Sayonara

Since it shares dozens of properties with solids, and only 1 or 2 with liquids, I'm inclined to say "solid".

Because the aim of his chemistry project is to demonstrate the fuel cell principle in a practical application?

As far as the above observations go, I would be reluctant to draw conclusions without first ensuring that your results totally separate effects due to intelligence, and effects due to discipline.

\o/ Sometimes twice

?

The Matrix hype is a bit like brainwashing - get enough people believing something, and they'll do the rest for you. The antidote is to look at the Wachowski Bros. filmography to date. The titles they have produced and/or directed include: Matrix Trilogy. Assassins (Stallone, pfft) Bound (lesbian chick-flik pandering to the insecure male market) And that's it.

MS Equation Editor is a proprietary Microsoft product. MathML is an international standard for marking up mathematical equations in a platform-free form.

"Toy car" does not necessarily mean a Matchbox-sized toy, it could be four feet long.

"Computer Boy" is the only Matrix spoof worth watching.

To Alt: The scene in Reloaded in the architect's room wasn't "philosophically enjoyable", it's called a plot device. The only reason it happened was to justify having a third film. And I'd just like to point out that you cannot create a stable succession to the human race using a population that is only a handful of people, no matter what distractions you've concocted. I do like your idea that the film can be applied to the religion and vice-versa but there is an element of affrontery involved here, since either way around the Wachowski's story is heresy on every continent (not that I particularly care about that). The license plates et al I agree are probably just there to be coy little in-jokes, but that's exactly why I dislike them. It's really, really tacky and pretentious. That said I have to agree that the attention to detail in "Matrix" was excellent. I can't really say the same about Reloaded, since it had no content. To Rune: I emailed the link to a few people so I'll see if I still have it. To Iglak: The techniques you are talking about as "bullet time" have been around for ages. All the Wachowskis did was use them all at the same time and stick a label on the side ("Bullet Time", whatever). How can you say "well... that's just slow motion" when you do not know what atinymonkey is referencing? The techniques that were to become known as bullet time are centered around the use of multiple cameras shooting the same scene simultaneously, the combined footage from which can be manipulated using software. The software allows the path of the camera, plus its aspect and the progress rate of the scene, to be controlled with unparalleled freedom. Computer generated effects such as onion skinning (for example the shadows of arm movement you mentioned) and bullet trails can also be added. Onion skinning by the way has been used in cell animation for the best part of a century, if not longer. This combined technique has indeed been in use for a long, long time. Wildlife documentaries, television commercials, Star Trek episodes from TNG, DS9 and Voyager ("Timescape", "A Matter of Time", and of course "Relativity", which was filmed some mere months before Matrix itself went into post-production, spring immediately to mind), and a couple of movies too before the Matrix came along. If you've never seen anything that pre-dates The Matrix and involves blended timeline footage, then you either aren't watching enough or you aren't paying enough attention. Although the repackaging of that technique as the Wachoskis' love child is nothing compared to the whole "ripping off Dark City" thing. Do not get me started on that

The word you're all desparately groping for is "refracted" Lunar eclipses are common. I spit on your lunar eclipse, ptoooh!

Personally I don't see the future being in a state of flux or mutable as being a particular problem.

I don't have the time today to respond to all of your questions. Suffice it to say that I will not enjoy Revolutions, and I don't think it's a particularly well-made film, so I am not paying almost £20 to go and see it.

If it's for presentation on the web you ought to be using MathML. URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML/

If you were able to travel back in time, it would be absolutely paramount that you not interact in any way with entities that could have an affect on the local timeline. In other words travellers - unless they were stupid, careless, accidentally transported, or deliberately damaging the timeline - would have to take measures to ensure nobody native to the local time encountered them.

First things first: (1) There's little point answering people on other forums in a thread on here. (2) I have not seen Revolutions and do not intend to. However I have read the entire plot. This boycott is not because I do not want to know what happens (although I no longer care about the characters since the travesty that was Reloaded, so effectively I don't), but because I do not want to reward the Wachowskis for being crap film-makers. The philosophy in "Matrix" was just about OK. It asked questions such as "what is reality?", and very wisely only barely tried to answer them. The philosophy in Reloaded (and presumably Revolutions, since they are two parts of a single script) was a complete mess. Bringing up an issue and failing to explore it, then fleshing it out with references to theology and myth, does not constitute deep or meaningful handling of anything. Chucking religious references into your film willy-nilly and slyly mentioning cultural artifacts as if you're really clever does not make your film "better", it makes it sloppier if this is not properly handled. Revolutions does not end the trilogy. It ends the extra story that began in Reloaded. At the end of "Matrix" it is inferred that we will win, and that's the end of the story. Smith has been destroyed, the resistance have their Messiah fighting on their side, Neo is all-powerful. The suggestion is that we will either eventually win over the machines, or gain control of our fate - thereby answering humanity's greatest questions. R&R form a completely new story that does not follow on from the original. The links between the first film and these two are tenuous at best. What has confused many people is that R&R hook back into "Enter the Matrix" and the "Animatrix", a very cunning marketing ploy that was intended not only to swell sales but also to make it easier to graft R&R onto the existing story. The whole package is patronising and trite, and that's why I won't pay to see it. The cable fighting is nothing new to cinema. The fact that they claimed they invented "bullet time" is just offensively untrue. The horrifyingly stilted way in which the Wachowski Bros. try to blend theological and cultural themes is nigh on blasphemous and makes me want to vomit blood. They tried to fit in too much, too fast. In their rush to get every cool thing they could think of into R&R, quite a lot that should have been in there got left out. Lastly (rant or what?), the fact that some of the problems they created in Reloaded get solved in Revolutions does not necessarily mean that the plot made sense, supported its own weight, or needed to exist at all.

Referring to my references as being inappropriate was inappropriate

Blike did not say the ending was bad, he said that the first film "could have been the ending" - and indeed it was at the time that production ended for "Matrix". There isn't actually any philosophy in the film - it is a regurgitation of pop-psych, cultural references, and mythological/historical lore so badly mangled it makes the blood curdle. The Wachowski Bros need to be publically flogged for R&R. Did you know that Joel Silver actually bragged that Revolutions needed no advertising, because people will just go and see it regardless? Of course he's right - Reloaded made over $750 million worldwide in theatres. They're laughing, literally all the way to the bank. Perhaps it's simply that you are more easily pleased than some of us. I for one feel that R&R fall well short of expectations, and I am not impressed.

Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." The US and UK claimed that they would invade Iraq despite UN regulations because they feared Iraq possessed WMD. That makes us terrorists, even if WMD are found in Iraq eventually.

What's inappropriate about that? It's completely relevant. If it was considered "naughty" it would be on the expletive filter.

For anyone who is confused about the trubuchet and dead cow comments: The trebuchet, catapult and ballister are part of the medieval siege engine. The function of a trebuchet was to launch very heavy loads at the enemy's fortifications with a great deal of force. When your opponents were all holed up in the keep of a castle, chucking dead and diseased animals in there was a very effective way of forcing them to flee or fight. This was usually burning or rotting cows. The trebuchet is also powerful enough to launch rocks at stone walls, and can cause serious damage to them in a very short time.

ROFL @ thread.

At least I'm not the film industry's bitch.

Putting both versions on the DVD would be a nice touch.

Is it really because it's cruel to the foetus, or is it because it's cruel to his public image?