In article <ad97k1F2sq...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote > > Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote
> >> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, > >> hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with > >> caffeine pills,
> > Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
> Not with kids with ADD they aren't.
Actually, yes, they are. One of the common "Verify the ADD/ADHD diagnosis" methods is to tell the parents to feed the kid a good strong cuppa joe periodically and observe the kid's behavior. If the kid "un-wires", write that 'scrip for Ritalin/Adderall!
Citation/Authority: I was one of those kids. I lived it.
Up until sometime around puberty (If the actual transition point has been nailed down closer than that, I don't know about it) Caffiene, Ritalin, and Adderall all act like downers in ADD/ADHD kids. Sometime around puberty, they stop being effective that way, and begin to act like exactly what they are: Speed.
> > Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote > > > Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote
> > >> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted, > > >> hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with > > >> caffeine pills,
> > > Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
> > Not with kids with ADD they aren't.
> Actually, yes, they are. One of the common "Verify the ADD/ADHD > diagnosis" methods is to tell the parents to feed the kid a good strong > cuppa joe periodically and observe the kid's behavior. If the kid > "un-wires", write that 'scrip for Ritalin/Adderall!
Why not just keep giving him the coffee?
-- "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
> On 10/5/12 9:49 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 10/5/2012 1:59 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <YourName-0610120941110...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> >> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any good in it's own
> >>> right isn't really relevant ... the problem is they aren't actually
> >>> "Star
> >>> Trek", and never will be. The fact that people have to call them "reboot
> >>> Trek", "new Trek", "Abrams' Trek", etc. proves that point. If they
> >>> wanted
> >>> to make a new franchise, they should have made a NEW franchise, rather
> >>> than trying to hitch a ride on (and butcher) someone else's hard work.
> >>> :-(
> >> Right because all that other hard work is now gone forever..
> >> Oh wait -- every bit of it is available on video. I guess it wasn't
> >> butchered after all.
> > Except that now we have these horrible images and experiences forever
> > associated with formerly well loved shows.
> Only horrible to some of you. Lovely for some of us.
> And it's your own problem if you can't dissociate stuff you don't like > from stuff you do. I don't find my experience of viewing "Star Wars" > diminished by the fact that Lucas produced the Prequels. I don't have to > accept them and I certainly don't have to let them affect my enjoyment > of the original.
I bet you think the original is "Episode 4 A New Hope" :P
-- "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
> In article <M0ubs.71$vv4...@newsfe02.iad>,
> Michael Bowker <mi...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2012 8:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2012 6:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <k4kqum$j4...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/12 4:54 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>> In article <k4jobb$li...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/3/12 11:20 PM, Moriarty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 1:02 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>>>>>>> Of course, it [Star Trek] turned out to be Not Quite Dead, but he
>>>>>>>>> couldn't have predicted what was going to happen. No one could.
>>>>>>>> OTOH Freiberger couldn't have done worse than whichever clown made
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> last few series of Voyager.
>>>>>>> "Last few"? Voyager was painfully stupid from the get-go. The worst of
>>>>>>> the NewTreks by a long shot
>>>>>> Not even close. That "award" is easily won by "Enterprise" (although
>>>>>> technically it's not really "Star Trek" at all) and JJ Abrams
>>>>>> ridiculous
>>>>>> movies (which are at best a new sub-franchise).
>>>>> Gods, no. The new movie kicked ass, and I look forward to the next.
>>>> It's utter crap as a "Star Trek" movie - it ignores all the established
>>>> facts in everything that came before it, just like "Enterprise" did.
>>> For Abrams, that was the point of it. He can't even remember the plots
>>> and history of the shows he actually has an active role in making. You
>>> expect him to even scratch the surface of something that has built up a
>>> whole universe over the course of 30-40 years? He HAD to change
>>> everything about it just so it could smell like _his_ piss.
>> That's the most accurate description I've ever read of the new ST,
>> Abrams piss. Yep that covers it nicely.
> Would you want to watch one of his shows or drink Budweiser? Budweiser
> comes from the noble horse, at least.
> On 10/5/12 9:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k4nrvi$q4...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/5/12 5:49 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>> In article <k4nhl5$q3...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> It's not butchery, it's a respectful and brilliant reimagining.
> >>> Oh, come on, now you're just trolling. You may like it, and that's
> >>> fine, but it's the exact opposite of respectful, and it's not remotely
> >>> brilliant.
> >> I disagree. There were many moments in there where I looked at
> >> something and said "holy CRAP I can't believe they got that so very
> >> right". Even down to details of the way the characters behaved -- body
> >> language and all.
> >> You apparently can't believe someone would see it that way; I'm equally
> >> surprised... well, no not SURPRISED since I knew that there would be a
> >> division of Old Fans that would react this way, but perhaps disappointed
> >> that other people seem to be reacting the opposite way.
> > The entire set up was designed to disrespect the original; that's why
> > the reboot, so the lazy and incompetent Orci wouldn't have to do any
> > homework.
> I, obviously, disagree pretty much entirely, and what I've heard from > interviews with the cast and crew supports my view.
LOL, yeah, because Orci is going to admit he's a lazy incompetent hack, and the people being paid to be in and promote the movie are going to admit they're doing crap for dollars.
-- "Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote
>>>> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline >>>> addicted, hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin >>>> got replaced with caffeine pills,
>>> Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
>> Not with kids with ADD they aren't.
> Posted almost 10 hours after it was refuted by someone with
> firsthand experience.
He didn't REFUTE anything, just CLAIMED that, a different matter entirely.
You don't in fact see doctors tell those with kids with ADD use
caffeine instead of the much more expensive ritalin, for a reason.
> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net>
>>> Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects. >> Really? Damn. Then why don't they just prescribe caffeine for ADD? > Because you can't charge as much as you can for ritalin,
> since caffiene is nigh-ubiquitous and cheap as dirt? Maybe?
Have fun listing the randomised double blind trials that show its anything like as effective as caffeine.
> Well... and also google sez caffiene is a bit more prone > to tolerance issues, reducing its effectiveness over long-term > use. May also have a shorter half-life in the body?
And google has heaps of shit on all sorts of quack crap which proves absolutely nothing about the science.
> ANYnow, google also sez there is a relatively large > number of ADHD sufferers who self-medicate with > caffeine for themselves and/or their children.
There's even more that use all sorts of crap like vitamins and diet etc too.
> I didn't browse enough to get quantitative with the
> "relatively large number" bit, but apparently it *is* done... and
> since you don't need a prescription, people do it off-book.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote
>>>> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
>>>> hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
>>>> caffeine pills,
>>> Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
>> Not with kids with ADD they aren't.
> Actually, yes, they are.
Actually, they aren't, particularly with the side effects.
> One of the common "Verify the ADD/ADHD diagnosis"
> methods is to tell the parents to feed the kid a good
> strong cuppa joe periodically and observe the kid's behavior.
> If the kid "un-wires", write that 'scrip for Ritalin/Adderall!
Makes a lot more sense to try the ritalin etc instead.
And that doesn t show they actually have VERY SIMILAR EFFECTS either.
> Citation/Authority: I was one of those kids. I lived it.
The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> Up until sometime around puberty (If the actual transition point has
> been nailed down closer than that, I don't know about it) Caffiene,
> Ritalin, and Adderall all act like downers in ADD/ADHD kids.
> Sometime around puberty, they stop being effective that
> way, and begin to act like exactly what they are: Speed.
> In article <k4o6ab$9h...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 9:49 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2012 1:59 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> In article <YourName-0610120941110...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>>>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any good in it's own
>>>>> right isn't really relevant ... the problem is they aren't actually
>>>>> "Star
>>>>> Trek", and never will be. The fact that people have to call them "reboot
>>>>> Trek", "new Trek", "Abrams' Trek", etc. proves that point. If they
>>>>> wanted
>>>>> to make a new franchise, they should have made a NEW franchise, rather
>>>>> than trying to hitch a ride on (and butcher) someone else's hard work.
>>>>> :-(
>>>> Right because all that other hard work is now gone forever..
>>>> Oh wait -- every bit of it is available on video. I guess it wasn't
>>>> butchered after all.
>>> Except that now we have these horrible images and experiences forever
>>> associated with formerly well loved shows.
>> Only horrible to some of you. Lovely for some of us.
>> And it's your own problem if you can't dissociate stuff you don't like
>> from stuff you do. I don't find my experience of viewing "Star Wars"
>> diminished by the fact that Lucas produced the Prequels. I don't have to
>> accept them and I certainly don't have to let them affect my enjoyment
>> of the original.
> I bet you think the original is "Episode 4 A New Hope" :P
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/12 9:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k4nrvi$q4...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/5/12 5:49 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>> In article <k4nhl5$q3...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> It's not butchery, it's a respectful and brilliant reimagining.
> >>> Oh, come on, now you're just trolling. You may like it, and that's
> >>> fine, but it's the exact opposite of respectful, and it's not remotely
> >>> brilliant.
> >> I disagree. There were many moments in there where I looked at
> >> something and said "holy CRAP I can't believe they got that so very
> >> right". Even down to details of the way the characters behaved -- body
> >> language and all.
> >> You apparently can't believe someone would see it that way; I'm equally
> >> surprised... well, no not SURPRISED since I knew that there would be a
> >> division of Old Fans that would react this way, but perhaps disappointed
> >> that other people seem to be reacting the opposite way.
> > The entire set up was designed to disrespect the original; that's why
> > the reboot, so the lazy and incompetent Orci wouldn't have to do any
> > homework.
> I, obviously, disagree pretty much entirely, and what I've heard from > interviews with the cast and crew supports my view.
Gee, I wonder why that would be?!? Oh, wait, they "might" want to keep
being paid for the sequels. :-\
> In article <506f8dcf$0$71214$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> On 10/5/12 5:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any
>>>> good in it's own right isn't really relevant ... the
>>>> problem is they aren't actually "Star Trek", and never
>>>> will be.
>>> But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
>>> reimagining
>> *BZZZZ* That right there makes it "Not Trek".
> Some people will simply never understand it, even when the
> people making it are telling them it's different they
> still blindly believe that it says "X" on the tin, so it
> must have "X" inside the tin. :-\
And some people apparently think that anyone whose opinion
differs from theirs is stupid. I've no dog in this fight --
I don't have TV, and I've not seen any of the ST movies --
but you're making yourself look ridiculous as well as
oafish.
> In article <506f8dcf$0$71214$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> On 10/5/12 5:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any
>>>> good in it's own right isn't really relevant ... the
>>>> problem is they aren't actually "Star Trek", and never
>>>> will be.
>>> But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
>>> reimagining
>> *BZZZZ* That right there makes it "Not Trek".
> Some people will simply never understand it, even when the
> people making it are telling them it's different they
> still blindly believe that it says "X" on the tin, so it
> must have "X" inside the tin. :-\
And some people apparently think that anyone whose opinion
differs from theirs is stupid. I've no dog in this fight --
I don't have TV, and I've not seen any of the ST movies --
but you're making yourself look ridiculous as well as
oafish.
========================================
Well genius...if you can take a minute off from your superior dance...aren't you doing the very same thing?
Opinions are the same as assholes...we all have one. Thanks for the input.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/12 11:18 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k4o6ab$9h...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/5/12 9:49 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>> On 10/5/2012 1:59 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >>>> In article <YourName-0610120941110...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> >>>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any good in it's own
> >>>>> right isn't really relevant ... the problem is they aren't actually
> >>>>> "Star
> >>>>> Trek", and never will be. The fact that people have to call them "reboot
> >>>>> Trek", "new Trek", "Abrams' Trek", etc. proves that point. If they
> >>>>> wanted
> >>>>> to make a new franchise, they should have made a NEW franchise, rather
> >>>>> than trying to hitch a ride on (and butcher) someone else's hard work.
> >>>>> :-(
> >>>> Right because all that other hard work is now gone forever..
> >>>> Oh wait -- every bit of it is available on video. I guess it wasn't
> >>>> butchered after all.
> >>> Except that now we have these horrible images and experiences forever
> >>> associated with formerly well loved shows.
> >> Only horrible to some of you. Lovely for some of us.
> >> And it's your own problem if you can't dissociate stuff you don't like
> >> from stuff you do. I don't find my experience of viewing "Star Wars"
> >> diminished by the fact that Lucas produced the Prequels. I don't have to
> >> accept them and I certainly don't have to let them affect my enjoyment
> >> of the original.
> > I bet you think the original is "Episode 4 A New Hope" :P
> The original is "Star Wars".
Actually the ORIGINAL is "The Star Wars", or go further back to "The
Adventures of Luke Starkiller" or "The Journal of the Whills". ;-)
Of course, originally it was a semi-remake of Akira Kurosawa's "The Hidden
Fortress", but unlike modern day hacks in Hollweird it wasn't actually
called "The Hidden Fortress" because George Lucas had enough brains to
know he was making something different. :-p
:::: Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
:: I didn't browse enough to get quantitative with the "relatively large
:: number" bit, but apparently it *is* done... and since you don't need
:: a prescription, people do [use caffiend to treat ADHD] off-book.
: "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>
: Just as true of all sorts of 'alternative' shit.
You've made up your mind, so facts won't sway you.
And you've decided to take a caricatured, strict interpretation of
"similar", essentially insisting that it be nigh identical.
But the fact remains, caffiene does relieve some ADHD symptoms, both in
studies in humans and in animal models of ADHD, and there are papers to
that effect that anybody can find. And, of course, if you're Rod Speed,
sneer at. Since they disagree with his prejudices.
>On 10/5/12 5:49 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <k4nhl5$q3...@dont-email.me>,
>>> It's not butchery, it's a respectful and brilliant reimagining.
>> Oh, come on, now you're just trolling. You may like it, and that's
>> fine, but it's the exact opposite of respectful, and it's not remotely
>> brilliant.
> I disagree. There were many moments in there where I looked at >something and said "holy CRAP I can't believe they got that so very >right". Even down to details of the way the characters behaved -- body >language and all.
> You apparently can't believe someone would see it that way; I'm equally >surprised... well, no not SURPRISED since I knew that there would be a >division of Old Fans that would react this way, but perhaps disappointed >that other people seem to be reacting the opposite way.
When the start of the movie had Trek-*noises*, I dropped my scepticism..
-- ------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
b.sc...@csuohio.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:29:14 +1200, Your Name
> <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote in
> <news:YourName-0610121529140001@203-118-187-24.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>
> in rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.tv:
> > In article <506f8dcf$0$71214$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> > Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>> On 10/5/12 5:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any
> >>>> good in it's own right isn't really relevant ... the
> >>>> problem is they aren't actually "Star Trek", and never
> >>>> will be.
> >>> But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
> >>> reimagining
> >> *BZZZZ* That right there makes it "Not Trek".
> > Some people will simply never understand it, even when the
> > people making it are telling them it's different they
> > still blindly believe that it says "X" on the tin, so it
> > must have "X" inside the tin. :-\
> And some people apparently think that anyone whose opinion
> differs from theirs is stupid. I've no dog in this fight --
> I don't have TV, and I've not seen any of the ST movies --
> but you're making yourself look ridiculous as well as
> oafish.
It's not an "opinion".
It's a FACT, a fact that even the people making them admit: the "new"
versions are DIFFERENT shows / movies.
It's also a FACT that names are used to diferentiate different things, so
the simple and sensible reality is that a new version which IS different
should have a new name to differentiate it (and no, the unofficial
"Abrams' Star Trek" or similar doesn't count). Otherwise we may as well go
around Smurf-like and use one word for absolutely everything: "Wibble"
perhaps. :-\
> :::: Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
> :: I didn't browse enough to get quantitative with the "relatively large
> :: number" bit, but apparently it *is* done... and since you don't need
> :: a prescription, people do [use caffiend to treat ADHD] off-book.
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com>
> : Just as true of all sorts of 'alternative' shit.
> You've made up your mind, so facts won't sway you.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> And you've decided to take a caricatured, strict interpretation
> of "similar", essentially insisting that it be nigh identical.
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> But the fact remains,
You wouldn t know what a real fact was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> caffiene does relieve some ADHD symptoms,
Nothing even remotely like the original stupid claim.
> both in studies in humans and in animal models of ADHD,
> and there are papers to that effect that anybody can find.
Pity that s nothing even remotely like the original stupid claim.
<reams of your puerile silly shit flushed where it belongs>
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <k4mhiu$68...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>On 10/5/12 1:24 AM, angela wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:20:45 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>>> In article <k4lm83$u7...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Now you're just making stuff up ... every self-respecting Star Wars fan
>>>>>>>> KNOWS there was no such thing as a "Holiday Special". ;-)
>>>>>>> Those of us unfortunate enough to live in THIS universe have, alas,
>>>>>>> seen it. Especially those of us young and innocent enough to have
>>>>>>> assumed in those days that anything Star Wars would HAVE to be great, so
>>>>>>> we watched it. God have mercy on our souls.
>>>>>> Unfortuantely I've seen it too (even worse, I still have a copy on my
>>>>>> computer!). I try hard to forget it, almost do so, but then some fool goes
>>>>>> and reminds me. ;-)
>>>>> Others remind me of the pain, and I must share it. I at least don't
>>>>> have a copy of it, and refuse to have one.
>>>>> "This review may make it sound like it's so bad it's good, and maybe in
>>>>> some ways it is, but in most other ways it's like putting live hornets
>>>>> up your ass."
>>>> I only keep it for completist sake ... I've only ever watched it once and
>>>> that was far too often. :-(
>>> I've never seen it and rarely even heard it mentioned.
>>> What was so terrible about it, exactly?
>> Pretty much EVERYTHING. This was a bad variety show version of Star >>Wars, in an era when bad variety shows were already starting to die >>because, well, it was known this was a bad idea. It was filmed during >>the stars' lowest points (Carrie Fischer was using recreational >>substances, Mark Hamill had just started recovering from his horrid car >>accident), it was written for a kiddie audience (badly) while trying to >>add in adult appeal (badly).
>> When you discover that Chewbacca's father is named Itchy and his >>"special needs" son is named Lumpy, what more do you need to know?
> Well, for more information, they could read your 2006 post:
> <4596DEBB.30...@sgeobviousinc.com>
> (Well, I'm not sure if there's any way to look up a post by Message-ID
> any more. If there is, they can.)
> Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote
>>>>> The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline
>>>>> addicted, hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got
>>>>> replaced with caffeine pills,
>>>> Ritalin and caffeine are very similar in their effects.
>>> Not with kids with ADD they aren't.
>> Posted almost 10 hours after it was refuted by someone with
>> firsthand experience.
> He didn't REFUTE anything, just CLAIMED that, a different matter entirely.
> You don't in fact see doctors tell those with kids with ADD use
> caffeine instead of the much more expensive ritalin, for a reason.
Actually, you do.
But then, no one with children will associate with you, so what would you know about it, dickhead.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
-- When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
> In article <k4o62o$9h...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 9:27 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k4nrvi$q4...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/12 5:49 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>> In article <k4nhl5$q3...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> It's not butchery, it's a respectful and brilliant reimagining.
>>>>> Oh, come on, now you're just trolling. You may like it, and that's
>>>>> fine, but it's the exact opposite of respectful, and it's not remotely
>>>>> brilliant.
>>>> I disagree. There were many moments in there where I looked at
>>>> something and said "holy CRAP I can't believe they got that so very
>>>> right". Even down to details of the way the characters behaved -- body
>>>> language and all.
>>>> You apparently can't believe someone would see it that way; I'm equally
>>>> surprised... well, no not SURPRISED since I knew that there would be a
>>>> division of Old Fans that would react this way, but perhaps disappointed
>>>> that other people seem to be reacting the opposite way.
>>> The entire set up was designed to disrespect the original; that's why
>>> the reboot, so the lazy and incompetent Orci wouldn't have to do any
>>> homework.
>> I, obviously, disagree pretty much entirely, and what I've heard from
>> interviews with the cast and crew supports my view.
> Gee, I wonder why that would be?!? Oh, wait, they "might" want to keep
> being paid for the sequels. :-\
Thought you said you were done with the discussion?
The fact that Chris Pine, who doesn't LOOK all that much like Captain Kirk, managed to MAKE himself Kirk by adopting key mannerisms and body language (rightly deciding that trying to emulate Shatner's particular verbal delivery would just be silly) tells me someone was going to a LOT of trouble to get the characters right. The same's true for all the other main cast. Someone -- and not just the actors, because to get all those things RIGHT requires that the film crew work with them -- went to an unholy amount of work to get brand new actors to portray, mostly accurately, characters from a TV show made decades ago.
So sure, they may say stuff because they want to get paid. They may ALSO say stuff because it's true.
I incline to the second belief, given the evidence of my eyes. You, seeing the same evidence, apparently see the opposite.
> In article <k4o9qs$po...@dont-email.me>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/12 11:18 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k4o6ab$9h...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/12 9:49 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 10/5/2012 1:59 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <YourName-0610120941110...@203-118-187-12.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
>>>>>> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any good in it's own
>>>>>>> right isn't really relevant ... the problem is they aren't actually
>>>>>>> "Star
>>>>>>> Trek", and never will be. The fact that people have to call them "reboot
>>>>>>> Trek", "new Trek", "Abrams' Trek", etc. proves that point. If they
>>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>> to make a new franchise, they should have made a NEW franchise, rather
>>>>>>> than trying to hitch a ride on (and butcher) someone else's hard work.
>>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>> Right because all that other hard work is now gone forever..
>>>>>> Oh wait -- every bit of it is available on video. I guess it wasn't
>>>>>> butchered after all.
>>>>> Except that now we have these horrible images and experiences forever
>>>>> associated with formerly well loved shows.
>>>> Only horrible to some of you. Lovely for some of us.
>>>> And it's your own problem if you can't dissociate stuff you don't like
>>>> from stuff you do. I don't find my experience of viewing "Star Wars"
>>>> diminished by the fact that Lucas produced the Prequels. I don't have to
>>>> accept them and I certainly don't have to let them affect my enjoyment
>>>> of the original.
>>> I bet you think the original is "Episode 4 A New Hope" :P
>> The original is "Star Wars".
> Actually the ORIGINAL is "The Star Wars", or go further back to "The
> Adventures of Luke Starkiller" or "The Journal of the Whills". ;-)
No, because that stuff was never filmed. The original is "Star Wars". For which we should be grateful because the first drafts were kinda a mess. Your argument's something like asserting that the first draft of a novel is the real one and the actual published draft is just a follow-on.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:15:38 -0400, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <1q706etnv7p17.1jon0mbsiva6u$....@40tude.net>,
> Smeerp <smeerp...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:35:44 -0400, Bill Steele wrote:
>> > In article <g8pq68tj33v0j8c0fscqs2goag30ljp...@4ax.com>,
>> > jackb...@bright.net wrote:
>> >> Was there a recurring robot in
>> >> the comics?
>> > Not that I can think of. Robots just turned up now and then as a >> > demonstration of how advanced the 25th century was (remember this was in >> > the 30s and early 40s). Mostly doing menial tasks and occasionally as >> > something to fight with. No personalities. Most of what they did I think >> > we can do now, except for bipedal walking.
>> ASIMO can do bipedal walking.
>Well, technically it has two legs and it walks, but nothing like the way >a human being does. It's totally stable standing on one foot while it >moves the other. More like a guy walking on the ceiling with suction >cups. By essentially falling forward with each step humans use far less >energy. It requires a complex feedback and control system that the >roboticists haven't quite managed yet, although I guess they're getting >close.
You would think it would not be so hard. It's basically just a three-axis
servo problem, and there's plenty of processing power availalble now.
Well, okay, it's harder than that, since so many different things
contribute to balance, on both the input and output sides. But you'd still
think it would be feasible, especially since you could simplify it.
Heck, you could even use a gyroscope.
>Next problem: going up and down stairs.
Eh. I think the walking part would be harder. Once you had that down,
stairs would be cake.
