Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

/dev/random / Re: Whatcha watchin'/streamin'...

« Last post by |iR|Focalor on October 08, 2025, 02:30:13 PM »

Watched the Psycho collection - there's 4 movies total, although theres technically 5 because theres one in the late 80's between parts 3 and 4 called Bates Motel. I skipped that one. It was a made for tv thing (not a theatrical release as far as I know) that had Lori Petty in it. Um, NO THANKS.

Psycho is pretty much a horror masterpiece. I have to assume that Alfred Hitchcock never intended for it to have any sequels. Hitchcock never made any sequels to any of his movies, and I think what says it all is the fact that it wasn't until a couple of years right after he died that they dared to make the 2nd one. I don't think he would've approved of it. Nevertheless... it happened, and I watch them sometimes, and they aren't too bad. They don't compare to the original obviously, but sequels very rarely do.

But if you want to get REALLY technical... there were 6 Psycho movies... if you include the 1998 remake they did starring Vince Vaughan, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, and William H Macy.

I think I had seen it before a long time ago on HBO or The Movie Channel. I had forgotten all about it until I started looking up some info about the Psycho movies while watching them. I didn't remember anything about it so I tried watching it...

I got about 50% through it, right to the shower stabbing scene and the part where he pushes the car into the bog... and I turned it off, I couldn't take anymore. There was NO POINT TO IT!

This is precisely why YOU NEVER MAKE REMAKES. Psycho was a masterpiece, people love it, so if you change it, people are going to complain. And changing the work of a brilliant director like Hitchcock is probably considered blasphemy among Hollywood folks. So obviously when they started to make this movie, they had no intention of changing it and having everyone say that they ruined it. So instead... they pretty much copied it shot for shot. The credits looked the same, the music was the same, the camera angles were the same, everything the same. So... what's the point of making the movie at all? Why should I sit here watching the remake when I already saw the original? Maybe there's someone who hasn't seen the original before. Why should they bother seeing this remake when they can just watch the original?

This is the problem you have with doing remakes. If you change it around, people complain that you changed it too much. If you don't change it at all and you do a shot for shot copy... then there's no point. You're honestly better off braving the complaints and revamping it with some modifications to things. Either way it's gonna suck, but at least it'll be something that sucks that I haven't already seen before.

Science / Re: The Baloney Detection Kit

« Last post by |iR|Focalor on September 30, 2025, 05:11:21 PM »

The original author of the so-called Baloney Detection Kit was Carl Sagan in his book The Demon Haunted World.

The 9 tools in the Baloney Detection Kit part 1...

There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when possible.
Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that "authorities" have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn't been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
Try to avoid clinging obdurately to your own hypothesis and so become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we'll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.
The use of Occam's razor, which says to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the fewest assumptions.
Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering.

Part 2 - 20 logical fallacies that must be avoided...

Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
Argument from authority. (aka appeal to authority) Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works."
Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow". A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by". An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so important it was pulled out for special attention.
Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits…).
Confusion of correlation and causation. The latter causes the former.
Straw man. Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. This is also a short-term/long-term fallacy.
Suppressed evidence, or half-truth.
Weasel word (aka anonymous authority) A word or phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated. The terms may be considered informal. Examples include the phrases "some people say", "it is thought", and "researchers believe".

With all of the podcasters and people on social media these days having such... interesting... opinions and theories about things, these tools are now more necessary than ever. Just because someone is charismatic and speaks confidently doesn't mean they really know what they're talking about.

/dev/random / Re: UFO SPACECRAFT CONFIRMED BY USA

« Last post by 2d on September 11, 2025, 08:10:12 PM »

Holy shit -

https://www.youtube.com/v/nUbl5HLIGkA&ab_channel=GlobalNews

Full:

https://www.youtube.com/v/D42T3iZ8Nyw&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews

/dev/random / Re: Whatcha watchin'/streamin'...

« Last post by |iR|Focalor on September 06, 2025, 01:21:15 PM »

Quote from: |iR|Focalor on October 19, 2024, 03:09:21 PM

Quote from: |iR|Focalor on October 07, 2023, 02:20:31 AM
October is horror movie marathon month for me. I've downloaded probably 60 or more movies to watch. I won't list them all but here's some of them:

...
Vampyr (1932) old black & white 1930's German-made vampire movie... if you couldn't tell from the title. No idea what it's about, will be the first time I've ever seen it. Watch it here.

I am somewhat of a horror movie fan, but at the same time, I find most of the movies labelled as "horror" to be pretty ridiculous, so I also tend to avoid horror movies... until October rolls around, and then I binge the living hell out of them, assuring that I don't feel the need to watch them any other time of the year unless I really want to.

It's not October yet... but I'm starting my yearly Halloween Horror Binge a month early this year. I downloaded a CRAPLOAD of movies, and I probably won't get through them all by Halloween.

Some good ones I've seen so far that I would recommend...

House of Wax (1953) - Starring Vincent Price.
The Body Snatcher (1945) - Starring Boris Karloff, a smaller role played by Bela Lugosi
The Mummy (1959) - Starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as the Kharis/The Mummy - Hammer studios got permission to do remakes of the old Universal classic monster films, such as Frankenstein (Hammer version: Curse of Frankenstein), Dracula (Horror of Dracula), and The Mummy with Boris Karloff - not sure if they did any others. I'd recommend all 3 of these Hammer remakes, especially Curse of Frankenstein.

Watched this one for the first time:

White Zombie (1932) - Starring Bela Lugosi - Not great, but not terrible either... considering its a movie from the 30's, and also considering the star is Bela Lugosi (I'm not a Lugosi superfan) - Its awkward and silly at parts, but like I said, that's just how some movies were back then. It was "the style".

And one that I DO NOT RECOMMEND.

Satan's Cheerleaders (1977)
It's very bad. Some movies are so bad that they're good. NOT THIS ONE! This one is just plain bad. Stay away! The dialogue is fucking terrible. The story is terrible. The cast is mostly terrible. It has Yvonne DeCarlo in it. Even her part is horrible because of the dialogue. She obviously didn't give a shit about what roles she took around that time. I saw another horrible one with her in it that she did right after this one in 1979 called Nocturna. It was SO BAD. One of the worst bad b-movies I've ever seen. Well now it doesn't stand alone as the single worst halloween/horror movie, I'd put Satan's Cheerleaders right beside it. Trust me, you CAN'T BE bored enough to make watching this movie worth it.

/dev/random / Re: Whatcha listening to?

« Last post by Om3ga on August 31, 2025, 12:11:41 PM »

What's up B1tches. Whats g00d ?

/dev/random / Re: Whatcha listening to?

« Last post by |iR|Focalor on August 26, 2025, 10:36:56 AM »

RIP Brent Hinds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA70S4b-ofM

/dev/random / The Official 2025-26 Season Football Thread

« Last post by haunted on August 25, 2025, 05:06:13 PM »

It's that time.

https://picks.cbssports.com/football/pickem/pools/kbxw63b2geztonrzha3de===?ftag=CBS-24-10adc4c

Your pool password is: nadl

Quake / quadz's Birthday Hootenanny 2025

« Last post by RailWolf on August 16, 2025, 10:54:08 AM »

Greetings!

Come join us on Aug 18th for Bill's Brobdingnagian Birthday Shivoo on the mutant server.

Bill "quadz" Kelly was born on August 18th, 1971 and passed away on July 4th, 2021. He would be turning 54 years old this year.
Bill was an outstanding person who was greatly loved by the community, his friends, his coworkers, and his family. He is sorely missed by all.
Let's celebrate his birthday by remembering the good times we had with him, and of course, get some fragging in!

It's a work day, so probably will get a few games going in the evening