|
Congrats, Roger!
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I've just seen the new Star Wars.
I liked it, but I wasn't like "oohhhhh ahhhh".
Many times I had the feeling there are A LOT of parallels with A New Hope.
A bigger and badder death star that cannot destroy one, but five planets at once, with, again, a tiny hole weak spot that must be hit by X-Wings? Come one!
So the ending was even a bit lame (although we do like bigger and badder Death Stars, admit it!).
What's bothering me even more though is that The Republic is basically the intergalactic government.
In Episode I to III we see it turn from good (well, as good as governments get) to evil (The Republic becomes The Empire).
In Episode IV to VI we see the evil government being defeated by a rebel group.
So after Episode VI the government turns good again and the rebels now work together with the government (so technically they're not rebels anymore...).
Then how is it that a splinter group, The First Order, can get bigger and mightier than the actual government!?
Who funds them? And where is the governments army when the splinter group is building this massive weapon that can destroy five planets using the power of a complete sun!?
Using up a sun doesn't seem like a good idea by the way, and where do these suns come from anyway?
So that weapon is just over the top crap (it already was in Episode IV, but now it's just to big to turn a blind eye).
But destroying five planets? Planets that are rich and that probably fund and provide The First Order with supplies (through illegal channels, I'm sure). If that doesn't negatively impact The First Order directly it will certainly impact them indirectly by destroying the entire galactic economy in one blow.
And shouldn't Stormtroopers be loyal to The Republic?
So The First Order is basically The Republic, but they're not so they destroy The Republic in one blow and now the story fits again?
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the setting just feels kind of wrong.
Still fun to watch 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. The "franchise" continues down hill.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like a lame pile of crap. Don't think I will bother watching it.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, there are 4 of them unless I'm mistaken.
Each was made after 1983.
|
|
|
|
|
What did you think of how the new and supposedly super bad super scary bad guy got beaten first by a stormtrooper specialized in sanitation and then again by a young lady who picked up a light saber for the first time in her life 4 hours earlier?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, a friend of mine said the exact same thing.
I agree that it's odd, but Kylo was hurt, the stormtrooper trained in combat (and he still lost), and the lady was about to lose, but then got some Force injection or whatever.
So yeah... I guess I'm ok with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I made the mistake of watching it twice. The first time, it was a really good movie. The second time I started overthinking things and it started to become a bit contrived and unbelievable.
Your examples are the tip of the iceberg. I always thought the only thing that could stop a light saber blade was another light saber blade. But apparently the storm troopers have AND CARRY weapons to counter them now? And when there was only one known light saber in the last 30 years - held by their side?
Also, the light saber they found couldn't have been Luke's or Vader's. Vader's went down the Death Star shaft with his hand and Luke threw his in afterwards (see Episode VI). I suppose Luke could rebuild one. But then I don't understand why they thought it was Vader's or Kylo Ren should claim it as his.
This is basically a rehash of episode IV only with a jedi-in-training that figures things out much faster with no teacher and a dark-lord-in-training that can't seem figure anything out (I never saw Vader stick out his hand and wave it at someone - as if it helps him read minds).
I really did not like the big "orc". It took me right out of this movie and put me in "Lord of the Rings".
Anyway, still a movie I would recommend seeing on the big screen and not waiting for the DVD.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
Now you've gone and ruined it just a little more 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I loved it as I exited the theater. I came home and re-analyzed what I saw and then I started seeing all these gaping holes 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is completely contrived, but set up to be a continuous story with the same characters playing their next parts to keep the original watchers coming back. But, we all know, it's about the special effects. Keep waiting for Star Wars VIII.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Maybe I'm overthinking it,
Yes
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how the rage here where I live in the states, is to adopt the Mediterranean diet, because it is well, healthier than big macs and processed foods. Now the Italians are ditching it (not all, I know)? What is the world coming too? 
Italians lose appetite for healthy Mediterranean diet - Telegraph[^]
I will be faarrrkkkking legless before I am carriedcto the car ftombhere. - Michael Martin - Christmas 2015
|
|
|
|
|
The 'healthy' Mediterranean diet is a myth. Italians have eaten processed meats, red meats, cheese and all the other evil things for just as long as any other relatively wealthy Western people. They also invented deep frying (admittedly in olive oil)!
|
|
|
|
|
The way I see it (since I live an hour from the med) is the diet consists of beer at 9 am, a packet or two of fags a day, more beer and wine at lunch, and more in the evening.
Chuck in a smattering of pastis and red wine, and the odd pizza and that's about it.
|
|
|
|
|
right, so, where did you mention big macs and processed foods? Except for the stupid cigarettes, everything seems alright.
Americans could do more with red wine and less processed foods (Mediterranean or common sense?). What I got from the article was that more Italians are taking up the stupid, retarded, general American/British diet.
I will be faarrrkkkking legless before I am carriedcto the car ftombhere. - Michael Martin - Christmas 2015
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: big macs
Whats the difference between a big mac and meat balls on pasta with tomato sauce and cheese?
Its the sugar that makes lids fat. That and doing sod all all day except play with nintendos.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I would hope that your pasta and meatballs with cheese, is made of real, whole ingredients; Big Macs are not - most of their ingredients are NOT whole, and are processed or derived from processed ingredients.
Since you smoke 1-2 packs of cigs a day, your comments on nutrition are highly suspect, IMHO. 
I have been a diabetic for years, so I know a "little" about nutrition, just a little - enough to keep me alive, I guess. 
I will be faarrrkkkking legless before I am carriedcto the car ftombhere. - Michael Martin - Christmas 2015
|
|
|
|
|
Who says I smoke two packs a day? Its what I see of the people around here. I also don't drink beer at 9 am, unlike them too.
As for a mcdo burger being made of 'unwhole' ingredients which are processed how is this in any way different to the processing applied to wheat to make pasta (also unwhole), or marinaro sauce, also made from ingredients that aren't whole and have been processed. As for cheese, how is 'processed' cheese different to say, parmesan?
Since you are a diabetic you should know that the problem is sugar, not protein or fat.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd like to see the paper of the research/stat, because as far I know we all are still loving pasta and Med-like food very much.
My only guess about those articles is about the price of the "healthy" food, and -yes- that might be the reason for some behavioral change in the population.
Consider that:
* a good EVO (extra-virgin olive oil) is not less that 8-10€/liter (this year we had few olives and the price got higher). Butter is way cheaper that EVO.
* our seas aren't totally "safe" as pollution, and we likely import a lot of fish from the Ocean and the North Sea. Typically, meat is cheaper than fish.
* we have a lot of cheeses, but the best ones are hard to find. A great part of the Italian cheese is made by German milk, but processed in Italy.
As always, those articles sound likely as a provocation (or a favor toward to "unhealthy" diet) rather real information.
For the same reason, I don't believe that "USA equals unhealthy food".
|
|
|
|
|
The United States has healthy food, but it can be expensive, as well, and probably for similar reasons as you have mentioned.
I have two doctors, one from Belgium (studied and lived) and one from good 'ole New York, and both recommend a Mediterranean "style" diet, when possible, versus others that are out there, currently. I don't drink alcohol, so, minus the wine.
I will be faarrrkkkking legless before I am carriedcto the car ftombhere. - Michael Martin - Christmas 2015
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I said (or at least, I meant).
I also believe that both your docs are right.
I really can't comment much more than so (I'm not a medic), but AFAIK the wine isn't bad: as any other thing, your should not abuse.
Red wine is recommended than the white one: one glass a day is a good choice.
Health effects of wine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]
Again, the important is to find good wine as well!
|
|
|
|
|
When you see advertisements of healthy food and cooking, it’s usually fruits and vegetables; not meats, breads, cereals, nor pastries. You will see more healthy produce in grocery stores on the west coast of the US at a lower price and not-so-good looking produce at higher prices in stores on the east part of the US. So, yes, it can be more expensive to eat healthy in the US, depending on where you live. It just depends on how close you live to the fruit and vegetable producers.
|
|
|
|
|
EDIT 2 : Important / Interesting
Still have Kaspersky trial on my machine after 5 days or so. Just had a problem editing a document in my Google Drive. Kept saying it was failing / couldn't reach Internet. Couldn't figure it out.
Aha!!! Kaspersky??
Googled the answer and yep,
Google Groups report of Kaspersky blocking google drive.[^]
Changed and fixed, but annoying.
I recently thought I had a virus* so I downloaded Kaspersky Internet Security. It's working well so I was even thinking about buying it.
That's where the interesting thing comes in.
I searched on Amazon.com
Amazon.com: Kaspersky Internet Security 2016 | 3 Devices | 1 Year | Download: Software[^]
You can buy it far cheaper than you can from the real site.
Here's what it looks like when I click the Buy button in Kaspersky trial:
http://raddev.us/images/kaspersky.png[^] $39.99 per year
Why do companies do this? Norton does the same thing. Very odd.
Terrible Win10 Update
*The reason I thought I had a virus? A terrible Win10 update, of course
modified 30-Dec-15 16:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
