David Hingtgen

My like of *natural* red hair is known on several forums. As is my dislike of blatantly fake hair. It just ruins the effect. It's the same as some strippers with literally M-cup chests or something---5x larger than humanly possible, with literally gallons of silicone inside. So impossibly fake that there's no attraction--it's freaky, instead of attractive.

Some guys are leg guys. Some are boob guys. I like red hair.

I just transformed my YF-19 for the first time in months. Time to get out the nail polish again. V.stab won't stay up (keeps sliding back down the leg), bottom part of the chest won't stay up, right wing REALLY won't stay in place in fighter mode, etc. It just plain needs more hooks/tabs to start with, and those that do exist just don't work well. Honestly I'm pretty disappointed with the YF-19, it just doesn't hold together in either mode and is loose/floppy at all times. Hopefully Nora is better (I think it is, by a lot, based on reviews)

What about POTC? Wrong framing. But that's Disney---do the various companies' engineers/encoders etc just not understand Blu-Ray, or is it simply random screw-ups? Have any HD-DVD's had similar problems?

One of the first results I got googling her was this quote (very recent): "Even one redheaded Rachel Nichols is too many. Now we have two. TCL hasn't ever worked out why a woman would dye her hair some variation of scarily fake red. Whether the hue aspires to "auburn" or "deep strawberry blond" or "sassy ginger," the result always looks slightly "fright wig." Let's get this straight, ladies: No dye job exists that credibly replicates real red hair." My sentiments exactly. BLANTANTLY FAKE RED SUCKS. It's no different than having bright green or blue----it's WAY off the 'realm of possibility' and just looks weird. Might as well wear those contacts that give you yellow eyes or cat-like pupils---you look inhuman, and its unsettling. (It's just that fake red is so prevalent, people have learned to accept it and it's not as disturbing to some--but those of us who like real red, know real redheads, etc, it's really distubring) Well, there is one positive note to choosing her: at least she's fairly fair-skinned. Not like, you know, Jessica Alba as a blue-eyed blonde... Honestly, I don't know why Hollywood types etc pay for stuff like that. I bet I could make a girl's hair more realistically red with a few packets of various Kool-Aid colors. But they pay like a grand to some "stylist to the stars" with years of experience and training, just to end up with hair that's a pretty close match to Ronald McDonald's.

I just realized---does the lift fan cut rear visibility to zero? Isn't that "fighter design no-no #1?"

Saturn?!?!?

Personally I never really "got" the story either, it's more of a visual thing. To rephrase your comment---literally, SEE the amazingness. Look at the world of Blade Runner. That's mainly what I get out of it. Visual style.

VF-9 has an amazingly complex wing transformation, seeing as how they form the chest... (took me a while to figure it out, even booted up M3 and just sat there a while, switching from one mode to another, watching) IMHO the VF-9 has the most unique transformation of any valk. I mean, it's not even symmetrical.

I'm waiting until the 25th to take mine out of the box too. (Even going to wrap it---found a perfect matching shade of giftwrap but they were sold out--going to keep hunting around) (yes, I try to match paper/bow to the toy---got a dull gold bow, now just need purplish-red paper)

The Nora I bought myself (and just got) will be wrapped and I will wait until the 25th to open it.

Why did they change the lift-fan's door? Bi-fold doors are not complex or prone to failure or anything. Half of all airliners have bi-fold landing gear doors 99% identical in size/shape/operation to the X-35's original lift-fan doors. I can't imagine that one big huge wind-catching piece is any better, besides saving a few hundred bucks a HUNDRED MILLION BUCK plane.

Nope. (I get that question a lot though)

Many plane modelers know the common ones by heart, as we've grabbed the "36375" bottle hundreds of times. Names may vary, but the numbers never change. The numbers are the US govt's system, FS595b. ::checks:: Well, Nora's plane may be close to 37142, but I've never seen/heard of that color, and nobody makes a paint of it, nor does it have a name. It only shows up in the master lists. I don't have an actual sample chart so I have no idea what color 37142 really is. (most computer displays seem horrendously off). But this place isn't bad: http://www.colorserver.net/

It ACCEPTS 1080p, but it'll still downscale and show it as 720p (actually, 768p). Several 32's that are not a Sharp 1080 do the same. 32's that can't accept 1080p will just go nuts or show a blank screen if you try to give them 1080p. But among 32's, only a Sharp 1080p set can actually show 1080p at 1080. (And I looked again today, and still didn't see a difference--but the source and screen settings seemed especially bad today, probably due to the constant influx of Xmas buyers--I'm going to look at Sears tomorrow, generally a better setup) I was mainly comparing the Samsung LNT3253 and Panasonic TC32LX700 today (they were side by side this time). Most of the time was spent pressing the 700's "120hz demo" button and trying to compare. The 700's own self-generated superimposed scrolling text showed an amazing improvement, but all other things looked very similar. I'd really like to see a actual scrolling text test, but I don't think any demo has that. Just let me hook the TV up to CNN or ESPN or something. I haven't looked closely at the HL67 (but I plan to---it's just always way up high or disconnected or something--never gotten a GOOD look). I would probably say "it's the cheapest of the good 32's". Ishimaru--as you and I are looking for the same thing, have you downloaded the manuals of any TV you're considering from the manufacturer's website? You can often get a lot of info from them, and find out things you otherwise wouldn't know until you actually bought it. (Like what settings are in the menu, the remote layout, input layout, etc). I've got the 32S3000 and 32M3000 manual, 32HL67, 32XL700, 3253H, 32XBR4, etc.

Keith---the Blu-Ray version is available to get the Work Print without the box/case, and only 5 bucks more than the 4-disc DVD version. IMHO you probably should have snagged that version if you have a PS3. Only the normal DVD requires you to buy the uber-case version to get the work print.

I'm still leaning towards a stand-alone HD-DVD. Many range from only a bit more to a bit less than a 360's add-on, cost-wise. I'll be surprised if my 360 lasts another year. But for Blu-Ray, PS3's the only sensible choice. Cheapest and among the best in several categories.

They're very backwards compatible. I don't know of any "disc" technology that isn't able to read all previous versions. CD players can only do CD. By CD-ROM drives can also do CD's. DVD's can read CD-ROM and CD, DVD-ROM can also do DVD, CD-ROM, and CD. And HD-DVD's and BluRay can read DVD's, and usually do a good job upscaling them. (AFAIK the PS3 is among the very best at upscaling normal DVD's) So if you buy a HD-DVD player, and it does decent upscaling, you can watch normal DVD's in the infamous "near-HD quality". Yes, they have the amazing ability to improve the image of old, normal DVD's. They will all be able to play normal DVD's at non-HD resolution, but depending on what player you get, you may be able to see a MUCH improved picture out of them. Google around or ask which ones are best at "upscaling" normal DVD's if that's a big concern for you. (It is for me when I'm going to get one). One of the most common current HD-DVD players is Toshiba's HD-A3. It lists that it can play: HD-DVD DVD DVD-R DVD-RW CD-R CD-RW CD Plus upscale any standard DVD to 480p, 720p, or 1080i. (if you want 1080*p* out of an HD-DVD player, you have to buy one of the higher-end ones) Note: Toshiba keeps mentioning that upconverting DVD's requires you to use the HDMI inputs (probably a HDCP compliance thing).

Ack, and I wasn't thinking. I figured it was for Tuesday, didn't realize Tues was the 18th. Regardless, it's "right now only".

Whoa, just noticed this: http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/Bourne.jpg Get the entire Bourne trilogy in HD for free, if you buy the 360's HD-DVD add-on. Only valid at Amazon, only Dec 17th.

Honestly, many of us (in the US at least) got it weeks/months ago and played online for many hours and pretty much did all there is to do already. I've got dozens of hours online, but am pretty much 'done' with the game for the moment. Shin's still on, but he's the only US-based player from MW I know of that's still online regularly.

HP 800 series does rock, mine's an 832C. Reading some reviews, I found the 832C's actually fairly in demand now (despite being long out of production), as it's about the fastest, highest-quality and most reliable inkjet there is for basic "black text on white". I think it's jammed one sheet of paper ever, in all the years I've had it. Plus it has (by modern standards) a massive ink capacity, yet the cartridge costs no more than ones that hold only 1/4 the ink. I only have to buy black ink about once a year due to that. Lastly, it has a less-than-a-second startup time and nearly instant shutoff. No 30-sec warmup like most, then wait another 20 noisy secs for the print head(s) to park when your done. (I counted the Epsons at 43 secs at Best Buy, minimum time from startup to printing--that's insanely slow) Buying a photo-capable printer would force me to make WAY too many sacrifices from what I currently own--speed, ink capacity, startup/warmup time, reliability, etc. Plus the most important "massive drop in basic black text quality". My 832C also beats them all for ease of paper handling/loading. You just drop it in. No fluffling/rifling a new stack, using trays/casettes, carefully aligning various sliders, etc. Just shove in a handful when you run low. So long as it can grab it, it'll be fine.

I still have neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray, but I plan to pick up an HD copy. Just have to decide which...

Just a little update: Now that I'm finally over the flu I checked out all the printers I was considering again, this time testing black/text instead of photos. And: They all suck. Every one (even $400+) is vastly inferior at basic "black text on white paper" than my years-old cheap HP inkjet. It is very true that text quality is sacrificed for photo quality on newer printers. They are a million times better at photos than mine, but not half as good at basic black text. And I print words a whole lot more than photos. The only one which might possibly do well at both is a Canon (has 2 different blacks, one just for text) that absolutely won't fit in my computer desk and isn't sold here so I can't see it first-hand anyways. (plus I truly hate top/rear-loaders). Guess I just won't be getting a new printer for a while, maybe in another couple years photo-capable printers will be able to print text as well as a late-90's inket.

More OT: Top 10 80's cartoon intros, starting with Visionaries: (Hunt around, and you'll also find the 30 min one, and the 5-part series) Best theme I never knew about before: Mighty Orbots. Best theme not included in any list: Denver the Last Dinosaur. Also, plenty of KITT vs KARR on youtube.