Starsman
-
Posts
2248 -
Joined
-
So how high is this yearly fee?
-
Quote:Yikes... so I know it's a whole different topic... but lets say I want a TV only to play my XBox and don't want actual TV... do I still have to pay that yearly subscription?Originally Posted by Zikar
It's not government OWNED as such, but it is government supported.
In the UK, to own a television, you must purchase a "Television Licence" (that's per household, not per person) this licence is paid yearly, think of it as a sort of mandatory subscription fee.
This money goes into running and supporting the entirety of the BBC, everything from Radio, to News, to Dramas and to Doctor Who. It also means that in the UK BBC channels have no advertising whatsoever.
This all stretches back to when TV was new and the BBC was the only TV channel. The government felt we needed out own channel that would "Educate and Entertain" or something like that. And they didn't want adverts.
But the ads thing makes me see how British that come to the states go crazy with the amount of ads.
All that said, given there is no actual revenue from the shows I guess they can kill them on a whim... other than loosing potential international licensing that is... and the fact that this new series is partially founded by some Canadian station. -
Quote:Oh wait, the BBC is government owned? I was under the impression it was a private entity like Fox or ABC. Where I come from government owned stations only focus on educative stuff (arts/politics/news) not on fiction.Originally Posted by NinjaPirate
You are assuming they are motivated by money.
With a state-subsidized system, not so much.
In the BBC, a massive amount of decisions have resulted purely from internal politics and sometimes personal wars between department heads.
-np -
Quote:I got to say I'm worried about that doctor (darn am a noob and already whining about who will be the doctor next) seen quite a few shots of him around the web and he looks too emo...Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
Well to be technical, there "have been" 10 doctors. Matt Smith hasn't aired in the role yet, though they're filming stuff with him.
-
Quote:That would be SO full of win!!! Shame he would had to quit House to do this but I would sacrifice House for a single season of Hug Laurie's Jerkish Doctor Who.Originally Posted by NinjaPirate
Okay, now that I think about it, I can totally see Hugh Laurie seriously playing the Doctor.
He wouldn't even have to do the fake American accent.
-np
Also wanted to ask, what's that about BBC hating Dr Who? Why would any suit hate a show that makes them money?
BTW, I know Daleks came first, but am I the only one that thinks they look like War Mode R2D2? I ponder if Lucas was inspired on them when he designed R2.
Oh and found this cool Halloween inspired Daleks!
-
Being a fan of House (meaning I really enjoy anyone being a total jerk in TV) I may actually not avoid that one
-
Quote:Maybe I caught him in a moody shot, he started the episode very Peter Parker like whining about not liking his overseeing job when things got interrupted.Originally Posted by Rodoan
I find it hard to believe though that Doctor 4 wasn't quirky. He might just be the quirkiest of all.
-
OK I guess i'm full of noobness here...
From what I gather there have been 11 doctors, but saw this "comic" that seems to be set in order of generation and there are 13 (and thats not counting the new one.) The first 3 doctors on the list are the ones I don't see in the wiki photo so.... where they from?
Oh also has any other doctor ever been as quirky and sarcastic as Eccleston's?
-
Quote:Eccleston is the first I actually see in the show but the first actor I saw that I ever placed a face on for the Doctor was Tennant. Seeing so many shots of Tennant it was odd to see Eccleston's face on the role, but I guess I will indeed keep Eccleston's personality as my baseline for meassuring Doctors in the future.Originally Posted by Hazmatter
Very occasionally, I think. LoT or one of the other hardcore Whovians here would have to verify that, though.
As one of my t-shirts says, "You never forget your first Doctor."
Looks like Eccleston is going to be your benchmark...
I also liked Eccleston's character in Heroes, ironically didnt tie him up to that character until a few minutes ago. -
Question about the Dalek. I already saw a few spoilers of them for my googling on their name and saw multiple of them (like the Dalek Emperor) before this new series, were the Dalek ever shown out of their robot/tank thingies?
-
Thanks! I see the Pyramids of Mars is on your list, that's the random one I started watching. I guess I'll eventually give it another chance, perhaps once I'm more used to that Doctor I may be able to watch it with less bias (lack of quirkiness made a bit of a disappointment.)
-
OK, first off, dont kill me for what Im about to state: I have never seen Dr Who.
Last week, due to curiosity and the fact that the new series Season 1 was up for streaming in Netflix, I decided to give it a go and was ok. So I see episode 2 and WOW!!! The end of the world the last human, wow all that was epic sci-fi!!! Not to mention the extremely sarcastic doctor!
Well, I been watching the series and last night I got to the first episode they show a Dalek (for this new series) and I started to get curious about the past of this show. I started looking about and saw a few old episodes also up for streaming so I started watching one well, was a bit disappointed (didnt get to finish that episode) mainly because the personality of the doctor was not as quirky or sarcastic as it was on the show I been seeing (I read already on the regeneration and personality changes that come with it.) So I am not sure if I want to watch the full of Dr Who but I still would like to see the essentials. Things like the Dalek origin story (that I already know happen in Genesis of the Dalek) and other foes I may see in the length of this show. Would also like to see more on the constantly referenced Time War but I read already they dont really show it and apparently happened between the last movie and the start of this series.
So going to the subject of the thread: can anyone point me at a list of Dr Who Essentials that I should watch? You know; the classic episodes/arcs that are either required to get the full idea behind certain foes motives or that were just plainly amazingly cool? -
Quote:Try shaving, at least it makes it look like you telling nature you dont want the hair instead of it looking like you trying to cling to the little hair that is left.Originally Posted by Ghost Falcon
Since I don't think most players want to become bald, I'm going to keep the risks tight-lipped.
(I had a full head of hair when I started this job in 2004...now, however...there's a reason why I wear a baseball cap.)
That's what I did. -
Quote:Interesting how it either has to be I16 or it has to be Going Rogue, can we take this as a confirmation that there is no I17 before Going Rogue?Originally Posted by Castle
Pohsyb mentioned this at PAX to some folks. I'm not sure if this is an I16 thing, or something being added for Going Rogue, but it is real.
-
Quote:For the record: Starsman is extremely vaguely inspired on Mighty Man (magical invuln tanker with huge star on the chest) but is not related to either Superman (as some that see blue and red cape) or Starman (as name may suggest) or Mighty Man himself.Originally Posted by Obsidius
Indeed. Homages are usually alright, but just plain copies are a no-no.
See examples:
UltraBatz
Starsman
Thor's Assassin
etc.
Starsman is the incarnation of a star's soul in a humanoid body. Imagine if Gia (earth) was destroyed and her soul trapped in a humanoid baby that then grew up. Thats Starsman.
I also copied the concept of "super family" though.
Now, if you truly are worried about your character being so close to copyrighted material that it may actually break the rules, have a friend report you noting the inspired character. If the mods consider there indeed is an issue, you will get your name and/or costume made generic and given a chance to rename. If a week or two pass and you still are the same, then it's safe to say you are original enough.
-
Quote:If you going to place things in the right order, given when they came out and all, it should be "ninjitsu is easy mode SR"Originally Posted by JamMasterJMS
Shouldnt this thread really be titled "ninjitsu is hard mode SR"?
-
Quote:There should be a way to do this. Based on Cryptic statements about their CrypticDB it sounds their previous projects were on SQL and with SQL the sky is the limit when it comes to criteria. Not sure how experienced are the current developwers when it comes to SQL, though. There got to be some experience in there but things have lead me guess (potentially very wrong guess) there is no SQL expert there, just SQL experienced. Anyways, derailing, there has to be a way to do this.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It would seem that a mandatory requirement for this rule to be viable would be an easy way to selectively hand out respecs. Handing out global freespecs because you combined two SR passives would probably be seen as excessive.
Even so, though, I would keep such a major revamp to coincide with the release of a new issue and they always hand out global respects with new issues.
That makes me think perhaps I would not merge all passives... instead I'd merge the AoE and Ranged (or Melee/Ranged) passives into one passive and then the AoE and Ranged (or Melee/Ranged) toggles into one toggle. This would have the side effect of still requiring two passives for full scaling resistance coverage (all in one passive may seem a bit OP) while lower SR's endurance consumption.Quote:In other words, its okay to transfer dodge's defense (and scaling resistances) to agile, because both are passives and agile becomes available earlier. Transferring lucky's defense to Evasion would violate the rule because that presumes no SR player would want to take lucky but not Evasion due to Evasion's endurance costs, an unsafe presumption under my rule. -
Quote:My "cottage rule" would apply to sets as a whole, not to individual powers. Unless a required nerf, I would not remove any capability or utility from a set. IOs complicate things, I would avoid invalidating current IO possibilities as the time invested in these IOs can very often be greater than the time spent leveling up the character. Due to this power replacements would have to somehow sustain current IO allowances.
If you're saying the rule itself is not worth following, I would ask what you would replace the rule with.
Complete power replacements would have to give the user the capability to respec into a build that behaves just as the previous or better. Some one that had the wrong passive turned into super speed but skipped the other two should be able to respec and once more just have one passive that does what his old passive did and perhaps more, as would be in my proposal.
As far as power order goes, I thought there were "recent" technical issues with that but perhaps some one just wanted me to shut up. I would not fear reordering attacks as long as its done in a way that smoths set progression (like making sure all melee sets get at least one AoE or Cone by lvl 20 as a secondary) but still with care.
The problem I see with SR is similar to the problem I see in Stone (outside of granite) it's mitigation is spread across too many powers with next to no utility and any "improvements" I can think of would just reinforce the current "need" to take every power in the set. -
Quote:I understand, but precedent helps to justify changes.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The cottage rule isn't just a historical precedent, though. As both jabbrwock and Jade_Dragon point out there are very strong foundational reasons for the cottage rule. The rule is really just short hand for attempting to avoid all the issues they mention.
As for the reasons noted, I do think the game sometimes take this too far. Imagine if games like WoW decided never to change anything because fear of invalidating character builds. No, when they think changes are really needed they dare go with huge revamps and grant the affected parties with free respecs. -
Quote:You say that as if you would approach a woman that nearly gives you a heart attack just by looking at her face.Originally Posted by M_I_Abrahms
I do feel the need to point out that it doesn't matter how you act if a woman nearly has a heart attack just by looking at your face. And before you comment, I had shaved before several of these incidences.
-
Quote:Sounds like she said you tried too hard not look at her.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Speaking for myself, not when talking with the actual person at the time. Then again, one girl actually brought it to my attention that I have the habit of shifting my eyes in the distance and sort of let them zone out when I speak, not looking at anything in particular. She was right, of course, but I'm still trying to figure out what that means for me. Too involved in the actual conversation, I guess? I mean, the way I write here is the way I speak in real life.
-
Quote:In a similar line, you never wandered your eyes downwards to a guy that just turned around for a second? Ever?Originally Posted by Golden Girl
So your eyes have never wandered downwards - ever?
-
Quote:Thats because men don't hang around with push-up belts that enhance and showcase sixpacks or butt-cleavages (at least not the ones you want to look at) besides even if men did it's hard to have conversations to something that's hiding behind the person you talking to.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
They're still not something we hold conversations with - we know where your eyes are
-
Quote:It is a shame the original changes to the epic pools did not make it as they would had marked the precedent to destroy the cottage rule arguments. Now the turn of events just serves as a strengthening of the cottage rule.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It's worth noting that it was a similar suggestion on my part that first prompted Castle to articulate to me the early version of what we now call the "cottage rule.
-
Quote:My sister says you lie. Most men sit on their magic powers, others pack a six pack and a rare lucky few get to brag about both and never spend Friday nights alone.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
I don't think men have anything that's quite light breasts - they really are like a magic power we have
Most women I talked too say the same, though.