So this work of Young's when I first heard it back in the 80s, was a work in progress, as in, it never ends-Young had worked on this piece as an open-ended composition and performed it live once a year to dedicated patrons of the drone.

On a prepared piano, he would begin the piece and play it to it's end to date....The entire concert's duration was some insane 18-30 hours in execution.

Yeah, the concept is fine, it's the execution, framing and composition. The mist looks nice, the colour is nice, the bird is in a great pose, but there's so much uninteresting frame at the bottom, and the right side.

Yeah I know David Fincher doesn't want squat to do with Alien3, hence the quotes. However, if I recall properly, the assembly cut was advertised as being much more in line with Fincher's original thoughts for the project than the truncated version that ended up in theaters. I think the assembly cut makes this much underrated film more interesting by a significant margin. This movie reeks of death, decay, and the feelings of loss and search for meaning that accompanies death. If it was the last film I really think it could have found a following as correctly ending the series instead of that awful Alien Resurrection. *GAG*

Two things I wish would be fixed though are 1) The horribly composited alien (it looks like bad CG, but it is just badly composited) and 2) Why an alien egg was brought on board the Sulaco. It is just too much of a leap of faith to believe the queen laid it. (supposed to be somewhat explained by the upcoming alien colonial marines game, but that's not really canon or a fix to the existing film).

Anyways, back on topic. What I find interesting is that they had a "full" model of the queen chestburster with legs and tail.

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^PlayhousePals:
That was awkward. Reminds me of something that happened to me once [shudder] =o/

Aw are you somebody's wolf cub?


Here's the story:


Twas a dark [and drunken] early, EARLY morning following a raucous evening dancing the night away to one of my favorite local bands. After hour parties at my place were the norm and that night was no exception. Following the departure of "the gang" around 4am I discovered, seated at the foot of my bed, a straggler strumming away on my guitar [heavy sigh]. Barely an acquaintance, he insisted on playing for me his latest composition. Let's just say he was no ... um ... Jackson Browne. I was at a loss for words and recall an extremely uncomfortable silence at the end of the song. AWKWARD =o/

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do tell, @PlayhousePals


Twas a dark [and drunken] early, EARLY morning following a raucous evening dancing the night away to one of my favorite local bands. After hour parties at my place were the norm and that night was no exception. Following the departure of "the gang" around 4am, I discovered, seated at the foot of my bed, a straggler strumming away on my guitar [heavy sigh]. Barely an acquaintance, he insisted on playing for me, his latest composition. Let's just say he was no ... um ... Jackson Browne. I was at a loss for words and recall an extremely uncomfortable silence at the end of the song. AWKWARD =o/

>> ^Darkhand:

I wonder if wherever these poor beings are from if the wind is like fire to them and that is why they flail so violently


They are composite beings of wind and fire. The wind acts as the breath of life, their anima. As long as this anima is present, they will be in a state of constant flux like the dancing flame of a candle. Where some perceive violence, another may see passion.

You keep using the word diet as something you can just go on and off of. That's the problem; 'Going on a diet' implies that it's temporary. What's needed to eat and live healthy is a permanent lifetstyle change. In other words, you don't stop the diet. The previous diet is what led to getting overweight in the first place, so of course they gain the weight back if they start eating like that again. Exercise all you want, if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter if you have a problem with that, or if people get depressed, or if you just straight up don't think it's a health issue (it is), that's how it works. That's why this argument takes place when this issue is brought up. It really is just a matter of will power and education on nutrition. How much will power's needed depends on the person, along with their knowledge on nutrition and eating well. Breaking these long standing habits can be incredibly tough, but not impossible.

There's a lot of grey area in the discussion of being overweight and healthy/fit/etc. If you have terrible eating habits, exercise will only make things a bit better; it wont magically counteract all the negative aspects of your body composition, or of the food you eat. The effect food can have on a person astronomically outweighs the potential effects of exercise. That's in no way saying exercise is pointless, but if you're diet's not in check, the exercise alone is like ordering a diet coke with your ten cheeseburgers.
>> ^bmacs27:

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.
To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.
The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.
You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

Thank you, Mint!
In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
Fascinating!
*promote

>> ^oblio70:

13 beats to the bar. I LOVE the improvisations of Desmond. Brubeck can only keep up, tho it's his composition. Great find! Beats the Take Five entry.


paul desmond is credited with writing the tune.
it's in 5/4
meaning 5 quarter note beats per bar

13 beats to the bar. I LOVE the improvisations of Desmond. Brubeck can only keep up, tho it's his composition. Great find! Beats the Take Five entry.

ok, let me explain in another way: the more you demand change from the ecosystem, the more you will get of it.

at times, this can actually be a very good thing.
at other times, it sucks for a while, but eventually, you end up with a more adaptable species. That is the process that is happening right now.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^criticalthud:
welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

MUTATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!
Seriously tho, my guess is some kind of rare swarming of bottom-dwelling creatures that lives in deeper water. Perhaps overfishing in an area means millions of them have unexpectedly survived and washed ashore.


unexpectedly survived?

>> ^criticalthud:

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".


MUTATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. GOODNIGHT!

Seriously tho, my guess is some kind of rare swarming of bottom-dwelling creatures that lives in deeper water. Perhaps overfishing in an area means millions of them have unexpectedly survived and washed ashore.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

>> ^criticalthud:
welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".

Wow, you've had a peer reviewed paper published on this already?


on a very similar subject, yes.

>> ^criticalthud:

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".


Wow, you've had a peer reviewed paper published on this already?

welcome to mutation.
if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, a systemic compensation (change) will occur throughout the entire ecosystem.
which is why "climate change" should really be called "planet change".