Things the frontpage says.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed. In fact, pretty much any well-engineered item will use a collection of different parts. Once you get into moving mechanisms especially it is useful to use complimentary materials to reduce friction, prevent wear and tear, etc.

A car is made from an astonishingly selection of materials to form a functioning whole, a smartphone is the same. Hell, a cap from a plastic coke bottle normally has two different kinds of plastic in it. One for the cap itself, and one for the small insert that helps seal it. Hard plastic for the cap, soft for the seal.

I just found that one in particular amusing as an engineer. It has more holes than substance.

[Mr Mystery]

If I'm right in think, the best swords have a pure iron core, as it can help ensure the blade bends, rather than shatters?

Certainly Vikings used that.

[grimmas]

Pattern welding uses different pieces of iron/steel to form a sword with a tough flexible core and hard cutting edge. Viking, Saxon, British and Roman swords were made this way (and others I suspect). The process makes beautiful weapons. Later swords used case and forge hardening on one piece of steel to create the same effect. There were other techniques involved (quenching, annealing and more) but it'd take a while and that not really what the threads about.

But yes different parts did indeed come togeather to make strong swords

[YorkNecromancer]

:|
I mean, it's the worst analogy going because this dude clearly hasn't heard of Composite Design or Alloys. Some of the best swords in the world were composites, and almost all swords were alloys of multiple materials if only because pure iron is horribly brittle due to the perfect lattice it forms.

Kinda demonstrated the level of education that these comments brew up from.

Not to mention the lack of understanding of the benefits of diversity from an evolutionary standpoint, nor the benefits from a cultural standpoint, ignoring the fact that, suck it up, diversity exists and you'll just have to deal with it.

He actually gave me probably the best analogy of the benefits of diversity I could hope for.

I was thinking of posting some stuff there, but...

Christ.

What's the point? You can't argue with something than dumb. It's like arguing with a rock.

A hateful, spiteful, nasty little rock.

And I didn't even think my argument was that controversial. 'Hey, Slaanesh seems a little immature to me; how about we give it to FW because they're really good at actually mature products?' doesn't seem like a ridiculous notion to me.

Although what do I know? I'm too busy planning to take people's games away because I'm scared of sex and rude thoughts. Think I'll go change my middle name to 'If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned', get myself one of them weird hats, and start crushing local farm workers under wooden doors for refusing to admit their love of the witchery.

[Erik Setzer]

If you're starting a witch hunt, let me know. It's been too long.

[Mr Mystery]

But I'm the (self) appointed Witchfinder General of BoLS.

Off my manor, you!

[40kGamer]

I like the disagreements, but the ad hominem insults are just exhausting. I didn't even think this month's article was that good. Not had the sort of time I normally get to prepare, so had the Dickens of a time trying to think of something to write about, and just kind of bashed it out.

I don't know. Doesn't seem to be much point to keeping it going any more. I still mostly enjoy the writing, and I used to kind of like the discussions, but there's so much venom out there now. It's all very discouraging.

I do understand the discouragement you feel from the free flowing poison that usually follows. if it helps I'm sure there are others such as myself that read and enjoy your posts and even debate the ideas in our small groups without commenting directly. Honestly by the time I've had a chance to think through things well enough to comment the time to do so has often passed.

- - - Updated - - -

But I'm the (self) appointed Witchfinder General of BoLS.

Off my manor, you!

I expect to see an official photo with appropriately drab garments and an impressive hat!

[Morgrim]

I don't think the casting of the Harry Potter movies can be used as evidence for how characters should look.

In the books Harry is repeatedly and very prominently described as having very messy black hair and vivid green eyes. Those, along with his scar, are his defining visual characteristics.

In the movies Harry had smooth dark brown-black hair and blue eyes.

Also in the films Lavender Brown was black until she became a love interest of Ron and got a lot of speaking lines, at which point she suddenly became white.


A lot of characters are portrayed as white because white is seen as the 'default'. If there is no compelling reason for a character to be of a particular race, why is it a bad thing for a previously white character to be made something else, given there are a TINY number of non-white roles available? To me that just feels like being fair.

[Haighus]

The inconsistencies with how the characters are portrayed in the films compared to the books (in particular from about the 3rd film onwards) are one of the main reasons I dislike the films so much (not so much the first two). Duelling is the other aspect I really dislike.

[grimmas]

The mistake made was when Rowling said anything other than "she's the right person for the role" because that's all that needed to be said end of story. Also I wonder how many if those so het up about it were going to get down to the West End to see it.

I saw the Holy Grail in London and King Arthur was Asian ( Uk usage) and it was a bloody good show didn't ruin either my childhood or the original. But that wasn't the craziest thing they'd done they'd even had an Australian play him, mmmmaaaddddness. I also saw one with swearing Muppets, absolute genius and didn't ruin my childhood.

Now I come to think of it they really can't the nationality right on any of the British heroes. Robin Hood is either a Yank or an Aussie, William Wallace an alcoholic anti-Semitic Aussie and Richard the Lionheart a F***ing Scotsman (and a straight one at that). I also fairly sure they've never had a Welshman play King Arthur.