Jump to content

JB0

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13224

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JB0

  1. JB0
    Honestly, I think the weird part is more that it's designed around this dual-battery design. There's a cut-in to make room for the adapter, and they use abnormal contacts to create the second path so they can mount those button cells sideways. Also, on closer inspection, my original stock button batteries were leaking. Sound box still worked with them, but battery goop is a Bad Thing, so out they go! Copyright 1992, so they had a good long run.
  2. JB0
    PS-X was ALSO a codename for Sony's version of the SNESCD, meant to be released under the name Play Station(mind the space). Personally, I just abbreviate PlayStation to PS or PS1. Saves some confusion, and I really hate the PSX pseudo-abbreviation anyways.
  3. JB0
    Amusing note: I have the Generation 2 reissue of Optimus Prime. His sound box has a pair of button-cell batteries in it. Button cells that were mounted in an adapter to make them functional in a battery pack designed primarily for AAs. It is... interesting. (No, I've never removed the store demo batteries from it. I really ought to go through and pull batteries out of all my light&sound TFs before they start leaking). So I am assuming that button cells are not inherently more expensive than AA cells, at least not at a volume-purchase level.
  4. JB0
    I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Fast Action Battler Jetfire was a better transformer than Leader Jetfire. Also, that derail about how Valkyries are nothing but kibble is really interesting given the only valk that has a lot of robot kibble is the YF-21/VF-22(the rest of them all have parts that actually "transform"). And the solution to all that kibble is one that would be highly workable on the Transformers jets: there's doors that close over the kibble, giving it a jet bottom instead of a hang-gliding robot. Yes, the jets would be too thick, and there'd have to be SOMEWHERE to stash the folded-up doors lest we have another hip kibble drama-bomb like we did with Masterpiece Starscream(I still think the tail kibble looked far better hanging off his hips than off his ankles, but what do I know?). But it's still a lot better than hang-glider robots.
  5. JB0
    What sort of jerk designs toys for KIDS? The damn whipersnappers are RUINING my toys! ... Well, okay, they ARE ruining my toys. I WANTED to want Leader Jetfire, but the whole robot hang-glider thing was unignorable for me.
  6. JB0
    As someone that never saw the original movie as a kid, I have to say it's a far better movie than any of the live-action films. Because my primary reason for watching Transformers is to see giant robots blowing the hell out of each other. And TF:TM is basically 90 minutes of giant robots blowing the hell out of each other. I also confess to being more partial to the general aesthetic of the 80s movie, if not the characters. I hold no great love in my heart for the "new generation" characters like I do for folks like Optimus Prime, Shockwave, Megatron, Soundwave, Bumblebee, and Shockwave. But the overall look of the robots resonates better with me, and I'm always up for an interplanetary romp... yes, even one where robot squid eat robot fish in a sea full of robot seaweed.
  7. JB0
    From what I understand, that barely scratches the surface of the wholesale coupon fraud that takes place on that program.
  8. JB0
    This seems... abusable. Is there something I'm missing, or can you register a bunch of Facebook accounts JUST to get coupons? OBVIOUSLY it says limit one per customer, I'm sure, but... that certainly doesn't stop anyone. If the cashier tries to enforce it, you leave and come back some other time/day. Or go to a different store. So am I wrong, or do I need to say a little prayer for the poor souls working at Toys R Us right now?
  9. JB0
    But our statistical sampling is so small as to be completely meaningless, is the problem. It is, to be specific, ONE datum. A single datum is not adequate to base ANY theory on, nor to establish any form of statistical trend. It's not a statistical argument, or a scientific one. It's anthropocentrism masquerading as a proven theory. You're missing a few digits there. A few billion of them, at least. Application of logic trumps a complete absence of evidence for anthropocentrism. Certain subcases, however, seem reasonable. Two eyes, for example. Multiple eyes provides a comparison point for calculating depth. Or seeing your entire surroundings at once, if you're not a hunter. Two is the minimum required for both purposes. More demands more brain space spent on image processing, which is an exceptionally difficult task. Consequently, we can make a reasonable argument that alien life is likely, if it has eyes, to have two of them. And they will be in close proximity to the brain to minimize the length of the optic nerve, which must carry very large amounts of data very rapidly. A logical case can be laid out. The overall human form, however, is not a reasonable argument. We KNOW it's not the only form capable of manipulation of the environment. Octopi and cuttlefish being the most obviously "alien" contenders, as well as the closest runner-up. Those damned cephalopod tentacle monsters do more with their environment than monkeys and gorillas, which kind of puts a hole in the whole "primates are best" theory right off.
  10. JB0
    That first clause is a pretty big assumption, though. We already know that silicon can form molecules in long complex chains similar to carbon, just not in Earth-like environments. That's why sci-fi often has silicon-based life. And even on Earth, we've found life in every kind of inhospitably sterile hellhole we can think of. There's life in the boiling water around volcanic vents and inside geysers. Life in the incredible pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Life in the intense cold of Antarctica. Even life in "poisonous" environments of pure arsenic, totally starved of phosphorous. Less than a year ago, phosphorous was considered mandatory for any carbon-based life, and arsenic universally toxic. Much of this life is fundamentally "alien" to us. But it exists. Everywhere there is water. In every shape imaginable, and many that defy all imagination. The assumption that a primate will become the dominant life-form is even more anthropocentric than the assumption that circumstances humans find comfortable are the only circumstances under which life can thrive. This is certainly the case in one known instance. It is HARDLY indicative of a trend. Other than it's never been seen on Earth, what makes something like Niven's Puppeteers particularly implausable? Or even something as "normal" as a smart wolf or elephant? Maybe even a dolphin? To take that argument to it's logical conclusion, to claim that any world but Earth can harbor life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary(7 dead planets and numerous dead non-planetary bodies) would be such a crime. The evidence to date indicates that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE but the Earth can life originate, in any form. I find this a truly absurd stance to take. We know so close to nothing of the universe as to make no difference. It is roughly akin to plucking a single grain of sand from the beach, placing it under a microscope and examining it in excruciating detail, then claiming to know not merely the beach, but the Earth as a whole from this exhaustive study of a single grain of sand. We as a species continue to find the "impossible" happening on our very own planet, despite some hundred millenia of experience with it. In light of that, it seems fair to assume that anything is possible in the vast infinite canvas of the universe... perhaps even naturally-occurring sentient humanoid robots.
  11. JB0
    I was not intending to get involved in the whole Evolution of Transformers VS Evolution of Man debate. I'm just saying they don't look alien. And as robots, they have no need to look or function at all like humans. If you have wheels, why do you need legs? They're more complex to build, maintain, and operate. If you don't breathe, why do you have a nose? And related to breathing... why would a race of robots need speech when they can communicate through radio waves faster and more efficiently, as well as in environments where speech is impossible, such as the vacuum of space. Even the basics like binocular vision for depth perception are questionable. It's EASY to bounce a laser off an object and time how long it takes to return. AND it avoids the many ambiguities present in the human implementation of depth perception, which is HEAVILY dependent on environmental assumptions. But they ARE mechanical humans. Because it's more marketable that way. Fair enough. Wikipedia sez "A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation." So the same general rules apply. A law can be overturned, just as a theory can, if you can produce evidence contrary to the law/theory. But were there no evidence supporting it, it wouldn't be more than a hypothesis in the first place. In any case, a scientific theory is still something that has been proven. It may not actually be a correct interpretation of the evidence, but were it untested, it would be a hypothesis, not a theory. To continue beating on gravity... the gravity waves hypothesized by relativity have now been observed, and that is now theory. And to make me look like a fool, there's string theory, which has made no testable predictions. I'd argue it should be string hypothesis, but it's theoretical physics, which is a whole different kind of weird. It's interesting, however, to note that special relativity and general relativity also originated in theoretical physics. But many of their predictions are now tested and verified, so large parts reside in the realm of "real" physics.
  12. JB0
    This! Personal peeve, but scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory in general use. What in general use is referred to as a theory, science calls a HYPOTHESIS. Hence we have things like the THEORY of gravity.
  13. JB0
    EXO's right. That's always the best way to conduct an interview.
  14. JB0
    To be perfectly honest, my problem is that I came to the movie for one thing, and one thing only: giant robots shooting at each other. Aside from a very low robo-gunplay tally in the first film(my favorite example being the one use of Ironhide's much bragged-about guns... for a rocket-jump), all the jumpcuts made it impossible to tell what was going on. From THAT perspective... Revenge of the Fallen got some hot robot-on-robot action in for more than just the final scenes, had gunfire, and the fight scenes that didn't rely on jumpcuts every 2 seconds. Both, however, are far too long(or far too short if you edit out all the parts that don't have giant robot violence in them) Dark of the Moon I would consider rewatching, though. And it's the only one of the three I can say that about.
  15. JB0
    To be fair, we don't have a lot of inspiration laying around. And if the characters aren't human enough, people have trouble relating to them(and in this specific case, that means the toys don't sell, and that's bad).
  16. JB0
    They were so alien, in fact, that they had two eyes above a horizontal mouth, with a functional nose in between. And two five-fingered hands at the end of two arms. With an elbow between the shoulder and wrist at a perfect drinking distance. And they pee. Out of the place where their two legs join their torso. Why do people keep saying this? They weren't alien at all. They were perfectly standard humanoids with perfectly human proportions(except for Starscream, who was a bit of a hunchback) and some cosmetic disfiguration. They're the Transformer equivalent of klingons. Just add some wrinkles and pretend that hides their inherent humanity. None of this is particularly unique to Micheal Bay's versions of the characters. They're all metal humans with car parts glued on. They're no more or less alien than any other Transformers this side of Pretenders and Beast Wars. That's actually one of the things I like about Shockwave's various incarnations. He IS just a little bit alien around the face, and he wears his monocle proudly in the center of his featureless visage. In short, the emperor has no clothes. Now, to be fair... I was impressed with the Bayformers' integrated weaponry. It dodges the question of where they KEEP their guns, and it just plain made SENSE too. After all, if they can transform to another body entirely, why can't they transform their hand into a gun? ESPECIALLY in the Bay-verse, where they can adapt a new pair of bodies at will in a matter of seconds(who needs plastic surgeons when you can scan a 2010 Camaro, right?). I always like to see an anthropomorphic robot with pop-out weapons that doesn't have to grab a big gun out of a trailer, and I DO give credit where it's due. Sadly, those moments are few and far between in the history of giant robots. I would pay good money to watch this. Personally, I'm hoping for a M.A.S.K. revival next.
  17. JB0
    Were "please ignore the Frenzy-head telephone"and "these aren't the droids you're looking for" not big enough signs of sarcasm? Reminder: this head transformed into a Razr, which has less volume than the average Snickers bar. It was pretty blatant evidence that Micheal Bay is a dirty liar, even if nothing else was. That post was 110% not to be taken seriously.
  18. JB0
    You have to admit, that'd speed up the legal system a lot.
  19. JB0
    Alien VS Starship Troopers VS Terminator? I smell a new major comic book franchise in the works.
  20. JB0
    What are you talking about? There's no CG magic in the Bayformers. He SAID so. Every part on the vehicles is on the robot and vice-versa. There is no size-changing going on. Please ignore the Frenzy-head telephone. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
  21. JB0
    Well, if they actually reached an understanding, there wouldn't be a franchise to milk, would there? They must make sacrifices for the good of the company.
  22. JB0
    Microsoft's problem isn't DVD. If it was, you would be seeing more multi-disk 360 games. It's that the hard drive is OPTIONAL. They can't guarantee it's there, so software cannot assume it will be able to cache data to it like it could on the XBox, or like it currently can on the PS3. And while current DVD drives may read faster than current BluRay drives(hence why so many PS3 games have mandatory data installs), that doesn't mean they're even remotely as fast as a hard drive.
  23. JB0
    Wait, when did the first movie become good, guys? Are we talking about the same movie? The one where any robot not named Optimus Prime had one line? The one where the action scenes were assembled entirely from jump-cuts? The one where Bumblebee pisses all over a secret agent and is scolded for it? The one with a painfully drawn-out ten-minute dialog with Sam's mom accusing him of masturbating with several repeatedly outlandish euphemisms? The one that was a bad movie about people that just happened to have some robots in it? Did I walk through a rift and wander into Bizarro World today? Because seriously, I want to see the Transformers you guys saw. I mean, Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon aren't great movies by any stretch of the imagination, but they are at least Transformers movies. By which I mean they have a race of alien robots as characters instead of an alien robot as a character and several others as window dressing.
  24. JB0
    I dunno about consensus, but I'll go on record as saying it's the best of the three, by far. Which STILL makes it average at best. Any director that can make a chase through a collapsing skyscraper BORING should be fired. Out of a cannon.
  25. JB0
    I like that theory. This is canon now. No one can convince me otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...