There is already a film in production. And has been for several years.
6424 posts • joined 11 Sep 2009
I don't know if it's attention span... I think the new Doctor Who format suffers from lack of story development because of the time constraints. The old 4x30 minute story is, IMHO, better than the 1x55 minutes story. Do you remember Jon Pertwee sitting around in a lab trying a dozen revisions of gadgets and potions? Much more real-world than "oh, let's wave the sonic and resurrect 1/3 of the population" we've seen of late.
Only 30 minute episodes? The original episodes were a shade under 60 minutes long which allowed for much greater story development and the extended launch sequences that we all love. When they re-edited the shows down to 30 minute jobs with cliff-hangers and "Last time..." they became almost unwatchable.
I've not actually got my hands on any IPv6 gear in anger yet... what's it like setting up filtering compared to IPv4? I mean, I can and have set up at the firewall access to BBC (News, Weather and BiteSize) and Wikipedia only for all traffic from all devices save my 'grown ups' laptop. Easy peasy. No social media, no email, no photosharing, no YouTube, no iPlayer etc. Will I have to relearn a skillset?
that the custom apps that they use do the job, that they can integrate GeoDBs with Google maps which is great, and that whenever they drop into the Win 8 environment to demo something to a customer, they lose the plot and get all frustrated. So the thing that comes out shining is the new form factor / hardware and the BT bespoke software rather than Win 8 itself which appears to be a source of frustration.
*sigh* I think you, unlike your real bullet, have missed the point.
I did not equate "God" with "real", merely pointed out that both terms are open to interpretation. There is a common, broad understanding of the words which suffice for day to day use, but as with just about anything there are occasions where the commonality of that understanding will break down and exceptions can be found. Is the afterimage produced by looking at a green unicorn real? It doesn't exist, you can't touch it, it can't hit you in the eye, yet I perceive it, so it is real. What is reality, man?
EDIT @ SISK. Sorry, I got sucked in. By the pink unicorn of all things.
"how can it be an imagined reality?" In the case of an after image, then, yes, there is something physical going on. But what about the Kanisza illusions?
This becomes an exercise in semantics. It's not "real" because there is no pink unicorn there, or even a picture of a pink unicorn (c'eci n'est pa une pipe), but it IS real, because it is a physiological difference in firing patterns across certain retinal ganglion cells and other neurones in the visual pathway up to, including and beyond the visual cortex. "Teach it phenomenology, Dave".
It's invisible because no-one else can see what you can see, at least those who haven't seen the green unicorn first in the same way you did. As my ex-boss and professor of neuroscience who spent a 50+ year career studying the visual system always said "If you perceive it, then there's something to be explained."
So "real" has as vague a definition as "God". I agree with your point about people thinking about themselves.
I've seen it.
Stare at the image behind this link for 20 seconds, then look away at a white area of screen.
Then google Kanizsa illusions and read up on it. The brain can construct all manner of realities that have no physical correlate. Invisible Pink Unicorn is an exercise in semantics that falls at the first fence, so to speak, when used as an anti-theological argument. FSM is far more effective as a tool for debating religious fervour.
Oh yeah. I've been to one of those "conferences". Doesn't it mainly involve a few lectures, pep talks, lunches etc, then schlepping around a trade show getting gradually weighed down with more and more sales brochures, bits of paper and pointless freebies until your legs break under the strain and you have to get a taxi home?
And that Cliff Richards Jnr song in Thunderbirds Are Go (the first Thunderbirds movie)?
"Baby, I got friends, so baby listen to me. A shooting star will shoot you, and Mars will go to war. The man in the moon will jump on you, if you don't love me no more."
Now if ever there was a song glorifying violence and domestic abuse towards women, then this is it! A bl**dy good job that when I went to see it as a kid, all I was paying attention to was Thunderbird 2 taking off.
In fact we tried some from the freezer the other night. Lettuce, tomato, onion, relish... all the usual dressage, slapped between two pieces of thorough bread. The other half said it was a bit chewy and hard going, but I found the going good to firm. The taste was champion. Mind you, later on I felt it coming up on the inside, but I wasn't going to take offence. It's not like it's the first time I've had a black beauty in my mouth or anything.
Looked like it fared well in that test, but then I checked the system requirements. Looks OK in terms of OS, CPU, Free space, but then...
Internet Explorer 7 and higher
.Net framework 3.5 (automatically installed by Bitdefender if necessary)
Firefox 3.6 and higher
Outlook 2007, 2010
Outlook Express and Windows Mail on x86
.Net framework 3.0
So, it doesn't integrate with IE7+ which it requires, and it only protects the HTML rendering part of Thunderbird and Outlook? Hmm... Or did they simply make a mistake creating the web page?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018