Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Looks pretty good. Nice that they're on an alternate history branch and don't have to keep to to canon from here on out.

The leaf camera is a 7D, with a Canon EF-S 10-22 lens.
The main camera is a 1DmkIV, with, I suspect, a Canon EF 400/4 DO IS lens.

Well it's clearly Canon gear, but I can't make out the exact models.
If he shoots for NatGeo, it's bound to be all top shelf stuff, although it doesn't look like he went with a 1D variant. Probably to save weight and be able to conceal it easier. Definitely a fullframe though, so perhaps a 5D.

No clue on the lens, but it's an L prime between 200 and 400mm.

That's a great link! I agree 100% with the argument he provided about this film. While 20th Century Fox will say Colonial Marines is "canon" I'm not really a believer, after all if Resurrection is canon, I revoke their canon-giving ability. I guess I agree about the score, it actually has some good themes to it. While Horner's and Goldsmith's scores are good as well in their own ways, they are much more atmospheric.

Yeah, I think Alien 3 is really underrated. It's by no means as good as the first two,but it was an overall good horror film (with IMO the best score of all the films) and a great, dark wrap up to the Ripley story. And the least said about Alien Resurrection, the better.

BTW, I think that Colonial Marines is supposed to be canon

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.

Every X-Com game after TFTD has sucked. Developers keep changing the gameplay away from what made those first two games so good.

When a game is as popular as X-Com was, you are only going to piss off potential customers who loved the originals if you "re-imagine" it into a completely different genre. X-Com was not based on movies/books/comics with beloved characters that could carry a game into other genres and remain successful (think Star Wars). The X-Com world and story did not have deeply fleshed-out canon that could grab the attention of fans, regardless of the genre.

If you create a game that diverges from the gameplay that made X-Com X-Com, it's simply not an X-Com game, imho, and slapping a title like "X-Com: Enemy Unknown" onto the box doesn't make it an X-Com game either. The gameplay/genre WAS X-Com. Not much else defined it. You can have the smartest, most talented people in the industry (who, yet again, claim to be huge fans of the original) working on the damn thing, and still release a pile of shit. You can see it coming when they start throwing out lines like "streamlined interface" (consolized), or "re-imagined" (different genre and/or fundamental changes to gameplay).

The game is getting generally great reviews, and maybe I'd feel differently if they had called it "Martin Attack" or something. But they didn't. They called it "X-Com". And it isn't.

Wait, so the captain of the Imperial Star Destroyer now has XBox Kinnect so he can launch his laser canon attack with the wave of his hand?

Methinks an attempt at a canon *viral *commercial.

quoting Wiki:

While there are a number of versions to the Bible. There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek
Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin
Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.
King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text
New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version. Another good contemporary English version is New King James Version (NKJV)
The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_Bible#ixzz1z4GtYcTU

i appreciate you taking the time to offer some advice.
good advice as well.
but you did judge my post and my feelings on a single post.

shiny and i have had a fairly long correspondence and i have defended him more than once to be able to speak his mind however he chooses.
but to accuse me of turning people from christ when he KNOWS the details is vulgar and reprehensible.
his problem is that i do not adhere to his strict fundamentalist views concerning biblical canon and therefore are drawing people away from christ.

which is ludicrous if you knew the details.
details i shared with shiny.

Tellingly on the auto-tune front @TheSluiceGate, @LukinStone, I asked on the youtube video of this whether it was used, and they have moderation turned on... well, they haven't put up my question or an answer, yet have put up others that have come through since.

Also, there's a fan who set up a page at 'ragtube' (never heard of it before), which seems to have his old youtube channel description on it:

Mike's setup:

Martin DC-16RGTE Aura 6-string guitar, Guild F-512 12-string guitar, into Yamaha 01x into HP laptop (via firewire) running Cubase 3. Mike's vocal mic is a Neumann KMS105.

Jeff's setup:

Fender 5 string Jazz Bass (Mexico) into Universal Audio LA-610 Pre amp/compressor
Jeff's vocal mic is a Neumann KMS104.

The audio is recorded dry, then mixed in Cubase 6, using mostly UAD-2 plug-ins. No Auto-Tune is used (since people occasionally ask). The audio mix is then synced to the video in Sony Vegas. The video camera is a Canon Vixia HF100 (for the more recent HD videos)

>> ^NetRunner:

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Fox Propaganda machine, their website announces this with the headline "Obama Flip Flops, Declares War on Marriage"
Keep it classy, Fox.


If it's a war they want, it's a war they're get. LOAD UP THE CANONS! We'll give those boys at Fox a Buttload of Homosexuality!

It may be easier to recommend a particular lens if I knew a bit more as to what your goal is or what you want to accomplish.

I have a Nikon D5000 and a D7000 and use both Nikon and off-brand lenses. The make is more personal preference as Canon does a good job with their Rebel line.

Here is an article you may find useful, otherwise let me know if you have further questions.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Nikon-Camera-Technology/gnhy8b3m/1/Macro-Lenses.html