Motion Simulator for Home Theater 125
Dalvenjah FoxFire writes "D-Box, a Canadian speaker company, has designed a system called the Odyssee consisting of four motor-driven actuators that go under your couch and a controller box with a CD-ROM drive for the control files. The controller reads the Dolby Digital bitstream from your DVD player, and plays back synchronized motion effects designed by the company. For about $20,000, you too can add motion simulation to your home theater. They have a list on their site of the movies they've encoded, including The Matrix, Drunken Master, Star Wars Episode I, and more, though it also has an 'audio driven' mode which will work with any source."
Sweeet!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Watching Buffy... (Score:2)
Amusement Park caliber? (Score:1)
That would be an awesome movie going experience!
Re:Amusement Park caliber? (Score:1)
What you are really thinking about (Score:4, Funny)
Letsee for $20,000 you can do what? Make the couch vibrate gently. Methinks that the system you are after is gonna cost a whole lot more.
In comparison for roughly $200 you can go get the real thing in a legalized establishment in Nevada. So for the price of your automated bonk-o-matic you can have a bonk a week for over two years.
In Europe of course your capital investment will go a lot further. Invested in an interest bearing account you could engage the Euro 50 services of a window girl 32 times a year - about once every 10 days from the interest alone.
At least that is what a cursory search of the Internet implies.
Of course you may say that it is a real sad type who goes to visit prostitutes, but what does that make the folk using the bonk-o-matic???
Of course life being unfair it turns out that the female anatomy is considerably more compatible with artificial coitus. Examples may be found on the Web [fuckingmachines.com]. Unfortunately it appears that these guys are rather more interested in the subject from the male point of view. For example one would think that from the pure engineering point of view, solenoids would provide a more effective basic technology for their purposes than rotory motors with sun and planet drives.
Also rather than have the device synchronized to a video track one would think that biometric feedback to determine what types of stimulation are being best received.
Sorry but I don't think I want to put any part of my anatomy into a device of that kind (or for that matter have it inserted into me).
But they are a little bit more interesting than yet another case mod hack.
At the very least (Score:2)
Re:At the very least (Score:5, Funny)
Just Imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just Imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
This is nothing new. I once went to a hotel where the bed did the exact same thing.
And it only cost a quarter!
Re:Just Imagine... (Score:1)
--JIm
Great... another way to spill my tea (Score:2)
Need I say more?
Re:Great... another way to spill my tea (Score:2)
Forget that! Wait until some the guys come over for NFL Playoffs and get drunk on beer.
"Hey! What's THIS button do?"
Puking all OVER the place! SOMEBODY'S wife is going to be PISSED!
Re:Great... another way to spill my tea (Score:2)
Re:Great... another way to spill my tea (Score:1)
That sounds like a cool movie.
Re:Great... another way to spill my tea (Score:1)
2. make some tea.
3. put matrix on
4. ???
5. sue.
6. profit!!!
seriously though, drinking hot tea on comfy coach is asking for trouble even without the coach moving.
Ohh the possibilites ... (Score:1)
Imagine P0rn in Motion, the beating of the rods,...
But what happens if somebody hacks this thing? Am I ending with my head sticking in the ceiling?
potential problem (Score:4, Funny)
Absolutely not! While there is no question that Odyssee can add dramatic effects to action scenes containing explosions, car chases and aerial dogfights, you'll find the more subtle effects it can create will add even more to your overall viewing experience. Odyssee adds fun, drama and excitement to everything you watch.
Odyssee will also likely make me spill my beer all over my girlfriend and her $1,000 leather. Yup, that'll add drama and excitement to the night...
Ouch. (Score:2)
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:1)
Tech TV (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder though if a motion device like this wouldn't make a movie less, rather than more, immersive. Even the motion simulator rides at Disney I find too distractng to really enjoy (and in its own category, the Back to the Future ride at Universal that smashes the heads of tall people into the walls over and over again). I get more of a sense of motion from IMAX than from motion simulators.
Re:Tech TV (Score:2)
Next on the market... (Score:1)
Extrapolation (Score:1)
For $20K (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For $20K (Score:2)
For $20K I could hire someone to rock my world while I hung on to the couch, and still have enough left to smoke myself to death afterwards.
You laugh but... (Score:1)
kewl... tho... (Score:1)
Kewl that you can get to your home theater system something like that also, but price is high and that isn't very needed, i think their market will be a bit narrow, for the rich kids only...
Bass shakers? (Score:1)
Re:Bass shakers? (Score:2)
Re:pentium 5's? (Score:1)
Geez... (Score:1)
This is the same old problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Force feedback, HDTV, 3d displays, head mounted displays, smell devices, and many others. I suspect the first true V.R. rigs (with wires jacking right in to your nervous system) will suffer it too.
The old chicken and the egg. This tech is not quite good enough for the early adopters with the big budgets to buy it, and because of that prices will never come down enough so the rest of us can afford it.
Only when a new technology is SO much better than the current available do the earlier adopters buy it and the tech takes off. But there also has to be convincing content for it.
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
If you're not buying a new Corvette or 3 GHz Pentium IV with 21" LCD, I guess you might as well upgrade your entertainment center. What else are those stinking rich assholes going to spend their money on? Compact discs?
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:5, Funny)
Never bought a house then? Thought not.
Buy a house and you will suddenly find that you end up paying the most ridiculous prices for stuff. It is pretty easy to end up paying $2,000 just to hang wallpaper. And as for curtains. And don't think that you have a choice about it since in matters of this type you will be overulled by she who must be obeyed or you won't get sex for three months.
So when you get to this point you will find yourself buying a $2000 TV because doing so is much cheaper than redecorating. And at the end of the day you are going to look at the TV much more often tha anything else in your house.
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
I mean, Im aware that when you marry you agree to let someone else make decisions on every single penny you will make for the rest of your life, however 2000 USD for putting wallpaper is pretty much absurd.
I mean how many square meters is that??
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
Actually three, but they are half panelled.
The point is that people will balk at $2000 for a TV then go and blow $1000 on a light fixture. When it gets to cars things get even whackier. My car has a sound system with a $2,500 list price, I got it at no extra cost because I bought the floor model. But some people will obviously pay that amount - and then probably gripe about paying the same for a TV.
I thought the outrage at the Tyco CEO's $6000 'shower curtain' was somewhat amusing since I was quoted $3,000 for one myself. Now I don't know what Kozlowski was buying but I somehow doubt it would have been one of those pvc drapes than hangs from a pole. If you want a glass door type affair they cost a lot.
Or look at it this way, Bush's war that he wants to start in Iraq will by most accounts cost at least $100 billion. If the occupation costs as much again we are looking at a $2,000 cost for every familly in the US. One would think that the 'liberal media' would be talking about this if $2,000 was a lot of money.
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
I kept telling them that they could buy a killer 386 PC for the cost of the driveway, a killer 486 for the porch, a dual processor Pentium III for the carpeting, etc... but they never listened to me.
All I need is a room for my servers and a mattress. And maybe an air conditioner. Those systems get hot...
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:2)
Now if you don't like TV, or watching movies, or playing video games, then complaining about how people can spend $2000 on a TV is a moot point since you're not an enthusiast to begin with.
If you want to wonder about people with too much money, go see the Prada store in NYC and find someone who is casually spending $3,500.00 on a jacket. Now that's scary.
Re:This is the same old problem (Score:1)
Well, I had my laserdiscs, had my prologic surround sound none of which had caught on here in Europe(and not available in stores) so people were always amazed to see and hear it. heh. But these days I haven't even half of it plugged in anymore.
Have been thinking about buying a DVD player, but it's just that I don't really watch many movies any more. However now that they have begun shipping Simpsons on DVD, I might have to get one anyway.
Of course... (Score:1)
The ointment reservoir, and bandage tray are extra.
Motion Enhanced Drunken Master (Score:5, Funny)
For $20,000 I will come to your home theater, put the Drunken Master DVD in your player, and punch you in the face in perfect synch with the on-screen fighting. Now that's reality!
Also including.... (Score:1)
Hmm.. does this mean it comes with spambots?
(sure.. its offtopic.. but its not a !@#$@ profit joke.. that has to count for something right?!
Its a pretty cool toy... (Score:5, Interesting)
The dealer played a scene from Jurassic Park 3 where an airplane tries to take off and then subsequently crashes in a jungle. As the plane took off, it felt like the couch had some bass shakers on the bottom. Not a big deal.
Well, when the plane hit a tree and spun around, my friend and I were nearly thrown from the couch. It felt like a Universal theme park ride. The only downside is that you are really involved in the movie, almost too involved -- it's tough to lay on the couch and relax to an action-packed blood-fest while you're being violently tossed around.
The motion system is totally standalone. The video and motion sync up through the A/V connection from your DVD player. To start a movie, hit play on the DVD player and select the movie in the Odysee. It does the rest by iteself. I think the sales guy said they had a couple hundred movies already preprogrammed.
The system costs $20,000 (list) and comes with a year of free updates. After that, if you want more movies, it's $500/year. Not exactly cheap.
If you're near a Soundtrack/Ultimate Electronics store, they probably have a demo room. It's worth the trip.
Re:Its a pretty cool toy... (Score:1)
That's an interesting choice of scene. When I watched this movie when it came on cable, it was the only part I found compelling enough to rewind and play again and again. I thought it was a very nicely done crash scene, IMO one of the most realistic I have seen in movies, compared to videos I have seen of air crashes, and numerous car crashes I have been involved in.
rumble packs (Score:2)
Anyways, half the time when you would want the sensation of motion (jet plane taking off ? explosions ? car accelerating ?), there's a lot of noise coming out of your speakers, andif you have a half-decent system, your sofa's probably shaking already.
Taronofsky Hell... (Score:1)
Note to self: Do not watch Pi with my Odyssee...
Motion simulator? (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
So would you give up your car and donate the money to charity? No, but maybe you would once in a while instead of buying that cup of coffee donate it to Reeve's foundation. A wealthy man will once in a while leave that Lexus at the dealer and donate the money saved to charity.
To make it even less abstract: consider Bill Gates. When it comes to supporting charity he is second to none. But he does own a house that costs more millions than a camel has fleas. Does that make him have distorted priorities? (Answer: no, but other things do
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
But I don't think it's a matter of perspective, or at least that's too easy.
Just because you have a ton of money and give a bunch to charity doesn't mean that spending $20,000 on a home motion simulator isn't a shocking waste of the value that money could provide. I guess I just think the more disposable income you have, the greater a responsibility you have to make sure that it's used in the most beneficial ways.
Here's an analogy for you: The most expensive painting ever sold was a Van Gogh that went for $85.2 million [famousartr...ctions.com] to a private collector. You can buy a reproduction of this painting for $649 [famousartr...ctions.com].
What do you think? Is it moral to pay $85 mil for a painting for yourself, considering the enormous amount of good that money could do if spent wisely? I don't think so, even if you are Bill Gates. (Or Ghandi, for that matter.)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
I see what your saying, but really, it's an issue of what you have vs. what you spend. If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
That having been said, I'd probably never buy one even if it wouldn't effect me financially, but that's only because it wouldn't appeal to me. But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
I don't know that I'd say the same thing, since a car has some utility as well as entertainment value. But, yeah, the high end of luxury cars I do find a little troubling.
I've toyed with the idea that maybe some CEO somewhere needs a $100,000 Mercedes to keep up his status with other rich CEOs, so that his company flourishes, but I can't make myself buy it. You can justify anything if that's your standard.
But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I just can't buy into that attitude, either. The $85,000,000 that the private collector paid for the Van Gogh painting is revolting to me. I can't see it as anything other than ethically wrong. That $85 mil could've made a real difference in people's lives, a real difference in stem cell research or cancer research. But some guy just wanted to own a picture instead. It floated his boat, so he got one.
I figure if I have some responsibility to spend $42.50 correctly, the guy who bought the Van Gogh has 2,000,000 times greater a responsibility. If all the wealthy people in the world put as much emphasis on other human beings as they do on jewel-encrusted cellphones [redherring.com], Christopher Reeve (and many others) might be walking by now.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Granted, when the Van Gogh sold for $85M it probably was at the height of conspicious consumption, but chances are if he chose to sell it, he wouldn't lose that much as a percentage.
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration.
I would bet that a large number of the doctors who develop a cure for cancer, aids, or help cure Christopher Reeves wouldn't be in that profession if A:) they weren't paid handsomly (and enjoy the luxery items afforded by that salery), and B:) weren't receiving acces to the resources or facilities unless they worked for big medical companies motivated again by money.
Of course there is that level of extravagance that just seems insane to people like you and me. I would have no want (or need) for jewel encrusted cellphones, but then again I can't understand the attraction towards jewerly that many women have. (Though my favorate example, which made me laugh and slightly nausated at the same time was the diamond covered hand bag emblazed with the star-fleet emblem at the gift shop near the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas).
But I don't have a problem spending thousands of dollars a year on technology equipment. I really don't need it, I'm not using it to help anyone. I just like it. I derive pleasure from it. This is a pretty large expenditure in relation to my income, and I don't care.
We all spend large sums of money on things we don't need. All we REALLY need, if we don't have a family, is a roof over our heads and some food. The average single person could afford that working part time at a mini-mart. Instead we create a cycle of consumption that (eventually) trickles over to humanitarian persuits.
If every technophile slashdot user stoped buying new computers and devoted that money to charity, they would raise far more then the $85 million one man spent on a painting. But they won't, and in certian respects, they shouldn't. Stop buying consumer electronics and computers, economys start to suffer, less money to charities in the long run.
And that $85 million did make somewhat of a difference in peoples lives. It continued to cement the idea that art is a legitimate asset. If artists can make more money (or money flows to all artists), we end up with more art. I know that seems like a hudge expenditure for a very small and subtle impact on a community, but hey, it's better then nothing.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
This is a really good point.
I think there's a lot of validity to the idea that we need to harness our own greed in order to solve some of humanity's problems, and that perhaps $85 million dollar paintings are a part of a bigger system that needs greed to function.
But it's hard to ignore the fact that I still think $20,000 is too much to spend on a motion simulator for a home theater.
I guess, ultimately, this conversation about greed and excess is really just a way of expressing some disappointment in humanity. There's that Hamlet quote that I always find inspiring:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
I feel that way, too. We have the capacity to do almost anything, solve any problem... and yet, we don't. Sometimes we prefer to buy things instead, even if it means others of us will suffer. Me included.
But I think we can change some of that by pointing it out. Not too many years ago, we were burning witches and practicing trial-by-ordeal. Now we accept that those sorts of things are both ludicrous and horrible. I think maybe by talking about the selfishness and absurdity of some forms of spending, we can get closer to the day when not solving problems like paralysis seems as ludicrous and horrible as witch-burning.
Anyway, didn't mean to get quite so heavy. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
I like to gamble. And for the longest time, it blew me away that there would be people in the middle of the casino betting $10,000 a hand. How can anyone bet a third of the average persons salery and not bat an eye. Then I realized, to these people they are taking out of it the same pleasure and risk that I do making my measly $5 a hand bet.
And I can't begrudge them that. It's all relitive, and that's a fact of life. The truth is, nobody who's been there can understand the motivation of the extrodinarly wealthy. But from what I've observed, the wealthy have the same ideocyrancies, abitions, or insecurities as the rest of us.
The billionare who spends $85m on a rare painting is no different then the record store clerk who spends $200 on a rare comic book he's been dreaming of.
I think I understand where you're coming from, however. There is that issue of having a social responsibility, and spending so much at once at one time seems like a betrayal of that responsibility. To me it doesn't. What is worse in the aggrigate, a billionare spending $85m in one day, or 85 million average Americans throwing away a dollar on a can of soda or cup of coffee they don't need?
Not only do the super rich spend more money on charity, they spend more of their income as a percentage on them (ok, the motivation may be for taxes, but still). So yeah, it's hard to put it the right perspective, but in the end it works out.
As a footnote, keep in mind I only absolve them when they don't hurt anyone. (I guess you could argue that they are hurting people by not giving their money up to humanitarian causes... but no more then your average slashdot reader harms them by buying the latest video card instead of throwing the cash into a collection plate). I don't begrudge the super rich for indulging when they can afford it. But when a corporate CEO throws a $3 million birthday party for his wife while crushing the hopes and dreams of thousands of people, that I can never condone.
I guess I'm going way off an a tangent here, but the point is, it doesn't bother me that some people would spend $20,000 on a motion simulator home theatre. It can't, when I could see myself spending 20% of that on my non-motion enhanced home theatre system.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Yup. That's why the money changed hands. Eventually it will get there. It all takes time. Eventually the money will pass into someone's hands who will decide to pass it on to those charities.
If the buyer were to keep that money instead of spending it then those charities would never see a dime from it.
Money is only good when spent. It's people like Bill Gates, who keep money locked up rather than moving it about that sicken me. The economy, which includes every organization and charity that needs money, can't function with a steady flow of money. Sinking it into a big pit is a waste that does no good.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
And I thought they took the hardcore Socialists with them.
You aren't having trouble with how a capitalist economy functions and therefore lashing out at me because you feel inept, are you? I can explain in more detail if you'd like -- perhaps that would calm you down.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
From disagreement to Hardcore Socialism in one step. I may have misjudged you.
I am quite comfortable with the workings of a capitalist economy, thanks. However, I can't agree that trickle-down economics works equally well in all cases regardless of the situation, as you are implying.
That may certainly be true for some of the money--but a case could hardly be made that this is to be expected for all, or even a substantial percentage, of it. At least, not based on the information at hand.
And that's what bothers me about this sort of blanket apologism: the message that "It all gets to the little guy in the end, and that's why the big guys should have and spend it". It may be true that some fraction of the conspicuous consumption of the rich ends up getting spent on research, housing, or other projects. That is not true for most of it.
"Decorate Expensively for the Poor!" doesn't really work.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me, but when people start accusing me of using "Reaganomics" when I think I'm just trying to explain Capitalism 101 I get a little displeased.
Heck, I'm Canadian, and I wasn't even a teenager when Reagan was Prez, so maybe I am using Reaganomics. Maybe it isn't even so bad. Beats the hell out of me. But by the tone of your sentence, I think we would both agree it was a slight at me.
>That may certainly be true for some of the money--but a case could hardly be made that this is to be expected for all, or even a substantial percentage, of it.
No disagreement on this...
>And that's what bothers me about this sort of blanket apologism: the message that "It all gets to the little guy in the end, and that's why the big guys should have and spend it".
I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just looking at the decisions the guy buying the painting/useless stuff could make, and where the money will end up:
The choices/consequnces were:
- Don't spend it. Keep it, and in xx years, when he dies, his family gets it. How they spend it is unclear -- however, one can assume a family with family members this rich is likely to have all the money they need already, anyways, and would just pocket the money too. Net effect: $0 to charity.
- Put the money in an investment. The money gets used by various companies to purchase goods and services. Regular people get paid to do these jobs, and lots of people benefit. It's unclear if the charity will get much money, but I think it would be safe to assume that some of it would eventually land in the hands of that charity. Net effect: Slighty more than $0 to charity.
- Money gets spent on the painting. Money made by original owner of painting could go to anything, but at least some of it goes to workers at the sale, and one can assume the money made by the sellor will be spent on running their trade, and so more workers are paid. Again, we can assume slightly more than $0 goes to charity, but possibly less than the investment option.
- Money goes straight to the charity. Obviously, this is best for the charity, but we already know most people don't give something away for nothing, so expecting someone to do that is a pipe dream.
Best, most likely, choices: Investment, or buying the painting.
But that's just the way I see it...
>"Decorate Expensively for the Poor!" doesn't really work.
Someone at the "bottom" always gets paid, though. The plubmer moving the pipes in the way of making the house look nice, the electrician putting power in for the new super-expensive-power-eating-lamps, the people at the power plant for his new lighting system, people at the wallpaper company for making the wallpaper, guy at the burger joint when the decorter gets hungry, etc, etc.
If everyone would participate, a system where everyone donated their money to various causes (including the "feed everyone" cause) would work. But I think world history shows this is impossible, and that such a system often contradicts basic freedoms, so we have to make the next best choice.
I think the current system is it. Just my $0.02, and you don't need to take it all that seriously...
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:1)
OK, essentially what you said here is what I
was trying to say. However, we can pretty much
assume that nobody keeps that kind of cash in a
sock under the pillow. So it's invested in
some way; it's working. That will likely create
as much work over the long term as a sudden
fluctuation would create in the short term. It's not guaranteed or even necessarily likely
to change the world situation much either way.
At any rate, I again agree with most of your
second post. But so many people believe the
message given in your first--and stop there,
not thinking any further--and use that kind of
view to rationalize gross consumption. That's
what my problem is with; not you.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
And.. That keeps your different pets away !!! (Score:1)
I just can imagine our cats reaction to the system in action (woOoOoF). Eventually, they will give up their landlordship on the couch. Oh heaven: no more f..ing hairs, no more fight for the best place. Now, adding a feature as useful as the "random triggerering of the jumping couch" syndrome to the system will be definitely coOoOo0l.
But Twenty Grands, I can buy a car for that, and obtain very real impressions with it too, though for more $500 of maintenance a year.
Anyway, we have one of those park in montreal where they have a movie theater with 3D glasses and seat motion.
Re:And.. That keeps your different pets away !!! (Score:1)
I could totally see cats being launched out windows with this...
I would pay... (Score:1, Offtopic)
drunken master? (Score:1)
Re:drunken master? (Score:1)
Re:drunken master? (Score:2)
Coverage in current Widescreen Review Magazine (Score:3, Informative)
You can read part of the article by going to
http://www.widescreenreview.com/attractions/eqr
Pick up this months Widescreen Review for the full article and a whole lot more.
One pair of ears (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One pair of ears (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, that's quite true. You do only need two signals for perfect reproduction of 3D sound--if you never move your head. Unfortunately, you do move. And turn. The extra speakers are to preserve the illusion of a three-dimensional sound environment even for an observer that isn't tied in one place and completely unable to move.
In principle, if a movie viewer had a pair of headphones coupled to a sensor to monitor head position and angle and the movie had encoded information about the precise location of each and every sound source within each scene and the system could adjust the sound fed to your ears fast enough to prevent a disorienting disjoint between sound and visuals...then maybe two speakers would be enough for 3D sound--per audience member.
That said, you're right--there are a lot of movies out there with poorly-recorded/edited/engineered sound, and that can't be fixed no matter how clever your home theatre system is.
You must be crazy!!!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Most slashdot geeks, could build their own (Score:1)
Draw back is you have to strap yourself to the seat. No drinks or popcorn...
Most slashdot geeks, could build one for a few hundred dollars with some spare parts and a used computer.
Motion Sickness (Score:1)
Throw in active movement and it'd be rough.
No screwdrivers with that puppy, OJ makes me get extra motion sickness.
Hmmmm (Score:1)
Nature's solution (Score:2)
We have natural motion simulation here in California. We call the technology "earthquakes".
The only hard part is synching them to the picture. But there are plenty of unemployed Silli Valley techies here to help figure that part out.
Pretend you've already got it! (Score:2, Funny)
This ain't shit. (Score:2)
Nice toy, but not worth $20K (Score:2)
Quick sue the pants off of them!!! (Score:2)
ahem (Score:1)
dang, there goes my homework
The 'Real' Cinema Experience (Score:1)
And in other news... (Score:1)
Last Post! (Score:1)
* scared witless. Therefore I refuse to write this function.
-- From the maclinux patch
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
You're not the only one (Score:1)
I'd get behind her!