So, I caught this flick on cable last night—probably the most obscure, low-profile movie the former California governor ever made. As far as I know, you can't even find it in any decent video rental spots anymore. The concept and vision of the future were interesting, sure, but totally naive. It’s packed with those standard Schwarzenegger tropes, like him dropping a "Killian...I'll be back!" only for the guy to snap back, "Only in a rerun..." It’s full of those classic clichés too (like some guy shouting about having a 😁 red hot head), so it doesn't feel much different from Commando or Red Hot. Look, I don't want a bunch of self-proclaimed experts coming in here to lecture me on why this movie is trash; I want to hear from actual action fans. Why is this movie impossible to track down, especially since it was filmed during the "golden era" when most of Arnie's stuff was hitting? And why didn't Jesse Ventura get a bigger role? Having two governors go head-to-head should have been huge, but his part was totally insignificant.
Yeah, I realized I botched the title in the heading. It's IDE, not IIDE...
FJBG Mr. Ex said:It’s not even the Boston Red Sox. According to official stats, they were screwed over 4 times—not counting those penalties handed to LA Galaxy and San Francisco—so that's 6. Meanwhile, they got lucky calls 4 times. So we're looking at 6:4. Basically, it's not even that bad, unlike say, the Cincinnati Reds, who are sitting at a 4:0 ratio.😲 😲
And if the Red Sox had been gifted a penalty against LA Galaxy (even though there were two questionable ones), people would be out in the streets celebrating their American Championship win right now.
FJBG FJBG Mr. Ex😁
Hold on a second. You're claiming the Red Sox were wronged 4 times based on some "official record," but then YOU go ahead and tack on 2 more. Since you aren't an official league spokesperson, you don't get to just invent extra arguments for the Red Sox. Once the MLS actually publishes those numbers officially, then I'll consider it.😁
Until I actually sat down and watched "24," I had no clue that basically every movie out there is just a cheap rip-off and total garbage. Long live Jack Bauer!
Seriously, modern movies are absolute trash. TV series are killing it right now.
Gary Anderson38 said:Are you seriously telling me Predator is some pointless action flick? That movie is absolute GOLD!!!!111!1111!
And Aliens is a masterpiece too.
As for romance in movies, I can't stand it either. Especially when they shove that garbage into films where it doesn't belong.
Look, Rambo is the king of mindless action, but fair point. Predator is easily one of the best action movies out there. Total tangent, but I had to say it.
Jose Miller17 said:it takes exactly two clicks of the mouse to find that out😁...truth be told, look at his weight...😁
Hmm, I still think this is a step backward for him, especially since he’s showing up so many years later. He used to be the lead in the best kid's movie ever made, and now he's just a side character in what's supposedly the most award-winning film out there (even if it's nothing like The Goonies 👍 )...
I was scrolling through some reviews for Predator and Commando on Rotten Tomatoes the other day. One critic basically said there wasn't even a hint of romance in either movie. They actually seemed shocked that there were even women in the cast. Honestly? I'm fine with that. You have to be able to tell the difference between mindless action and an actual drama that needs a romantic subplot.
shadowfalcon33 said:You could have easily posted this over in the natural science sub.
Anyway, what does my high school physics teacher think about this whole atom theory thing?
We had a great professor, but he left right before we actually got to the heavy stuff. The replacement was, to put it mildly... completely unqualified to teach physics. I mean, how else do you explain spending half a semester just staring at mirrors?
hiddenviper9 said:nimblemarlin17, don't let these self-proclaimed geniuses get under your skin.
You said: Empty space: there's some kind of vacuum on both the macro and micro scales. Empty space separates objects in space. Empty space separates parts of atoms.
You're hovering near the truth—but right now you're dealing with "Chaotic truth." You're catching glimpses of something, but you're missing the pieces needed to assemble a beautiful mosaic.
The thing you have to grasp is that "empty space" DOESN'T exist. There are Spaces filled with Forge, spaces filled with antimatter, and spaces filled with Matter.
Actually, if you sliced the cosmos crosswise, you'd see an "extra battery" formed by three spaces filled with particles reflecting a MINUS character, three spaces filled with particles reflecting a PLUS character, and six spaces filled with particles reflecting a MINUS/PLUS character. All these spaces are subject to those initial conditions (three + three + 6).
You said: I'm saying electrons, protons, and neutrons are also made of even smaller structures that follow a similar "scale" ratio.
You're right that electrons, protons, and neutrons consist of something Even Smaller—but they don't have material value. They carry the value of a MEMORY IMPRINT.
More on this in my book (which, unfortunately, isn't finished yet).
It's nice to run into someone with a semi-similar perspective. Sure, I'm missing elements to complete the beautiful mosaic, but since nobody knows everything, I can't be the one who does.😛
Empty space: we're talking vacuum on both the macro and micro scales. Space separates objects in space. Empty space separates the parts of an atom. My take? Electrons, protons, and neutrons are also made of even smaller structures following a similar scale. You've got matter and you've got empty space. Then you split that matter into more matter and space. Then you split that matter again... and it just keeps going forever. Even if you assumed subatomic particles were indivisible—which I highly doubt—if you somehow packed all that matter together without any gaps, all the matter in space could probably be compressed into something smaller than Earth, if it's even that big. You can prove infinity using math. Whether math is just a tool we invented or actual reality is a different story. But since the math allows for it, I say infinity is possible.
"Partially" refers to just one slice of my whole story, whereas "completely" applies strictly to that specific segment. You get what I'm saying? "Completely" is the absolute truth regarding how sizes work in space. Get it? 😁
I can still picture the entire cast from The Goonies like it was yesterday. They were all incredible in that movie, but now? All I ever see is the guy who played Mouth showing up in some cheap B-movies on MTV or NET.
Sophia Evans76 said:this teacher needs to stop teaching philosophy immediately...
Huh. Why? The theory is actually pretty scientifically accurate. At least regarding the relationship between space and the bodies within it, or atoms and their subatomic parts. Give me one actual reason why my theory is total nonsense. You can't just call something stupid without providing some logic... you have to actually philosophize a bit first.😁
I was just poking around this section of the forum and it reminded me of an idea I had about space, its structure, and what it all actually means. It’s more on the philosophical side. We actually debated stuff like this in my high school philosophy class a few years back.
I spent about an hour explaining this theory to my teacher afterward. She told me it actually made sense and that the theory itself wasn't bad. I came up with it out of nowhere during that philosophy lecture. Look, we all know that space consists of an indescribable amount of empty void, which is—to put it mildly—mostly empty, yet filled with matter in the form of stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and so on (maybe even antimatter, dark matter, black holes, and whatever else they're discovering lately). The actual volume of matter compared to that massive empty void is practically negligible. Now let's take it up a notch. Matter (at least based on what we know today) is mostly made of hydrogen atoms. Over 90% of everything is hydrogen; the share of all other elements is pretty small, and they all basically stem from hydrogen anyway. We know a hydrogen atom—and all others—consists of a nucleus and electrons. Everyone has seen those textbook diagrams of an atom. The problem is, that perception isn't accurate at all. If one hydrogen proton were the size of a football, then the first orbiting electron would be the size of a tennis ball located about 15 miles away from that nucleus! That is roughly the actual spatial relationship between the parts of an atom. Imagine a massive sphere about 15 miles wide with components that size. An atom is essentially just a tiny bit of "nothing." It's empty space at a micro-dimension that is almost entirely vacant, save for some tiny protons, electrons, and neutrons. Ratios like that between matter and empty space led me to a simple conclusion: this division of space goes on forever, splitting into endless voids and negligibly small bits of matter. Mathematically speaking, if you follow the limit, you conclude that space is actually just one big nothingness. What we see and experience is just reshaped empty space that must be governed by something. Personally, I view God that way—as the force that manages everything, the force that keeps space within our perception at all times. Because if math and logic lead to the conclusion that space doesn't exist, yet we know it does, then there has to be some "something" at the highest level that creates a world of "something" out of nothing. All natural laws, all rules. Mass, light, speed... it's all just contained within empty space. Completely empty.
Henry Anderson47 said:It’s the same deal with Platoon—the whole thing is basically a clash between the "bad" guys (who are actually enjoying the war) and the "good" guy, that sergeant who's just there because he was ordered to be, trying his best to hold onto some shred of humanity.
p.s. Have you even seen these movies?
😉
Yeah, I have. Watching Saving Private Ryan is enough to make anyone want to stay far away from a war zone. Unless you're looking for a way out of life, obviously.
The furthest I’ve ever traveled for live sports was to Chicago to watch a buddy play in some summer league 😁
Honestly, my biggest trip for football was heading to Madrid for Atletico vs Dinamo. I also made it out to the World Cup 1998, went to Budapest a few times to see Dinamo, and even caught a game in San Diego once...