Dark One
-
Posts
2661 -
Joined
-
I was really hoping for a Tomax & Xamot thing going on there with the Rushes. Especially since one of 'em had that cut on his cheek.
-
[QUOTE=Starflier;3546876]As mentioned, the water thing was just one scientist guessing. They certainly seemed to use water for fuel, but that doesn't necessarily make it the reason for coming. Maybe it was just a perk to find jet fuel lying all over the planet they chose for building their new intergalactic turnpike.
[quote]
Given that they mentioned that the oceans were already showing measurable signs of dropping in the minimal time frame that they were there. I would also guess that it was essential for their life-type given, IMO, squidy-looking nature of the invaders. All that gear and surgically implanted mechanisms seemed be combo of life support + power + weaponry, to me.
Quote:The C&C seemed a bit haphazard for a modular product. Even if it was brought in in pieces, that was hella fast construction especially given that they weren't in complete control of that area until well into the movie.Finally, I don't think they built the Command and Control unit there, I think they moved it there, possibly in pieces (much like the drones came together to make a bigger craft). Kind of in line with the way they used drones like tugboats to try to pull it to a new hiding spot. -
Quote:There are times that shakey cam can make sense, so long as it is not overly shakey. This is one where it does make sense...to a point that is.Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
The shaky cam didn't bother me too much in this flick, I've seen some footage from Iraq where some soldiers have cams filming and it actually made the movie marines a little more believable for me. Unlike how shaky cam irritates the hell out of me in other shows.
However, in shows like SGU where the majority of it takes place in a stable platform, shakey cam is hideous and unwarranted (especially when you are filming in a majority dark environment with lighting primarily on the characters, horribly nausea inducing). -
Quote:There's a theory that the planet has more iridium than what we see in the crust now. That due to its density, the majority of it migrated to the core and mantle when the planet was forming.Originally Posted by Ironik
Except that iridium is one of the clues to the giant asteroid impact 65 million years ago, which would indicate the asteroid belt is lousy with it. Granted, it's more conveniently concentrated in a planet, but why pick the one planet in our solar system that can shoot back? That's retarded.
Just saying that something like iridium would be a much more plausible explanation for invading a planet than water. But yes, an orbital bombardment especially when the target can't defend against it, is easier than landing ground troops. -
Quote:But there are lots and lots of water ice comets out floating around in space that one can collect, melt, and get what they need from 'em. They would also get other volatiles like methane and ammonia. All without having to go to the hassle of fighting another race. Especially a race that has no problem killing its own members and has been warring for 10,000 years.Originally Posted by QuiJon
I didnt have a problem with the water thing either. First off our planet is 70 percent water, so it makes sense to use that as a device for why they have come.
Water is the least plausible excuse, IMO, to invade another planet. If they've got interplanetary travels capabilities, then they've got the ability to collect those comets.
A more plausible reason would be the collection of enzymes/chemicals/biologic material that they lack or is extremely rare. Or possibly a metal-type that is not found on their world, but is abundant here. Like say wanting to crack the planet to get the sweet, sweet iridium potentially hiding in the core or mantle. -
Quote:Not as anemic as some of the depictions in the comics. In some of them, it looks no thicker than a piece of dental floss. For a WW depiction, it akshuly seems to be rather spot-on.Originally Posted by BeornAgain
That HAS to be the most anemic-looking lasso I have ever seen...
Comic depiction. -
The drones were neat though in that they were modular. Also in the fact that they were using our own tech against us.
-
Haven't seen one yet, so here it is. As the thread title states, there will be spoilers, so don't complain.
Got back from it just now and thought it was a decent popcorn flick. Things go boom. Bad guys get blowed up. Dunno if I'd pay full night price for it though as a matinee it works. Story is acceptable, but it reminded me a lot of Independence Day, especially with the ending. There does seem to be too many characters, IMO. When you start to look at it closer, some things fall apart.
*SPOILERY BITS*
1) Reason for the invasion. Water? That's it? You're going to spend your soldiers lives for water? When there's lots and lots of water, just in frozen form, lots of places (Oort Cloud, Europa, etc). They said it was because we had a lot of water in liquid form. They don't even go for the fresh stuff, but rather the salty kind. And even then, you could siphon off a lot of it by sticking your forces into the middle of the ocean, rather than right off populated cities.
2) Nature of the invaders. The ground forces are biomechanical infantry. The air forces are drones. Couldn't you just, you know, make drone infantry as well? Granted, they are alien and we don't know if they are in a society that has no value for individual lives (hive mind, brainwashed, penal legions, etc) or a warrior society (Klingon, Sanghelli, Jiralhanae, etc) where one has to prove themselves in combat, it would make sense. Otherwise, it would be cheaper and more cost effective to simply bombard the cities from orbit or develop a virus bomb to wipe out the indigenious population.
3) Timing. This is a big problem in a lot of movies. How they go quickly from night to day and day to night (X-men 3, for example). Seems that in the space of five minutes they go from using night vision scopes to having a high noon shootout.
4) Human response. This may just be me, but it seems that they spent a lot of well-trained soldiers lives to rescue a few civilians. That doesn't sit right with me. Every soldier down is someone who can't assist in future operations and dealing with a blitzkrieg like this means that as many soldiers as possible are necessary. Now, the end result of the soldiers' actions do turn the tide, but it's not because of the civvies or anything, but rather the soldiers being in the right place at the right time. When you're dealing with an invasion like that, response needs to be immediate before allowing the invaders a foothold. Had it been me, especially after losing comms with the other invasion points, I probably would've ordered a carpet bombing immediately rather than wait for the civvies and lose a whole lot more because of that wait.
But that's just my opinion.
5) Construction speed. The invaders sure had that C&C facility built pretty quick for the time alloted. Especially given its size and placement. Seems to be a bit hand-wavey.
Phew. Done. Feel free to pick that apart.
-
Quote:Fair enough. Just a thought, after all.Originally Posted by TroyHickman
Well, I doubt that will happen, partially because her two appearances from back then are basically what I cobbled together to make the Pilot Season issue, pretty much panel for panel. The closest we'll get is probably the text page (with cover illos) I did about it in the just-released TG #3...
-
Quote:Yep. The little 6"x8"-ish one(s) that you did. It would be interesting to see the originals and compare with the new. In terms of special features, I'd tend to think people would enjoy seeing that.Originally Posted by TroyHickman
Do you mean the mini-comics?
-
Troy, you should try getting them to include the original TG in the TPB, IMO. Just a thought.
-
Quote:Completly, 100%, irrelevant.Originally Posted by QuiJon
Ok, but every year more and more customers are expanding what they use internet for. A year or so ago, netflix was pretty much only streaming to computers now 360s, ps3s, wiis, new tvs, new bluray players have expanded that market well beyond what it was. Essentially i look at it like the ISPs were attempting to cover expanded costs of improving their networks to allow for these newer services by charging the service providers in some form. Since that was a no-go, they are left to either eat the costs of it themselves. (keep in mind for most ISPs they have a limited number of potenial customers based on their service areas and improvements to networks might not really translate into new customers), they can pass those costs along to their customers (something i think is unfavorable IMO), or they can put reasonable limits on the service being provided (which it appears att is doing). However i think its safe to say that the one thing they wont do is allow the cost of upgrading to limit the potenial earnings of their stockholders profit margins.
If the ISPs cannot supply their advertised services, then that is their fault for overstating their capabilities. Combined with the lack of infrastructure buildout (previously linked, supposedly $250 billion has been given to the telcos since the 1990s ostensibly to fund these buildouts but with zero return on the public's investment with even more billions to come) and they have no one to blame but themselves. Combine THAT with the apparent willingness to stand in the way of municipal buildouts of fiber projects through lawsuits and you have an even bigger blame. Combine THAT with the monopolistic nature of the current ISP landscape for most people and you have zero incentive to upgrade your services. Combine THAT with continually decreasing costs-of-transport and hardware.
Blaming the public for using what they are paying for is disingeneous at best.
Again, irrelevant. Would you expect the money resulting from double-dipping to actually be applied to upgrading infrastructure? Or, more likely, going to pad the bottom lines of the telcos? And you know who would end up footing those costs?Quote:But really though my local ISP is being paid by me to "Deliver" the content i request from the web, as more and more thing go online, as my options to use the web more and more go up, that will eventually strain a network that wasnt intended or thought out to provide as much bandwidth as is now becoming the norm. Kinda like an LA freeway, 50 years ago when they were built no one expected the boom in cars and population that no clog them up on a daily basis. IMO this is happening now to the internet, and everyone that stands to profit from the internet is standing around looking at the other guy to flip the bill to fix the problem.
Us.
Either through increased fees on websites, loss of "free" things, or the next Hulu/eBay/Youtube/etc., lost because the operator is unable to pay every ISP in the country a fee. Because no company is going to eat that cost, they will pass it along to the end-customer.
A good read. -
Quote:Found the article I mentioned. Here. It's towards the bottom of the article itself. Third paragraph from the bottom.Originally Posted by Durakken
$0.01 / GB @ 250 GB = $2.50
I pay $45
If my math is right. That's $0.18 per GB... or an 1800% mark up.
The only thing that meets and exceeds that is prescription medicine... That's kinda disturbing in terms of metaphors >.> A fair price would be more like $5, maybe $10... -
Quote:In other words, they are paying for their bandwidth, depending upon which ISP provides access in the location of their servers. It is highly doubtful (IMO) that those mega-corps would allow server farms to be outside of their direct control, especially when their search algorithms and patented methods are their lifeblood.Originally Posted by QuiJon
See here is where i am not sure about how everything works.
My thought or understanding would be that say hulu, they pay a server farm for their servers. They pay that farm for the data they pass through. And then you would think that server farm then pays their ISP inturn for the total amount of data they pass through to that isp.
They may be getting a deal in terms of what they are charged, but they are still charged and paying for their upstream bandwidth.
Hulu's upstream bandwidth is not constantly sitting in the pipes (like water sitting constantly in a line) unless the end-recipient requests it. And that end-recipient has already paid for that bandwidth.Quote:However that ISP then puts hulus content on the larger network, which inturn passes it onto your local ISP who delivers it to you. That isp, your isp, isnt getting money from hulu if they are not the isp that houses thier servers. But thier network has to be able to sustain the bandwidth to get that content to you. Which is really the same amount of bandwidth that the original ISP has to handle when you think about it.
If their network can't handle a person (or severals) data requests, it is not the fault of Hulu or the like. It is the fault of the ISP for overselling their capabilities.
The ISP is paid to deliver that product, regardless of the source, by the requestor. In this case, it is the person wanting to watch the show or see the website. If they cannot honor their committment to provide what is requested by the end-user, then it is neither the fault of the end-user nor the recipient of the request.Quote:Now i dont know the real particulars, like i said, i would just only logically think this is how it works. So you local ISP is really only sure to get money from their customers. So since they were shot down to charge the amazons, hulus, etc to charge large providers for that delievery, their two choices are to suck up the cost, or charge the customer. In this case it looks like they chose to charge the customer.
So yes google et al are paying someone to provide the server, but not really all the parties needed to deliver that product.
Again i could be wrong in my understanding.
It is no different than someone wanting to make a long distance call. Would you have the phone company charge both the call maker as well as the call recipient?
There is no real "cost" that they need to suck up. Data transfer charges are something on the order of <$0.01 per gigabyte, iirc from an article I saw recently on Ars. -
I'm beginning to think there's a Firefly curse. Of the cast, only Fillion and Baldwin have managed to end up on shows that last for longer than 2 seasons.
Jewel Staite - Showed up as a regular on Stargate: Atlantis. Cancelled.
Morena Baccarin - Showed up in Stargate: SG-1. Cancelled. Doubtful that V will see a third season, if it hasn't already been cancelled.
Summer Glau - Starred in T:SCC. Cancelled. Regular character in The Cape. Cancelled.
Alan Tudyk - Showed up in V. Character dead by impalement.
Haven't seen Book, Zoe, or Simon in anything else, ttbomr. -
Quote:I wrote the people who are nominally representing me before, about ACTA. All I got back was a canned response about how they appreciate my input and a form letter that had next-to-nothing to do with what I wrote about. I doubt that they even actually saw my letter to them.Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Well, I've done about the only thing I can do short of dropping AT&T service. I've written my congresswoman.
If you guys are really as disgruntled as you seem, I'd urge you to do the same. -
Quote:"Free" is an overstatement. It would see a significant price reduction compared to the absurd rates being charged now. There is ONE thing that would alleviate pricing concerns...Originally Posted by Smersh
That, yes. There is also the E-Rate program that's supposed to increase access in rural areas.
It was the 'free' part that needed the citation.
Mandated last-mile line sharing. Any startup ISP can use the lines at wholesale pricing. That would garner REAL competition rather than the lipservice competition we have now. -
Quote:They aren't getting paid twice unless the service provider for <x> internet company is the same as the service provider for the recipient. Otherwise, that 'net company is paying XYZ Company for their upstream bandwidth and I am paying QRS Company for the downstream bandwidth.Originally Posted by Durakken
Actually they are getting paid twice for the same usage. They are being paid by the sender AND receiver. It's like going to a little football meet and greet and having a fan pay an advertiser to have a NFL football legend pass them the ball... and then the advertiser charging the Legend the same amount to pass the ball. That makes no sense.
Indeed >.>
What you are stating is what they WANT, not what actually happens now. -
Quote:Interesting reading.Originally Posted by Smersh
[citation needed]
Can't vouch for the accuracy in it, of course. If true, while not free, it would be a significant upgrade from what we see today where 10mb down is touted as being exceptional. Basically, they got money and didn't do a thing, if true. Combine this with the hundreds of millions in NEW subsidies coming out and I have to laugh if anyone thinks the situation will actually improve. -
Quote:Except for the fact that Google and the like are already paying for the upgrades...it's called their access fees.Originally Posted by QuiJon
Honestly part of me thinks that the Googles and such sould to a certian extent be responsible in some part of expanding or upgrading networks. After all if i drive a truck for a living to deliever products to stores i pay taxes in my fuel usage to support the upkeep and building or roads. If i am walmart or target, when i get my building license i am responsible for envirmental impact and building access streets, electric lines etc to my new store location. However internet companies like google, hulu, amazon, itunes, have simply built a system where all they are responsible for is their own support. Paying for the servers needed for their business and are completely reliant on the ISPs to deliver it for them but accept little to none of the cost for that delivery, but all of the profit.
What, do you think that bandwidth is "free"? It's not. They are already paying their fair share, same as the people who are requesting the data. They may not be paying one specific ISP that's ******** about Google and the like "using their pipes for free", but the fact is that they are paying. Same as you or I that aren't paying every ISP, but rather the one specific gatekeeper. -
Add in the duopoloy at best for a good portion of the country, massive profits that ISPs are raking in, decreasing transfer cost per gigabyte, and lack of investment in upgrading infrastructure (srsly, where is all that build out of new tech like fiber? Oh wait, that only happens when a municipality tries to build out something, the local ISP sues to stop it, then they start) and data caps are only good for one entity...
The ISP.
I'm lucky enough to have an ISP that isn't one of the "big" ones, but I pay for that by the fact that the my bill is $50/month for a measley 2mb down and 512k up. Yes, I'm getting ***** on it, but I don't have a lot of choice since I live in the country. -
Quote:He was one of the Gretas.Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Yeah. He was one of the "too perfect" BuyMore agents.
-
Nope. Not even close.
Fun episode. "Did you just disarm a nuclear bomb with fruit juice?"
Really do not like Robin Givens' character.
Loved how shellshocked Awesome was on coming home. And Jeff might just be psychic...that won't end well... -
Quote:"Unlike some OTHER Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent..."Originally Posted by Cowman
To me he'll always be Bertie Wooster.
And if he DID play Vimes, he could probably even keep his English accent. -
I just thought of who should play Carrot...
Awesome from Chuck. He's got the stature, the physique, the charisma, etc. Would probably be a, dare I say it, awesome choice for the character.