I'd say that's the part that makes this impressive. Re-entry is known to be pretty darn warm. And heat will scatter magnetic domains. Heat up a magnet - it's not a magnet anymore.
Well, you figure the shuttle was at the end of its 10 minutes of "peak heating" by the time it started to break up, and there was a fair deal of structure (shuttle's frame, the module in the storage bay, etc.) around the hard drive taking most of the force of the sudden deceleration as the shuttle lost its ability to control its descent - I don't expect the hard drive itself would exactly take the worst of it, you know? While the shuttle was still in controlled flight, its temperature was actually falling by the time of the breakup.
Ah, but how profitable is an artist's tour going to be if nobody knows who they are? I think the label's role in promoting the band is worth something.
Mind you, one of my all-time favorite bands was pretty much snuffed out by Capitol - had their album produced and recorded and then just sat on it for a couple years without releasing it, until finally the band called it quits. So don't think I'm too enamored with the RIAA.
But all this is kind of irrelevant. My point is simply that you can't talk about the "cost of a CD" as though the record label does nothing but replicate them. They also backed the production of that album, taking the risk that it wouldn't sell. They need to recover those costs. I'm just saying, don't make excuses like "music is too expensive". Music costs as much as people are willing to pay for it. Stop paying the high prices and the prices will fall - but you can't blame the record companies if they want people who don't pay to not get the benefits that would normally come from buying their product...
This analogy has gotten way out of control. And I don't even like McDonald's!
Here's the thing - The CD cost has to support not just the artist but also the promotion and distribution of that album, plus there has to be enough revenue left over to support the label's business of representing new acts in the hope that one of them will be successful - to find that one act that people will really like they have to gamble - attract artists they think might have potential to succeed and give 'em a shot.
I think it's a fair bet their business model will have to adjust - but to say that the cost of that $20 CD is limited just to the per-copy production cost of the disc itself is not at all realistic.
And don't forget this one critical fact, which you gloss over in your analogy: no one is "forcing" you to pay $20 for a CD (or a McDonald's breakfast). If you don't like the price at which they're offering their product, you don't need that product. You can get entertainment (or food) elsewhere. Play by the rules, or do without. The latter option really isn't as bad as you might think.
These software behemoths are like Emacs with the brakes removed - allmost an operating system by themselves.
Funny how creating a powerful, intuitive, user-friendly GUI for OSs is what catapulted computers from being nifty novelties into being essential productivity tools from the top to the bottom of society in every sphere, from social to economic. Funnier still is how many bozos are too stupid to realize this, still think command-line interfaces are where the cool kids hang out, etc. It's ridiculous. Get. Your. Farking. Interface. Sorted.
Compared to the challenge of creating the tools themselves, the task is trivial; but it takes the skillset of a designer, not a math jock or code monkey.
Let's get this straight:
It doesn't just take a designer. It takes a designer who understands what the program is and what it's supposed to do, and how people are going to work with it and (if you really want to pander to the audience) what they expect, what they're used to. In short, it's a harder problem than you acknowledge.
And, in general, for an interface to be easy to use it must be limited. Too many options means users complaining that your app is too complicated, or too cluttered with buttons and huge-ass menus. That's the problem with current GUIs - they don't scale well to large sets of possible commands. And a mesh editor is pretty much all about the large command set...
Honestly, I don't give a shit about what made computers massively popular commodities instead of niche items - not in this context. Blender, 3DS Max, Photoshop, etc. - these aren't apps that everybody runs. They're for specific groups of users - people who will do a lot of work with the app, can afford to take the time to learn to use it right in exchange for being able to use it more efficiently.
'Course, I do like command-line interfaces, and I like the Blender UI, so therefore I must not know a damn thing, right?:D
Oh no, I sense a schism in the pastafarian movement. The ric-ites and the glutinis may split. Well I for one can't believe a benevolent Flying Spaghetti Monster who wants us to worship him but doesn't want to make it clear that he exists would create people who would be caused great digestive distress by His noodly appendages...
Until then it is as much a waste of time as it is trying to work out how much flour Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up of. Hi,
Is there a denomination that believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster made of rice pasta? My wife has Celiac and so we want our thinly veiled lampoon-deity to be gluten-free.
Serious question: should the inability to prove or disprove a theory automatically preclude it? In certain circumstances, such as science, yes.
The whole scientific process is an accumulation of knowledge over many generations. Because so much of our accumulated knowledge was established in the distant past, we need the process as a way to establish or maintain its viability as a part of the model of the world. Even when accumulation of knowledge spans a single lifetime, we still need the process in order to ensure we haven't gravitated to the answers we "like", but that we've actually come up with a sensible model for the world and that it has, so far, continued to be reliable.
How it works is we find a mystery in the world and attempt to explain it - then we attempt to work out, if that explanation really is true, then what else must also be true? And so we come up with tests... "If combustion is a process of release of Phlogiston, then there must be no material which gains weight as it burns" or "If our calculations about the orbital path of this planet is correct, then on this date at this time, the planet will be observed at this position." As test results come in, the results lend support to the theory, suggest the need for refinement, or else contradict it completely - in any case, so long as the process is properly followed and the results well documented, our total knowledge of the world has increased.
The reason why useful scientific ideas must be disprovable is because if they weren't, we would have no means of establishing the idea's reliability. You can use an untested idea to attempt to model the world in the hope that this model will provide you with some useful information - like playing a hunch, sometimes it does pay off - but to bring that idea to the point where you can rely upon it you must be able to test it.
The reason why I limited my answer to "in certain contexts" is this: I do not deny the value of discussion of creation in a philosophical context, only in a scientific one. Philosophy, like science, attempts to use logic to make reasoned assumptions about the world - but unlike science it does not limit itself to what can be measured or tested in physical terms. It is the proper venue for discussing the possibility of creation as the origin of life. Science deals with data, and the ongoing process of attempting to understand that data. As such, the assumptions made can't stray too far beyond the minimal assumptions possible from the data.
Creation theory and Intelligent Design are not only impossible to disprove (for the same reason it'd be impossible to disprove, for instance, the idea that we're in "The Matrix") but it's very difficult to base any meaningful understanding of the world upon them. Do you accept that the world was "created"? If so, how does that help you to understand how it was created? Intelligent Design claims that its idea could be a viable model for understanding biology - if one assumes things were "designed" then one can attempt to understand what the designer had in mind... But how can one hope to understand the thought processes of an unknown creator? And it's hard to see how that assumption could serve you better than the more conservative assumption that "there is some logical basis to how biology works" - and yet it can serve you worse, by leading you astray...
You know what's really frustrating about this whole thing?
Someone could write a very large, very thorough, very convincing document that establishes an iron-clad argument in support of the current scientific understanding of the world - but to those not inclined to read and learn to understand that document, it's no more convincing that (probably less convincing than) a catchy 10 second sound bite, or a rallying cry filled with logical fallacies, misinformation, and ad hominem attacks... Much like the film which Slashdot is now astroturfing...
They're trying to build hype for the movie, and guess what? Slashdot has just thrown them a bone... You know what astroturfing is, right?
This is the same tired old game - the loaded, one-sided documentary, made to appeal to people who already feel a certain way about a contentious issue... Stein's become a counterpart to Michael Moore - which given Stein's books and such maybe shouldn't be surprising.
Here's a few choice snippets from the new villain:
"Ha ha, FOOL! My weapon is invincible! Its open design has been thoroughly scrutinized by many eyes!"
"Well, of course everybody knows the location of my secret lair! Security through obscurity is worthless!"
"I refuse to fight you, Iron Man, as interfacing with your closed hardware would violate the licensing terms of my weapons!"
"As it happens, my battle suit is every bit as good as Iron Man's! Granted, there are a few bugs here and there, and the documentation is a little out of date, but the power it gives me is unrivaled!"
Yeah, really wicked. Now all GIMP needs is support for the various colour matching systems such as ANPA,DIC, Fokoltone, HKS, PAntone, Trumatch and TOYO. Sure they cost a lot to license and so are almost guaranteed to NEVER be in Photoshop locking out a huge swathe of the publishing industry.
And really, who cares that it doesn't fit in with CS3 the way photoshop does - it doesn't fit with Krita or Scribus either.
Hey, give it only another decade and it may have some lossless processing gear.
Reality check buddy - Photoshop users aren't out to get Gimp. It doesn't bother them and if it's ever better. Photoshop users only hate clueless Gimp USERS who wouldn't know a proper colour management workflow, from Raw to print to online, if it smashed them in the face with a fully formed colour profile.
How about you continue using GIMP for your happy snaps, and I'll continue using it for aiding in the publication of the newspaper, at which I'm the operations manager, with a distribution of 127,000 copies weekly.
In return for us never crossing into each others territories again, ie you don't pretend you deal with real printing in real quantities and I'll not tell you how to remove auntie's red eyes, we'll stop spreading mis-information such as 'Photoshop users only need CMYK and when GIMP has that they'll be on par.'
I', gonna give you the benefit of the doubt after all that and assume you meant to get modded funny, not half-wit Linuxoverzealot. I applaud your use of sensible information here, it's just a shame you have to be a bit of a dick about it...
For sure it's easy for people who are excited about GIMP and who aren't Photoshop users to take it for granted that GIMP is right on par with Photoshop - when it isn't. To me, 8-bit per color channel is enough to make the distinction perfectly clear - OK, so you've got 24 million colors, right? How many shades of one color? I'd shudder to think of doing any serious manipulation of black-and-white images on GIMP...
But the thing about the GIMP is it was one of the first free apps to deliver its level of capabilities. (I remember Paint Shop Pro before GIMP came out - you could adjust colors and crop and not a whole lot else...) That's very empowering. Nowadays GIMP is just one of many free apps that provide that level (or better) of functionality... I think it's really more appropriate to group all those apps together, call them "personal-grade photo editors" or something, rather than try, as a GIMP enthusiast, to describe GIMP in terms of Photoshop... I'm quite happy to have a photo editor with layers and such, without having to shell out for (or pirate) a program like Photoshop.
A better comparison would have been, our processor can do X task (describe task) in the time it takes for light to go from my finger to my nose, however a Pentium 4 performing the same task would take the same time as light traveling from New York, to my nose. That analogy sounds real impressive until you realize the speaker is in Hoboken.
They have a button where you can check if your current IP address is in a black hole. Anyone else find that ironic? Alanis did:
"It's like rain, on your wedding day, a website that has a button to tell you if your IP address is in a black hole, a free ride, when you already paid..."
"Well, a gun is a tool for efficiently killing people, so yeah..."
It's efficiency it solely based upon the user. No apostrophe in "its", please... But anyway, that doesn't matter. The fact is that this proficiency is much easier to come by than the equivalent proficiency in other lethal means (such as hand-to-hand, use of knives, etc.) and once acquired it's quite effective.
If you are looking from a ROI standpoint, I think explosive weapons are more efficient at killing people. I'm sure there are ROI studies on this though. True, if you're talking numbers, you can kill more people with a bomb. But if you see someone, you can point at them, and say, "I want that person dead", a gun can make it happen, quickly and efficiently. It's a tool for killing people - I think it's worth thinking critically about why an individual needs that, and who ought to be allowed that power, in a society where killing people isn't generally allowed.
To go back to the post I was responding to - compare the lethal efficiency of a gun to the printing press. Now, you could drop a printing press on someone and kill them, or maybe you could trick them into sticking their head inside and then crush it - but a printing press really doesn't excel at killing people.
Mind you, I do believe people should have a right to self-defense, and self-defense that's only moderately effective isn't worth much - I just don't believe it's something you can equate with free speech. At a practical level there's a big liability involved with giving people that power too freely.
Why do I have to *need* a gun? Would you ask why I *need* a printing press? Well, a gun is a tool for efficiently killing people, so yeah...
Now, of course there's something to be said for the right to retain the power to defend oneself - my point here is simply that holding that power is a big responsibility and should be treated as such.
But another question is - Why redo that book again? Let us see some other of the well-known authors filmed. Asimov's "Nightfall", Gordon Dickson's "Way of the Pilgrim", Frederick Pohl's "Gateway", Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" (which gave us the word "Grok") Well, in the mean time, we've got movies of Asimov's "I, Robot" and Heinlein's "Starship Troopers".:D
"Stranger in a Strange Land" was good stuff - but one thing that really didn't stand up well to re-reading, for me at least, was Jubal's life lessons. Like, please, do tell us what to think Jubal. Impart upon us the wisdom of Heinlein. How about that scene where Jubal and Duke(?) were discussing the merits and morality and history of cannibalism...?
That thing went ON and ON and ON, man... "Yeah, but cannibalism is icky!" "Yeah, cannibalism is icky. But that's just your prejudice and societal conditioning." "Yeah, but it's icky gross!" "Well, you're icky gross, too. But some people just do things differently." "Icky icky icky!!! GROOOOSSSSSS!"...
Starship Troopers had whole chapters of this... Hey everybody, Juan Rico's reminiscing about History and Moral Philosophy class again! Oh, and now he's gone to OCS for even more History and Moral Philosophy...
Of course, all that crap would get cut from any movie adaptation... With the right treatment I think "Stranger" could be a cool movie, though...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that's the part that makes this impressive. Re-entry is known to be pretty darn warm. And heat will scatter magnetic domains. Heat up a magnet - it's not a magnet anymore.
Well, you figure the shuttle was at the end of its 10 minutes of "peak heating" by the time it started to break up, and there was a fair deal of structure (shuttle's frame, the module in the storage bay, etc.) around the hard drive taking most of the force of the sudden deceleration as the shuttle lost its ability to control its descent - I don't expect the hard drive itself would exactly take the worst of it, you know? While the shuttle was still in controlled flight, its temperature was actually falling by the time of the breakup.I am glad somebody brought this up... For sure the headline got its phrasing wrong...
Ah, but how profitable is an artist's tour going to be if nobody knows who they are? I think the label's role in promoting the band is worth something.
Mind you, one of my all-time favorite bands was pretty much snuffed out by Capitol - had their album produced and recorded and then just sat on it for a couple years without releasing it, until finally the band called it quits. So don't think I'm too enamored with the RIAA.
But all this is kind of irrelevant. My point is simply that you can't talk about the "cost of a CD" as though the record label does nothing but replicate them. They also backed the production of that album, taking the risk that it wouldn't sell. They need to recover those costs. I'm just saying, don't make excuses like "music is too expensive". Music costs as much as people are willing to pay for it. Stop paying the high prices and the prices will fall - but you can't blame the record companies if they want people who don't pay to not get the benefits that would normally come from buying their product...
Man, this discussion is making me hungry! First cheeseburgers, now pizza!
Mmmmm...
This analogy has gotten way out of control. And I don't even like McDonald's!
Here's the thing - The CD cost has to support not just the artist but also the promotion and distribution of that album, plus there has to be enough revenue left over to support the label's business of representing new acts in the hope that one of them will be successful - to find that one act that people will really like they have to gamble - attract artists they think might have potential to succeed and give 'em a shot.
I think it's a fair bet their business model will have to adjust - but to say that the cost of that $20 CD is limited just to the per-copy production cost of the disc itself is not at all realistic.
And don't forget this one critical fact, which you gloss over in your analogy: no one is "forcing" you to pay $20 for a CD (or a McDonald's breakfast). If you don't like the price at which they're offering their product, you don't need that product. You can get entertainment (or food) elsewhere. Play by the rules, or do without. The latter option really isn't as bad as you might think.
Funny how creating a powerful, intuitive, user-friendly GUI for OSs is what catapulted computers from being nifty novelties into being essential productivity tools from the top to the bottom of society in every sphere, from social to economic. Funnier still is how many bozos are too stupid to realize this, still think command-line interfaces are where the cool kids hang out, etc. It's ridiculous. Get. Your. Farking. Interface. Sorted.
Compared to the challenge of creating the tools themselves, the task is trivial; but it takes the skillset of a designer, not a math jock or code monkey.
Let's get this straight:It doesn't just take a designer. It takes a designer who understands what the program is and what it's supposed to do, and how people are going to work with it and (if you really want to pander to the audience) what they expect, what they're used to. In short, it's a harder problem than you acknowledge.
And, in general, for an interface to be easy to use it must be limited. Too many options means users complaining that your app is too complicated, or too cluttered with buttons and huge-ass menus. That's the problem with current GUIs - they don't scale well to large sets of possible commands. And a mesh editor is pretty much all about the large command set...
Honestly, I don't give a shit about what made computers massively popular commodities instead of niche items - not in this context. Blender, 3DS Max, Photoshop, etc. - these aren't apps that everybody runs. They're for specific groups of users - people who will do a lot of work with the app, can afford to take the time to learn to use it right in exchange for being able to use it more efficiently.
'Course, I do like command-line interfaces, and I like the Blender UI, so therefore I must not know a damn thing, right?
Is there a denomination that believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster made of rice pasta? My wife has Celiac and so we want our thinly veiled lampoon-deity to be gluten-free.
The whole scientific process is an accumulation of knowledge over many generations. Because so much of our accumulated knowledge was established in the distant past, we need the process as a way to establish or maintain its viability as a part of the model of the world. Even when accumulation of knowledge spans a single lifetime, we still need the process in order to ensure we haven't gravitated to the answers we "like", but that we've actually come up with a sensible model for the world and that it has, so far, continued to be reliable.
How it works is we find a mystery in the world and attempt to explain it - then we attempt to work out, if that explanation really is true, then what else must also be true? And so we come up with tests... "If combustion is a process of release of Phlogiston, then there must be no material which gains weight as it burns" or "If our calculations about the orbital path of this planet is correct, then on this date at this time, the planet will be observed at this position." As test results come in, the results lend support to the theory, suggest the need for refinement, or else contradict it completely - in any case, so long as the process is properly followed and the results well documented, our total knowledge of the world has increased.
The reason why useful scientific ideas must be disprovable is because if they weren't, we would have no means of establishing the idea's reliability. You can use an untested idea to attempt to model the world in the hope that this model will provide you with some useful information - like playing a hunch, sometimes it does pay off - but to bring that idea to the point where you can rely upon it you must be able to test it.
The reason why I limited my answer to "in certain contexts" is this: I do not deny the value of discussion of creation in a philosophical context, only in a scientific one. Philosophy, like science, attempts to use logic to make reasoned assumptions about the world - but unlike science it does not limit itself to what can be measured or tested in physical terms. It is the proper venue for discussing the possibility of creation as the origin of life. Science deals with data, and the ongoing process of attempting to understand that data. As such, the assumptions made can't stray too far beyond the minimal assumptions possible from the data.
Creation theory and Intelligent Design are not only impossible to disprove (for the same reason it'd be impossible to disprove, for instance, the idea that we're in "The Matrix") but it's very difficult to base any meaningful understanding of the world upon them. Do you accept that the world was "created"? If so, how does that help you to understand how it was created? Intelligent Design claims that its idea could be a viable model for understanding biology - if one assumes things were "designed" then one can attempt to understand what the designer had in mind... But how can one hope to understand the thought processes of an unknown creator? And it's hard to see how that assumption could serve you better than the more conservative assumption that "there is some logical basis to how biology works" - and yet it can serve you worse, by leading you astray...
You know what's really frustrating about this whole thing?Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming?
Someone could write a very large, very thorough, very convincing document that establishes an iron-clad argument in support of the current scientific understanding of the world - but to those not inclined to read and learn to understand that document, it's no more convincing that (probably less convincing than) a catchy 10 second sound bite, or a rallying cry filled with logical fallacies, misinformation, and ad hominem attacks... Much like the film which Slashdot is now astroturfing...
They're trying to build hype for the movie, and guess what? Slashdot has just thrown them a bone... You know what astroturfing is, right?
This is the same tired old game - the loaded, one-sided documentary, made to appeal to people who already feel a certain way about a contentious issue... Stein's become a counterpart to Michael Moore - which given Stein's books and such maybe shouldn't be surprising.
Here's a few choice snippets from the new villain:
"Ha ha, FOOL! My weapon is invincible! Its open design has been thoroughly scrutinized by many eyes!"
"Well, of course everybody knows the location of my secret lair! Security through obscurity is worthless!"
"I refuse to fight you, Iron Man, as interfacing with your closed hardware would violate the licensing terms of my weapons!"
"As it happens, my battle suit is every bit as good as Iron Man's! Granted, there are a few bugs here and there, and the documentation is a little out of date, but the power it gives me is unrivaled!"
And really, who cares that it doesn't fit in with CS3 the way photoshop does - it doesn't fit with Krita or Scribus either.
Hey, give it only another decade and it may have some lossless processing gear.
Reality check buddy - Photoshop users aren't out to get Gimp. It doesn't bother them and if it's ever better. Photoshop users only hate clueless Gimp USERS who wouldn't know a proper colour management workflow, from Raw to print to online, if it smashed them in the face with a fully formed colour profile.
How about you continue using GIMP for your happy snaps, and I'll continue using it for aiding in the publication of the newspaper, at which I'm the operations manager, with a distribution of 127,000 copies weekly.
In return for us never crossing into each others territories again, ie you don't pretend you deal with real printing in real quantities and I'll not tell you how to remove auntie's red eyes, we'll stop spreading mis-information such as 'Photoshop users only need CMYK and when GIMP has that they'll be on par.'
I', gonna give you the benefit of the doubt after all that and assume you meant to get modded funny, not half-wit Linuxoverzealot. I applaud your use of sensible information here, it's just a shame you have to be a bit of a dick about it...
For sure it's easy for people who are excited about GIMP and who aren't Photoshop users to take it for granted that GIMP is right on par with Photoshop - when it isn't. To me, 8-bit per color channel is enough to make the distinction perfectly clear - OK, so you've got 24 million colors, right? How many shades of one color? I'd shudder to think of doing any serious manipulation of black-and-white images on GIMP...
But the thing about the GIMP is it was one of the first free apps to deliver its level of capabilities. (I remember Paint Shop Pro before GIMP came out - you could adjust colors and crop and not a whole lot else...) That's very empowering. Nowadays GIMP is just one of many free apps that provide that level (or better) of functionality... I think it's really more appropriate to group all those apps together, call them "personal-grade photo editors" or something, rather than try, as a GIMP enthusiast, to describe GIMP in terms of Photoshop... I'm quite happy to have a photo editor with layers and such, without having to shell out for (or pirate) a program like Photoshop.
"It's like rain, on your wedding day,
a website that has a button to tell you if your IP address is in a black hole,
a free ride, when you already paid..."
But, yeah, "Internet Black Holes" is just too perfect a set-up for something like that... makes me wonder if they did it on purpose.
Ah, quite right, I should have checked the online lyrics guide before posting...
Well, if you followed the link and it was a guy singing about how he's never gonna give you up or let you go, then you followed the wrong link.
Missing a "d" in the headline, are we?
I could sell you one, if you like...
That depends on the size of your magnet. Excellent point, Mister... Coyote, was it?
It's efficiency it solely based upon the user. No apostrophe in "its", please... But anyway, that doesn't matter. The fact is that this proficiency is much easier to come by than the equivalent proficiency in other lethal means (such as hand-to-hand, use of knives, etc.) and once acquired it's quite effective. If you are looking from a ROI standpoint, I think explosive weapons are more efficient at killing people. I'm sure there are ROI studies on this though. True, if you're talking numbers, you can kill more people with a bomb. But if you see someone, you can point at them, and say, "I want that person dead", a gun can make it happen, quickly and efficiently. It's a tool for killing people - I think it's worth thinking critically about why an individual needs that, and who ought to be allowed that power, in a society where killing people isn't generally allowed.
To go back to the post I was responding to - compare the lethal efficiency of a gun to the printing press. Now, you could drop a printing press on someone and kill them, or maybe you could trick them into sticking their head inside and then crush it - but a printing press really doesn't excel at killing people.
Mind you, I do believe people should have a right to self-defense, and self-defense that's only moderately effective isn't worth much - I just don't believe it's something you can equate with free speech. At a practical level there's a big liability involved with giving people that power too freely.
I AM SPARTACUS - Oh, wait, you want to kill Spartacus, right?? ...HE'S SPARTACUS!
When Gary Gygax died, we said that he's lost his last saving throw.
I liked Penny Arcade's comment - that he's "Rolling in his Grave"...Now, of course there's something to be said for the right to retain the power to defend oneself - my point here is simply that holding that power is a big responsibility and should be treated as such.
"Stranger in a Strange Land" was good stuff - but one thing that really didn't stand up well to re-reading, for me at least, was Jubal's life lessons. Like, please, do tell us what to think Jubal. Impart upon us the wisdom of Heinlein. How about that scene where Jubal and Duke(?) were discussing the merits and morality and history of cannibalism...?
That thing went ON and ON and ON, man... "Yeah, but cannibalism is icky!" "Yeah, cannibalism is icky. But that's just your prejudice and societal conditioning." "Yeah, but it's icky gross!" "Well, you're icky gross, too. But some people just do things differently." "Icky icky icky!!! GROOOOSSSSSS!"...
Starship Troopers had whole chapters of this... Hey everybody, Juan Rico's reminiscing about History and Moral Philosophy class again! Oh, and now he's gone to OCS for even more History and Moral Philosophy...
Of course, all that crap would get cut from any movie adaptation... With the right treatment I think "Stranger" could be a cool movie, though...