Neat, but it would have been nice if they had included the early versions. It is the refinements that happened during those early tweaks that made this such a classic and influential map!
At the very least, the original 2fort map should have been included, as well as 2fort4, the map that made Team Fortress a hit.

...oh how I miss that single hallway of death leading to the map room. *sigh*, back when strategy used to be part of the game.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Maybe we'll pass by each other in the hallways while you're on your way to your reading comprehension class.
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^AeroMechanical:
I would guess he would find better efficiency by reducing drag. That big fan on the front is definitely not reducing drag. However, since it isn't increasing the frontal area of the car, its effect on drag probably isn't massive. Of course, then taking into account the extra mass of the fan itself and the generation hardware, I would be willing to bet that it results in a significant net loss in efficiency.
Additional: I gotta say, I do find it really odd that he would have the skills necessary to build the thing, but not the common sense to see its obvious flaw.

It's effect is to increase the drag by exactly as much as the energy the generator produces, plus enough more to offset the inefficiencies of said fan and generator.
You -cannot- gain efficiency this way, that's basic physics. If you disagree, I suggest you head back to high school for a refresher.


Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't disagreeing with anything -you- said except to change "willing to bet" into "absolutely certain". All the physics-challenges posts previously got my frustration levels up, and demanded a response. Yours was one of the few reasonable starting points (as opposed to the utterly uninformed majority).


Most of those earlier posts had a knowledge of physics similar to thinking that mounting a fan blowing on the sail of a sailboat would make it move. Quoting that sort of thinking is giving it too much credit.

Maybe we'll pass by each other in the hallways while you're on your way to your reading comprehension class.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^AeroMechanical:
I would guess he would find better efficiency by reducing drag. That big fan on the front is definitely not reducing drag. However, since it isn't increasing the frontal area of the car, its effect on drag probably isn't massive. Of course, then taking into account the extra mass of the fan itself and the generation hardware, I would be willing to bet that it results in a significant net loss in efficiency.
Additional: I gotta say, I do find it really odd that he would have the skills necessary to build the thing, but not the common sense to see its obvious flaw.

It's effect is to increase the drag by exactly as much as the energy the generator produces, plus enough more to offset the inefficiencies of said fan and generator.

You -cannot- gain efficiency this way, that's basic physics. If you disagree, I suggest you head back to high school for a refresher.

This summer I stayed at this motel (hotel?) in Santa Maria, which, legend has it, is haunted. I don't buy into that kind of thing at all, and had a good night's sleep with no disturbances, but I will say it was very spooky from the inside. Long hallways with *something* wrong about them. It took me a while to figure out, but in the end I concluded it was because the structure was a bit skewed here and there. Things you'd expect to be straight - walls, floors etc. were subtly off kilter, probably because it was an old building, and the effect really was quite unsettling, especially as it wasn't immediately obvious.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

CAT-ASTRO-PHEEEEE


Did you draw that?

Eric3579 somehow got the lyrics:

When I was in the 3rd grade
I thought that I was gay
Cause I could draw, my uncle was
And I kept my room straight
I told my mom, tears rushing down my face
She's like, "Ben you've loved girls since before pre-K"
Trippin', yeah, I guess she had a point, didn't she
A bunch of stereotypes all in my head
I remember doing the math like
"Yeah, I'm good a little league"
A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant
For those who like the same sex had the characteristics
The right-wing conservatives think its a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition
Playing God
Ahh nah, here we go
America the brave
Still fears what we don't know
And God loves all His childrenIs somehow forgotten
But we paraphrase a book written
3,500 hundred years ago
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
My love, my love, my love
She keeps me warm [x4]

[Verse 2: Macklemore]
If I was gay
I would think hip-hop hates me
Have you read the YouTube comments lately
"Man that's gay"
Gets dropped on the daily
We've become so numb to what we're sayin'
Our culture founded from oppression
Yeah, we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggots
Behind the keys of a message board
A word routed in hate
Yet our genre still ignores it
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color
Complexion of your pigment
The same fight that lead people to walk-outs and sit-ins
Human rights for everybody
There is no difference
Live on! And be yourself!
When I was in church
They taught me something else
If you preach hate at the service
Those words aren't anointed
And that Holy Water
That you soak in
Is then poisoned
When everyone else
Is more comfortable
Remaining voiceless
Rather than fighting for humans
That have had their rights stolen
I might not be the same
But that's not important
No freedom 'til we're equal
Damn right I support it
[Trombone]
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Verse 3: Macklemore]
We press play
Don't press pause
Progress, march on!
With a veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
'Till the day
That my uncles can united by law
Kids are walkin' around the hallway
Plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful
Someone would rather die
Than be who they are
And a certificate on paper
Isn't gonna solve it all
But it's a damn good place to start
No law's gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever god you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love
About time that we raised up

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Outro: Mary Lambert]
Love is patient, love is kind
Love is patient (not cryin' on Sundays)
Love is kind (not crying on Sundays)

When I was in the 3rd grade
I thought that I was gay
Cause I could draw, my uncle was
And I kept my room straight
I told my mom, tears rushing down my face
She's like, "Ben you've loved girls since before pre-K"
Trippin', yeah, I guess she had a point, didn't she
A bunch of stereotypes all in my head
I remember doing the math like
"Yeah, I'm good a little league"
A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant
For those who like the same sex had the characteristics
The right-wing conservatives think its a decision
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition
Playing God
Ahh nah, here we go
America the brave
Still fears what we don't know
And God loves all His childrenIs somehow forgotten
But we paraphrase a book written
3,500 hundred years ago
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
And I can't change
Even if I tried
Even if I wanted to
My love, my love, my love
She keeps me warm [x4]

[Verse 2: Macklemore]
If I was gay
I would think hip-hop hates me
Have you read the YouTube comments lately
"Man that's gay"
Gets dropped on the daily
We've become so numb to what we're sayin'
Our culture founded from oppression
Yeah, we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggots
Behind the keys of a message board
A word routed in hate
Yet our genre still ignores it
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It's the same hate that's caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color
Complexion of your pigment
The same fight that lead people to walk-outs and sit-ins
Human rights for everybody
There is no difference
Live on! And be yourself!
When I was in church
They taught me something else
If you preach hate at the service
Those words aren't anointed
And that Holy Water
That you soak in
Is then poisoned
When everyone else
Is more comfortable
Remaining voiceless
Rather than fighting for humans
That have had their rights stolen
I might not be the same
But that's not important
No freedom 'til we're equal
Damn right I support it
[Trombone]
I don't know

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Verse 3: Macklemore]
We press play
Don't press pause
Progress, march on!
With a veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
'Till the day
That my uncles can united by law
Kids are walkin' around the hallway
Plagued by pain in their heart
A world so hateful
Someone would rather die
Than be who they are
And a certificate on paper
Isn't gonna solve it all
But it's a damn good place to start
No law's gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever god you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love
About time that we raised up

[Hook: Mary Lambert]

[Outro: Mary Lambert]
Love is patient, love is kind
Love is patient (not cryin' on Sundays)
Love is kind (not crying on Sundays)

This is so cool-For my kitty in San Fran I lined the hallway floor to ceiling with burlap coffee bags and flipped playing cards down the hall for kitty to chase them on all surfaces but the ceiling....Kitty got extremely quick and climby really fast!

~All cats love box-world. "OhhhhhHH?!"

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

Sometimes when I get paranoid after smoking a little more than I should of in the bathroom, I stroke it a couple times just so its that much bigger in case someone is out in the hallway.

Although I live alone I sometimes think the manager or someone will be there, always good to be prepared ya know.

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.

Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.

Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.

I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.

I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.


(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.

Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.

Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.

Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.

Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.

To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.

Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!

When I had my teeth out, I apparently was resistant to the general anesthetic they used. I made it through the entire "Count down from 10" and my dentist didn't know what to do, so he had me start counting back up again.

Eventually I was knocked out though, but when I woke up, much like @PHJF, I was completely aware of everything. Wasn't loopy in the least. They figured I was bluffing, so they helped me down a hallway to a room where I was supposed to "Wake Up". (Probably helped me so I couldn't sue if I fell.) And then proceeded to leave me there looking at a wall for 15 minutes before anybody checked up on me again.

When they came in the second time they said "Are you awake now?" In a bubbly voice, to which I very flatly replied "Just as awake as I was 15 minutes ago, thanks." Felt bad about that later, but ffs, I was fine.

Unfortunately, my surgery didn't go as well as others. My mouth was very swollen (all 4 out) and the painkillers they gave me afterward didn't do anything except for make me drowsy. So, in a sense, they worked when I was sleeping, but I was in excruciating pain while I was still awake, finally had to get better painkillers.

Tl;Dr, The whole operation sucks.