On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>> falls apart.
>>
>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>
> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
> remarkably dull.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/

I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.

Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.

I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
out of the bedroom.

https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide

Good luck building it.

Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote at 17:52 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 22 Jun 2024 17:24:55 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Le 22-06-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Solved! Solved! Solved!
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>>
>
> Read and weep.
>
> I was not sure about the mapping from the old URW Postscript
> fonts to the new URW fonts. I had to check other distros for
> examples.
>
> RedHat-based distros still use the old URW fonts, but Arch Linux
> uses the new fonts. Using their xpdfrc config file as an example
> I was able to get the correct mapping:
>
> fontFile Times-Roman /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusRoman-Regular.otf
> fontFile Times-Italic /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusRoman-Italic.otf
> fontFile Times-Bold /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusRoman-Bold.otf
> fontFile Times-BoldItalic /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusRoman-BoldItalic.otf
> fontFile Helvetica /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusSans-Regular.otf
> fontFile Helvetica-Oblique /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusSans-Oblique.otf
> fontFile Helvetica-Bold /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusSans-Bold.otf
> fontFile Helvetica-BoldOblique /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusSans-BoldOblique.otf
> fontFile Courier /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusMonoPS-Regular.otf
> fontFile Courier-Oblique /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusMonoPS-Italic.otf
> fontFile Courier-Bold /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusMonoPS-Bold.otf
> fontFile Courier-BoldOblique /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.otf
> fontFile Symbol /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/StandardSymbolsPS.otf
> fontFile ZapfDingbats /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts/Z003-MediumItalic.otf
>
> Hoorah! Now xpdf can properly display any PDF file.
>
> Note these are all OTF fonts and not the older Type 1 mappings.
>
> Xpdf is the BEST simple PDF reader on GNU/Linux. Why use anything else?
> Why? Tell me why?

Preference?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote at 09:58 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 2024-06-22 2:20 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 01:49 this Saturday (GMT):
>>> vallor wrote:
>>>> On 22 Jun 2024 00:42:51 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
>>>> <ldml0aFhifvU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:48:36 +0000, Nux Vomica wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Give this poor little boy some answers.
>>>>>
>>>>> 42
>>>>
>>>> That's one of my favorite answers. :)
>>>>
>>> it always satisfies my questions
>>
>>
>> I love hitchhikers guide :D
>
> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing falls
> apart.

Neat, I haven't watched either. Maybe I will sometime.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-06-23, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>>> falls apart.
>>>
>>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>>
>> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
>> remarkably dull.
>
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
>
> I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.
>
> Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
> and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.
>
> I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
> out of the bedroom.
>
> https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide
>
>
> Good luck building it.

British or American the 2000's movie wasn't very good.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 22 Jun 2024 00:42:51 GMT, rbowman wrote:

>
> 42
>

Another aficionado of that juvenile junk sci fi.

Let's inject some REAL MAN reality.

42 contains only minuscule information. It is useless.

But ultimate knowledge, infinite knowledge, can be encoded
as a binary bit string of infinite length. This infinite
bit string can be mapped onto a transcendental irrational
number. Call this number Omega.

Moreover, this number can be very easily stored and transported
anywhere. Since numbers express lengths on the continuum,
just etch a mark on a meter stick. The mark corresponds
to Omega. Infinite knowledge in your fucking pocket.

There's your REAL answer.

Now go back to your infantile comic books.

On 2024-06-22 10:54 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>>> falls apart.
>>>
>>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>>
>> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
>> remarkably dull.
>
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
>
> I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.

And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
behind them.

> Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
> and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.
>
> I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
> out of the bedroom.
>
> https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide
>
>
> Good luck building it.

I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
1970s were a different time.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-23 2:10 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote at 09:58 this Saturday (GMT):
>> On 2024-06-22 2:20 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote at 01:49 this Saturday (GMT):
>>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>> On 22 Jun 2024 00:42:51 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
>>>>> <ldml0aFhifvU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:48:36 +0000, Nux Vomica wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give this poor little boy some answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 42
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one of my favorite answers. :)
>>>>>
>>>> it always satisfies my questions
>>>
>>>
>>> I love hitchhikers guide :D
>>
>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing falls
>> apart.
>
>
> Neat, I haven't watched either. Maybe I will sometime.

The American movie is pure shite, in my opinion. However, if you can get
the early 1980s TV show, it's actually quite funny. British humour
requires British interpretation. Just watch the opening scene in the
movie versus the TV show's depiction and you'll know what I mean.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Le 23-06-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 22 Jun 2024 00:42:51 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> 42
>
> Another aficionado of that juvenile junk sci fi.

Yes, everybody here knows you despised everything you don't understand.
There are not enough pictures in it for you to read it.

> 42 contains only minuscule information. It is useless.

Certainly not. With only two keystrokes, there are a lot of references
for everyone who knows to understand. So the information provided with
42 is huge compared with this simple number. Once again you proved you
don't understand what you criticised.

> But ultimate knowledge, infinite knowledge, can be encoded
> as a binary bit string of infinite length. This infinite
> bit string can be mapped onto a transcendental irrational
> number. Call this number Omega.
>
> Moreover, this number can be very easily stored and transported
> anywhere. Since numbers express lengths on the continuum,
> just etch a mark on a meter stick. The mark corresponds
> to Omega. Infinite knowledge in your fucking pocket.
>
> There's your REAL answer.

You wrote nothing new in a lot of words. So 42 is, at the same time, way
more compact and way more informative than your long empty garbage. So,
once again, you proved you don't understand what you are speaking of.

> Now go back to your infantile comic books.

You are the one looking for pictures in your pdf files. Don't switch
sides so easily hopping it won't be noticed.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
> behind them.

I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
ifthey laid it on too thick.

> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
> 1970s were a different time.

I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>
>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>> behind them.
>
> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
> ifthey laid it on too thick.
>
>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>> 1970s were a different time.
>
> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.

I read the first couple pages of Hitchhiker and decided it was too
twee for me. Too jocose. Too flippant.

--
You teach best what you most need to learn.

On 2024-06-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-06-22 10:54 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>>>> falls apart.
>>>>
>>>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>>>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>>>
>>> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
>>> remarkably dull.
>>
>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
>>
>> I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.
>
> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
> behind them.
>
>> Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
>> and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.
>>
>> I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
>> out of the bedroom.
>>
>> https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide
>>
>>
>> Good luck building it.
>
> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
> 1970s were a different time.

The books were "stitched" together radio skits. That's why they're so
uneven. The parts that are funny, however, are hilarious. (At least they
are to me.) It's the "connecting" parts of the book that are dull.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-23, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>>> behind them.
>>
>> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
>> ifthey laid it on too thick.
>>
>>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>>> 1970s were a different time.
>>
>> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
>> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
>> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
>> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
>> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.
>
> I read the first couple pages of Hitchhiker and decided it was too
> twee for me. Too jocose. Too flippant.

I guess I like "flippant." I enjoyed big chunks of the books — and endured
the "connecting chunks" to get to those chunks.

“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no
real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the
qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those
of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a
controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.
His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On
those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents
the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten
presidential years in prison for fraud.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

Xref: unconfigured comp.os.linux.advocacy:4501
On 2024-06-23 1:03 p.m., rbowman wrote:

On 2024-06-23 1:03 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>> behind them.
>> behind them.
>
>
> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
> ifthey laid it on too thick.
> ifthey laid it on too thick.

When a Brit acts confused or is being arrogant, their behaviour is very
When a Brit acts confused or is being arrogant, their behaviour is very
different from that of an American. When Brits do it, it's funny; when
different from that of an American. When Brits do it, it's funny; when
Americans do it, it's repulsive.
Americans do it, it's repulsive.

>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>> 1970s were a different time.
>> 1970s were a different time.
>
>
> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.
> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.

There's a lot to like about British humour but admittedly, not all of it
There's a lot to like about British humour but admittedly, not all of it
works.
works.

--
--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.
.

On 2024-06-23 3:02 p.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-06-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-06-22 10:54 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>>>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>>>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>>>>> falls apart.
>>>>>
>>>>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>>>>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>>>>
>>>> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
>>>> remarkably dull.
>>>
>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
>>>
>>> I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.
>>
>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>> behind them.
>>
>>> Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
>>> and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.
>>>
>>> I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
>>> out of the bedroom.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide
>>>
>>>
>>> Good luck building it.
>>
>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>> 1970s were a different time.
>
> The books were "stitched" together radio skits. That's why they're so
> uneven. The parts that are funny, however, are hilarious. (At least they
> are to me.) It's the "connecting" parts of the book that are dull.

I didn't realize that they started off as radio skits and THEN became
books. I thought it was the opposite. I guess it makes sense then that
the TV show from the 1980s is a lot funnier than the movie.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote at 19:29 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 2024-06-23, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>>>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>>>> behind them.
>>>
>>> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
>>> ifthey laid it on too thick.
>>>
>>>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>>>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>>>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>>>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>>>> 1970s were a different time.
>>>
>>> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
>>> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
>>> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
>>> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
>>> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.
>>
>> I read the first couple pages of Hitchhiker and decided it was too
>> twee for me. Too jocose. Too flippant.
>
> I guess I like "flippant." I enjoyed big chunks of the books — and endured
> the "connecting chunks" to get to those chunks.
>
> “The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no
> real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the
> qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those
> of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a
> controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.
> His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On
> those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents
> the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten
> presidential years in prison for fraud.”
>
> ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I love the tangents the books go on too, random little tidbits about the
world that never get brought up again, like how that guy bulldozing the
house was a descendant of a warrior or the Gin and Tonic bit or how the
Hitchhikers Guide office is hilariously inept. It's both funny and kinda
adds to the whole tone the book gives off of "the universe is strange,
nonsensical, and incomprehensible, but we can just have fun with the
absurd parts"

at least in my opinion
i /love/ hitchhikers guide
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote at 10:23 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 22 Jun 2024 00:42:51 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>>
>> 42
>>
>
> Another aficionado of that juvenile junk sci fi.
>
> Let's inject some REAL MAN reality.
>
> 42 contains only minuscule information. It is useless.
>
> But ultimate knowledge, infinite knowledge, can be encoded
> as a binary bit string of infinite length. This infinite
> bit string can be mapped onto a transcendental irrational
> number. Call this number Omega.
>
> Moreover, this number can be very easily stored and transported
> anywhere. Since numbers express lengths on the continuum,
> just etch a mark on a meter stick. The mark corresponds
> to Omega. Infinite knowledge in your fucking pocket.
>
> There's your REAL answer.
>
> Now go back to your infantile comic books.

Fun fact! ASCII code 42 happens to be a star character (*). Those are
used as a wildcard usually. So, in a roundabout way, 42 /does/ represent
everything.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-06-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-06-23 3:02 p.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-06-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-22 10:54 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:02:52 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-22 1:45 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:58:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The American movie made in the 2000s was awful. However, the 1980s TV
>>>>>>> show I caught a glimpse of was great. You really need actual Brits to
>>>>>>> play those roles. Once you put Americans in there, the whole thing
>>>>>>> falls apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The majority of the actors as well as the producer and director were
>>>>>> Brits. They even managed to snag Helen Mirren.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the 2000s movie? It definitely didn't feel British. I found it
>>>>> remarkably dull.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/
>>>>
>>>> I think Rockwell, Bey, Deschamel, and Malkovitch are the only Yanks.
>>>
>>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>>> behind them.
>>>
>>>> Adams has been working on the screenplay for the film when he died in 2001
>>>> and it was finished from his notes by Karey Kirkpatrick.
>>>>
>>>> I recall having the text computer game but I don't remember if I ever got
>>>> out of the bedroom.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/historicalsource/hitchhikersguide
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good luck building it.
>>>
>>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>>> 1970s were a different time.
>>
>> The books were "stitched" together radio skits. That's why they're so
>> uneven. The parts that are funny, however, are hilarious. (At least they
>> are to me.) It's the "connecting" parts of the book that are dull.
>
> I didn't realize that they started off as radio skits and THEN became
> books. I thought it was the opposite. I guess it makes sense then that
> the TV show from the 1980s is a lot funnier than the movie.

I don't think the people who made the movie had a clue about Douglas Adams'
humor. But, to be honest, a lot of his humor is in the narration (or
explanation), not in the action. That's hard to do well in a movie where
you're supposed to "show not tell."

If they wanted to make a Hitchhiker movie, in the 2000s when everyone had
forgotten about it, they probably should have gotten Terry Gilliam to
direct it. It probably wouldn't have been a hit anyhow, but at some of the
original humor might have shown up.

At least it wasn't nearly as bad as the new Disney Star Wars crap.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-24, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote at 19:29 this Sunday (GMT):
>> On 2024-06-23, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>>>>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>>>>> behind them.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
>>>> ifthey laid it on too thick.
>>>>
>>>>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>>>>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>>>>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>>>>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>>>>> 1970s were a different time.
>>>>
>>>> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
>>>> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
>>>> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
>>>> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
>>>> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.
>>>
>>> I read the first couple pages of Hitchhiker and decided it was too
>>> twee for me. Too jocose. Too flippant.
>>
>> I guess I like "flippant." I enjoyed big chunks of the books — and endured
>> the "connecting chunks" to get to those chunks.
>>
>> “The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no
>> real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the
>> qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those
>> of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a
>> controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.
>> His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On
>> those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents
>> the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten
>> presidential years in prison for fraud.”
>>
>> ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
>
>
> I love the tangents the books go on too, random little tidbits about the
> world that never get brought up again, like how that guy bulldozing the
> house was a descendant of a warrior or the Gin and Tonic bit or how the
> Hitchhikers Guide office is hilariously inept. It's both funny and kinda
> adds to the whole tone the book gives off of "the universe is strange,
> nonsensical, and incomprehensible, but we can just have fun with the
> absurd parts"
>
> at least in my opinion
> i /love/ hitchhikers guide

Me too. I haven't read it in a while, maybe it's time to do that again. I
also liked his Dirk Gently trilogy (not as much, as it had even longer
"connecting chunks").

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-23, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-06-23 1:03 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 06:30:10 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And they ruined it for me. Rockwell's role really needed a Brit. His
>>> attempts at humour would have worked had there been a British accent
>>> behind them.
>>
>> I don't know waht a British accent wouls add other than unintelligibility
>> ifthey laid it on too thick.
>
> When a Brit acts confused or is being arrogant, their behaviour is very
> different from that of an American. When Brits do it, it's funny; when
> Americans do it, it's repulsive.
>
>>> I read the book and thought it had its moments but I figured that by
>>> watching the movie, I would have understood a little more why some
>>> people think it's such stellar literature. In the end, if the movie is
>>> an accurate depiction of the book, I'm not impressed. Of course, the
>>> 1970s were a different time.
>>
>> I read the book decades ago and iirc I also read 'So Long and Thanks for
>> the Fish'. I don't remember much of either other than the '42' that became
>> a meme. Terry Pratchett was one of the few authors in that genre that I
>> enjoyed. In general I find the Brits take a good gag and proceed to beat
>> it to death to make sure the dimmest member of the audience gets it.
>
> There's a lot to like about British humour but admittedly, not all of it
> works.

When it does work, though, it's pretty dang funny.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:05:02 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Your file has some kind of error.

I suspect a technical issue.

On 2024-06-24 03:06, RonB wrote:

>> I didn't realize that they started off as radio skits and THEN became
>> books. I thought it was the opposite. I guess it makes sense then that
>> the TV show from the 1980s is a lot funnier than the movie.
>
> I don't think the people who made the movie had a clue about Douglas Adams'
> humor. But, to be honest, a lot of his humor is in the narration (or
> explanation), not in the action. That's hard to do well in a movie where
> you're supposed to "show not tell."
>
> If they wanted to make a Hitchhiker movie, in the 2000s when everyone had
> forgotten about it, they probably should have gotten Terry Gilliam to
> direct it. It probably wouldn't have been a hit anyhow, but at some of the
> original humor might have shown up.
>
> At least it wasn't nearly as bad as the new Disney Star Wars crap.

They can always try to re-release it now and make the President a
homosexual. They already have a black guy in there so they're on their
way to checking every one of the diversity boxes.

On 6/23/2024 6:23 AM, Lameass Larry Piet wrote:

> 42 contains only minuscule information. It is useless.

Isn't it the number of years you've been disappointing your parents?

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Dirk Gently

Heh heh

--
Coitus never hoitus

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-24 03:06, RonB wrote:
>
>>> I didn't realize that they started off as radio skits and THEN became
>>> books. I thought it was the opposite. I guess it makes sense then that
>>> the TV show from the 1980s is a lot funnier than the movie.
>>
>> I don't think the people who made the movie had a clue about Douglas Adams'
>> humor. But, to be honest, a lot of his humor is in the narration (or
>> explanation), not in the action. That's hard to do well in a movie where
>> you're supposed to "show not tell."
>>
>> If they wanted to make a Hitchhiker movie, in the 2000s when everyone had
>> forgotten about it, they probably should have gotten Terry Gilliam to
>> direct it. It probably wouldn't have been a hit anyhow, but at some of the
>> original humor might have shown up.
>>
>> At least it wasn't nearly as bad as the new Disney Star Wars crap.
>
> They can always try to re-release it now and make the President a
> homosexual. They already have a black guy in there so they're on their
> way to checking every one of the diversity boxes.

For more diversity they should add bigots.

--
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To see his friend Gregory peck.

On 2024-06-24, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-24 03:06, RonB wrote:
>>
>>>> I didn't realize that they started off as radio skits and THEN became
>>>> books. I thought it was the opposite. I guess it makes sense then that
>>>> the TV show from the 1980s is a lot funnier than the movie.
>>>
>>> I don't think the people who made the movie had a clue about Douglas Adams'
>>> humor. But, to be honest, a lot of his humor is in the narration (or
>>> explanation), not in the action. That's hard to do well in a movie where
>>> you're supposed to "show not tell."
>>>
>>> If they wanted to make a Hitchhiker movie, in the 2000s when everyone had
>>> forgotten about it, they probably should have gotten Terry Gilliam to
>>> direct it. It probably wouldn't have been a hit anyhow, but at some of the
>>> original humor might have shown up.
>>>
>>> At least it wasn't nearly as bad as the new Disney Star Wars crap.
>>
>> They can always try to re-release it now and make the President a
>> homosexual. They already have a black guy in there so they're on their
>> way to checking every one of the diversity boxes.
>
> For more diversity they should add bigots.

Or maybe they should just try telling a story and forget about their
bullshit Woke propaganda.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine