Wow, ok.  Small alteration to my last post: In my experience...

Heck of a discussion though.  I'm with Eddie, mostly (and the "mostly" is just hedging my bets).

I believe anyone should be able to believe whatever they want to believe about anything.  I don't think that point is in dispute here.   I only have a couple caveats: 1.) Don't try to "sell" your beliefs to me, e.g., the "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen"  who prowl my neighborhood at least once a month.  I'm not interested, and you are not welcome here. Discussion? Great! Bring it on! I'll put some coffee on and we'll stay up all night chatting.  Just leave the sales pitch at the door.  2.) Don't berate me for not believing as you do.  If you can't have a civilized, rational conversation about your beliefs, go away; you can't "win" an epistemological argument, and if you're going to be a douche-bag about it, I have no time for you.  I really would welcome the chance to sit down with our "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen" from caveat 1, and discuss their faith, provided they could adhere to both caveats.  Heck, they might even win me over that way!  Ok, maybe not.

(My apologies to any "Unnamed-door-to-door-religion-salesmen" we may have around here.  I won't pretend I'm not cribbing from a real group, and I mean no disrespect, but I had to site a specific example, and folks literally coming around knocking on my door to try and "sell" me on a belief system really gets under my skin.)

Like Mike, I arrived at atheism after searching for, and failing to find, a belief system I could give myself to, wholeheartedly, and without reservation.  I wouldn't say I'm not spiritual however.  I can't deny the feeling I get when I'm confronted by nature.  I believe there are energies in the universe that we cannot detect, but somehow we can perceive.  Are they really there?  I don't know, and I don't care.  I'm a big believer in science, but if there is one thing science is really bad at, it's proving that something doesn't exist.  The afterlife?  Who knows?  The scientist in me, and the part of me that still clings to the need to believe in something, like the idea that we all have a unique energy about us, and since energy cannot be destroyed, when we die it simply...goes somewhere else.  Maybe there isn't anything after this, and I'm fine with that too.  (I've actually been working on a story idea for that first thought; really need to write it down and post something in the Creations thread...)  Either way though, I seriously doubt that, if there is more to existence after this life, what we believe while we're here will have the slightest affect on what happens next.

I don't think religion is a bad thing.  There are things we don't know, and probably will never know, and I think that frightens a lot of people.  That's not to say that everyone who dresses up nice on Sunday and get together to read out of a book do so out of fear.  I understand that for many it is simply how they were raised, and for many others it is truly a belief that those things are true.  But for some at least, religion is a comfort against the unknown; in one way or another it helps them get through their day, and there's nothing wrong with that.  Personally, I don't need any such comfort, but far be it for me to deny it to others.

On the other hand, I also look at the havoc we have wrought and continue to  wreak in religion's name, and I can't reconcile that.  I'm a big fan of George Carlin, and it's high time he entered this discussion.  I can't deny, his work went a long way it getting me to question my beliefs.  In his bit about Sanctity of Life (skip to 6:52), he says: "Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death".  Yes, the whole bit is a satire, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Religions have some great ideas.  Like Eddie said, we just want to fuck, fight, eat and sleep, and religion is one way we temper those baser instincts; in a way, is one of the reasons society functions at all.  We can argue that that is right or wrong, and the degree to which it is effective, but it's there, and it's not going anywhere, so we all need to learn a little tolerance and understanding.

Until the aliens show up and prove everyone wrong, that is.

In my experience, atheists tend to be fairly well versed in religion, sometimes more so than theists.

I wasn't too bothered with the price hike; it's business, I get it.  I even upped my DVD plan to 3 at a time.  Netflix in its current (soon to be old) format works great; search for a movie, and if it's streaming watch it now, if it's not add it to your DVD queue.  Easy.  The fact that both services are integrated is part of the selling point for me.

With this new direction though they're moving away from that, or at least it looks like that.  They'll probably keep my business, but time will tell for how long.

Well if it's a problem with the drive itself you may well be SOL, unless you've got a spare DVD drive kicking around, in which case you can use one of these.  In fact I recommend that anyone at all competent with PC hardware should have one of those in their toolbox.

Try playing the DVDs in VLC; you can only frame advance forward (E), but once you find the frame you want just right click the window and select "Snapshot." Oh, and set where you want your snapshots to go in preferences, natch.

Good luck, sounds like an interesting game if we can get it going.

Ever considered trying Garageband?  You're already using a Mac so it should be pre-loaded.  Also, with another splitter you could record to, say, the laptop and a second, backup source, like Brian's device or Zarban's suggestion at the same time.  And I wouldn't try to record directly to an external drive; it's one more point of failure you really don't need.

Ok, well, since the thread has taken this direction anyway...

Real, fake, big, small...I don't care.  I only care about three things.  Well, two.

First, that she is happy with what she's got.  Self esteem is huge, and if there's an issue with that, there's not necessarily a whole lot you can do.  Not to get into specifics, but... my last relationship partner wasn't terribly well endowed.  I was perfectly happy with what she had, but she was rather self-conscious about them.  The running gag from her was that they were "on vacation."  It was simply not a subject that could be brought up without becoming an issue, and it was a real problem with our intimacy. 

The second thing has to do with the difference between what's advertised, and what you actually get.  To be honest, I don't actually care about this, but it is necessary to discuss  a few things before moving on to my next point.  These days there are all kinds of support garments on the market, from strictly supportive, to barely there; from simple fabric, to enough padding to make anyone look like they're smuggling water balloons.  I don't care about this either.  So it's an illusion, so what?  I know the girl in the box at a magic show isn't actually being cut in half, but I don't enjoy the show any less.  A degree of "false advertising" is perfectly fine; since there is a limit to how much enhancement a support structure can offer, the chances of unwrapping a basketball and finding a ping-pong ball are slim.  The real issue with this point comes down to structural integrity, or what happens when they are left to their own natural devises.

Which brings us to the third issue; how do they behave, in the absence of their support structure?  This part comes down to two factors: attachment point, and gravity. 

Scenario A: Imagine pressing a pair of peeled oranges into a stretched membrane, and attaching the whole thing to your chest.  Now imagine the shape that outlines the oranges…circular, right?  Now gravity is going to exert a natural downward direction on them, but you can imagine that regardless of orientation, that deflection will be about the same.  Flat on your back they might flatten out slightly, or on all fours they might hang a bit further away, but that's it.  In an extreme case they wouldn't move at all.

Scenario B: Now imagine you've pushed your oranges a bit too far into the membrane, so that when you attach the whole thing to your chest, they don't actually make contact with your chest, but hang out in front of you.  Now imagine the shape that outlines that attachment.  I'll save you the trouble, it's an oval.  Do a head stand and they'll be in your face; lay on your back and they'll be in your armpits; get on all fours and…well, you get the idea.  Ok, take your oranges off now because you look ridiculous.

What we're talking about here is sag, and one might think that one scenario is preferable to another, but let's take another look.  Imagine a chart, with size on the X access, and sag in the Y.  For discussion's sake we'll give the X access a maximum of 10, and the Y a maximum of -10.  In each example, the 0 line of the Y access bisects the attachment point, and the Y number represents the deflection gravity exerts when standing.  Let's look at the extreme cases:

(10, -10): They're huge, and hang so low they actually point down.  Good chance you're getting knocked unconscious if you're not careful.  Probably best to keep these under wraps.  Or wear a helmet.
(10, 0): Huge and yet seem to defy gravity. Y access could very well go into positive numbers.  Welcome to silicone valley. 
(1, -10): Small, yet seemingly without form; seem to be attached at the lower rib cage.  Grandma at the beach in a bikini.
(1, 0): Small, perky.  Barely legal.  Probably best to ask for an ID.

(I apologize for the lack of a model; it would likely have been crude, not scaled properly or painted anyway, so.) Without casting judgement on anyone's personal taste, we can see that too far in any direction will take us into someone's discomfort zone.

Finally, the whole real vs. fake issue.  Real ones can be just as disturbing as fake ones.  A (10, -10) is a (10, -10), real or fake.  Fake ones can be done extremely well, the trouble is they aren't cheap.  Image is a big deal in a lot of cultures around the world these days, and if a bit of enhancement helps someone feel better about themselves, I say go for it, just spend what it takes to do it right.  More relationship BS:  Along with a house, cats, and a Porsche, one of the things my ex and I used to fantasize about me being able to get her one day (when she was feeling ok anyway) was a boob job.  I know it wouldn't have been enough to keep us together, but if somehow I'd have been able to do that for her, it would have been a huge boost to her self esteem, and maybe we wouldn't have had so many silly arguments.

Really when it comes right down to it, these things only matter superficially.  Baring existing self esteem issues, if two people are into each other, stuff like this matters very little. 

Besides, you can always turn out the lights.

Cahuenga Labs is kind of like the Marines; Once a Cahuenga Labs tenant, always a Cahuenga Labs tenant.

The Hurt Locker through Constantine.

I've already got one for Constantine, BTW.

2:02:53 - 2:03:21, in which Mike posits his opinion as to where to hide the Spear of Destiny.

Edit:
Aaaaaand beaten to the punch already.

A rating system seems like kind of a Pandora's box to me.  I know we all have our favorites, and I know that behind the scenes we have a feel for which are our strong and weak episodes, but do we really want to see a concrete public representation of that?

Of course on the other hand, we could use the data for an anual "People's choice awards" thing come the next anniversary show.  Other than that I really can't see myself going through the entire back catalogue and objectively giving each episode a yeh, ney, or meh.  I think we'd see most folks just marking their favorites, and a lot of unrated episodes.  Might just be me though.

They describe limbo as "unconstructed dream space."  In all the other levels, the different dreamers have had the environment constructed by the architect, so limbo is basically a level of dream space that has not been planned in advance, and is made up upon arrival.  This is also why architects are so important; without someone to construct the dream, the dreamers would all just fall into this unconstructed space every time.  As I understand it, limbo isn't a single level, but a term used to describe any lower unconstructed dream space.  For example, while in Cob and Mal's limbo, one could drop into a further state of unconstructed dream space.

Here's where I get confused.  When Fischer dies in the hospital level, and when Cob and Ariadne drop into limbo after him, they all arrive in what remains of what Cob and Mal built.  Saito also dies in the hospital level, but he appears to bypass Cob's level, and go to an unconstructed level of his own.  Since he appears to have aged significantly when Cob finds him, and has constructed a world of his own, it would seem to follow that Saito would have had to arrive in Cob's limbo, and die there, thus sending him to a further level of limbo.  But none of that is shown on-screen.  Saito should have simply dropped into Cob's limbo, but if he had he would not have aged so much by the time Cob finds him.

The only other scenario I can come up with, is that Saito does indeed wind up in Cob's limbo, but it takes Cob a very long time to find him.  The trouble there is that Cob would have aged as well. 

So how does Saito wind up in a dream for long enough to build a world of his own and become an old man, but Cob is able to find him without appearing to age at all himself?

Then there's the fact that Mal stabs Cob, but we never see him die, or in any real pain.  Would that have woken him up, or sent him further into limbo?

As to how Cob and Saito get back having missed the kick, the last shot before they both wake up on the plane is Saito reaching for Cob's gun.  Remember that to get out of limbo in the first place, Cob and Mal put themselves in front of a train.  Going back to the idea that limbo is not a "level" so to speak that one must navigate up from, I would agree that, in the absence of dreamers in the other levels, dying in limbo is enough to bring them out of it.

This is, of course, assuming one accepts that everyone does indeed wake up, and that the end of the film isn't simply a further dream state.  Nolan intended for the ending to be somewhat ambiguous, but I tend to fall into the camp that believes the ending takes place in reality.  Sir Michael Caine would seem to confirm it as well.