OP
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
"Max Headroom" anyone?
OK, best moving image Scifi/fantasy - no repeats any number you want.
- Thread starter Thalassamania
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
WarmWaterDiver
Contributor
Now there's a good one! Used to see the reruns sometimes, but it's been a long time now since I last saw any episodes broadcast.
WarmWaterDiver:
Please tell me you don't really think Starship Troopers was well done. It was a fabulous book, but only a poor to so-so movie. If not for the nude scenes, it wouldn't have any redeeming qualities.
Wayward Son
Contributor
I just have a hard time when someone tries to "improve" on Heinlein.
lamont
Contributor
I read Starship Troopers 30+ times between the ages of 10 and 20.
As I got older I came to understand the limits of Mr. Heinlein's philosophies. I loved the movie because so much of it was an over-the-top tongue-in-cheek sendup of everything the book stood for.
As I got older I came to understand the limits of Mr. Heinlein's philosophies. I loved the movie because so much of it was an over-the-top tongue-in-cheek sendup of everything the book stood for.
Anyone remember the cartoon based on that? ... I liked it
Roughnecks: Starship Trooper Chronicles ... http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/2KQVN5ZD3J7TB/ref=cm_aya_av.sylt_sylt/102-1360687-7943310
Roughnecks: Starship Trooper Chronicles ... http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/2KQVN5ZD3J7TB/ref=cm_aya_av.sylt_sylt/102-1360687-7943310
lamont:
Perhaps it was the limit of your understanding.
Wayward Son
Contributor
All philosophies have limitations. RAH changed over the course of his life, as do we all.
lamont
Contributor
Walter:
you seem to take heinlein way too seriously...
Warthaug
Contributor
So I'm jumping into this wiki thing a little late, but how its been described isn't exactly how it works. When changes are proposed to a wiki article it is (usually) debated by multiple people who have an interest in that article. It is somewhat rare for grossly inaccurate information to make it into public view due to this - and in the rare event it does make it into public view, this system rapidly weeds a lot out.Walter:
If a subject is controversial (i.e. there is a lot of "weeding" and arguing going on) the article gets flagged as such, making it easy to determine where/what types of conflicts there are. compare that to an encyclopedia - where at best you'll get a mention of "both sides".
From the point of a working scientist, one thing really impresses me about wikipedia - one trait which IMO makes wiki better then most encyclopedias out there - wikipedias use of citations. Most encyclopedias don't tell you where they got their info from, so for all you know the author of that article made an error - or even made things up. With citations you have direct links (or other references) to the materials used to build the article. Makes it a lot easier to follow up on the article, as well as makes it easy for you to check up on dubious facts.
A while ago I was considering adding to wikiepedia in my areas of expertise - immunology, HIV/AIDS, inflammation, chemotaxis and evolution of the immune system. After reading wiki's articles on those subjects I decided not to bother - the quality of the articles, as they already existed, was at or above anything I could have added.
Bryan
