The Pharaoh's Corner.

[c0rzilla]

...yeah, the swearing isn't that big of a deal guys. Pay attention to the content.

[teege]

I agree and approve (no I'm not a Senator). We are all human and as such perfection is impossible, however that card is used in cases which sometimes just comes down to common sense.

This is an absolutely glorious RP server which I personally would love to see shine... to be that haven that great RPers yearn to have. But accomplishing such requires the effort of both players and staff alike. On the player side, we need to make new members feel welcome while new members should do their best to read up on the rules and policies and do their very best to introduce themselves to role play, just as vets should be open to allowing new peons in. In addition, realism has taken a few hard hits and I believe more needs to be done to curb this.

Large, thick iron gates don't magically open when you approach them (and in some cases, an NPC on the other side controls the lever) . Not all mages can open portals and those that can (and have trained hard, long enough) do not have the energy to create five within an hour without being quite drained. I could go on but I think you get the point; do your best to create a vivid, real environment that surpasses that of retail servers. Create other toons if you feel the need to be in 20 locations within 10 minutes. I think a rather funny example was used; an Orc charging into Stormwind isn't going to survive nor needs an impending warning.

Staff, like (and as) players, should continue to make new members feel welcome. Introduce plots and areas for the community, but do not show favoritism. Doing A, B and C should not result in or X, Y and Z or any other special treatment (yes, it is noticeable). That is a bad seed to plant on or offline. Do not take your players for granted nor should players take the staff for granted. They are not paid so cut them some slack, but realize without players there would be no server. Enforcers should not be afraid to do their job nor should players be afraid to voice their opinion or make reports.

I can't say whether the server is better or worse than a year ago, but I do know that things are not the same. As previously stated the success and happiness of the community (the feeling of 'community' being highly important) requires an honest effort from all sides. There are a lot of things I've seen and gone through that I'm greatly disappointed in, but a little assertiveness and prevention can make a great server even better down the road. So, what do you say?

[ThePharaoh]

Topic 2: 3D movies.


Okay friends, peers and people I probably haven't met. Lets come together as a constituency and try to figure out 3D movies. Now before I begin, if you know more about 3D movies or the concept, educate me. Because.. I dunno, sounds like bullshit to me. Ninja turtles the cartoon.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsoRbzdXKRw[/youtube]


See....see Raph and the turtles jumpin in front of stuff. That's 3D or at least the illusion of it. Background, foreground...the middle...middle ground whatever that's called. Shadows giving value an shit. Soo.. When they announce, AVATAR The Last Airbender in 3D or...Step it up 3D which is a waste of 3D technology if it exists. My question Is how do you make stuff that's already 3D, 3D. Like real life? Clearly 3D. And if Turtles aint 3D it's at least 2.5D which exists lol.

Then okay, so If 3D is the superior technology that used to come to us in cereal boxes with blue and red cellophane glasses...Then whats the big new deal about it? In commercials they have stuff appearing outside of the screen like its insanely 3D. I've never watched anything that came out of the screen with such vivid detail and was opaque.

Aaaaand If we -do- have the technology to make vivid 3d stuff like the commercials. Why waste it on friggin' step it up? Re-release Jurassic Park, or Jaws, or the matrix, or Goodfellas. Damnit if you can make Step it up in 3D Goodfellas should be on the list. I saw Avatar on dvd and it was still pretty 3D to me. I don't get it. Is this a way to get us into the theaters and away from bootlegs? Would this have worked during prohibition?

Need alcohol?! Try this NEW WATER WITH A KICK! Meh, /2 cents.

[Wuvvums]

I don't know. What I do know is when we had one movie that we had to watch in 3-d, Despicable Me, ALL TICKETS had an extra $3 tagged on it, bumping up our night at the movies to $50 for three adults and one child. Also nothing exactly looked 3-D except for the credits(which was good for me. The last thing I tried watching that was 3-d and popping off the screen gave me a headache!).

I really don't get what's the point. It's a fad, I guess.

[Mayson]

I don't like the 3D-thing either, but I have a clue why they do it.

Our society lives from 'new innovations' and from consumation. When we stop consuming, we kill a sector of industry and when we start to consume in a sector of industry more, we support it. We basically have, even if we don't notice it often, the power to change our society by paying or ignoring sectors of the industry.

Additional to that, a new innovation gets attention, while something that isn't new is considered outdated and is most of the times ignored or at least not noticed that much. By the media and the younger people, who consume. Therefore producers and developers try to be always 'new' and 'innovative', so that they get noticed and paid. From the 'the new, even more effective shampoo with more volumes', which is most likely exactly the previous one in another packaging to the new software of superlative, which is actually just redesigned and most likely not new at all.

But I wander from the subject. So, why did they have that idea with the '3D technology' now?

My guess is, that until now, it was easy for the movie industrie to be innovative and improve things with technical changes, which are easier to think about. The first movies in the 1920s and 1930s had an awful quality. They were black and white and there wasn't any sound to almost no sound. All they had to do was improving the quality, enabling sound and adding fitting music and changing the topics from time to time, depending on the message of the movie, if there was one. But now, we already have movies with a well quality, nice pictures, color, realistic sounding soundeffects, music and we can even buy the movies short after they are out as DVD or in another format. So, there is almost nothing to improve, what means that they have to think about new things to remain 'innovative' and to get the attention they need. If they don't try, they will earlier or later be wiped out by another sector of industry, just like they did almost with others. A world without the cinema / theater may sound weird first, but other generations maybe will introduce something, that's considered 'better' and 'more exciting', just like the generations, who introduced the cinema / theater did.

I don't know, if I'm completely correct with that, but I think, it goes into that direction.

[ThePharaoh]

Yeah I think you were dead on.

A promotional Item for Toy Story 3 came out, a Buzz LightYear toy that they sold when the original Toy Story came out. I'm sure they had them mass produced and put the same toy into a new box, and shipped it off as a new product.

Unrelated: Best players join Jun 21.

[Mayson]

Unrelated: Best players join Jun 21.

People who join that server are, anyway, but...

Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPmb0F00YPE[/youtube]

[Abishua]

3D I feel is a specific thing: it can add depth (lolpun) to the movie, just like color did. Just as all advancements, it will take a while to add on and fully become a normal part of watching T.V. or movies, and writers/directors will learn to take advantage of that to make the movies even more enthralling. Ping-pong ball to the face is -not- taking advantage of the technology, just showing it off. Where I felt it was really used well was in the scene of Despicable Me where the ballet ticket floated out of his pocket to the foreground. It was sexy and awesome on a visual level. So eventually it'll be another part of entertainment to be used by clever writers and directors to make even better movies!

Just my two copper.

[ThePharaoh]

See and I guess that is what I was ignorant to. I haven't really seen any 3D used substantially and it all seems technically 2D to me. For some who saw the Ninja turtles intro and said it was just 2D I see it being just as 3D as 3D movies. Because it's still on the 2D medium but giving the "illusion" of a third dimension. I guess it feels to me True 3D motion picture should come from a hologram or some sort of projector. Something you sit around, not in front of.

So I would have to ask people who share sentiments to, Wuvvums or Abishua is, was it worth it? Did it make a substantial difference in the presentation of the film, or do you feel it was used as a gimmick, tool or nothing to either extreme?

[Wuvvums]

I felt it was slightly a gimmick for the movie I see, and the movie was great but we shouldn't have had to spend $12 more to see it x:

[SpiralLateralus]

3D is awesome when done right, ie Avatar or Toy Story 3D. Those movies were made to be in 3D. However, a lot of movies are being pushed back so they can redo them in 3D. 3D has been around since the 50's, and this usually is the lifecycle. A movie comes out that done 3D brilliantly about once every 20 years, and so for the next 2 to 3 years everyone else tries to do that too.

On to the subject of innovation...well, let's just say if people were willing to still take risks with innovation, we'd all be driving electric or solar cars by now.

[Abishua]

Despicable Me was the movie I saw recently with it, and it only really was I think used extremely well in the ticket scene. (Where he's in space), but otherwise just something to make the movie a bit more....depthy? I don't know :P, but it can be used well, but that means that the technology shouldn't be abused throughout the film, but more of something which is used intelligently and when the scene warranted it.

Also, I still think blu-red 3d was the BEST

[Roxas65]

I agree with most, if not all of this. This is pretty much what I usually complain about when I complain. And I don't see why people seem so annoyed by searing. Never got that. It's just a word.

[ThePharaoh]

Topic 3: The Closed mind, The Open Mind and the Gullible Mind.

Quite honestly, I'm pretty shocked at some of the responses in the other thread. I didn't expect everyone to believe such proof-less things with such conviction as myself, but I figured more would be open to the possibility as opposed to downright thinking it's absurd.

Too each is own, not here to judge, and I hope me being adamant in my opinion didn't come off as trying to oppose my opinion on you. I just wanted one person to read what i said and see my point of view. And maybe think "hm, that makes sense I could see that happening, maybe." Or At least "it's a good idea." Or acknowledge we don't have enough information on the subject to rule anything out.

Two videos I would like to bring to your attention. This isn't about aliens, or supernatural stuff. Its about how open your mind is. I believe it was Wuvvums who said something like just because you don't believe in the previous topic doesn't necessarily make you close minded. Maybe she's right.

So I have two videos. The first one. TheBoondocks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO4ahh8Uafo[/youtube]

I think this clip is self explanatory. If you listen to what he's saying, it makes sense. And it's basically the point that I am trying to convey.

Second clip. John Carpenter - They Live.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inZUDMGJsKo[/youtube]

This is so metaphorical it's unreal. I'm -not- saying people are undercover aliens, as I said in the opening this has -nothing- to do with aliens. But I'm curious on what people's natural reactions are to these clips.

[Wuvvums]

It's not close-minded to not accept something without evidence. I believe that humans are naturally skeptical, because not knowing the whole thing can open you for a con or a scam. Some people have used aliens as a platform for profit, but I think I could compare it to faith. I'm a firm and devout believer that Jesus is my savior. Christianity also has a lot of anecdotes to support it. It also has an ancient text, being the Bible.

But do I tell people that this is sufficient proof of Jesus, God, and the miracles? No, because it's a belief. Until there is physical evidence that can be scrutinized it's a belief.

The burden of proof lays on the person making the claim for it. I could assert that there are invisible penguins around us, monitoring our thoughts and actions. If someone asked me to prove it, would they be close-minded? Would it be reasonable to tell them that they have to disprove it? No, no part of it is credible. It's an idea that is based in faith and human perception and it's not observable.

No one denied that there could be other sentient life. We did deny however that space travel from another planet would be possible to some extent. More specifically, we reasoned that they would have to overcome 1) the harsh environment of space, 2) they would have to replenish their resources, and 3) unless they found a way to transcend the speed of light, the travel would take a very long time to do. And that's even if they have space travel to begin with. Aliens could very well be in the form of something microscopic, or wildlife, or in a tribal or primitive stage.

The proof you shown us are sightings or anecdotes. However, people's perceptions can be messed with. Multiple sightings don't count as proof, just as there were, for example, multiple sightings of Jesus coming back from the dead.

In the end no one is saying you're a crackpot, or you're dumb. You just have a belief that we don't have. However, for a belief to become fact, proof is needed. The fact that there may be proof in the future doesn't account for the fact that there is no proof at the current moment. Science can be wrong from time to time, that is why a lot of it is self-checking and updating, and a lot of things get scrutinized.

We can delve into the philosophy that there are unknowns we don't even know of, but when it comes to whether something may be real or not, it may be better to ground the argument in logic.