Slashdot Mirror


You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years

jmcbain tips a fascinating interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do). The question was, how much training would it take for a normal person to become Batman? The professor says: "You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess... In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years." The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death — or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

493 comments

  1. Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

    1. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be an insane morale buster for the bad guys. Say you knife the Batman -- actually see your knife tear into his guts -- but he shoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for ten minutes. When he comes back he's replaced and as strong as ever, but you don't know that. All you know is that the Batman can't be killed. Maybe he's an immortal?? Maybe he's a demon?? It would be like one of those bunker busters that just completely deflate the enemy..

    2. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Mechanik · · Score: 5, Funny

      and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

      I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.

    3. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by gzine · · Score: 1, Funny

      You insensitive clod. I AM BATMAN!!!!

    4. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.

      Inconceivable!

    5. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by bigtimepie · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the exact premise of The Phantom. The son replaces the father as The Phantom, but the bad guys think it's always the same guy.

    6. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Siridar · · Score: 5, Funny

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    7. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      This is the ending to a Batman story by Frank Miller regarding Batman's "retirement".

      He beats up Superman, fakes his death, goes underground and starts a Bat network of autonomous crime-fighting splinter cells. Ends with a bat cavern filled with bat-teens.

    8. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Dark_Knight_Returns

      Sorry, should have linked in the prior post.

    9. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by maxume · · Score: 1

      But Superman knows! Part of the victory is that Superman starts thinking for himself again.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by itsthebin · · Score: 3, Funny

      it makes us wish he was not conceived

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    11. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by brouski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then shits on the legacy of this story with Dark Knight Strikes Again

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    12. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we make a RAIB ?

    13. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by bri2000 · · Score: 1

      And the premise behind a recent Grant Morrison arc (Batman 672-674). Gotham City PD train three cops to take over in case Batman is ever killed. Unfortunately (and predictably enough) they all went nuts.

    14. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever seen "The Phantom"?

    15. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      'I am not the Dread Pirate Roberts' he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the ship from the previous Dread Pirate Roberts, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Dread Pirate Roberts either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.'

    16. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

      I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.

      ROOOFFFLLLL :)

      watch out for the JOUSs (jokers of unusual size)

    17. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by shaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Phantom is the greatest comic evarrr! Disregard the horrible movie with Billy Zane, here's the comic: http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/phantom/about.htm

      --
      :wq!
    18. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by EricTheMad · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Dread Pirate Batman?

      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
    19. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by LotsOfPhil · · Score: 0
      You made a couple of errors:

      That would be an insane morale buster for the bad guys. Say you knife the Batman -- actually see your knife tear into his guts -- but he shoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for ten minutes. When he comes back he's Batreplaced and as Batstrong as ever, but you don't know that. All you know is that the Batman can't be killed....

      --
      This post climbed Mt. Washington.
    20. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    21. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      ... for strong as a rock he has prevailed

      --

      Your head a splode
    22. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Insightful)

      and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

      That always seemed like a better way of handling an avenger sort of character like this. Use a face-obscuring costume so there's no way to tell one masked man from another but don't have multiple ones operating together so baddies would guess there has to be more than one but will never have a clue as to how large the organization is or how many.

      I always liked the idea of the two-king system of Sparta, a king could be lost in battle and yet there would still be a king. With rulers using doubles to protect themselves from assassination, it seemed like the next step would be to adopt an official royal uniform that again hid the face and body so there would be no telling who was the king. Have a dozen of these guys running around and there's no telling who's the active king and who isn't. But then again, this also means that it's easier for an impostor to come in and claim he's got authority. Heh. So much fun.

      bad guy: The next one who makes a noise answers to me!

      [bad guy gets hit in the head]

      bad guy: Who the FUCK did that?!

      blackbelt jones: Batman, motherfucker!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    23. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me.

      No, thanks. I decline your offer. I've got no desire to sneak around at night in a mask and a cape with my "muscle" reinforced tights and my underwear on the outside trying to get criminals to think I am a giant bat. The Bat-gadgets are pretty neat, though and I wouldn't say no to the cash and chicks either.

      To be honest, superheros like Batman only look cool in fantasy and comic books. In real life, you'd be laughed your ass off if you go around in those get ups. You may even get ordered a psych evaluation and put in a mental institution. I think the attempt to make superhero costume less outrageous like in X-men movies is the right move.

    24. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by AMSRay · · Score: 1

      Best Batman ever. "The Incredibles" stole the concept of the government forcibly retiring superheroes and covering up their existence from Frank Miller.

    25. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by brunokummel · · Score: 1

      and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

      I guess this qualifies as a Batsquad instead of a Batman!
      ..in this case isn't it better to train the already existing police force?

      --
      What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    26. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by ThomsonsPier · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be so Batronising.

    27. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I might be alone, but I enjoyed the movie

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    28. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Close...

      That would be an insane morale buster for the bad guys. Say you knife the Batman -- actually see your knife tear into his BatGuts -- but he shoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for ten minutes. When he comes back he's BatReplaced and as BatStrong as ever, but you don't know that. All you know is that the Batman can't be killed....

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    29. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      the next step would be to adopt an official royal uniform that again hid the face and body

      It's been done.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    30. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      You're not alone, I thought Billy Zane was good in it and I thought the movie was good as well, much better than The Shadow, talk about a stink fest.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    31. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by karbyn-aceous · · Score: 0

      f'n hilarious! You guys crack me up. Best laugh I have had all week ... even on ./ :-)

    32. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or Ace Rimmer, Space Adventurer!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    33. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      A) That went over your head, go rent The Princess Bride, and hand in your geek card.

      B) Regardless of costume, anyone trying to be a super-hero in today's world be laughed at, and promptly arrested of vigilantism. You could be wearing a nice suit and a tie, but the second you thew a bus at someone you merely suspect of being the bad guy (Mr. Autobusaphobic, for example), you'd be breaking several laws, and violating the super villains rights.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    34. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Please don't confuse Batman with a batman. Undignified.

      But obviously the scenario you've postulated has actually happened. Bruce Wayne supposedly became Batman in 1939. Obviously we've run through many Batmen since then.

      Clearly this is also true for Batman's many opponents. Not only have have they been around as long as Batman, they've changed drastically, and many times. The Joker, for example, was originally just a weirdo who liked to wear whiteface. Then, for no obvious reason, he started dying his hair green. Then he went through a sort of red phase. Then he reinvented himself as a kind of mobster. Now he's supposedly a kind of post-modern nihilist, with rumors that he's gay.

      The question we have to ask is, who's going to so much trouble to create all these strange, long-lived characters with a costume fetish who spend all their time fighting each other? I suspect a broad conspiracy to distract us from... something.

    35. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a guy!

    36. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he would have BatDisappeared for ten BatMinutes.

    37. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 1

      What a guy....

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    38. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      the next step would be to adopt an official royal uniform that again hid the face and body so there would be no telling who was the king.

      In fact, you could have the real king pretend to be the fake king's servant. Of course, George Lucas will claim plagiarism, but you can't have everything.

    39. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that Ace is replaced by other Rimmers from parallel universes, not by his son. And when the Rimmer we know and love became Ace, that was probably the end of the chain, as by that point he was a hard-light hologram -- pretty much impossible to kill.

      Errr... yeah...

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    40. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never get involved in a flamewar on Slashdot, or never go in against a Troll when your Karma is on the line?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by verbamour · · Score: 1

      Sous - Superhero Of Unusual Size

    42. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      No, I am Batman.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    43. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody want a peanut?

    44. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No! I'm batman and so is my wife....

    45. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by pluther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to work for Subcommandante Marcos. The Mexican government has claimed to have captured him at least a few times, but he keeps popping back up to tell them they've got the wrong guy.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    46. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately [...] they all went nuts.

      See, that was their problem.

      They needed to start with crazies from the get-go, then train them to be ultra-hard, remorseless, crime-fighters.

    47. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Maybe he BatComes BatBack... And he can't be BatKilled... Holy Bat-Language, Batman!

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    48. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      (JLU spoilers ahead for those that care)

      In Justice League Unlimited there's actually an episode set in the future that's very close to this. After realizing the world would always need a Batman and seeing Bats himself get older and more worn out by the job, a somewhat shady government agent starts a project called "Batman Beyond" to ensure there would always be a Batman. Her plan was to find a couple mentally similar to Bruce Wayne's own parents and overwrite the father's reproductive DNA with that of Bruce Wayne's. Once the child reached the appropriate age she was to have his parents murdered with the expectation that such a traumatic event would push him towards a similar path to Batman's. She was only able to go through the first part (the DNA ovewrrting bit), but due to a freak incident his parents were murdered anyway. The child would grow up and go on to become the new Batman in the Batman Beyond series under Bruce Wayne's wing.

      There's also another episode in JLU where the government puts together a team of superheroes loyal to them (literally ... as in, they grew them in a lab and implanted false memories in them). However, it's soon discovered these manufactured superheroes are slowly dying due to a defect in the process that created them. The government knew about this and had planned to simply replace them with more clones (who would then eventually die, get replaced, etc).

    49. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by DarrylM · · Score: 1

      It'd be even better if they all looked like Jeffrey Combs with larger ears.

    50. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by morari · · Score: 1

      No, I'm Spartacus!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    51. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Interesting

      with rumors that he's gay [blogger.com].

      I can't answer to the rumors, but I think that this may be a nod to Japanese Animation cultural influences in Western cinema and art.

      I have seen several examples of characters in Anime where male sexual ambiguity is used explicitly in villains, usually in conjunction with some form of insanity. This is also heightened by cases where even the gender of the character isn't revealed until later in the series/movie, thanks to a highly androgynous character design and careful voice-acting.

      Anyway, one could draw a line between homophobia and such a character design; I disagree with that. Personally, I see this as a kind of hint of "hypersexuality" - a complete lack of selectiveness for a mate - that suggests a very reckless personality, even at the most base and carnal level.

    52. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

    53. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I have first printings of those in 'Good' condition. They were wonderful, even if the 'Gnat Rat' spoof wsa much funnier and also worth reading to make fun of Frank Miller's habit of always telling the same story.

    54. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    55. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Informative


      Correction - it was stolen from Alan Moore's 'Watchmen.' That, in several ways, is probably the most realistic superhero book ever written.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    56. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by genner · · Score: 1

      Maybe he got replaced by another alternate Rimmer.

    57. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      That implies that The Phantom has something resembling a family life. That makes him pretty implausible as a superhero!

    58. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably he means no harm.
      He's really very short on charm.

    59. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except, of course, that Ace is replaced by other Rimmers from parallel universes, not by his son. And when the Rimmer we know and love became Ace, that was probably the end of the chain, as by that point he was a hard-light hologram -- pretty much impossible to kill.

      Damnit, don't force me to be geeky.

      The Parallel-Rimmer that passed the torch to the Red Dwarf-Rimmer was clearly a hard-light hologram, and he died from a bullet wound. They say in the episode that it penetrated his hard-light and struck the light-bee inside, damaging it. When he opens his jacket, the light-bee is clearly malfunctioning, spewing random streams of light out from the bullet-hole.

      In any case, Legion never said hard-light holograms were indestructible, he said "practically indestructible". He probably didn't anticipate being shot at, he was probably referring to thinks like stubbing your toe.

    60. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      For the last time, no you're not.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    61. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling one BATMOBILE used.

      Starting price $0.99

    62. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      I am not the real Batman.

      Not sure if it matters, but you look just as handsome hanging from the Bat-Rope.

      Philosophically, it must suck to be a batman clone. I mean, you go from being the epitome of uniqueness and mysterious living, to being a completely dispensable production-line statistic, less remarkable than any *normal* citizen. Why the hell do companies assume you want to do this? I would rather be Joe Suspenders, the local superhero mechanic.

    63. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Techguy666 · · Score: 1

      The Dread Pirate Batman?

      I'd have modded you insightful or informative...

      Batman WAS a pirate:

      http://www.amazon.com/Legends-Batman-Pirate-Two-Face/dp/B000MI42AO

    64. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by refitman · · Score: 1

      I'm Spartacus

      --
      First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.
    65. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Update: I RTFS and now know that corporate America is not responsible for this idea, but instead a kinesiology professor, whatever the hell that is. I'm sure even being a mass-market Batman trumps being a kinesiology professor. It doesn't pass spellcheck for Gates' sake.

    66. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I'm Batman. And so's my wife!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    67. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Now that's just outright thievery there:

      http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182297&cid=15068416

    68. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of when Ronald McDonald was more prevalent in the commercials -- you could always tell when they switched to a new one. Even a kid could tell that the old one was gone!

    69. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that I am Batman!

    70. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?

    71. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      That implies that The Phantom has something resembling a family life. That makes him pretty implausible as a superhero!

      Implausible or not, he does. The current Phantom has a wife and twin children, a boy and a girl. The boy will presumably eventually become Phantom in his turn.

    72. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Incredibles" stole the concept of the government forcibly retiring superheroes and covering up their existence from Frank Miller.

      Wait, did I miss the part of "The Incredibles" where the government was trying to hide superheroes from Frank Miller?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    73. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      You know, you can take this "strike fear into the hearts of evildoers" bit too far.

    74. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Smeg head!

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    75. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

      How about Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney and Christian Bale?

    76. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Well.... the diff being that marcos's gut is really prominent as of late.

      He aint no batman, thats for sure.

      --
      NO SIG
    77. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by qohen · · Score: 1

      For those didn't get the reference and are too lazy to Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dread_Pirate_Roberts#Role_in_The_Princess_Bride

    78. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by erice · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that Ace is replaced by other Rimmers from parallel universes, not by his son. And when the Rimmer we know and love became Ace, that was probably the end of the chain, as by that point he was a hard-light hologram -- pretty much impossible to kill.

      The previous Ace was also a hard light hologram. Hard to kill, maybe, but not invulnerable. That's why he recruited Rimmer. His emitter was severely damaged and would soon fail altogether.

    79. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Welll.. Rimmer & Smeg.... Interesting.

      Well, I would NOT want to be Batman... I suspect to be bat MAN you have to accept having a bat DICK. I'd not be able to have purrrrfukt sex with CatWoman.... Gotta make her meeyooowwww...

      Now, as for SUPERman... My brother years ago (what, I think around 1978) told me that when he saw Superman with my father and sister (i didn't go cuz I'm not a fan of Superman movies...), Lois and Clark got into bed. He said, "You know what daddy said when Clark Kent got into bed with Lois?" I said, "No, what?" "He said, "She gohn git her sum SOOPERdick toNIGHT!", making some of the attendees laugh uproariously. Of course, some of the audience, not appreciative of some ethnic (black) humor groaned at the defamation of their favorite hero.

      But, when I was in or ~ 1980 watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, all dressed up proudly in my Army JROTC uniform, and proudly exiting and re-paying to watch STTTWOK, I was intently re-watching the scene of Kirk and Dr. Marcus getting ready to go into the Genesis Cave, where she said, "Jim, Let me show you SOMETHING... that will make you feel YOUNG as when the WORLD was NEW..." Some guy (and I know his ethnicity from his voice, right there in Galveston, at the former Galvez Mall Theater) hollers out, "PUUSSSAYYYY!"

      I was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that someone would defile Star Trek that way. Well, nowadays, the STTNG episodes are EASY to lace with innuendo... (And now I love recounting that mini-episode about the Genesis Cave...)

      Will Batman ever have racy dialog? It could be ENTER-RESTING.... to enter the Bat Cave... Any whips and chains down there to titillate Bat Girl or Cat Woman? Or, Alfred and Robin? Would Batman have a bat-attack if he found Alfred & Robin serving and mastering each other up?

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    80. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Did Batman and Batman the Wife get married in San Fransideshow? What happend to Boy Robin?

      Where is the Bat Cave? Under the supposed US Mint? Appropriately near Castro, hehehehe. Does Bat Man Cruise Safeway. Does the Bat Cave has a tunnel into Alcatraz? Endquiring mind want to know...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    81. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by underworld · · Score: 1

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    82. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      hey get with the times, this is the 21st century, could be the girl who becomes the phantom.

    83. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Oh for fucks sake, just go the whole hog.

      That Batwould Batbe a Batinsane Batmorale Batbuster Batfor the Batbad Batguys. BatSay you Batknife the BatBatman -- Batactually Batsee your Batknife Battear Batinto his BatGuts -- Batbut he Batshoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for Batten Batminutes. BatWhen Bathe Batcomes Batback he's BatReplaced and as BatStrong as Batever, Batbut you Batdon't Batknow Batthat. BatAll you Batknow is Batthat the BatBatman Batcan't Batbe Batkilled....

    84. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by scottrocket · · Score: 1
      "I thought he would have BatDisappeared for ten BatMinutes."

      You mean one Batweek: Then he would have returned, same Battime, same Batchannel.

    85. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      BatBatman. Nice.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    86. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 1

      As The Phantom has sworn to fight piracy, it would be interesting to see how The Phantom tackles "Digital Piracy".

    87. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by alex4point0 · · Score: 0

      I loved the Phantom.

      Right up until someone pointed out the premise of the series: that if it weren't for this noble white man, great grandson of a man who swore an oath against piracy, 'the jungle', (ie. insert any failed African state here) would tear itself apart and resort to savagery. Cannibalism anyone.

      For a man who was supposed to be dedicating his life to fight piracy he sure spent a lot of time in the jungle in a purple leotard bossing the natives around. Maybe he forgot how to sail, or something.

      (Everyone knows the best comic evarrr is Roger Mellie. I mean 'It's a tie between 'The ABC Warriors' and 'telnet:Nemesis.com.au the Warlock'.)

      --
      By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
    88. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by genican1 · · Score: 1

      So that explains Val Kilmer and George Clooney...

    89. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew there was a reason I stopped watching that show. :-P

    90. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Now old Mr. Joker had some troubles of his own
      He had a scary Bat that just wouldn't leave him alone
      He tried and he tried to put the Bat away
      He put him on a train going far far away

      But the Bat came back the very next day
      The Bat came back, he thought he was a goner
      The Bat came back, he just wouldn't stay away

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    91. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think most anime characters just look a little gay.

    92. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Really it is for mass production of fireball spell components. Really...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    93. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I might be alone, but I enjoyed the movie

      So the cinema was empty at your showing, too..? :)

    94. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      That would make it rather difficult to maintain the illusions that it's all the same guy...

    95. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      It would sure weird out the bad guys tho.

    96. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by 50_1337 · · Score: 1

      This is what persians did 2500 years ago with the Immortals: an army of exactly 10 000 men. Each time some of them died, they were immediatly replaced, so ennemy believe they were invicible.

    97. Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      Damn! I forgot that.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
  2. Even for a year. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1
    I wouldn't mind giving it a shot.

    Dangerous? Yes. But way cool.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  3. Where do we sign up? by yoinkityboinkity · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't mind training for the rest of my life for such a job.

    1. Re:Where do we sign up? by archkittens · · Score: 1

      how much does it pay, though?

    2. Re:Where do we sign up? by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.

      That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.

      Frankly, its probably not even in the scope of most slashdotters to end up being ATHF's Meatwad... after all, Meatwad makes the money, see; Meatwad gets the honeys, G...

      and we don't :(

    3. Re:Where do we sign up? by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      Being Batman doesn't pay, but being millionaire Bruce Wayne does.

      Didn't you get the memo?

    4. Re:Where do we sign up? by archkittens · · Score: 1

      Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.

      That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.

      or maybe it's a self-loathing billionaire industrialist's orphaned son that pays out? honestly now, mommy and daddy's money came with interest and a nice bank statement!

      honestly though, you need to aim for the nerdy girls. they're much smarter and much hotter than mere "honeys"

    5. Re:Where do we sign up? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      My high school girlfriend was a runner-up and spirit award winner for Miss Teen VA when we were 16

      Alright, that does not add to the conversation. You're just using this opportunity to gloat.

    6. Re:Where do we sign up? by ottothecow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would add to the conversation if he included pictures

      --
      Bottles.
    7. Re:Where do we sign up? by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've made many a greasy anime nerd scoff in disbelief before, so perhaps, for public health concerns, as well as the general welfare, its best that I don't.

    8. Re:Where do we sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      spirit award winner

      This isn't much of a gloat really. "Spirit award winner" means, "Yeah, you're talented and you've got great spirit, but you're not nearly pretty enough to be Miss Teen Whatever".

    9. Re:Where do we sign up? by Huggs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ph34r t3h kut3 0n3s!

    10. Re:Where do we sign up? by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      If you need to ask, it's not enough.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    11. Re:Where do we sign up? by jacoby · · Score: 1

      And that is wrong how?

    12. Re:Where do we sign up? by yukk · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could swing a deal with the insurance companies such that whenever you save the city and the insurance companies don't have to pay out billions, they pay you 10% instead. On the other hand, the one time you didn't save that city block and they had to pay out, the insurance companies would probably sue you into oblivion.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    13. Re:Where do we sign up? by omnipresentbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've made many a greasy anime nerd scoff in disbelief before, so perhaps, for public health concerns, as well as the general welfare, its best that I don't.

      Translation: He burned the [physical] pictures of her (and deleted any digitals) he had when he walked in on her cheating with the high school quarterback and, therefore, thought it prudent to call off the engagement.

    14. Re:Where do we sign up? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Frankly, its probably not even in the scope of most slashdotters to end up being ATHF's Meatwad... after all, Meatwad makes the money, see; Meatwad gets the honeys, G...

      Yeah, but he has to deal with all that ice on his fingers and his toes.

    15. Re:Where do we sign up? by yukk · · Score: 1

      You also call yourself bsDaemon so YMMV :)
      Then again, I know from personal experience that some geeks can get girlfriends that don't require a bike pump and do turn heads.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    16. Re:Where do we sign up? by bsDaemon · · Score: 0, Troll

      quarterbacks don't fuck with goth chicks. Plus, we graduated high school 6 years ago.

      Yes, I did burn her photos. And the original copy of her birth certificate... with out that, she's dead, right?

    17. Re:Where do we sign up? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I've seen the pics, google goatse.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    18. Re:Where do we sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the ones who come onto Slashdot bragging about their ability to get chicks. They fail. At life.

    19. Re:Where do we sign up? by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      goth chicks... And the original copy of her birth certificate... with out that, she's dead, right?

      Making her a better goth?

      On a more serious note, does any one care? I'm very happy your in a (slightly) happy relationship, but it doesn't matter, a lot of other people are as well. If you can't be happy without telling others, then you probably aren't happy.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    20. Re:Where do we sign up? by madmac63 · · Score: 1

      . . . spirit award winner = flag corps for the girls too fat and ugly to be a cheerleader, and too stupid to play an instrument and be a real member of the band.

    21. Re:Where do we sign up? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I wish I were your derivative so that I could lay tangent to your curves" that fail.

      But that's my best line!

    22. Re:Where do we sign up? by DreamingReal · · Score: 1

      You're just using this opportunity to gloat. ... or lie.

      --
      We want some answers and all that we get
      Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

      - Ministry
    23. Re:Where do we sign up? by dukieduke · · Score: 1

      That's his own damn problem, fool, for being a Taurus

    24. Re:Where do we sign up? by RobDude · · Score: 1

      Words have always been cheap, but with recent advancements in technology talk on the internet is utterly worthless.

      Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.

      Either way, you're the fail.

    25. Re:Where do we sign up? by alex4point0 · · Score: 0

      Runner-up?

      Spirit Award?

      Sounds like your ex was beautiful on the inside, IYKWIM, AITYD.

      --
      By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
    26. Re:Where do we sign up? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you're just another e-thug until you can back up what you can say. And if you DO have that video showing you putting up 400+ pounds then you're clearly insecure and feel the need to brag about some fairly bland accomplishments.

      That guy's nothing. When I do a pushup, I'm not lifting myself up, I'm pushing the earth down.

  4. Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death â" or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

    So, after all that, we should all stick to our day-jobs? Thanks Slashdot, you saved us again!

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

      Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

    2. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that there's a great deal of viral marketing in it now -- vis a vis this "article"

    3. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you do know that their job is to sell ads and subscriptions, not educate readers, right??

    4. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by smussman · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you want magazine that does a good job summarizing recent developments in science in layman's terms (or pretty close), I've found Science News to be pretty good. I certainly enjoy reading it, and I feel they do a good job of summarizing without dumbing down.

    5. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, education is so overrated.
      You can just 'feel' something about pokemon and have a PhD in "Pokemon Studies", anymore.
      See http://www.dourish.com/goodies/decon.html

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Holammer · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall a similar article elsewhere last time they released a batman movie. Quite sad actually.

    7. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like Scientific American - I don't think you're being fair. The "fun" articles are obvious and they are careful to make no claims of certainty. Actually, I really have to put my thinking cap on when they get into Astrophysics these days.

      Just as a for-instance, their medical articles are top-notch... my wife is a physician and will often read them. Their environmental articles are also often very interesting. It's not like the whole issue is full of Batman trivia!

      Of course, I also like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics - but those I approach more from a comic book angle. At least Popular Mechanics has practical car and home project advice.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by markk · · Score: 1

      When that great American publisher the Holtzbrinck group bought them the target audience and style changed and it no longer was the SA of the Gerard Piel era. Oh wait Holtzbrinck is German ... and turned down the quality. Yep, it must be that American education system.

    9. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

      Quite the opposite, there is a lot of good evidence to support the argument that the internet has had a marginal effect on declining newspaper circulation, and that the only strong correlation was between corporate ownership and newsroom cuts.

      What this show is that magazines and newspapers are like any industry where a corporate overlord can kill the golden goose by running it into the ground. There's a lot of competition for the pulp science magazines and others are already taking it's place for serious science, I think the market will reward their actions very harshly.

    10. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by menace3society · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think SciAm is bad, try actually reading Popular Science. It's all science-fiction military technology.

      Part of the problem is actually that the mainstream news has gotten much better science reporting, so the gap between the NYT or Newsweek and SciAm has gotten to be quite narrow. It's still not as good as SciAm used to be, but most major newspapers have, if not a legitimate 'science person' on staff, easily-accessible consultants who can help break things down for them. Once you add in Wikipedia and the open-access research movement, the niche the magazine used to occupy is almost entirely gone.

    11. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think this is dumbing down content. Science is all about process and methods. It is in thinking that science is about equations or stars/planets or weird animals that lots of people make a mistake. As long as you use the method of science to study anything (even something as trivial as movie logic) it is still science

    12. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Even from the mid 80's to the early 21st century it dumbed down. I even still have a few magazines from about 2003 that I haven't bothered to take out of their plastic mailing wrapping.

      I recently (few years ago now) let my subscription lapse.

      But it's not just SciAm, or American publications. I used to subscribe to Maplin Electronics. It used to have interesting projects and articles that you could learn from. But the projects degenerated into building kits, no information on how they worked, what you might like to try modifying etc, and the articles just became reviews of high street consumer gear.

      Presumably, however, this move was more profitable for Maplin, and it's more profitable for SciAm.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    13. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Losing means death - or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

      So, after all that, we should all stick to our day-jobs? Thanks Slashdot, you saved us again!

      Joker got one good kick to my nuts, and now I'm back to programming.

    14. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am soo lazy, how long to become the Joker or Green Goblin instead? That way I could lose all I want, just like in real life!

    15. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      >> Just as a for-instance, their medical articles are top-notch... my wife is a physician and will often read them.

      hmmm. who's your wife again (so I dont go to her)? I prefer my doctors to get their medical articles from periodicals like JAMA.

      It ain't personal, I'm sure she's a nice woman (why else would you have married her?!) but...

      its sentences like that ^^^ that make me _extremely_ hesitant to go to a doctor these days.... that + a complete lack of ability
      (or interest) to take a good patient history. Much as I love being lumped in with results drawn on (heavily) Europaen populations,
      it ain't exactly appropriate to judge my treatment options without regards to my ethnicity (which is not Europaen).

      but i digress....

    16. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      You expect USA Today and Slashdot to have lame Batman tie-ins when the new movie is released. It's pretty sad that the Scientifc American is whoring itself out too.

    17. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Oki-Doki · · Score: 1

      When I was 16 I read about telomeres in Scientific American and became convinced of their fundamental importance to cell division and cellular senescence. A few years ago I defended my dissertation describing the role of several telomere binding proteins in regulating telomere stability. While I haven't looked at a copy of Scientific American in many years I am thankful to pop science for making biology accessible to me as a youngster.

    18. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Agreed. And I'm getting sick of its activism, the last big revision completely politicized it as well. Which annoys the hell out of me, since I really don't like my science with a side of politics. I like to read magazines to be informed, so I can make my own opinions, and make the preexisting ones better. When you decided to tell me what to think, you suddenly say "You're too stupid to think for yourself, let me do it for you", which is antithetical to science.

      And yes, I happen to agree with many of their political views, I'm mainly disagreeing with the venue. I read Mother Jones for rousing liberalism and my feeble sense of self-justification; I read SciAm to keep abreast with recent scientific developments in a slightly non-technical manner (I do like how their dwindling science content doesn't speak down to laymen either, which is a rarity).

      EVERYTHING is getting politicized though. I really can't stand it, its like the whole world is slowly morphing into some idiotic advertising. I even had to stop listening to contemporary rock music with lyrics, because it was trying to tell me what to think, which I think I am more competent at deciding than a rock star.

      There really is no pure avenue for "science for the masses" anymore. This History Channel has decided that "reality TV", and cryptozoology/UFOlogy is more its games than... you know... history. While the Discovery Chanel has decided that crap fishing, and other amusing employment opportunities, are really really insightful and educational. TLC is long dead, because now we all know learning means "how to decorate your house, while cooking an omelet with trendy ingredients like sushi and chipotle).

      We're getting stupider, news at 11.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    19. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Oh, goodness. Just because a person reads one magazine, doesn't mean they don't read other magazines. Heck, I'm not a doctor, but I did peruse my roommates JAMA mags before he got married and moved out. Just because I read PC Mag, doesn't mean I don't read other trade mags.

    20. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      EVERYTHING is getting politicized though. I really can't stand it, its like the whole world is slowly morphing into some idiotic advertising. I even had to stop listening to contemporary rock music with lyrics, because it was trying to tell me what to think, which I think I am more competent at deciding than a rock star.

      As if rock wasn't politicized in the past? I think you need to pay a bit more attention to various classic rock artists if you think that.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    21. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Just join the IEEE. Their monthly magazine (Spectrum) tends to have interesting tech-related articles that aren't dumbed down.

    22. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by quanticle · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Randall Munroe has met this dude.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    23. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by quanticle · · Score: 1

      I prefer my doctors to get their medical articles from periodicals like JAMA.

      Really? So, if your doctor saw a medical article published in some other journal, like Nature, you'd have her ignore the publication because it wasn't in the "right" journal? I think that's a pretty narrow minded attitude. Granted, doctors shouldn't be acting based on journal articles alone, but that applies to all journal articles, including the ones published in JAMA.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    24. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

      Say what?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    25. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I subscribe (well, I got it for a family member as a present), and the other advantage is that a new issue arrives every two weeks, not every month, and though it's thinner, the content is not less -- there's just less rubbish filler. It's also pretty cheap.

    26. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, she was PUBLISHED in the New England Journal of Medicine, so I don't think you need worry.

      It's my magazine, and when I read an interesting medical article, she looks at it too.

      She's also not of European decent (well, I guess a little tiny bit technically), and always took very thorough histories - but she's not in family practice so you wouldn't need to worry about that.

      But for God's sakes, if you want a thorough history, just ask the doctor to take one! We actually choose our primary care physician based on that criteria.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same experience here as I watched SciAm become more glossy and less data.

      Science News and just subscribing to Nature prove much more useful for keeping up. I know I'm in a better place if I actually have to look a word up from time to time.

    28. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is

      Me fail English? That's unpossible!

      Seriously...wtf does that even mean? it's total gibberish

    29. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by trashyspaceman · · Score: 1

      This is also good: The Scientist. It has some interesting research stories and is very scientist focussed and by that aspect is very political. It is not a journal but does have thorough articles about specific projects and the research challenges and questions therein from the perspective of leading scientists. Very insightful for those interested in becoming (life) scientists.

    30. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Best walking history is me :P I take an active interest in solving my health problems. Most other people are unfortunate in that they are neither capable of, interested in, or experienced enough to do likewise - and *those* are the ones that need doctors to take their history. Anyway, like I said it wasn't personal :) And my crack about the Europaen descent isn't really targeting Europaens - has to do with how medicine is treated strictly statistically, but most of the data is derived off of Europaen male population. Classic example - lactose intolerance -- here its an irritation, in Europe its considered a disorder. In other populations, it might be the norm e.g. disorders and their manifestations are inherently specific to populations, but the priority of treatment is not adjusted to consider the ethnographic lines a person comes from; especially when it comes to evaluating studies which are heavily drawn from one population to the exclusion of others, be it deliberate (as it used to be) or otherwise (money/expertise to conduct a study).

      And before you say anything, keep in mind all the pharma's are doing there testing in India and China now ;) that tendency is most likely going to come back and bite you in the arse ;)

      Anyway, its just a point of contention -- I ain't too happy with how medicine is practiced today and I took an opportunity to say so :P like i said it ain't personal :)

    31. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      I prefer they get on PubMed and look up a paper from a peer-reviewed journal in their industry. And if there isn't one, they should get off their arse and write one (you know, advance the state of medicine by *gasp* actually analyzing their performance and writing a paper every now and then).

    32. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Lord what part of it ain't personal dont you people understand :P :) I stated my *opinion* on a comment he made in passing about his wife. I'm sure she reads other Journals is competent etc. I'm also sure there's alot of idiotic doctors who *aren't* reading the right journals. and before you say anything else, keep in mind that *somebody* has to graduate at the bottom of their medical school class, and they *still* get to call themselves doctor. And who's to say that they are any more diligent in their work affairs than they were in their student affairs.

    33. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I actually don't disagree with you. My wife holds many of the same opinions. To be fair, a lot of the practices you mention are being addressed and are taught in the better medical schools.

      One of the problems is that any kind of racial classification is very difficult. In the US, people categorized as "black" actually have a very mixed heritage... everything from indigenous American, to European, to various African regions. So it would be a very bad idea to start trying to treat people based on their skin color. I think genetic testing will improve this in the long run, as it will reveal if you have the (for instance) gene to process lactose... In the context of medical studies, they will be able to do statistical tests against genetic data as well as demographic data. I'd much rather see something like, "Caused increased inflammation incidence in people with a SCO0387 deletion" instead of, "Caused increased inflammation incidence in black males."

      They already do this for sickle cell. I'm about as white as white can be, but when my wife got pregnant they tested me for sickle cell. I thought it was pretty funny at the time, but it does make sense... how do I KNOW that I don't have an African ancestor? I'm glad they did it, because there certainly was a time not too long ago when the doctors would have laughed off a sickle cell test for a white guy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    34. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Not on their skin color, on their ethnographic lines (established by voluntary disclosure during patient history, say) ;) People know where they came from (in 99% of the cases) - those that don't (ex-slaves + orphans) can establish general areas/relatives using genetic testing. And don't forget its not *all* genetics; environment has a lot to do with genotypic expression - classic example; a rare disease that was epidemic in Auschwitz, affecting children (ate their face off) - German doctors thought it might be genetic (e.g. Jews are inferior)given the rarity in Europe and the extreme (relatively speaking) prevalance in the camps. Turned out it was the malnutrition/septic conditions that were linked to the increased occurrence. Anyway I figure (given u're comments) that we see eye-to-eye on the subject :P :) only question is that of proper implementation while retaining privacy, non-eugenics, non-discriminatory crap from sneaking in. /me suggests you hand out a leaflet with the odds precalculated :P let the patient pick it out :) If you are predominantly ..... top diagnosis is X etc :) Sidesteps most of those issues + it involves the patient in his care.

    35. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The "problem" that I see genetic tests solving is that of people who are simply wrong about their ancestry.

      A British study showed that 10% of all British men are not the father of their children. If 10% don't know who their real father is, that means the error expands with each generation.

      And, back to the US - there are probably very few blacks who know their actual lineage. The same goes for most Hispanics. Hell, I'm a white guy and couldn't tell you what part of Europe I'm descended from... at the very least somewhere Germanic, Ireland, England, some Scandinavian. That sort of information is important if you are talking genetic diagnosis.

      Much better when genetic testing becomes more inexpensive. Ideally the doctor could do it right there in the office, or at least scan for the heavy hitters. I don't see how privacy is really compromised - a doctor already knows everything else about you. We just have to be diligent on controlling what is done with the information.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's only 90 days from being a weakling to stopping bullies from kicking sand in your face. Isn't that what most nerds here really seek?

    1. Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even the mostly testosterone filled martial arts class has more of a chance of containing an actual attractive female than training alone at home with just those comics for company.

      --
      -mkb
    2. Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by OzPeter · · Score: 1
      Ha! I see you your "martial arts" class and raise you a "dancing class" (ie salsa).

      Not only do you get to *see* attractive females .. you also get to *hold* onto them!!

      And when you go out dancing at clubs you can dance with a variety of females all in the same night and not have to worry about hiding it from *any* of them. And they *enjoy* it!!!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by Nursie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean Mr Apollo?

      You can beat up bullies 'til they cry
      "Oh lah! Oh, crikey! Let go, you rotter! Don't punish me!"

      Yes, just give me ten years of your life, and I'll trade in that puny flab for living muscle..
      Physique you deserve!

      Strong!
      Chest and shoulders to hold your shirt!

      Five years ago, I was a four stone apology
      Today, I am two separate gorillas.

      No tiresome exercises, no tricks,
      no unpleasant bending, Wrestle poodles and win!

      Play beach ball! Shave your legs! Lope over walls!
      Tease people! Brush them aside as though they were matchsticks!
      Impress your friends!

    4. Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Of course if you really wanted to be nerdish, you could go the Dr Franknfurter route and build your man Rocky from scratch!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead by jddj · · Score: 1

      OK, but for Chrissake I don't want to wind up looking like Michael Keaton...

  6. Bonk by usefulidiot127 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've still yet to figure out how I can get things like "Bam, Pow, Biff, Boom" to pop out in the air when I hit people. I think that would require more training than anything else.

    1. Re:Bonk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need to hit them harder.

  7. Why spend all that time training by DeltaStorm · · Score: 4, Funny

    when you can just get hit in the head.

    --
    .sdrawkcab si gis siht
    1. Re:Why spend all that time training by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      The training could also cause side effects

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  8. How many years for the morals? by Scotteh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 to 12 years for the physical training, but Batman was more than physical ability. He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.

    1. Re:How many years for the morals? by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A large portion of the Batman storyline revolves around the question of whether or not that's really true.

      One of the more poignant observations made in the comics was by Commissioner Gordon when he pointed out that there were always regular criminals in Gotham before Batman arrived, but there weren't any supervillians until after Batman made room for them.

    2. Re:How many years for the morals? by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Haven't you heard. Might makes right. So training for the skills is the same as training for the morals.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:How many years for the morals? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 0

      He's also a borderline psychopath. The idea of vigilantism is loved by children but in the real world all vigilantes are just as bad as criminals. They dismiss your civil rights and take matters into their own hands. The idea that someone can 'determine right and wrong' on a fair level like this is silly. Who do you petition for legal recourse while receiving a beating? Like most comics the premise is fantasy.

      A real batman would quickly be imprisoned and we'd be happy to see him there.

    4. Re:How many years for the morals? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The new movie is supposed to say the same thing. I haven't seen it yet, but i wouldn't be surprised as the title is Escalation, and Gordon made that exact comment to Batman in Dark Knight.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:How many years for the morals? by GleeBot · · Score: 1

      Umm... there weren't any supervillains until the storyline called for them. I'm not sure how "realistic" it is for supervillains to even exist, especially if some unstoppable vigilante is always picking them off.

    6. Re:How many years for the morals? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      He was in a position to determine right and wrong. That takes a lot longer to learn and not everyone is capable of such a task.

      So vigilantism is moral and some people are born irrecoverably amoral. Right...

      It's a good thing kids these days are getting their ethical training from Grand Theft Auto rather than comic books. "Might makes right" is a lot healthier than the categorical "good" and "evil", with its holier-than-thou monsters dishing out selective justice.

    7. Re:How many years for the morals? by menace3society · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Batman's case, it's because they were all criminally insane, and therefore couldn't be tried as criminals, executed, or put into a normal prison.

      What's unrealistic about Batman (from a social psychology perspective, not from a physics perspective) is that the super-villains never really tore into each other, the way major gangs and crime syndicates do. In fact, they worked together far more often than they warred with each other.

    8. Re:How many years for the morals? by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suggest reading Batman before you judge the content. You are pigeonholing in an enormous way.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:How many years for the morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just send us a cheque for $900,000 USD at the Church of Scientology and we'll be able to make you attain that state in just DAYS!

    10. Re:How many years for the morals? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that because they keep all the super-villians locked up, and then release one at a time randomly for Batman to fight? That's how it seems to work. The real trouble in Gotham is that doctor at the psych ward who keeps saying things like, "Yeah, I think the Joker is rehabilitated now." Batman should just fight that guy.

    11. Re:How many years for the morals? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      This about the guy who drags a 12 year old boy and a teenage girl into fist-fights with psychopathic killers. Yeah, great moral compass.

    12. Re:How many years for the morals? by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 1

      Depends on who's depicting them. The more sober depictions of Gotham City frequently have the criminals infighting with one another. Bane and Catwoman, for example, are fairly consistent in their opposition to a large part of Gotham's underground on matters of principle, and Fries, Ras, Scarecrow, and Ivy have all been known to turn against other supervillians, mobs, and cartels for mostly selfish reasons.

      Organized crime syndicates also start turf wars from time to time and street gangs fighting one another is a major element in, at least, Miller's vision.

      Then you have people like Joker or Ventriloquist who are just tragically and viciously insane and will turn their rage on anybody who happens to be nearby no matter where the victim stands in relation to Batman's ideas of justice and order.

      There's so much range in how Gotham City has been depicted over the years that it's difficult to come up with any consistent vision for it unless you group it into eras, and those eras that show a grittier, meaner Batman and Gotham have very complex characters that range from hero to anti-hero and the traditional crime noir villian seeking wealth or power to chilling psychopaths bent on unleashing hell for no other reason than that they can.

    13. Re:How many years for the morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It worries me that this is modded interesting and insightful. It seems that if fewer Americans believed this (especially those in the government), the world might be a bit safer for the rest of us.

    14. Re:How many years for the morals? by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, if you're going to remove yourself from the context of the storytelling, obviously there aren't going to be any supervillians like the Joker...

      But within the context of the story, the point was this: Batman attempted to impose order by brutalizing the criminal element until it was too beaten and scared to stand against him. When that happened, only a few well-financed, high-powered, or outright-insane villians could continue to fight him, and with organized crime no longer in control of the underworld in Gotham, they had an arena in which to do it.

      By taking street crime and organized crime out of the picture, Batman removed a barrier that prevented the supervillians from moving in to take Gotham, because the "common" criminals had just as much a reason to oppose the supervillians, in most case, as Batman does. No matter how deadly Joker is, he can't exist in a world where both the corrupt police AND organized crime have a reason to oppose him because they'll hunt him down and destroy him, but if he's only opposed by Batman, he's a one-man army facing a one-man army.

      A common theme in Batman his how Wayne is tortured by the fact that he may have caused a lot more suffering in Gotham by donning his mantle than if he had simply internalized his own suffering and let it him alive.

      The question becomes: Did Batman help Gotham by taking up his crusade, or did he just unleash the pain he was suffering on the entire population?

    15. Re:How many years for the morals? by dubz · · Score: 1

      I agree. Batman was more than physical ability. He was a gifted scientist too. A polymath of sorts.

    16. Re:How many years for the morals? by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's how we get the character Harley Quinn - she was the Joker's psychiatrist, and HE drove HER crazy.

    17. Re:How many years for the morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But major gangs and crime syndicates tear into each other because they are competing for territory, membership, bribed officials, etc. Since Batman eliminates the common criminal there is less competition, and since Batman repeatedly foils the supervillians they have a common enemy to unite them.

    18. Re:How many years for the morals? by IchNiSan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish everyone would quit blaming batman, after all, all reasonable men know that spider man is the truly evil villain.

    19. Re:How many years for the morals? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      oh lets get political on this :P

      It's say you're the leader of the most powerful country on Earth. A superhero if you will.
      Then you decide to invade a country to fix some problems with it. A coutnry without any super villains.
      Yet, by being a super hero and entering the country, he attracts super villains to the fight.

      Hmm... pondering. Good moral dilemma. //wondering when someone is going to point out that sadam hussein was a super villain and not just a regular criminal.

    20. Re:How many years for the morals? by Provocateur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember reading this LARGE comic (Batman Black And White? Alex Ross' art iirc) where Batman realized that he spent too much time fighting criminals but not crime. He had caught this kid, and it made him pause. Later on, as Bruce Wayne, he wondered what could be done to the neighborhood that kid was in. He gave the go-signal to projects that revitalized that run-down neighborhood. When he saw the kid again--can't remember if he was Bruce or Batman -- the kid was doing alright.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    21. Re:How many years for the morals? by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      speak for urself.

      I for one welcome our pointy-eared overlord(s).

    22. Re:How many years for the morals? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      We could call him "The Decider"!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    23. Re:How many years for the morals? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that believing that this is somehow an American phenomenon exposes that you have a somewhat corrupted ability to think critically and realistically about the world as it actually exists.

    24. Re:How many years for the morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, contrived plot rationalizations spawned by talented writers stretched out by dealing with contrived backstories built decades ago to support a gimmick in a character. Those always make perfect logical sense, especially in comic books, which are known for their adherence to the rules that govern reality.

    25. Re:How many years for the morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That observation seems a little artificial. It's only "true" because the writer who had Gordon say that decided that it was true, and so made up a lot of back story. Does it seem reasonable to you that all of the Batman supervillains, who are written as so tough that the police can't deal with them at all, would be scared off by a few regular criminals? Imagine the Joker, say, sitting at home thinking "Well, I was going to rob a bank today, but I might run into a punk kid with a gun, so I won't bother."

    26. Re:How many years for the morals? by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      I'd say yes. I think he could've accomplished much more by using his financial and political ties to clean up Gotham in the mundane fashion.

    27. Re:How many years for the morals? by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      I didn't know J. Jonah Jameson read Slashdot.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    28. Re:How many years for the morals? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean "The Procrastinator"?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    29. Re:How many years for the morals? by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I'm not sure that in this situation there would be 'no room for super villains' if Batman was not around. I think what you have there is organized crime, law, and the super villains. The difference can be one of scope, statistics, or just shock value.

      On one hand you have a place full of crime, when 24/7 you could be mugged or murdered and nobody would care, where you lived your whole life in fear. The only way to move up is creating your own power within the bad (because it is everywhere). On the other hand is a world where organized crime is all but vanquished. You can feel free to try to thrive as a good person. You still have to watch out for super villains... and when they're on a spree, everyone is possibly in trouble, but is there really a net difference? Hopeless, lifeless existence, and the possibility that a psychopath will endanger 10,000 lives... or an existence with hope, life, and the possibility that a psychopath who loves toying with a hero is going to hold you and 10,000 other people hostage.

      Batman may have incised the psychopaths in particular, but most of the other criminals were already there. People just didn't pay as much attention.

      That's just another possibility. I have seen the movie and absolutely loved it. And this is one of the themes throughout.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    30. Re:How many years for the morals? by Amisinthe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mod parent +1 ironic for a man driving a woman crazy.

    31. Re:How many years for the morals? by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      They knew what they were doing from Batman Begins. From imdb the end of Batman Begins.

      Jim Gordon: What about escalation?
      Batman: Escalation?
      Jim Gordon: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds.
      Batman: And?
      Jim Gordon: And *you're* wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.
      [Gordon presents Batman with a clear plastic evidence bag containing what appears to be a single playing card; Batman turns it over to reveal a "Joker"]
      Batman: I'll look into it.

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    32. Re:How many years for the morals? by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 1

      I pointed out in another post somewhere in this thread that the Batman mythos has gone off on all sorts of different tangents, and you can only really critique each one as if it were its own little reality. I always preferred the darker more cerebral versions of the character that cropped up after The Dark Knight Returns, so my vision of what Batman's world "really" is mostly hinges on that particular style of storytelling.

      So, yes, you're right, my version of Batman above is just one of the many different incarnations of Gotham City. There are lots of alternative, equally valid worlds he's been pushed into by different writers and different mediums.

    33. Re:How many years for the morals? by tigerbody1 · · Score: 1

      What???? When did he say that? Sounds like Dianetics!

  9. Hmmm.... by Otter · · Score: 1

    My money would definitely be on the Joker or Riddler against a "professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do)".

    1. Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, Chito-ryu is for kids competitions.Batman would have gone to Okinawa to study traditional Goju if he wanted to learn a form of Karate.

    2. Re:Hmmm.... by armanox · · Score: 1

      Or Shorin Ryu, Shuri Ryu, or Uechi Ryu =)

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goju Ryu > Uechi Ryu > Shorin Ryu > Shotokan || Wado Ryu || Shuri Ryu and any other American crap full of instructors who don't know how to punch let alone breath.

  10. Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.

    1. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.

      So, what happens at 25? I mean, we have a guy in his 60s that toppled the last remaining superpower in the world, making it a laughingstock and a mere shadow of what it was... and he's not done yet!

      Seriously, though, the problem is that people give up trying to be badass too soon. Sure, you might not be the most badass ever, but you'd still be better off than you would slumming on the couch.

    2. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by GleeBot · · Score: 1

      So, what happens at 25?

      When you become 25, you've become wise enough to know better. Usually. Either that, or natural selection generally takes care of it.

    3. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Aw, c'mon dude, Everyone knows what happens at 25:

      Speed Jive,
      don't wanna stay alive
      When you're 25...

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    4. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, I knew it was true.

    5. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Wow, Mott the Hoople. That takes me back lots of years.

    6. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Are you implying I couldn't? Well screw it I'm going to prove you wrong..

      Wait that would make kind of a crappy back-story wouldn't it?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    7. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not just men.

      Listen to act two about Zora (starts at 20:00 at the audio-link below):

      http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=178

      Originally aired 02.23.2001

              30-second Promo
              Full Episode
              $0.95 Download
              Buy CD

      178: Superpowers

      We answer the following questions about superpowers: Can superheroes be real people? (No.) Can real people become superheroes? (Maybe.) And which is better: flight or invisibility? (Depends who you ask.)

      Prologue.

      Host Ira Glass talks to comic artist Chris Ware, who thought about superheroes a lot of the time as a kid. In grade school, Chris drew superheroes, he invented his own character named The Hurricane (not to be confused with Reuben Carter), and he made a superhero costume. Sometimes he wore parts of the costume to school under his regular clothes, which went fine until he realized he would have to change clothes for gym class. Ware's book, Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, is also inhabited by a "superhero" of sorts. (6 minutes)

      Act One. Invisible Man vs. Hawkman.

      John Hodgman conducts an informal survey in which he asks the age-old question: Which is better: The power of flight or the power of invisibility? He finds that how you answer tells a lot about what kind of person you are. And also, no matter which power people choose, they never use it to fight crime. (13 minutes)

      Song: " That Man," Peggy Lee

      Act Two. Wonder Woman.

      Kelly McEvers with the story of Zora, a self-made superhero. From the time she was five, Zora had recurring dreams in which she was a 6'5" warrior queen who could fly and shoot lightning from her hands. She made a list of all the skills she would need to master if she wanted to actually become the superhero she dreamed of being. Sample items: martial arts, evasive driving and bomb diffusion. She actually checked off most things on the list ... and then had a run-in with the CIA. (16 minutes)

      Song: " Goldfinger," performed by David Sedaris

      Act Three. The Green Team of Boy Millionaires, Beppo The Amazing Supermonkey from Planet Krypton, and The Man from Sram.

      Ira talks with Jonathan Morris, the amazingly funny and charming editor of the website Gone and Forgotten, an Internet archive of failed comic book characters. Jonathan explains what makes a new superhero succeed, and what makes him tank. (9 minutes)

      Song: " Signal in Sky," The Apples in Stereo

      Act Four. The Wonder Twins.

      Ira talks with journalist Jason Bleibtreu about Luther and Johnny Htoo, twelve-year-old twins, and the leaders of a rebel army of Burmese separatists called God's Army. Everyone around them, both their own forces and their enemies, believed they possessed superpowers, that they could not be harmed by bullets, that they had the power to command ghost armies. Bleibtrau visited the twins while they were in the jungle and explains why they were so widely believed. (9 minutes)

      Song: " Superman," Spouse

    8. Re:Obligatory Neal Stephenson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.audiojournal.com/zora.html

      Wonder Woman
      BY KELLY McEVERS

      FEB 23, 2001
      We met in a bar in Flagstaff, Arizona. I'd just moved back from Cambodia, and I was going out for one of my first beers back in the states.

      Not long into the first one, I notice this amazon of a woman with huge blond and red streaked hair and frosty lips, wearing a short, red tank dress and at least fifty bracelets. She's six feet tall and showing a lot of leg. People at the bar swivel their heads to watch her every move.

      She stands next to me to order a drink, and in this throaty voice says, "What are those?" pointing to my cigarettes.

      I tell her they're Cambodian. Her eyes light up and she shoots out a long, tan arm and points at a table in the corner. She orders me there. Before I can say no, I'm following her to my seat.

      She tells me she's an international private investigator, a bounty hunter, and a bail bonds enforcer. And, that her name is Zora. I sit there for hours listening to her.

      Within a week she takes me to Las Vegas. We drive there in her red Mustang. As always, there's a colt .380 under the driver's seat and a 45 Megastar in the trunk.

      In Vegas, we skip the casinos and head straight for the male strip clubs, where Zora drops at least $200 on lap dances from buff guys with names like Roman. Her getup is the same as before -- teased hair, jewelry and the ubiquitous tank dress, which, I realize, is the best way to show off her tattoos.

      One is this big circle with blue and white swirls in it -- kind of like a bowling ball -- on her left shoulder. Every guy she meets asks her about it, and when they hear her answer, they sometimes propose marriage.

      Turns out the tattoo is a magic globe she holds in her dreams. And in these dreams it gives her superpowers.

      "Ever since I remember I've had the dreams. And they're very vivid, but it varies -- usually it involves fighting, sometimes with guns, sometimes with superhero powers, like lightning from my fists and all that. And I usually have superstrength and I can fly and I have all those things, right. And it's my most common set of dreams, and it varies. Sometimes it's medieval, sometimes it's futuristic, sometimes it's present day, sometimes it's like a guerrilla war in Latin America."

      "Can you describe that Zora to me? That Zora in dreams?"

      "Very powerful, athletically. But beyond the rules of nature that this world allows. So, 6-foot-5 and long -- almost like impossibly long -- silver hair. This sortof otherworldly quality to her, where her voice did not sound normal. It sounded almost musical.

      "It became something that I aspired to be. Aspired to be this sortof superhero, this sortof person who would fight for a cause. That was my motivation in life. Ever since I was ten or eleven, I decided that that was my goal."

      Zora took the dreams seriously, so seriously that at the age of 12, she sat down and composed a list of some 30 skills she needed to learn if she wanted to become as close to a superhero as any mortal could be. She even gave herself a deadline: to master these skills by the time she was 23.

      Zora pulls out the old spiral notebook that was her diary at the age of 13, and turns to the inside back cover.

      "Yep, there's the list. The list included martial arts, electronics, chemistry, metaphysics, hang gliding, helicopter and airplane flying, mountain climbing, survival ..."

      Throughout her teens and 20's, each time she started a new diary, she would update the list and write it in the back of the book. Each one with the same format, each one titled The List.

      "Weaponry, rafting, scuba diving, herbology -- yes I studied that. CPR, first aid and mountain emergency medicine..."

      The list also includes body building, archery, demolitions and explosives. She wanted learn how to hunt animals and track men.

      "Major physical conditioning ..."

      And

  11. Yeah, but... by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

    10-12 years to get all that spare cash too? I think we should train Bill Gates to be batman. How long until I can be Iron Man?

    1. Re:Yeah, but... by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, Batman with a bowl hair cut and a squeaky voice just doesn't seem that intimidating.....

    2. Re:Yeah, but... by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      Or possibly...more intimidating?

  12. Losing != death by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Losing means death -- or at least not being able to be Batman anymore.

    That's BS. The Adam West Batman lost and got captured tons of times. That's when his utility belt's contents really got interesting!

    1. Re:Losing != death by Tatisimo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Never leave home without shark repellent! I always wondered if he kept a bunch of belts on the car and changed them according to terrain. Would he carry bear, shark, and tiger repellent on the same day? Maybe on a trip to the zoo.

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
  13. 10,000 hours by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I remember a stat that I saw a long time ago (I can't remember who to attribute it to). But basically it said that with 10,000 hours of training you can go from zero to a world class practitioner in *any* field you choose. That could me artist, scientist, astronaut etc.

    But I doubt that many people have the finances or drive to keep up such a regime until you achieve your goal. And thats what separates the world class people from the rest of us.

    Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:10,000 hours by thedistrict · · Score: 1

      Well, natural ability can trim hours off that improvement schedule was my understanding. So someone with natural advantages might need only 9,000 hours or something before being 'world class.' It's also worthy of note that the 'world class' is rarely defined and it's hard to get on a grip on what that actually means. The best in the world? Or one of... It makes for interesting food for thought though. And maybe Bill Gates is the wrong choice for Iron Man, how about someone with a love for thrills like Richard Branson. He's certainly god the money.

    2. Re:10,000 hours by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

      Hmm, what qualifies as Really short ? I'd pay special attention to the entries for Bogues, Boykins, and Webb.

    3. Re:10,000 hours by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't take that long to become a superhero.....just look here: http://www.scifi.com/superhero/

      Layne

    4. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's about six hours a day on most days for five years. With world class teaching and appropriate practice facilities, that sounds pretty consistent with what I've found in everything from playing a musical instrument to martial arts. Obviously there are going to be some prerequisites: someone is going to have to be fairly smart to become a world class chess player, or fairly tall to become a world class basketball player. But you can get seriously good at most things if you have the resources and you're willing to devote the time to it.

      The thing I always regret with my hobbies is that I never appreciated the difference a really good teacher and training facilities can make when I was young enough to take advantage of them. By the time I found a teacher who could answer my deeper questions in most cases, I had already spent several years studying with mediocre teachers and without access to the best facilities, or in one case well over a decade just messing around and learning by experimentation without any guidance. These things do work up to a point — after all, someone had to work each difficult thing out first — but for most of my hobbies, I could probably have achieved in 1–2 years what in reality took me 5+ with a lesser teacher and limited facilites, or a decade of experimentation on my own.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:10,000 hours by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      touche .. but I was thinking of sub-five foot people. So I think my unstated assumption ultimately wins as there are no sub-five foot players listed there :-)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:10,000 hours by the+real+chahn · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about whether the difference between a top-tier instructor and a merely "good" instructor makes that much of a difference at the beginning. When you are starting to learn something, does it really matter if you are working with the best of the best, or just with someone who knows the basics and can get you started without major mistakes? My impression, from my own experiences in trying to learn various skills, is that I don't have enough of my own knowledge of the activity early on to be able to benefit from the extra wisdom held by the best of the best.

    7. Re:10,000 hours by kryliss · · Score: 1

      At 8 hours a day that comes out to ~3.4 years which isn't bad, half that to 4 hours a day ~6.8 years, half again 13.6 years. So at 2 hours a day for "Whatever" skill you could become a world class "Whatever" that's not too far fetched. As you said, give or take for natural skill/abilities etc.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    8. Re:10,000 hours by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I've studied in kinesiology (graduated in different field). I'm a bit rusty, but I'm sure the last paragraph will prove correct to 99.9% of Slashdot readers ;)

      Generally, if you spend about 400 - 500 hours training, to be a competent user of a skill. At least, that's the kinetics text book definition. There's also some huge assumptions: you are training seriously for a sport, that those hours are quality hours, that you are in good condition (flexible, fast, strong) etc.

      For skill mastery, 10,000 hours sounds probably as close as anyone will get. In sports conditioning is the big factor. You have to develop muscle memory and have a good sense of the kinestetics of how to play the sport. For some sports, your brain needs to adapt and really learn to calculate how hard or far to throw/hit an object - which then translates to reflexes and muscle memory. There's a lot of complex math that goes behind a lot of movements like hitting a baseball. A lot more complicated then what most realize (I wrote a paper on the matter).

      There's nobody counting 10,000 hours with a stop watch on something this long, I imagine! I'd have probably stopped at 8,000 hours and rounded up to 10,000! ;)

      As a programmer, I'm sure drinking beer while mastering the art of "work" is sure to help. This is my professional opinion. Tell your boss ;) ..... I'm helping all of you (I hope).

    9. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 5 years of 9-to-5. Seems a bit low, but could be right.

      According to Norvig:

      "Researchers (Bloom (1985), Bryan & Harter (1899), Hayes (1989), Simmon & Chase (1973)) have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology."

    10. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you have hit on a very important point there, perhaps unintentionally. You wrote:

      When you are starting to learn something, does it really matter if you are working with the best of the best, or just with someone who knows the basics and can get you started without major mistakes?

      It has been my experience that the difference between the "master" teachers and the "journeymen" is precisely that the masters will teach you the right thing, while the journeymen will teach you something that superficially looks, sounds or appears similar, but gets the effect in the wrong way (in the sense that you will need a different approach to improve further).

      This is not to say that journeymen cannot be useful teachers. They have greater experience than the student, and perhaps can pass on the wisdom that multiple teachers of their own have shared with them. Usually this will help the student much more than harm them, and a student can learn a lot from such a teacher, particularly if they have access to multiple teachers so they can spot the inconsistencies that might betray a misunderstanding on the part of any one teacher.

      However, the master has moved beyond this, combining the guidance of his teachers with his own experience of both practising and teaching the subject, and thus developing his own personal insights. Where the journeyman mostly repeats advice based on the understanding of others, the master understands the subject deeply himself and can therefore create advice on demand in each specific situation.

      This makes a significant difference in at least two circumstances. One is where the journeyman teacher has never themselves progressed beyond a certain level of understanding, and they are teaching a way of doing something that can only get their students to the same level, where the master's approach would achieve the same effect at the same level of development but also allow for further growth. Thus the student picks up a bad habit, which must be unlearned and replaced with the better version before they can make further progress.

      The other big difference is in a field where people must adapt. For example, if I were coaching a short, stocky, strong Batman, I would teach him very different fighting techniques to those I would teach to a tall, fast, agile Batman, to take advantage of his attributes. A journeyman teacher who is short, stocky and strong and has received advice from teachers that play to those strengths might not have good advice available to pass on to the tall, fast, agile student. The master, in contrast, has developed experience beyond their own learning and practice of the skill, studying alternative perspectives and forming a more rounded view of the subject, and so can customise their advice based on the specific needs of each student. Again, much of the advice during the first years of study would probably overlap, but the master will identify the differences immediately and again prevent the need for the student to go back and make adjustments later.

      This is just IME, and YMMV. That, after all, is the point. Whether it is worth paying the greater costs of going to a master teacher from the start (not just in terms of money, but also travel time if there is no-one that good who lives near you, etc.) is debatable, because of course much of the subtlety of their understanding really is wasted on a beginner at first. However, other things being equal and money being no object since we're talking about Batman, there are definitely advantages to avoiding the journeyman teacher and learning from the master.

      (Incidentally, I personally find the study of how different people learn, the stages of development a student goes through as they learn a new skill, and how best a teacher can help them, to be a fascinating area. There is a lot of interesting research about it, which you might like to explore if you're interested and haven't seen it already.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:10,000 hours by navyjeff · · Score: 1

      Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.

      Spud Webb disagrees.

    12. Re:10,000 hours by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      That's the fundamental, egalitarian mindset that produced the statement "all men are created equal." We all love to think that, and it'd be nice if it were true.
      But it isn't.
      You could spend more than 10,000 hours trying to get my girlfriend to be good at math. In that time she could certainly learn huge amounts of exotic math concepts, but she'd never be able to reliably add two numbers because she is physically unable to consistently recognize numerals and keep them in order.
      I used to be a bike racer, and I was pretty good at it. But no matter how much training I did now, at 40, I would never be able to race on a professional level again because my mitochondria just aren't up to it anymore.
      And then there's our friend Z, who is a really nice guy. The thing is: he's just not very bright. He only got his GED when he was 24, and that was really difficult for him. No matter how much you worked with him, no matter how much training, he can't even consistently drive a car well. He's only sort of literate, despite years of work with therapists and teachers. He's just, well, kind of retarded.

      There are jobs which are deterministic: trash collection. You go to all the houses and pick up the trash. Pilot: you fly the plane and deal with storms. In some ways, even many doctors have deterministic jobs with vastly more complicated flowcharts, that end up at one of several points. But even those jobs have challenges that are simply beyond some people.
      But jobs that rely on innovation, are harder yet, because there isn't a learnable process that results in innovation. Extrapolation, and more specifically extrapolating ideas that are not only right but useful, is currently still a matter of having a prepared mind and a talent for seeing things first. I don't think that's something that can be taught to the vast majority of humanity.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    13. Re:10,000 hours by pluther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is also a big difference between knowing a subject and knowing how to teach it.

      Sometimes, being an expert in your field helps to teach it better. Sometimes, though, you've forgotten what it was like not to know the basics. Many of us here on Slashdot can figure out instantly that if 2x+3=11, then x=4. Some will go through a bit of a process involving subtraction and division. But if we had to explain it to others, how many of the experts will remember to explain why you can subtract 3 from both sides, or that x stands for a number, 2x means two times whatever x stands for, and that multiplication is commutative?

      Or have the patience to realize that you've just introduced half a dozen important concepts here and no beginner is going to remember them all immediately...

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    14. Re:10,000 hours by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      In other words, 3.5 years of a full-time job, with no weekends off. This doesn't trivialise the issue very much.

    15. Re:10,000 hours by the+real+chahn · · Score: 1

      It's true that the master will be better able to help you overcome mistakes, and your point about adaptability is well taken.

      You do raise an interesting question, though: can the master actually help the student avoid learning bad habits better than a journeyman (if we assume that the student will eventually move on to work with the master once his/her skills have developed)? I'm trying to think of an activity that I've learned where I didn't pick up bad habits along the way, and I'm coming up blank. I think part of the challenge of learning is being able to re-learn things that you picked up incorrectly at first, and I don't know if working with a master right away (as opposed to after a few years) would really help to skip over those kinds of errors. Again, YMMV.

    16. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Think that might be an under-estimate. Even beyond the effects of raw ability...

      50 * 40 = ~2,000 hours a year at a 9-5 job.

      So, if 10,000 hours is correct than 5 years of 9-5 work will make you world class in anything.

      Scientists spend longer in grad school. Professional athletes train much longer than that. World class musicians start training as children and don't reach their peak until their 30s.

      Not to even mention novelists, who take decades to reach their peak.

    17. Re:10,000 hours by ErikInterlude · · Score: 1

      I don't know if this is where you got the figure, but the 10,000 hours estimate comes up in the book This Is Your Brain On Music. There's a chapter somewhere in the middle on what it takes to be a great musician. The author states that, as a general average, it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything. I think he also stressed that this is more or less a ballpark figure. Some people take longer, some fewer.

      --

      --Erik
    18. Re:10,000 hours by ildon · · Score: 1

      Hrm.... only about 200 total days (4,800 hours) /played in WoW so far. I got some more work to do.

    19. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four words: Anthony Jerome "Spud" Webb

    20. Re:10,000 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, if you look at 'elite' raiders, you're probably right.

  14. Oh he'd stay on top of his game by bigattichouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Staying on top of his game is all part of his psychosis. If you hadn't noticed, he's a bit of a whackjob himself.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Oh he'd stay on top of his game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, a guy who dresses up like a bat clearly has issues.

    2. Re:Oh he'd stay on top of his game by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read an interview years ago with Todd McFarlane, I think after one of the Schumacher movies. He said what he disliked about a lot of modern depictions of Batman was that there was little or no exploration of Bruce's craziness. Essentially, you have this highly talented super-rich guy who chooses to spend his time going out at 3am, dressed in a halloween costume, in the hopes of scaring the crap out of random muggers.

      Whackjob indeed.

      Any interesting depiction of Batman should really address the question, "What would possess a man to do that?" Parents getting murdered doesn't really cover it-- I'm sure there are kids who have seen their parents murdered and not gone through all that. I think these new Batman movies are doing a decent job of addressing the issue, partially by explaining that he knows it's kind of crazy, but has studies the criminal mindset and believes he needs some theatrics in order to be effective. But still... It's pretty crazy.

      On the other hand, it's not as though McFarlane's movie was so hot, either.

  15. I prefer some 'Real' expert opinions by burtosis · · Score: 5, Funny

    And am awaiting the panel at Comic-Con.

  16. I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by objekt · · Score: 2, Informative

    And did not become Batman. I started at age 33 and by age 39 I had been in Physical Therapy 3 times; once for neck pain and twice for hip pain. I was not very flexible when I started training and was equally inflexible when I stopped. At least I didn't get much worse.

    On the plus side, for a while I was reasonably confident in my ability to defend myself in a fair fight against a similarly skilled and otherwise unarmed person. It's now been another 6 years I'm quite out of practice and out of shape.

    So as usual, YMMV.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by dino2gnt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.

      --
      Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
    2. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      You didn't train long enough, or you'd know that in any real defense situation there is no such thing as a fair fight.

      Self Defense: You're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by objekt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was being ironic.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    4. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the best lessons I learned in martial arts is there are two kinds of fights, those you fight dirty and those you lose.

    5. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

      That's unfortunate, although it may speak more to your teacher than to martial arts training in general.

      I started studying Isshinryu Karate about four years ago, and I've never felt better in my life. I don't have the constant little nagging aches and pains I used to, I was actually able to do a split a few months ago for the first time, and it didn't cause any pain.

      On the other hand, while my technique is getting pretty good, and I have the strength and flexibility to use what I've learned effectively, I have no illusions about my ability to take on multiple opponents, or even one opponent with real experience (real as opposed to sparring). Happily, I've never had to test my skill level in that way.

    6. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      Self Defense: You're doing it wrong.

      LOLspeak: ur doin it rong!!!1one

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    7. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      "Good man, bad man -- dirty man wins!"
      -- Donna Barr, "Warhorse"

    8. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, you was too old when you started.

      Secondly, did you devote 10-12 years of your life to it? 12 hours a day?

      Come back when you've de-aged down to 25 THEN spent 12 years devoted to becoming Batman.

    9. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      And did not become Batman.

      This is something only Batman would say.. Come to think of it has anyone ever seen objekt and Batman in the same room at the same time?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years

      They teach the bat-skills in the last 4 years.. Shouldn't have left, should you?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    11. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds very General Tacticus...

    12. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Any cop can tell you otherwise. You have clear rules of engagement. It's not 'dirty' to escalate to weapons early, and it's not 'dirty' to bring in reinforcements, nor is it 'dirty' to be better trained and have the public on your side.

    13. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You know what's a good way to defend yourself from 12 or even 40 people?

      Run.

      After all in most cases, it's nothing really that personal - not like they will hunt you down weeks or months later to kill you. It's just at that very moment, they might kill you.

      Now if you had to defend someone else then running might not work.

      --
    14. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter have you seen two Anonymous Cowards in one r-... I'll let myself out...

    15. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Amisinthe · · Score: 1

      As someone who's been training in martial arts for years, my advice to anyone concerned with personal safety is to invest in a tazer. The ones the police use are around $500 and they are very effective.

    16. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by paulgrant · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up.

      Lord, thats a gem on par with Patton ;)

    17. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      I've been training for almost 5. I've pulled muscles and been in PT a few times. I started when I was 22. My flexibility was always good, my strength, endurance, speed and skill have all seen dramatic increases. It's become part of me now. In my 5 years I've seen students come and go from all age groups.

      We emphasis training to the best of your ability. Everyone should understand that their bodies have limits. Every one of the limits can be pushed a bit. Even if you hit a wall, you have other limits to push. That's all we ask. And we train hard. There are a few 40+ year olds that have been training for a few years and they know they're never going to leap into the air like the young guys. Who knows, maybe they will. They understand that concept. Don't compare your ability to other's ability. Compare your ability today with yesterday, last month, last year. Sounds like you have. But why give up?

      I haven't a clue where you trained, or with who, but I'm sure that some knowledge was imparted upon you. Don't let that die.

      In regards to a 'fair fight' I try to explain to our students that training must always be tempered with humility. This is a double edge sword. One, students learn respect for themselves and others. Two, students learn that showboating and pride cannot help them in 'fair fights'. It actually makes their situation far worse. If you don't advertise what you know and you'll have at least that edge. I don't want anyone to know my ability who would need to know it (IE the mugger, the jerk with a chip on his shoulder..). It makes me that much more effective. I also know that I'm not that great at sparring, buuut I can take a lot of punishment... and I have learned this from being not that great at sparring.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    18. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      One of the best lessons I learned in martial arts is there are two kinds of fights, those you fight dirty and those you lose.

      And the best part is you can take advantage of people who don't know this by pretending to fight fair, losing, and then when they walk away you stab them in the back. They never see it coming!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    19. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by RobDude · · Score: 1

      Ummm....I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

      Dirty in this context is the opposite of 'fair', if you scroll up you'll see, 'When you find yourself in a fair fight, it's time to reevaluate your tactics.'

      To say that cops fight 'fair' or 'not dirty' is utterly wrong. I would hardly call it 'fair' to use superior weapons, or to call in your buddies to a fight.

      I'm not saying cops *SHOULD* fight fair, but they certainly don't.

    20. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Well, 'fair' is well-defined. The cops are not supposed to use lethal force without well-defined guidelines, and they're supposed to de-escalate where possible. It's the difference between using the nightstick on an unarmed attacker, and shooting them in the head when they're on the ground.

    21. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by beamin · · Score: 1

      I just got a new sig.

    22. Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most insightful comment in a long time here.

  17. *Scientific American* does dumb questions now? by toby · · Score: 1

    First Reality TV, now this? What a sad joke on the decline of American relevance.

    --
    you had me at #!
  18. Batman? Phooey by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Batman is a wanker. Now, how many years would it take to become an awesome superhero, like Rorschach?
    • Physically — Not that much work involved, but you should be bad-ass in a bar fight
    • Gadgets — Buy a case of pantihose, paint some black splotches on it and you're there
    • Mentally — Spend at least two hours a day meditating on the fact that most human beings are whores and scum
    1. Re:Batman? Phooey by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, when the Watchmen movie finally comes out, we'll get a huge pantload of depressing bunk about the "scientific" aspects of all of it. And faintly in the background, you'll hear Alan Moore grinding his teeth.

      Also, when you say "Batman is a wanker", do you mean the character, or a specific interpretation of it? I mean, I think we can all agree that the Schumacher turd-like adaptation was pretty awful, but the newer ones are much better. And Adam West's is a little too campy for most people ...

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
    2. Re:Batman? Phooey by Fozzyuw · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to be Batman when you could be Bruce Wayne? Of course, I'm talking Movie Bruce Wayne, not Adam West Bruce Wayne.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    3. Re:Batman? Phooey by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay, I admit that The Dark Knight Returns is one of the greatest comic books ever.

    4. Re:Batman? Phooey by CaseyB · · Score: 1

      There's a comment element to these two that's worth noting: you need to suffer some childhood trauma that leaves you a sociopath.

      A severe antisocial personality disorder is a huge advantage in a fight. Regarding your opponents as fellow human beings just slows you down.

    5. Re:Batman? Phooey by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

      Gadgets â" Buy a case of pantihose, paint some black splotches on it and you're there

      Now hold on a moment there. How are you going to get an awesome shifting splotch cloth without any of Dr. Manhattan's advances in practical particle physics?

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    6. Re:Batman? Phooey by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Steal it from Wayne Industries R&D center?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    7. Re:Batman? Phooey by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      But that goes against Batman, doesn't it? He suffered childhood trauma, yet he refused to kill someone for those sorts of reasons.

  19. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am batman.

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      lets see if you can breathe in space too.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  20. its pop science by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    pop science is important. it is a gateway to serious science for many youngsters and average joes

    you are dismayed it does not feature serious science

    ok, so go read something else

    why the hate for a magazine of pop science?

    it serves a valuable function. are you angry that some obscure technical journal is not popular? so why are you angry that a piece of pop science is doing what a piece of pop science must do?

    if it is serious science, it is relegated to obscurity, as a rule. because it needs to be digested for the masses, where anything popular takes place

    why don't you understand this?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:its pop science by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scientific American as it was had a unique role, presenting things in an approachable fashion but still being quite rigorous. It's shift towards a wider demographic means that there is no longer a magazine at that level. In terms of popular science magazines, there's already Discovery and Popular Science, so it's not as if without the new SA there would be no science gateways for young people.

    2. Re:its pop science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't *you* understand what the parent poster was talking about? :)

      Scientific American used to be the "intelligent layman s guide to science". There were and are plenty of rags for the "rest of the laypeople" like Discover or Popular Science.

      Fortunately, I've still got Nature and Science News but it was disappointing to let my many years subscription to SciAm drop. The change was... what, about 5-10 years ago?

    3. Re:its pop science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you understand this?

      Why do you assume we don't understand this? And where's your sense of humour?

  21. It's more than physical ability and big money... by jvp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, the character has an almost super-human physique. And yes, he's got a big pile 'o cash that helps him afford the toys and tools he uses during his "night job". But there's more to it.

    Wayne can out-think any of his opponents. His schtick is that he's 5-10 steps ahead of anyone. If he gets into a fight, he's already out-thought the opponent and knows exactly how the fight's going to end.

    That's harder to teach. You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.

    --
    Jason Van Patten
  22. Finishing the quote by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this was liberating. He no longer has to worry about being the baddest motherfucker in the world. The position is taken.

    1. Re:Finishing the quote by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      But, if Hiro was willing to work for North Korea, he, too, could have a nuclear sidecar on his motorcycle, which would them make him the baddest motherfucker in the world.

      Or, once Uncle Enzo takes down Raven, does that make Uncle Enzo the baddest motherfucker in the world? And what happens to Raven's nuke? Was it on The Raft, and just solved that whole mess in one giant fireball?

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  23. I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...more than a couple of attackers, and you're in trouble. Facing ten bad guys, short of some super-exo-skeleton that boosts your strength and armours your body against instantaneous impact and sustained pressure and torsion, you're going down hard, quickly. And no, they don't always helpfully attack one or two at a time: watch half a dozen cops taking down a violent drunk some time.

    And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat. That means at least knocked out or injured seriously enough that they can't fight, not the cutesy pain compliance stuff. If they are weak and clueless when it comes to fight, you are fit and highly skilled when it comes to fighting, you can find some sort of weapon, you are lucky with the environment, and there aren't too many of them, you might just do this for long enough to create an opportunity to escape. Maybe, if you're really lucky.

    But it's a fun read, I'll give it that. :-)

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:I don't care how good you are... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat."

      That's why we make firearms. All that unarmed combat bullshit is entertaining, but if you want to stop an opponent from functioning, kill him.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:I don't care how good you are... by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's a trick behind multiple attackers. 10 attackers is quite a few, and is very difficult, but not at all impossible if you're well trained and well prepared. Assuming you have some sort of weapon that the attackers don't (you're batman, right?) helps out.

      The trick behind multiple attackers is moving around enough so that they eventually line up and come at you one or two at a time. If they've completely surrounded you you're in a bit of a mess, but usually there's a weak point of the circle that you can brute force your way through to get to the outside, then work on the 5 D's (Dodge duck dip dive dodge) until they move from a large group all coming at you atonce to a line trying to chase you. Groups are notoriously easy to guide. Another tactic is to sort of move like a sheep dog, circling them until they start bunching up in the middle, then hopefully getting the hell out of there (This will give you a head start, bunches have a harder time getting up to speed).

      Assuming they don't want to hit their own men, this is completely doable. If you have a decent weapon (a long stick does wonders), you'd be perfectly capable. Not saying you're not in trouble with 10+ guys attacking you, I'm not saying you'd come out unscathed, not saying you'd always win, or that you should try it. But a person can do this, so its not impossible, and it'd be stupid to give up.

    3. Re:I don't care how good you are... by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you've got it exactly right. I trained in martial arts for 10 years... 1st degree black belt (didn't have time or dedication to go another 10 years to get 2nd degree ;-)

      If you find yourself in a fight like described you have to aim to put your opponents down... immobilize them. Break knees, break necks, knock them out and down... as fast as possible, then when their buddies are reeling from your viciousness you run like hell. (assuming they didn't all just dog-pile you)

      If the fight is not going to happen (all talk no action) you talk your way out of it and/or run away... if there's no other option you do the above.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    4. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      short of some super-exo-skeleton that boosts your strength and armours your body against instantaneous impact and sustained pressure and torsion

      It won't help with strength, but search youtube for d3o. That looks like it fits the bill for body armor (maybe not bullets). The folks there take shovels to the joints without a wince.

      For bullets, I would say to sew that d3o between some shear-thickening-fluid-impregnated kevlar. (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392807)
      That should help with stabs too.

      And come on, this is a premeditated attack. More than a couple attackers, when you aren't prepared, is one thing. But if you are Batman!*, you are equipped with smoke bombs and rope. You will storm down into a group of confused enemies with fists a blazing, and take out at least two before the others find out where you are.

      So long as you don't get grabbed, you should be okay (while wearing the armor, and being a physically fit, fighting machine, that is). Once they can hold you down, you're screwed.

      *Extraneous punctuation added for dramatic effect

    5. Re:I don't care how good you are... by drerwk · · Score: 2, Funny

      5 D's (Dodge duck dip dive dodge)

      Don't you mean: "Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha - THRUST!"

    6. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 attackers is quite a few, and is very difficult, but not at all impossible if you're well trained and well prepared.

      If you honestly believe everything you wrote in that post, then I can't help but think that you've trained some sort of martial art or self-defence class that teaches basic tactics for dealing with multiple opponents, but never really tried it in a free-for-all, full-contact, anything-goes experiment. I promise you, it's an experiment you'll only ever need to do once, because the result is absolutely guaranteed.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why we make firearms.

      I wondered whether someone would come up with that. You're going to need one heck of a weapon to take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you, though.

      Then again, you're Batman. Maybe you really do have some funky combination of flashbangs, smoke bombs, and defensive equipment that renders you immune to their effects. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo... Bruce Wayne isn't realistic, but Terry McGinnis is?

    9. Re:I don't care how good you are... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're going to need one heck of a weapon to take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you, though.

      This is my BOOMSTICK

      Don't forget to factor in human nature. At most, you'll only need to take down 2-3 before they get close enough to grab you.

    10. Re:I don't care how good you are... by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have. I've been training in several martial arts for over 18 years now (2nd Degree in Aikido, 1st degree in Tang Su Do, minimal training in Pentjak Silat). If you use your head, 10 people is not an impossible task. And I'm not saying you shouldn't be running as soon as you get a chance. I'm saying that with 10+ people around you, it's not impossible to get that chance, especially if you have a weapon, and your opponents do not. Think about it this way, 10 people bare knuckled, me with a butterfly knife. You think I can't cut enough people to get away?

    11. Re:I don't care how good you are... by DreamingReal · · Score: 2, Funny

      And no, they don't always helpfully attack one or two at a time: watch half a dozen cops taking down a violent drunk some time.

      That's only b/c the drunks never have a 6-foot bamboo stick with shattered ends. I saw Drunken Master 2 - as long as you have that stick you can be shit-faced and take out over 30 guys.

      --
      We want some answers and all that we get
      Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat

      - Ministry
    12. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I simply don't believe you have really tried that experiment. I'm somewhat familiar with all of the arts you named, and it is nothing like the normal form of training in any of them. They are, in fact, typical examples of the kind of art I mentioned that often teaches some tactics for dealing with multiple opponents but doesn't really do the die-hard exercises to see how things work for real. More to the point, if you had, we would not be having this conversation.

      And no, under normal circumstances, I don't believe you can fight your way out if you start out surrounded by 10 unarmed but serious attackers and all you have is a butterfly knife. You might inflict serious or fatal wounds on one or two before they take you down, but they will still easily take you down, because you have no meaningful advantage in range.

      If you had a firearm or something like a katana or battle axe, and the environment was such that there was a space you could go through to escape where only one or two of your attackers are in the way and none of the others could grab you, and you had sufficient advantages in skill and fitness to overcome those one or two attackers within a moment and then run away faster than the others could pursue, then you might have a chance because you are really only fighting a small number of opponents and you have decisive advantages to make up for their greater numbers. And even then you'll still need a lot of luck.

      Unfortunately, you're Batman, which means you aren't allowed to use lethal force, so that neat iaido sequence you were thinking of to kill both opponents almost instantly and make good your escape along the walled path they were blocking isn't allowed. Sorry. :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    13. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Batman is like a ninja, and doesn't get into huge brawls. Well, at least often. And really only when the writer is poor.

    14. Re:I don't care how good you are... by steveo777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      He does have a point. If it's 10 on 1 and you've been training, there is a good chance that you'll be able to take down one or two of the 'weakest links' and be able to high-tale it out of there. On the other hand, if they're similarly trained (IE you don't have enough of an edge) you're probably boned unless you get lucky. At my studio we do try to do a lot of 3 to 1 fights.

      And you're right. They're nothing compared to the real thing. Nothing at all. Two of our students learned this the hard way when they went up against the wrong people, quite separate occurrences, and landed in the hospital. The first one was dumb enough to get into a four on one. The four had weapons (bludgeons and the like). The other hadn't had much training at all and was too arrogant for his own good.

      After almost 5 years of training and some focused open hand vs weapon training I'm still not confident that I'd make it out of a situation like that. But I try to remain humble, and know my limits. So I doubt that situation would happen. I'm definitely smart enough to not instigate it!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    15. Re:I don't care how good you are... by a1ok · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... take down ten opponents at close range before they get close enough to grab you

      Make sure to take Point Blank Shot as a feat before you fight, or just have a close-range weapon on hotswap.

    16. Re:I don't care how good you are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of facing many attackers is part of the reason hes 'batman' and not just some dude in a black mask. The idea is to create a personal and atmosphere that frightens or at least cause oponents to hesitate so hes not fighting them all at once. Batman's best weapon is probably fear at least when hes fight villains that arn't super human.

    17. Re:I don't care how good you are... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      You must be a suicidal moron to jump towards a person with a gun, even if you outnumber them.

      Firing one shot off should make all 10 opponents back off and shut the fuck up.

  24. 2 years if you took a Devil Dog by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

    When I was trying out for Force Recon, I was trying to explain to a civilian friend what they did, and I compared them to the navy seals. My friend laughed and said "no way Force Recon is similar to the seals." While not many Marines have, I have worked with seals, and my conclusion is this: "If you take someone with the right mental willpower to learn things and the right physical dedication, the only difference is the kind of training you give him." Basically, though seals are much more amphibious and deal much more with explosives, the only difference between Sgt. Kill in the infantry and that guy is the amount and quality of training given to him. It costs an awful lot to train people, especially the more "awesome" the training is. So if you took a good Marine and trained him to be Batman, I think it would only take a couple years, tops. Enter the Batman Batallion, ooo, I crack myself up sometimes...

    --
    "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    1. Re:2 years if you took a Devil Dog by mcwidget · · Score: 1

      I compared them to the navy seals

      My mate was a Commanchio. He done a little work with the Seals. He was unimpressed.

    2. Re:2 years if you took a Devil Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mate was a Commanchio. He done a little work with the Seals. He was unimpressed.

      As with most people from the UK, you're fantastic at looking down your nose at folks without realizing your own weaknesses.

      To summarize: the SBS "ain't all that". Nor are the Royal Marines. US forces have quite a bit more combat experience than do Little England's at this point, and they do just fine. You only hear about the fuckups.

      My favorite thing about the first gulf war was watching the UK newscasts: basically, the UK military kicked the shit out of the Iraqi military. Oh yeah, the US and some other nations helped a bit.

      And in this Iraq war, I thought it was hilarious when the pompous Black Watch regiment took over from a U.S. unit with a condescending sneer. And then got its ass handed to it.

    3. Re:2 years if you took a Devil Dog by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      Well, Ive only been drinkin buddies with some Royal Marines, never any SAS. (Headgear swap for souvenir anyone?) I never had any issue with their ability. What I have had an Issue with is their cocky attitude (which coming from a Marine is sorta the pot calling the kettle black, but they are a bit over the top) I have a good example: 3 Marines and 2 Seals are hanging out at a Mall in an undefined Arab country. Stuff happens (people dont like Americans anymore, even though Im such a nice guy), long story short, the seal gets deported, and me and my buddies didnt. I tried to warn him. Seals fail at not drawing attention to themselves.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    4. Re:2 years if you took a Devil Dog by mcwidget · · Score: 1

      Yeah, very similar to his point of view. He reckoned they were overpaid and overrated compared to similar skillsets in the UK. Maybe he got that wrong though, maybe the UK's underpaid and underrated?

  25. More important question by Kohath · · Score: 1

    How long would it take me to become Two-Face?

    1. Re:More important question by NiceGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't take long, just go in to politics.

  26. In other news by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 1

    How much 'articles' does it take to, coincidentally, advertise the new Batman movie?

    --
    When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    1. Re:In other news by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 1

      The advertising's done. The movie is called "Dark Knight" and there's a bloody bat logo in the poster. Short of an actual signal in the sky, no one could make it clearer what's coming, and anyone but you posting in this thread has been waiting for an excuse to stop working, learning, taking care of the kids, etc. just long enough to discuss it.

      --
      Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
  27. You wouldn't be batman ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.

    It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson, Zetaman, Captain Prospect or some other "real life superhero"

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:You wouldn't be batman ... by Arccot · · Score: 1

      For those of us already in our 30s, we'd be over the hill in 10-12 years.

      It's much more likely that we'd be end up more like Captain Jackson, Zetaman, Captain Prospect or some other "real life superhero"

      Well, the real life superheroes are actually pretty neat. They do good deeds, have fun doing it, and try to inspire others to relax and do the same. Volunteering in a costume sounds like fun!

    2. Re:You wouldn't be batman ... by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      I live in Jackson, Michigan, and I regularly see Captian Jackson.

      He's a 50-something old man wearing purple tights, walking around town in a mask & cape, claiming that he's "crime fighting".

      He's recently been arrested & done time for a DUI.

      I'll stick to actually being a geek, rather than pretending to be batman.

  28. Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and I remember when Slashdot actually posted articles that were NEWS for Nerds, and Stuff that MATTERS. There are a disturbing number of articles like this that make the front page these days.

    You're, like, totally black there, kettle.

  29. But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you... by kipin · · Score: 1

    to sleep?

    I went to a midnight showing of The Dark Knight last night and managed to fall asleep with an hour left in the movie and wake up just in time for the credits to roll.

    Sigh.....

    --
    If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
  30. I can see it now..... by mr_nazgul · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Batman workout video collection...

    How much will you pay for this?

    900$?

    NO!

    500$?

    NO!

    For a limited time, just two easy payments of one parent!

    --
    Good.. Bad.. I'm the guy with the gun.
    1. Re:I can see it now..... by SSNTails · · Score: 1

      Does it come with Reversi?

  31. To hell with the Batman, go the Punisher route by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Becoming the Punisher would take a lot less than 18 years. All you need is some sneakiness, decent marksmanship and the prudence and stamina to run away before the cops show up.

  32. Burt Ward vs Bruce Lee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burt Ward (Robin) "fought" Bruce Lee (Kato) to a draw in an episode of Batman or The Green Hornet.

    So anything's possible.

  33. Re:But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    I went to a midnight showing of The Dark Knight last night and managed to fall asleep with an hour left in the movie and wake up just in time for the credits to roll.

    What kind of city do you live in where you can see a midnight showing of Dark Knight and not also have access to coffee 24 hours a day?

  34. People we can get but the real question is... by clonan · · Score: 1

    Where does he get those wonderful toys?!

    1. Re:People we can get but the real question is... by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Funny
    2. Re:People we can get but the real question is... by zentinal · · Score: 1

      ToysRUs webmaster: "Why are we getting all of these hits from Slashdot all of a sudden? What do you mean we're sold out of Batman Mega Capes?"

    3. Re:People we can get but the real question is... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Castro? Ass in the tunnel under the US MEnt, a treasury tunnel to Castro? I heard a rumour that Batman sponsored the Hollow Weenie nights near there.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  35. Ribofunk by non · · Score: 1

    although the wikipeda article actually refers to it as Biopunk.

    Paul Di Filippo's book of that name includes a short story where there are drugs that would enable one to climb a skyscraper, but depending on the dosage, not enough to climb back down.

    --
    ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
  36. Batman has more then strength and speed by jmoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think what I liked most about Batman Begins is that it gave a reasonable explanation as to why Bruce Wayne would dress up like a bat. As much as Batman is a skilled fighter, he is also good at using psychological warfare on his opponents. Consider that during the fight at the docks, he had been playing enough mind games on the crooks that they were off balanced when he attacked them in a large group.

    Now granted in real life most people would piss their pants laughing at a guy dressed up like a giant bat (also a viable attack strategy) but the idea is that batman is such a terrifying character that you are thrown off and are easier to take down.

    --
    The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
    1. Re:Batman has more then strength and speed by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Yeah he also has funny catch phrases like:

      "Swear to meeeeeeee!"

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Batman has more then strength and speed by Enoxice · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it didn't have quite so many "e"s. Also it may have been capitalized...well italicized, anyway.

      --
      Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
  37. What about the other characters? by greenguy · · Score: 1

    And don't forget the difficult in finding a steady, evenly-spaced series of dastardly but colorful villains to fight, each time managing to defeat them in a way that results in their death without actually killing them outright.

    Then there's the several bit players who provide moral guidance to Batman, and also provide key bits of help at certain plot points, which makes up for their propensity to put themselves in danger on a regular basis.

    And don't get me started on how hard it is to find a good sidekick!

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:What about the other characters? by WeeLad · · Score: 1

      Also, did Wayne Enterprises ever just have a stinker of an idea that lost the company money? That goliath of a company seems to always do well, leading to almost infinite funding for Bruce's "hobby". Admittedly, Wayne Enterprises is not on my stock ticker.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    2. Re:What about the other characters? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      They suffered some bureaucratic coups that screwed the company up, and lost Batman his fiscal resources for extended periods. But Batman has first access to all the captured criminal gear, and the opportunity to generate patents from it for Wayne Enterprises.

  38. Fuck that. by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hang out in the YMCA locker room and you can be Robin in under 5 minutes.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:Fuck that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy "coffee all over my keyboard" Batman!

  39. Become a super villain instead! by Techguy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That just takes a spray of acid to the face or a dunk in a chemical vat. No training time whatsoever.

    On another note, I get peeved by everyone ignoring Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" moniker and generally accepted reputation as one of DC Universe's smartest humans. Everyone focuses on Batman's physical skills where, in "reality", having keen observational skills and an intellect allowing superior strategems probably alleviates a lot of the need for ultimate physical skills.

  40. US education system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that when the US education system is criticized.

    The US educational establishment has become not much more than a political patronage system.

    And look who squeals like a stuck pig whenever that patronage system becomes threatened.

  41. One Minor Problem... by PinkyDead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Batman's really only cool because of his enemies.

    Batman vs the purse snatcher or Batman vs the social welfare fraudster etc, would get pretty boring after about a week.

    Clearly "You, Too, Could Be The Joker In 10 To 12 Years" is required , or maybe just some freaky chemistry.

    Then again, an "if you build it, they will come" universal harmony thing might apply...

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  42. "The Cost of Being Batman" (Forbes) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2005/06/20/batman-movies-superheroes-cx_de_0620batman.html

    http://xrl.us/batman

    Being Batman
    David M. Ewalt, 06.20.05, 7:28 PM ET

    Dark clouds have gathered over Gotham. Crime is rampant, despair is
    widespread and no one is safe. Who will rescue the metropolis from
    itself, fight the forces of evil and save the good people of the city?

    Why don't you do it?

    Plenty of us would love to fight for truth and justice--if only we had
    magic powers or mutant genes. We all love superheroes. Last weekend,
    Batman Begins was the No. 1 film in the U.S., pulling in $71.1 million
    over its first five days. The Batman movie franchise is also one of
    the most lucrative of all time, with five movies (not counting Batman
    Begins) grossing nearly $1 billion.

    OK, so he also has a couple billion dollars. Batman's alter ego, Bruce
    Wayne, is an old-money heir and the owner of Wayne Enterprises, a
    massive international-technology conglomerate. In our Forbes Fictional
    Fifteen, we estimated his net worth at $6.3 billion. If he were a real
    guy, he'd be the 28th richest person in America, right behind News
    Corp.'s (nyse: NWS - news - people ) Rupert Murdoch.

    Wayne uses his riches and corporate connections to equip himself with
    the latest and greatest in military hardware, and uses those tools to
    help him fight villains like the Joker, the Riddler, and Ra's Al Ghul.

    But you don't have to be a billionaire to become a caped crusader.
    Using commercially available training, technology and domestic help,
    the average guy could conceivably equip himself to become a real-world
    superhero, provided he's got at least a couple million to spare.

    What would it cost to become a real-world Dark Knight? Click here.

    The Training
    Cost: $30,000

    You'd better be ready to defend yourself if you plan to take on all
    the thugs and super-villains that call Gotham home.

    In the new movie, young Bruce Wayne goes to Tibet on the mother of all
    study-abroad trips and ends up learning the martial arts from a group
    of vigilante ninjas called the League of Shadows. But similar training
    is available to those not lucky enough to get plucked out of obscurity
    by Liam Neeson.

    A good place to start would be an internship at the birthplace of kung
    fu, the Shaolin Temple in Henan, China. One month of training at the
    prestigious Tagou school costs about $740, including a private room
    and training with a personal coach. It'll take a while to get good
    enough to stop the Joker's worst thugs, though, so count on spending
    at least three years and about 30 grand for the trip.

    The Suit
    Cost: $1,585

    They say the suit makes the man, and Batman's no exception. Without
    his outfit, it'd just be Bruce Wayne running around out there, and
    there's nothing particularly scary about a billionaire playboy in his
    underpants.

    Batman's suit is a modified piece of infantry armor built by the
    applied sciences division of Wayne Enterprises. It's waterproof,
    bulletproof, knife-proof and temperature-regulating. Paired with an
    impact-resistant, graphite-composite cowl and spiked ninja-style
    gauntlets, it allows Batman to protect himself against everything from
    swords to machine guns. Wayne Enterprises also supplies Batman with
    his cape, a specially designed nylon-derivative fabric that stiffens
    when hit with an electric charge, allowing Batman to use it as a
    glider. All this doesn't come cheap. In the new movie, Wayne's told
    that the armor alone costs $300,000.

    Real-world superhero wanna-bes will have to go with a much more
    prosaic solution. We recommend a lightweight ProMAX OTV bulletproof
    jacket, which will cover your ar

    1. Re:"The Cost of Being Batman" (Forbes) by verbamour · · Score: 1

      Batman training - $30,000 Batman suit - $1585 Tying up chicks in cat-ears and spandex - Priceless

  43. Can I... by viscus · · Score: 1

    ...get bitten by a radioactive spider instead?

  44. minus the storyline by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Well, don't forget that to truly become batman, you have to witness your rich parents being murdered outside an opera house, or else your twisted sense of justice and reckoning won't develop into a "troubled superhero" complex.

    --
    stuff |
  45. Even Batman by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 1

    gets his back broken.

  46. Batman on the beach by MmmmYah · · Score: 1

    LOL who would want to actually BE Batman?? It's not like Santa Claus ya know. Kids these days are doin a lot more fun stuff like books on the beach (Damn I wish I could do my work from the beach ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n8gbVasY1c I did enjoy "play acting" Batman as a kid with my younger bro who used to be "Robin" hehe would be cool to read out loud their comic books

    1. Re:Batman on the beach by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      I did enjoy "play acting" Batman as a kid with my younger bro who used to be "Robin"

      There are some things you just shouldn't admit, even on the Internet.

  47. Glad I don't read slashdot by iwein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.

    Looking at /. from even 5 years ago, let alone 10, shows you how lame it has become. It used to be about news for nerds and stuff that matters, now it is just about wannabe nerds whining about Popular Science. The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.

    --
    Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Glad I don't read slashdot by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.

      Exactly.

    2. Re:Glad I don't read slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      touche, touche!!! That final sentence is a beautiful response, a voice to my dumbfounded reaction.

    3. Re:Glad I don't read slashdot by iwein · · Score: 1

      You have a good point sir. I wrote that when I didn't think yet that my comment would be rated +5 Insightful at some point... now the joke is on me.

      At least the parent only missed a comma and misspelled one word, instead of being an insult to language in general like the quoted sentence.

      Anyway, I think it was moderately funny at best, but the moderation system is mysterious at times.

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:Glad I don't read slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could blame the moderators. The nice thing about /. is that you can say something stupid and nobody will read it, if you say something smart, people will.

  48. RAIB?! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would that be a RAIB?

    Redundant Array of Interchangeable Batmen?

    or more like a High Available Batcluster?

    1. Re:RAIB?! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Killing Grendel, then taking out the Joker ... I don't think the words exist to convey exactly how badass a Beowulf cluster of Batmans (Batmen?) would be.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:RAIB?! by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 1

      Would the RAIB have to fight a ROUS, rodent of unusual size.

    3. Re:RAIB?! by olyar · · Score: 1

      But could it run Linux?

      --

      Mod me down if you must. It had to be said.

      --
      Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
    4. Re:RAIB?! by Chris_Rank · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!!!

    5. Re:RAIB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... and imagine a Beowulf cluster of those...

    6. Re:RAIB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright then.
      ...
      Damn.

  49. Street fighting by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see some hands: How many people have been in a street fight? Against one person? Against two?

    When I was young, I was sort of a bad ass. I was a "baby huey" sort of kid. Without working out, I was 6' 210lbs in high school. 32 inch waste 46 inch jacket. I was pretty strong. When I started working out, for football, I started bench press at 210lbs, my weight.

    I hung out in Dorchester and South Boston and got in a lot of fights. 1:1 I could hold my own against almost anyone, even the kids who took karate. 2:1, I would usually get my ass kicked unless I could get rid of the first guy quickly. 3:1, no f-ning way you're getting out without serious bruises or broken bones.

    Batman is a myth. It can't happen. Kung Foo movies are a joke. Guns are popular because you *can* take on a bunch of people at once. Hand to hand, no matter how big and strong you are, two or three guys are stronger than you.

    1. Re:Street fighting by objekt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just because you can't beat multiple opponents doesn't mean others can't.

      My grandfather was a golden gloves boxer turned weight lifter. 5'10" 225-240 lbs when he competed. Could dead lift 500 lbs with one hand. Actually came from the same area as you. :) He was a natural athlete all his life and a veteran of many street fights. He could take on 5 guys, and did on more than one occasion. Would confront gangs of punks well into his 60s.

      Took 7 strong men to drag him to the old folks home. Alzheimer's + elite athletes are a dangerous combination.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    2. Re:Street fighting by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      He could take on 5 guys, and did on more than one occasion. Would confront gangs of punks well into his 60s.

      Well, I don't want to tarnish the image of a grandfather, but stories and tall tales get more and more interesting as people get older. I plan on my stories growing to 5 or so guys by the time I'm 60.

      Seriously, "take on" 5 guys is doable. Winning? I don't think so.

      I worked as a bouncer and security guard before I started working as an engineer, subduing someone is *very* difficult. Dragging a person who wishes not to be is very hard. The whole batman thing is ridiculous.

      Alzheimer's is a hard way to go. You have my deepest sympathy for him. He sounds like my dad.

    3. Re:Street fighting by Nick+Number · · Score: 2, Funny

      32 inch waste

      Wow, TMI.

      I suppose that's impressive from a physiological standpoint, but how does it make you a better fighter?

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    4. Re:Street fighting by Corbets · · Score: 1

      He was highlighting the fact that his weight was muscle, not fat. A 32" waist is really nothing in and of itself impressive (at 6'4", I have a 32" waist as well). However, waist that size with a weight of 210lbs and a 46" jacket screams "dense body type", i.e. muscular.

      Having said that, I still disagree with him about the ability to take on multiple opponents. Most of us (and likely myself included) lack the will to do what is necessary when taking on large groups of people; for example, a quick jab to someone's throat. If you have the will to do what is necessary, it's certainly possible to do things that otherwise seem impossible.

    5. Re:Street fighting by dedave · · Score: 1

      *shooom* (That's the sound of the horrible pun and derived scatological joke flying over your head.)

      It's a poop joke, son. Laugh! :-)

    6. Re:Street fighting by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      He was highlighting the fact that his weight was muscle, not fat. A 32" waist is really nothing in and of itself impressive (at 6'4", I have a 32" waist as well).

      It was a spelling flame. OP posted '32-inch WASTE', as in a 2.6 foot long bowel python.

    7. Re:Street fighting by Botched · · Score: 1

      When you see someone get hit in the neck in a street fight with a baseball bat, crook their head sideways to catch it and then take it away, you may become a believer.

    8. Re:Street fighting by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      When you see someone get hit in the neck in a street fight with a baseball bat, crook their head sideways to catch it and then take it away, you may become a believer.

      A baseball bat is only as dangerous as the guy swinging it. Movies make them look worse than they are. If the bat hits your skull, you're dead because you can't do much with bone, but "properly" conditioned muscle can take a baseball bat. It isn't sharp and spreads the impact along its surface. Muscle as it turns out, is *very* good at handling impact.

      In a street fight, you never hit muscle. You punch ribs or pound the face. If you have a good sized neck, ~18 inches, and the guy swinging the bat doesn't have enough to take your head off, you can handle it.

      People who have never been in a fight always seem to think it is easy to win a fight if you are big enough. It isn't the movies, people almost never go down in one punch. It usually ends when someone gives up or runs away, almost never a knock out or something dramatic like that.

    9. Re:Street fighting by objekt · · Score: 1

      Tall tales? You ain't hear nuthin' yet! :)

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
    10. Re:Street fighting by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

      I'm Scatman.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    11. Re:Street fighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kick ass grandpa!

      Come to think of it, that would be a great cartoon.

    12. Re:Street fighting by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      It isn't the movies, people almost never go down in one punch.

      I find this an interesting statement... I've always considered the movies unrealistic precisely because people don't go down in one punch.
      I've been in very few fights, but those I have I have either won with one punch or lost with one punch (just typing that gave me vivid memories of the blinding agony and not knowing what's going on for 5 seconds at which point I finally recovered my senses and find myself on the ground with blood pouring out of my face and the other guy WELL gone). This is also true of every fight I've witnessed except by very drunk people who can't swing a decent punch.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    13. Re:Street fighting by benoki · · Score: 1

      fighting multiple opponents simultaneously is as much about speed and agility as it is strength and power. get yourself a connect four and ill get you a bat suit.

  50. I want to be Sportacus by doublecuffs · · Score: 0

    How long would it take to be Sportacus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportacus It would be much easier to stay at the top of your game as you only have to impress the kids.

  51. There's no more good writers by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments

    It's bad writing.

    SciAM got political and that turned a lot of people off, the same way NYT or WashPost did. They tried to dumb things down while still pretending to be smart and all it did it was anger their core readership and they bailed.

    Science has exploded beyond the ability of writers to manage... It used to be that 50 years ago, you could probably have a smattering of what's new in physics and a few other fields, but right now, what's new in physics is a highly specialized thing and it takes way too much to understand what's even old versus what's new. The baseline education of some high school teaches a mathematics based on a level of calculus that's 100 years old at best, physics that's basically newtonian mechanics and chemistry is just doing the old "let's make break up water trick" when right now scientists are looking at individual atoms.

    All of this points to a colossal failure in writing. We have a body of technical knowledge that is so disorganized that it takes way too long for humans to really communicate it to each other in order to share the knowledge. Roger Penrose made a heck of a go at it in his book about how everything works, but even he falls into the horrible trap of using bad names for different mathematical constructs. At least biologists got it right when put a taxonomy on species ... but in math we have Fourier Transforms, Newton's Method, and it's just a disorganized mess, and on top of that horrible language, we stack everything we know about the basic laws of the universe.

    What the world needs is a bank of good writers that also know math and physics to go in there and get rid of biographically named crap, and organize things in a more direct and intuitive fashion. For the love of god, you can't let a scientist in the field do it, because they are just terrible at naming and organizing.

    Writers, step up, and take command!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:There's no more good writers by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Science has exploded beyond the ability of writers to manage... It used to be that 50 years ago, you could probably have a smattering of what's new in physics and a few other fields, but right now, what's new in physics is a highly specialized thing and it takes way too much to understand what's even old versus what's new. The baseline education of some high school teaches a mathematics based on a level of calculus that's 100 years old at best, physics that's basically newtonian mechanics and chemistry is just doing the old "let's make break up water trick" when right now scientists are looking at individual atoms.

      Not really true. IANQPCOG (I am not a quantum physicist, cosmologist, or geneticist), but I manage to have a cursory knowledge of advances in these fields, and there general structures and histories. Yes, I'd fail at the math, and anyone whose taken beyond the 200 level courses would probably trump me easily, but that isn't the purpose. Yes, it takes some work, I have to read a lot of books, and periodicals, but I find it essential. I think many of us here on /. can say much the same, being nerds and all. Granted my course of interest (and much of my education) was geared towards more scientific subjects (philosophy of science, epistemology).

      My father, as an example, is a truck driver, who doesn't have any real education beyond 11th grade. As a child I thought he was barely literate. But he subscribes to Scientific America, Archeology, the USGS state periodical, and many other periodicals. He has no basis in science, but is full of curiosity, and doesn't like being "talked down to". Sure, he doesn't understand all of it, but belies your above paragraph, he is the definition of average, and tries (with good success) to stay ahead on current scientific events.

      Its an easy task, if you come equipped with a bit of curiosity. Which is part of the problem, our schools, and society, besides not giving kids the essential intellectual tools, is also not giving them a sense of wonder, and self-driven curiosity. They don't lust for knowledge for its own sake.

      What the world needs is a bank of good writers that also know math and physics to go in there and get rid of biographically named crap, and organize things in a more direct and intuitive fashion. For the love of god, you can't let a scientist in the field do it, because they are just terrible at naming and organizing.

      I'm not to clear on what your getting at here? Should science be dumbed down for the masses?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:There's no more good writers by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Sure, he doesn't understand all of it, but belies your above paragraph, he is the definition of average, and tries (with good success) to stay ahead on current scientific events.

      I've got news for you: you dad ain't average. He's uneducated (or just unschooled), but he's yards ahead of the average guy who cares more about football and hockey than cosmology.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:There's no more good writers by bonch · · Score: 0

      There's no more good writers

      Heh.

  52. Re:But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you by maxume · · Score: 1

    Must be somewhere in Utah. Maybe Salt Lake City.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  53. Cool by Evangelion · · Score: 1

    Mom? Dad? I got you tickets for the show tonight!

  54. Brains as well as physical training by hellfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about the expert skills in chemistry? Forensics? Psychology? Research? His business skills? Batman is also a consumate detective, so given his expert skill in these areas how long would it take to get those levels of ability?

    You would think a Scientific magazine might also be interested in the mental aspect?

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Brains as well as physical training by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Have you read Scientific American lately? It's gone downhill over the past decade. Barely a half step above Popular Mechanics these days (IMHO).

      --
      -
  55. All activites require about 10 years by Terje+Mathisen · · Score: 1

    This has been tested many times, it seems like 10 years, and/or 10K hours of training, is required to gain mastery at any difficult activity, physical or mental.

    I.e. this holds for chess as well as programming, karate, running, rock climbing or orienteering (which is about half & half physical & mental).

    Terje

    --
    "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
  56. If I only had a brain... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about the mental component? While the movie Batman Begins didn't do too much with it, Batman's greatest asset is his mind.

    He's a genius and one of the greatest minds in the DC universe. He uses it be one of the greatest detectives and occasional research, and use strategies/tactics to take down even the greatest forces (even Superman).

    It isn't his physic and toys that let him stand with the greatest heroes and face the most dangerous villains, but his greatest asset: his mind.

    Without his mind he's just some generic tough guy.

    1. Re:If I only had a brain... by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that is one of the reasons I always liked Batman. He was on par with Superman, but a mere mortal.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    2. Re:If I only had a brain... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the ability to scratch a compact disc...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
  57. I'm already a superhero! by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was bitten by a radio active sloth and now I can do the laying around of TEN men!

    1. Re:I'm already a superhero! by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Umm... that sloth wasn't radioactive.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  58. That's what knives and guns are for... by littlewink · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is, dealing with large strong persons with excessive martial arts experience and lots of attitude.

  59. Also in 10 years... by mecenday · · Score: 1

    Cold Fusion
    Personal Helicopters
    Duke Nukem Forever

    --
    Tautologies, they are what they are.
  60. Already been done by Joce640k · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Dread Pirate Roberts has been doing this for years.

    --
    No sig today...
  61. Batman? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 0

    Slashdot readers, I served with Bruce Wayne: I knew Bruce Wayne; Bruce Wayne was a friend of mine. Slashdot readers, you are all no Bruce Wayne.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  62. Batman? Why? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  63. Better hurry... by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

    Jack Nicholson won't be around to kill your parents for much longer. Being a brooding, dark-hearted, multi-billionaire superhero would be much harder if your mom called you every Sunday afternoon to chat.

    --
    My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    1. Re:Better hurry... by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Someone's obviously never met my Mom....

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  64. Re:Finishing the quote - SPOILERS! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    Uncle Enzo doesn't take Raven down; iirc Raven makes it out of the airport and is last seen riding off on his motorcycle. Injured yes, but not seriously and most certainly alive.

  65. Steroids. by Arathon · · Score: 1

    'Nuff said.

  66. Batman? Don't you mean Phantom? by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    and replace them as they 'fail' ... that way we've always got a batman.

    Wrong character. That was the Phantom's shtick.

  67. trying to fly like a bat... by Inovaovao · · Score: 1

    > and replace them as they 'fail'

    and replace them as they _fall_

  68. Batman is fantasy by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    No different from the heroic legends of heroic people doing heroic things from Gilgamesh to Jesus to Zorro to Clint Eastwood's "man with no name."

    In realistic terms, a gunfight is just Russian roulette with the other guy holding the gun. Even if you are a skilled marksman, there is a high probability you would die in that one gunfight. If you win, the odds are no better for your next gunfight. If we had the statistics for real people who get themselves involved in multiple gunfights, we'd see a significant winnowing. So why do we have stories featuring characters wading into meat grinder battles and coming out intact? It's the economy of storytelling. It's tough to tell a compelling narrative if all the characters die two minutes after you meet them. So you end up with the silliness of limited plot-specific invulnerability. As Vicious said to Spike in Cowboy Bebop, "You're the only one who can kill me. I go into gunfights with a sword, for fuck's sake. Ok, it's a katana so it does confer a certain badass factor that a scimitar or rapier lacks but seriously, I'm charging gunmen from across a room and slicing them to death without taking a hit. Hell, I bet when I fight you, I'll probably be able to get so close you'll have to parry my strikes with your gun in the most ridiculous fashion possible. And at the end of the fight, you'll kill me because I'm the villain but I'll probably still mortally wound you. Oh, and when my sword catches the light a certain way, the flash will make a 'steel kissing steel' sound, even though I didn't touch anything."

    I find that realistic shooter games are good reality checks for just how lethal the battlefield is. Often times you don't see the guy who gets you. There's no telling who even has you in a line of sight at any given time. And there's always the chance for panic. The better shooters can pace the encounters so you're not seeing anyone for a second, then someone comes out of nowhere. The realism is high enough that it makes you jump and spray erratically, just as keyed up as you would be in real life. And damn, you can understand how people can miss at close ranges.

    But the other point about the athletic prowess is also astute. A Batman character is not just like an Olympian (note how astounded everyone was that a 40-yr old could compete as a swimmer), he's taking injuries like an NFL linebacker. His body would be destroyed by the he reached middle-age.

    But you know, there's one Batman question I've been dying to ask: just where does he find all the buildings to swing off of? Same with Spidey. They could be arriving at a shack in the middle of a salt flat and they'll still be swinging in off of something. What, a convenient low-flying jet?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  69. You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Minutes... by Tronks · · Score: 0

    ...given a good amount of alcohol:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU9hD50Qr4I

  70. i've been reading sciam for a long time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and "presenting things in an approachable fashion but still being quite rigorous" strikes me as facetious

    so you are saying discover and popular science are unrigorous?

    rigorous? that means they can't lie? they can't do stories on pop subjects?

    its a pop science magazine you dweeb! always has been!

    you're trying to draw meaning out of a change in STYLE

    and, all you have to do is look at sciam's own 50/100 year ago page to note that, gee, style has changed quite remarkably over time! how can you expect it NOT to

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i've been reading sciam for a long time by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By rigorous he means that they weren't afraid of having articles published by actual scientists, discussing their own field. They had rather technical stories on genetics, quantum theory, and cosmology, where the authors were actually writing about their discoveries, and doing so in such a manner as to not talk down to their readers.

      Think of it as more than for laymen, but less than reading Nature, it was a good bridge for people who are not completely ignorant (used not as a value judgment but as a quantifier of knowledge) to know more about various fields. I think that is what the parent means by "rigorous", not that the other magazines lie, or have bad reporting, but lack the depth of SciAm.

      Yes, it is a pop science magazine, but it always aimed towards a more informed, or sophisticated, audience.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  71. Exactly! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.

    Exactly. It's not often portrayed in the comics, but Bruce Wayne has extensive knowledge of chemistry, biology, psychology, criminology, etc. He has lockpicking skills, computer skills, skills in all manner of weapons, flight training, etc.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Exactly! by john83 · · Score: 1

      As much as his chemistry is useful, I think ivp was referring more to a tactical side of things. You can buy high grade chemistry backup, but you can't buy the kind of thinking Batman goes through in, say, the final fight with the leader of the mutants in Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  72. God no by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game
    > for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death -- or
    > at least not being able to be Batman anymore."

    Not really. One of the fiew times I accidently watched that new Justice Leage crap on Cartoon, Hawk girl was walking along with someone discussing their current problem. Quoth she, "I once was disintegrated and had my molecules spread throughout the universe."

    That's as dead as dead can get. Being a corpse in the dirt is a day at the beach comparatively. And she "got better"!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  73. the Phantom by zogger · · Score: 1

    The ghost that walks. That idea would be closer to reality and easier to pull off because it is an anonymous but hereditary superhero position. As the older phantom slows down, his kid takes over. He also bends to obvious combat reality and packs two .45s. You still get to wear a spiffy leotard suit though, but no cape.

  74. Re:Finishing the quote - SPOILERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having his hamstring severed counts as being "seriously" injured.

  75. Chuck Norris by eegad · · Score: 2, Funny

    As soon as I read this post, I thought: Chuck Norris. Maybe you don't have to be at the top of your game for more than a few years. You just need to train people to tremble like a chihuahua in a purse at the sound of your name.

    1. Re:Chuck Norris by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris could do what batman does any day, but he doesn't want to go down to that level of weakness.

      --
      Tibbon
      tibbon.com
  76. In 12 years I'll be 60... by jamrock · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a deal to me. I just need to know if the utility belt has a pouch for my AARP card.

  77. That's So Starfire by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven.

    You mean Raven from That's So Starfire?

  78. The Jayne philosophy? by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight - Jayne Cobb

  79. I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /quote ...In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time... /quote

    I want to know if the good Professor has ever actually been in a real fight, let alone one where 15 people are trying to beat you down.

    For anyone who has ever had the displeasure or seen it happen to someone, they know that what this guy is saying is complete crap.

    Unless one possesses an item that gives them a huge advantage (ie automatic weapon), taking on 15 opponents and winning is not going to happen.

    Yes Batman has cool toys, but 1/2 the time hes engaged in fisticuffs.

    While SA has become "pop science" over the years, this is not "pop science". This is complete fiction.

  80. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Batman by merc · · Score: 0

    Lately it seems that all I hear about lately is Batman. I think I've seen about 30 articles about Batman over the last few weeks "you too can be a batman", "what would it take for a mortal to be a batman".

    Jesus HFC, get over it, it's a movie.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  81. Batman no... Sub-Zero by manoelhc · · Score: 1

    Batman sucks, Sub-Zero rulez! 15 years ago, I wanted to move to china just to learn some ancient arts.

    --
    -- Simon said: Die!
  82. Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    Kinda like the scientists that found Wooly Mammoth DNA and thought about re-creating one a'la Jurassic Park, this wouldn't be a smart idea.

    One of the things I always loved about Batman was that he was a _man_, not a god: no deep inhalation and sucking all the air off the planet. No flying against the rotation of the Earth to go back in time. If a bullet gets behind the suit, he's as dead as anyone else. And he's driven by the sadness of watching his parents die to a criminal.

    It's *entirely* possible to dedicate your life to martial arts, chemistry, and about 100 other hard-skills to make yourself into Batman. But there is no Joker. There is no Gotham. There is just this silly little world so few people understand that we get the desire to LEAVE IT and escape into the movies.

    I watched Hellboy 2 last night; it was a lot better than I expected. But even there mentioned a very real truth about mankind: each of us have a 'hole in our hearts' that gives us a greed to do (sometimes weird) things to fill it. Things like car racing, drugs, whoring, gambling...and things like wanting to be Batman. And until that 'hole' is filled, you'll run around aimlessly trying to fill it, but the fill is located in plain sight: Jesus Christ.

    Oh, I know...more bad Karma- speaking out of experience, and being an experience this crowd doesn't want, but tough; it's truth. Since I filled the 'hole', I no longer fear death. I don't worry about ghosts because I know who and what they are. I see the world across the centuries for what it is, and have begun to play my own tiny part. I literally _cry_ for the lives of unhappiness that most people live.

    I'm just saying: it's real. HE's real. All you have to do is go look for Him and you, too, can fill the hole and considering things like becoming Batman will look like the childish investment of time that it is. What would be so wrong with looking for Him?

    Yeah, the world's pretty horrible. It stinks, it argues and it even kills. But this ain't heaven: this is neutral ground, and this is what we make it. Murder someone? Have an affair? Cheat a friend? That's what's making it so horrible: sin. The deviation from our intended role.

    So forgive my loving outburst, with intent to give you peace.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      God, you jesus freaks never miss an opportunity, huh?

      My imaginary friend Odin can beat up your imaginary friend, by the way.

    2. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by Omestes · · Score: 1

      If you can fill your "hole" with Jesus, good for you. If it makes you happy, even better. But that is YOUR answer. Just because something fills a need, doesn't make it real. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone else.

      I'm always suspicious of people who need to broadcast their happiness and good fortune. If it can't exist in private, is it really happiness? Or you just inadvertently abusing the sociological mirror, you want US to see YOU as happy, so you can fool yourself into it? Its like these "green" morons, telling all of us how "eco-freindly" they are, if they really were fulfilled by this, would they need to preach it, and make us KNOW how good they are?

      Often this preaching sounds like desperation.

      Sorry for sounding like an ass, as I stated, if it makes you happy, fine.

      I doubt the reality of this "hole", I think its an illusion that society tells us. We "ought" to have a hole, that we need to fill. When all we really need is a touch of self-awareness. As Delphi said "Know Thyself", and as Socrates (via Plato) said "An unexamined life is not worth living". Trying my hardest be be self-knowledgeable, I realize that there is no "hole", only self. This whole largely results from society not fitting us and our human needs (and not as commonly thought, visa versa). We fail to be ourselves, and thus there is a hole. The lack of authenticity is the hole.

      Yeah, the world's pretty horrible. It stinks, it argues and it even kills. But this ain't heaven: this is neutral ground, and this is what we make it. Murder someone? Have an affair? Cheat a friend? That's what's making it so horrible: sin. The deviation from our intended role.

      The world isn't horrible, we just see it that way. For every Hitler and Pinochet there is a Picasso and a Albert Schweitzer. For every meaningless war, there is a child who stares at a sunset, blinded by awe. Part of the problem is that we expect MEANING, when there is no reason that there should be. Accepting that things are as they are completely destroys any illusionary "hole". Accepting that there is no reason for meaning (in the religious sense) makes us (to paraphrase Sartre) the creators of our own meaning, and thus fulfillment is in our own hands.

      I happen to like the world, so I might be some sort of freak. I take the good with the bad, and relish that good when I encounter it. Going to a natural history museum is more powerful to me than a church, mosque, synagogue, of Kalimat. A good painting, sunset, or book has more meaning to me than any religious text, as does reading of the good works of my fellow man. Seeing the world as hell, makes is thus, seeing the world as it is leaves one reeling, but allows us to see that it ISN'T hell, or hellish, or vile. There is great good in mankind, as well as evil, humanity, and the world we create for ourselves, is value neutral, and completely meaningless. This isn't a bad thing, nor a good thing, but just another thing.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by chedderslam · · Score: 0

      Thank you. It is refreshing to hear the truth in here.

    4. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: You cannot read minds.

    5. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      Well, let's take a snapshot.

      Greeks: The world's on Atlas' shoulders.
      Babylonians: The Earth's on some kinda boat, with the stars on a plexiglass overhead of some kind.
      Indians: The Earth floats on an elephant in an ocean of milk.
      Bible: The Earth is suspended from nothing.

      Which was right, when space-pioneers started circling the globe?

      For centuries geologists (and such) laughed at the Bible for claiming a 'new' tribe called the Hittites. Decades went by as people laughed, until someone turned over a shovel in the middle east and found their capital.

      Scholars argued for decades (or more?) about the last king (singluar) of Babylon, while the Bible recorded two kings: one who stayed home, one who fought on the battle field. Another turn of the shovel, and the Bible was found to be right.

      The point is, the Bible's been right a startling number of times. In in were the dimensions of a sucessful sea-going vessel, as told to Noah...a great deal of time before the world "knew" it.

      It's not fairy tales. It's not a man-made set of stories. The Old Testament is made of something like 1,000,000 documents. The New Testament, about 5,000. People for centuries have been cross-checking them all this time. It's not a fad, it's not a fashion, and it's not a club to join (though some people treat it that way). It's real, it's the answer.

      And I only wish you could permit yourself to SEE this truth, instead of fighting it.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    6. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      If you can fill your "hole" with Jesus, good for you. If it makes you happy, even better. But that is YOUR answer. Just because something fills a need, doesn't make it real. Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone else.

      Actually, it does...but not everyone's willing to even look into it, much less turn themselves over to it. There's no exclusions: slave or free, Greek or Roman, male or female- the invitation is open to all, but few actually investigate. It's sad, really.

      And this is a voluntary acceptance: anyone pursuing an armed conversion doesn't understand. It's not about being 'perfect', it's about trying to be, while being humble, helpful, and friendly.

      I'm always suspicious of people who need to broadcast their happiness and good fortune. If it can't exist in private, is it really happiness? Or you just inadvertently abusing the sociological mirror, you want US to see YOU as happy, so you can fool yourself into it? Its like these "green" morons, telling all of us how "eco-freindly" they are, if they really were fulfilled by this, would they need to preach it, and make us KNOW how good they are?

      Yeah, I used to feel that way, too. I often wondered why 'holy rollers' seemed more possessed than anything else. But do the 'math' a second: you've just learned the most important, most helpful, most powerful secret in this reality. Bigger than transparent aluminum, :> bigger than the cure for AIDS. Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?

      I don't need anyone's approval of my salvation to validate it, which is good- few people appreciate it. Most hate it. (As is the desire of every media outlet on this planet I've ever seen). I share because Slashdot is a window to the world. And the world is now so clearly unhappy, self-involved and lost.

      I doubt the reality of this "hole"...

      Give it time; you'll see it, too.

      The world isn't horrible, we just see it that way. For every Hitler and Pinochet there is a Picasso and a Albert Schweitzer. For every meaningless war, there is a child who stares at a sunset, blinded by awe. Part of the problem is that we expect MEANING, when there is no reason that there should be. Accepting that things are as they are completely destroys any illusionary "hole". Accepting that there is no reason for meaning (in the religious sense) makes us (to paraphrase Sartre) the creators of our own meaning, and thus fulfillment is in our own hands.

      Yeah, Sarte; now there was a happy, enlightened individual with his life in gear. He felt that there was nothing past this life, and no reason to think us different from cows. If that were so, it would deny every artist you've named here. It would deny the entire reason for science, much less its long-lived asking of the question "Why?". Sarte was popular at cocktail parties in the 60's for people living life poorly, letting them 'whistle past the graveyard', giving them a reason to not change.

      Not a bad world? You must mean the planet. :) We lose 300,000 people every year in impoverished nations merely because of mosquitos. France makes the lion's share of mosquito nets, so they push the EU NOT to use DDT, which solved that problem here, and so these people keep dying. But let's look at closer, less-flashy problems.

      How about all those 'missing wife' stories on the news? Keeping in mind that only the pretty get coverage, and even then, only when there's a good story, there's a hell of a lot of killing going on, and not just in the God-Free zones of gang-held LA. Notice how busy the police are? Seen the kinda things people do to infants lately? This is not a nice world.

      And why not expect meaning? Do you have any idea how many "lucky circumstances" we'd have to have luckily cleared just to HAVE this conversation? Trillions of stars, sure. But 80-90% of the planets don't have land, much less the proper gravity. And even smalle

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    7. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: You cannot read minds.

      I knew you were gonna say that! :)

      (It'd be kinda interesting to know what this refers to, but I'm about to go someplace. Maybe later.)

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    8. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by Omestes · · Score: 1

      We're never going to agree... But it still is a fun discussion.

      Actually, it does...but not everyone's willing to even look into it, much less turn themselves over to it.

      I think many people in our culture are aware of it, and probably have tried religion, if they weren't raised into it. I, myself, was raised Catholic, but left around the age of reason (15-16), it didn't fit what I saw in the world. At the time I saw all this evil, that you speak of, and couldn't rectify a loving God with it, especially when paired with the idiotic Cold War rhetoric of "God is on our side". How can God be on anyones side when the goal is to nuke innocents if you have a chance? Read the same for any war, if God picked a side, He isn't worthy of worship.

      It didn't hold the answers, and hopes that you, yourself, found. It left me with the proverbial "hole", since I knew there were answers to the questions that religion didn't answer for me. (there are full philosophy texts on these questions)

      Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?

      I'm truly conflicted here, and this almost made me not reply. I LIKE people being happy, for whatever (nondestructive) reason, and thus I don't want to tarnish that. And I do understand the religious drive to preaching by converts, it is a wholly humanitarian, and benign act. If I found a useful truth I would do the same. I'm conflicted, since I don't want to hear it anymore, though. I'm constantly preached at, I am aware of God, Jesus, etc... I won't convert, though, unless, as you probably know, there is some internal reason that makes this version of truth self-evident and useful. So far there isn't, and even points to the contrary.

      Yes, Sartre wasn't the glorious optimist I painted him as, but nor was he as bleak as you have. He realized that there is no meaning, and we just have to accept it, which, on close reading, is empowering. I don't accept him as my truth bringer, to me that would be more Socrates, but I think his point is applicable.

      Just because something makes you happy doesn't make it true, and just because something makes you feel bad, doesn't make it bad. That, I suppose is my point. And the more bad you look for, the more you will find, the same goes for happiness.

      Yes, there is shit in the world, but far less than any time in history. Yes, the media tells me all kinds of nasty stuff, but we must remember that the good stuff doesn't pay as well. Who cares if a housewife saved a litter of puppies from a flood? Who cares if millions of people give to charity (of their own free will), and donate their time and money to helping those less fortunate. None of these things breeds the outrage that gets viewers to view ads repeatedly.

      Violent crime has been declining for a decade, not that you'd ever notice from the media. It is the worst place to actually get your worldview from, since it is wholly slanted.

      As for cosmology, thats a different debate altogether, I really don't want this to turn into the usual atheist/theist "your wrong!" type of debate. Those are droll, and rather crass. You may be right, I don't know. There always will be as much proof against as for, the question will never be resolved. It becomes a manner of preference, upbringing, and worldview.

      I LIKE this world, I'd rather focus on it, and the happiness of those in it, than worry about going to Heaven. People right here, and right now, are much more important than if I end up someplace where the walls are made of chocolate, and all computers are connected to free T3s.

      Also, I forget to mention, I don't think religion is something you can try on. I can't just start going to church tomorrow and be a good Christian (or Muslim, Jew, or Hindi), there would be lacking the vital leap, faith. That isn't something you practice. You have it or you don't, it comes to you or it doesn't.

      You just stumbled over my point: man has *both* good and bad in him. This is

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    9. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can fill your "hole" with Jesus, good for you.

      I would rather fill my hole with Christian Bale. He's real.

      Or even his character, Batman, although I think the Flashes are more my type. Jesus does not turn me on at all, however I can see how it would work for someone into Hal Jackman / Wolverine.

    10. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      We're never going to agree... But it still is a fun discussion.

      It sure is. I'm not trying to metaphorically 'clone' myself, but I'd like to shine light on paths you might have thought ill-considered.

      I think many people in our culture are aware of it, and probably have tried religion, if they weren't raised into it. I, myself, was raised Catholic, but left around the age of reason (15-16), it didn't fit what I saw in the world. At the time I saw all this evil, that you speak of, and couldn't rectify a loving God with it, especially when paired with the idiotic Cold War rhetoric of "God is on our side". How can God be on anyones side when the goal is to nuke innocents if you have a chance? Read the same for any war, if God picked a side, He isn't worthy of worship.

      Well this explains much; there are some serious differences between the Roman Catholic Church and reality/the_Bible. Remember this is the organization that maintained monks to translate the Bible, but almost always into Latin, the language of the scholars, as it wasn't meant for the man on the street. The organization that, though these monks once penned by hand every word in the Bible, they overlook some important passages like Christ saying "[When you pray to me] Don't recite." and "Confess only to me- no one else can help you. And don't pray for the dead for they cannot hear you.

      It didn't hold the answers, and hopes that you, yourself, found. It left me with the proverbial "hole", since I knew there were answers to the questions that religion didn't answer for me. (there are full philosophy texts on these questions)

      I've heard so many times the very argument from RC parishioners. Want the truth? Want answers? See http://equip.org./ Hank Hannegraff has set up the Christian Resource Institute to answer all questions, do research to get the answers and clearly explain the answers. He's ruffling some feathers...he reading of Revelation (for example) doesn't include room for action figures. :>

      Dispensationalism came from a priest named Darby back in the 1800's if I remember correctly. Before then, everyone [Luther, for example] saw in the text only ONE rapture. Not one for Hebrews seven years after the gentiles were gone. Hank's pointed out the fallacy of these ideas, and gives good detail. He also has a radio show here-n-there called Bible Answer Man. Lots of good truths in there.

      Are ya really gonna try to keep it under your hat, even if it doesn't fill your life with joy?

      I'm truly conflicted here, and this almost made me not reply. I LIKE people being happy, for whatever (nondestructive) reason, and thus I don't want to tarnish that. And I do understand the religious drive to preaching by converts, it is a wholly humanitarian, and benign act. If I found a useful truth I would do the same. I'm conflicted, since I don't want to hear it anymore, though. I'm constantly preached at, I am aware of God, Jesus, etc... I won't convert, though, unless, as you probably know, there is some internal reason that makes this version of truth self-evident and useful. So far there isn't, and even points to the contrary.

      I don't blame ya; preaching (like, the 'fire and brimstone, some thing's-wrong-with-YOU!' kinda thing is awful. I like to consider it sharing, instead. Know how I know you're a sinner? You're a human with a heartbeat; so what? The exact sin doesn't matter, it's the heartfelt desire to comply that's important.

      Hollywood's not kind to Christians. Either they show a cult following rules that have been outdated for 2 millinia, or Roman Catholics who confess their sins but don't feel their lives are improved by going to mass. It's pretty sad, but there's lotsa room in the middle.

      Yes, Sartre wasn't the glorious optimist I painted him as, but nor was he as bleak as you have. He realized that there is no meaning, and we just have to accept it, which, on close reading, is empowering. I don't

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    11. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by CrashPoint · · Score: 1
      Here's a hint:

      each of us have a 'hole in our hearts' that gives us a greed to do (sometimes weird) things to fill it. Things like car racing, drugs, whoring, gambling...and things like wanting to be Batman. And until that 'hole' is filled, you'll run around aimlessly trying to fill it

      Sorry, but not everyone who doesn't follow your faith is miserable.

    12. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      Really? You've been covered up in a pile of bliss your whole life? Great. No one dies, no one leaves when you need'em most, and there are no thunderstorms in your world.

      You're fooling yourself, but I'm not gonna push. Everyone seeks happiness; very few get it, and even fewer keep it. But everyone's hunting for it. For some it's fast cars, some is fast women, others [granted, I'm sure they all read Slashdot] collect spores mold and fungus. :) But we all work hard to find the answer to that which makes us keep wanting.

      Like Trump; with all his money, happy must be waiting in the wings, aye? No- I've known a lot of rich men that have miserable lives. Once they 'climb that hill' and make their first million they wonder, "Shouldn't I be happier?".

      And it's not my faith, any more than Earth is 'my' planet. It's what's here. Once I allowed myself to see it, it all became clear. I wasn't raised this way; and now I see very few "Christians" that behave as I do. It's all about love, and many seem to overlook that- I don't know why.

      The old saw about "Christians hate gays" for example: no, we don't. Just the ones on TV. And we don't go killing people because "don't suffer a witch to live" is written in the most ancient and outmoded parts of our Bible. We love the sinner, and hate the sin. It's the sin that causes our misery, not the sinner; it's rare than one in a million of them even know they're causing it: it's not their fault.

      Like the sex issue. God doesn't _hate_ sex; it's the most glorious gift he's given us, except one. What he hates is it's misuse; doing so makes us [and our childen...] unhappy. There are fixed, repeatable-testable reasons for the hymen (virginity). When we take it wrongly, it causes the kind of relationships seen on "Seinfeld" and "Sex in the City". All that looking for the "right" person who'll never be there. It's so sad, I can't even watch these shows anymore.

      Feel free to look around. Check out Eastern Mysticism, try one Bhudda for a while, go New Age for a bit, but that shadow of emptiness will follow you. (It did, me.) One day you'll open the one book that said "The Earth is suspended from nothing" a long time before John Glenn. The same one who told a father the dimensions of a sucessful sea-going vessel LONG before mankind "knew" it. And when you do, thing's will all make sense for the first time in your life. It's all very personal, and all in-tune to you.

      Ya won't find me throwing stones though, while ya look.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    13. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Your construction of a straw man is an admission that you can't refute what I actually said.

    14. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      Straw man? Walk the world a while, you'll see what I mean. Never let it be said that a Christian brings a convert at the point of a gun, aye? :>

      Have a nice day.

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    15. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Yes, straw man. Look it up. You ignored my actual argument and instead chose to attack an argument you invented out of thin air- something that neither was implied by me nor logically flows from anything I said.

      I have "walked the world a while", and I know for a fact that the dichotomy you present (accept Jesus or never be happy) has no basis in reality.

    16. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

      Well ok, then. Surely because you say it's so, Jesus is a figment of our collective imaginations. Forget the historical and evidentual references throughout history; you're safe to do as you please with no recourse at the end of things.

      Feel free to assume all of this is just stuff and nonsense. Just continue as you will. Have a nice day!

      --
      --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    17. Re:Human wisdom is deficient by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Another straw man. I didn't say that, or anything even remotely resembling that. And you know it.

  83. why bother? by speedtux · · Score: 1

    I don't see the point. What are you going to use those "skills" for? Any application of martial arts means (1) your life is likely at risk, and (2) you are likely going to have legal troubles.

    Martial arts are kind of OK for keeping in shape; for defending yourself, they're useless in a modern society.

    1. Re:why bother? by dave562 · · Score: 1
      I agree with the first two points you made. If you are using real martial arts, you are doing so because you're in a situation that there wasn't any other way out of, and by defending yourself with what you were taught, you are going to be facing assault/battery charges, and maybe even manslaughter if you are too effective with your techniques.

      As for martial arts being worthless for defending yourself, that's a load of crap. So much of self defense and maintaining your personal safety has to do with your awareness of the world around you and how you carry yourself. Martial arts will train that if you are training with a real teacher. I train kung fu and tai chi with someone who is a 32nd generation Shao-Lin disciple and who can trace his lineage all the way back. He passes along more than just the physical art. He passes along the philosophy as well. Being a martial artist is a way of life and it involves a lot more than fighting. It is all about strengthing the body, mind and spirit and pushing the boundries of what you are capable of as a human being.

    2. Re:why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mind and spirit and pushing the boundries of what you are capable of as a human being.

      So is any other skill that you pursue seriously: piano playing, computer programming, backgammon, skiing, etc.

  84. The martial arts you see are all useless. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The stuff you see on the screen, in the ring (including MMA) will get you killed on the street.

    The real martial arts don't in fact take 10 years to train for, they only take a few months to teach the techniques, a few months to practice them until automatic and a few months to get into decent shape to apply them. You see, what you are taught 3 or 4 times a week for 10 years when you attend a typical dojo is almost certainly complete bollocks. It almost certainly isn't effective karate, it almost certainly isn't effective kung fu. In fact it almost certainly doesn't resemble the original material taught by the old masters in any way.

    The addition of rules for sparring, competition have removed virtually all of the effective techniques. Few of which are taught any more in the dojo because they are forbidden in competition.

    Effective (real) karate, kung fu, tai chi, boxing, wrestling etc are in fact functionally the same thing. Simple and brutal self defence techniques which are easy to apply when the addrenalin has removed all your co-ordination and your opponent's pain sensitivity. Virtually all of the "styles" you see these days are ... Ballet ... Not karate, not kung fu, not tai chi. If you are not practicing and training eye gouging, fishooking, choking, strangling, biting, stamping, headbutting, groin crushing as well as the more sophisticated stuff, you are kidding yourself (and your students if you have the gall to teach any) on.

    Unless you train for effectiveness in the dojo, you are seriously going to get your backside handed to you the first time you attempt a spinning reverse head kick on a damp, slippy pavement when some moron and his 4 mates decide you looked at them wrong.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:The martial arts you see are all useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you would be willing to show us how its done for a low, low price. Fact is that different types of fights have different specialties. Why do our soldiers train different than our cops? Different fight. Same way, the best way to pick up how to win street fights is street fighting or from those who street fight. But for most of us we aren't gettting jumped every day by a street gang. If thats happening, you are braindead for not being better equipped not better trained.
      Even a basic amount of training will put you above 95% of the population. There are other factors but you will pass the training time of a typical soldier in a month of any martial arts class. You will likely pass the training time of elite forces in a year. I've done several martial arts and know from cordial experience if denied their gear I could go toe-to-toe with local SWAT members even though they outweigh me and out-exercise me because of the several years of training under my belt.

    2. Re:The martial arts you see are all useless. by firefly4f4 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I disagree with this.

      Martial art's training is invaluable.

      You will inevitably be in better shape than your attackers, so you should be able to outrun the majority of them anyway.

      That is, if you see them coming at you first.

  85. Try judo by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Not only do you get to *see* attractive females .. you also get to *hold* onto them!!

    Try judo sometime if you want to hold on. Takes a special kind of gal to like to be thrown around.

    Not that there is anything wrong with dance classes as a way to pick up chicks mind you...

    1. Re:Try judo by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The trouble with Judo is that they an turn the tables on you (been there done that). with dancing the role of leader and follower is precisely defined ;-)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  86. JBOD! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    More like JBOD...
    Jump-in Batmen on Duty.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  87. Half the people are by definition below average by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But basically it said that with 10,000 hours of training you can go from zero to a world class practitioner in *any* field you choose.

    That's a load of crap unless you have a VERY low standard for "world class".

    Athletics is an easy example but it applies equally to mental pursuits. I don't care how many hours of training you or I have, odds are you don't have the cardiovascular system to be a top endurance athlete. You are either born with it or you aren't and no amount of training will give it to you if you aren't. Likewise, you either have the muscle composition or don't to be a world class sprinter. Most sports tend to favor a particular physique - you either have it or you don't. Someone the size of an NFL linebacker is never going to win the Tour De France. There is of course an element of training but to get to the top level the right genetic component has to be there too.

    There is a wide gulf between being competent and being world class. Very few people have the intellectual horsepower to be even close to the level of a Nobel prize winner or Olympic athlete. Certainly anyone can become more proficient. But world class? Pretty much by definition half the people are below average.

    1. Re:Half the people are by definition below average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much by definition half the people are below average.

      Below median. That said—please, continue showering us with your insight.

    2. Re:Half the people are by definition below average by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Below median.

      Right, because in a 6 billion sample normally distributed population there is a meaningful difference. Boy you showed me...

    3. Re:Half the people are by definition below average by WithLove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, I think to become truly "world-class" at anything, you must be blessed with a natural ability.

      The ones that end up as the greatest of the greatest (Joe Satriani, Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Batman) are the ones that spend the requisite hours (10,000? 15,000? doesn't matter) and already have the predisposition to be great in that field.

      I play tennis for fun. If I spent 12,000 hours practicing, would I be as good as Federer? No. Not even close. How about 20,000 hours? Still, probably not. That's because Federer is in the class of individuals that (I believe) found their natural, personal, skill meant for them. Then worked for years.

      I've always wondered what would happen to people like that if they never practiced the skill meant for them? Surely, they wouldn't be world class. I wonder how many people are floating around as "merely average" because they don't know that they could be the best of the best at something?

  88. I don't respect the concept of Batman by MadMcMan · · Score: 1

    "I don't respect the concept of Batman because of what i understand about politics and that.
    I'm going to lay it out for you, Rich dude owns a corporation, has state of the art equipment and he uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn't mess with the industrialists or the super capitalists, the Murdock or the Trumps he'd rather just f*ck with the purse snatchers on the corner! Batman is a conservatives wet dream! F*ck batman!"

    http://www.monkeyreview.co.uk/index.php/2008/07/18/reginald-d-hunter-on-batman/

  89. Holy Runaway Memes Batman! by pragma_x · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry chums, I have my Bat-grammar Nazi Repellent Spray right here on my Bat-Utility belt.

    One spray from this canister will take care of him until the authorities arrive.

  90. Xerxes and his ten thousand "immortals" by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By the way, this is the thinking behind the ten thousand "immortals" of Xerxes army. His hand picked crack troops were always kept at this number with replacements making up the dead/injured.

    You can see one fictionalized representation of them in the movie "The 300". They were the warriors who went up against the greeks wearing the shiny silver masks. As befitting their awesome reputation, they were the first ones to draw greek blood (although they still got slaughtered).

  91. Myth Busted by jaguth · · Score: 0

    From http://www.tv.com/mythbusters/superhero-hour/episode/1123508/summary.html (and also watching it myself):

    Grappling Hook
    - miniature motorized ascender: PLAUSIBLE
    - concrete piercing grappler: BUSTED

    Its possible to have a miniature motorized ascender, however, you will ascend VERY slowly. The martial arts in the batman movies is plausible, but still a little far fetched. The most realistic aspect of batman - why I like him - is his brains. He uses computers, knowledge, and politics to meet his goals.

  92. Multiple opponents by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trick behind multiple attackers is moving around enough so that they eventually line up and come at you one or two at a time.

    Yeah I had my martial arts instructors tell me that too. Problem is that realistically you'll never be on favorable terrain and you aren't good enough to put your opponents down quickly or avoid entanglement. The human body can take a lot of abuse and odd are you'll get tied up with one opponent long enough for the others to get to you.

    You *might* escape but that's the best you can hope for. Pretty much you have to hope the exit is close and you can get somewhere safe quickly. I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself but recognize that the odds are heavily against you.

    Disclosure: I've been a martial arts student for about 20 years. I'm not any sort of exceptional talent but I do have enough experience (including real world) to understand what is possible. Multiple opponent situations are VERY difficult even if you are better armed and much better trained than those you are facing.

  93. Future /. headline by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    "You, Too, Could Be Dr. Manhattan in 10 to 12 Seconds in the Large Hadron Collider"

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  94. Too true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Art of War discusses this. I seem to recall that you should flee towards the slowest guy and run in such a way that the attackers get spread out so that you can finish them off one or two at a time. If they don't make room, obviously you should force them to (and hopefully you have a weapon).

    Also, I think that anyone who has played a roguelike knows the value of finding alleys and hallways that force your opponents to get in line to have their asses kicked.

    But if they're competent, you're probably screwed. This is why you shouldn't let yourself get surrounded to begin with. And why things like hallways are invaluable for anyone fighting alone.

  95. kinda like the king of spain... by moxy fruvous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, you could have the real king pretend to be the fake king's servant. Of course, George Lucas will claim plagiarism, but you can't have everything.

    listen to king of spain, by moxy fruvous...

  96. Christian Bale by firefly4f4 · · Score: 1

    Seems to me he didn't have to go through 12 years of training to become Batman! If he can do it, surely I can!

    Wait, what you do you mean, "stunt doubles?"

  97. define sophisticated by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i define it as a bunch of assholes who think they are better than other people out of weakness of character and insecurity

    certainly not brighter than the average joe

    to this extent, your definition of scientific american as rigorous is found wanting and shallow

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:define sophisticated by quanticle · · Score: 1

      i define it as a bunch of assholes who think they are better than other people out of weakness of character and insecurity

      I call it a bunch of people who actually know what's going on and how a discovery works. People that aren't afraid to show the actual complexity of a piece of technology, rather than glossing over the fine details like Popular Science so often does.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  98. New theme by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Lovely bats, wonderful ba-a-ts,
    Lovely bats, wonderful b bats,
    Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ats,
    Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ats,
    Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ats,
    Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ats,
    LOVELY BATS (LOVELY BATS)
    LOVELY BATS (LOVELY BATS)
    LOVELY BA-A-A-A-ATS...
    BA-ATS, BA-ATS, BA-AT-MA-A-A-AN!

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  99. Constant Supply of Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few year: This explains why there is a new batman every few years

  100. Real-world superhero types - special ops by Animats · · Score: 1

    The guys who actually do this sort of thing are the ones in Delta, the SEALs, the FBI's HRT, and the British SAS. They all have quite a bit in common.

    Candidates are chosen competitively from a large pool of people with military or police experience. Then they're run through a selection process, which most fail. The selection process tests primarily for endurance and the ability to function under pressure when exhausted. Interestingly, none of those groups test martial arts or shooting skills during selection.

    Initial training for all these groups is 1-2 years. The training varies, but it's mostly about 1) getting into hard-to-enter places, 2) accurate shooting in combat situations, and 3) mission planning and execution. They all learn martial arts, but if they need them in the field, the mission has gone badly wrong. They don't usually let the bad guys get that close. (HRT might; the FBI tries to capture the bad guys alive.)

    That's how the special ops community does it. They train to do the job without heroics. Basic military truth: if heroics are necessary, the mission is in trouble. The HRT motto is "No Heroes". The classic line, going back to the Romans, is "The Legion is not composed of heroes. Heroes are what the Legion kills."

    1. Re:Real-world superhero types - special ops by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia says their motto is:

      Servare Vitas - "To Save Lives"

      I like yours better, though.

  101. How long to be Batgirl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long would it take me to become Batgirl? I mean after I heal from the gender-reassignment surgery.

  102. Don't -dumb- it down at all... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I'm not to clear on what your getting at here? Should science be dumbed down for the masses?

    Exactly opposite. What I'm saying is that organizing different kinds of knowledge for the purposes of communications is a discipline in and of itself and frankly, it's the job of writers and they've all bailed. Scientists famously can't communicate anything to anyone, even each other, that's why the emphasis is on experiment.

    Look at what we have today : A drooling stinkoid shows up babbling about a ton of equations is nothing, but, then he shoots a dog, gives it a needle and it comes back to life. The scientist apologizes that you might have to change the brand of dog food because bringing them back from the dead alters some [insert physics here] and therefor, they must eat Alpo instead of Dog Chow.

    Now, a good salesman will look at that, and say "you know, that's a decent piece of work but that Alpo issue is going to make it harder, but, if you can agree to say, 20%, I can sell it if I get to keep 80%. You know, I'll go and be in front of all the people and get them to give us money..." and the scientist says, "my god, people", and says, "you know, I feel bad about the Alpo thing and if you sell it I'll be happy with 17%"...

    But I digress...the moral of the story is, the taxonomy of human scientific knowledge is so screwed up that not even scientists themselves can assess the value of their work.... it's just, the organization of our knowledge is draining everything, its not the job of scientists to do, its the job of writers.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Don't -dumb- it down at all... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      In short: We need to resurrect Carl Sagan, and Stephen J. Gould? Perhaps some Zombie Asimov?

      If thats what your getting at, I agree.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:Don't -dumb- it down at all... by mabraham · · Score: 1

      Exactly opposite. What I'm saying is that organizing different kinds of knowledge for the purposes of communications is a discipline in and of itself and frankly, it's the job of writers and they've all bailed. Scientists famously can't communicate anything to anyone, even each other, that's why the emphasis is on experiment.

      Get off it... scientists stereotypically can't communicate with anyone - which is the impression you'd have if your only contact with them was cartoons for grade-school kids. Communication is intrinsic to the scientific method. You have to make observations, hypothesize, test, rework the hypothesis, find it proved, and to actually get paid you have to publish. That's right - communicate. The work's of no value if you don't. Even further, there are quite few disciplines left where one individual can do useful work in isolation. There are quite a few areas in biology where any worthwhile discovery will have dozens of names on the journal article. Can you really suppose none of them communicated with each other? :-)

      Look at what we have today : A drooling stinkoid shows up babbling about a ton of equations is nothing, but, then he shoots a dog, gives it a needle and it comes back to life. The scientist apologizes that you might have to change the brand of dog food because bringing them back from the dead alters some [insert physics here] and therefor, they must eat Alpo instead of Dog Chow.

      Now, a good salesman will look at that, and say "you know, that's a decent piece of work but that Alpo issue is going to make it harder, but, if you can agree to say, 20%, I can sell it if I get to keep 80%. You know, I'll go and be in front of all the people and get them to give us money..." and the scientist says, "my god, people", and says, "you know, I feel bad about the Alpo thing and if you sell it I'll be happy with 17%"...

      Cartoons anyone? :-)

      But I digress...the moral of the story is, the taxonomy of human scientific knowledge is so screwed up that not even scientists themselves can assess the value of their work.... it's just, the organization of our knowledge is draining everything, its not the job of scientists to do, its the job of writers.

      The taxonomy is fine - and changing it wouldn't serve a real purpose. The applicability of the taxonomy to describe the work people are doing is more often in question these days. As we know and learn more, you can effectively work on the cross-disciplinary boundaries in a way that you couldn't do back when physics was physics and everything else was stamp-collecting. I should know - for my PhD I'm doing simulations on chemical molecules, but they're prion proteins (so there's wads of biochemistry and medical science to manage). The calculations are frigging expensive, so I have to be on top of the mathematical algorithms and physical models being used, and they have to be effectively implemented on a high-performance computer using well-optimized code. Try doing that 50 years ago!

    3. Re:Don't -dumb- it down at all... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Get off it... scientists stereotypically can't communicate with anyone

      No, actually... I get this from that bastion of right wing journalism, National Public Radio. Scientists are not people whose job it is to communicate. On the other hand, salesman, preachers, etc are. So, if you have a CEO out there saying that he thinks global warming is a crock, or a preacher who argues against evolution, and stand him or her beside a scientist, in a debate, 9 times out of a 10 the guy that convince someone to part with their money is going to beat the scientist. I mean, don't take it personally, but, I guarantee you that if we put even you into a debate of any kind with a halfway decent salesman, you are going to lose. Your specialty, as you say, is prion proteins, not people, and you can only be as good as much as you practice.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Don't -dumb- it down at all... by mabraham · · Score: 1
      Sure, I agree, if you redefine "communicate" to mean "convince a non-expert audience using means other than demonstrating a pattern, inference, or deduction concerning observations of the natural world". Any expert at that subset of communication is going to beat someone whose primary expertise is elsewhere - be that second person a scientist, a sports person, an artist, an accountant or whatever. Equally, the scientist is going to be much better able to convince a competent-or-better scientifically-literate audience than someone whose expertise is demagoguery or deception.

      Both of those are a long way from "scientists can't communicate anything to anyone" :-)

  103. 10 to 12 years for the physical part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about the psychological motivation?
     
    ... Mom, dad, I have a really big favor to ask.

  104. Read The American sometime. by Thag · · Score: 1

    People have already mentioned The Phantom, but I think The American, by Mark Verheiden, is an even better example.

    Comic starts out with The American, a Captain America-like hero, coming in to break up a terrorist attack (or something like that). A bystander sees him screw up and get killed. But that night, there he is taking a bow for the evening news.

    So the bystander starts digging into what's going on, and strikes conspiracy pretty quickly. Turns out there have been hundreds of different guys playing the role of The American over the last 50 years. And the government doesn't want that getting out.

    And hey, it's still in print!

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  105. A real world batman by josephSevern · · Score: 1

    If one is hypothesizing about a real Batman, you have to include superior genetics and near-infinite financial resources. Batman would start training at a young age with top level mixed-martial arts and wrestling coaches, then go through a world-class prep-school education, spending his summers at MMA camps and firearms programs. He'd go through an elite undergraduate education, double majoring in something like engineering physics and economics. Through prep school and college he'd be traveling extensively, picking up languages and training with MMA, kickboxing, judo, and wrestling coaches all over the world. After college he'd spend 4-6 years in a top-level military special operations unit, gaining real-world experience in violence, emergency medicine, demolitions, covert operations, etc. By the time he's done with this he'll be approaching 30, and he'll have the connections, wealth, and knowledge to pick up additional skills he might need in the private sector, possibly through private tutoring or formal education programs. He'll still be in top physical condition. After a year or two of fine-tuning, he'll be ready to start wiping out villains anywhere.

  106. Hmm... by kabocox · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it work better if being batman was like some elite social prize for the super elite rich? You have to pay a billion a year to be batman and be at the top of your game. If you fail for any reason, the next super rich guy that can do it becomes batman. Heck, it could also be some surreal reality TV. Imagine all the batman stuff being recorded, and you'd have to pay a few million to watch views of the current batman... You'd have to test out on known Batman enemies and their weaknesses.

    Of course if you really wanted to implement "The Batman Project," it would be simpler to go the entire clone army route and just have 1,000 batmen of various ages in training ready just in case.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      The MPAA already has a project like this. Nearly every time there's a new flick they cast a new Batman. At their rate eventually we've all been Batman.

  107. Obsession by srobert · · Score: 1

    What always fascinated me about Batman was that he had no super powers. Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, etc. all had some sort of super ability that was explained by magic or techno-babble that masqueraded as science. So what is Batman's "super" power? He's just obsessed. That's it. Ordinary human obsession. Granted, it's taken to extremes and supplemented by boatloads of wealth, but it's within the range of what could be achieved by an ordinary human. But you know what? I think Batman could kick Superman's ass. (Does this sound like a conversation that Norm and Cliff would have down at Cheers?)

  108. ...Until a man is 25 by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    "Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest ***** in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.
    Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this was liberating. He no longer has to worry about being the baddest ***** in the world. The position is taken."-Neal Stephenson

  109. You see, the problem is... by ebuck · · Score: 1

    Too much gang fighting can worsen your skills on one-on-one combat.

    I knew of this one guy who got really good at fighting gangs for local charities and stuff. He was huge, and he didn't even work out. He got his ass kicked by one man.

    You see, you use different moves when you're fighting half-a-dozen people than when your only fighting just one person.

    1. Re:You see, the problem is... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Too much gang fighting can worsen your skills on one-on-one combat.
      I knew of this one guy who got really good at fighting gangs for local charities and stuff. He was huge, and he didn't even work out. He got his ass kicked by one man.
      You see, you use different moves when you're fighting half-a-dozen people than when your only fighting just one person.

      Next thing you're gonna tell us that you're not left-handed.

  110. Awe, dude... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Awe, damn, dude. You guys had to go and ruin the mystique of Batman...

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  111. Continueing the quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The crowning touch, the one thing that really puts true worldclass motherfuckerdom totally out of reach, of course, is the hydrogen bomb.

  112. Losing doesn't mean death by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1
    Batman 'lost' about every second episode.

    Losing means being captured, chained up in some overly-complex death machine (still with your batman mask on) and then being left alone to make your escape.

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  113. Re:But will the future "Batmen" be able to put you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    His town needs an enema!

    oh sorry, wrong batman.

  114. Forget Batman by mgiuca · · Score: 1

    Forget Batman! How many years will it take for me to be Superman?

  115. Who would want to be Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he has to face such dastardly villains?

    2-D Glasses comic

  116. Surely these days by BossBostin · · Score: 1

    one would have to train a number of Batpeople from various backgrounds to avoid offending any minority. And what about the other animals, why should bats have preferential treatment? How about this for the job advertisement, Vacancy: Nonspecificanimalperson Equal opportunity employer seeks keen individual of no specific race or gender for super hero position. Vehicle provided, good rates of pay, uniform provided. Other perks include own butler and accomodation. Super powers desirable but not essential for successful aplicant. Must be prepared to work nights.