|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 14, 2007 1:52:37 GMT -4
Any chance a modified tutorial could be posted? Try this... Go to the page eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Mouse-over Find Photos --> Search --> click on Mission-Roll-Frame That brings you to this page eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htmYou have a few options... Option 1 1. Click on a specific mission from the window on the left 2a. Click "Run Query" at the bottom of the page to see a list of all images available from that mission 2b. Enter the Roll number and frame number(s) (max 2 at a time) in the spaces provided 3. Click "Run Query" at the bottom of the page to see the info / thumbnail page for those pics. or Option 2 1. If you know that specific photo you are looking for, enter the photo reference number in the box on the right using the Mission-Roll-Frame naming format (example: AS15-87-11839. The instructions on the page say you can use spaces or line breaks between the data, but it seems that using a hyphen is the best way to go.) You can enter up to 100 different photo names at a time in this window.This will take you to a page with links (assuming the pic is available in the database) for the pic you are requesting. 2. Clicking on the Frame Number link will take you a page with the moderate sized pic plus links for larger images ( eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=AS15&roll=87&frame=11839&QueryResultsFile=11923405133281.tsv ). 3. Clicking on Quick View will take you to a moderate sized version of the pic, with no other links for other image sizes ( eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/QuickView.pl?directory=ISD&ID=AS15-87-11839 ). There is a link underneath the picture ("See all metadata, images and captions.") that will also take you to the page with the links for the larger pics.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Feb 7, 2008 2:49:02 GMT -4
Hope you had a great birthday! ;D
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Feb 6, 2008 5:33:02 GMT -4
I've been using Piclens for a while now and its pretty cool. Never had any problems with it chewing my screen, so Canuck, it might be an issue with your display settings or driver or something like that.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 21:10:25 GMT -4
I like the "conspiracy" aspect of it, oddly enough. I enjoy trying to figure out the reasons behind why the PTB would engage in this kind of experiment, imagining what would be going through Deckard's head when he (possibly) comes to the realization at the end that he, too is (possibly) a replicant. And again, its also the whole "what makes us human?" question.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 18:23:17 GMT -4
Agreed... I wasn't presenting this last one (or the whole name issue, really) as any sort of proof for "my side", just as an example of some of the other ways people have tried to explain certain things.
As said before, with this issue, there's a lot of evidence for both sides to be correct and for both sides to be false. Its a matter of interpretation and of how one answers the question of what it is to be human.
For me, its a more intriguing story to have Deckard as a replicant. For you and others, it a better story with him as a human. Neither opinion is necessarily wrong.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 18:04:07 GMT -4
The continuity error was because they cut the fifth replicant, Mary, and her fight with Deckard (in which Deckard was to kill yet another female replicant) from the script. Bryant's count of five replicants from earlier got missed. Yes, I know... Yep... like I said... I remember it from a while back, at least 6 or 7 years ago, and I haven't seen it anywhere else since then. Mind you, given the number of sites devoted to the movie, its bound to still be out there somewhere... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 13:24:11 GMT -4
I remember some time ago there was some theory floating around that Deckard was actually one of the six Nexus 6's that came back to Earth with Batty et al and was captured trying to get into Tyrell Corp, then "reprogrammed" to become Deckard. I believe this theory came about as a sort of round about way to explain the continuity error / plot hole (fixed in the Final Cut) where Bryant says six replicants came back, but only ever talked about 5.
It was an interesting idea at the time, but I don't think it ever explained why Batty or any of the others didn't appear to recognize Deckard or try to get him to remember who he "really" was.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 12:20:52 GMT -4
Yes, both of those possibilities had occurred to me. Personally I find #1 the more plausible one. I only included the "Roy knows his name" argument as it is one of the ones that was common to the lists I have seen, and while the explanations above both have possibilities, it is never explained in the movie how Batty would know his name. Also, please understand that I am not saying that I am right in my choice to believe that Deckard is a replicant, nor am I conceding that those who believe he is human are right either. There is enough evidence for both sides and everyone is entitled to believe whichever side they feel best fits their interpretations. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 17:58:29 GMT -4
Given that this debate has been going on for quite some time, it is doubtful we will come to any firm conclusions in this forum. Unless Ridley Scott's confirmations that Deckard was intended to be a replicant is taken as the "final word" on the subject, the debate will continue since everyone has different interpretations of the various incarnations of the movie and the "clues" they each contain.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:53:36 GMT -4
Actually on the documentaries Scott reveals that the voiceover wasn't a last minute addition that he was forced to do. He agreed that it might be needed and was somewhat in keeping with the film noir vibe present in the movie. Hmm... ok... I guess I'll have to watch the documentary again... not that that's really a bad thing... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:48:28 GMT -4
The problem with all the above is that the screenplay just doesn't support an ending where Deckard turns out to be a replicant. Subtlety is one thing, but a complete lack of development of that outcome is something else. If he is a replicant, then there should be an "a ha!" moment where all the evidence comes together. Ridley Scott did not write the screenplay. Even if Scott wanted to make Deckard a replicant in 1982, he apparently never did any work on the script to create a storyline that supported that idea. Whether he stuck in a unicorn in 1982 or 1992, no other work on the screenplay ever occurred. The story as told does not support Deckard as replicant in content or structure. It does if you take the issue of replicant versus human to be one that you are intended to decide on your own. Some of the best stories and movies are ones that don't come right out and tell you something, but force or lead you to think about the question being asked and discover your own answers. Keep in mind, too, that Scott was told (forced, really) to make certain changes to the final film- cut the unicorn scene, change the ending, add the voice-over - by the producers. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:41:02 GMT -4
I voted no - Deckard is human. There are a couple reasons for this: 1) The memory implant technique used on Rachel seems to be very new. Tyrell says Rachel is "an experiment", which implies that she is the first to undergo the procedure. Deckard had apparently never come across a replicant that didn't know what it was, either. Never is it said that Rachel is the only replicant to have undergone the memory implant procedure. Neither does Rachel. During the scene where Bryant is showing Deckard the briefing on the other replicants, they are shown to have different physical and mental capabilities or "levels". Leon and Batty are combat models and therefore have higher strength. Batty is the leader so he also has a higher mental capacity, whereas Leon is shown to have a lower capacity. If they were to give Deckard the same levels as Batty, then he would be out of place, having abilities that someone who is apparently "just a regular guy" wouldn't have. However, there is also the fact that Deckard is able to take the beatings that Batty lays upon him, so where Batty has a high level of physical strength, perhaps Deckards is just slightly less than that - an A-level for Batty compared to a B-level for Deckard, for example. But the question DOES come up of what it really means to be human. Is a person just a collection of their memories or is there more to it? It actually makes a lot of sense. If they can prove that they can get a replicant to hunt down other replicants, it will save the lives of human police officers. If the replicant fails, you just "program" another one. If a human cop dies, you have a lot more costs incurred: training, insurance, etc. Since replicants are considered "commerce" rather than humans, in the end it makes more financial sense to use them instead of real people, if you can prove it will actually work. Again, so much of this issue is open to interpretation. My take on it is that Gaff knows that he is a replicant, knows that Deckard had the unicorn memory implanted and that he left the origami unicorn to let Deckard know he was a replicant. Perhaps it was a "humane" gesture to remove any doubt that Deckard may have had with his nod indicating that the unicorn confirms his suspicions, or a a "message" along the lines of "You can run, you may even be able to hide, but in the end you are just as dead as the others" (or something along those lines) with Deckard's nod indicating that his decision to run is the right one. The other "making of" feature included with the new version make more of a point in showing that the glowing eyes were meant, in the context of the story" to indicate that the person is a replicant. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:17:01 GMT -4
Personally, I believe Deckard is a replicant. I have to say the Deckard was not a replicant. It really depends upon which version you watch. The original version leads you to believe he's human. The Director's / Final cut both lead you to believe he's a replicant. Bottom line is that Ridley Scott has always maintained that Deckard was a replicant. In a 1992 interview for Details magazine, Harrison Ford said: "Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for." All that implies is that, assuming Deckard is a replicant, Bryant knows that Deckard has had memories implanted and he is playing along with the "experiment", in the same way that Tyrell plays along with the implanted memories of Rachel being his niece. That just goes to show how close to being human a replicant has become, that one of their own can't tell from outward appearances or behaviors that someone is a replicant. There is, however, the point that at the end of the movies, when Batty is chasing Deckard through the Bradbury building, that Batty calls Deckard by name. Nowhere in the movie is it shown or implied that Batty was given this information. Ridley's original shooting script included a unicorn scene. The producers insisted that it be cut from the original release, feeling it was "too artsy". The footage WAS shot for the '82 release, but after it was cut, it was lost. The footage added to the Director's Cut was derived from surviving outtakes from the original unicorn scene shot for the original release. However, all that said, there probably isn't a "definitive answer" to the question and this one issue is probably the most hotly contended issue in regards to the movie. From the Blade Runner FAQ: Also from 2019: Off-World • Blade Runner-related Essays and MiscellaneousIs Deckard a Replicant: The Case For- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I knew it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"
- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, therefore Gaff knew what dreams that Deckard had been implanted with. (BRDC only)
- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in color. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.
- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."
- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.
- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.
- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael, and he's out of focus.
- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it.
- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing to hunt down other replicants.
- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real Blade Runner, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.
The Case Againt- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.
- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.
- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?
- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.
- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife.
- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?
- Deckard was not a replicant in DADoES, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure.
So it really boils down to how you interpret the clues presented in the different versions of the film. While I do believe that Deckard was intended upon being (and is) a replicant, I think that the more important issues brought up by this whole debate is the question that one must ask in order to start to answer it: "What is it that makes us human and does it mean to be human?" He was not happy with the original release because of the changes that were imposed upon him by the producers, which is why he did the first Director's Cut. The advent of new technology gave him the impetus to create "the final cut" (which according to him involved "seven years of intense research and meticulous restoration, technical challenges, amazing discoveries and new challenges") which he himself has called "the definitive director's cut" of the movie. The 5-disc version of the Final Cut includes a 3 1/2 hour "Making Of" feature which goes into incredible detail of the history of the original film and the creation of the Final Cut. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 15, 2007 3:12:06 GMT -4
I don't know electronic components very well, BUT... I do know how to Google ;D It appears the the component you are unsure of is a "PPTC Resettable Fuse" which protects the circuit from being burnt out by a power supply overcurrent. Googling "wh60 090" brought me to this page: www.makesafer.com/En_ProductShow.asp?ArticleID=168which is a product line spec sheet for a certain manufacturer line of WH60 PPTC Resettable Fuses. Googling "PPTC Resettable Fuses" brought me to this page: www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/RFEInternational/PPTC_Resettable_Fuse/18401/0which explains what the component is and how it works. As to the problem with the charger, I dunno... I think you might be onto something with the idea that the D2 protection diode might be shot. Replacing it seems logical, BUT..
please don't take my word for it. I am not an electrician by any means. I don't even play one on tv. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 10, 2007 18:22:42 GMT -4
You forgot the part about them not being able to leave the Moon's surface in the lander they landed with due to the inherent instability problems. Since the typical HB has problems standing still for more than a minute or two at a time (a result of years of constantly dodging the facts), they are afraid that once they lift off the surface in their ship, someone will move more than an inch and throw the ship completely off balance, resulting either in its inevitable destruction as it plummets back to the surface of the Moon, or in it being uncontrolably sent off into deep space.
To solve this problem, they search for, and of course, find, a crashed alien ship and manage to figure out how to fly it back to Earth.
Cz
|
|