Damn right. Algorithmically chosen music is the opposite of taste. It's colorless. It weakens my will to live. Why anyone puts up with it I have no idea - everytime I've tried it the suggestions have been uniformly terrible. Oh you like Radiohead do you? Then you'll love Muse. No - after I've listened to some whiny English guy sing about his troubles with technologically-enhanced alienation, I would probably prefer something completely different. That's what DJs are for. Or at least, that's what they used to be for, before they became an endangered species.

No - I don't believe that you are. It's just that "genre" based music playlists are easy to generate more-or-less automatically, whereas a DJ hired because he or she has good taste in music (RIP John Peel....) is (relatively) expensive. Honestly, do people really just want to listen to one genre of music the entire time?

Wish everything I did was that lame.

It's not about allowing more devices to connect to the internet, where the internet is just defined as those two hundred thousand websites you mentioned earlier.

It's about making the internet actually what it was once described as but has never yet become.

It's just everybody's computers, connected together.

Security issues notwithstanding, the growth of the internet is not about websites, but about connecting devices together. About connecting to the devices in your house without hassle and without configuration, from anywhere in the world. That's the potential growth area that IPv6 might just make possible.

How about you stop coming, and then we won't have to hear you whine?

..source control.

That would have saved quite a bit of time. They probably mentioned it at university, but I remember skipping a few lectures here and there.

That sounds highly suspect, and I can't find any corroboration. I don't believe the story for an instant.

I didn't argue that it's not a panorama, nor did I suggest that it's not the largest digital panorama in existence. But thanks for correcting me anyway.

You're my first grammar nazi.Do I get a badge?

Wait - Don't uninstall it from the internet! I still want to use it!

The action was the story. Why is that a bad thing? The story is of their respective captures, their escape and the way in which their lives became connected for a brief period. It's of the way in which they took down the evil leader of the citadel, and returned triumphant.

Let's put it like this. If you had been through those experiences, you would have one hell of a story to tell. Mad Max tells that story through visuals and design, rather than dialog, brilliantly.

Well, because then none of her party would have known what she was doing, and you would have had the other side of the "don't explain" narrative coin in which the plot is driven by people not being frank with each other. Which is even more annoying than having stuff explained to the audience because the director doesn't know how to tell stories with images. When Max suggests turning around and attacking the citadel...

Oh. Wait.

Spoiler Alert.

There. When Max suggests turning around and attacking the now undefended citadel, his explanation is concise and of course he has to explain it. Otherwise they wouldn't come with him, would they? And when Joe explains the strategy again, I think you'll find all he says is something like "We're undefended!". Which is also a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and doesn't qualify as explaining the plot to the audience.

Now, I will say, that I haven't seen the original Mad Max in many years, and while I remember enjoying it, I don't remember enough of it to make a comparison.

..visual storytelling.

George Miller never feels the need to stop the action and have the characters explain the plot to each other.

Take the citadel, in which the evil warlord lives, and from which he rules over crowds of serfs - grovelling in the dust, and his albino warboys - terrified and terrorising.

We don't need to be told how the citadel works. We just need one look at it, and we get it. We don't need an explanation of how the world came to be how it how is - we just need about ten words in fractured voiceover against a black screen before the movie starts.

It's an action film, and it tells its story through action. It does it so well, that I'm not completely sure I've ever actually seen it done before at all.

It's also a surprisingly dull subject. Spectacular to look at zoomed out sure, but the detail one gets to zoom into is mostly just snow and rocks. And they look pretty much the same everywhere. It seems likely that the subject was chosen because it doesn't move around very much, making the stitching job simpler - though as the AC points out, even that didn't go very well. People have been doing this for quite a while now, here's one from 2010 that's alot more interesting to zoom into, even if the in-browser interface is less slick.

Now, now. This is how rumours get started. There was no propane tank, real or suspected. There was a gas tank, but a lot of cars have those.

But this really doesn't make any sense.

The presence of a pressure cooker inside a car really and truly does not make the car any more or less likely to contain an explosive device. In fact, it probably makes it less likely to be a car bomb, since one would probably take some steps to conceal the bomb, and at least put a blanket over the pressure cooker.

Are we going to start blowing up cars that have suspicious looking shapes under blankets on the back seat now?

And by we, I mean you guys. I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere else.