Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
Damon Agretto wrote: Heh, again I would pick the Zentraedi Nupetiet-vernitz from Macross. The Heavy P-beam cannon would do the job. And if that didn't do it, then the hundreds (possibly thousands) of Regults and fighters will do it... Damon. Hey! I was going to mention SDF-1, or rather, whatever SDF-1 was before it crashed on Earth and started the Robotech series. And why hasn't anyone mentioned the Death Star (with the exhaust port designed and shielded properly). In all honesty, there's so much we don't know about the conditions of space combat and the capabilities of the opposing force that much of this discussion is meaningless. Also, many of these comparisons are between universes with different physics. For example, Star Trek space combat (borrowing from 19th cent. naval tradition) doesn't involve small fighter craft at all, while Star Wars space combat (borrowing from 20th cent. naval tradition) is almost all about fighter craft. We don't know if shields are even possible, what kinds of weapons are available (and what speeds do they travel at, by the way?). What speeds the ships are capable of, and so on. For all we know, the most effective weapon could be the wake from a bussard ramship... -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
David Hobby wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: David Hobby wrote: Comparing starships from different universes is difficult, to say the least. I think it's impossible. Take the most powerful ship, and it loses to Heinlein's Gay Deceiver, who can jump back to a time _before_ the construction of that other ship and blast its factory out of existence. Alberto Monteiro It depends what model of time travel you are using. I like a multiple worlds interpretation, since there are no paradoxes in it. Heinlein's ship goes back, destroys the other ship's factory, and goes forward again. Now it is on a line without the other ship. But from the other ship's point of view, Heinlein's ship goes back and never returns (i.e. disappears). That sounds like a draw, at best. ---David If we involve time travel and other near-infinite improbabilities, why not count the Heart of Gold? Not only could it reduce any opposing ship to never-existence, it can also shape the universe into whatever form you desire. -- Matt ...who wonders whether the monkeys' script revisions for Hamlet were any good... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Edge of the Galaxy
If we travel through this extra cosmic arm in the Milky Way that they believe wraps around the outskirts of the vast galaxy like a thick gas border will we become superhuman like Gary Lockwood and Sally Kellerman in Where No Man Has Gone Before? Kewel! ;) Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Edge of the Galaxy
At 06:08 AM 12/19/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we travel through this extra cosmic arm in the Milky Way that they believe wraps around the outskirts of the vast galaxy like a thick gas border will we become superhuman like Gary Lockwood and Sally Kellerman in Where No Man Has Gone Before? And just as dead . . . ;-P I Thought Of Using The Great Barrier As A Subject Line Maru - Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Edge of the Galaxy
In a message dated 12/19/2003 5:38:09 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I Thought Of Using The Great Barrier As A Subject Line Maru - Ronn! :) Some people would then say you were on a reefer. Vilyehm Teighlore ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun. Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:59:46 -0800 And why hasn't anyone mentioned the Death Star (with the exhaust port designed and shielded properly). Haha!!! That's priceless! (All laughing aside though, I wouldn't want it) In all honesty, there's so much we don't know about the conditions of space combat and the capabilities of the opposing force that much of this discussion is meaningless. Also, many of these comparisons are between universes with different physics. True enough. However the whole point is to create scenarios like what we're doing. Simply pretend that we have a magical simulator that can simulate ANYTHING we want. It's so magical that it can blend the physics of different Universes, thus negating that problem in and of itself. For example, Star Trek space combat (borrowing from 19th cent. naval tradition) doesn't involve small fighter craft at all Runabouts, Maquee Raiders, shuttlecraft... Star Wars space combat (borrowing from 20th cent. naval tradition) is almost all about fighter craft. A runabout would flatten as many TIE-fighters as you could possibly send; alternate Universe physics problems or not. We don't know if shields are even possible, what kinds of weapons are available (and what speeds do they travel at, by the way?). What speeds the ships are capable of, and so on. -- Matt Just go on the capabilities of that ship within it's own Universe, and apply it to our simulation. Some ships would quite simply have no chance against others. Star Trek Universe starships would take most anything we could throw at them based on what they can do within that Universe. If it's tough it's tough. -Travis A rose by any other name would smell as sweet _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: ROTK: my mini review
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryon Daly Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 04:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ROTK: my mini review - I heard a rumor that the version of ROTK originally submitted to the MPAA was 4:40 long. That suggests a *lot* of stuff was filmed, but cut for time. Hopefully it will all show up in the extended edition. *swoon* - If you enjoyed Legolas' acrobatics in the last two films, he has a very cool scene in this one, less silly than the sliding-down-the-stairs-on-a-shield one at Helm's Deep. Overall, though, there seems to be less screen time for Legolas, and for Gimli as well. Color me *very* disappointed in the Legolas effects. My only two gripes about the quality of the CG work is the Legolas on the back of the Cave Troll and Legolas on the back of the Oliphant. Dreadful. ...and why is Legolas presented as the Badder-ass of the Legolas-Gimli pair? Only complaint :) - I just got a chill recalling the beacon-lighting scene. The cinematography is simply amazing. Me too! ..although I had a moment of, Hey.. how did those guys get up there? ;) --- Possible spoliers below: - The House of Healing scene(s) was cut, but was filmed and PJ has stated it also would be on the EE. Its been so long since I read RotK that I didn't even notice. - The Paths of the Dead are still in it, but changed a fair bit. The changes are somewhat for the worse, but not in a way that significantly changes the eventual outcome. Have you heard if they filmed the AotD capturing the ships? - Gandalf's stand-off with the Witch-King at the gate of Minas Tirith is (inexplicably) cut out. My friend says he actually saw the scene in one of the previews, so it was filmed and will most likely show up in the EE. What about the shot in the previews of Merry pledging fealty to Theodin? Any word if that's lost? - We get to see the whole Smeagol/Deagol ring-finding scene, with Andy Serkis (who does Gollum's voice) playing the pre-gollum Smeagol. Very cool. Very, VERY cool :) Maybe /now/ he'll qualify for the Oscar :D - Possibly my biggest gripe is that in the Battle at the Black Gate, the forces Aragorn brings are rather skimpy, to say the least. In the book, it was a much larger, more credible, army. *nod* I think they shrunk the visual size of it to emphasize the hopelessness of their position, and how they were launching a hopeless attack only to buy time for a hopeless cause.. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
Matt Grimaldi wrote: ... It depends what model of time travel you are using. I like a multiple worlds interpretation, since there are no paradoxes in it. Heinlein's ship goes back, destroys the other ship's factory, and goes forward again. Now it is on a line without the other ship. But from the other ship's point of view, Heinlein's ship goes back and never returns (i.e. disappears). That sounds like a draw, at best. ---David If we involve time travel and other near-infinite improbabilities, why not count the Heart of Gold? Not only could it reduce any opposing ship to never-existence, it can also shape the universe into whatever form you desire. -- Matt Not sure what book it's from. I still say that changing the universe should count as a draw. In a multiple worlds interpretation, it's really no better than running away. The only winner is the one that stays and fights! ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
Matt Grimaldi wrote: ... For example, Star Trek space combat (borrowing from 19th cent. naval tradition) doesn't involve small fighter craft at all, while Star Wars space combat (borrowing from 20th cent. naval tradition) is almost all about fighter craft. We don't know if shields are even possible, what kinds of weapons are available (and what speeds do they travel at, by the way?). What speeds the ships are capable of, and so on. For all we know, the most effective weapon could be the wake from a bussard ramship... -- Matt If shields are even possible? Don't tell me that you want to only allow starships that use what is accepted as real physics! If so, you might even have to give up your ramships... I can certainly design a good warship under those constraints, but I can't recall any stories that have such ships. (Help?) My guess is that the fairest thing is to get a good sample of stories, and allow any physics that occurs in more than half of them. (With obvious translations, so ansible = subspace radio = backchannel communicator, and so on.) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
Travis Edmunds wrote: True enough. However the whole point is to create scenarios like what we're doing. Simply pretend that we have a magical simulator that can simulate ANYTHING we want. It's so magical that it can blend the physics of different Universes, thus negating that problem in and of itself. That's the point of Heinlein's _The Number of the Beast_ and its sequels: the Gay Deceiver is not only a time-travelling and a multiverse-crossing machine, but it also moves in and _out_ of Universes with different physical laws, like the Land of Oz, Pellucidar, Lilliput and the world of Arthur's Round Table. Just go on the capabilities of that ship within it's own Universe, and apply it to our simulation. Some ships would quite simply have no chance against others. Star Trek Universe starships would take most anything we could throw at them based on what they can do within that Universe. If it's tough it's tough. The Star Trek ships can't even block attacks by other things from the Star Trek Universe! They would be easily blasted by anything. Ok, maybe we should do this _in a serious way_. Let's take the rules of any RPG, and try to project our favorite races and ships into that RPG. Then it would be easily to simulate the battles. What about using GURPS? They already have ready sets for many of those different universes - including those with Time Travel. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
On 20 Dec 2003, at 12:25 am, David Hobby wrote:
If shields are even possible? Don't tell me that
you want to only allow starships that use what is accepted
as real physics! If so, you might even have to give up your
ramships...
I can certainly design a good warship under those
constraints, but I can't recall any stories that have such
ships. (Help?)
My guess is that the fairest thing is to get a good
sample of stories, and allow any physics that occurs in more
than half of them. (With obvious translations, so ansible =
subspace radio = backchannel communicator, and so on.)
Given the progression in E E 'Doc' Smith's _Skylark_ series something
around Skylark X would be a multiverse smasher :)
And that series started in 1915 :)
{And then he wrote the Lensman series...}
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: ROTK: my mini review
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Color me *very* disappointed in the Legolas effects. My only two gripes about the quality of the CG work is the Legolas on the back of the Cave Troll and Legolas on the back of the Oliphant. Dreadful. Hmm. I liked the Oliphant scene a lot; the CG ldidn't strike me as CG at all. ...and why is Legolas presented as the Badder-ass of the Legolas-Gimli pair? Yeah. I wish Gimli had been shown to be more bad-ass as well. I just read an interview with John Rhys-Davies, and he was asked about Gimli's lack of bad-ass-ness. He basically replied that in 10+ hours of action/drama/adventure, some comic relief is needed, and Gimli seemed to be the natural choice to provide some of it. - I just got a chill recalling the beacon-lighting scene. The cinematography is simply amazing. Me too! ..although I had a moment of, Hey.. how did those guys get up there? ;) Doh! Now I'm going to wonder that too next time I see it. Thanks a lot! :-) - The Paths of the Dead are still in it, but changed a fair bit. The changes are somewhat for the worse, but not in a way that significantly changes the eventual outcome. Have you heard if they filmed the AotD capturing the ships? No, haven't heard, but I'm guessing that since the arrival of the dead at the Pelennor seemed angled to surprise the audience, I'm guessing they didn't film the capture of the ships. - Gandalf's stand-off with the Witch-King at the gate of Minas Tirith is (inexplicably) cut out. My friend says he actually saw the scene in one of the previews, so it was filmed and will most likely show up in the EE. What about the shot in the previews of Merry pledging fealty to Theodin? Any word if that's lost? Don't know. I'm wondering that myself. And I'm really hoping that since there isn't going to be a LOTR film next year to help promote, they won't make us wait 11 months to put out the extended ed. - We get to see the whole Smeagol/Deagol ring-finding scene, with Andy Serkis (who does Gollum's voice) playing the pre-gollum Smeagol. Very cool. Very, VERY cool :) Maybe /now/ he'll qualify for the Oscar :D I was thinking the same thing! - Possibly my biggest gripe is that in the Battle at the Black Gate, the forces Aragorn brings are rather skimpy, to say the least. In the book, it was a much larger, more credible, army. *nod* I think they shrunk the visual size of it to emphasize the hopelessness of their position, and how they were launching a hopeless attack only to buy time for a hopeless cause.. Yeah, that's what the guys I saw it with suggested as well; so instead of being outnumbered maybe 10-1 or 100-1 as in the books, the movie has it 1000-1. Fair enough, I guess, but I had kinda been expecting another major battle scene, so it was a bit of a letdown. Especially with the Voice of Sauron scene cut as well. (My movie-buff friend assured me later this was also filmed from what he's heard). _ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: ROTK: my mini review
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] A few additional thoughts: Denethor was pitch perfect. I thought he was portrayed a being *too* useless and psycho. I read a funny comment from someone saying that Denethor ought to get a lawyer because he'd been libeled. Oliphants rule. Yep. I thought they were great. Andy Sirkis is *not* a handsome man. Well, they probably wouldn't pick Ben Affleck as someone to model Gollum's face after! _ Get dial-up Internet access now with our best offer: 6 months @$9.95/month! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ROTK: my mini review
In a message dated 12/19/2003 9:30:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (et al) Me too! ..although I had a moment of, Hey.. how did those guys get up there? ;) Doh! Now I'm going to wonder that too next time I see it. Thanks a lot! :-) One mountain top clearly shows a stair to thwe lower right of the pyre. Not all the way up to it though. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
