Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
(Though it actually DID make sense on Threepio and TC-14... TC-14 just happens to have been an absolutely ridiculous character choice.)
Reminds me of Galaxy Quest (the movie), where the "real ship" had those absurd smashing rooms for no reason whatsoever and somehow Sigourney Weaver's clothes kept getting smaller and more ripped and revealing for no reason whatsoever.
Just imagine the Naboo Cruiser with 4 or 5 ships flying near it, trying to punch through the blockaid, their sole purpose to shine lights on the ship so it looks "pretty".
:)
On topic: Any word on whether #7965 will be discounted? At this point, I'd be happy with 10% off, I suppose.
I had also used the X-wing myself as I had sunk hundreds of hours into that game. But with the X-wing, after your proton torps were out taking out the shield generators...it took hours to finish the thing off with lasers ;/
The Bwing had a much larger Proton torpedo bay and much heavier quad lasers so it was a much less time consuming job ;D
I still think my lengthiest solo kill still had to be trying to kill Nebulon-B frigates...They had major weak points ;/
But I agree - it's actually the games that gave me a passion for the SW spacecraft, rather than the films! Prefer the minifig scale ships though - even 50% off the B-Wing isn't going to sway me.
This is true too!!! LOL!!
Oh.....no.....hang on......
^^ whilst that is true that we wouldn't have had SW and May the fourth without the US, you wouldn't have LEGO without the Europeans.....
'MURICA
No, wait...
I'll be back in a few days when everyone is done arguing.
Fish were laying eggs in the oceans long before the chicken ever came long, which was just about 5,000 years ago...
Thank you History Channel. :)
What would compel an animal, insect, whatever to think about flight or want to fly? And, then change its body such that it could fly? And before anything on the Earth flew. Before there was an example of flight. Nothing flies. And, then somehow transfer that desire to its offspring, generation to generation to generation?
@LFT keeping in specifically to chickens, Darwin's Theory of Evolution dictates that the egg came first. It must have came from the chicken's predecessor species, chicken-like mother. Mother was not a modern chicken but the egg offspring had a genetic mutation that caused it to grow into what we know as the modern chicken. A debate my friends and I threw around for years before reaching that conclusion :)
Back on topic, I'll be on [email protected] at midnight if the B-Wing really is 50% off. If sold out by following morning, I'm raiding the B&M locales near me.
Maybe it was 200 million years instead of 20,000?
Yeah, I know it's a tangent, but the whole chicken and egg thing prompted the thought. And, it's something I'm honestly very curious about, now that the thought popped into my noggin. That's all. :-) Not after any big debate or anything. Just one of those things that has me scratching my head. :-) Things that make you go 'hummmm' :-)
If it is only the US that get the B-Wing at 50% off, any one want to get me one? Shipping should be under $100 to Australia?
Thanks @y2josh & @FollowsClosely for the offers, thats very kind.
Edit: @Pitfall69 Ohh sorry you were talking about the egg thing, we just had a little Biology class going on. I'm sure its not the first time you have missed class. :P
The insect doesn't have to know wings will help, just like the bird doesn't know the beak will help.
Mutations happen. In the case of the beak, the bird may be able to open nuts easier, and thus save energy on cracking nuts, or gain more energy by eating more which makes them fitter / stronger / get them a completely different pigment not previously available to their feathers which the opposite sex finds attractive / etc. They have sex and pass on the mutation. The change has to give them some reproductive advantage, whether it is being about to meet more sexual partners, fight and beat rivals, be more attractive, etc. The "bigger beak" mutation will be passed on, and so future generations will be more likely to have bigger beaks. Other mutations will also be going on at the same time in different individuals in the population - thicker beaks, smaller beaks, deformed beaks, etc. Some may be more advantageous for survival to reproduction age, others not. This doesn't mean beaks will always get bigger. A different bigger beak mutation on a bird that already has a big beak may kill it before it can reproduce. It may be that the bird is too big to fly efficiently and so not able to obtain food, or meet mates. That mutation will not be passed on.
It is the same with wings. The insect doesn't have to know that by flying it will have benefits. It just needs to have some extra reproductive advantage that allows the mutation to propagate through the generations. Of course, it will takes millions of generations to go from no wings to fully developed wings. None of the individuals along the way know what is happening. They just have some tiny advantage which allows their mutation to propagate.
Same with camouflage. A mutation which leads to camouflage means that the animal is more likely to survive from predators which ultimately means it will be more likely to reproduce and pass on the mutation. That is what is meant by "survival of the fittest". It is not necessarily survival of the strongest / fittest / healthiest, but survival of the fittest able to adapt to the environment. If the animal is able to reproduce and pass on genes and mutations of genes, then it is fit.
"Which Horse?"