Slashdot Mirror


Arthur C. Clarke Talks With The Onion

sootman writes "The Onion has an interview with Arthur C. Clarke in this week's issue. My favorite line: 'The asteroid [named after me] is number four thousand and something, and the International Astronomical Federation, which deals with these sorts of things and numbered it, apologized to me because number 2001 wasn't available, having been given to somebody named "A. Einstein."'" Reader ronys point out that Despite the source, the interview is not a spoof or satire."

375 comments

  1. small article nitpick by Tirel · · Score: 0, Informative

    He's one of very few to be designated a Science Fiction Grand Master, he's the author of the classic novels Childhood's End and Rendezvous With Rama, and he first created the popular axiom "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick."

    Um no, that was Asimov. Clarke coined the term "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent"

    1. Re:small article nitpick by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Um no, that was Asimov. Clarke coined the term "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent"
      Hmm, now to whom would that apply at the moment?
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:small article nitpick by George+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When somebody's dead wrong, it's generally not a good idea to mod them up "Informative"... More like "Misinformative".

    3. Re:small article nitpick by Angstroem · · Score: 2, Informative
      It was the other way round. Asimov coined the term "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent". They appeared in the Foundation trilogy and were IIRC spoken by the character Hari Seldon. The sentence "any sufficiently advanced..." can be found in "A day in the 21st century" by Athur C Clarke.

      Moderators, please do not wildly mod up stuff only because the first moderator made a mistake...

    4. Re:small article nitpick by tommck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not incompetent, but I always throw my violence in the garbage too!

      Oh, you mean refuGe!... Nevermind...

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    5. Re:small article nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have your quote sources confused.

      "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent" is from the Foundation series by Asimov.

      And Clark did state the thing about magick.

    6. Re:small article nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Would that be "refuge" and not "refuse"?

    7. Re:small article nitpick by scumbucket · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's just mix and match:

      How about:

      "Any sufficently advanced violence is indistinguishable from magick."

      or

      "any sufficiently advanced technology is the last refuge of the incompetent"

      Or my personal favorite:

      "Any sufficiently advanced incompetent is indistinguishable from magick violence."

      Nice try at trolling, btw.

      --
      CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
    8. Re:small article nitpick by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asimov coined the term "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent". They appeared in the Foundation trilogy and were IIRC spoken by the character Hari Seldon.

      Not Hari Seldon. Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    9. Re:small article nitpick by socode · · Score: 1

      Um, no that was Clarke, in "Profiles of the Future".

    10. Re:small article nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent"

      Oh, you mean refuGe!... Nevermind...

      Now he's going to beat you up :)

    11. Re:small article nitpick by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      BTW, it's "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." It's Asimov, and shows up in the first book of the original Foundation triolgy.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    12. Re:small article nitpick by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Any sufficiently advanced incompetent is indistinguishable from magick violence."

      And there, in a nutshell, lies U.S. foreign policy.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    13. Re:small article nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? I thought Dean dropped out of the race today...

    14. Re:small article nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded you down apparently knew the answer.

    15. Re:small article nitpick by Zangief · · Score: 1

      In fact, Salvor Hardin was the one who said "Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent".

    16. Re:small article nitpick by geekoid · · Score: 1

      +1 -- publicly humilating poster for such blantent misinformation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:small article nitpick by STrinity · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always liked H. Beam Piper's variation -- Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent because only the incompetent wait that long to use violence.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    18. Re:small article nitpick by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I like Sturgeon's Laws and Niven's Laws better...

      ^^^^ Has sex outside his species (i.e. with real women)...

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
  2. Author's blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The interviewer's blog can be found here, for what it's worth.

  3. Isn't he getting old? by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

    2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 if memory serves, isn't Clarke getting a bit old?

    Next they'll be conducting an interview with Philip K. Dick by Ouija Board. Not that this wouldn't be any weirder than The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch or Radio Free Ablemuth...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Isn't he getting old? by icklemichael · · Score: 2, Informative

      2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 if memory serves, isn't Clarke getting a bit old?

      I think he's nearly 90 now...

    2. Re:Isn't he getting old? by iamplupp · · Score: 5, Informative

      he was born december 16, 1917

    3. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny
      Next they'll be conducting an interview with Philip K. Dick by Ouija Board.
      An interview with the dude who wrote the bible would be more intresting.
      What other SF book had such an inpact as the Bible?
    4. Re:Isn't he getting old? by hcduvall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 if memory serves, isn't Clarke getting a bit old?

      Um...so what?

    5. Re:Isn't he getting old? by chadm1967 · · Score: 0

      What the hell does his age have to do with being interviewed?

    6. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 2, Funny

      yep late eighties if u'd read the article rather than trying to get first post :p

    7. Re:Isn't he getting old? by TwistedGreen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you know? Elderly citizens must report to the fuel vats for decommissioning. Their energy must be returned to society.

      That's the real reason he moved to Sri Lanka.

    8. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're talking about his age, is it just me, or does Clarke's head look jarringly similar the Sci-Fi topic image? Did somebody use a program to see what he'd look like at age 220?

    9. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, dude. You're goin' to hell for that. 'Course, since I laughed, I'm comin' on the same bus with you, damnit...

    10. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Informative

      No single person wrote the Bible, unless you take a strict view that God is the author because he 'inspired' the writings... in which case you have a God who, despite omniscience and omnipotence, can't write a book without filling it with contradictions.

      The Bible and its siblings are collections of stories, the older parts of which probably existed as oral tradition for quite some time before being recorded in written form.

    11. Re:Isn't he getting old? by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that on top of parts generally being attributed to certain authors (book of Amos, etc.), analysis shows many of these parts actually had multiple authors. For example, parts believed to have been written by Moses were apparently written by several different people. There are also sections that look like edits.

    12. Re:Isn't he getting old? by TGK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you missed the point. He's implying the Bible is a work of Science Fiction, not a legitimate religious document. He's indicating that a single author drafted it as a work of fiction largely as a practical joke on the rest of history.

      It's a theory with some holes, but one that's fun to needle the radical right with.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    13. Re:Isn't he getting old? by jshift2work · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's a theory with some holes, but one that's fun to needle the radical right with.

      Wait so any belief in the Bible makes a person a member of the radical right?

    14. Re:Isn't he getting old? by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, jackass, but it's fun to use that theory to annoy them.

      "You know for a fact that there is a God. You have been in his presence. He's spoken to you personally, and yet I just heard you claim to be an atheist."
      "I just like to fuck with the clergy, man. I just love it. I just love to keep those guys on their toes."

      Or something like that. :D

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    15. Re:Isn't he getting old? by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      belief that the bible is the Word of God does not necessitate believing that its writers were possessed, rather than inspired, to write what they did.

    16. Re:Isn't he getting old? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this have been more appropriate yesterday? It was Tuesday, after all, and we all know what day *that* is...

    17. Re: Isn't he getting old? by like-it-or-not · · Score: 1


      isn't Clarke getting a bit old?

      Even as an octogenarian, Clarke can still produce more fresh and interesting ideas than a (typical) classroom full of 20-year olds!
      What are you really asking?

      --
      dubito ergo sum
    18. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    19. Re:Isn't he getting old? by ungerware · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you guys, but I've got a few more years until I go red, then I'm gonna try like hell for renewal!

      There is no santuary!

      --

      -----
      Kvetch is Yiddish for "throw an exception" --Dr. Ron Cytron
    20. Re:Isn't he getting old? by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      No, members of the radical right generally believe in the Bible and often that it is literal and all true. It can be fun to poke them back with stuff like the "science fiction" quip.

      Stop misinterpreting what others say, and please (I implore you) use commas.

    21. Re:Isn't he getting old? by RicoX9 · · Score: 1

      My wife had a professor in grad school who kept all such religious documentation (Bible, Koran, etc) on the same shelf in the fiction section of his home library (he had a whole room full of books). He referred to it as a merely OK piece of work.

    22. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha... that's pretty funny.

      Usually, that's the point where I bury the jokesters with facts proven by archeologists for years about the authenticity of the scriptures. People have attacked the Bible for thousands of years, and yet it still resists all attacks by its critics. Time after time its "stories" have been proven true by historians and archeologists, in the form of excavated artifacts and digs to supplemental historical documents independently verifying the events of the age.

      If you don't believe me, pick up a copy of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. (BTW, its about the same size and thickness of my old college Physics textbook) The author was a laywer who set out to debunk the Bible and ended up converting due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it.

      If you think its just a "good SF book written as a joke", the jokes on you.

      I usually just shake my head at the general ignorance expressed in these types of posts...

      *sigh*

    23. Re:Isn't he getting old? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      I have a copy of the bible that I got somewhere, and yes, it's in the fiction section of my library.

      Where else would I put it? Cult Classics?

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    24. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      All the events that were proven to be right, were things like the Jews leaving Egypt, and some stuff like rocks that do contain water in the desert.
      But none of the super natural things were ever proven (e.g. Jesus walking over water). So basicaly the Bible was based on real events and had a big dose of fantasy added.
      That's SF in my books.

    25. Re:Isn't he getting old? by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      It get's even funnier if you actually read it. It is so damn full of contradictions, silly advice and some stories that are so damn disturbing that I cannot see a good moral either way.

      Believe in whichever deity you want with my blessing, but anybody who takes the bible as their lead deserves to be laughed at.

      Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes (Genesis 19:8) Yeah, you go Lot!

      A more disgusting tale that is a bit long to quote here is Judges 19. Bottom line of the story is: A guy stays the night as a guest of another guy bringing his concubine instead. Now during the night some bullies from the city come to shake out the mistery guest, but the host will have none of that so he offers them his daughter and the guest's concubine. Anyway, the bullies didn't come for his daughter, but they take the concubine for good measure and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning. Well the poor lass dies but being a decent guy her master takes her home on a donkey. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

      Yeah, I guess that's the decent thing to do under the circumstances. I wouldn't really know since I'm an atheist.

      Anyway, offered any bulls lately? Remember to burn it's innards. They're such a sweet savour unto the LORD (Leviticus 1:9 and pretty much the rest of the book)

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    26. Re:Isn't he getting old? by owlstead · · Score: 2, Funny

      In that case he is certainly not _getting_ old. Older maybe, but you are dead if you don't.

    27. Re:Isn't he getting old? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I like to use the Tom Clancy analogy when bible thumpers bring up the bits of the bible that are true:

      Imagine some future archeologists and historians figuring out that yes indeed, the USSR existed, and it built a lot of large submarines, and there was a cold war between them an a country called USA, and the USSR kept a lot of its submarines at a cold base on their arctic coast, and that these submarines did in fact carry nuclear missles, and they did run on nuclear power plants, and there are documented cases of people from the USSR using subterfuge to defect to the USA, and it is true that you use sound waves in the water to listen for submarines, and that the USA did in fact have spies, and did in fact have a capital city called Washington, DC.

      Then, from all that, they conclude that The Hunt For Red October" must therefore be a true story.

      This is essentially what people are doing when they claim the bible must be true because some of the cities and places it mentions actually existed.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    28. Re:Isn't he getting old? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. He'll get his chance like all the rest: Carousel.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    29. Re:Isn't he getting old? by TPFH · · Score: 1

      Next they'll be conducting an interview with Philip K. Dick by Ouija Board.

      They sort of did that last July.

      --
      This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  4. Believe it or not by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Onion does have real interviews and a pretty good AV section.

    The print edition is like a reverse newspaper, with the comic section everywhere and a small non-comic center pull-out.

    1. Re:Believe it or not by illuminatedwax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's more like a comic beginning section, followed by a slightly larger Arts section with interviews, reviews of movies, books, and music, as well as picks of upcoming shows in the area (depending on where you get it). The AV section is usually bigger than the joke section, and is usually pretty excellent.

      --Stephen

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    2. Re:Believe it or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      Hate to break this to you, but the "joke" section of The Onion hasn't been funny since they started using the Perl script to generate the jokes.

      Local $mundane_occupation $funny_verb about $common_event.

      $mundane_occupation = "pipe fitter";
      $funny_verb = "stunned";
      $common_event = "finding inspection sticker in underpants";

      Print it, boys!

      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997

    3. Re:Believe it or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and another thing: I am gay.


      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997

    4. Re:Believe it or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice try weenie boy -- quit projecting your hostilies onto other people. ... and stop using my sig.

      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997

    5. Re:Believe it or not by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The movie review section is pretty comic as well. (Although partly I think that because I never agree with the reviewers. But that said, it's still excellent as a movie review because they tell you *why* they don't like a movie in enough detail to understand if I would agree with their assesment but not enough detail to ruin it for me. Too often a movie critic's review is a useless "yeah, it's good" or "yeah, it sucks", without any real information - but that hardly happens with The Onion. I can usually tell if I'll like a movie the onion reviewer hates, because the reviewer's rant about the movie includes clues as to what 'feel' the movie has.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  5. IAU by Aardpig · · Score: 0, Informative

    'The asteroid [named after me] is number four thousand and something, and the International Astronomical Federation, which deals with these sorts of things and numbered it, apologized to me because number 2001 wasn't available, having been given to somebody named "A. Einstein."'

    Asteroids are, in fact, named by the International Astronomical Union, not the International Astronomical Federation (whatever that may be). I'm surprised that Clarke made this mistake; maybe he simply misspoke himself, or the Onion reporter screwed up the transcription.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    1. Re:IAU by eggstasy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The man is over 85 years old. Give him a break. I'm surprised he is still alive, let alone coherent.

    2. Re:IAU by rsidd · · Score: 2
      what part of "benefit of the doubt" are you incapable of grasping?

      What part of that phrase did you use in your original post? You said maybe he "misspoke" or the reporter "screwed up the transcription", but whatever, it seemed to upset you. If you're so nitpicky, expect others to nitpick you too.

    3. Re:IAU by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      I think he's trying to insinuate that because you've got a 4-digit id, you're getting old, also. :p

    4. Re:IAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not the International Astronomical Onion, then.

    5. Re:IAU by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      ... and this is +5 informative because...?

    6. Re:IAU by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised he is still alive, let alone coherent.

      Don't jump to any conclusions about "coherent" until after you've read 3001...

    7. Re:IAU by jkantola · · Score: 1


      Perhaps he's found out we need to be shown, not told. Wouldn't you think differently of his books if he was still giving us interviews at 2069 (and don't you just hate when math just right out jumps at you)? Clarke has dreamt up such futures for mankind one has to wonder how there can still be such outrageously obvious mistakes as the U.S. military budget.

      Or, while we're on Slashdot, proprietary software.

    8. Re:IAU by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 1

      I thought 3001 was better than 2010 to 2061

    9. Re:IAU by Art+Tatum · · Score: 0, Troll
      Clarke has dreamt up such futures for mankind one has to wonder how there can still be such outrageously obvious mistakes as the U.S. military budget.

      John Kerry has a lot to do with that one. The man votes against every budget increase for the military coming down the pike.

    10. Re:IAU by dave420-2 · · Score: 0
      Score:5, Pedantic

      Seriously - union/federation/whatever. He wrote 2001, devised the geosyncronous orbit, and doesn't hang around on slashdot pointing out incredibly slight mistakes. Give him a break already! :-P

    11. Re:IAU by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Funny

      And here I thought the comic book store owner on the Simpsons was only an animated character.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    12. Re:IAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone ever wants to know the difference between a geek and a nerd, please refer to this post.

    13. Re:IAU by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      ... and this is +5 informative because...?

      That's rather rich, given your totally-bland posting history. One moderated post, and that was "redundant". LOL!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    14. Re:IAU by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      I can deal just fine with that, being a person that doesn't generally care too much about his success on an internet forum as your post implies you do. I don't set out with the attention to get +5s and be a /. rockstar, just participate. What isn't good is when moderators overrate posts like the one you posted and give a bad name to that which has a +5. Do you understand now?

  6. Sufficiently advanced technology... by sbennett · · Score: 5, Funny

    he first created the popular axiom "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick."

    Which of course leads to the corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

    1. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by sckeener · · Score: 1

      he first created the popular axiom "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick."

      Which of course leads to the corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."


      All bow before TIVO!

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or even the alternative observation from James Klass: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."

    3. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by tramm · · Score: 4, Interesting
      he first created the popular axiom "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magick." Which of course leads to the corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
      To be pedantic, that is the contrapositive of Clark's Law. The contrapositive is a rule of inference that allows you to reverse the consequent and antecedent: if P implies Q, then not Q implies not P.
      --
      -- http://www.swcp.com/~hudson/
    4. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the contrapositive of a statement is a trivial corollary of that statement :)

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    5. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by Noren · · Score: 5, Interesting
      To be much more pedantic, that is the contrapositive of Clarke's Third Law(1973), the popular axiom to which the grandparent referred.

      Clarke's Law(1962), which was later renamed Clarke's First Law, reads:

      When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
      When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
      It is perhaps relevant given the misattribution to Asimov earlier and the corollary reference of the grandparent to also mention Asimov' Corollary to Clarke's First Law (1978):
      When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion --
      the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.
    6. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by saforrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be pedantic, that is the contrapositive of Clark's Law. The contrapositive is a rule of inference that allows you to reverse the consequent and antecedent: if P implies Q, then not Q implies not P.

      To be pedantic myself, what was wrong with what the OP said? A corollary is a minor claim which is logically dependent on a previously-established claim.

      What particular rule of interference was used to deduce the corollary from the original statement isn't really important. There's nothing wrong with calling the contrapositive is a corollary.

    7. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Which of course leads to: "Any sufficientlty rigged demo is indistinguishable from a pre-rendered movie." :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    8. Re:Sufficiently advanced technology... by beamjockey · · Score: 1

      sbennett (448295) says:
      Which of course leads to the corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

      Which, of course, is Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law, coined by Prof. Barry Gehm, now of Lyon College in Arkansas.

      He is also the guy who said:

      "Have you noticed that, when we were young, we were told that 'everybody else is doing it' was a really stupid reason to do something, but now it's the standard reason for picking a particular software package?"

  7. On the mars rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    O: Do you have any particular hopes for what they'll find in this round of exploration?
    ACC: Well, I think they've already found life. There's some pictures from the laboratories which seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation--leaves and stems and things. I don't see what else it could possibly be. And where there's vegetation, you can bet there'll be something nibbling on it. I'm still hoping we'll find some Martians up there, holding up a sign that says "Yankee go home." [Laughs.]


    I've watched all the press conferences and I want some I that sri lankin he's smoking.

    1. Re:On the mars rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Usenet post has a collection of links on the topic.

      It is amazing to me that these images are not exactly new, yet Nasa is exploring barren areas instead of more interesting formations like those in these photographs. What's going on here?

      Clark is quoted from 2001 saying he's 95% convinced that it's vegetation.

    2. Re:On the mars rovers by standsolid · · Score: 1

      Well, NASA already found E.T. intelligence on their rover missions

      http://files.redvsblue.com/2xPSA6/RvB_PSA6_LoRes .a vi

      well... not so much intelligence... but, y'know

      --
      WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
      What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    3. Re:On the mars rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Actually it was the SF author Stuart Hardin that coined that term. Clarke was more famously known for his book "The Time Machine" than anything else.

    1. Re:No by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clarke was more famously known for his book "The Time Machine" than anything else.

      What, the same "The Time Machine" that was written by HG Wells?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    2. Re:No by kzinti · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, the same "The Time Machine" that was written by HG Wells?

      Wells and Clarke are the same person. Clarke went back in time to write under a pseudonym.

  9. Their Frank Miller interview was great, too by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1, Funny
    DK2/The Dark Knight Strikes Again was under rated, Miller rules!

    God damn I'm a nerd.

    1. Re:Their Frank Miller interview was great, too by hcduvall · · Score: 0

      Ah, but he's no Alan Moore!

    2. Re:Their Frank Miller interview was great, too by redtail1 · · Score: 1
      DK2/The Dark Knight Strikes Again was under rated, Miller rules!

      Miller does rule but boy did Dark Knight Strikes Again suck. In my humble opinion, of course. Most of it was a poor rehash of Dark Knight Returns and it contained only a few inspired ideas like using the Flash to generate electricity.

  10. Re:Going nuts? by dew-genen-ny · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously, who marked this as interesting?

    Since when has stephen hawking been nuts? physically disabled yes, nuts no.

    Or am I speaking out of my arse?

    --
    tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
  11. There aren't many like him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad for us.

  12. Re:Going nuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hawking thinks that humanity needs to genetically engineer ourselves to pre-emptively keep machines from taking us over.

    Here's the article

  13. For christs sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think the Onion has enough bandwidth to cope with a slashdotting. I call Karma whore! Quick, someone better put up a mirror of www.yahoo.com given the previous story.

  14. Irrelevant by Marxist+Commentary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clark is fascinating despite his age - we should treasure the elderly, there is much knowledge there to be gained, but all too often we simply shuffle them to the side like a pair of worn shoes. Enjoy his insights while you still can. He has some fascinating opinions on Martian life, for example.

    1. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      we should treasure the elderly, there is much knowledge there to be gained, but all too often we simply shuffle them to the side like a pair of worn shoes

      Old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

    2. Re:Irrelevant by Scaba · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, some of the elderly are knowledgeable and wise, but I'd say most are as dumb as they were at 20.

    3. Re:Irrelevant by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > Clark is fascinating despite his age - we should treasure the elderly, there is much knowledge there to be gained, but all too often we simply shuffle them to the side like a pair of worn shoes. Enjoy his insights while you still can.

      Amen to that.

      > He has some fascinating opinions on Martian life, for example.

      From the article: "Well, I think they've already found life. There's some pictures from the laboratories which seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation-leaves and stems and things. I don't see what else it could possibly be."

      But with all due respect, Sir Clarke, what pictures are these again? Fark photoshops don't count.

      His Dark Dune Spots look a lot more like some sort of outgassing (well, out-watering or out-CO2ing, which would in itself be interesting, but isn't proof of life) or wind-related phenomenon than trees.

      With the new orbiter, we should get some new data that could resolve this question.

    4. Re:Irrelevant by coupland · · Score: 1

      Well I read the interview and he's definitely a lot more in tune with technology than I am, and I'm young and work in IT! The guy's mind is sharp as a razor blade, no doubting that.

    5. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he meant these?

    6. Re:Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay gramps, get off the soapbox and take your meds.

    7. Re:Irrelevant by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Informative
      > Maybe he meant these?

      Yes, that's what he meant. You, I, and Sir Clarke are all talking about the same "Dark Dune Spot" phenomena.

    8. Re:Irrelevant by letdownjournals · · Score: 1

      Yeah! (snort) Like my grampa, he said he bought a new computer. I said what brand? He said Windows! No matter how hard I tried to explain, he didn't understand that the make and OS are two different things! (snort, superior nerdy giggle)

    9. Re:Irrelevant by letdownjournals · · Score: 1

      Wait I forgot the best part. The computer he bought has a 64-bit processer. I told him that he'd be better off switching to a Linux distro because Windows XP is still a 32-bit OS. He said, "What's Linux?"

      Idiot.(second, longer, nerdier giggle)

  15. What is your fucking point by Microsift · · Score: 0

    I mean are you showing off your math skills that someone whose most famous work was made into a movie 35 years ago is now old?

    Mod Parent Down!

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
    1. Re:What is your fucking point by Scaba · · Score: 4, Informative

      The book was not made into a movie, as such. Clarke wrote the book while writing the screenplay, which was based on both Clarke's and Kubrick's ideas.

    2. Re:What is your fucking point by jbrader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The way that I seem to remember it is Clarke wrote the novel and Kubrick wrote the screenplay of a story that they collaberated on. Though there are major plot differences. In fact I remember reading once that Clarke said he wouldn't touch screenwriting with a bargepole (too technical)

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    3. Re:What is your fucking point by Charvak · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the book the monolith was on Iaeptus(sp?), moon of saturn in the movie it was on the moon of jupiter.

    4. Re:What is your fucking point by jbrader · · Score: 1

      Iapetus actually :-) In the film the monolith was orbiting Jupiter. and in the book theres hardly any mention of Jupiter. For the sequals though, Clarke went with the movie and moved everything from Saturn.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    5. Re:What is your fucking point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the book the monolith was on Iaeptus(sp?), moon of saturn in the movie it was on the moon of jupiter.

      Not quite -- in the movie it was orbiting Jupiter.

    6. Re:What is your fucking point by Lucidus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just for the sake of nit-picking accuracy:

      Both the book and the movie were based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," originally published in 1950, wherein a monolith is discovered on the Moon.

      The front cover of the novel "2001: a space odyssey" states that it was "based on the screenplay of the MGM film by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke."

    7. Re:What is your fucking point by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      That's because in the movie Stanley Kubrick wasn't confident that he could whip up the special effects to properly represent Saturn's rings, so he decided to have the have the Monolith be moved to a moon of Jupiter.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    8. Re:What is your fucking point by Slurm-V · · Score: 1

      According to Clarke, the novel was begun first, worked on concurrently with much cross-fertilisation of ideas, and appeared for public consumption last. I suspect that merely doesn't scan as well as 'based on the screenplay'.

      --
      Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
  16. Vegitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet again he refers to seeing pictures of vegitation on Mars, yet I've never seen them or even a half decent reference to them.

    Is he going slightly eccentric in his old age, or are there Mars pictures being held back from the public?

    1. Re:Vegitation by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      maybe NASA vexed him in some way, and it's his way of getting his revenge, by getting the tin-foily sci-fi crowd to endlessly send FOIA requests for the Mars vegetation photos...

      "We know you have those veggie Mars photos! Dont lie to us! Arthur C. Clark *saw* them!"

    2. Re:Vegitation by first.last · · Score: 0

      I think he might have thrown that in because it IS The Onion, afterall & I do know he has a pretty good sense of humour. Haven't read the entire interview yet...too scared to read him say they've pulled the plug on the Rendevous with Rama movie.

      --
      Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
    3. Re:Vegitation by Spad · · Score: 3, Informative

      These are probably the images he's referring to.

  17. Re:Going nuts? by fireduck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first quote deals exclusively with Mars and whatever pictures Clarke has seen that appear to be vegetation. The second quote is more general about intelligent life in the universe and how we've seen signs of vegetative life on Mars.

    Where does one get the idea that he's talking about pictures of vegetation from some place other than Mars?

  18. gotta agree by *weasel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ACC: Well, I think they've already found life. There's some pictures from the laboratories which seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation--leaves and stems and things. I don't see what else it could possibly be.

    I almost wondered: did I miss a day of NASA releases where they casually announced that 'Oh, by the way... there's stuff growing on Mars'.

    I mean, I suppose it's possible that he was referring to debris that resembles decayed plant matter. I'd think anything decayed would be long-since so weather-worn and scattered that it couldn't possibly resemble plant-life at the macroscopic scale. Of course, IANABotonist or Geologist, so what the hell do I know?

    But hey, he is Arthur C Clarke, so maybe he's privvy to stuff that we aren't. Then again, he's Arthur C Clark - the guy who predicted the Kuwaiti oil fires would cause a nuclear winter-like effect and essentially cancel summer in the region. Thankfully that came nowhere near being true - though it certainly casts some doubts on his pontification.

    The second response though is geared solely toward intelligent life - so I don't know that he necessarily contradicted himself or anything.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    1. Re:gotta agree by garcia · · Score: 1

      or you have to realize that this isn't exactly a trusted news-source, no matter what other posters have said.

      Cum grano salis kids.

    2. Re:gotta agree by CommieLib · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Kuwaiti Oil Fires / Nuclear Winter thing was Carl Sagan. Pretty much the entire nuclear winter thing has been discredited as pop / junk science at this point.

      Sagan was a MASTER science popularizer and spokesman, in the end, he wasn't a very good scientist.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    3. Re:gotta agree by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      I don't think he's talking about the views from Spirit or Opportunity. I'd guess that he's referring to the martian meteorites, or something like that.


      I remember ages ago reading an EXTREMELY unflattering interview with ACC where the reviewer came away hinting (broadly) that he was a self-obsessed has-been. Looking at the onion article and seeing some of the stuff he does (name-dropping Kubrick, deciding the most important recent invention was something he predicted (satellite), slipping his "technology" and "magic" quote in) and I've ended up suspecting that that the original interviewer was correct. I've lost a lot of the vast respect I used to have for ACC (and that's not even mentioning the - unproven - allegations about the young boys surrounding him)

    4. Re:gotta agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually it was Carl Sagan who made the prediction about the Kuwaiti oil fires causing cooler temperatures in southern Asia (not world-wide). See his "The Demon Haunted World" for his explanation of why he got it wrong.

      He also has a whole section in the book devoted to scientists who got things wrong (Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Oppenheimer) but even when they were wrong, they pushed science forward by just getting people to think about the "big ideas."

      I think the same can be said of writers of popular science and science fiction. They may not always be right, but the issues are at least more interesting than Janet Jackson's nipple or who Britney is sleeping with now.

    5. Re:gotta agree by rsidd · · Score: 5, Informative
      I almost wondered: did I miss a day of NASA releases where they casually announced that 'Oh, by the way... there's stuff growing on Mars'. I mean, I suppose it's possible that he was referring to debris that resembles decayed plant matter.

      I think he's talking about these images.

    6. Re:gotta agree by AngryWookiee · · Score: 1

      I don't think that he is talking about any recent photos, in this short interview with Popular Science in 2002 he also talks about his belief of vegetaiton on Mars. The magazine had pictures of what he considered to be vegetation but sadly this link does not have any pictures.

    7. Re:gotta agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      False. While the degree to which Sagan and others said the oil fires would produce a nuclear winter did not happen, there was a significant temperature drop recorded while the fires were burning.

      Link

      The idea was correct, just not the analysis.

    8. Re:gotta agree by The+Grey+Mouser · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I remember ages ago reading an EXTREMELY unflattering interview with ACC where the reviewer came away hinting (broadly) that he was a self-obsessed has-been. Looking at the onion article and seeing some of the stuff he does (name-dropping Kubrick, deciding the most important recent invention was something he predicted (satellite)


      Given his close and productive relationship with Kubrick, I think one could hardly call this name-dropping (they were known to be close personal friends). Also, he didn't "predict" the communications satellite, but did in fact invent it; hardly misplaced pride in this case.


      I've lost a lot of the vast respect I used to have for ACC (and that's not even mentioning the - unproven - allegations about the young boys surrounding him)


      I hadn't heard that; but given that the allegations are unproven, perhaps the man has earned the benefit of the doubt.

      Mouser

    9. Re:gotta agree by The+Grey+Mouser · · Score: 3, Interesting


      The Kuwaiti Oil Fires / Nuclear Winter thing was Carl Sagan. Pretty much the entire nuclear winter thing has been discredited as pop / junk science at this point.


      I've seen no credible refutation of the Nuclear Winter hypothesis, and would be interested to see any references you may have on this point. Conflating this with the Kuwaiti Oil Fires merely clouds the issue, if you'll forgive the expression. Junk science? I think that remains to be seen (hopefully not anytime soon...)


      Sagan was a MASTER science popularizer and spokesman, in the end, he wasn't a very good scientist.


      He was a highly-regarded planetary scientist, though it is true that he was more of a bureaucrat for the latter part of his career. Most of his work was done in large collaborations, but that can hardly be held against him.

      Cheers,

      Mouser

    10. Re:gotta agree by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Those tree-like things sure are creepy looking, you gotta admit. Too bad a probe cannot visit one anytime soon. They don't have the accuracy in landing yet. However, NASA is working on a hover-craft like gizmo that allows rovers or probes to be dropped at more precise locations.

    11. Re:gotta agree by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      He sounds less self-obsessed and more just too old to be properly funny. It happens, just look at Bob Hope. By the time you're 90, you're left with "some guy named Kubrick, HAHAHA!" I mean, he's not exactly a commedian to start with, and I think he just felt the need to try to be funny for the Onion. Almost everybody they interview does.

    12. Re:gotta agree by jafac · · Score: 1

      There was also a significant impact on the weather the year Mt. Pinitubo in the Phillipines exploded. I beleive that there was also a slight but measurable impact from Mt. St. Helens, and from 9/11 (the days following 9/11 where there was no air traffic in the US, except for a few Saudi dignitaries Bush allowed to fly out, there was an overall higher average temperature by 3 degrees - just from the absence of contrail formation!)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:gotta agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been credible refutations of the Nuclear Winter theory, but nothing as decisive as some people may think. As far as I know, it's still one of those things that we can't be sure about until it happens, and for obvious reasons, we don't want to conduct too many experiments.

    14. Re:gotta agree by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Very, very interesting. This is the picture that he claims looks like "Banyan trees."

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
    15. Re:gotta agree by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      I think the other comment was probably right - ACC was going for humour (and failing in my opinion at least).


      On the subject of paedophilia, I've done some digging. The reason I remember about it was that Prince Charles was going to go to Sri Lanka to knight ACC, but that was cancelled because of the allegations. According to this article he was cleared eventually, so I guess he has more than earned the benefit of the doubt. ;-)


      He certainly didn't "invent" communications satellites though (at least not in the sense that I use invent, as he didn't give any details of their construction, just the principles involved). I found a copy of his original paper here and it's pretty interesting to read. I especially like the "atomic power" option. Not sure how acceptable that would be today!

  19. Re:Going nuts? by chadm1967 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That doesn't mean he's "nuts".

  20. Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative??: I doubt we'll /. The Onion.

  21. Re:Going nuts? by matusa · · Score: 1

    So basically he's saying he's seen pictures from labs with vegetation from some place that isn't Mars

    Incorrect. The discrepancy lies between the semantic difference of 'life' and 'active intelligent life', clearly separating the contexts. The first paragraph you quoted obviously refers to Mars, as he states "I'm still hoping we'll find some Martians up there".

    Note I am not commenting on the validity of his assertions vis a vis lab pictures--just on your statements.

  22. Clarke, Shmarke.. by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

    I pity the fool who doesn't name an asteroid after one of The Onion's previous interviewees, Mr T.

  23. Re:small nitpick about your comment by Vilim · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually Asimov was the one who said (through one of his charecters) "Violence is the last REFUGE of the incompetent" (emphasis mine to point out the fact that you misquoted him.

    It was Salvor Hardins' motto throughout the Foundation Series (by Isaac Asimov). The Foundation series was among the best Science Fiction I have ever read (although Childhoods End still retains the top spot).

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  24. Sorry to play fanboy but... by mekkab · · Score: 1

    The Onion AV section holds plenty of weight, even after the joke articles get old.

    I find their music and film criticism to be especially astute; I'm sure there are examples of bad calls but on the whole I find their criticism insightful.

    And their interviews are top-notch.

    The biggest problem with the AV club is the annoying ad click-through. But the content is good enough for me to look past.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  25. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just his glasses frames.

  26. Re:Going nuts? by bain · · Score: 1

    Ummm first comment is regarding life on mars ..
    second comment is about intelligent life.

    therefor he's seen pictures of life on mars .. and it's not intelligent (stems and leaves), but plantlike :)

    --
    Sanity is a majority vote.
  27. Re:Going nuts? by frission · · Score: 1

    while i was reading it...i could have sworn he was going to say that "it's a terrible waste of space" :)

  28. You know you're both old and famous when... by darnok · · Score: 5, Funny

    you've written two autobiographies

  29. Re:Article Text by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

    I hope it inspires them to go buy my other books.

    Hah, that's certainly an interesting thing to say.

  30. Childhood's End by apsmith · · Score: 1

    I did kind of like that one, but I thought a much more interesting Clarke book, concerning the long future, was "The City and the Stars". Anybody else have favorites?

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

    1. Re:Childhood's End by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

      Fountains of Paradise and the first Rama book (not the subsequent, over-long Gentry Lee books).

      --
      Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    2. Re:Childhood's End by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      I did kind of like that one, but I thought a much more interesting Clarke book, concerning the long future, was "The City and the Stars". Anybody else have favorites?

      You've just named it -- "The City and the Stars", IMHO, is one of the most beautiful, poignant sci-fi tales ever written. Pure genius.

      Did you ever read the short story on which it was based -- "Against the Fall of Night"?. And the sequel to that, written by Gregory Benford -- "Beyond the Fall of Night"?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    3. Re:Childhood's End by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you actually. It's my favorite book. Ever.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    4. Re:Childhood's End by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Fountains of Paradise (no kidding - look at handle, though I also like the playwright he stole the name from), The Songs of Distant Earth, and the stories Rescue Party, 9 Billion Names of God, and The Star. 2001 the novel is pretty good, too.

    5. Re:Childhood's End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe it! The City and the Stars has been my favorite book since grade school (I'm now in my 30s)!!! I've never met anyone else who had even read it! Every time I've ever brought it up, I get a blank stare.

    6. Re:Childhood's End by Slurm-V · · Score: 1

      Beyond the Fall of Night is perhaps one of the greatest crimes against literature ever perpetrated. Not even amazon astroturfing gives it over two stars. It really butchered the style and meaning of the earlier work, and the ending is like something a 12 year old might write (In fact, when I was twelve, I think I did - at least I consigned mine to the dustbin of history). Has Benford ever actually done anything worth reading? This travesty scared me off him.

      --
      Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
    7. Re:Childhood's End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I really liked Beyond the fall of night. But then again I liked Alice in Wonderland. ;-)

    8. Re:Childhood's End by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Yes, all the Rama books and the Odyssey books except 3001.

    9. Re:Childhood's End by imaginate · · Score: 1

      Add me to that list ;). It has long been my favorite book, since I found it in the library and it set me off... I wonder what one could tell about people who just loved that book.

      Has anyone read The Light of Other Days? It's written with Stephen Baxter, but it's got true Clarke genius and wonder in it. After a series of (dare I say it) rather lame (for him) books, that one was the first book I'd read in a long time that brought me back to when I was a kid, when I would read the last quarter of the book in total amazement and close it at the end just to think for awhile. If you haven't read it, it's worth a look (don't expect to have my experience though, I hate it when overly high expectations ruin an experience).

    10. Re:Childhood's End by imaginate · · Score: 1

      I already commented in this thread, but I just reread your commment and realized that you mentioned the "long future". I think that's what always pulled me in to Clarke, and especially the City and the Stars... that strange sensation of perpetuity, of what might happen in a world so far extrapolated from where most sci-fi writers can even reach.

      That's what I like about The Light of Other Days, as I said in my other comment, but I also think Asimov touched on a similiar feeling in his short story, The Last Question. It's always on the list of his best shorts, and it's always worth a reread (though the first read is best).

      A story that you may or may not enjoy is The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, a book based upon Vernor Vinge's idea of the Singularity. It's more violent than I'm usually amenable to, but it's the best online novella I've ever read (actually the only one I've really gotten into, because I hate reading stories off the screen). The whole idea of the Singularity blew my mind (and still does), and this story takes it to a far point... worth a shot if you haven't given it one, IMHO.

    11. Re:Childhood's End by imaginate · · Score: 1

      I've already posted twice in this thread, but since it's an old one I thought I'd reply to you in case you check your replies.

      I too love The City and the Stars (in fact, saying that got you added to my friends list)... have you read The Light of Other Days? See my other comments for my thoughts on that (I'm trying not to get too repetitive). Worth a read...

  31. Or... by sczimme · · Score: 1, Funny


    perhaps he had some other 'Star' topic in mind when he said 'Federation'. Hmmm...

    :-)

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  32. Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Leto-II · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Was I the only one who noticed this little quote?

    Incidentally, have you heard about the discovery of the largest living creature on Earth? Would you believe it's two or three miles across, and probably several thousand years old, and still growing? It's this fungus that's eating Oregon. It's a single creature. I'm not quite sure how that's determined.

    Does anyone know WTF he is talking about here? Before I came back to China last year I didn't seem to remember my fellow Oregonians running away in fear from the killer fungus...

    --
    Do not anger the worm.
    1. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Bombcar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google for the humongous fungus

      Here's one story. It is big, and it doesn't move.

    2. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      These may be of some interest:

      Link 1

      Link 2

      Link 3

      Hope they help.

    3. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by buddahboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google for the humongous fungus
      I don't think anyone with a fondness for the english language could fail to appreciae that sentence....

    4. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most humungous fungus among us?

    5. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Mangal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fungi, live plants, have "indeterminant growth"- this means they do not have a maximum size or age that they reach and maintain; instead, they grow until they run out of resources or can't maintain their bulk anymore. Even then, they may just lop off body parts and start over from that point OR fragment into multiple bodies, each capable of growing independently of the others. The giant fungus in Oregon (and the one in Michigan's UP, and the others we haven't found yet or have forgotten about) is UNDERGROUND (except for the occasional fruiting body), and isn't eating "the state of Oregon"- it's gathering resources from dead/decaying matter. Decomposition makes the world go round.

      --
      I'm not just being paranoid- I've seen the data.
    6. Re:Maybe I shouldn't go back to Oregon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their's a fungus among'us

  33. Re:Giant Fungus?? by pertinax18 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nevermind, I am amazingly stupid, it was the FIRST result from google when searching for "largest living creature earth fungus oregon"

    http://www.extremescience.com/biggestlivingthing.h tm

  34. vegetaiton statement by VAXcat · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/marsveg01.htm

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  35. Would that make Windows... by blorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Black magic? Its behaviour is certainly often incomprehensible.

  36. Fungus Eating Oregon by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In the article, Clarke mentions the "largest living creature" to be a fungus two or three miles across "eating Oregon."

    His word choice leads one to envision doom and death, and I was sufficiently motiviated to search for more info on this beastie.

    http://www.harpers.org/Oregon.html

    http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1b080700.html

    Google search gets you more.

    on another topic: Anyone amazed at how many quotes this guy has stored up in his head?

    --
    I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    1. Re:Fungus Eating Oregon by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
      There seems to be a constant string of "world's largest organism" claims. I have also read that a particular forest of Aspen trees is the world's largest living thing and that a seasonal algae bloom in the Great Salt Lake is.

      If you have ever flown over the lake on that approach to the SLC airport you know that there is something odd going on in that lake.

    2. Re:Fungus Eating Oregon by rickshaf · · Score: 1

      Nice job of searching. But you missed the one from the Food Network announcing the long series of shows on "Emeril Live!" on how to cook the "Musroom That Ate Oregon"! I thought the last episode, "Grilled Chicken Heart (that ate New Jersey) with Mushroom (that ate Oregon)" with special guest star Bill Cosby, was a bit over the top! Cosby's had that chicken heart in the freezer since - what? - 1965?

  37. Great Quote from the Article by jsonic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    O: Another favorite quote you tend to bring up in interviews is, "If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they can't be very important gods." Can you expound on that?

    ACC: [Laughs.] Well, I was rather a cynic once. But now I've combined all my beliefs into this phrase I've been circulating: "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." It's adapted from a phrase by the British writer and scientist Richard Dawkins, who said that religion was a mind virus, an idea that infected the mind. He said that not all mind-viruses are malignant; some may even be beneficial. But many are harmful--racist theories, for instance.

    1. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Your logic is flawed. Clarke says "religion is the most malevolent mind virus". That statement says nothing about secular humanism. The only conclusion about secular humanism that be drawn from that statement is that Clarke believes that secular humanism is not as malevolent as religion (since religion is the most malevolent).

    2. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      An amazing conclusion you jumped to there - can you show your logical working?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:Great Quote from the Article by indianajones428 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about this one?

      "I'm very fond of the quote--I don't know who said it first--'The best proof that there's intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't come here.'"

      Arthur C. Cleark quoting Bill Watterson....

      Very cool.

      --
      When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
    4. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your logic is flawed. Clarke says "religion is the most malevolent mind virus". That statement says nothing about secular humanism.

      The previous poster's logic *is* flawed, but he makes the same mistake that you do: differentiating between secular humanism and religion. As religion does not necessarily require belief in the supernatural, secular humanism fits the definition (or "at least one" definition) of religion. (Maybe Clarke meant "belief in the supernatural" when he said "religion", but that wouldn't be very intellectually honest.)

      Clarke's statement could be interpreted as a condemnation of zealous devotion to anything at all, but as someone who is zealously devoted to a number of different things, I don't prefer that view.

      Instead, I interpret Clarke's statement as a criticism of lack of critical thinking. People often believe things for bad reasons, and it's no excuse if some of those things happen to be true. Phrased like that, I might agree; it's quite possible that bad decision-making has the most harmful influence on humanity.

    5. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bertie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm surprised at him, really. He goes on about "religious wars, the Inquisition, the Crusades" as justification for his point. I'd expect a man of his intelligence and insight to realise that if man hadn't used religion as an excuse for this despicable behaviour, we'd have used something else instead. It's not religion, Arthur, it's one set of people perceiving themselves as different from (and by implication superior to) another, and it's a story as old as time. I'm a bit disappointed that he's taken such a simplistic viewpoint on the matter.

    6. Re:Great Quote from the Article by drudd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think that he took an overly simplistic viewpoint... he mentions racism as another example of a "mind virus," so it seems to me that he's blaming such conflicts on exactly the type of segregationist thinking that you mention. A mind virus would naturally play to the desires of its host, i.e. the idea that one is superior to everyone else, otherwise it could never propagate.

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    7. Re:Great Quote from the Article by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      too many otherwise intelligent and interesting people fall into this trap.

      saul williams is one of them, and he also fallen victim to the "us bad, them good" school of thought.

    8. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are "racist theories" considered religion? Summing all religion up as a "mind virus" then comparing it to "racist theories".. hmm..

    9. Re:Great Quote from the Article by brucmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's different because it shifts accountability onto others. Being able to say "God told me to" makes it God's fault, whereas other excuses invariably come back to humans at some point.

    10. Re:Great Quote from the Article by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "it's one set of people perceiving themselves as different from (and by implication superior to) another,"

      ...and religion facilitates your worries quite well. The psychological reasons, and their religious genesis, behind these very behaviours are very well known. My "god", pick up a newspaper for the proof...

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    11. Re:Great Quote from the Article by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arthur, it's one set of people perceiving themselves as different from (and by implication superior to) another

      Yes, but the problem is that nearly all religions actually encourage people to perceive themselves as different, or superior, if they belong to that religion.

      if man hadn't used religion as an excuse for this despicable behaviour, we'd have used something else instead.

      Really? So the Crusades, for instance, would have still happened if there wasn't a religious basis for it? I doubt it very much.

    12. Re:Great Quote from the Article by KodaK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I seriously doubt he has such a simplistic view of it. He's doing a light interview and it was an offhand comment. I'm sure when we all get as old as he is we'll have little patience for rattling off the same crap over and over for a new audience of noobs.

      --
      --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    13. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, but the problem is that nearly all religions actually encourage people to perceive themselves as different, or superior, if they belong to that religion."

      False, only true in monotheistic religions. If you believe in only one god, then naturally everyone else is wrong by default. Holy wars are purely a product of monotheism, to lump religion as a whole because of the sin of a few (Islam, Christianity, etc) is silly in the extreme. Polytheistic religions always have been quite tolerant, after all if you believe in dozens or more gods what bother is it if someone else believes in something entirely different? You hardly care.

    14. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it irritating in the extreme that some of the brightest people in the world can have the dumbest grasp of spirituality and religion. Athiests tend to discount religion as a whole based on the sins of some of the more recent. Christianity certainly has blood on his hands, as does Islam or Judaism for that matter - but dismiss all religion as a whole? My god it stuns me. Holy war and religious hatred is a disease born of monotheism, there were no "holy wars" before monothiesm. If you believe in dozens or more gods, you give a rats shit what your neighbor worships. Then "there is only one god" thinking develops, and therefor all else is instantly invalid and worse - evil. Violence all around. But to dismiss all of religion? If they had their way man would be soulless and purely rational and, might I add, less human. Is there a god? I won't touch that hot topic, but there is a soul. As much as I in general dislike Christianity, it has moved lots of people to do amazing things, as have many other paths.

    15. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Minor nitpick - race is predominantly about genetic stock than religion, although those of particular genetic stock may have large numbers who are of a particular faith.

      However I agree with you - race is how many group themselves, and seeing how ingrained religious identity is to some, how 'important' it is to them, often means it is the most harmfull kind of grouping.

      Not all grouping is bad, rather it works on a sliding scale. Many people who live in America come from vastly different genetic stock and still see themselves as 'Americans'. This grouping can be harmful (makeshift patriots labeling anything against the Bush administration anti-patriotic) and positive (find an example dave).

      Clarke is oversimplifying in this interview yes, buy it is doubtful he has this simplified view.


      --
      Mainstream religious people are ignorant,
      Athiests are arogant,

      I'm undecisive, dithering agnostic who can't make up his mind to make up his mind.

    16. Re:Great Quote from the Article by PyromanFO · · Score: 1

      So the Atheist Fascists never did anything bad without Religon? That's his point, people will find an excuse to be horrible monsters with or without Religon.

    17. Re:Great Quote from the Article by pubjames · · Score: 1, Informative

      So the Atheist Fascists never did anything bad without Religon?

      If you are referring to Adolf Hitler, he was a Christian and spoke quite a bit about Christianity in Mein Kampf.

    18. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bad argument. From 'religionists cause wars' we cannot infer 'atheists cause no wars'.

      Of course, there are some evil atheists. But the 'people will find an excuse' argument is just weak. You might as well defend racist beliefs on the basis that 'Southerners would have found an excuse to string up black people anyway'.

      Religion, in general, is a system of false beliefs that cause people to behave badly. Just like racism. EOT

    19. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no.

      Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, which is actually related to Norse legends and is more tied into the occult.

      People know we are Christians by the fruits of our labors. We are called upon to love our neighbors, not kill them.

      Hitler was definately NOT a Christian, regardless of what he claimed.

    20. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well national socialism (as I guess you're referring too) wasn't just a political view. A belief in the manifest destiny of the arian race and the natural superiority of that race made it a lot more akin to a religion.

      I can't look at "Triumph des Willens" (Triumph of the Will) without seeing a religious gathering rather than a political one.
      I'm not trying to equate modern day, mainstream religion with naziism, but calling nazis atheists doesn't really fly either, and the deeper religion (and the feeling of being righteous whatever you do) goes, the scarier the comparison becomes.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    21. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Which Crusades are you refering to... the Muslim or the Christian?

      The Crusades argument is a popular with non-Christians and ignores the historical context of the time. Truth is, the "Christian" crusades were a political backlash against the Muslim crusaders who invaded Europe years before. The Battle of Tours in France was the turning point in which the Muslims were finally pushed back to the Middle East.

      The "Christian" crusades were a politically driven backlash which preyed upon the "revenge factor" of the common man. Europeans had been fighting back against the Muslim invaders for years, and leaders easily incited the people towards revenge. Attrocities were commited in the name of my God, and that is truly unfortunate. But please do not omit the historical context of the time.

    22. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the problem is that nearly all religions actually encourage people to perceive themselves as different, or superior, if they belong to that religion.

      That is true of non-Christian religions, but true Christianity holds fast to the statement that we ARE fallen, and that we are not better than others. If you don't believe me, investigate.

    23. Re:Great Quote from the Article by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And you might as well absolve Christianity of all blame for the Crusades by claiming that the popes who ordered them weren't Christians, either.

      Hell, by your definition Christianity is probably the smallest religion that ever existed.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    24. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      False, only true in monotheistic religions. If you believe in only one god, then naturally everyone else is wrong by default. Holy wars are purely a product of monotheism, to lump religion as a whole because of the sin of a few (Islam, Christianity, etc) is silly in the extreme. Polytheistic religions always have been quite tolerant, after all if you believe in dozens or more gods what bother is it if someone else believes in something entirely different? You hardly care.


      The Romans did. At least, they seemed to care when they conquered the Greeks.

    25. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people equate religion with thinking something is right without any proof?

      I know the two go hand in hand, but you can have one without the other.

      The only type of person who does not think something is right without any proof is a deeply troubled pessimistic cynic. He who believes nothing, no matter what evidence is provided.

    26. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he got the quote wrong. It's "Atheism is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.".

    27. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...does not necessarily require belief in the supernatural..."

      Uh, sorry? Could you expound on that? I'd think that religion by definition deals with something beyond the natural. Unless of course you take the view that this 'god' thing is natural, and therefore is not supernatural or whatever. Even zen (the only religion I'm aware of lacking a god) is supernatural, in that the final attainable state is beyond this earth (although of course a taoist would say tht it is the ultimate acheivable form of nature).

      Anyway, you are missing the obvious here: maybe mister Clarcke means /exactly/ what he is quoted as saying: religion is ultimately a very bad thing, when it's good and bad points are balanced.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    28. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I did. It's not.

      To quote from the Council for Secular Humanism:

      "Critics often try to classify secular humanism as a religion. Yet secular humanism lacks essential characteristics of a religion, including belief in a deity and an accompanying transcendent order. Secular humanists contend that issues concerning ethics, appropriate social and legal conduct, and the methodologies of science are philosophical and are not part of the domain of religion, which deals with the supernatural, mystical and transcendent."

    29. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just out of interest, what is required in terms of belief in order for something to be categorized as a religion, rather than simply a belief about the world?

    30. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well it depends on how you define 'crusade' ofcourse. I'd be hard pressed to call the Norman conquest of England a crusade, even though they must have surely prayed a lot.

      Fact is, in medieval times every leader and his uncle were aching to get their hands on more land. That some of the ensuing batles pitted christian against muslem hardly qualifies those battles as crusades.

      The 'christian' crusades however, were pretty different in that they were VERY definitely about religion.

      I don't blame modern christians for crimes of the past, but I don't look kindly on even a hint of excuses. The crusades were evil, period! Saying 'others did it too' doesn't change that.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    31. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 0

      That is true of non-Christian religions, but true Christianity holds fast to the statement that we ARE fallen, and that we are not better than others.

      So you're saying that true christians don't feel superior, but since they're no better than others they do?

      Or do you mean that true christians NEVER feel superior to others and that only other religions do that? Which is a ridiculous statement.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    32. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True christians dont feel superior, and dont care if other religious asshats think they do.

    33. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 0

      Sheesh was that a point just flying over your head? Damn it just missed you.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    34. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 2
      I suppose that it depends on who is doing the categorizing. I don't know, myself; it's a complicated thing.

      One online dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

      So perhaps it is not just the belief, but what one does with it, that makes a religion. That can't be the whole story, though, because lots of people don't do anything about their "religious" beliefs.

    35. Re:Great Quote from the Article by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, Hitler was not a Christian. Quick google for Hitler Christian turned up a plethora of links telling otherwise. Mods, please verify facts before modding things like this up. I forfeit my ability to mod this story so that I could post a proper rebuttal to this. Corrections should be made.

    36. Re:Great Quote from the Article by pseboproxy · · Score: 1
      Arthur, it's one set of people perceiving themselves as different from (and by implication superior to) another

      Yes, but the problem is that nearly all religions actually encourage people to perceive themselves as different, or superior, if they belong to that religion.

      if man hadn't used religion as an excuse for this despicable behaviour, we'd have used something else instead.

      Really? So the Crusades, for instance, would have still happened if there wasn't a religious basis for it? I doubt it very much.

      I don't believe we need to cite historical evidence for Clarke's statement. We're supplying plenty in this thread. Sure, a flame war hasn't erupted, largely due to the fact that the majority of /. readers are a bit more mature than that, but the comment obviously ruffled some feathers.

      I think that's what makes Clarke's statement relevant. The trouble isn't religion itself, it's the way religion has become so embedded into our brains. To generalize, to hear religion challenged is abhorrent to everything we know. And often, it's taken as a call to arms.

      I good /. parallel would be a post defending MS's abuse of their monopoly.

      Lots of things can be "mind-virii" ... religion is one of the most universally (or, at least globally) prevalent examples, again, not necessarily due to the violence it's sparked, but because so many of us have hard-wired our brains with it. The violence (et al.) is the reason for the clarification 'malevolent,' not the term 'virus.'

      .psbprx(y)

    37. Re:Great Quote from the Article by jnicholson · · Score: 1

      Religion as a motivator has the one 'advantage' that the individual will sacrifice his / her life in a selfish action, in anticipation of reward in an afterlife. A nationalist or patriot may sacrifice his / her life in a slightly less selfish cause; i.e. one which will benefit his / her family / tribe / nation rather than him/herself. But I contend that there are more selfish people than unselfish people, particularly amongst those who prefer to believe that some aspect of society is 'wrong' and requires destruction.

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
    38. Re:Great Quote from the Article by lga · · Score: 1
      So you're saying that true christians don't feel superior, but since they're no better than others they do?

      True Christians shouldn't feel superior. Christians have sinned too, the difference is that we have accepted Gods offer of peace in Jesus.
    39. Re:Great Quote from the Article by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, what is required in terms of belief in order for something to be categorized as a religion, rather than simply a belief about the world?

      I've always liked the definition Clifford Geertz published in 1966. This is something of a standard in anthropological circles:

      A religion is
      (1) a system of symbols which acts to
      (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in (humans) by
      (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
      (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
      (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. (Geertz 1966: 4)

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    40. Re:Great Quote from the Article by lga · · Score: 1
      after all if you believe in dozens or more gods what bother is it if someone else believes in something entirely different?


      If you believe in many gods, what point is there in worshipping them? One God that is responsible for all of creation is worth worshipping but many small gods would not be, in my opinion.
    41. Re:Great Quote from the Article by lga · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And you might as well absolve Christianity of all blame for the Crusades by claiming that the popes who ordered them weren't Christians, either.

      It doesn't matter if the popes who ordered the crusades were Christian or not - what happened was done in the name of Christianity and God and as a Christian I am ashamed of it.

      However, a lot of things done in the name of Christians are just using the nearest excuse and have little to do with religion.
    42. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Trailwalker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Crusades used religion as an excuse for looting, pillaging, and land grabs. A major goal was the seizing of lands by younger and non-inheriting members of the nobility. As much effort went into fighting and looting christian states as muslim. Constantinople, the Christian citys of costal Anatolia suffered from the invasion of the European barbarians. When Jerusalem fell, resident Christians, Jews, and Muslims were slaughtered indiscriminately. Without religion, another excuse would have been found for the invasion of a preceivced weaker area.

    43. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could find many communist that could fit that description.

    44. Re:Great Quote from the Article by grammaticaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please.

      A group can define itself as anything it wants. A lot of religions don't consider themselves "religions." A google search for "is not a religion" turns up pages that say:

      1. Christianity is not a religion.
      2. Buddhism is not a religion.
      3. Scientology is not a religion.
      4. Ahimsa is not a relgion.
      5. Hinduism is not a religion.

      et c., for Creationism, evolution(ism, I guess), Ba'Hai, Wicca, Yoga, Zen Buddhism, Falun Gong, and Alcoholics Anonymous -- just to use the first two pages of results. So, you're going to have to do better than to say that Secular Humanism doesn't consider itself a religion to prove that it's not.

    45. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      The best proof that there's intelligent life in the universe is that it hasn't come here.

      They don't come here because the Milky Way is zoned industrial.

      Better hope there're no accidents. Just look at what happened in M87.

    46. Re:Great Quote from the Article by transient · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And to make matters worse, it's not God's fault because God is faultless.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    47. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or about 90% of New Zealand when it comes to Rugby...

    48. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Atheism and agnosticism are not incompatable. One can say that knowlege of god is impossible (agnostic) but then conclude via occam's razor that this means it's best to act as if god is nonexistant than to act as if god is existant.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    49. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Secular Humanism *is* a form of religion. Religion doesn't require belief in a god (after all Buddhism is most certainly a religion, and yet it doesn't talk of any gods at all.) Keep in mind I say this as an atheist. It is entirely possible (but not by any means guaranteed) for an atheist to have a religion. Religion is a style of thought involving a high degree of faith, and it doesn't have to be faith in a god to count.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    50. Re:Great Quote from the Article by brucmack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, so the system just drives the thought process in circles.

      The way I see it, there are two basic types of wars... The first type is where you kill the other people for the sake of taking what they have. The second is killing for the sake of ridding the world of a certain kind of people. I think that religion has little influence on the first kind, but much influence on the second kind. People aren't automatically racist and hateful at birth, in fact children are usually the best at getting along regardless of race. So it's the belief system that shapes those things, and religion is usually at the core.

    51. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Oh please.

      While the specific quote I used was from a secular humanist organization, the point was that the most commonly accepted definition of "religion" includes the idea that it involves deities and the supernatural (as a perusal of pretty much any dictionary will confirm), and that secular humanism is not concerned with those concepts.

      I will be interested to see what alternative definition of religion you can offer that encompasses secular humanism without being so overly broad that it is useless for communication. Pray tell what are the defining characteristics of religion, if not belief in deities and/or the supernatural?

      Oh, and please don't try to pull out that hoary old argument about secular humanists' (or atheists') lack of belief in the supernatural constituting a belief about the supernatural, and thus a religion. That's like saying that a lack of belief in UFOs makes one a UFO conspiracy theorist: great rhetoric, but it makes the label "UFO conspiracy theorist" completely pointless since it no longer allows us to differentiate between those who believe in UFOs and those who don't.

    52. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Religion doesn't require belief in a god

      So what does define "religion" then, if not a belief in the supernatural?

      ...Buddhism is most certainly a religion, and yet it doesn't talk of any gods at all...

      Oh really?. A brief examination of Buddhist cosmology would tend to negate that assertion.

      Religion is a style of thought involving a high degree of faith, and it doesn't have to be faith in a god to count.

      1. That is not the commonly accepted definition of the word "religion". Most dictionaries will specifically mention religion's supernatural component.
      2. If you choose to dilute the definition of religion that much then it becomes effectively a useless word. Do you have some other word for differentiating those who believe in god from those who don't? (theist vs atheist perhaps?)
      3. Why do you choose to dilute the definition of religion such that encompasses secular humanism (which by virtue of the word "secular" in its name is, in the conventional interpretation, specifically not religious in nature). What do you gain by doing so?
    53. Re:Great Quote from the Article by eam · · Score: 1

      He was asked about religion. It wasn't like they asked what caused all the problems in the world & he said religion. I don't think it is simplistic to say that religion has been (and continues to be) used to justify harm to individuals and society as a whole. That seems sufficient justification to turn away from religion.

    54. Re:Great Quote from the Article by grammaticaster · · Score: 1

      Here's the Webster definition of religion:

      1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)
      b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
      (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

      2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

      3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

      4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

      See the fourth definition. I would consider Secular Humanism to be a system of beliefs (or cause or principle), and many of its adherents hold to its tenets with great ardor and faith (in science, the general ill-will of other religions, et c.).

      You have to realize that many followers of religions don't actually believe in any of the "supernatural" portion of their faith, and continue to act on its rules and ethics out of some other personal source of goodwill. How is that so different from Secular Humanism?

    55. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

      Which is all very well, but it means that pretty much anything that anyone feels strongly about becomes a "religion". Now, while I may joke about rugby being New Zealand's "national religion", it's fairly clear that there is a large difference between rugby-mania and devotion to a set of beliefs about the supernatural. But your (and Webster's) definition makes it seem like there's little difference between a "real" religion and a bunch of rugby fanatics. Which, as I said before, is a handy rhetorical device (particularly when you're trying to argue that any attempt to keep religion out of schools amounts to secular humanism and thus the state promotion of religion). But it really does very little to aid in communication.

      You have to realize that many followers of religions don't actually believe in any of the "supernatural" portion of their faith, and continue to act on its rules and ethics out of some other personal source of goodwill. How is that so different from Secular Humanism?

      It's different because the rules and ethics are rooted in a worldview based on the supernatural (that is after all the fundamental defining difference between religion and secular humanism). It's different because they are "followers of a religion", which means they have some kind of implicit beliefs about the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise they would be secular humanists of one brand or another.

    56. Re:Great Quote from the Article by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, I do have some problems whith churches (the institutions that is, not the buildings :)) but I'm not anti-religion.

      I was just trying to make fun of the AC who said that "true christians don't feel superior, only other religions do that" (paraphrased), I hope you can see the irony here.

      I keep thinking about Beavis and Butthead in court saying "uhm, it was those other guys that did it"

      Anyway, sorry for the late reply, since the story is long dead and all, but you seem like a nice guy so cheers! :)

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    57. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Your comments make no sense because they seem to be predicated on the premise that:
      no god == no supernatural.
      Not so. God is just one of many concepts that fit under the generic umbrella term "supernatural". So saying that religion doesn't have to include belief in god does NOT say that religion doesn't have to include belief in the supernatural. For example, buddhism is full of supernatural beliefs. But, belief in a god isn't one of them.

      Do you have some other word for differentiating those who believe in god from those who don't? (theist vs atheist perhaps?)

      Of course. That's what those words MEAN.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    58. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Your comments make no sense because they seem to be predicated on the premise that:

      no god == no supernatural

      Look, this argument was about whether or not secular humanism constitutes a religion. Religions involve supernatural beliefs (which may or may not include one or more gods). Secular humanism does not include supernatural beliefs. Ergo secular humanism is not a religion. End of story.

      buddhism is full of supernatural beliefs

      Perhaps you should take another look at the buddhist cosmology I linked to. They don't believe in a god. They believe in a whole slew of them. Plus a bunch of other supernatural stuff.

    59. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Secular humanism does not include supernatural beliefs

      Wrong.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    60. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Wrong.

      Could you substantiate that? Perhaps by giving an example of the supernatural beliefs that secular humanists apparently hold?

    61. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1
      Some examples from: http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html


      Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

      [...]
      A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
      [...]
      A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
      [...]
      A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
      [...]


      Those are all admirable, and in general I agree with them, but they do hinge upon a certain level of faith - faith that, in general, people are good. This is not evidenced. It is hoped for, but not evidenced in the slightest. I wish I was more optomistic such that I could accept this primary tenet, but based on what I see of human behaviour, I cannot. It is an interesting goal to shoot for, but the belief that humans have some kind of empathic connection that will steer them toward good behaviour if left alone just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. To a large extent people believe this (that humans are inherently good) merely because it feels good to believe it, and *that* is religious thinking.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    62. Re:Great Quote from the Article by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      [sigh]

      First of all, none of those three quotes mentions anything supernatural (i.e. outside of nature, or appealing to something beyond understanding by the scientific method). No no deities, no spirits, no other planes of existence beyond the ken of mortal men. Faith does not equate to supernatural belief.

      Secondly, if you re-read the three examples you give you will see that they do not in fact hinge upon "faith that, in general, people are good":

      • A desire to see fulfillment and growth does not require people to be good, just as my desire to see the my favorite team to win the world cup does not require that team to be good (although it would be nice).
      • A committment to understanding does not require people to be good, just as my committment to understanding why SCO are doing what they're doing doesn't require SCO to be good.
      • A conviction that "with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made", does not require people to be good, or to have an empathic connection, or anythng of the sort. It merely states a belief that if people are good then things will be better - which seems almost tautological.
      Nowhere, is there any expressed belief "that humans have some kind of empathic connection that will steer them toward good behaviour if left alone." Nowhere is there an example of supernatural beliefs. The underlying message of secular humanism is that we can't rely on any outside influence (deity, spirit, universal guiding force, mysterious empathic connection, or whatever) to solve our problems. Secular humanism says: If we want the world to be a better place (quote #1) we need to do it ourselves, first by understanding the problems (quote #2), and then by using the tools available (reason, free flow of information, tolerance for other viewpoints - quote #3) to construct solutions to those problems.
    63. Re:Great Quote from the Article by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      They still hinge upon faith that people are good because they hinge upon the belief that bettering humankind is a good thing to do, which would not be the case if we are, on average, bad people. The death of the human race might actually be overall beneficial if we are not a posative influence.

      And, yes it does hinge upon a certain style of human empathic connection, because without that, there's no motivation to *want* something better for your fellow humans.

      And, incedentally, this kind of faith isn't a bad thing. Using faith to try to understand the world (how did we get here, why does this planet exist, is there a god, etc) is bad because it's a useless tool for that application, kind of like trying to turn a screw with a wrench. But using faith to decide how to behave toward other people (I don't know if this person is good or bad, but I'll assume he's good at first because that makes me feel better) is perfectly cromulent, and that's exactly what secular humanism does. This is not a condemnation of it. Not at all.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  38. 20{01,10} by pergamon · · Score: 4, Funny
    O: Have you seen the movie recently at all?

    ACC: No. I want to look at it again, and also 2010, which I did with [director] Peter Hyams, and which was also quite good. I can't remember when I did last see it.


    What's his address? I'll mail him the damn DVDs.
    1. Re:20{01,10} by jcoleman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the love of Bowman, be sure that the DVDs have the right region encoding.

    2. Re:20{01,10} by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just make sure you send him one with the correct encoding

  39. That's _Sir_ paedophile, to you, commoner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
    WTF is up with QEII?!!! She's knighting adulterers and paedophiles right and left.[*] It's like she's trying to outdo the Pope.

    [*]There's a reason that Clarke lives in Sri Lanka or whatever the fuck it's called this week. Easy access to young boys and lax law enforcement and extradition.

    1. Re:That's _Sir_ paedophile, to you, commoner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the parent will get modded down to oblivian if it hasn't been already, but for the sake of argument, so what if he is a paedophile? Does that change the fact that he is an excellent writer, with some very insightful ideas?

  40. The 2,200 Acre Thousand Year Old Oregonian Fungus by blorg · · Score: 5, Informative
    Incidentally, have you heard about the discovery of the largest living creature on Earth? Would you believe it's two or three miles across, and probably several thousand years old, and still growing? It's this fungus that's eating Oregon. It's a single creature. I'm not quite sure how that's determined.

    I did a double take on this one too, but he seems to have his facts straight.

  41. Vegitation Photos Link by FlashBIOS · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Here is a link to the vegitation photos that he seems to be talking about. It also includes a breif description of what it might be

    My questions is, why hasn't this been bigger news? Did it come out and I just missed it?

    1. Re:Vegitation Photos Link by Rxke · · Score: 1

      You just missed it, I guess, I'm European, and I knew about it, IIRC i eead it on BBC Online and other places, too...

      It might've been no real headline news, but it was definitely a headline in the science-sections in several newspapers... I recall asking myself the same question as ACC: 'how did they etermine it was one organism?'

    2. Re:Vegitation Photos Link by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      This quote from the same page probably explains why you don't hear much about it in the news:

      The weight of scientific opinion currently remains very much against the possibility of surface life of any kind on Mars. By contrast, opinion is more or less evenly divided on the issue of past life and of extant subterranean Martian life.

      So, for now, it's just a theory by a couple of scientists, and not many others agree that the dark spots are vegetation.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    3. Re:Vegitation Photos Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wondering why you didn't see something on American TV that you may have wanted to know about, or should know about? Wow. Turn the channel from FoxNews, and flip on the BBC, Canadian news, etc... stay away from our news, it will warp your mind.

  42. Re:So this is it, he has finally lost it? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've met people involved with leaves and stems and things that seemed a bit odd, but knew an awful lot about hydroponics.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  43. Re:Going nuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a fairly strong indication of it, though, isn't it?

  44. Re:Going nuts? by stereo_Barryo · · Score: 1

    My friend Robert Clemenzi created a program to view the Mars pictures in stereo. It downloads JPL pictures and then allows you to view them in cross-eyed stereo. He believes that some of the debris looks like spiral conch shells. Whether or not this is true, it is an enjoyable program to play with and I recommend it: http://www.cpcug.org/user/clemenzi/science/MarsIma ges_3D.html

  45. A really good book of Clarke's by gosand · · Score: 4, Informative

    I highly recommend his book "Greetings, Carbon Based Bipeds", which is a collection of his various writings. Very entertaining reading, especially when you consider the timeframe when some of them were written. (1934-1998) You can pick it up for next to nothing .

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:A really good book of Clarke's by ZipR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Profiles of the Future is also a very good book. Some of it is a bit dated (last revised in 1984), but a lot of his logic in arriving at the profiles is still very relevant today.

  46. Re:Article Text by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

    yeah, I would have expected him to say "read my other books", implying that he's more concerned with getting his ideas out there than the monetary rewards of writing.

  47. Onion A.V. Club Interview Collection by FilmJr · · Score: 5, Informative

    This may well have already been mentioned but... The Onion A.V. Club (the serious side of the operation) published a collection of interviews similar to the Arthur Clarke one. Book is called THE TENACITY OF A COCKROACH and includes conversations with other pop culture movers & shakers like Harlan Ellison, Chuck Jones, and George Romero. Jr.

  48. I wanna go on the ride! by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    I've got my collectables, but I have to wait for the Rendezvous With Rama Theme Park Ride. Meanwhile, I'll have to satisfy my urges by playing the Rendezvous With Rama game on my Commodore.

    The "both barrels" approach to marketing really turns me off, but I understand that's the only thing that the Hollywood establishment cares about. "Rendezvous" was one of my all-time favorite Clarke novels. I hope the movie goes into appropriately graphic detail about (queue "Pigs in Space" sound fx) : Sex In Space.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:I wanna go on the ride! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The followup books weren't nearly as good as the first one (he got another author involved who basically turned it into a love story/humans are evil plot).

      The first book made it plain that humans were too insignificant for Rama to care about us... the (3(?) other books then destroyed that and spend half their time moralising...).

  49. ACC's Mail collection address by reality-bytes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Arthur C Clarke.
    25, Barnes Place,
    Colombo 7,
    Sri Lanka.


    That should be sufficient to get the item eventually received by him; I'd guess that "Colombo 7" is actually a postal/zip code.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      That should be sufficient to get the item eventually received by him; I'd guess that "Colombo 7" is actually a postal/zip code.

      Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka. "7" is probably the city sector or section.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    2. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

      I know Columbo is the capital - I was presuming "Columbo 7" as a phrase to mean a postal code. Its just not abbreviated but was in a single phrase of the address listing.

      --
      Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    3. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap. What region of the DVD do I send him?

    4. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by lakeland · · Score: 2, Informative

      DVD region is 5.

      An odd code, which seems to span three continents but only include poorer countries. I wonder if they're trying to avoid piracy by keeping all the poorer countries in the same region?

      Given the difficuilty of buying region 5 encoded DVDs, you might be better removing the region coding and remastering it unencrypted.

    5. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (snip)

      Shame on you. Now the poor man is on for a dead-tree slashdotting, you insensitive clod !

    6. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by frostman · · Score: 1

      Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka.

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

    7. Re:ACC's Mail collection address by dodobh · · Score: 1

      City Zip
      Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  50. Re:Going nuts? by Rxke · · Score: 1

    "There's some pictures from the laboratories"

    That referring to JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratories...

    They're the ones that send out the pics, and are sometimes referred to as "the laboratories"

    So no strange secret Mars plants in a lab on 'a place that isn't Mars'

    A.C.C. commented on pictures from Odyssey, IIRC, once, in the same vein, saying the strange stuff that you could see on a certain pic was 'unmistakingly plant-like'

  51. AV Club Interviews by May+Kasahara · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, and the interviews are usually excellent. Even if they're interviewing someone I have little interest in (like Amy Sedaris or The RZA), I'll still read it, because I know it'll be interesting. The A.V. Club's reviews are usually pretty good too, though their "Films That Time Forgot" sometimes get thematic from week to week.

  52. image from mars by subtropolis · · Score: 1
    As others above have posted, he did not contradict himself at all. In fact he also did not assert that what he had seen was, indeed, vegetation. He said that they seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation. That is, he finds the image quite intriguing.

    see for yourself (*WARNING* LARGE FILE! ~8Mb i think). It is interesting. Of course, it could be debris from the lander. It'd be nice to get a comment from someone at JPL. I know that one of the rover handlers (among others at JPL) was posting here last week. Any comments?

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:image from mars by subtropolis · · Score: 0
      Sorry - forgot to say: scroll about 60% right, 50% down. And there's another object a bit further to the right, but much harder to see.

      dunno what it is, though it's odd

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    2. Re:image from mars by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the infamous "martian crab" which NASA claims is just a lump of debris, but the tinfoil-hat crowd has made a big deal out of. This is the image Mr. Clarke was mentioning.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  53. A few real Arthur C. Clarke Quotations by stuffduff · · Score: 5, Informative

    CNN is one of the participants in the war. I have a fantasy where Ted Turner is elected president but refuses because he doesn't want to give up power.

    If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong.

    It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.

    Politicians should read science fiction, not westerns and detective stories.

    The best measure of a man's honesty isn't his income tax return. It's the zero adjust on his bathroom scale.

    There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    1. Re:A few real Arthur C. Clarke Quotations by cybergrue · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clark has his own set of laws, most of which you have mentioned. He reportably created the first three because Isaac Asimov had three, however over time, a 4th has been added. ACC Laws
      1) "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
      2) "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
      3) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
      69th) "Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software."

    2. Re:A few real Arthur C. Clarke Quotations by stuffduff · · Score: 0

      Nice!

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    3. Re:A few real Arthur C. Clarke Quotations by jnicholson · · Score: 2, Funny

      70) ??? 71) Profit!

      --
      "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
      -- Nick Davies
  54. Re:WE GOT A SMART ONE HERE by Aardpig · · Score: 0

    Hah hah hah! Nice one, you really should go on stage, you crack me up!!!

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  55. Re:Going nuts? by Unnngh! · · Score: 1
    You know, I remember seeing on two of the local news stations, about 4 years ago, that unmistakable signs of life had been discovered on Mars. Ruined buildings, no less, a series of low-lying structures that could not have occurred by natural means.

    Never heard anything about it before or since that one night. I've seen plenty of photos that indicate that life existed that have been debunked; this was supposedly something new. I would agree with Arthur that the pentagon is probably not holding little green men in an underground bunker, but I've always been a bit suspicious that more is going on than we are allowed to see.

  56. What logic? Whose logic do you mean? by ianscot · · Score: 1
    That was a quote of a question and response from the interview article. Whose "logic" are you referring to? The poster, I guess, did come up with the qualifying "Great" on the post, but that's about it.

    If you have an objection, I think it's to Arthur C. Clarke's response. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:What logic? Whose logic do you mean? by jsonic · · Score: 1

      I think he was replying to the anonymous coward that replied to my original post. Since the anonymous coward's post score is 0 by default, it isnt shown. This makes any response to the ac post look like a response to mine. Quite confusing.

  57. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Martin: As your president, I would demand a science-fiction library, featuring an ABC of the overlords of the genre. Asimov, Bester, Clarke!

    Student: What abouy Ray Bradbury?

    Martin: [dismissing] I'm aware of his work...
    [orating] Thank you, and... Keep watching the skies...

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha!

  58. Experience, good for anything! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    Ah, but the real-life stories they can tell you can have real-life lessons. You figure them out.

    When my grandfather was a boy, he and his friends used to go out and tip outhouses in fields. Well, one farmer got wind of their plan ahead of time, and moved the outhouse over a few feet.

    When they went out that night to tip the outhouse, they didn't see that it had been moved.

    SPLASH!

    One kid fell into the hole in the ground. He had to ride on the back bumper all the way back to his house, where they sprayed him off with the hose.

    --

    When he was in elementary school, he and his friends would draw a circle on a table, then put flies they'd caught (and pulled the wings off of) in the center of the ring, and whoever's fly left the circle first won.

    Well, his teacher saw them doing something at their table, and as soon as one boy took his hand off the ring, their teacher slammed her hand down onto the flies (she didn't know they were there) and said, "OK, I'll take this!"

    --

    1. Re:Experience, good for anything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Um... is the lesson that all old people have the same two stories that they tell to their grandkids? I heard those two from my father AND my grandfather, as things THEY did as kids....

    2. Re:Experience, good for anything! by visgoth · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ah, but the real-life stories they can tell you can have real-life lessons. You figure them out.

      Time for the Obligatory Simpsons Quote!

      Abe Simpson: I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.

      Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    3. Re:Experience, good for anything! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Maybe because they all did a lot of the same things. It's still interesting, especially if you like family history.

      A lot of my ancestors had to be tethered to posts in their front-yards because they had a tendency to go running out into roads without looking. (Probably the same ADHD I was diagnosed with as a kid.)

    4. Re:Experience, good for anything! by sirinek · · Score: 1

      A lot of my ancestors had to be tethered to posts in their front-yards because they had a tendency to go running out into roads

      I bet they bit the mailman too.

    5. Re:Experience, good for anything! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I'll ask. I wouldn't be surprised.

      I bit a guy once. But he put his arm in front of my my face, so he shouldn't have been surprised.

  59. Film Adaptation of "Fountains of Paradise"? by liftwatch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was particularly interested in the last couple of paragraphs, regarding a possible film adaptation of Fountains of Paradise, and the fact that Clarke considers that his best/favourite novel.

    Fountains was the first novel to incorporate the modern concept of a space elevator.

    Anyone heard anything else about this news item?

    Personally, I'm hoping for Steven Spielberg. He did a terrific job on Minority Report. Between that, AI, and Taken, he's definitely on a sci-fi roll lately.

    1. Re:Film Adaptation of "Fountains of Paradise"? by One+Louder · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Personally, I'm hoping for Steven Spielberg. He did a terrific job on Minority Report. Between that, AI, and Taken, he's definitely on a sci-fi roll lately.
      Spielberg's always been doing sci-fi - however, unlike his earlier optimistic films (Close Encounters, ET), the more recent ones (Minority Report, AI) have taken a decidedly dystopian direction.

      The question is whether or not he's doing this to be considered more "serious" as a filmmaker, or if he's just becoming cynical and curmudgeonly in his elder years.

    2. Re:Film Adaptation of "Fountains of Paradise"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI was a piece of shit

  60. Re:Going nuts? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 2, Insightful
    doesn't that seem a little fishy?

    He didn't say anything about fish, actually. Stop putting words in the man's mouth. :-)

    But seriously, that statement did strike me as an odd bit of wishful thinking overpowering his otherwise healthy sense of skepticism. Jumping to grand conclusions based on sketchy facts is the kind of thing that leads to crusades, inquisitions, and other deplorable acts he attributes solely to religion.

    Nevertheless, you've gotta cut some slack for people who dare to use their imagination. So what if they're wrong much of the time? They're also right, occasionally, and in ways nobody else could have envisioned.

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  61. Obligatory Reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're obviously new to /.

    <ducks>

  62. mushroom fields? by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    "Armillaria ostoyae produces clusters of golden-brown mushrooms, but they are rarely seen in eastern Oregon because of the climate."
    http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1b 080700.html

    does this mean if the climate shifts and warms up that oregon will bloom with endless fields of mushrooms?

    1. Re:mushroom fields? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      The residents of Eugene can only hope...

  63. Shorts by first.last · · Score: 0

    I love his short stories (can't remember the titles, been a long time since I've read them) especially the one about the planet in between galaxies that's actually a living computer and starts a jihad to free similar forms of life from their biological parasites. And the one that ends with "if any of you are still white, we've found a cure."

    --
    Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
    1. Re:Shorts by Glytch · · Score: 1

      I always enjoyed his "Neutron Tide". It's only about a page long, but funny as hell. Also, "Tales From The White Hart" was great.

  64. Woohoooo by first.last · · Score: 0

    The fungus is called Armillaria ostoyae, but is more popularly known as the honey mushroom.

    if this sucker is hallucinogenic, my ass is moving there toute suite

    --
    Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
  65. Re:Going nuts? by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like about the kind of thing you'd say if you had a genetic disease that forced you to live in a robot chair.

  66. 101 reasons to explore Mars by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mars is the Dalmation Planet!

  67. Re:Going nuts? by linoleo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hawking thinks that humanity needs to genetically engineer ourselves to pre-emptively keep machines from taking us over.

    Well then, call me nuts, too, but I think this is actually a pretty inevitable conclusion once you start thinking of the big picture - say, developments over the next 1000 years or more. Hawkins may be disingenuous in going public with such long-range thoughts, but they are actually very well-founded.

    --
    Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
  68. So.... by first.last · · Score: 0

    how long did you say you've been stalking him? ;)

    --
    Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
  69. Clarke's short story (postcard) on chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I discovered this short story by Clarke through a previous /. posting concerning chess. I really enjoyed it so here it is again.

    Btw, I remember in that posting someone saying there are more possible games of chess than atom's in the universe. How is that possible? And how do you calculate # of games, with pieces moving back and forth ad infinitum?

    1. Re:Clarke's short story (postcard) on chess by blighter · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure, but I would imagine that you would calculate the number of unique positions the pieces on a chess board could take.

      Perhaps you could then winnow out ones made impossible by the rules governing piece movement and finally perhaps only look at the board positions that are a checkmate.

      It seems like a fairly straightforward problem, given enough time to think about it.

    2. Re:Clarke's short story (postcard) on chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the number of possible legal positions reachable from the initial set up. It's some huge huge number.

      However most of these positions will never be reached by players of a decent caliber, hence we have a (relatively) small opening book that is played repeatedly in competitions.

    3. Re:Clarke's short story (postcard) on chess by 26199 · · Score: 1
      A chess game can't be endless, because repeating the same position three times makes it a draw...

      The number of possible games however, is absolutely huge. Mindnumbingly vast. The number of possible positions is big, but when you think about combining them into a game, it starts to get silly.

      This isn't actually particularly surprising. Think about, for example, eating snack food. When you grab each handful you get to pick which hand you use. Suppose you're eating for a while -- fifty grabs in all, choosing a hand each time. That means there are 2^50 possible ways you could have eaten it!... eat two or three bags, and there are more ways than atoms in the universe.

      Or giving out 60 named invitations to your 60 friends... there are 60 factorial = ~ 10^81 different combinations in which you could give them out, and only one is correct! More possibilities than atoms in the universe (or thereabouts), and yet no trouble at all.

  70. Misquoting by nyri · · Score: 1
    Anyone amazed at how many quotes this guy has stored up in his head?

    Well, he's a british gentleman. They usually know their Wilde quotes.
    Which brings me to this: I think he's misquoting that one ("Someone who knows the price of everything knows the value of nothing"). I think that Wilde was warning not to think everything in monetary terms. It's a pity that such a great man is a jackass namedropper.

    -- Jari Mustonen

    1. Re:Misquoting by eoyount · · Score: 1

      I think Wilde said
      "a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." And I think you're right about not thinking in monetary terms.

      --
      To understand recursion,
      you must first understand recursion.
  71. Lest we forget Sierra's Rama game by OgdEnigmaX · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sierra released a Myst-like adventure game based on the Rama series in 1997. I think I might still have my copy in a box somewhere...it was pretty good and pleasingly mindbending, IIRC. Included an interview with Clarke and Gentry Lee to boot. Having only read _Garden of Rama_ and _Rama Revealed_ I can't say how well it adapted _Rendezvous_ or _Rama II_, but Sierra's version was certainly recognizable to me.

  72. Re:WE GOT A SMART ONE HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bwah hah hah... your other posts are getting modded down, you pathetic ass-ram... Looks like everyone else thinks you swallow too! Bye now

  73. No giant fungus out my window by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, I'm here in Oregon and I'd like to reassure everyone that there's no giant fungus gobbling up cities left and right. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a single giant organism. Think of it as a single mutated fungus that was particularly successful and kept reproducing as a giant mat of intertwined fungal fibers. It does a poor job at creating spores and spreading with the wind, but seems to do quite well at slowly expanding under the soil.

    1. Re:No giant fungus out my window by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how can we trust what you say? What hasn't been mentioned is that the fungus has mental control of those in its radius.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  74. Re:Article Text by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

    Yeah... I would've expected him to mention something about inspiring others' interests in space exploration and the future of humanity... not "buy my books."

    *shrug*

  75. Clarks life on mars pics. by incom · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  76. Life on Mars?! How did I miss it? by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

    I know this interview is from the 11th, but from my reading I am beginning to doubt we will even see that there was an abundance of water on early Mars.

    Now I see these quotes:
    <I>
    ACC: Well, I think they've already found life. There's some pictures from the laboratories which seem to me to be unmistakably vegetation--leaves and stems and things. I don't see what else it could possibly be. And where there's vegetation, you can bet there'll be something nibbling on it. ...</I>

    and this:
    <I> ... Now, on Mars, we may have detected life, but not intelligent life...</I>

    What is he talking about? Please give me a clue, because this is astounding if true!

  77. Rigged demo, Beria and Kurchatov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Richard Rhodes "Dark Sun" talks about the Soviet secret police keeping their atomic scientists on a short leash -- the KGB was feeding the scientists "crib notes" from espionage -- they didn't take these crib notes on face value because they could be disinformation to trip them up, but they used them as a study guide. Head spook, Lavrentia Beria, wanted to know if his own atomic scientists wheren't funning him in the manner of what is alleged to have happened in Iraq at a much later date.


    One of the first steps to the Bomb is getting a working atomic reactor. This does lots of things -- you can do neutron experiments to better design a bomb, you can breed plutonium to make a bomb. The first Russian reactor was much like Fermi's reactor -- a big pile of graphite with slugs of natural uranium in it. The big deal is operating this reactor for the first time -- controlling it, making sure it can multiply neutrons, and so on.


    You can imagine there are a lot of things that can gets in-area geeks excited but don't do much for show for visitors -- don't know the average person can get all excited by a new Linux kernel although the kernel hackers who know what is going on inside think it is ultra cool.


    So Beria is there, and Kruchatov's people get the reactor going critical for the first time, and they start pulling out control rods (by remote control -- you see only dials in the control room), and then these radiation counters start flashing a light and giving a tick, and then the counters blink and tick so more, and then the reactor reaches criticality and the blinking is a blur of light and the ticks are just a steady buzzing, and all the atomic scientists are ready to break out the champaign or the cognac.


    Of course Beria sees nothing but dials and blinking lights and wonders what is going on and if the scientists are pulling his leg.

  78. Speaking of "Childhood's End" . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't expect him to give an honest answer to the question "What attracted you to Sri Lanka?", did you?

  79. Wait Your Turn! by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Be happy if you make it that far.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  80. Slight nitpick... by CanSpice · · Score: 2, Informative

    The International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center deals with naming asteroids, not the International Astronomical Federation. As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as the IAF.

    1. Re:Slight nitpick... by dsoltesz · · Score: 1
      There was a bit of discussion about this earlier which I believe had a resolution to the effect "forgive the old guy, no-one's perfect." I agree - it seems like an pretty easy mistake almost anyone could make. We should all hope to still be so productive as Clarke in our 80's - in reality I think we'll all be happy just to be able to keep our kids' names straight (let alone the official names of various space science organizations).

      Either Clarke or the reporter probably got their brain twisted around the International Astronautical Federation.

  81. First Space Elevator Novel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I believe Clarke tied with Charles Sheffield, who came out with the novel The Web Between the Worlds at the same time. Sheffield heard about Clarke's book and got Clarke to write a preface stating that the idea wasn't stolen from him. Clarke also notes that he would not recommend Sheffield's plan for attaching the elevator to the Earth, as it is too risky.

    --- Brian

  82. Re:Specialization by identity0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's probobly because they mistook it for another giant slug ;) Or maybe they thought it was Tonya Harding...

  83. Not the CIA by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clarke goes into the idea behind his book about Fermat's Theorem, and while I like the idea, he should change the CIA to the NSA in the book. The CIA deals with crypto quite a bit, but the worlds largest employer of mathemeticians (or so I have heard them called) would be far more likely to scoop up someone who made a breakthrough in prime number theory: the NSA.

    It just seems they would make much more sense for his book.

  84. Did you guys see the other story... by PeeweeJD · · Score: 1

    Did you guys see the opinion piece from the Gillette CEO? That is good reading... Funny stuff...

    http://www.theonion.com/opinion.php?i=1&o=1

  85. overrated! by Microsift · · Score: 1

    moderation abuse! It's Flamebait!

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  86. [laughs] by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

    Well, he sure did that a lot. Is there something he knows and we don't?

    Besides, I think only his older books are good. Very good, mind you.
    But the later ones turned into some kind of mush. Strange, I keep reading mush books like this from authors who seem to run out of ideas. Endlessly long books, very little happening, stunningly boring (also see "Throne of the Ringworld" by Larry Niven).
    You could compress such books into a pamphlet without missing anything.
    "Rendezvous with Rama" was excellent. Great idea, very well written. The sequels (many years later) were, without exception, junk. Same with "2001", really.

    Oh, well. Other great authors popping up left and right. You *have*, for example, heard of Neil Gaiman, right?

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    1. Re:[laughs] by imaginate · · Score: 1

      Try The Light of Other Days. Yes, it's co-authored, but it's obviously Clarke doing the thinking, and it's the best of his that I'd read in a looooooong time.

      It showed me that he can still whip out the blow-your-mind genius once in awhile...

  87. The "mind virus" of science caused Hiroshima by rolofft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Power and riches were the basis for the crusades, like all wars. Religion was a pretext. France made preemptive strikes against Arab encroachers who had already conquered Spain. It was as much about religion as W's war was about WMD.

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

  88. Well that explains it. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I went to check out this Week's Onion and I get a page full of mySQL errors.

  89. Hah by emkman · · Score: 1

    What makes you think his Sri Lankan DVD player can watch the region coded DVDs you'll send him.
    Once again technology thwarts an evil criminal!
    Would be sad if this great man can't watch his own DVDs.

    --
    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
  90. Questions of purpose and direction of discussion by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    So far as seems most necessary, a bit of bluntness rather than bandying about of complex theological arguments. First, what, precisely, is the function of a modern religion? The function alone is the differing aspect unique to it and not particular characteristics which can be refuted by example of other institution with similar characteristics. Second, what is the purpose of this aside discussion of the merits of religion without first establishing either consensus or range of particular views for conception of these most subjective matters? Third, what is the purpose of this discussion: analysis of a quote provided by a great influential figure or adolescent arguments with the fringe of educated language, or perhaps it is something else? Answers to any or all questions are requested. Even if this post is by the partial moderated in negative, the questions and their answers are thought necessary for this discussion to have any result other than continued arguments on averages and anomalies of institutions.

  91. It's refreshing to see someone speak their mind. by pocopoco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Favorite quote from the interview: "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." Awesome, none of this idiotic, politically correct, don't-say-what-you're-thinking crap for Clarke. I was all set to write the Brits off as total losers - we recently had articles with them trying to get people to stop using the terms boyfriend/girlfriend and then tring to ban a video game for having animal violence (what's next, ban Looney Tunes?) - pretty much as far from this free thinking fellow as possible. Then again the interview also said he doesn't have any interest in returning to England...maybe we should all just write US, UK, and company off as old fogeys that are only getting worse and more restrictive rather than the innovative places they used to be.

  92. Re:It's refreshing to see someone speak their mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Awesome, none of this idiotic, politically correct, don't-say-what-you're-thinking crap for Clarke.
    I very much doubt Clarke said exactly what he was thinking at the time. Or it could be the Onion just left it out, what with child pornography statutes being as vague as they are.
  93. If that bothers him by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
    There's a good chance that his DVD player doesn't care about regions anyway. Certainly most here in Australia don't anymore.

    Australia's consumer watchdog considers region coding to be a restriction of trade (wonder if that'll change, with the new US free trade agreement). I suspect a lot of countries outside the US feel similarly. Anyone know if Sri Lanka does?

    Failing that, there's always a PC and DVD Region Free.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  94. It's all based on marketing by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    The regions are generally the order in which films are released. It takes a while for a movie to officially get to region 5. They want to stop DVDs from appearing before a theatrical release- this has had a 100% failure rate so far.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  95. Calvin's exact words by gavri · · Score: 1


    Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us

  96. Best Story? by Walrus99 · · Score: 0

    "The Question." A short story about the future of mankind with some theological implicaitons.

  97. Nevermind by Walrus99 · · Score: 0

    Nevermind. The story I was thinking about was called "The Last Question" and was written by Asimov. Should have googled first.

  98. Watch out, obnoxious audio ads by innate · · Score: 1

    The Onion AV site where the article is posted hosts obnoxious audio advertisements. ("Hi there, my name is Tina. In the next 30 seconds I will show you how to speed up your computer dramatically...")

    Not pleasant at all at 5:30 AM.

    --
    No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
  99. I pity the fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who gets hit by that asteroid -- and the few billion other people on the same planet as him.

  100. Let's see how brave he is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say that in some ass-backwards muslim country or israel and tell them that their whole creation myth is a virus.

  101. This should be modded insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. It should.

  102. The Light of Other Days by apsmith · · Score: 1

    Looks like I have to go by the bookstore this week :-)

    I did read localroger's "Prime Intellect" - great novella, and I think a perfect exposition of some problems with Singularity hype. I wonder if it's eligible for any of those SF prizes?

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.