Anyone Here Ever Seen That Crappy Film Deep Impact?

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
Man, talk about crap.

Starts off with some kid with with a ****ant little scope (not even a
Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do? Calls
some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a professional
asstronomer.

That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he looks
for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he did
with a radio scope, but he does.

Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is he
using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is written
in FORTRAN too.

And talk about an ego. He puts his name on the discovery. Next, rather
than ring up and tell somebody, or even email someone, he decides to
drive off to make the alert.

Who wrote this crap? Dumbass liberals? Well, they put in a token black
as president. Which makes about as much sense as a female president,
so it had to be liberals.

Anyway, the cretin asstronomer rushes off down a mountain side only to
be totaled by a semitrailer going the other way. The asstronomer turns
into toast.

Which doesn't explain how they know the name of the new comet/
assteroid. It also doesn't explain why a semitrailer is driving up to
a radio scope station late at night. Liberals. Couldn't write a
coherent plot for ****.

Anyway, in the end, the entire East Coast is wiped out by a tsunami.
Seems that's another favorite liberal theme. Maybe that's how they
think they'll take over.

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:
>
> > Who wrote this crap? Dumbass liberals? Well, they put in a token black
> > as president. Which makes about as much sense as a female president,
> > so it had to be liberals.
>
> Wait until next November! Obama seems a likely contender,

He's a muslim isn't he?

> but even if he doesn't win, at least we'll be rid of the
> Bush/Cheney mob. (Unless they pull a Hitler on us, and

You mean Hitlery Clintoon?

> seize power sans elections - the way things are going,
> that's not nearly so unlikely as too many complacent human
> ostriches seem to think.)

Well, they did declare martial law in the film. Which begs the
question why does everyone start looting as soon as law and order
appear to break down?

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

Julio Laredo wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
> > Man, talk about crap.
>
> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of cliches
> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for my
> tastes.

I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.

> > Starts off with some kid with with a ****ant little scope (not even a
> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do? Calls
> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a professional
> > asstronomer.
>
> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some modicum of
> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.

Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.

> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002 winners of
> the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.

They give out awards for this? A0L!

> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to contact someone
> he considered a professional for verification.

To verify what? That he saw a comet?

> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
>
> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he looks
> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he did
> > with a radio scope, but he does.
>
> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the dishes, and
> are often used in
> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off the mark.
> Strike two.

Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
the film show an optical scope being used?

> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is he
> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is written
> > in FORTRAN too.
>
> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around forever; they
> have not.

The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by
then.

> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which means
> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.

Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are usually
set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this in
the past, don't you think?

> In that time frame nearly
> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the object
> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been a very
> reasonable method to store the information.

So would email.

> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see no reason
> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no merit.

Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

Julio Laredo wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
> >> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
> >> > Man, talk about crap.
> >>
> >> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of cliches
> >> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for my
> >> tastes.
> >
> > I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.
> >
> >> > Starts off with some kid with with a ****ant little scope (not even a
> >> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do? Calls
> >> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a professional
> >> > asstronomer.
> >>
> >> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some modicum
> >> of
> >> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.
> >
> > Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.
> >
> >> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002 winners
> >> of
> >> the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.
> >
> > They give out awards for this? A0L!
>
> Yes, they sure do.

How dumb is that!

> >> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
> >> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to contact
> >> someone
> >> he considered a professional for verification.
> >
> > To verify what? That he saw a comet?
>
> Yes, there is a procedure. And it is a race to get your name on it.

The last thing I'd want is my name on a comet that's going to destroy
the Earth.

> >> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
> >>
> >> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
> >> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he looks
> >> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he did
> >> > with a radio scope, but he does.
> >>
> >> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the dishes,
> >> and
> >> are often used in
> >> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off the
> >> mark.
> >> Strike two.
> >
> > Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
> > the film show an optical scope being used?
>
> I don't know what they showed in the film.

So your "strike one" was illinformed?

> I tried to watch the part where
> they were planting the explosives. Once I predicted almost every thing that
> was going to be shown before it was shown, I got bored and changed the
> channel.

Well, I watched it all. Its entertainment value was laughable. Which
was just what I wanted that particular night.

> >> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is he
> >> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is written
> >> > in FORTRAN too.
> >>
> >> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around forever;
> >> they have not.
> >
> > The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by then.
>
> Doesn't matter. In the film the guy saved the information. Some people
> save to the Internet, some don't. I don't save things to the Internet. Back in
> 1998 I saved to floppies and CDs. Now I save to thumbdrives.

Good for you. My point was that the plotline at that particular point
was ludicrous. So you're "strike two" doesn't hold water either.

> >> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which means
> >> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.
> >
> > Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are usually
> > set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this in
> > the past, don't you think?
>
> Shooting still began in about 1996 with no regard to when the picture
> was going to come out.

Since it came out at about the same time as Armageddon, I find that
odd. Why do these sorts of films come out in rapid succession? 2 years
is a long time to wait to cash in on the popularity of something else.

> "Silent Running" was set in the future, and showed
> hardwire programming. Who does that, now?

I set the registers on a PDP-11 not too long ago. Not very exciting.

> While it is possible to predict what may happen, and could happen, you still
> have to base it on what is known, now.

You mean like in Star Trek and Star Wars?

> At the time the movie was being made,
> the most popular way to save small files was by floppy. The movie audience
> would immediately know what he was doing, and why.

You could also do a printout or write it to a mag tape. I'm sure the
audience would know about that too.

> >> In that time frame nearly
> >> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the object
> >> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been a very
> >> reasonable method to store the information.
> >
> > So would email.
>
> Again, this isn't a particularly secure way, especially at a place of
> employment.

Why? I don't follow your logic here. He also had a radio dish outside
he could have used.

All in all, I don't think the plotline leading up to his death was
well concieved or necessary.

> >> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see no
> >> reason
> >> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no
> >> merit.
> >
> > Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.

Note: no response.

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

Julio Laredo wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
> >> >> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
> >> >> > Man, talk about crap.
> >> >>
> >> >> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of cliches
> >> >> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for my
> >> >> tastes.
> >> >
> >> > I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.
> >> >
> >> >> > Starts off with some kid with with a ****ant little scope (not even a
> >> >> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do? Calls
> >> >> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a
> >> >> > professional asstronomer.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some
> >> >> modicum of
> >> >> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.
> >> >
> >> >> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002
> >> >> winners of the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.
> >> >
> >> > They give out awards for this? A0L!
> >>
> >> Yes, they sure do.
> >
> > How dumb is that!
>
> No more than any other award which is based on a combination of knowledge,
> skill, and luck.

Ah, you mean like the Darwin Awards!

> >> >> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
> >> >> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to contact
> >> >> someone
> >> >> he considered a professional for verification.
> >> >
> >> > To verify what? That he saw a comet?
> >>
> >> Yes, there is a procedure. And it is a race to get your name on it.
> >
> > The last thing I'd want is my name on a comet that's going to destroy
> > the Earth.
>
> They wouldn't know the trajectory at that time.

You could guess.

> >> >> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
> >> >>
> >> >> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
> >> >> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he looks
> >> >> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he did
> >> >> > with a radio scope, but he does.
> >> >>
> >> >> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the dishes,
> >> >> and are often used in
> >> >> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off the
> >> >> mark.
> >> >> Strike two.
> >> >
> >> > Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
> >> > the film show an optical scope being used?
> >>
> >> I don't know what they showed in the film.
> >
> > So your "strike one" was illinformed?
>
> No. Optical scopes are used to help aim the dish or dishes. And it would
> be reasonable
> to presume that an optical scope could be attached to a camera, and the
> camera to a computer. Anyone who knows astronomy knows that.

Yes but no optical scope was evident in that part of the film. If you
had bothered to watch it, you would have seen for yourself.

> >> I tried to watch the part where
> >> they were planting the explosives. Once I predicted almost every thing
> >> that
> >> was going to be shown before it was shown, I got bored and changed the
> >> channel.
> >
> > Well, I watched it all. Its entertainment value was laughable. Which
> > was just what I wanted that particular night.
> >
> >> >> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is he
> >> >> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is
> >> >> > written in FORTRAN too.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around forever;
> >> >> they have not.
> >> >
> >> > The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by then.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter. In the film the guy saved the information. Some people
> >> save to the Internet, some don't. I don't save things to the Internet.
> >> Back in 1998 I saved to floppies and CDs. Now I save to thumbdrives.
> >
> > Good for you. My point was that the plotline at that particular point
> > was ludicrous. So you're "strike two" doesn't hold water either.
>
> Sorry, still holds up. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with his saving
> a text file to a floppy. Besides, FORTRAN would be tape and punch cards.

Tell me about it.

> >> >> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which means
> >> >> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are usually
> >> > set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this in
> >> > the past, don't you think?
> >>
> >> Shooting still began in about 1996 with no regard to when the picture
> >> was going to come out.
> >
> > Since it came out at about the same time as Armageddon, I find that
> > odd. Why do these sorts of films come out in rapid succession? 2 years
> > is a long time to wait to cash in on the popularity of something else.
>
> Serendipity. Deep Star Six, Leviathan, and Abyss came out in rapid
> sucession, as did
> Red Planet and Mission to Mars, Ratatoulle and No Reservations, and Monsters
> Inc
> was quickly followed by Ice Age. The lead times for movies can be measured
> in years,
> and in the case of all these movies, one did not influence any of the
> others.

And you know that for a fact?

> >> "Silent Running" was set in the future, and showed
> >> hardwire programming. Who does that, now?
> >
> > I set the registers on a PDP-11 not too long ago. Not very exciting.
>
> That is a little different than using a microscope and a laser to change
> the circuitry on a an integrated chip, which is how it was done in that
> movie.

Your point being?

> >> While it is possible to predict what may happen, and could happen, you
> >> still have to base it on what is known, now.
> >
> > You mean like in Star Trek and Star Wars?
>
> Two entirely different kinds of movies, and different, still, from Deep
> Impact, which is set in a time frame of only a few years from the release
> date.

While Star Wars' timeframe is unknown (it was supposed to be set in
the past), Star Trek's one is.

> >> At the time the movie was being made,
> >> the most popular way to save small files was by floppy. The movie
> >> audience would immediately know what he was doing, and why.
> >
> > You could also do a printout or write it to a mag tape. I'm sure the
> > audience would know about that too.
>
> And would you have made the same comment? Be that as it may, he
> didn't, and it would be no reflection on the kind of software he was
> using.

I was pointing out the inadequacy of the plot. What are you doing?

> >> >> In that time frame nearly
> >> >> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the
> >> >> object
> >> >> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been a
> >> >> very reasonable method to store the information.
> >> >
> >> > So would email.
> >>
> >> Again, this isn't a particularly secure way, especially at a place of
> >> employment.
> >
> > Why? I don't follow your logic here. He also had a radio dish outside
> > he could have used.
>
> Anyone who knows astronomy would know that, unless he was involved
> with SETI, the radio dish is made to recieve, only.

You mean like in Contact?

> You had made it sound like he was being secretive, so he could make sole
> claim to the discovery, and the cash prize of the Edgar Wilson award. If he
> wanted to be secretive, email is not the way to go, as anyone who has
> had emails used against them in court or disciplinary procedures could
> attest.

No, I'm making it sound like the plot at that point was stupid.

> > All in all, I don't think the plotline leading up to his death was
> > well concieved or necessary.
>
> Well, that is something different from your original complaints

Not entirely.

> >> >> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see no
> >> >> reason
> >> >> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no
> >> >> merit.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.
> >
> > Note: no response.
>
> No repsonse there was needed. I had proven my points before.

Since you admitted you didn't see that part of the film, I fail to see
how you can claim any of your points hold water.

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

Julio Laredo wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> >> ps.com...
> >> >> > Julio Laredo wrote:
> >> >> >> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> > It was screening on TV the other night so I thought I'd watch it.
> >> >> >> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/
> >> >> >> > Man, talk about crap.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I happened to see only a few minutes of it, once. It's use of
> >> >> >> cliches
> >> >> >> showed the thinking behind the writing was way too conservative for
> >> >> >> my
> >> >> >> tastes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I know what you mean. Almost every film made nowdays is formulaeic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Starts off with some kid with with a ****ant little scope (not
> >> >> >> > even a
> >> >> >> > Mead!) discovering a comet or assteriod. So what does he do?
> >> >> >> > Calls
> >> >> >> > some turkey in Nevada who is laughingly supposed to be a
> >> >> >> > professional asstronomer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is essential in effective satire that the satirist have some
> >> >> >> modicum of
> >> >> >> knowledge of the subject be satirized. Let's see how you stack up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, so it was satire. Yeah, I can see how that makes sense now.
>
> You didn't know that what you wrote was satire? Oh, how sad.

Lame attempt at sarcasm noted.

> >> >> >> Most comet discoveries have been by amateurs, and one of the 2002
> >> >> >> winners of the Edgar Wilson Award used binoculars.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They give out awards for this? A0L!
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, they sure do.
> >> >
> >> > How dumb is that!
> >>
> >> No more than any other award which is based on a combination of
> >> knowledge,
> >> skill, and luck.
> >
> > Ah, you mean like the Darwin Awards!
>
> The Darwin Awards are for those who, after a lifetime of stupid behavior,
> has their
> stupidity catch up and kill them. That takes a lack of knowledge, and
> skill, and luck.
> The Edgar Wilson Award, on the other hand, as I said, takes knowledge,
> skill, and luck.
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/special/EdgarWilson.html

So you are more likely to win a Darwin than a Wilson.

> >> >> >> And not everyone would head right to CBAT, it would be
> >> >> >> within the realm of possibility that an amateur would try to
> >> >> >> contact
> >> >> >> someone
> >> >> >> he considered a professional for verification.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To verify what? That he saw a comet?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, there is a procedure. And it is a race to get your name on it.
> >> >
> >> > The last thing I'd want is my name on a comet that's going to destroy
> >> > the Earth.
> >>
> >> They wouldn't know the trajectory at that time.
> >
> > You could guess.
>
> Anyone with any knowledge knows that one photograph of a planetary object
> may show where it is at a given point in time, but not it's path or
> velocity. So, only the incredibly stupid would guess.

So how was that astronomer able to determine the comet's trajectory
from one observation?

> >> >> >> So, here, your satire was off the mark. Strike one.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > That clown is sitting in what looks like a radio scope station
> >> >> >> > listening to classical music (what else?). After he's told, he
> >> >> >> > looks
> >> >> >> > for it himself. Not sure how he gets an image of it the way he
> >> >> >> > did
> >> >> >> > with a radio scope, but he does.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Radio telescope stations do have optical scopes for aiming the
> >> >> >> dishes,
> >> >> >> and are often used in
> >> >> >> conjunction with the radio images. Here, too, your satire is off
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> mark.
> >> >> >> Strike two.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are they located on top of mountains by themselves or in arrays? Did
> >> >> > the film show an optical scope being used?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know what they showed in the film.
> >> >
> >> > So your "strike one" was illinformed?
> >>
> >> No. Optical scopes are used to help aim the dish or dishes. And it
> >> would
> >> be reasonable
> >> to presume that an optical scope could be attached to a camera, and the
> >> camera to a computer. Anyone who knows astronomy knows that.
> >
> > Yes but no optical scope was evident in that part of the film. If you
> > had bothered to watch it, you would have seen for yourself.
>
> You said there was a radio observatory. Optical scopes are used to aim.

None was shown.

> Everyone knows that.

Everyone? Show me where it was shown in this film, or Contact or The
Dish?

> To disagree would be like me objecting to the
> truck, you say, that wipes out the "clown" couldn't because, well, the movie
> didn't show the truck being made and having an engine of some kind put in
> it.

I was more interested in knowing what the semi was doing driving up to
the observatory at that time of night.

> The accessibility to a spotter scope is a given, otherwise they can't aim
> the dish, and if they can't aim the dish, well, a pretty expensive umbrella.

In The Dish, it was shown to be done computationally. The Dish was set
in 1969.

> >> >> I tried to watch the part where
> >> >> they were planting the explosives. Once I predicted almost every
> >> >> thing
> >> >> that
> >> >> was going to be shown before it was shown, I got bored and changed the
> >> >> channel.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I watched it all. Its entertainment value was laughable. Which
> >> > was just what I wanted that particular night.
> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then, get this, he transfers it to floppy disk! What the hay! Is
> >> >> >> > he
> >> >> >> > using OS/2 or something? Let me guess. His crappy software is
> >> >> >> > written in FORTRAN too.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I guess you think that optical disks and XP have been around
> >> >> >> forever;
> >> >> >> they have not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The film was made in '98. The Internet had been around a while by
> >> >> > then.
> >> >>
> >> >> Doesn't matter. In the film the guy saved the information. Some
> >> >> people
> >> >> save to the Internet, some don't. I don't save things to the
> >> >> Internet.
> >> >> Back in 1998 I saved to floppies and CDs. Now I save to thumbdrives.
> >> >
> >> > Good for you. My point was that the plotline at that particular point
> >> > was ludicrous. So you're "strike two" doesn't hold water either.
> >>
> >> Sorry, still holds up. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with his
> >> saving
> >> a text file to a floppy. Besides, FORTRAN would be tape and punch cards.
> >
> > Tell me about it.
>
> Obviously, I had to.

Because you love the sound of your own voice?

> >> >> >> If you were paying attention, the movie came out in 1998, which
> >> >> >> means
> >> >> >> shooting would have begun at least 2 years before.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you sure about that? Don't forget these types of films are
> >> >> > usually
> >> >> > set in the future. Would be kind of dumb to set something like this
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the past, don't you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> Shooting still began in about 1996 with no regard to when the picture
> >> >> was going to come out.
> >> >
> >> > Since it came out at about the same time as Armageddon, I find that
> >> > odd. Why do these sorts of films come out in rapid succession? 2 years
> >> > is a long time to wait to cash in on the popularity of something else.
> >>
> >> Serendipity. Deep Star Six, Leviathan, and Abyss came out in rapid
> >> sucession, as did
> >> Red Planet and Mission to Mars, Ratatoulle and No Reservations, and
> >> Monsters
> >> Inc
> >> was quickly followed by Ice Age. The lead times for movies can be
> >> measured
> >> in years,
> >> and in the case of all these movies, one did not influence any of the
> >> others.
> >
> > And you know that for a fact?
>
> Oh, dear, the "you know that for a fact?" throwdown. Whatever shall I do?

Get a clue and prove it.

> So, what? That the movies came out separated by as little as 33 days? The
> lead time for movies can be measured in years? One did not influence
> another
> because principle shooting had been done and all that was left was
> post-production?

So?

> Armageddon followed Deep Impact by 54 days.

You just stated it was 33 days. So which was it? 33 or 54?

> That would be barely enough time
> to change the posters, much less make changes in the SFX or story.

Why would it be necessary to change posters etc?

> As in movies before and in the future, it'll happen.

So? You don't seem to understand why it happens.

> >> >> "Silent Running" was set in the future, and showed
> >> >> hardwire programming. Who does that, now?
> >> >
> >> > I set the registers on a PDP-11 not too long ago. Not very exciting.
> >>
> >> That is a little different than using a microscope and a laser to change
> >> the circuitry on a an integrated chip, which is how it was done in that
> >> movie.
> >
> > Your point being?
>
> Silent Running got the prediction on the future of robotic programming, as
> you seem to have.

I fail to see what robotic programming has to do with lasers,
microscopes and chips.

> >> >> While it is possible to predict what may happen, and could happen, you
> >> >> still have to base it on what is known, now.
> >> >
> >> > You mean like in Star Trek and Star Wars?
> >>
> >> Two entirely different kinds of movies, and different, still, from Deep
> >> Impact, which is set in a time frame of only a few years from the release
> >> date.
> >
> > While Star Wars' timeframe is unknown (it was supposed to be set in
> > the past), Star Trek's one is.
>
> Some 500 years in the future. From what I saw of Deep Impact, the
> technology
> was in keeping with the late 20th century. Saving to a floppy was entirely
> expected.

So are other methods.

> >> >> At the time the movie was being made,
> >> >> the most popular way to save small files was by floppy. The movie
> >> >> audience would immediately know what he was doing, and why.
> >> >
> >> > You could also do a printout or write it to a mag tape. I'm sure the
> >> > audience would know about that too.
> >>
> >> And would you have made the same comment? Be that as it may, he
> >> didn't, and it would be no reflection on the kind of software he was
> >> using.
> >
> > I was pointing out the inadequacy of the plot. What are you doing?
>
> Oh, I see. I think you first need to know what a plot is. It is the story.
> It is not your lack of knowledge of technology.

You've lost the plot ages ago.

> >> >> >> In that time frame nearly
> >> >> >> all computers had floppy drives, and since the coordinates for the
> >> >> >> object
> >> >> >> would be in a relatively small text file, a floppy would have been
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> very reasonable method to store the information.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So would email.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, this isn't a particularly secure way, especially at a place of
> >> >> employment.
> >> >
> >> > Why? I don't follow your logic here. He also had a radio dish outside
> >> > he could have used.
> >>
> >> Anyone who knows astronomy would know that, unless he was involved
> >> with SETI, the radio dish is made to recieve, only.
> >
> > You mean like in Contact?
>
> And if it recieves, it can't be used to send email. Recieve. Send. Not
> quite
> the same, no matter how much you might want it to be.

You present yourself as an expert on this yet you can't even fix your
newsreader's word wrap problem. Why am I not impressed?

> >> You had made it sound like he was being secretive, so he could make sole
> >> claim to the discovery, and the cash prize of the Edgar Wilson award. If
> >> he
> >> wanted to be secretive, email is not the way to go, as anyone who has
> >> had emails used against them in court or disciplinary procedures could
> >> attest.
> >
> > No, I'm making it sound like the plot at that point was stupid.
>
> But, it wasn't. From what you described, it was entirely credible, to
> someone with knowledge of astronomy and the, if you can call it that,
> cut-throat world of cometary one-upmanship.

Now your statements are just laughable.

> >> > All in all, I don't think the plotline leading up to his death was
> >> > well concieved or necessary.
> >>
> >> Well, that is something different from your original complaints
> >
> > Not entirely.
>
> Entirely.

Which means that you can't seem to read posts coherently.

> >> >> >> Strike three. You have proven yourself to be inept and I can see
> >> >> >> no
> >> >> >> reason
> >> >> >> to go further since whatever you would have to opine would be of no
> >> >> >> merit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sounds more like your batting average needs some work.
> >> >
> >> > Note: no response.
> >>
> >> No repsonse there was needed. I had proven my points before.
> >
> > Since you admitted you didn't see that part of the film, I fail to see
> > how you can claim any of your points hold water.
>
> Going by the information you have given, removing the worthless opinions,
> there is nothing in your description that is untoward for the situation.

Unlike yours?

[Michael Baldwin, Bruce[_2_]]

Right on cue, completely anal retentive kookdancing queen, Dickless
Davie the "irrelevaant" Ignoranus, whined and
tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
> "rec.music.classical" > writes:
>
> >>> Lora Crighton wrote:
>
> >>>> EvelynVogtGamble wrote:
>
> >>>>> rec.music.classical wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Lora Crighton wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Considering the ongoing deterioration of rmc and rmo, I can't see that
> >>>>>>>> anything I do is likely to have much effect!
>
> >>>>>>> Noticing deterioration is a justification for giving it another kick
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>> wrong direction? If everyone thinks like you, the trolls will own
> >>>>>>> both groups.
>
> >>>>>> Did you realize that this post made it to your dream-kook's digest?
> >>>>>> Nice way for him to repay one of the few people who voted against him
> >>>>>> in the July ballot.
>
> >>>>> Who is this idiot whose return address presumes to represent the entire
> >>>>> newsgroup?
>
> >>>> Probably Bruce or one of his friends. Please don't feed the trolls, and
> >>>> please don't crosspost to alt.usenet.kooks. Thanks.
>
> >>> I notice that Tholen also cross posts, but you don't get on his case
> >>> about it. Why is that, tweetie?
>
> >> What does your question have to do with classical music,
> >> rec.music.classical?
>
> > I wasn't talking to you, Tholen.
>
> And Lora Crighton wasn't talking to you when you responded to her,
> rec.music.classical, but that didn't stop you.

You do not have my permission to post replies to my threads, Dickless.
So **** off.

> Why should it stop me, rec.music.classical?

Because you are an arsehole, Dickless. You haven't posted anything on-
topic in this thread. Which proves you are a troll.

> Or are you a hypocrite, rec.music.classical?

"Clasic" hypocrisy, Dickless.