More media responses
Jan. 9th, 2006 05:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackBridget Jones I saw all of the movie, and liked it a lot. I take back disparaging comments -- though I still think the book is laugh out loud funny like few other things and should be read. Before I only saw the second half, and didn't get a lot of the changes. A fistfight? Really?
A friend was asking if it wasn't non-feminist. I'm not sure any more. She is rather hopeless. But then I identify with her as me, as anyone, though some of her hopelessness is expressed in relationships in a different way to I do, perhaps due to gender[1]. And she is hopeless the way half the population is, but is reasonably successful. And she does do some pro-active things, if less so in the field of relationships. Though she certainly tries.
Timecop I was all prepared to yell at the time travel. IIRC it wasn't especially worse than many, though I was puzzled by some what determines who isn't changed by a timeline change issues as normal. In fact, I lost it in the first minute, before time travel was even mentioned. What was special about the gold? They carbon dated it and it came from 17xx.
Is it just me, or is that odd? Firstly, gold doesn't normally have much carbon in, especially organic carbon, does it? OK, suppose they measure the decay of an isotope of gold. Why would it change when the gold is, um, stamped into bullion? OK, suppose the radiation is slightly greater on the surface than in the mine, and they can measure that change. What isotope are they looking at? The second-most-stable has a half-life of six months. Doh. I give up.
It did teach me what metastable isotopes are. That was interesting.
Stargate Daniel Jackson/Claudia Black OTP Squee!
Deal or no deal For anyone else lucky enough not to follow TV, the idea is you have 20 shuffled boxes with amounts in from 1¢ to £0.25M. You choose a few, discard them, then accept an offer related to the average of the amounts remaining, or continue -- if there's one box left, you get what's in it. It is *really annoying*
[1] I know that should be sex. But at least gender is non-ambiguous, as one amusing conversation underlined.
A friend was asking if it wasn't non-feminist. I'm not sure any more. She is rather hopeless. But then I identify with her as me, as anyone, though some of her hopelessness is expressed in relationships in a different way to I do, perhaps due to gender[1]. And she is hopeless the way half the population is, but is reasonably successful. And she does do some pro-active things, if less so in the field of relationships. Though she certainly tries.
Timecop I was all prepared to yell at the time travel. IIRC it wasn't especially worse than many, though I was puzzled by some what determines who isn't changed by a timeline change issues as normal. In fact, I lost it in the first minute, before time travel was even mentioned. What was special about the gold? They carbon dated it and it came from 17xx.
Is it just me, or is that odd? Firstly, gold doesn't normally have much carbon in, especially organic carbon, does it? OK, suppose they measure the decay of an isotope of gold. Why would it change when the gold is, um, stamped into bullion? OK, suppose the radiation is slightly greater on the surface than in the mine, and they can measure that change. What isotope are they looking at? The second-most-stable has a half-life of six months. Doh. I give up.
It did teach me what metastable isotopes are. That was interesting.
Stargate Daniel Jackson/Claudia Black OTP Squee!
Deal or no deal For anyone else lucky enough not to follow TV, the idea is you have 20 shuffled boxes with amounts in from 1¢ to £0.25M. You choose a few, discard them, then accept an offer related to the average of the amounts remaining, or continue -- if there's one box left, you get what's in it. It is *really annoying*
[1] I know that should be sex. But at least gender is non-ambiguous, as one amusing conversation underlined.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 06:36 pm (UTC)Sadly, I'm starting to think it is unlikely that I'm going to make your party, but I shall know for sure by tomorrow night. I'm still hoping I can.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 07:12 pm (UTC)Colin Firth did well, but never seemed especially squeeful in it.
OK, *hugs* You're welcome if you come. (Though crash-space has rapidly become non-existant...)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 08:02 pm (UTC)*hugs back*
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 06:45 pm (UTC)yeah, it's a silly show. definitely.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 06:46 pm (UTC)Timecop. Surely you don't need to look at only isotopes of gold, but anything else that might be produced by bombarding gold atoms with whatever radiation will penetrate the atmosphere (knock a proton out and you're looking at Platinum instead).
Still, the best I can say on that one is that if someone told me this was actually plausible I wouldn't know enough to be able to argue with them.
Deal or no deal. Do you get to know how it's related and is it a sane relationship?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 07:08 pm (UTC)Of course, this would tell you "dug out of the ground n years ago, or maybe nuked m years ago", which wouldn't become 17xx, but 19xx. I can't remember the exact wording, but maybe they found gold stamped "186x Confederate States of America", and yet Pt dating said was only xx years old, which would mean it had time traveled. But they didn't make a big deal of the stamp, which surely would have been fairly surprising, how much of that is still around?
Deal: You're not told on the air, they pretend a mythical banker is making value judgements. But the internet's wisdom suggests it's some sort of expectation function.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 10:14 pm (UTC)I'd have thought buying a gold ingot in the present day and recasting it to refer to the CSA would be much cheaper than time travel, and if this was done xx years before they found it then that'd be indistinguishable (assuming that time travel itself didn't bathe its subjects in some kind radiation).
It occurs to me that melting and re-casting gold might burn off flammable, or low-boiling-point, impurities introduced by radioactive decay (or bombardment). So you might be able to tell when it was last melted.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:03 am (UTC)Hard to say -- if you have time travel anyway, it's generally pretty unknown how much energy it takes to transport mass m. In only one story I recall did it take mc2.
The context was they'd found this gold, and deduced it was from the confederacy -- there was no suggestion someone particularly wanted it to seem so, so afaict there'd be no reason to cast it that way deliberately. Though I can't remember who knew about time travel at that point.
It occurs to me that melting and re-casting gold might burn off flammable, or low-boiling-point, impurities introduced by radioactive decay (or bombardment). So you might be able to tell when it was last melted.
Hmmm. Cunning.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 10:40 pm (UTC)Better still, she points out that the unstable isotopes of gold do not appear in nature (look for "syn" in the table). Or rather, even if they ever did, after a billion years in the ground there's 2-2,000,000,000 as much left as you started with even assuming the 186d half-life, i.e. none to speak of.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-11 01:31 am (UTC)LOL. And yes, that was my first, and second, and *looks up* fifth thoughts. But *switches sides seamlessly* theory of relativity is implausible, but happens :)
Better still, she points out that the unstable isotopes of gold do not appear in nature (look for "syn" in the table).
Doh. Why didn't I go straight to wikipedia. But yes, I infered they weren't likely to be about. But weren't you saying that you might turn gold into something else, or a short sequence of something elses, with cosmic rays? I still don't think this is likely, but hasn't been ruled out except by her naathness's concurrence in the implausibility.
cosmic rays
Date: 2006-01-11 10:19 am (UTC)Re: cosmic rays
Date: 2006-01-11 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-09 08:55 pm (UTC)Also, it has that scene where "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck" appears in the subtitles, which made me nearly wet myself laughing.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 02:00 am (UTC)Also, it has that scene where "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck" appears in the subtitles, which made me nearly wet myself laughing.
Oh yes, the film had some very nice tricks. I'm always on the lookout for interesting subtitles now.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:29 pm (UTC)I think it should be gender. Such idiotic responses are not based on what internal organs one has but what social conditioning one has received. B.J's gender is set due 'idiot woman' and it causes her problems.
I don't mind BJD I think that it shows the Bad Things in a negative light and her strenghts in a positive one. I mind that all women in 'popular' TV have those same negative traits imposed upon them and that this 'ideal woman' is put forward as something to aspire to.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:35 pm (UTC)I don't mind BJD I think that it shows the Bad Things in a negative light and her strenghts in a positive one.
Well said, I'd be ok with that.
[1] Well, mostly. I wouldn't be surprised if women-averagely-want-marriage-more is part genetic -- that would certainly make sense -- and BJ[2]'s and Daniel's interaction for instance is partly based on that.
[2] Lovely acronym, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:44 pm (UTC)Sex==what genitals you have
Also complicated by people who believe themselves to be female but like to express masculine traits...
A debate best ignored for the most part.
(and by people who won't agree on what words mean)
Persons with female genes *might* be more likely to want a long-term thing than a short-term thing vis having/raising babies.
But current female methods of *getting* long-term things appear to suck.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-10 03:47 pm (UTC)Oo-er!