Sure. It's jsut that, for Hamilton, beating Rosberg is like winning a semi final. It's great, but it doesn't really mean anything.
Watched the recently released disaster movie San Andreas today. It was good action wise but it's so scientifically flawed. Just in case people want to see it I'll use a spoiler alert. Spoiler ****ing hell an earthquake at the San Andreas Fault is NOT going to generate an 100ft tsunami. Also, The Hoover Dam would not be completely destroyed by a magnitude 7 earthquake and buildings in LA and San Francisco are hardly likely to collapse like a pack of dominos! This isn't Nepal, the buildings are designed to withstand most earthquakes. But oh no, forget reality, lets flatten LA and San Francisco and create a tsunami for the hell of it.
I like disaster movies. Usually, they are films that won't win awards but are enjoyable and good fun. I saw San Andreas last week and the effects were good, but it was laughable. The Rock seems like a nice guy, but his cliched one liners were just so cheesy and corny. It was a pretty poor alternative to 'The Day After Tomorrow' - and Roland Emmerich does these films better I think.
I quite liked The Day After Tomorrow, but I didn't bother to watch it at the cinema. It took a computer model of a worst case climate change scenario over 100 years and compressed it into a few months. It was fun right from the first breaking off of an ice shelf the size of Texas, to the part where the Vice-President of the USA was giving thanks to the 3rd World countries for taking the rest of humanity into their countries. So I was always going to leave something like San Andreas to a big screen TV and hi-fi sound because, from what I've seen of the trailers, the story is just as overblown as TDAT and rather more comic book in the acting department.
The Impossible is easily the best disaster film I've seen. It gives a very accurate picture of the devastation that the 2004 tsunami caused. It was very powerful and very moving. When a disaster film is based on a true story it really takes it up a level and you feel emotions that films like San Andreas and The Day After Tomorrow don't give you. Also, I studied natural disasters as part of my degree, they've always interested me, and earthquakes are a really fascinating subject. I obviously would prefer these films to be more accurate and have more science in them. I mean, there is a very very remote chance of a 9.6 magnitude earthquake occurring along the SA fault. Geologists have said that the maximum is likely to be around 8. And there is no way a chasm would open up at the Earth's surface over the SA fault like what happened in the film. And the theory in the film they used to "predict" the earthquakes is utter bollocks.
Spot on - TDAT seems more intelligent, and more believable (even though we know it is overblown baloney). There is no subtly or beating around the bush with San Andreas.
The Impossible was a decent effort - but I think the characters were more likeable. It does help when Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts, two very capable actors, play the leads. Look at two great disaster movies though: The Poseidon Adventure; and The Towering Inferno. Neither are true stories, and arguable neither is really about the disasters themselves. The focus is on the characters, whether that be Gene Hackman starting from pessimist and dissenter to turning into the hero of the film, and leading a great cast including Shelley Winters, or Steve McQueen and Paul Newman portraying the relationship between an architect, and a fireman. I'm a regular listener to 5Live's film review with Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode, and Kermode does a regular video blog twice a week. He touched on this subject last week - worth a watch on KermodeUncut, about what makes a great disaster movie: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/entries/0d66357b-f1f9-4da8-91fd-3bce89034689
The next disaster film should be based on Thailand because if my memory serves me right, my old Uni lecturer (an expert on earthquakes) said that Geologists were saying there is an 90% chance of a magnitude 9 or over earthquake off the coast of Thailand in the next 50 years. I'm not 100% sure it was Thailand but it's somewhere in that part of the world. Anyway, all hell will break loose when that happens.
Has anybody here been invited to download Windows 10 yet..? Just noticed it on my Win7 PC. It's on it's way for free. In July, I believe. About time too really. Linux has been free for the private individual since forever and while it suffers from having too many versions, good though lots of them are, Microsoft could finally put themselves in the overwhelmingly dominant position again by having a common OS on all platforms. I hope they get it right though undoubtedly they won't please everybody. Windows has earned me a few bob over the years though. It's dead easy to fix, incredibly well supported, and so popular I'll never quite run out of people trying to throw money in my direction. Plus, through it's sheer popularity it'll be hacked and attacked again. Which is where I come in with my cavalry.
And there was I thinking that the next big event was going to be when part of the Canary Islands slips into the Atlantic Ocean.
I thought TDAT was good as well . Esp like the effect when the helicopters flew into the freezing air .
Technical(ish) question, and apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere:- I use BT as my ISP, and now BT Sport 1 & 2 are only available via my Internet, as opposed to directly onto my TV via my TV aerial. In order to show BT Sport on my TV, I have installed Chromecast onto my PC (Googlechrome), but Chromecast does not work with Microsoft Silverlight. BT Support say that I could use a tablet or another mobile device to enable Chromecast to 'cast' to my TV, but as I don't have anything other than this laptop, is there anything I can load onto my laptop (eg Linux, or a similar OS), so that Googlechrome/Chromecast can be used, to cast BT sport from my laptop to my TV. Any suggestions would be very welcome, thanks.
I deserted Windows after Vista. Now use Linux for/on everything apart from the kids computer (and even they prefer Zorin Linux). My concern over the "free" Windows 10 move is Microsoft are hinting it'll become a subscription model in the future.
Thanks for telling me. Windows 10 popped up at the bottom of my screen and started flirting with me. Didn't load it, mainly because I rarely load anything as it often jiggers everything up, but defo won't take up their offer now.
For those whose take up the offer in the first year it will be free for life. For those who don't it may cost in future. For those who can't, it will also cost. So Fran, you are wrong to miss the chance. I would leave it for a month or two before you screw up your system though.
Well Office is already subscription based, would stands to reason the OS would be too. However, Microsoft would lose a huge market share to Apple. Even I might have to migrate. I'm going to download Windows 10 because Windows 8 is ****, so it's gotta be better. Full-screen apps, wtf were they thinking
Just remember that it won't be available until July 29th, and then I'd wait... say a fortnight or month after download before installing it. Let the usual idiots who jump before they look have some bad experiences that you can learn from. Besides, if your PC or laptop are not reasonably modern I doubt they will have compatibility. Microsoft's big strength [and ruin at the same time], in the past, has been its compatibility with almost any bit of kit out there. Well there's an overwhelming amount of peripheral stuff out there now and MS aren't trying to make 10 run with everything dating back to the Ark. So do the compatibility check first when it becomes available. If there are only a few small issues, go ahead. If there is a big no-no then stick with what you have.
I'm a bit of a Mint fan myself. Very stable and has some good usable features. However, most people don't want multiple screens or the ability to do things slightly poorly, which Mint can suffer from. For example, the audio and video drivers aren't quite as good as ones written for Windows, so when I'm making some audio or video recordings I find that the lack of distortion or screen jerk from Windows drivers just have the edge. I have tested Mint against Windows XP Pro, Vista, and 7. In a default setup it actually blows Vista and 7 into the weeds simply because they are setup far too security consciously. Once you free Vista and 7 up it isn't so clear. There is a definite likeable feel to those Windows OS's once you get past all the default clutter. My favourite has always been XP Pro. Still the most logical OS they've ever made [I'm writing this on it for example]. People know me well that I can't stand Apple's OS's with their look at me, look at me, aren't I clever face to them, so enough said about that. I hope Microsoft don't go further down the Apple road [nearly wrote Abbey], with 10, and sacrifice functionality for style. The thing about Windows 8 and 8.1 that gets users steamed up is that, apart from trying to be very similar over all platforms, that it is the very thing that is the problem. It looks good in its own way but it doesn't feel as nice and usable as the older ones. And there are still an overwhelming number of old Win 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista and 7 users out there who just want MS to produce something that simply works well, and bugger the razzmatazz.
