitch, the series staring Jack
>> Davenport whom you should know from Spooks.
>
> Surely you mean Coupling, not Spooks.  Jack didn't appear in Spooks. :-P

You're right, I keep mistaking him for the guy who played Tom in the first  
series.

>> Ah hah http://www.amazon.com/Ultraviolet-Jack-Davenport/dp/B00005KA70/
>> didn't recognise the cover there. It's only 6 one-hour episodes and they
>> never made a second series, but it's quite deep in tone.
>
> I'll have to check it out - I don't think it did ever show over here, at
> least not on my stations.

I don't even think it got more then one broadcasting here so I'm not  
surprised. Worth adding to any rental queue you might have if possible.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Compare the scenery of HL2 to, for example, the scenery of Doom3 or
> Quake4. There just isn't comparison. We are talking about this:

One thing I noticed recently is just how much non-repeating textures 
improve scenery. Even if you don't notice them consciously, I think 
having the same rust stain on the concrete wall every 10 feet makes it 
look unrealistic.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make it 
> incompatible. 

No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
run it on MS's Java without a problem.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> They got sued because they tried to *change* it to deliberately make 
>> it incompatible. 
> 
> No, that wasn't my understanding. What I read during that timeframe was 
> they added features to let Java invoke Windows stuff natively with much 
> more ease than JNI, and the IDE generated code from the wizards to 
> invoke that by default, unless you said "no, really, generate JNI 
> instead." But you could take an existing Java program and compile and 
> run it on MS's Java without a problem.

Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM. And 
that rather subverts the entire point of Java - portability.

I was also told - I haven't verified this personally, but I was told - 
that most of the changes weren't "better" or "worse", just "different 
for the sake of being different". IOW, to subvert the standard.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up with 
> lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM.

I've seen very few Java programs that work correctly on multiple Java 
interpreters, myself. I think I have 3 JVMs installed at work (under 
Linux) to support the three different java-based libraries I'm using 
from different parts of my program.

If you want your Java portable, don't use proprietary libraries. It's 
pretty easy.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Well, perhaps you're right. All I know is that we started ending up 
>> with lots of "Java" programs which only actually work with the M$ JVM.
> 
> I've seen very few Java programs that work correctly on multiple Java 
> interpreters, myself. I think I have 3 JVMs installed at work (under 
> Linux) to support the three different java-based libraries I'm using 
> from different parts of my program.
> 
> If you want your Java portable, don't use proprietary libraries. It's 
> pretty easy.

In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
an escaped monkey...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
> an escaped monkey...

Heck - in early versions of Java (i.e., Netscape 4 timeframe), they 
didn't even have Hashtable working right.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> Invisible wrote:
>> In fairness, it would probably help if the AWT hadn't been designed by 
>> an escaped monkey...
> 
> Heck - in early versions of Java (i.e., Netscape 4 timeframe), they 
> didn't even have Hashtable working right.
> 

That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
which can't be just "fixed on the next release".

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
> which can't be just "fixed on the next release".

Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic. 
:-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of evil 
brokenness, and still does.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*, 
>> which can't be just "fixed on the next release".
> 
> Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic. 
> :-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of evil 
> brokenness, and still does.

So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> >> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT *design*,
> >> which can't be just "fixed on the next release".
> >
> > Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic.
> > :-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of evil
> > brokenness, and still does.
>
> So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?

probably and sadly yes.  Because it was made to run on a single OS from a single
company.  Many choices and tradeoffs are easier to make as is making it work
nice with the underlying architecture.  of course, it's less broken but much
more evil than Java. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> That's an implementation bug. Invisible is talking about AWT 
>>> *design*, which can't be just "fixed on the next release".
>>
>> Yes. He was changing the topic, and I was still on the original topic. 
>> :-) Just saying, AWT wasn't the worst of it. Java had all kinds of 
>> evil brokenness, and still does.
> 
> So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?
> 

AFAIK, The library for making windows and stuff is less broken than Java 
AWT, *because* it's too Windows-oriented. Since they didn't bother with 
any crossplatformness, the API is simpler...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> probably and sadly yes.  Because it was made to run on a single OS from a single
> company.  Many choices and tradeoffs are easier to make as is making it work
> nice with the underlying architecture.

Other than some of the low-level windowing stuff, what do you see in the 
.NET libraries that would be difficult to implement on (say) Linux?

The only bits I've seen that are actually Windows-specific were the bits 
that were either accessing directly the win32 stuff (like turning off 
particular windows message pump messages), which you don't need to do. 
Or stuff that Linux doesn't support anyway, like distributed 
transactions. (E.g., AFAIK, you can't write code in Linux to rename 
three files from A,B,C to D,E,F in such a way that nobody ever sees D 
without seeing F, and a powerfailure after you rename A and before you 
rename C undoes the renames you've done so far.)

The stuff you'd expect to be portable (web stuff, file stuff, threads, 
data structures, code generation, library management, temp files, etc) 
are all quite portable.  Just off the top of my head, I'd say maybe 10% 
of the library routines, tops, have an API or functionality that makes 
them hard to port, and maybe 1% have an API or functionality that makes 
them hard to port to an OS that actually supports that kind of 
functionality.

Of course, it's *difficult* to port the windowing stuff, but that 
doesn't mean it's inherently non-portable. Only that it's complex. It's 
difficult to make X programs run under Windows, too, without writing an 
X server.

What classes do you think are unportable?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?

I would say it does, actually, yes.

Now, granted, it's very *complex*, because it has a lot in it. And some 
of the design decisions aren't obvious unless you actually read the 20 
or 30 pages of "this is why we did it this way" documentation.

For example, most of the classes say "static class methods are not 
thread-safe, but instance methods are."  Huh?  Why would you do such a 
thing?  But the rationale is actually quite reasonable, and it's obvious 
the designers had spent some time thinking it through.

The same with the organization of complex callbacks/events, where you 
have a pre-change callback, a post-change callback, and throwing errors 
results in different behaviors at different points in the process. 
Complex, but when you go looking for "how do I do this..." you go "Oh, 
they already made that work right."

The regexp matcher, for example, is also way complex compared to what 
I'm normally used to. But it lets you match on one call multiple 
subexpressions, find out where they matched, and so on. In that case, 
there's really no "simpler" version, and the documentation is mildly 
obtuse, but playing around with it a little and looking at the result 
set in the debugger made it clear.

It also helps that there are things like events (linked lists of 
callback pointers) and properties (automatically-named getter/setter pairs).

There are, of course, still warts, many caused by the static typing. For 
example, the return type from the regular expression matcher is several 
inter-related classes all referencing each other. Confusing, until you 
actually read all the docs. Not more confusing than, say, trying to 
understand C socket programming based on the man pages, tho.

There are also warts caused by interfacing to systems (like SQL) with 
different data models (like, there's an "int?" type, which allows for 
integers or NULL, but the IDE doesn't generate code to use that, instead 
requiring things like resultset.column[2].isnull()).

The encryption stuff is kind of funky, as half of it is still using the 
Windows library things, so like the encryption stuff only works if 
you're running web pages under IIS, because it's using IIS's encryption 
library.

I haven't had to deal with reflection, introspection, or code 
generation, nor with all sorts of dynamic loading/programming/etc.

But overall, it's surprisingly clean.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

>> So does .Net have a less horribly broken library design then?
> 
> I would say it does, actually, yes.
> 
> Now, granted, it's very *complex*, because it has a lot in it.
> 
> But overall, it's surprisingly clean.

Java has a long list of brokeness. The language itself is horridly 
broken, but the standard libraries are insane...

It's been a while since I actually used Java. But IIRC, the Object class 
has a surprisingly vast collection of methods. The base class for AWT 
widgets is *huge*. And there are multiple methods which apparently do 
the same thing... except... they don't... but it's not documented... Hmm.

Other fun things include the frequency with which they deprecate massive 
sections of the API and provide new ones. (IIRC, originally we did 
stream-type stuff with stream wrappers. And then they added "readers" 
and "writers" and deprecated all the old interfaces.)

Basically, if you run the same program on several different JVMs, you 
get wildly different behaviour, because nobody is sure exactly what all 
the GUI-related method calls are actually *meant* to do...

I really hope .Net has managed to avoid all that...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message