The way I see it, the only real option they have is to hold to the "you can't change the future" method or "in tying to change the future you actually caused it". As you mentioned, if they changed the future then they can't have that flash forward.

Then again, depending on your concept of time travel, the argument could be made (albeit VERY poorly) that the rules for seeing the future and the rules for changing the past are completely different. By this I mean it could be argued that you can't change the past because it's already happened. While the future can be changed because the "vision" is really just one possible outcome of the future.

Personally, I believe that if one can travel backwards in time, then that proves the existence of a continual timeline. Which means that people ahead on that timeline could travel back to the first persons point.

So... the only way I think the time paradox can be reconciled is if the main character becomes aware of this. Then begins to leave clues for himself in the future so that they can be given back to himself in the present. There is the slightest hint of this when he puts the photographer's photo of the burnt doll on the board. Since he used the clue of the photo to figure out they should investigate the doll factor, then he need to put it on the board so he'll have it in the future to be able to let himself know in the past.

The film Time Crimes portrayed this concept very well. You have to make sure that everything happens in the exact same manner. If they main character understands this and begins to leave clues for his future self, then I might be able to go a little easier on the show.

Obviously the average person, being boring and mundane like we all are, wouldn't be waiting for the pointless event that they had flashed forward to, but you're right. Anyone who had experienced an event such as... oh I don't know, being gunned down while staring at a board of mysteries you couldn't solve, might try and avoid staring at said board.

Yeah, we could probably go on forever about the absurdity of the plot. I guess I could kind of buy the fact that the government might be concerned that "someone cause this", but I'm pretty sure that scientists would be the first ones investigating. Not any agency. You know, unless the FBI reopened the X-Files...

I think the worst thing about the show is that most people didn't even have a vision of anything bad. Maybe there is some greater conspiracy, but no one in the general population should or would be able to figure that out. It may be a scary / religious experience to some people, but it's not like everybody had a Heroes-style vision where the world blew up or anything like that...

Re: Re: Re: 3) Because people generally do something for a reason. Something has to interest someone to pay attention to it. For someone who cares so little about Apple Products, you paid surprisingly good attention to his phone.

Re: Re: Re: 5) The quicker comment was about learning the OS not the literal speed of moving through the software...

Re: Re: Re: 6) My bad on the continuity comment. I forgot there is no real point to this blog ;)

Re: The Rest:
That's the problem with you Nathaniel. You believe without any real reason to. You for an opinion and believe it without attempting to justify it. Do you know how many times I've called you out at the office about a "Fact" you were stating and you replied "I could pull it up and show you right now"?

And do you know how many of those times you've actually pulled it up instead of following it up with "I'm not gonna do it right now, I'm busy working".

I know I'm opinionated. I know I "have to be right". But I'd rather be wrong than have someone make a "factual" statement they can't back up. I call you out because I'm giving you the opportunity to justify your opinion to me. Not because I like getting on your ass. (believe it or not, I don't).

I don't have to believe you, I just have to be satisfied that your reason to believe is something more than just "because".

Jake hates the Mac and OS X. I know that. And I know why he does. Not because he's a Dell rep and has grown up on PC's. Bet because the type of user he is doesn't allow for him to use a Mac. He is fine with a shitty OS as long as he feels he's completely in control of it. On top of that, he actually recognizes that there is a difference between the Mac and the PC. he's just taking a stance on one end.

If you really believe that the two are the same, stop using Vista. Or better yet, uninstall OS X from your Mac and simply use your MacBook Pro as a Vista Machine. I challenge you to try that.

Re: Re: 1) Well for the guy who constantly get's on people's back for typing it "Christianaudio", you should care. Branding is branding. If you care for a company you work for, you should care for all companies.

Re: Re: 2) lol, the operation that has been in place long before Vista is "like Vista". I think you may have that backwards. Every PC person I know (besides you) hates Vista. I don't know a single person who owns a Mac (besides you), who doesn't think OS X is the greatest OS they've ever used.

Re: Re: 3) So you know it was the kindle app? Not Stanza or any number of ebook readers for the iPhone? Did he notice you staring at him as he did this? And what made you care about his activities on his phone?

Re: Re: 4) Apples business model (under steve jobs) is to wait for a marked to get big, and then obliterate it by making something far better than what has been available. To innovate, rather than participate.

Re: Re: 5) Your statement was less about the device and more about the skill and knowledge required to use it. My point is still valid. If you take someone who's never used a smart phone before and gave them your Blackberry and my iPhone. They'd be able to get around my phone far quicker. That's a testament to the design sense and attention to detail of Apple.

Re: Re: 6) Your right, you don't have to like them. But you should still pay attention to continuity. Maybe call the post "I hate Apple because they're marketing geniuses"... which is sort of what your post was saying...

Re: Last little bit:
You're right, it is your blog. You can put whatever opinion you want down. However, if you have public comments on a post and you make statements which you can't truly believe yourself "I see no difference between a Vista machine and an OS X machine", I'm going to call you out on it...

Not trying to be a dick (minus response number 1), but I feel I need to point out a few things to you...

1) It's called the iPhone 3GS (no space)

2) You're full of shit if you say you can't tell the difference between the operation or quality of a mac product.

3) The statement "I noticed he sent at least one text message, checked stocks, and started reading from Kindle for iPhone", contradicts the statement "didn’t take much of a notice other than he was talking while ordering his food". Did you really hover over his shoulder, (being the apple hater that you are) just to see what he was doing? Why do I get the feeling that the things you noticed were really just features you know it has? Sounds like editorial license to me.

4) Where in the world did you come up with the "unwritten rule in the technology industry to only make things easy for the younger kids". I challenge that rule in general, but Apple's rule has always been to make the device the smoothest and most beautiful experience for anyone who touches it (Old or Young).

5) If "the generation of people that cannot seem to find the on switch for a desktop are able to run their lives from a cell phone", how is it that you "don’t notice the 'major difference' in operation or quality of the devices"?

6) Your post and title are heavily anti-Apple, yet your point is that Apple is marketing genius?

I'll admit that the quirkiness had a little bit of entertainment value and was maybe a little more funny than I led on, but I think it was more distracting than funny. I think I was just looking a little too forward to the actual story of what happened.

Personally I could only take the audience collectively saying "Oh my god" every time Damon admitted he "may not have told the entire truth" before I just wanted to throw up. Maybe if Soderbergh could have knocked 30 minutes or so off the runtime it may have been more palatable.

Though I do stand behind my opinion, I don't feel so strongly that it matters if someone thought it was good. I just really disliked it.

I've been having a lot of fun with it. Half the time I don't even attempt to complete the level I'm on. I just play around with scribbling in different objects.

It's really fun to create one thing and then destroy it with something else. It's also fun to try to solve the puzzle in the most ridiculous, Team America inspired way possible.

It would be really cool if you could connect two DSs and do a weird battle mode where you and another person take turns trying to counter each other's attacks.

I have not read it, but I've seen the cover several times and wondered about it. Thanks for the suggestion. I actually just got back from Barnes & Noble where I picked up the 2 volume boxed set!

I'd love to see that test footage. As I said in my post, "9" was just begging for it to be presented in 3D.

How does the Legend Films process compare to what PIXAR is doing with Toy Story 1 & 2? From what John Lasseter told the Wall Street Journal their process from the Original source was able to be cranked out super fast ("...We've always been making 3D films, we've just been looking at them with one eye closed..."). It's sounds like Legend Films does a more hands on, manual conversion.