Messages

People actually watch Mythbusters for reasons other than Kari Byron?

Most silver-screen video game adaptions suck, as I'm sure you all know. Then again, Max Payne was originally just an adaption of hard-boiled detective movies, so maybe it'll translate better. Then again... again, judging by the trailer, the entire film just seems to be dedicated to Max Payne kicking insane amounts of ass. Which is only really cool when it's Vin Diesel...


Why am I back here?

I'm not sure if I understand what this thread is really about...

Emerald said:

I'm just wondering, would you say "amn't I" in every day conversation, or just use "aren't I"?

I meant that as a conversation starter. The beginning of a thread of discussion which could lead anywhere.

Not some lame survey where we all post whether or not we say "amn't" one at a time as part of some odd exercise in validating our own existence...
I hate those. Nobody cares about your boring, predictable answers!
You might as well start a thread with the title "What's your favourite colour?"

What's up with that irrational fear? Sarcasm?

He has point, though. Regardless of whether there really is a potential for disaster or not (tsunamis, earthquakes, drunk pilots, shoddy building materials, who knows...), it's simple logic -- the higher up you are, the farther you are from the exit if something bad happens. As ide from having massive inflatable slides installed on all the windows, there's nothing you can do, really...

And to those Irishmen who WOULD hope to be next in line at NASA, may I suggest a degree in either Geology or Fighter Plane Pilotology? *

*ok, not an actual a degree. But flying fighter jets gives you the best edge, traditionally.

Heh, anyone who does a degree in Geology in Ireland is gonna be pretty screwed. It's like, the least sought-after profession ever.

So where's the line between the evolution of language and the devolution of language? I don't presume to know, I'm just posing the question.

There really is no such thing as 'devolution', when you think about it. Devolution is just a term people use when they don't like the way things are evolving. Evolution really only goes in one direction -- it might look like we've gone backwards if we all suddenly start talking in olde english, but it's just the next step (kind of like how fashion designers constantly recycle old styles).

One can't say that the internet will kill modern language, because any means of communication is a language. The primary difference is that as long as the internet continues to function the way it does -- with free information -- the language will 'evolve' so rapidly that it'll break apart.

Think about it -- before, only people like Joyce or Shakespeare or dictionary writers or university professors could make up new words and have them spread around. Then, radio and TV came along, and now you have celebrities coining words. Now, anybody could just come up with a phrase and post it on their blog or whatever. With millions of blogs, you have millions of new words coming in, until eventually people who follow Blogroll A wont be able to understand Blogroll B, et cetera.

I just misunderstood.   Your first comment was buried by nacho's youtube link.

Point taken. Again I blame Nacho

Yeah, I didn't really get why he slipped that in there either, but I figured he was simply adding to the array of "coolest things" in parallel to the rest of the post.

It might sound terribly un-PC, but the Twin Towers collapsing was quite possibly one of the most awe-inspiring things I've ever witnessed (in a bad way, obviously). I wasn't there or anything, but just watching it on a TV screen and knowing that it really happened is enough to make me think "Wow. I wonder how loud it was... how the air tasted... what the different reactions were like"

I guess it's the writer in me, but I always have this detached fascination going on in the back of my head when something intense is happening which often gives me a pang of guilt. It's not a lack of empathy, really, but more a little voice saying "this would make such a brilliant story -- you have to memorise every detail"

500th post! (Coincidentally. I actually started reading this thread before I noticed that...)


Also:

2.124 per day. So who can beat my per day score?

Name:     Emerald
Posts:    499 (3.724 per day)
Position:    Member
Date Registered:    04 Feb 2008, 21:24
Last Active:    Today at 00:11


Owned.

You're shaping the argument into something you obviously want to get off your chest, which is racism towards Americans. Which I agree is totally and utterly wrong.

The original point is that space exploration is something wholly American. Sure, the Russians tried to beat them out, but the Americans won in the end. It's one of those matters of pride, along with Dr. King, D-Day and Independence from the British. Growing up in Ireland, we were told different stories, about Wolftone, and Yeats, and... Independence from the British

I'm not saying the Americans should come to Ireland ('cause everyone knows how brilliant at astrophysics we are...) to pick their astronauts, I'm just saying that as an Irishman, I'm less likely to care about that stuff, because it's less talked-about (not to say it isn't talked about and that there aren't any Irish astronomers)

People often say stuff without thinking. Control your own speech as you like it and let others control theirs as they like it.

But that completely goes against the fundements of language. Sure, I accept that language evolves through colloquial speech, and the rules of grammar are more diagrams to explain the language than parameters for the language to fall in to (i.e. speech came first, as you said), but when you start giving people free reign, the whole purpose of language -- communication -- is lost.

It's like the internet slang thing. Words like 'lol' and 'pwned' are actually beginning to creep in to the english vernacular. 'Pwned' is just a common typo, and 'lol' is an acronym -- it has no founding in linguistics whatsoever. It's a chaotic word defined only by general consensus.
Take another example: 'All your base are belong to us' -- the classic Engrish phrase used the world over. A lot of my friends and students like to emulate the 'engrish' style to the point where it's used in casual conversation. I can see some point in the future when grammar itself becomes so stretched and bent that dialects will begin forming based around internet communities instead of the usual countries and cities.

I've considered writing my thesis on this topic, actually...

I'm speaking with foresight. Let's face it -- the Russian space administration (whatever it's called) is not going to stay liquid for very long, which is quite probably why they started renting out a seat on their shuttles to the highest bidder.

Now America, being a soldily capitalist country, will inevitably see the value in space tourism, once it becomes more affordable. Which is a completely separate point from the way America treats immigrants and foreigners as second-class citizens, which is a totally different issue (keep in mind that someone who's 12.5% Irish is not an immigrant).


Anyway, I don't "hate" America, and I rather resent your ad hominem attacks against me. What is it with taking things so personally around here? It seems like it's become this kind of signature on these forums where people finish up an argument with "P.S. Who cares what you think anyway, because you're a dumbass LOL"

And I know one of you smartasses are dying to say something ridiculously lame like "Well, maybe that's 'cause you ARE a dumbass, Emerald. WOO! ZING! YEAH! PWNED!" -- please don't, it's embarassing. What happened to civil debates where people discuss the topic at hand, rather than flailing around, lashing out at people who don't think the same way they do...

Uh-huh. But the thing is, nobody really thinks about what they're saying... "Are not I" makes absolutely no sense, grammatically.

Somebody explain what the hell just happened...

It depends what you mean by serious. If you mean 'down-to-earth' as opposed to the wild antics of MI or DoTT then I would personally say yes. Most of the time I find the best humour actually comes from serious stories and situations. I hate things which are ingratiatingly 'zany'. However, going the other way can be bad too -- like someone said previously, being too 'dark and gritty and real' can just become obnoxious. It's good to a point, but after a while you just start to think "c'mon, real life isn't that moody/dark/depressing/melodramatic..."


Take The Longest Journey for example -- there were always these humourous undertones (most of Crow's and Flipper's lines were gold, as well as the social commentaries), and there was plenty of bizarre stuff -- but it also had a solid, atmospheric story and a brilliant way of capturing your imagination. It was just serious enough to make it seem real, but light enough to make it fun.

Now take Fahrenheit -- the first half of the game was brilliant because it was about real people having their real lives affected by this odd mystery. It was serious, and suspenseful and all that, but in a somewhat lax way (like in real-life... everything's less dramatic in real life). Then, the real people turn superhuman, the mystery disintegrates into bullshitery, and the emotional 'glue' that held the whole thing together just fizzled away, causing it all to fall apart in the second half.



I guess what I'm trying to say in all this is that emotional seriousness is far more important than th).ematic seriousness. I reckon you could have the most ridiculous premise ever, but if the characters are believable, then the story will be (to take another example, Jaws)

Your chances to go to the space are still 0, the same as the rest of the world population except a little group of fortunate men and women, but not because your country does not look to the skies.

The point is that as long as you have money, American citizenship, and you're white, you could very easily buy your way onto a space craft in a few year's time. But the chances of them letting grubby foreigners touch their shiny buttons within the next century seem slim.

[Are I not]

I've always wondered about this. I remember getting into fierce arguments with my uncle about it...

It goes like this:
I am
You are
He/she is
etc.

And you would say:
You are going to the shops in a minute, aren't you? Pick up some aspirin.
or
You are going to the shops in a minute, are you not?

But a lot of people also say:
I am going to the shops in a minute, aren't I? I'll pick it up then.

In other words: Are I not

Now, I always equated the phrase "Amn't I" as being either juvenile or uneducated. But when you think about it, saying

I am going to the shops, amn't I? (i.e. am I not)

seems like the correct one, and "aren't I" is a mistake. But then you could argue that it is a mistake that has been ingrained in us to the point that it has become the correct way to say it.



I'm just wondering, would you say "amn't I" in every day conversation, or just use "aren't I"?

There's also Fight Club, but that was less about the disorder, and more just used it for a major twist in the end...

Like Bic hinted at (I think), the biggest temptation would be to make split personalities the driving force of the game, rather than simply an adventure involving someone with multiple personalities. When it comes to diseases or mental problems, they make great Oscar-winning films, but kinda sucky games. (although Rain Man: The Game would be hilarious)

The best approach would be something like Memento's -- the protagonist's 'condition' plays a big part in the overall story, but the main thread is really about something completely different (in the case of Memento, his unwillingness to accept his wife's death).

Also, like Memento, it would be important to put the player into the shoes of the character, rather than just making them feel like a passive observer. In other words, switches in personality should be as disorienting to the player as it is to the character (Where am I now? What's going on? Have I met him before? -- force them to ask these questions along with the character)

Really is a good idea for a game...

The technical term is 'Dissociative Identity Disorder'. It's extremely rare and is usually a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, accompanied by other symptoms such as paranoia, insomnia and flashbacks.

I always thought it was a cool idea for a story, too, so I did some research on it. There's only like, 200 full-on cases of D.I.D. in the world. The problem is, the condition isn't as 'clean' as it comes across in movies and such. First of all, most psychologists consider it a compulsion rather than a full psychological disorder (like, say, insanity). In other words the sufferer is ultimately normal, but like someone with OCD, they can't help but act out certain characters/personalities. Just like the rituals of an obsessive person is a coping mechanism, a person with split-personalities is able to shield their vulnerable side from the world by burying it in their psyche. Or vice versa -- supressing negative emotions, sexuality, or simply hiding from themselves to avoid facing some sort of tragic event.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iHJfIH20TY


Like they mention there -- switching personalities can be accompanied by ticks and sudden movements, much like a compulsive person. Also notice that when she mentions his other personalities, he gets visibly agitated, which is common as a psychological defense mechanism against challenges to his virtual reality (i.e. ever tried to convince a child that Thomas the Tank Engine isn't real, or a Christian that God doesn't exist? It usually pisses them off, because you're attacking the stability of their reality).

I know I should be impressed by that space picture... but I'm not.

Maybe it's because I'm not American, so the whole NASA space exploration thing isn't ingrained into me as something to be proud of (i.e. it's more like "Look at what the American's can do" rather than "Look at what we can do")

I know it's kind of hypocritical of me to preach acceptance and then draw lines between America and Ireland, but seriously -- of all the space missions conducted since NASA's inception, when has an Irishman ever left the atmosphere? It's hard to get excited when my potential of going into space is ultimately zero.

Maybe it's all a big coincidence...

"Come on, no one will realize that we ripped half of the game's content from the most famous commercial games sold today!"

I'd say it's more along the lines of
"Would our limited consumer base really care?" -- I imagine they figured a little game like theirs would be barely noticed anyway. In regards to the law, it's bad, but as a gamer, it wouldn't really make a difference to me how much of the art is stolen. Oblivion's backdrops aren't all that distinctive... it's really just a typical medieval-fantasy world which could be found in any game. Wouldn't ruin the immersion or anything.