James

There are worse things.

I watched the first season of the Danish version. It was pretty good, although by the end I was getting a bit fatigued by all the plot twists and the ever-present musical drone. I only got a few episodes into season two; I should watch the rest sometime. I watched a bit of the American series, and it seemed good enough, but it didn't really seem necessary after having watched the original. On the subject of Scandinavian crime series, I'm really enjoying The Bridge, although I must confess that part of the fun for me is just observing the languages and accents. And Kim Bodnia is fun to watch, with his toothy grin and eruptions of disbelieving laughter.

Look at all you swish two-monitor-having buggers.

Actually, most of the reason I stopped was that I was getting frustrated with the fact that I seemed to be getting worse at the game rather than better. But I'm dumb like that. Besides, I'm pretty sure I never rage quit. That would be rude.

So is it pretty much like this?: [media=] [/media]

I burnt out pretty early and haven't played it since, so it's possible I'm ready to play again. That said, I've not really been any good at organizing myself enough to be present for multiplayer since moving into my flat. Not sure what the cause of the correlation is, but there definitely is one. So... maybe.

Way ahead of you: I found it fascinating when it was on TV. This time around I hope to actually remember more film names to catchup on. Perhaps I'll sit there with a notebook or something.

Fake or not, that guy's been shooting guns on YouTube for ages. A friend of mine was following him for a while.

Everyone knows 2:1 or the local equivalent is correct score. Anything above that is excessively showy and really something of a faux pas. I hope you'll remember this in future. (Translation: I'm resentful of people who succeed more than me. Congratulations, though!)

This is probably patronizing and unnecessary, but I really must recommend that anyone interested in Veep watches The Thick of It if they haven't already done so. After seeing what little I have of the former, I think the latter succeeds much more in both comedy and verisimilitude. Anyway, I'm sure you're already thoroughly familiar with it. Sorry for wasting your time.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting things. Miffy stated that he doubts Whedon's ability to meet expectations. As I read it, he's not claiming to speak for people, rather judging that a revival would disappoint; as such, it it's a claim about the prospective revival's relation to people's hopes. He might be wrong, but it's an opinion I'm just as interested in hearing. Your response just seemed a little over-defensive. Perhaps that's just me.

That strikes me as a rather bizarre argument. It's not like he's vetoing another series of Firefly; he's just saying that he's not interested in one, and perhaps that he has less faith in Whedon's ability to pull it off than some others, including the man himself. I mean, sure, ignore his opinion if it's irrelevant to you, but don't dismiss it as if it's irrelevant to everyone.

Alt+click EDIT: Sorry, that's multiple contiguous lines. Perhaps you can't edit in several places. ADDITIONAL EDIT: If you look in preferences under "Editing" there's an option for "Multi-Editing". This allows you to have several non-contiguous selections using ctrl+click. Unfortunately ctrl+alt+click doesn't combine the shortcuts (it resets the selection), so you can only use the former shortcut for your first selection. Anyway, I use the alt+click thing for commenting big arrays and things.

You can do that in Notepad++ for free. That said, Sublime does look rather nice.

What a depressing thread.

Oh god, I'd totally forgotten about that. What a nightmare. In my view, if the design requires spacer GIFs, it's Dreamweaver that's overcomplicating things. Are there no WYSIWYG editors that can produce CSS-based layouts? Whatever will get the job done is fine, I suppose, but as Yufster suggested, if the sole objective is simply to showcase some work, there are plenty of online services that will serve that purpose perfectly well.

I'm no sort of expert with this (or any) sort of thing, but to the extent that I muddle my way through, I do pretty nicely with Notepad++ and Chrome's element inspector – it's so handy to be able to fiddle about in-browser without having to constantly go back and forth saving and viewing over and over. Sometimes my even less technically-savvy co-workers contribute things done in some sort of WYSIWYG editor, and the code is invariably an absolute goddamned travesty. All that <o:> nonsense MS Word throws in for no useful reason disgusts me in particular. I don't know about you, but I find it pretty infuriating to work without auto-indenting. It's a little thing, but it drives me up the wall when it's missing. There's a bunch of other stuff, too, like FTP integration, superior find-and-replace, line numbering, better navigation (Notepad jumps over whole reams of text if you try to use ctrl + cursor keys), non-trivial undo history, and so on. All small things, yes, but more than just syntax highlighting, and cumulatively a big difference. I guess my point is that I don't know why you pick out syntax highlighting in particular. I guess it's probably the most useful of the lot (although I'd probably give it up ahead of auto-indenting), but it's not like it's in a completely different class of necessity. I probably don't know what I'm talking about, though. I'm really just an idiot in disguise. EDIT: I forgot about half the reason I even posted: Spacer GIFs! I'd completely forgotten about them! They struck me as the most idiotic thing in the world even when they were relevant; by now I'm pretty sure they're just a ridiculous relic. Even the most crude of web browsers has some sort of implementation of CSS at this stage. I'd be seriously concerned about any sort of course that teaches them in any context other than historical. Or am I wrong? Please don't tell me I'm wrong.

I should probably indicate that Ben has claimed and received these. CURRENT PAYNE AVAILABILITY: Minimal.

Are you trying to tell me horrifying demons don't haunt your every waking minute?

Not very inspiring: The tree can look quite nice at dusk, though: Then again, I suppose most things can. (I apologize for the shitty quality of the photos, incidentally. It's 20% phone camera and 80% awful cameraman.)

If anyone wants Maxes Payne 1 and 2 on Steam, I can accommodate.

While I do sometimes find shaky-cam an irritating affectation, I think it's nonsense to imply that the camera serves no purpose other than to capture performance, and that it's inherently desirable for the camera to be steady and impassive. The agitated movement of a shaking camera can introduce tension to a shot, and is evocative of documentary and news footage in which stable camera-work is not an option, suggesting veracity and naturalness. It doesn't always work, and it isn't always well-placed, but I don't think there are rules as to how we should be thinking of the visual perspective, or how it should or shouldn't be used to produce an effect. That said, I can see why one might be totally against it. One might find its imperfection an unfailing reminder of the physical existence of the camera, an object which doesn't exist in the fiction of the film. For others, however, it's merely part of the language of film, and no more a distraction than film grain, post-production image manipulation, or non-diegetic music. I mean, I find it weird that nobody in musicals acknowledges that everyone periodically breaks out in song, especially since there isn't usually any instrumentation actually present, and that stands in the way of my enjoyment of a lot of those films, but I don't think that rules it out as a legitimate form of expression.

Excellent.

Welcome, humans.

That's precisely what I was going to respond with.