How can this movie be good when Alan Moore has no input in the film and the movie makers are approaching it like it's yet another Frank Miller graphic novel?

wow he didn't really nitpick and sounds like he actually enjoyed the game. Must be his hardon for valve talking.

But I agree, killing survivors as zombies is amazingly fun and satisfying.

>> ^budzos:
The Wanted graphic novel is fantastic, if a bit nihilistic even for my tastes. It could just as rightly be titled "Wanton". There`s even less heroism than the movie, none of this "kill one to save a thousand" rationalization. The story is brilliant if you've read enough comic books to absorb all the meta stuff. Wanted has a permanent spot on my "public" comic book shelf, a few spots down from The Watchmen.

"nihilisitc" and "less heroism"? That's all you have to say about the comic? The characters in the comic are homicidal psychopaths! James Mcavoy's character rapes women and then murders them, for fun. One of his first actions after getting his powers is to go on a killing spree of every one who has ever wronged him. It's a fucked up work of antisocial adolescent fantasy, the kind of work you'd expect from the imagination of the colombine murderers or the virginia tech gunman.

There may be some interesting ideas thrown in, but that does not save the series from the weak plot and all the gratuitious sex and violence. It's no where near the level of great graphic novels like the watchmen.

>> ^joedirt:
Krupo, don't bother trying to point out the obvious to some of these sad, clueless folks. I mean the name and avatar isn't good enough for them to get it. Heck half of the all-powerful clique still don't get it. They think Westy is real, and QM is some evil they must deal with. Don't ruin my fun by edumacating them.

Wait wait wait, so I can post whatever hateful incendiary speech I want, and it becomes not only ok, but laudible as long as I create an account parodying some celebritard? Well, you hold on there while I go create an account named Don Imus and start posting racists comments and expound on how your mother is a whore. Oh those silly sifters who will then downvote my comments, what naivete! Little do they know, douchebaggery incognito is exactly what makes the sift great!

hahah that was great

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Now, here comes the tricky part. At 10 mph the energy from the wind = 0 There is no possible way in the world to cheat that. You cannot make a craft powered by the wind that goes away from the wind faster than the wind.


You are ignoring the propeller. The propeller HAS to spin as long as the cart is moving relative to the ground. The blades of the propeller moves through the air EVEN if the wind is not blowing, and the ROTATING BLADES generates force. Analyze the forces acting on the cart and you'll see this actually works. It's very counter-intuitive and tricky, but the physics behind it actually works, which is why it's pretty cool.

>> ^Payback:
"but they claimed it was perpetual motion, which it isn't."


They never claim it's perpetual motion. They only mention perpetual motion as an arguement people use against them.

"Air pushes propeller (actually a turbine), which turns elastic band, which turns gears, which turns wheels, which push against the ground.

When you put it on the treadmill...

Ground pushes wheels, to gears, to eleastic, to prop, pushes air."

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When you say "turns wheels, which push against the ground" the gound also pushes on the wheel, just like the treadmill pushes against the wheel.

"While on the treadmill, the contraption only generates enough thrust to move it barely to the right, while, if you were to believe THEIR physics, it should move to the right at a velocity equal to the treadmill PLUS an amount"

It should move to the right at a velocity equal to the treadmill PLUS an amount, with respect to the treads, NOT the camera.

"It is obviously moving MUCH slower to the right than the treadmill moves to the left"

Yes, because now you're looking at the cart from the camera's reference frame, NOT the treads reference frame.

>> ^ReverendTed:
"I'm still fighting with the equivalence of the treadmill scenario, though."


It's all about reference frames. Say there is a car travelling at 10mph, and there is a tailwind of 10mph. From the reference frame of the car, the road is moving backwards at 10mph, and the air is still. The treadmill merely simulates such a reference frame by making the "road" move backwards at 10mph.

"On the treadmill, the energy input is through the wheels and the output is through the propeller."

Sources of kenetic energy changes depending on the reference frame. For example, say there is a car travelling at 10mph, and there is a tailwind of 10mph. The car and wind will have kinetic energy in this "stationary" reference frame. From the "moving" reference frame of the car, however, the air is not moving, and has no kinetic energy, but the road is moving backwards at 10mph and will have kinetic energy.

The treadmill here is supplying the kinetic energy to move the "road" backwards at 10mph. Now, the treadmill is not a perfect simulation of a moving reference frame. But the important thing is that forces acting on the cart is consistent.

"Similar to the "push" the wife gave the original device"

The "push" from the wife was unecessary. The cart would have gained enough speed eventually, albeit slowly.

"the test device would need to be held in place on the treadmill until the propeller got going, otherwise it would simply fall off the back of the treadmill."

Ideally, we'd use an infinitely long treadmill to do the simulation =P. Then you won't need to hold on to the cart.

"Once it's going, it makes sense to me, though - the rotational energy from the wheels is converted into lift (directed horizontally) in the propellers. As long as there is energy being delivered to the wheels, the propeller will spin and provide more lift, which will *supplement* the forward motion of the wheels and cause the device to travel forward. I'm assuming the supplement is steady, though - that is to say it doesn't continue to accelerate, but reaches a steady "overspeed". (As opposed to a perpetual motion machine, which would continue to accelerate.)"

Your intuition from here on is pretty much correct.

>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^therealblankman:
"In the end the physical world does not succumg to scientific theories..."
Huh?

This simply means science was wrong. Could such a thing be possible?


How was science "wrong" in this example, considering there isn't a "grand unified theory of not travelling faster than the wind"? What happens in the video can be completely explained using highschool physics and the fact that a few armchair physicists on the intarwebs are unable to do so is hardly an example of science being wrong.

Left 4 dead requires that you have friends. There's nothing better than stalking survivors with a coordinated group of buddies.

I don't think Yahtzee will like it =P

>> ^MINK:
http://libraryoflinks.blogspot.com/2007/06/smackdown-james-jo
yce-vs-ayn-rand.html
this is an interesting link if you want to know how retarded ayn rand is.


How does that show ayn rand is retarded? Even if you don't agree with objectivism as a whole it is hard to not feel inspired by its strong resonance with the entrepreneurial spirit and the american dream.

>> ^Psychologic:
Wtf was a pregnant woman doing in a situation like that to begin with?

Exactly. Even if there was no trampling, you don't expose your 8 month pregnant self to the long lines, overcrowding, and pushing and shoving of a "normal" black friday.

>> ^swampgirl:
Don't dare blame a victim for this.


Just because she miscarried doesn't mean she's not stupid.

I don't get this. It's too dangerous to drive on the sidewalk, too slow for roads, and too wide to take on a bike lane. WTF is the point of putting it into production?

Not everyone shakes everyone's hands in that vid. It could be that Bush has met with those leaders already at the conference. Maybe the ones who are shaking hands are seeing each other for the first time at the conference.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Uh, yeah, my comment was in response to the one above it:


Point is, Obama as a senator calling someone to appologize is still pretty fucking cool. Says something about the character of the next president. Pointing out that the phone call was from 2 years ago doesn't change much and the rest of zombieater's post is still valid.

Not saying you were wrong to correct him though.