you know i understand when like comic book nerds are like
"oh man if they made a movie of this it should star <well-known sci-fi actor, possibly from Firefly> and it would be awesome"
and it's like
no it wouldn't, you fuckin load
no matter what they did they'd have to change things because that's how adaptations work and it's a giant crap shoot whether you approve or whether you will immediately log on to Aint It Cool and bitch about how it's ruined forever and how "Hollywood just doesn't get it"
so why do you even want it made into a movie?
because you want affirmation of your dorky interest, is why.
Some comic movies are, in fact, very good.
I liked the Iron Man movie a lot.
oh, totally
but that was in spite of nerdy attitudes on the subject, not because of them
when Robert Downey Jr. was announced as Tony Stark I remember seeing the internet freak out because he had never done anything close to how people perceived Tony Stark should be and they were screaming about why they didn't cast someone from Farscape or some shit.
ugh
Pony on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
We "exist" at a scale of metaphysics. However, metaphysics was created. We can move past it. QM, I think, will help give us a paradigm to understand how to move past it.
i have no idea what this means.
i am saying that regardless of whether things like the forward-flow of time, causality, or position/ velocity precision exist in the world of quantum particles, they absolutely do exist at the scales where we exist.
They do exist, but not necessarily so. At one time it was probably useful to believe that the earth was flat. There is no definitive reason, not based on metaphysics, why these must be the case. If they are not based on the physical world, whence the jump to the human-scale world, and whence the jump to the macro-scale of relativity? For instance, the future might be completely determined, and the past open to re-appropriation and possibility. Heidegger posited this, and it very well might be the case, for humans.
the places where quantum laws end up becoming the laws we understand at our scales are well-understood. in fact, an understanding of this transition was a prerequisite to the quantum laws in the first place.
the one-word answer is thermodynamics, the slightly longer answer is "around the scale of thousands of atoms"
Nick Fury looks like Samuel L. Jackson in Ultimates because they asked Sam Jackson for the right to use his likeness for the character and Jackson said okay on the condition that if a movie comes about for Nick Fury, he gets to play him.
Jackson is a genius.
Pony on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I wish there were some good pop philosophy. All that I know about math and science has more or less come from pop non-fiction, and I'd like to think that I have at least a decent understanding of some of the big themes. Pop philosophy tends to be utter turd. It's extremely inconvenient, because I always have friends or people at the bar being like "oh, what's a book that you'd recommend" and I'm like "ahhhhhhh start with plato and work your way down?" It sucks. I wish I had a better answer, but Sophie's World and On Bullshit are not that fucking answer.
i feel like this is something i would enjoy writing.
but i'd have to be better at philosophy first.
the "for beginners" series is surprisingly good.
Yes, as is "a very short introduction to..." However, they never do a good job of conveying the thematic elements of the topic. I recently read a book on Gödel, and it both explained his incompleteness theorem in a general audience way AND told you why this was important. The latter, in my opinion, is much more important.
Pods in one paragraph explain Kierkegaard to me
annnnnnnnd Go!
No very familar with SK. But basically
So Kierkegaard hated Hegel and the other German Idealists, who were basically saying that everything that constitutes reality is actually completely conceptual. They over-intellectualized everything and marginalized things like emotions and hopes and experience. Kierkegaard wanted to create a human philosophy that is sort of a coming of age novel. You have a set of beliefs which you were given. You have to experience whether or not they are true. Certain ones you come to believe are true, and yet you cannot know why. This induces dread. Dread, or fear itself, is undirected -- it has no object. Anxiety is met with faith -- we have faith that though our existence is absurd, we can hold on to our beliefs. This allows us to progress to stronger, more coherent belief systems. Weathering the storm makes your core beliefs stronger, because they were able to withstand critique and self-doubt and revealed themselves as more true than other beliefs.
Note: my exposure to Kierkegaard is pretty much solely through research on Heidegger, so I ignored much of his stuff on Irony and the Absurd and stuff.
scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
QM was fucking hard to learn and understand. i still only have a pretty limited understanding of it overall, and this was after studying it in detail for years. so it's annoying when i hear it invoked inappropriately to make some unrelated point.
i mean you study history, right eddy? don't you get annoyed when people get historical facts and interpretation flat-out wrong but use it as evidence to back up some equally wrong point?
oh certainly, especially with the idea of a 'traditional marriage' and some golden age in american history etc. etc.
although I think it's nearly impossible to make actual historical discourse interesting to the masses.
but robert kulwrich summed it up nicely I thought:
I almost want to say a half-understanding of science is better than none at all, because the radical and often sensational ideas presented in half understanding can get people interested in actually studying science.
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
How many people would throw heavy things at me if I said I like the Xmen movies
all of them
I'd throw large objects at you for liking the third. The other two I'd basically agree with you. I didn't have much of a problem with Singer not doing the third, more so the story was so fucking botched from the source as far as the phoenix and the whole
killing Scott and the Professor off at the beginning
that it just ruined it for me. The one shining light out of it though. Kelsey Grammar. In my mind, that man is and shall always be Hank McCoy.
I hate it when people bring up the whole flat earth thing.
"The Earth is flat" was never mainstream science.
ever
At best "The Earth is curved" competed with "The Earth is a sphere" during the 2nd and 1st millenniums BCE as the dominant theory until "The Earth is a sphere" was proven mathematically.
I love you
this really annoys me too
I mean, why the fuck would anyone think the earth was flat
you know i understand when like comic book nerds are like
"oh man if they made a movie of this it should star <well-known sci-fi actor, possibly from Firefly> and it would be awesome"
and it's like
no it wouldn't, you fuckin load
no matter what they did they'd have to change things because that's how adaptations work and it's a giant crap shoot whether you approve or whether you will immediately log on to Aint It Cool and bitch about how it's ruined forever and how "Hollywood just doesn't get it"
so why do you even want it made into a movie?
because you want affirmation of your dorky interest, is why.
Some comic movies are, in fact, very good.
I liked the Iron Man movie a lot.
oh, totally
but that was in spite of nerdy attitudes on the subject, not because of them
when Robert Downey Jr. was announced as Tony Stark I remember seeing the internet freak out because he had never done anything close to how people perceived Tony Stark should be and they were screaming about why they didn't cast someone from Farscape or some shit.
ugh
Ok.
It just seemed like you were saying comic movies, by their nature, could not be good.
I wish there were some good pop philosophy. All that I know about math and science has more or less come from pop non-fiction, and I'd like to think that I have at least a decent understanding of some of the big themes. Pop philosophy tends to be utter turd. It's extremely inconvenient, because I always have friends or people at the bar being like "oh, what's a book that you'd recommend" and I'm like "ahhhhhhh start with plato and work your way down?" It sucks. I wish I had a better answer, but Sophie's World and On Bullshit are not that fucking answer.
i feel like this is something i would enjoy writing.
but i'd have to be better at philosophy first.
the "for beginners" series is surprisingly good.
Yes, as is "a very short introduction to..." However, they never do a good job of conveying the thematic elements of the topic. I recently read a book on Gödel, and it both explained his incompleteness theorem in a general audience way AND told you why this was important. The latter, in my opinion, is much more important.
Pods in one paragraph explain Kierkegaard to me
annnnnnnnd Go!
No very familar with SK. But basically
So Kierkegaard hated Hegel and the other German Idealists, who were basically saying that everything that constitutes reality is actually completely conceptual. They over-intellectualized everything and marginalized things like emotions and hopes and experience. Kierkegaard wanted to create a human philosophy that is sort of a coming of age novel. You have a set of beliefs which you were given. You have to experience whether or not they are true. Certain ones you come to believe are true, and yet you cannot know why. This induces dread. Dread, or fear itself, is undirected -- it has no object. Anxiety is met with faith -- we have faith that though our existence is absurd, we can hold on to our beliefs. This allows us to progress to stronger, more coherent belief systems. Weathering the storm makes your core beliefs stronger, because they were able to withstand critique and self-doubt and revealed themselves as more true than other beliefs.
Note: my exposure to Kierkegaard is pretty much solely through research on Heidegger, so I ignored much of his stuff on Irony and the Absurd and stuff.
ok so then why is that kate beaton comic so funny to me
Not into a serious movie. Keep it lighthearted and true to it's source and still animated.
Can't be done man, super heroes have to all be "SUPER SERIOUS!" I mean look at the propsed spiderman reboot and weep.
Ugh...don't remind me. Marvel's already got success with Iron Man. I'm really hoping Thor and Cap are good because that would hopefully translate into a really good Avengers movie. They should just try and stick to one group or story set for a bit and then move to another instead of trying to hit a bunch all at once.
the avengers are not an interesting property
they are just a bunch of superheroes without much of a theme or premise
to be honest, they are going to have to really work to keep captain america and thor from being boring fan-service bullshit
they will almost certainly suck unless the writers and directors can find some kind of interesting hook
How many people would throw heavy things at me if I said I like the Xmen movies
all of them
I'd throw large objects at you for liking the third. The other two I'd basically agree with you. I didn't have much of a problem with Singer not doing the third, more so the story was so fucking botched from the source as far as the phoenix and the whole
killing Scott and the Professor off at the beginning
that it just ruined it for me. The one shining light out of it though. Kelsey Grammar. In my mind, that man is and shall always be Hank McCoy.
I feel pretty "meh" about the X-Men movies.
They weren't great, but they weren't bad.
However, being a huge Deadpool fan, Wolverine: Origins made me rage.
How many people would throw heavy things at me if I said I like the Xmen movies
all of them
I'd throw large objects at you for liking the third. The other two I'd basically agree with you. I didn't have much of a problem with Singer not doing the third, more so the story was so fucking botched from the source as far as the phoenix and the whole
killing Scott and the Professor off at the beginning
that it just ruined it for me. The one shining light out of it though. Kelsey Grammar. In my mind, that man is and shall always be Hank McCoy.
Gonmun in reference to Phoenix, I would say that the source for Phoenix is so silly that what they "did to it" is just as ludicrous. Maybe even less so
the places where quantum laws end up becoming the laws we understand at our scales are well-understood. in fact, an understanding of this transition was a prerequisite to the quantum laws in the first place.
the one-word answer is thermodynamics, the slightly longer answer is "around the scale of thousands of atoms"
How? How do these non-physical laws "bind fast" the physical world and create a fundamentally different layer of reality?
How many people would throw heavy things at me if I said I like the Xmen movies
all of them
I'd throw large objects at you for liking the third. The other two I'd basically agree with you. I didn't have much of a problem with Singer not doing the third, more so the story was so fucking botched from the source as far as the phoenix and the whole
killing Scott and the Professor off at the beginning
that it just ruined it for me. The one shining light out of it though. Kelsey Grammar. In my mind, that man is and shall always be Hank McCoy.
I feel pretty "meh" about the X-Men movies.
They weren't great, but they weren't bad.
However, being a huge Deadpool fan, Wolverine: Origins made me rage.
Well yeah. But also it was just a shitty movie, even disregarding all the continuity bullcrap
Choco and I have been having an argument for like two months about whether Pierce Brosnand as Bond or Daniel Craig is hotter.
It's obviously Craig. Brosnand looks like your uncle who is tired because he moved into a new tax bracket and he likes to drink too much wine and complain about welfare queens at Christmas while everyone uncomfortably ignores him.
nerd entitlement is hilarious and pathetic and awful
Ahahahahahaha
James Bond didn't need a reboot, but this website did. Its origins were as a site arguing that Pierce Brosnan should be kept on as Bond and calling for a boycott of Casino Royale. However, the consensus on our forum was that this no longer reflected our aims as an online community. This site has acquired a new function. Casino Royale created a sort of herd mentality on other Bond fansites. Those critical of the current orthodoxy on Craig have been made to feel unwelcome on the traditional James Bond forums and most have either left, had their account deleted, or stopped posting altogether. The Daniel Craig is not Bond forum provides a haven where people are free to debate the current direction of the Bond franchise in a democratic fashion.
the places where quantum laws end up becoming the laws we understand at our scales are well-understood. in fact, an understanding of this transition was a prerequisite to the quantum laws in the first place.
the one-word answer is thermodynamics, the slightly longer answer is "around the scale of thousands of atoms"
How? How do these non-physical laws "bind fast" the physical world and create a fundamentally different layer of reality?
Because quantum laws don't refer to the physical world? No matter how much we want them to?
Not into a serious movie. Keep it lighthearted and true to it's source and still animated.
Can't be done man, super heroes have to all be "SUPER SERIOUS!" I mean look at the propsed spiderman reboot and weep.
Ugh...don't remind me. Marvel's already got success with Iron Man. I'm really hoping Thor and Cap are good because that would hopefully translate into a really good Avengers movie. They should just try and stick to one group or story set for a bit and then move to another instead of trying to hit a bunch all at once.
the avengers are not an interesting property
they are just a bunch of superheroes without much of a theme or premise
to be honest, they are going to have to really work to keep captain america and thor from being boring fan-service bullshit
they will almost certainly suck unless the writers and directors can find some kind of interesting hook
I feel like the characters in the Avengers have a lot of potential and are just written badly.
I really like Captain America, but the whole Captain America: Reborn series was a huge "what the fuck" as far as writing goes.
Choco and I have been having an argument for like two months about whether Pierce Brosnand as Bond or Daniel Craig is hotter.
It's obviously Craig. Brosnand looks like your uncle who is tired because he moved into a new tax bracket and he likes to drink too much wine and complain about welfare queens at Christmas while everyone uncomfortably ignores him.
Posts
why do i know nothing about bruce campbell
i do not know what this statement means
NNID: Hakkekage
oh, totally
but that was in spite of nerdy attitudes on the subject, not because of them
when Robert Downey Jr. was announced as Tony Stark I remember seeing the internet freak out because he had never done anything close to how people perceived Tony Stark should be and they were screaming about why they didn't cast someone from Farscape or some shit.
ugh
the places where quantum laws end up becoming the laws we understand at our scales are well-understood. in fact, an understanding of this transition was a prerequisite to the quantum laws in the first place.
the one-word answer is thermodynamics, the slightly longer answer is "around the scale of thousands of atoms"
If you liked X3 I'm curious how you manage to type so well when you're obviously deaf, mute, blind and suffering from extreme head trauma
Its not possible to like X-Men 3 so you're clearly lying.
It's even beyond based they got a likeness permission and everything
Jackson is a genius.
No very familar with SK. But basically
So Kierkegaard hated Hegel and the other German Idealists, who were basically saying that everything that constitutes reality is actually completely conceptual. They over-intellectualized everything and marginalized things like emotions and hopes and experience. Kierkegaard wanted to create a human philosophy that is sort of a coming of age novel. You have a set of beliefs which you were given. You have to experience whether or not they are true. Certain ones you come to believe are true, and yet you cannot know why. This induces dread. Dread, or fear itself, is undirected -- it has no object. Anxiety is met with faith -- we have faith that though our existence is absurd, we can hold on to our beliefs. This allows us to progress to stronger, more coherent belief systems. Weathering the storm makes your core beliefs stronger, because they were able to withstand critique and self-doubt and revealed themselves as more true than other beliefs.
Note: my exposure to Kierkegaard is pretty much solely through research on Heidegger, so I ignored much of his stuff on Irony and the Absurd and stuff.
oh certainly, especially with the idea of a 'traditional marriage' and some golden age in american history etc. etc.
although I think it's nearly impossible to make actual historical discourse interesting to the masses.
but robert kulwrich summed it up nicely I thought:
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/07/29/tell-me-a-story/
I almost want to say a half-understanding of science is better than none at all, because the radical and often sensational ideas presented in half understanding can get people interested in actually studying science.
I'd throw large objects at you for liking the third. The other two I'd basically agree with you. I didn't have much of a problem with Singer not doing the third, more so the story was so fucking botched from the source as far as the phoenix and the whole
I love you
this really annoys me too
I mean, why the fuck would anyone think the earth was flat
you can see it isn't with the naked eye
jesus
Ok.
It just seemed like you were saying comic movies, by their nature, could not be good.
Which is simply not the case.
-great action scenes
-genuinely funny writing
-impressive special effects
here's what you don't need
-angst
-serious storylines
-people crying
this is because superheroes are inherently ridiculous, and one should embrace that
Like house of M
ok so then why is that kate beaton comic so funny to me
danielcraigisnotbond.com
nerd entitlement is hilarious and pathetic and awful
the avengers are not an interesting property
they are just a bunch of superheroes without much of a theme or premise
to be honest, they are going to have to really work to keep captain america and thor from being boring fan-service bullshit
they will almost certainly suck unless the writers and directors can find some kind of interesting hook
eh, Batman begins showed that you can do the latter provided you have the least Super of Superheroes and one of the best directors currently working
I feel pretty "meh" about the X-Men movies.
They weren't great, but they weren't bad.
However, being a huge Deadpool fan, Wolverine: Origins made me rage.
That's because Robert Downy Jr. is an excellent actor.
Gonmun in reference to Phoenix, I would say that the source for Phoenix is so silly that what they "did to it" is just as ludicrous. Maybe even less so
Spider-Phoenix anyone?
How? How do these non-physical laws "bind fast" the physical world and create a fundamentally different layer of reality?
He is the second best bond and the first best is too old so that is silly.
Because that was something else.
Well yeah. But also it was just a shitty movie, even disregarding all the continuity bullcrap
It's obviously Craig. Brosnand looks like your uncle who is tired because he moved into a new tax bracket and he likes to drink too much wine and complain about welfare queens at Christmas while everyone uncomfortably ignores him.
Ahahahahahaha
Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
fixed.
Because quantum laws don't refer to the physical world? No matter how much we want them to?
Did I get this wrong Will?
I feel like the characters in the Avengers have a lot of potential and are just written badly.
I really like Captain America, but the whole Captain America: Reborn series was a huge "what the fuck" as far as writing goes.
tell choco I say he is dumb and wrong