Duckman

See, I keep reading the suggestions and I feel like very few of these movies call for a remake with new technology.... What I am reading into these posts is people saying "wouldn't it be cool to have new content related to this film?" The suggestion of Gremlins made specific mention of technology and how the original movie could be updated with new creature effects. But Spaceballs? I'd love to see Brooks have at the new films but wasn't one of the points of his film the crappy technology? The animation in all those animated films is part of the artistic appeal. In films like Watership and NIMH where there is no human presence to speak of why would you rework the animation? To be honest, I look at Watership and NIMH and think of them as complete and don't want to see a remake. All that could be done is a raping of my childhood. Gremlins could be remade with new technology and I don't feel that the animatronic feel was integral to the nature of the film. Time Bandits I am on the fence about. I kinda felt that the low-budget effects were intentional in that one but I could see an argument that the story could work as well with modern effects and it might be interesting. Are you guys really saying you want to see the same story or one that is largely faithful to the original or are you saying that these are film settings and characters that you want to see more about?

The other half of the definition of generous is "more than strictly necessary". You've had to dig three definitions in to find something that even vaguely hints at expectations and the example I gave was carrying things, not holding a door, which given you struggle to hold a door is clearly more than you deem necessary. Look, I get that you want to define every word in a touchy-feely way that morphs to your worldview but we already had a conversation about that and in every conversation I don't see anyone siding with the view that language is strictly an internal concept and that you are free to interpret words in any old way that suits. Even I am willing to grant that you are the sole arbiter of the context in which you read or hear something but that doesn't give carte blanche to redefine vocabulary. Clearly I am not going to convince you of either argument so I quit worrying about it. For what it is worth, and I have said this to women who get outraged at me for holding the door for them, even holding a door has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with being helpful to people who might have their hands full or need an extra hand. If this were about etiquette then it would be all about the expectations, "the customary code of behavior in society". The whole point, as you call out, is that kindness is *not* about social norms and expectations. It is about being sympathetic to others and offering them assistance, expected or otherwise... Being sympathetic, considerate, generous, friendly, helpful. Of all those words, only a part of the definition of generous involves expectation. And as another side note, modern etiquette, as I think both of us have mentioned is *not* holding doors, carrying things for others, pointing out dropped cash or credit cards. In short it is, in this country, anything but considerate of others.

Also worth noting that the coffin is too small for him so he's only carrying it for use on others. 😉

Wait, what? Boardgames are now doing directors cuts and patches through kickstarter?

I hate to say it this way, Pax, but that is %$&@ and I think that attitude (which is very prevalent in the US) is part of what people use to justify indifference and negligence. Kindness is not some touchy-feely concept like good and evil or light and dark where there is a continuum and your definition inherently depends on the local norm. Kindness is "a : of a sympathetic or helpful nature." Expecting you to notice that someone needs help carrying bags to the car in the grocery parking lot does not change the fact that doing so is kind. Sure, you can pick some outlier cases where people try to argue that "I did him a kindness by reporting him as a drunk driver and getting him treatment," but trying to focus on that and ignoring the 95-99% of the daily cases where just pointing out to someone that they dropped a wallet or cash or something or helping someone carry something or open a door would make someone's day better is a cop-out. Not everything has to be about life-changing events. 5-10 second interactions where you notice another person are incredibly important especially since there are hundreds or thousands more of them in your daily life. Turn your sentence on its head. What does it say about society if you are arguing that the decision not to make someone's day worse or simply let it become worse through inaction and instead ignoring them is "being sympathetic or helpful"?

This is not meant as a critique of Pax, it's just a question that his last reply and comments like it often raises with me. Why is it considered acceptable that kindness is not average behavior or the expected norm? Life is generally easier and better for you if you communicate with and respect those around you. It's why cars have headlights and turn signals. It's why the golden rule has been "do unto others" in one form or another for four millenia. So why does society tolerate base indifference or even negligence toward others as the norm? (Hint, in Mexico it is *not* the norm.)

So what you're saying is that I didn't support my argument that threatening the life of other people through base negligence in the use of a ubiquitous tool explicitly designed to be helpful and informative to those other people does not qualify as "extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." Or should I just quit making jokes about the superficial "sound-bite" definitions of words being so far off base that the one-sentence definitions of a sociopath and autism are the same thing while they are, fundamentally, hugely different? (And I say that as someone who is borderline on the spectrum.) ED. For what it is worth, I didn't mean it as an insult at all aside from the implication that people who don't use turn signals are lazy to or beyond the point of negligence.

On the contrary... Sociopathic means antisocial or against the social interest. Failure to use your turn signals is explicitly sociopathic as they exist solely to be useful to others (and possibly defensively so).

I wonder if 'nids feel the same way about space marines.

I played and enjoyed Limbo for the atmosphere. I am currently playing Inside and think it does an even better job telling its story. Unfortunately I am hung up at a one point in Inside and refuse (at least so far) to look up a solution online but I am at a loss for what I can interact with in this particular scene. I have debated Talos Principle a few times but have not purchased it even when I saw it on sale. The others I have not even looked at closely. On a related tangent, Warframe includes puzzle-work in a couple of ways if you enjoy the rest of the game. It's part shooter, part MMO, lots of exploration and questing if you want it (only minimal questing required if you want to bypass it). It's free to play with a reasonable set of micro-transactions. Feel free to PM me about it if you have questions, I won't hijack BB's thread any further than that.

Given Given the writing in a lot of movies, maybe silent movies would be an improvement.

Yeah, but nature is a hoot and some people learn to appreciate it... One of my peers back in the Astronomy department at UW had a great comment... When asked why he studied meteors and meteorites his answer was

There's a difference between making promises and providing information. "Starfield" was a teaser... We can only assume that it is Elder Scrolls in space because of the developer. How hard is it to say "A single-player sandbox" on that trailer? And what the heck is Satisfactory? I guess if you don't own license you cannot say Factorio set in a first-person open-world survival setting but you could say a factory building experience set in that environment. These projects were sold to a development shop with a pitch. If nothing else, you could pull the tagline from the pitch. As more and more of the game is done you could add detail if you wanted to but that isn't really necessary. If I say "a massively multiplayer first person shooter experience" then people know what to expect even if the company has said nothing about details, weapons, balance, etc. But here's the deal... If people don't know your product line, putting up a name means very little. If I just put up a banner that says "Nerma" nobody knows what it is (a cigarette brand from a century ago). On the other hand, if you have name recognition (I am looking at you, Fallout) all you have to do is put the appropriate tags in your description. I don't smoke and I know what Lucky Strike menthol 100s would be and I don't need a 60 second spot of someone smoking a cigarette. Nor does it even help me to see 60 seconds of someone smoking a cigarette to figure out that what he is smoking is a menthol 100 unless someone actually says that it is a menthol 100 because the important things about the product are not visual. Now that we have gotten to the point that everything has cinematic cuts in it, showing me cinematics means nothing. It tells me nothing about gameplay, nothing about your engine, not even anything about the graphics quality in your engine during gameplay...

I have been watching and there was very little that impressed me. First, some publishers didn't announce a title that didn't have a number at the end. Is it that difficult to come up with and market a new property these days? Certainly doesn't help that I don't like the first-person shooter interface or the "look at all our free content provided by other players" PvP model which is so prevalent these days. Second, what is it with all these cinematic trailers with zero information? I mean, seriously... Did anyone have any doubt what the setting for Fallout 76 was going to be? Did that trailer tell you anything that you didn't already know about a Fallout title (unless it makes a great deal of difference to you that you would be playing in fictionalized virtual West Virginia instead of Vegas or DC). The list of titles which assume that you know everything about them based on prior title is long and to be honest it is not helpful since if you look to Fallout and Fallout 2 as an example of the Fallout franchise it is something very different now. Also, as franchises get diversified into multiple genres, saying "this is a Fallout game" means less than ever before. I was teasing someone that we could not even tell if the original Fallout 76 teaser was a PC game or a mobile app follow-up to Fallout Shelter. When that is the case, your teaser is useless except to generate hype and uninformed hype is a sure way to turn me off any product. Third, what is with the "we're not going to release any information, we're going to let the fanbois spread our information for us" move? I get that this is the generation of social media and it's cheap advertising but let me explain something... I have a friend who loves superhero movies. He's never had anything critical to say about a superhero movie. He even raves about bad DC titles. This is exactly the kind of fanboi that the gaming industry is getting to represent them... And I never ask Garry what he thought of a superhero movie because he can't give me any valuable information. He can't be critical of anything that is broken or doesn't work. His feedback on those things is useless to me. Yes, there were titles I am interested in but other than a name I have nothing useful about them from E3. Cyberpunk 2077 - Love the setting, don't have the first indication what gameplay will actually be like. Starfield - Again, love the genre... At this point we don't have any information about it though so we might assume it is like Elder Scrolls in space... Or not. Satisfactory - Is this Factorio meets Ark? Interesting concept. Also maybe totally off base, so who knows?

<shrug> Solo was not memorable. It's hard to find anything in it memorable enough to quote. It's not a bad movie or anything... It's just pablum. Alden did an ok job trying to reprise the role but let's face it... He's trying to fill the shoes of arguably one of the top 10 actors of the last 50 years. He obviously studied the mannerisms and he did well with those but that was not the Han Solo who shot first in the cantina in Mos Eisley. The whole point of the first trilogy was that the characters grew and the problem with everything they have tried to do since then is that they hold up these noble ideals of the characters at the end of the first trilogy which ends up destroying any sense that the characters grew at all and this movie is no different. (Remember, in The Force Awakens he's hard enough to throw out a comment that he had a crew before they went to capture the creatures in the hold... Can you imagine this Han making that comment, especially with that tone?) The story was trite and followed the existing patterns so closely that at the end you are not surprised to see a holo projection of a sith promising a return of the characters in the next installment. Harrelson's performance was not stellar (again, not bad but the movie needs more than "meh"). I have a soft spot for Donald Glover and liked him in the role as Calrissian but that's supporting cast. I didn't even recognize Emilia initially and again, it was a good performance but not stellar. Cinematically, they spared no expense and the "train robbery" was beautifully shot. The characters in Beckett's crew, however, were horribly written (or showed all the hallmarks of a movie being totally recut after filming). For a bunch of selfish pirates they certainly turn all noble when they needed to to make the heist work... And if you want to blame that on the Executive Producer who has failed to get along with any director in the history of her role, that is fine. It still doesn't change what is on the screen this go-round. I'd give this movie a 6/10 and that mostly on the shoulders of cinematography and actors that I have a personal soft-spot for. TL;DR - As a "turn your brain off and enjoy the scenery" movie this one is beautiful but don't look to it for good, tight writing or even a memorable story.

Ok, Burk, I am confused. You say you've played a long, slow campaign and explored a lot but you recommend ignoring money and grabbing salvage in missions. If I really ignore money and grab salvage early on I go broke and quickly. Do you routinely grab one mission per month to cover your expenses and then grab salvage? Do you get rep up with a faction so you get better prices from them? Did you do something early on to alter your money management to make this strategy work for you? I'm happy to hear the feedback that you can push too hard and get into the end of the campaign in 300 days if you do. Knowing that encourages me to explore more... I just can't reconcile that with the other advice and so I want to get a feel for how you managed the cash to facilitate it. I'm 270 days in. I've gotten the Argo. I'm friendly with my secret benefactor, liked by the Magistracy and indifferent with the others although I have done a little work with them. I've got 7 months of payroll saved up (mostly from the mission that got me the Argo) but have not done much travelling because flight time means paying payroll without collecting income.

Well, you want to give me either of those? As BroG said, early in the campaign you only have so many options for Heavies and you have no Assaults.

Yeppers. Same here. Although I still lean toward that HBK-4P which is a thing of beauty (and one I have carefully collected more than 1 of). So much armor, so many M Lasers and so easy to repair if it does get into trouble. Put a gunner in it and split fire if you are in a cool biome and it wrecks face. Cooks lights without focusing fire. Kills multiple generators a turn. Beats down bigger mechs routinely. Only thing it really fears is big ACs and PPCs.

Yeah, I had the same problem earlier when and recovered the dropship. I won but got decimated in the process and had to take a full 2 months off to repair all my mechs thus eliminating all the cash I had just collected.

Actually, we all define almost every word the same way and as Kerrigan said, that is part of the social contract. You may not feel happy or you may be happy for different reasons, but happy is still "enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment". You're not going to say you are happy when you are in fact uncomfortable. Why you are happy or relating to what specific aspect, item or event is context, as you say, but it does not change the meaning of the word happy. Maybe you are a masochist and derive pleasure from pain... That does not change the meaning of either word. It simply establishes context for yourself. One will always be one. Blue will always be blue. Free does not mean "Here's your free burrito, that'll be $1.50." Context may imply boundaries or conditions as it does in the quote that Raindog posted which began this discussion. That doesn't mean I am redefining the word free, however. It means that I am judging the context and deciding whether or not the sentence applies to me. Even with the touchy-feely words like love, trust, etc. the meaning of the word is largely unchanging and what changes is the way people evaluate the context and apply the word. I love my wife, my dogs and a really good plate of nachos, all in different ways. Words which get redefined are still a part of a social contract. It's not one person redefining a word for themselves. It's a group of people choosing to use a word to mean something within the group (a social contract) and that definition being adopted over time more broadly... Gay, nigga, groovy, bodacious, heavy, etc. They are all changed by a group using the word consistently and that social contract being passed along to others. The idea that using the existing set of social contracts is arrogant is absurd. The idea that a single person can dictate the social contract for everyone is what is arrogant (which is not to say that in this era of TV personality it doesn't happen, but...). Interpret something for yourself, fine. But if you choose to redefine a word and then have to explain what you mean when you say it using other words then you have, by definition, failed to communicate and therefore have misused the word.

I'm not sure redefining words for yourself without publishing a dictionary of your own is quite kosher. If you say you trust me I already have an implicit understanding of what that means. The fact that you think trust as it is really defined is impossible doesn't really matter when it comes to expressing yourself to another human being. That shared definition is what makes communication possible.

I'm planning on doing just that but most of the guys I expect to meet are from 3-5 hours east or from Columbus (3 hours west) which is where MasterCrafted is. I've joined the FB groups for Ohio War Kings and Northeast US Kings of War. There's plenty to do if I want to spend 3-4 hours driving (one way) but nobody, including the guys from NE US and the local pathfinder, have been able to put me in touch with anyone closer (other than the local pathfinder) who is in Erie every weekend with family or girlfriend.

Define "In that region". After a week looking, the only guy I have found is the local pathfinder. If I'm willing to drive three hours there's a ton of folks but western PA is a ghost town.

Sugar alcohols are a myth created by people who are not looking at process. Technically an alcohol is not a carb but the problem is in how it metabolizes. It increases the release of ketones (which is what you are trying to do with ketosis) but at the same time it blocks the process by which ketosis allows you to burn fat. So, long story short... Why are you on a ketogenic diet? If the answer is to lose weight, then sugar alcohols are self-defeating. If the answer is to avoid glutens then sugar and sugar alcohol are not the problem in the first place. Personally I try to eat a low carb diet for many reasons. I've lost a lot of weight doing it. I feel a lot better when I don't have the gluten in my system. My blood sugar is level throughout the day because I am not eating things that metabolize quickly and result in spikes and troughs. The problem is that I love bread as well (and many things in which bread is a fundamental component) so I keep falling back off the wagon.

Remember too that carb means non-fibrous carb in all these situations. You can eat all the high-fiber veggies you want... Celery, for example, is fine on a low-carb diet because you discount the fibrous carbs right off the bat (since they cannot be digested). That doesn't necessarily affect you, pax, as it still calls for lots of meat and fat to get your calories but it's how most people manage keto.