lordjedi

It really depends on the theater you go to guys.  In my area, Big Newport and Irvine Spectrum are pretty much the only areas you'll find people cheering for trailers and at premieres.  Hell, at Big Newport, people bring beach balls and outright party during premieres.  Other than that, it just doesn't happen.  In Los Angeles, Gruman's and the Arclight (it's not called that anymore) are the two big ones.

So it really just depends on the theater in your area.

Actually, the MythTV FAQs still only recommend single core CPUs.  I recommend a dual core CPU simply because the more CPU power you have, the better.  It's not actually because the cap card does the encoding, it's because once you build one, you realize how versatile it is.  I'm in the process of putting my entire DVD collection on mine.  The faster the CPU, the quicker I can encode the DVDs to smaller h.264 videos.  I get nearly the same quality, regular audio and commentary, and about 1/8th the file size.

Of course, the faster your CPU, the less you'll need a capture card that can do encoding.  If the CPU is fast enough, a simple USB encoder would work just fine.

Jay said:

If it were possible to log all the actual play hours of each console--not just sales--you'd find that most 360s and PS3s are powered on almost daily, while most Wiis see use on weekends only. Did Nintendo attract the masses and turn non-gamers into gamers? Absolutely. My dad bought my stepmom a Wii earlier this year. And like most other Wiis sold to this new generation of "gamers," it collects dust. You think my dad will buy Nintendo's next console? Not a chance in hell.

 

People keep saying this and I just think it's the biggest joke in the world.  I know plenty of gamers that have Wii's and play them every single day.  I'd play mine every day if I wasn't busy with my PC and my son (I manage to play it about once a week).  The thing is, most of the people that are off playing their Wii's just aren't on gaming forums posting about how great their console is.  They don't need to be because they're having a ton of fun playing their Wii.

Think about it for a second.  If the Wii were really such a piece of crap that no one plays after a few weeks, they wouldn't still be selling like mad.  The people who have them would be recommending against them to everyone they know and sales would have fallen shortly after launch.  Hell, if that were the case, you'd be able to find them on craigslist and ebay for dirt cheap.  Instead, 3 years after launch, Nintendo can still barely make them fast enough.

Nintendo did the same thing they always do, they released a console at a reasonable price point that parents and "hard-core" gamers alike can afford.  That is their market and that hasn't changed.

I have no doubt Nintendo will release a hi-def console when they can do it at a reasonable price point.  $200-$250 is reasonable.  $400 is not.  As PC users have known for a long time, graphics are nothing without gameplay.  You can have the most beautiful game ever and if the gameplay sucks, people aren't going to buy it.  Nintendo is not going to sacrifice gameplay in order to get stunning graphics.  Sure, they aren't going to release something that looks like ass, but 480p doesn't even look that bad on an HDTV (my DVDs still look great!).

Doctor M said:

I could build a HTPC out of my head, but I haven't been able to find a guide to what recent parts are recommended.

I have a few stuff laying around to offset the cost.  Can you recommend  a guide lordjedi?

I see that you've bought something already.  The next time you think about a HTPC, give this site a go http://www.mythtv.org/  You can start your parts list from there to get an idea of what works.  If you decide to go XP or Vista, then you can just expand the parts list.

Pretty much all you'll need is a Hauppage card that can encode HD, a fast dual or quad core processor, and a lot of diskspace.

Doctor M said:

Anyone have a suggestion or is this one of those "it's the best of what there is, live with it" deals.

That's pretty much what it is.  You listed just about the best there is unless you roll your own.  You can build a really cheap HTPC these days (probably around $500, maybe a little more), so you might just want to save up some money.

skyjedi2005 said:

In terms of next gen hardware and graphics and processing power the PS3 wins hands down.  Too bad the only game worth owning that is an exclusive on that system at the moment is Metal Gear 4.

It's also the single most difficult system to program for.

And I don't understand why everyone thinks this Metal Gear 4 game is so great.  I was watching a friend "play" it the other day.  It had so many cut scenes that we eventually turned it off.  It was like watching a movie.  I think he was playing it for about 30 mins with maybe 5 mins of actual game time.  A game is meant to be played, not watched like a movie.

Microsofts tentpole franchise is Halo and there are currently no plans for a 4th Halo game.  And if it does get made it will be without bunjie.  Then Of course they get a limited time of exclusivety on Mass Effect 2 before it gets out on the pc.

You do know that Microsoft owns Bungie, right?  If a 4th Halo gets made, it will be with Bungie since they're owned by MS.

I am pissed that there will be no Knights of the Old Republic III for the 360.  They are making a stupid mmo that goes hundreds of years beyond revan and they never tell you his fate.

That's because MMOs are really where all the money is these days.  Since Galaxies has become a total joke, they need something new.  I'd like to see a KOTOR 3 as well, but only if they go back to BioWare for it.

Gaffer Tape said:

But, yes, you are right that Wii isn't the technological powerhouse that its contemporaries are.  It's never tried to be.  It's always been up front about that.  And it's never bothered me.  I don't have an HDTV, and a lot of people don't.  Nintendo didn't consider it to be that big of a concern, and I personally don't think they're wrong about that, even two years later.  Once again, it all comes down to the games, which is what I'll agree they're having problems with because the gimmicky crowd has become its main consumer base.  But the good games are good regardless of whether they are in HD or not, so I've never understood how that's been a limiting factor.  If that was such a limiting factor, games like Mega Man 9 wouldn't be selling so well.

This.  Community and playability have always been Nintendo's claim to fame, never graphics.  The 64-bit Nintendo did have good graphics for its time, but the graphics have always come second.  Personally, I love the Wiimote.  The people that don't seem to like it (as far as I've seen) are the ones who've learned how to exploit it.  Yeah, you don't have to move it around that much in order to work the game, but where's the fun in that?  I like standing up in front of my big screen, moving the Wiimote, and really fealing like I'm in game.  Add in some multiplayer games and you end up with a winning system.  And that shows in the marketplace.  Until this year, I couldn't find a standalone Wii system either online or in stores.  They were selling out before they even arrived.  That's pretty good for a system thats been on the market for 3 years and doesn't output HD.

Heh, I saw his first sentence and just skipped the rest.  The first X-Men wasn't all that great, but it was a good start.  X2 was much better since we actually had the X-Men using their powers.  X3 was so so though with just a lot of inconsistencies and the piss poor way they got rid of Cyclops.

doubleofive said:

HotRod said:

But man, all that screaming and whistling would seriously piss me off if I was in that cinema. I've never, ever been to see a film where the crowd acts like that. Must be an American thing. We Brits are much more reserved!! :)

That was the preview from the San Diego Comic Con.  Movie goers aren't like that, huge nerds at a nerd festival are.

What I wouldn't give to go that nerd festival...

To bad Comic-Con hasn't been a "nerd festival" in many years.  Trust me, Comic-Con is about pop culture now.  The days of it being "50,000 geeks" in one place are over.

They've removed the friend requirement.  You can watch it just by visiting the site now.

EDIT: I love it!  "We just spent a half million dollars making a man indestructable."  So awesome!

As far as Anakin going with Padme to Naboo, I believe it was explained either in the novelization or the comic.  It was essentially a test for him.  I know that makes no sense.  Yes, let's have him go with her to Naboo as a test to see if he's able to keep his hands to himself.  If he can, he passes.  If he can't, it's just the fate of the galaxy at stake.

Here's another one for you.  Padme continually tells Anakin (after the kiss) that they shouldn't have done that and they can't be together.  She even does that in front of a fireplace while wearing a sexy outfit.  So she says "We can't be together" while wearing an outfit that says "Come and get me big boy!"  How's that for mixed signals?  If you're really trying to turn a guy off, try not wearing the sexy dress next time.

negative1 said:

C3PX said:

Yeah, it's brilliant! If only they could have had some halfway decent actors to pull it off...

 

the problem that will never be solved, is that

nobody can agree what the story should have been like..

I think plenty of people here can agree on what the story should have been like.  Early years of Anakin Skywalker.  His ascendency in the Jedi ranks.  His fall.  For a decent writer, this doesn't have to be that hard.  As long as you stop trying to connect every little aspect with the OT, you won't have a problem.  He does not need to build C3PO.  He does not need to know R2 from the beginning.  He does not need to start as a 9 year old boy (I think this made it worse, not better).  While his wife should die by the end, she doesn't have to (no reason she can't go into hiding on some planet, like maybe Alderaan :P).

The point is that there are so many better ways it could have been done that you don't have to have 100% agreement on everything.  But everyone agrees that dissent was probably not tolerated on the set, so crap was allowed to pass because it came from Lucas.  Healthy dissent helps great ideas to flourish.

 

some claim that the PT isn't as 'epic' as the original trilogy (despite

all the retcons, inconsistencies, and flaws that exist in it th e OT also)..

 

lucas faces a no-win situation, you can't please the old fans, because

it wouldn't 'match' what he wanted for the PT, and of course the people

that like the PT sometimes find the OT clunky, slow, and outdated....

I don't think even Lucas knew what he wanted for the PT.  He simply decided he had to revisit the franchise because he kept talking about it over the years and figured he should do something for the fans that were clamoring for more.  I'm convinced that he's tired of it and once people stop consuming it that he'll finally move on.  As long as it's bringing in money though, he'll continue to do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing.  This is why I've pretty much stopped buying anything Star Wars related.  The only things I buy now are the items that are specifically OT related, so pretty much only holiday ornaments.

 

you can't have your cake both ways, and eat it to..

 

i hear a lot of complaints (skyjedi2005, and vaderisnothayden) that nothing past

1983 is worthy of being star wars, or 'canon' etc.....

 

well that leaves a huge void doesn't it? who is supposed to write the story?

who's supposed to act it out? who's supposed to direct? do the music?

John Williams for the music.  Lawrence Kasdan could write it (he wrote the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark).  Natalie Portman and the rest of the actors were also fine (they're all very accomplished actors).  We just need a replacement for Hayden (he isn't that great and hasn't been in anything that good since, kinda like Mark Hamill ;P).

As far as Directors go, take your pic.  There's plenty of decent directors out there.  And Lucas can stay on as Visual Effects Producer since Visual Effects is what he does best.

 

i don't think we could even find a majority of people on this site that could agree

on how it should have been handled? some like the EU stuff, others hate it,

same with the 'clone wars' (mixed opinions).......

You don't need a majority to agree on who the best person is.  You just need someone that's good to do it and George is not good.

 

it's pretty easy to criticize something that exists without supplying any kind of

alternate or substitute...yeah, you could say, just film the 'thrawn trilogy', or

just do episodes 7-9, and include the OT characters.... yeah, well someone

has to write it, and even stories from the EU that included the OT characters

aren't all liked universally....

 

do you really want to see han and leia married with kids? luke getting old?

chewbacca dying? i don't know.... i'd rather see the time periods inbetween

episode 3 and 4. or even the short time periods between 4-5 and 5-6....

I wouldn't mind any of these to be perfectly honest.  In the hands of a capable writer and director we'd get something wonderful.  Not in the hands of Lucas.  He had his shot at continued greatness with the PT.  He failed miserably.  Yes, they generated a lot of money, but they are now seen as failures.  The OT is still seen as timeless.

be careful what you wish for..

Exactly why I (and many others) want someone else to take over the reigns from Lucas.

HotRod said:

I am lazy...I have two kids...I am lazy

So turn the filter off, run the search, have your fun, then turn the filter back on and clear your cache.

Even if you follow the link, be sure to clear your cache and your history :P

HotRod said:

Well about about a link to the boobies then ferris man.

Are you completely incapable of using GIS (Google Image Search)?  Just go there and turn off the filter.  All the boobies you could want.

skyjedi2005 said:

When JJ Left Alias and Lost in other hands the quality of the shows suffered.  Their first seasons were brilliant.

The first season was brilliant?  The first episode was lame!  I watched most of the first episode of Lost.  My God if I had been on the plane with those people I would've started killing them myself (yes, I think they were that dumb).  Just watch the first episode with no knowledge of what's going on.  I'll even give you a little example:

Everybody's on the beach trying to help the survivors.   They start arguing about who was really on the plane and who might have been on the island when they crashed.  All the sudden, some dude comes running out of the jungle talking about finding more survivors.  Now remember, everyone else has been on the beach and the plane is in the water.  So how did this joker get into the jungle?  Oh yeah, turns out he's one of the ones that was on the island from the start (wasn't on the plane).  How is that brilliant?!  Seems to me that everyone else (including the detective that was so easily fooled) is a bunch of retards.

Lost only got "mysterious" after the first season when they started looking at everyone's past.  They managed to explain why Locke was dazed and confused during the first episode and probably a lot of other things.  I jumped into a few episodes here and there and just couldn't stand how stupid people were being.  "Make sure you type this code in or ...something bad will happen."  WTH?!  I know what the code does now only because I wasted 2 hours of my life watching one of the season finales.

Now I know some people like Lost, but come on, it's no more brilliant than anything else he's done.

Perhaps the show has changed a lot since I watched it.  To bad I'm not willing to sit through season 1 in order to get to the good sci-fi show that it might be now.

negative1 said:

back on topic (sorta)..

 

well this is pretty inflammatory (even when i saw it):

=========================================

ps3 a sinking ship

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/siliconalley/personal-tech/2008_12_sonys_ps3_a_sinking_ship_sales_plummet_sne.html

 

more commentary:

-------------------------

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3171823

http://www.examiner.com/x-1726-Minnesota-Game-Examiner~y2008m12d12-Sonys-epic-fail-The-5-major-blunders-of-the-PS3

 

ok, so they're getting clobbered by nintendo/microsoft..still..

 

well, i dont' think that will help blu-ray obviously.......but if that was one

outlet where the market penetration would help the sales of movies,

it probably wont..

 

but then again with the sales down all across the board, you could

say regular dvd's/players sales are down also..

 

later

-1

The ps3 is a sinking ship as a console.  As a console it's a total failure.  Not enough games, hard to program for, very expensive.

Blu-ray on the other hand is surviving and thriving without PS3 sales.  Standalone players can easily be had for under $300 (under $200 if you don't mind a slower profile 1.1 player).  With that large of a price difference, there's no reason to get a PS3 if all you want to do is watch Blu-ray movies.

Sales of regular DVDs/players are down, but they're still far higher than Blu-ray.  Perhaps the after Christmas sales will give us another run of cheap Blu-ray players.  The movies themselves are in line with standard DVD now, so player prices are still the only thing slowing adoption.

C3PX said:

In Europe I sill feel safe, but I don't feel on edge the entire time going through the airports. The whole atmosphere is more laid back. Outside the states I really enjoy traveling. In America it feels like the policy is to treat everyone like a terrorist, regardless.

That's because that is the policy in the US.  The ACLU and other "civil rights" groups has seen to it that the police can't profile.  So grandma gets treated the same way as Mohammed, even though Mohammed is more likely to commit a terrorist act than grandma.  Hell, sometimes grandma gets treated worse than Mohammed.

I'm not saying grandma should be given a complete pass.  I'm saying they need to use some common sense.  If I'm coming through with my wife and child in a stroller and I have a bottle of water and a can of formula, I'm more than likely a parent with food for my kid.  But instead of being able to keep the water separate and feeding my son on the plane, I have to mix the formula before going through security.  I guess they think the formula might actually be explosive material.  If it is, then I would have just blown up the whole damn terminal.  It's totally ridiculous.

Instead of putting real security measures in place, we put on this show that does nothing for security.  It makes the average person feel safer, but what good does that do if terrorists can still get through and cause damage?

Yes, John 4:16-20.

Tiptup said:

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

Christ's perfect life is a model for us to strive for.  However, knowing that we're all sinners and "all fall short of the glory of God", we can never attain perfection.  That is why Christ's life was sacrificed once for all of us.  By accepting him as our saviour, we can be allowed into Heaven, something none of us deserves.

Now, something else I just remembered that I think is really worth discussing is this:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/mit-student-arrested.html

I know it's US centric and I don't care.  I don't expect it to be discussed in this thread because it's already veared to far off-topic.  I heard about this story from a friend when we talked about wearing LEDs on a shirt.  The summarized version is this: MIT student hangs a circuit board with LEDs and a battery on her sweatshirt.  She goes to the airport to pick up her boyfriend.  She walks up to the counter to ask a question, not even bothering to hid the LEDs (she saw no reason to hide it).  A woman at the counter, who barely spoke english, starts to freak out.  The student tries to explain it and then gives up and decides to walk out (the counter woman actually told her she had to leave).  At that point, she's surrounded by police and they use a bomb detecting device to check the LEDs.  It's reported all over that an MIT student played a hoax (totally false) and caused a bomb scare.  The reality is that the stupid woman at the counter couldn't understand what it was and freaked out.  From the news articles, it would appear that everything turned out ok.  Well, it didn't.  It took 10 months for the entire thing to be resolved.  That's 10 months that this student had to wait in order to continue her school.  Most of this wasn't reported, just that some student at MIT played a hoax at Logan airport (which is completely false).

So you want to talk about something worthwhile?  Let's talk about the batshit crazy ass paranoia that goes on at our airports.  Let's talk about the stupid ass security people that don't know shit about anything (I once had a guy ask me about a hard drive "What's this?", then he just accepted "It's a hard drive...for a computer" without further questions).  Let's talk about the freaking morons that use the 20 million dollar x-ray machines to look at empty bags and then ask "Is your bag empty?" (happened to me at LAX).  WTF?!

If we want to take this further, I would ask why anybody with a PDA/Smartphone is even allowed into airports.  You might say "Well, everyone knows what those are".  To that I would say "Everyone knows what they look like, which makes them even more dangerous."  Terrorists have brought things through in shoes, liquids, and luggage.  They haven't recently brought actual bombs that look like bombs.  Our airport security needs to get a clue.

Tiptup said:

kay, and to quickly deal with some of the other tangential topics that interest me:

lordjedi said:

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus did not use any of his powers as God to make the moral work of his life on this earth any easier. If Jesus had done that then his life of moral perfection would have meant nothing as a sacrifice. Jesus did not use his power as God to make morality easy for himself. Every version of Christianity that I know of keeps Christ's perfect life as a sole work of his human nature (which would therefore be distinct from his divine nature).

First, I never said he used his power to make his work easier.  I said he could read peoples minds and know their thoughts.  That allowed him to convince people that he was the Messiah.  He also used the power of God to heal people and drive out demons.  Obviously he never used the power of God to fight back against his scourging or the crucifixion.  He also prophesied what was going to happen.  How else would you explain all that other than the power of God.

See Matthew 9:1-7, specifically verse 4.  How else does he know what they're thinking?  I was looking for another entry, where a woman asks about her husband and Jesus asks which one (she'd been married 3 times), but I can't find it.  However, there are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus reads peoples minds in order to convince them that he is the Son of God.

Otherwise, I see no reason for you to express the point your second paragraph there is making. Are you trying to say that because we can't be perfect in this life, human beings should not bother to seek moral purity?

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that it's unattainable.  We should seek to do good and be good people.  But we also need to understand that we can never be perfect or achieve complete moral purity.  Complete moral purity would be never having an evil or impure thought.  So if you see a woman on the street who is not your wife (or gf or whatever) and you think about her boobs or having sex with her, that is morally impure.  I don't claim to be morally pure either.

Tiptup said:

As for Mother Teresa, yeah (yuck), she was not anywhere near moral purity.

I also don't know where you've read the accounts that you're giving on Mother Teresa.  When I said he probably never reached moral purity, I was simply referring to the fact that no matter how pure one attempts to be, that they can never reach moral purity.

Just as we talk about the 911 attacks, or the death of an actor, or George Lucas destroying Star Wars, there can be good things that come of those actions. As such, I personally believe I should have expressed concern about the Mumbai attacks. I don't know if that's something you should have done, and if you believe that talking about Mumbai on the internet or in real life is worthless for you then that's not for me to judge. I just find it odd you think there was nothing you could have possibly done to have acted a little better and wanted you to clarify if that's what you actually believed (since I'd find that a very interesting insight into how you see yourself).

I did express concern about the Mumbai attacks, I just didn't do it here.  I did it at home with my wife and my mother, to the tune of "Bunch of assholes!"  I saw no reason to discuss it here, just like I see no reason to discuss the myriad of terrorist attacks that take place all over the place everyday.  Just because this one was carried by the mainstream media does not mean it's any more worthy of discussion than any other attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008#December

Why are the Mumbai attacks more worthy of discussion than any of those?  Because more people died?  Are their lives worth more discussion than any of the other lives in any of the other attacks?  Do you see my point now?  Why don't we discuss all of these attacks?  Because we'll have pages and pages of posts that all say the same basic thing "Yeah, these guys are jerks/assholes/dicks".

Tiptup said:

A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?

No.  I believe every "ruler", as you put it, should do everything they can to make sure their citizens have every opportunity for advancement with as little interference as possible.  But since most "rulers" are assholes, they typically want to retain their power at everyone elses expense.

Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?

Why does it have to be either or?  I think people should be able to either work for themselves or work for others in order to get ahead, but I also don't have a problem with people in need seeking charity.  "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.  Teach him to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life".  But again, not everyone is raised the same way, so some people have a harder time than others.  That doesn't mean they deserve charity more than anyone else, it just means they have to work harder to get ahead than other people.

C3PX said:

So yeah, I most certainly think discussing things on the internet can make a difference and increase awareness. BUT, I don't think most of our discussions would make a difference to anyone, it is just mindless speculation and considerations spiced up with a heated argument here and there. I don't think anyone could go into our politics thread, read through all the pages, and come out the other end saying, "you know what, these guys are right, modern liberalism is stupid, I am going to be a libritarian or a conservative from now on." Our methods simple do not promote this sort of a conversion. Had we spent time discussing Mumbaj, it wouldn't have given anyone out there anymore information on the matter, they could easily read yahoo news and get more information than we would provide here, all they would get would be our views and opinions on the matter, which would not be likely to sway their own views regarding the matter.

This.  This is why I saw no point in discussing it.  If you want to send money, there's plenty of places out there to do it.  I'm sure a Google search will turn up something.

Also, since none of the discussions around here are ever simple, someone would have to read through pages and pages of crap to find the real nuggets.  It'd be easier to walk up to someone on the street and ask them what their position on something is then it would be to try to wade through all the posts on here.  And to be perfectly honest, I don't care that much what your guys opinions are on the Mumbai attacks.  I'm not saying they aren't valid opinions, I just have no desire to know what they are.  If I wanted opinions on a subject, I'd post a link to something and ask what everyone thought (just like I did with the liberals not liking Obama story I read).  That is why I didn't bring up Mumbai, that is why I didn't discuss Mumbai.

Some discussions can be helpful.  A discussion on terrorism in general can probably be helpful.  In my mind, a discussion on Mumbai is to specific to be helpful (in this case).  If it were terrorists attacks made by citizens against their own government, that would be a completely different story and that, in my mind, would be worth discussing at great length.

Can't you buy this on DVD now?  I've seen "Classic Christmas" videos in sets at Costco.  If you can find it on DVD, just rip the audio from the disc.

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

You're not the only one.  I'm starting to wonder how we went from talking about how we don't care about what happened in Mumbai (even though I stated that I do care, just don't see a reason to talk about it) to attacks on me and my reactions to those incidents.

Seriously TipTup, what the hell?  I know it would be foolish to drop everything and run to India to help them, which is why I don't do it.  It would be foolish and dangerous.

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

The view of purity you specifically described before this (in the post before your last one) was similar to the kind that tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering). You know this and, as such, running off to India would not be a righteous use of your energy and time (you would be doing what you know to be wrong).

I won't suggest that taking a "vow of poverty" is the ticket into heaven.  Of course it isn't.  I also wouldn't say, as you have, that Mother Theresa was obsessed with death and suffering.  I will say that she lived amongst the poorest of people so she would understand what it was like.  To suggest that a "free market" is going to help some poor individual in South Africa is, to me, a joke.  While a free market would definitely help them, there's nothing wrong with giving up what one has in order to help the less fortunate.  If you've got a TV, you've got more than most people.

I also don't understand why someone like Mother Theresa is given a hard time by you.  She felt that the best way for her to help people living in poverty was to give up what she had, live among them, and do what she could to make their lives better.  She showed the world the kind of poverty that exists.  That is exactly what God calls us to do.  See Luke 21:1-4, Luke 3:11

Real purity is the kind attainable by real people. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a real person and that, as a person, he kept himself perfectly pure. He didn't have some God cheat code that he used to make himself invincible to temptation that ordinary people don't have access to. Jesus faced all the same issues you or I do on a daily basis and yet he kept himself righteous. Biblical Christianity then also teaches that our primary calling and goal in life, as Christians, is to constantly strive to be just as righteous.

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

A man who works hard and helps his family before others is a far more righteous and pure man than one that runs off and ignores his family so he can supposedly help dying people in a far off country. There is wisdom in helping those whom our help will yield the best results within. To act more in accordance with that kind of Godly wisdom is to be more righteous.

I never suggested that I could run off and help others.  In fact, I said that I simply can't do that.  I even said I can't do it because I have other responsibilities.

 

 

lordjedi said:

 

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved. 

 

Seriously, I mean no offense, but, truthfully, what you think my arguments "sound like" half the time is laughable. You could really stand to learn how to read people's posts better before immediately moving on tp open your mouth.

 

You could stand to be more clear in your posts and not ask such leading questions.  We went from talking about the Mumbai terrorists attacks to questioning my view of purity.

Of course doing "everything possible" is not humanly possible. We can't be everywhere and we can't do everything. Humans have to live human lives. As a very imperfect human life, there are always better ways for me to live out my values and reassess my values at every moment. To me I found your response to C3PX as one that was self-righteous and cocky.

Now who's putting words into who's mouth?  You would do well to take your own advice.  My statement was never meant to be either self-righteous or cocky.  I asked a simple question.  What more can be said about this attack that hasn't already been reported?  What more are we suppose to say about terrorists?  Please, feel free to answer these questions.

Again, on the level of an ordinary human life, there are no small ways in which you could have better acted in opposition to evil? There are no better motivations and actions you could plan for yourself that would be better than the ones you're in right now?

No.  Now why don't you give me some examples of how exactly someone in Southern California can act in opposition to evil in the Middle Eastern region of the world?  How am I or anyone else that's on this board suppose to act in opposition to the evil of this world?  I could've joined the army years ago, but I would've been out before the invasion of Iraq.  I vote for the people that I think can act in the best way possible.  My motivation is to have a better world for the time that I'm here in order to keep myself and my family safe (my family would be me, wife, children, and then my parents, brothers, sisters, etc, etc).

Sending money helps. Praying prayers helps. Talking about things helps. The question is what mixture of those good actions and other good actions is most wise from a moral persepctive (and therefore leads to greater righteousness).

How does talking about it on an Internet forum help?  Seriously, explain that to me.  I know that sending money helps.  I know that prayer helps because I've seen it work.  But how does blabbing about it on an Internet forum do anything?  As far as I can tell, it does nothing.  Our elected officials don't read it.  Maybe a passerby sees it from time to time, but for the most part, it's just a bunch of guys talking about it.  It's almost no different than a bunch of guys in a room talking about it.  After they're done talking about it, they go home and nothing changes.  Perhaps someones mind is changed, but beyond that, nothing has really been done.  It all ends up being a bunch of hot air.

Talking about things doesn't help unless the talk allows someone to change.  But if nothing is changed, then no help can come about.  I'm sure most of us read or heard about Mumbai.  If we were going to help, we would've done something.  Coming here and saying "So, what do you guys think about this terrorist attack" doesn't help anyone.  It's a mental exercise, nothing more.

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.

Huh?

Uhh . . . hmm. Your other point that you have a family and can't go to India is definitely interesting.

Do you believe I was advocating that you go to India and help people in the most direct sense possible? Do you believe I think you should help people in India even if it means shirking your familial responsibilities?

Your illogical view of "purity" makes you sound like you come from a Roman Catholic background, lordjedi. :)

I'm pretty sure just about everyone here already knows I'm Catholic from the politics thread.  I don't know how my view of "purity" is illogical either.  Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

Obviously dropping all of my responsibilities to my family would be a stupid thing to do (maybe that's what you were referring to), but from what you said, not doing anything to help the people in India isn't doing enough.  In order to do anything, we all have to make a sacrifice somewhere.  I could send $20 to a charity, but then that's $20 that doesn't go to my family.  I also can't be assured that the people that need it get it if I send money.

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved.  For me, there's just no way I can do everything possible.  My point was that I'm not going to drop everything in my life to fly 10000 miles just to show that I care.  If I were willing to do that, then I'd sell all my possessions and become a missionary.  Instead, I will come out against any and all terrorists attacks.  Beyond that though, there's nothing I can do.  And sitting here behind a monitor and keyboard doesn't help the people in India one bit.

I can send money, I can send prayers.  Sure, I can talk about it, but that doesn't help them, does it?

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Right.  I didn't read about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't care about it.  Why should I waste my time reading about something that I can already guess about?  I heard about a terrorist attack on Mumbai.  Should I go read about it or just assume it's the same terrorists as usual?  Personally, since it's in that region, I'll assume it's the usual.  And it turns out it was.  No point in wasting my time reading that some terrorists were targeting Americans.  Same old same old.  To me, it's nothing new and only serves to continually reinforce the point.  That point is that we weren't being attacked because of our President and his policies.  We were being attacked because of our beliefs.

I would've been shocked if it had been some westerners attacking Muslims.  That would've made me read even more about it.  As it was, it's nothing new.

It's not that I don't care about the people that were attacked.  I absolutely care about them.  What I don't care to hear is the reasoning for attacking them (based on where they were from).  I don't give a shit what reason some damn terrorist gives for attacking these people.  I care about the response and what happened to the people that got attacked.  The response wasn't reported much.  Just the dead and wounded numbers.  I can either continually get pissed every time it happens and go on a rant and rave (kinda like right now) about how the assholes need to be hunted down and killed or I can just not talk about it.  I prefer the later.

So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.  Hell, I don't plan and execute attacks period.  There's plenty of people I disagree with, but I would never wish death on them or try to kill them myself.  I don't believe these actions are in line with daily perfection.  I believe these actions are in line with a civilized society.

Supposedly "caring" in our heart of hearts about rightly apposing terrorism is well and good, but if that caring doesn't really affect our most substantial actions for the better, then what good is it? I think that we don't really, truly care, in the fullest sense possible for human beings, because then our actions would be very different. If we were all actually acting with such purity I think our effect on the world would be much greater, don't you?

I live on the West Coast of the United States.  The easiest thing I could do to "care" for these people would be to send money.  The best thing I could do would be to drop everything in my life, hop on a plane, and go there and help.  I have a wife and son (and one son on the way).  Taking care of them is my first responsibility.  So if I were to do the purest act possible to show that I care for these people, I'd have to leave my family to do it.  There's no other way (outside of sending money) for me to show that I care.  Talking about the incident doesn't show anything other than the ability to discuss the situation.  It doesn't show that I care.  It just shows that I have the ability to watch the evening news and then carry on a conversation about what I saw.

I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.

I'm not even going to suggest that all of my motives and judgments are entirely pure, but nothing about them involves wanting to take the lives of others simply because of their ideals.  What I said was that those muslim terrorists deserve what they get because they are terrorists.  Just like all terrorists deserve what they get.  They aren't fighting for freedom or anything else.  They made this attack on people "from the West" simply because they were "from the West".  What did those people do to them?  Nothing.  Did they deserve to die?  Abosolutely not.  Yet we have one terrorist who was involved with the deaths of many saying "I don't want to die!"  Neither did the people you killed.

negative1 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

skyjedi2005 said:

And you think the prequels were bad or had cringeworthy Dialogue Clone Wars was the worst piece of trash to ever come out of the star wars canon. Skyguy, Stinky and Artooie.

Don't forget "punky muffin".

"overweight glob of grease"

"nearsighted  scrap pile"

"nerf-herder"

"don't send one of your twerps"

"walking carpet"

"old fossil"

"hunk of junk"

"sorceror's ways"

"hokey religions"

"fuzzball"

"flea-bitten furball"

"laser brain"

"bantha fodder"

 

give me a break... they're all just as bad if not worse..

later

-1

 

Dude, are you serious?  To me, all those lines made perfect sense.

But "skyguy"?  What the hell?  My reason for not liking that is that she is his Padawan and he is the Master/Teacher.  She's not showing any respect to her teacher by shortening his name.  Therefore, she deserves no respect back.

negative1 said:

thought exercise :

==================================================

[premise]

star wars trilogy ends in 1983...

 

no movies/books/comics/tv shows/games : NOTHING COMES OUT that

is related to any kind of star wars media , when 'return of the jedi' ends..

 

NO NEW VIDEO TAPES/ NO LASERDISCS / NO DVD'S/NO BLURAY

 

no plans to EVER show it again/RELEASE IT AGAIN/re-release it IN ANY FORMAT EVER.. (and no, no one can release anything

related to it either)..

 

yeah fine, you can keep everything released up until that point..books,

comics etc..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

would this board exist?

(maybe)

This board exists to get the OT on DVD (no, I do not count the 04 or 06 releases).  If none of those things ever happened, I think Lucas would've release the OT on DVD as a proper release a long time ago.  So no, this board probably wouldn't exist.

 

would you even care about star wars anymore?

(possibly)

Absolutely!  I watched Star Wars every day until I was 13.  Then I was watching it once a week until I was 25.  Then I was watching it several times a month.  I love Star Wars.  I'd still be watching it at parties if it didn't get comments like "These ones were great, but those new movies totally sucked.  When are they going to do the prequels anyway?"

 

would you even bother complaining about the original trilogy?

I didn't and still don't complain about it.  The little inconsistencies it has are nothing compared to the crap that is the PT.  I see things like the matte lines as neat little things to notice, but I don't complain about them.  If they got rid of all those things and completely remastered the movies, I'd be in hog heaven.

basically re-read the threads about ANH:R and ESB:R ,

because that's all there would be to talk about, and you

eliminate half of that because the SE and PT wouldn't exist..

And why would that be a problem?  Hell, just look at what I typed out about Vader/Obi-Wan/Luke and Force sensitivity.  That was four paragraphs that covered a minute or so of film in one movie.

 

yeah, there's 'star wars' boards out there THAT ONLY TALK ABOUT
the ORIGINAL TRILOGY, and dont' care about the SE/PT/Clone wars,

(like my preservation one)... but guess what?

 

not a whole heck of a lot goes on there? (mine's on hiatus until next year)..

And?  That's just because of a lack of participation.  I use to be in a Yahoo group that was dedicated to Star Wars.  I left it because the people that were on it were total morons.  Always asking about shit that was years out of date and could easily be answered by a quick Google search.  There was nothing exciting about the conversation, so I left.

pretty exciting , right? yeah, i thought so.....

Actually, from my perspective, it would be very exciting.  Fans would still be writing Fan Fiction and people would still be making Fan Films.  None of that would end.  People just wouldn't have any knowledge about the prequels, so we'd be able to speculate on how things got to where they are instead of having the crappy story we have now.

face it, without any new star wars material... you'd be

======================================

1) bored out of your minds

Sorry, never been bored watching Star Wars or reading any of the classic books.  Never been bored with any of the fan fiction prior to the prequels either.

2) watching your same videos over again for the 100th time

100th?  You're weak man.  I watched my videos thousands of times.  Since it would likely be on DVD now, I'd be watching that all the time.

3) fantasizing about new some new stars that would NEVER come out...

It doesn't have to come out.  We could speculate all day on where the story could go and never run out of ideas.  That's the beauty of an imagination and a good story to start with.

yeah, that's why i like living in the past so much, because i don't have to

face reality, and the present.......... and be stuck there with the bunch of

you that wish it were true..

Reality?  Dude, it's a series of movies, some books and comics.  There's nothing real about it.

If it bothers you so much to read everything we talk about, why do you keep coming back?

Monroville said:

Uhh, Darth was over Tatooine in the beginning of the movie!  Even if he couldn't force sense either Luke nor Obi-Wan due to distance (maybe his long distance Force bill wasn't paid yet or he didn't have any "bars"), he WAS able to force sense Obi on the Death Star (being that he was on the MF just a few yards away).  Granted, he may not have recognized it until later, but if he could pick up Obi he could pick up Luke, especially since EMPIRE and JEDI amped the Force sense thing to 100,000 mile+ distances!

Uh, I never saw it like that at all.  I saw it as if you know about someone, you can sense their presence in the Force.  Since Vader didn't know about his kids, he'd never be able to sense them as individuals, just a couple of lifeforms.  It's similar to how Obi-Wan felt the sudden disturbance that was Alderaan getting blown to smithereens and killing all the people (it was probably more the people he felt being killed than the planet being destroyed).  He likely felt the sudden death of all those people, but not necessarily anyone in particular unless he knew them.

As far as sensing Obi-Wan, he didn't sense him specifically.  He sensed a presence.  A strong Force presence.  It's quite possible that between the presence of his son (even though he didn't know it was his son) and the presence of Obi-Wan, he sensed something strange.  It was similar to Obi-Wan, but not quite right.  Obviously once he (Vader) found out about Leia's escape, that was confirmation enough that Obi-Wan was there.  And if we assume that Luke wasn't Vader's son during ANH, then it's obvious that Vader simply felt Obi-Wan, but didn't remember it.  It had been 20 years since he'd seen his Master, so there's no reason to believe he might forget what his Master's presence felt like.

Once Luke destroyed the Death Star and his name became well known, Vader was then able to reach out with the Force and sense his presence.  He could've felt Leia's presence as well, but there was no need.  In Jedi, Vader only found out about Leia because Luke wasn't able to bury his thoughts deep enough.

So no, I don't see distance as a factor at all.  Vader, I'm sure, could probably sense Obi-Wan if he wanted to.  There was no need to though.  Obi-Wan, at least as far as Vader was concerned, wasn't a threat anymore even if he was still alive.  As for Yoda, according to some of the EU, he was on a planet with a heavy Dark Side presence, which masked his visibility in the Force.  But even if he weren't, why worry about some ancient Jedi Master that's hiding?  Vader's only concern, once he found out about Luke, was in making sure Luke didn't become a trained Jedi.  That's what brought down the Empire anyway.

greedo said:

why didn't the death star just blow up yavin and wipe out the moon in the process?

Because that would've been very undramatic and would've ended the movie and story very quickly.

sean wookie said:

In response to the original topic at hand:

Young people are kind of stupid and say stupid shit and do stupid things. You were probably stupid when you were young too.

Yeah, but like C3PX said, we weren't crazy.  I didn't have a fascination with death.  The stupidest things I did were driving a little crazy (nowhere anyone could be harmed) and getting drunk every weekend.  Of course, the Internet was just starting to explode at the time too (1993-96).  Google Images and YouTube didn't exist yet.  Still, I can't imagine actually seeking out pictures and video of death.  It's usually sent to me by people because it's so shocking.