"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1758.1298013272.4748.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Thursday 17 February 2011 23:09:32 Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 11:09 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > Russel Winder wrote:
>> > > Do not be afraid of the word.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering. (*)
>> > >
>> > > (*) With apologies to Master Yoda (**) for any misquote.
>> >
>> > "Luke, trust your feelings!" -- Oggie Ben Doggie
>> >
>> > Of course, expecting consistency from Star Wars is a waste of time.
>>
>> "What -- me worry?"  Alfred E Newman  (*)
>>
>> Star Wars is like Dr Who you expect revisionist history in every episode.  I hate an inconsistent storyline, so the trick is to assume each episode is a completely separate story unrelated to any other episode.
>
> The funny thing is that Doctor Who does a number of things which I would
> normally consider to make a show a bad show - such as being inconsistent
> in its
> timeline and generally being episodic rather than having real story arcs
> (though
> some of the newer Doctor Who stuff has had more of a story arc than was
> typical
> in the past) - but in spite of all that, it's an absolutely fantastic
> show -
> probably because the Doctor's just so much fun. Still, it's interesting
> how it
> generally breaks the rules of good storytelling and yet is still so great
> to
> watch.
>

One of the things that gets me about Doctor Who (at least the newer ones) is that The Doctor keeps getting companions from modern-day London who, like the Doctor, are enthralled by the idea of travelling anywhere in time and space, and yet...it seems like they still wind up spending most of their time in modern-day London anyway :)  (I agree it's an enjoyable show though. The character of The Doctor is definitely a big part of what makes it work.)

Don <nospam@nospam.com> писал(а) в своём письме Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:21:06 +0600:
>
> Exactly. It is NOT the same as the 8 & 16 bit case. The thing is, the fraction of cases where the MSB is important has been decreasing *exponentially* from the 8-bit days. [...]

Some facts to back your opinion:

* today's most powerful supercomputer have "just" 230 TB of RAM, which is between 2^47 and 2^48
  (http://www.top500.org/site/systems/3154)

* Windows7 x64 __virtual__ memory limit is 8 TB (= 2^43)
  (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7)

-- 
Alexander

Russel Winder wrote:
> Star Wars is like Dr Who you expect revisionist history in every
> episode.  I hate an inconsistent storyline, so the trick is to assume
> each episode is a completely separate story unrelated to any other
> episode.

My trick was to lose all interest in SW.

Have you seen the series "Defying Gravity"? The plot is a spaceship is sent around a to pass by various planets in the solar system on a mission of discovery. The script writers apparently thought this was boring, so to liven things up they installed a ghost on the spaceship.

It's really, really sad.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ijmnp7$433$1@digitalmars.com...
> Russel Winder wrote:
>> Star Wars is like Dr Who you expect revisionist history in every episode.  I hate an inconsistent storyline, so the trick is to assume each episode is a completely separate story unrelated to any other episode.
>
> My trick was to lose all interest in SW.
>

I must not be enough of a Star Wars guy, I don't know what anyone's talking about here. Was it the prequel trilogy that introduced the inconsistencies (I still haven't gotten around to episodes 2 or 3 yet), or were there things in the orignal trilogy that I managed to completely overlook? (Or something else entirely?)

> Have you seen the series "Defying Gravity"? The plot is a spaceship is sent around a to pass by various planets in the solar system on a mission of discovery. The script writers apparently thought this was boring, so to liven things up they installed a ghost on the spaceship.
>
> It's really, really sad.

Sounds like Stargate Universe: A bunch of people trapped on a ancient spaceship of exploration...but to make that concept "interesting" the writers had to make every damn character on the show a certifiable drama queen. Unsurprisingly, dead after only two seasons - a record low for Stargate. Really looking forward to the movie sequels though (as well as the new SG-1/Atlantis movies that, I *think*, are still in the works).

On Friday, February 18, 2011 14:20:03 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ijmnp7$433$1@digitalmars.com...
> 
> > Russel Winder wrote:
> >> Star Wars is like Dr Who you expect revisionist history in every episode.  I hate an inconsistent storyline, so the trick is to assume each episode is a completely separate story unrelated to any other episode.
> > 
> > My trick was to lose all interest in SW.
> 
> I must not be enough of a Star Wars guy, I don't know what anyone's talking about here. Was it the prequel trilogy that introduced the inconsistencies (I still haven't gotten around to episodes 2 or 3 yet), or were there things in the orignal trilogy that I managed to completely overlook? (Or something else entirely?)

The prequel movies definitely have some inconsistencies with the originals, but for the most part, they weren't huge. I suspect that the real trouble comes in when you read the books (which I haven't).

- Jonathan M Davis

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The prequel movies definitely have some inconsistencies with the originals, but for the most part, they weren't huge. I suspect that the real trouble comes in when you read the books (which I haven't).

Huge? How about it never occurs to Vader to search for Luke at the most obvious location in the universe - his nearest living relatives (Uncle Owen)? That's just the start of the ludicrousness.

Ok, I have no right to be annoyed, but what an opportunity (to make a truly great movie) squandered.

On Friday, February 18, 2011 17:39:34 Walter Bright wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The prequel movies definitely have some inconsistencies with the originals, but for the most part, they weren't huge. I suspect that the real trouble comes in when you read the books (which I haven't).
> 
> Huge? How about it never occurs to Vader to search for Luke at the most obvious location in the universe - his nearest living relatives (Uncle Owen)? That's just the start of the ludicrousness.
> 
> Ok, I have no right to be annoyed, but what an opportunity (to make a truly
> great movie) squandered.

Well, that's not really an inconsistency so much as not properly taking everything into account in the plot (though to be fair, IIRC, Vader had no clue that he even _had_ kids, so it's not like he would have gone looking in the first place). Regardless, I don't think that there's much question that those films could have been much better.

- Jonathan M Davis

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Vader had no clue 

So much for his force!

Walter Bright wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> The prequel movies definitely have some inconsistencies with the originals, but for the most part, they weren't huge. I suspect that the real trouble comes in when you read the books (which I haven't).
> 
> Huge? How about it never occurs to Vader to search for Luke at the most obvious location in the universe - his nearest living relatives (Uncle Owen)? That's just the start of the ludicrousness.
> 
> Ok, I have no right to be annoyed, but what an opportunity (to make a truly great movie) squandered.

I nominate the second prequel for the worst movie of all time.
I never saw the third one.

Don wrote:
> I nominate the second prequel for the worst movie of all time.
> I never saw the third one.


You didn't miss a thing.