ThunderPeel2001

What, no I'm not, but my genes have a desire to survive. As do yours. My body and personality are just a vehicle for my genes. Human genes survive through the reproduction process, but we often thwart the impulses of our genes. For example, when we satisfy carnal desires but use birth control. Or we run into a burning building to save someone who isn't related to us. Or we foster someone else's children. We're programmed by our genes to desire certain things and react in certain ways, but humans can overcome them. And we do.

Really? She's warring something halfway sensible now? Awesome!

This is also good: http://slipsum.com/

Neat idea! Doesn't player two have the advantage, though? They get to see what Player 1 has just done?

I think everyone in Russia wants to be a YouTube star.

Yeah, that sounds boring. And difficult. Good luck! Also, we're not really "selfish". Dick Dawkins goes to great lengths to try and make people aware that just because our genes want to survive doesn't mean that all human actions are motivated by selfishness. We thwart our gene's wishes all the time. Birth control is a great example. Here's an altruistic act that I'd like you to explain to me how it isn't actually altruistic: People who run into a burning building to save people they don't know -- e.g. The firefighters at the Twin Towers. They were going beyond what they were expected to do for their jobs, and many died as a result.

No, this isn't useful for actors to practise their lines, it's actually mostly for the writers and the network, as I said. For a start, this isn't the final script, so there's no point in the actors even learning their lines, let alone practising them (this is why they're just reading them straight from the page). You're thinking of rehearsal, which is completely different. An actor in a sitcom wouldn't be hired if they couldn't get to the set for rehearsal -- they're paid to be there!

I'd disagree with this, actually. Being part of a community makes you far more valued than just being another random voice in the Twitterverse. I've been to several gaming events and chatted to (and even befriended) several "gaming industry" types through this forum. Probably helps that I'm in a major city, though.

I know you're joking, but I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe that an Oxford professor wrote the following for adults: (I can just imagine a parent reading this to their kids at bedtime -- there's lots of opportunities silly voices, etc.)

It's all because Kroms has been going on about all the little details I started taking real careful note as I read (which is fun, and it's nice to know it withstands that sort of scrutiny).

It all depends where you want to be in 10 or 15 years. That time will fly by and you will, at some point in your 30s think, "Hey! If I'd done X for the past 10 years, I'd be a master of it by now!". However doing something like that would require huge sacrifices and probably lots of misery as a result -- seeing how you're not naturally driven/energised to do it by yourself. So why not just work at getting a good work/life balance instead? Set aside time for your studies, set aside time for fun. I've said this to you before, Speedy, but it sounds like you're your own worst enemy. Life is difficult enough without self-flagellation. If you won't give yourself a break, who will? As for "Why humans co-operate?", surely the answer is simply this: Without co-operation, we wouldn't be here. There undoubtedly were groups of humans that didn't co-operate with others, and those groups died off, along with their genes, when they were all eaten by lions for stubbornly refusing to help each other out. (Dickhead Dawkins mentions something like this quite early on in The Selfish Gene.) 2200 words? pffft! 2200 characters more like

I recently re-read The Hobbit. It's definitely for children.

I've already told Kroms these, but here (for posterity) are my theories about things -- although I still haven't gotten very far into Book 2, and I had these when I was two thirds the way through Book 1: Jon Snow's mother is... Jon Arryn was actually killed by... Some random observations about Book 1: In the second chapter, the Stark boys stumble across a Direwolf that died during an altercation with... Renly Baratheon was apparently involved in a plot with Loras Tyrell, Knight of the Flowers, to... Varys is in cahoots with... Littlefinger's dagger was... It's weird to consider the two major events which led to all the troubles faced by the people's of Westeros...

Found an interesting take -- not that I was looking for it, on The Hobbit's HFR:

Yep. I'm pretty sure it was probably projected as 24fps, too -- so The Hobbit is going to look a WHOLE LOT more video than that. It's definitely going to be jarring.

Yeah, The Hobbit was written for his children. It started as a bedtime story and grew from there. When he came to write the sequel, he decided to shoehorn in the mythology he'd been creating for years -- but he apparently never went back and took out the early childish stuff (Tom Bombadil). Ben; Yep, I am hoping as much. Plus it's the O2: More tourists, less unemployed/care in the community people. (Fingers crossed.)

I hope you're right, but I think you're wrong Given the number of complete non-cinephiles who have mentioned to me how "fake" they thought PUBLIC ENEMIES looked, without any prompting, I think there could be quite a backlash. That's why I'm really hoping there isn't going to be vocal complainers in the crowd when Ben and I see it on Thursday.

Awesome! I wish I'd known about this years ago. Thanks!

It's overkill, but there's no harm in getting HashTab and comparing them to make sure.

Ha! I love it!

I honestly predict that you will hate it. Sorry! I'm not sure if I'm going to like it, either. But it's definitely going to be (at best) a shock. I just hope the cinema isn't filled with people who vocally complain about it looking weird. Apparently the vistas look spectacular, but as soon as you see the actors, it feels like you're watching... actors! I'm already bracing myself. Of course, the flipside is that film is just what we're used to. 24 fps was a pretty arbitrary standard. If we'd grown up on 48fps films, then 24fps would look weird to us (just like kids today who reportedly prefer the sound of MP3 compressed music to vinyl). So even if I don't like it, I definitely want to see it how Peter Jackson wants it to be seen.

Sweet! Yes, I can see how wireless headphones would be very useful. I've nearly tripped over my headphone cables so many times. Dark Room looks interesting, too.

Well I've bookmarked it. (The first step.) Edit: Ooh, and there's this, too: http://anti-social.cc/

It sounds like maybe you're a little too attached to your Fleshlight. (You haven't given it a name, have you?)

I remember people complaining about how PUBLIC ENEMIES looked "fake" (it was shot 30fps) -- I have a feeling it's going to be similar to that. So yes, more like TV soap operas in certain respects. It's likely going to be an unsettling experience, but Jackson seems to think that you get used to it after while. Got to give it a shot!