Ha! Even better, have it flash "help!" messages randomly as if it was a kidnapped child =]. While we're at it, put a small display in the dash to do the same thing and freak the shit out of the thief. "You have accessed this vehicle illegally. It will detonate at a random time with the next 10 hours. Please wear your seat-belt and drive safely."
I appreciate your intent and I have also felt the need for that, but I fear it will be used more for "&^#@(&@" than either "sorry" or "thanks". Well, perhaps most of CA could use it well. Just ban it in the vicinity of LA and I'm in.
Remember -- we're the state whose idiot voters a few years back allowed collection of DNA simply on arrest, not to wait for conviction or even indictment.
I can think of several good ways to comply with that. "Hold out your hand officers".
Indeed. I live in CA and my answer to the numbnut legislators who came up with this is simple - use Sacramento as a fucking billboard instead of whoring out the entire population of the state because you can't do your job worth a damn and balance your fucking budget. I propose an alternative. Turn the state capitol and its environs into a billboard farm (the walls should sell for a high price dontcha think?) and make all legislators, state and local, wear those garish advertisement suits (like the Nascar idiots). That oughta bring in the cash. I swear, at this point, it seems like those douchebags have just given up entirely. Twits. Another year of this nonsense and I swear I'm gonna go Republican:'( NTTAWWT
Someone clue me in on this - exactly what happens if a state goes bankrupt? What if a state legislature just throws up its hands and says, "I got nuthin". Can they just, ah... foreclose on a state? I mean, what are we looking at here, worst case? Should I start stocking up on canned goods and shit? Emigrate to Oregon? What?
I guess so and yes, I really should rein in my snark in this respect =]. After all, if someone's making a film, they have the right to (a priori at least) assume they have created art. It's just that I doubt very much whether that sort of art would have many patrons (for the art's sake). Which means that there won't be anyone to protect that art form if, no... when it does start dying out due to the homebrew/amateur stuff, which satisfies the consumers' main need (the need that drives them to porn in the first place). It's sorta like the art thing is a very minor (and rare) aspect of porn and far from the main selling point for porn. It's like the toys that come with breakfast cereal. If a big breakfast cereal company starts dying out tomorrow through competition with a rival cereal bar maker, I really doubt they could save themselves by stressing the quality of the toys they supply. I don't know whether that makes me hungry or horny:/ but I do know that that's hands down the most bizarre analogy I have ever come up with o.O
To summarize, what I said in my original post, minus the part where I was being an asshole =p
Indeed. Of course, I find it amusing that big porno companies are decrying this "loss of quality" in the field, as if they were actual artists. To them I can only say - drop the delusions of grandeur if you want to survive today's market and give the people what they want - that's literally your only function (indulging the will of your consumers). There are no connoisseurs to grant you protective patronage nor any sympathy to be had from a society that detests you in public (while using you quite shamelessly in private). Sad but that's how it is.
Troll card? In the second post? I'm hurt. Oh the horror and the blow to my self-esteem! In any case, considering the colossal reading comprehension fail I've had the honor to witness (and I'll be all mysterious too and refuse to explain - nice trick that) your explanation wouldn't be worth shit anyway so I think you did me a huge favor by ending this when you did. Thankee kindly.
Yes. Look at it... closely and in context (instead of the decapitated quotes floating around). You'll find more snark and in-jokes than anything else. Unfortunately, the caricature of the serious, humorless scientist is so prevalent in our culture that every little thing ever written or said in private conversation or correspondence is taken as a serious statement. Sad, but what can you do?
Good point but as far as consequences go, not very relevant [to anything in reality but a trivial scoring point in an obscure/. post] is it?
It is directly relevant to the parent post. Your post has nothing to do with anything.
Consider me corrected (in brackets). Look at what I wrote again and you'll see that I agreed with your distinction. I merely went on to say that that distinction is nearly worthless (except perhaps during the sentencing phase).
Given the actual topic, your post is a non sequitur.
Irrelevantist, more than anti. And I cringed (incorrectly - see later) mostly because of what that said about the scientist who named it (again, incorrectly). But that's neither here nor there, you see. Courtesy of a poster further down this thread, it turns out that Leon Lederman originally called it the "goddamn particle" (presumably because of how difficult it was to look for). His editor changed it to the "god particle" for obvious reasons. [source]
Now that I think about it though, it wasn't such a bad name and I shouldn't have cringed at it. After all, in the realm of science, the concept of god has been a convenient placeholder for everything that is (as yet) unknown, regardless of how people actually view it. It is the dark area on our map - "here be dragons". If and when it is actually observed of course, we should probably switch back to its proper name by honoring its postulator [sic?].
It is of course amusing when physicists, who are renowned for their underhanded sense of humor, bestow strange labels upon their creations that - a few iterations of Chinese Whispers later - are treated dead seriously.
Coming back to my cringe, wouldn't one cringe if people called ${your favorite prophet} "the atomic messiah"? It's a simple matter of "what sounds right" and in that respect, is a personal matter.
More seriously though, it is a horrible idea to label entirely new phenomena/concepts with old names. This is why labeling effects with it's creator's name is much more than just an homage - it prevents old concepts from infecting new ones with their (sometimes obsolete) baggage. Laypersons (and even scientists) are fucked over by this kind of tomfoolery. Words have meaning, and when used in a half-assed way, wreak cognitive havoc. The science writer John Gribbin once wrote that after the quantum mechanical nature of particles was confirmed, the electron should have been renamed (to a "slithy tove" was his tongue-in-cheek suggestion) to get over the "particle-ness" inherent in the "electron" appellation. My irritation arises from that deeper issue. The god stuff is a minor annoyance at this point, not worth the trouble.
Mark my words, there will be at least one "cult of the Higgs" that will worship this particle merely because of the popular name. I haven't decided yet if that's a bad thing or just plain awesome =]
Thank you! It's nice to know that a scientist did not come up with this name (as I idly speculated somewhere else on this page). Unfortunately, (as in this case), it only takes a bit of time before a snarky name or an in-joke is taken seriously by enough people that a whole "well scientists are looking for god too" movement builds up.
IAAP and I wince every time I hear that moronic name for the Higgs. Probably a funding trick or some in-joke. Old physicists turning to religion when they feel their mind turning to mush in their twilight years is a sad end to otherwise illustrious careers (and not altogether implausible as a reason for this ridiculous name).
Positrons. It's not that the rest aren't useful (for analogous uses - essentially as probes of structure. Think of any field where physical structure needs to be probed. Then think of exotic particles as more useful probes that can replace light or that can probe more exotic properties of matter (like spin)). It's just that miniaturizing collider technology or getting otherwise practical sources for these particles is a major PITA. The day that happens is the day we can all have ghostbusters-style proton packs and kick some ectoplasmic ass. But I digress.
Strangely enough, this bothered me too before I started driving (this was back in the early days of NFS). When I did start driving IRL, it was actually much easier since I was usually driving within the recommended speeds for curves and such so that maneuvering was never a problem. Some of the hilly roads in Berkeley do remind me of the harder levels in NFS2 though (a sinking feeling that you're gonna hit the next railing and go over the edge - it passes). So yes, take home message - real life driving is actually much easier than video game driving (and I end up scraping side rails only very rarely IRL).
Good point but as far as consequences go, not very relevant is it? I mean, if either of your examples crashed into me, I'd wanna see them prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent irrespective of their intention. Good intentions aren't worth shit where my life is concerned. In fact, the teen's behavior is capable of change but the little old lady is probably in that (hopefully short but) highly dangerous state of denial about her own driving ability and will likely get into an accident before she learns to stop driving.
Bingo. I think what's going on here is that teens (and on the other end of the spectrum, old people) are the worst drivers by age category (and the most dangerous) for more fundamental reasons - lack of experience in the former and lack of cognition in the latter. Video games are just red herrings in this case. Ironic that the same age category that decries the "ebuls of the younger generation" are equally dangerous on the road (but will never be called on it because they are also the voting majority).
I would put forth, however, that while you cannot fuck a car (legally in most states at least), a fine automobile will not cheat on you with another car and won't leave you broken hearted and while at the same time getting a lawyer to take half of your assets.
I wonder if they make Transformers[tm] porn? Rule 34 FTL:[
It doesn't. In fact, this can lead to unexpected avenues for enjoyment. Motorized toothbrushes and vacuum cleaners come to mind (though I wish they hadn't).
Well I think you're a joyless blowhard. Cars are brilliant.
Not really. People outgrow certain joys and pick up new ones. I wouldn't start judging the worthiness of one source of joy over the other so it is rather ridiculous how certain things (like cars, sports) are actually considered "OK" for grown-up boys (otherwise called men) while certain other things (like comic books, video games) are considered childish and immature. Of course, I'm not talking about the/. audience here but the wider world outside (it was there the last time I looked). It applies the other way as well. Hell, why don't we just stick to the old "whatever gets you hot and bothered" paradigm and call it a day? =p
To put things in perspective, we live around and use dozens (if not more) of machines everyday. Car enthusiasts are really no different from computing or electronics enthusiasts (and even egg-beater or kitchen blender enthusiasts if such exist).
LOL. That was rather well-said. I'm afraid I am but an innocent bystander, with nary a stake in the argument that I spectated [sic?]. I was drawn in by an overwhelming desire (and an irresistible opportunity) to relieve myself (and I use that phrase in a most liberal fashion) of my weekly accumulation of snark =].
Forgive me for thread-crashing and for what it's worth, I most definitely do not labor under the delusion that profanity is equivalent to rage. It (oh sweet, sweet profanity) is, shall we say, an invaluable addition to the woefully inadequate arsenal of punctuation provided for in the (otherwise bountiful and rich specimen of lexicographical goodness that is the) English language. Also, I believe snark is the greatest invention since bubble wrap (and for much the same reason).
I don't really have any basis on which to guess what makes you equate 'profanity' with rage, so I won't try. Whatever your basis, you're wrong.
I agree. He's an idiot. When I read your post, I automatically pictured a unicorn dancing on a rainbow singing the words "Fuck you!" in an enchanting soprano. Why it would seem angry is beyond comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Even better, have it flash "help!" messages randomly as if it was a kidnapped child =]. While we're at it, put a small display in the dash to do the same thing and freak the shit out of the thief. "You have accessed this vehicle illegally. It will detonate at a random time with the next 10 hours. Please wear your seat-belt and drive safely."
I appreciate your intent and I have also felt the need for that, but I fear it will be used more for "&^#@(&@" than either "sorry" or "thanks". Well, perhaps most of CA could use it well. Just ban it in the vicinity of LA and I'm in.
Remember -- we're the state whose idiot voters a few years back allowed collection of DNA simply on arrest, not to wait for conviction or even indictment.
I can think of several good ways to comply with that. "Hold out your hand officers".
Indeed. I live in CA and my answer to the numbnut legislators who came up with this is simple - use Sacramento as a fucking billboard instead of whoring out the entire population of the state because you can't do your job worth a damn and balance your fucking budget. I propose an alternative. Turn the state capitol and its environs into a billboard farm (the walls should sell for a high price dontcha think?) and make all legislators, state and local, wear those garish advertisement suits (like the Nascar idiots). That oughta bring in the cash. I swear, at this point, it seems like those douchebags have just given up entirely. Twits. Another year of this nonsense and I swear I'm gonna go Republican :'( NTTAWWT
Someone clue me in on this - exactly what happens if a state goes bankrupt? What if a state legislature just throws up its hands and says, "I got nuthin". Can they just, ah ... foreclose on a state? I mean, what are we looking at here, worst case? Should I start stocking up on canned goods and shit? Emigrate to Oregon? What?
I guess so and yes, I really should rein in my snark in this respect =]. After all, if someone's making a film, they have the right to (a priori at least) assume they have created art. It's just that I doubt very much whether that sort of art would have many patrons (for the art's sake). Which means that there won't be anyone to protect that art form if, no ... when it does start dying out due to the homebrew/amateur stuff, which satisfies the consumers' main need (the need that drives them to porn in the first place). It's sorta like the art thing is a very minor (and rare) aspect of porn and far from the main selling point for porn. It's like the toys that come with breakfast cereal. If a big breakfast cereal company starts dying out tomorrow through competition with a rival cereal bar maker, I really doubt they could save themselves by stressing the quality of the toys they supply. I don't know whether that makes me hungry or horny :/ but I do know that that's hands down the most bizarre analogy I have ever come up with o.O
To summarize, what I said in my original post, minus the part where I was being an asshole =p
Indeed. Of course, I find it amusing that big porno companies are decrying this "loss of quality" in the field, as if they were actual artists. To them I can only say - drop the delusions of grandeur if you want to survive today's market and give the people what they want - that's literally your only function (indulging the will of your consumers). There are no connoisseurs to grant you protective patronage nor any sympathy to be had from a society that detests you in public (while using you quite shamelessly in private). Sad but that's how it is.
Troll card? In the second post? I'm hurt. Oh the horror and the blow to my self-esteem! In any case, considering the colossal reading comprehension fail I've had the honor to witness (and I'll be all mysterious too and refuse to explain - nice trick that) your explanation wouldn't be worth shit anyway so I think you did me a huge favor by ending this when you did. Thankee kindly.
Yes. Look at it ... closely and in context (instead of the decapitated quotes floating around). You'll find more snark and in-jokes than anything else. Unfortunately, the caricature of the serious, humorless scientist is so prevalent in our culture that every little thing ever written or said in private conversation or correspondence is taken as a serious statement. Sad, but what can you do?
It is directly relevant to the parent post. Your post has nothing to do with anything.
Consider me corrected (in brackets). Look at what I wrote again and you'll see that I agreed with your distinction. I merely went on to say that that distinction is nearly worthless (except perhaps during the sentencing phase).
Given the actual topic, your post is a non sequitur.
Cue the Inigo Montoya quote.
Irrelevantist, more than anti. And I cringed (incorrectly - see later) mostly because of what that said about the scientist who named it (again, incorrectly). But that's neither here nor there, you see. Courtesy of a poster further down this thread, it turns out that Leon Lederman originally called it the "goddamn particle" (presumably because of how difficult it was to look for). His editor changed it to the "god particle" for obvious reasons. [source]
Now that I think about it though, it wasn't such a bad name and I shouldn't have cringed at it. After all, in the realm of science, the concept of god has been a convenient placeholder for everything that is (as yet) unknown, regardless of how people actually view it. It is the dark area on our map - "here be dragons". If and when it is actually observed of course, we should probably switch back to its proper name by honoring its postulator [sic?].
It is of course amusing when physicists, who are renowned for their underhanded sense of humor, bestow strange labels upon their creations that - a few iterations of Chinese Whispers later - are treated dead seriously.
Coming back to my cringe, wouldn't one cringe if people called ${your favorite prophet} "the atomic messiah"? It's a simple matter of "what sounds right" and in that respect, is a personal matter.
More seriously though, it is a horrible idea to label entirely new phenomena/concepts with old names. This is why labeling effects with it's creator's name is much more than just an homage - it prevents old concepts from infecting new ones with their (sometimes obsolete) baggage. Laypersons (and even scientists) are fucked over by this kind of tomfoolery. Words have meaning, and when used in a half-assed way, wreak cognitive havoc. The science writer John Gribbin once wrote that after the quantum mechanical nature of particles was confirmed, the electron should have been renamed (to a "slithy tove" was his tongue-in-cheek suggestion) to get over the "particle-ness" inherent in the "electron" appellation. My irritation arises from that deeper issue. The god stuff is a minor annoyance at this point, not worth the trouble.
Mark my words, there will be at least one "cult of the Higgs" that will worship this particle merely because of the popular name. I haven't decided yet if that's a bad thing or just plain awesome =]
Thank you! It's nice to know that a scientist did not come up with this name (as I idly speculated somewhere else on this page). Unfortunately, (as in this case), it only takes a bit of time before a snarky name or an in-joke is taken seriously by enough people that a whole "well scientists are looking for god too" movement builds up.
IAAP and I wince every time I hear that moronic name for the Higgs. Probably a funding trick or some in-joke. Old physicists turning to religion when they feel their mind turning to mush in their twilight years is a sad end to otherwise illustrious careers (and not altogether implausible as a reason for this ridiculous name).
Positrons. It's not that the rest aren't useful (for analogous uses - essentially as probes of structure. Think of any field where physical structure needs to be probed. Then think of exotic particles as more useful probes that can replace light or that can probe more exotic properties of matter (like spin)). It's just that miniaturizing collider technology or getting otherwise practical sources for these particles is a major PITA. The day that happens is the day we can all have ghostbusters-style proton packs and kick some ectoplasmic ass. But I digress.
Strangely enough, this bothered me too before I started driving (this was back in the early days of NFS). When I did start driving IRL, it was actually much easier since I was usually driving within the recommended speeds for curves and such so that maneuvering was never a problem. Some of the hilly roads in Berkeley do remind me of the harder levels in NFS2 though (a sinking feeling that you're gonna hit the next railing and go over the edge - it passes). So yes, take home message - real life driving is actually much easier than video game driving (and I end up scraping side rails only very rarely IRL).
Interesting book. Thanks for the reference.
Put in a car, and show me how to start it, and which button is the gas (I don't need no stinking breaks).
NFSMW! Where the brakes are built into the roadsides =]. Gawd I love that game!
Good point but as far as consequences go, not very relevant is it? I mean, if either of your examples crashed into me, I'd wanna see them prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent irrespective of their intention. Good intentions aren't worth shit where my life is concerned. In fact, the teen's behavior is capable of change but the little old lady is probably in that (hopefully short but) highly dangerous state of denial about her own driving ability and will likely get into an accident before she learns to stop driving.
Bingo. I think what's going on here is that teens (and on the other end of the spectrum, old people) are the worst drivers by age category (and the most dangerous) for more fundamental reasons - lack of experience in the former and lack of cognition in the latter. Video games are just red herrings in this case. Ironic that the same age category that decries the "ebuls of the younger generation" are equally dangerous on the road (but will never be called on it because they are also the voting majority).
I would put forth, however, that while you cannot fuck a car (legally in most states at least), a fine automobile will not cheat on you with another car and won't leave you broken hearted and while at the same time getting a lawyer to take half of your assets.
I wonder if they make Transformers[tm] porn? Rule 34 FTL :[
It doesn't. In fact, this can lead to unexpected avenues for enjoyment. Motorized toothbrushes and vacuum cleaners come to mind (though I wish they hadn't).
Well I think you're a joyless blowhard. Cars are brilliant.
Not really. People outgrow certain joys and pick up new ones. I wouldn't start judging the worthiness of one source of joy over the other so it is rather ridiculous how certain things (like cars, sports) are actually considered "OK" for grown-up boys (otherwise called men) while certain other things (like comic books, video games) are considered childish and immature. Of course, I'm not talking about the /. audience here but the wider world outside (it was there the last time I looked). It applies the other way as well. Hell, why don't we just stick to the old "whatever gets you hot and bothered" paradigm and call it a day? =p
To put things in perspective, we live around and use dozens (if not more) of machines everyday. Car enthusiasts are really no different from computing or electronics enthusiasts (and even egg-beater or kitchen blender enthusiasts if such exist).
I hate the wreckless word, it implies necessarily unsafe with disregard to current road conditions
I wish teens would drive "wrecklessly".
Besides, anyone (with a paranoid brain) could have deduced it from your /. uid =]
LOL. That was rather well-said. I'm afraid I am but an innocent bystander, with nary a stake in the argument that I spectated [sic?]. I was drawn in by an overwhelming desire (and an irresistible opportunity) to relieve myself (and I use that phrase in a most liberal fashion) of my weekly accumulation of snark =].
Forgive me for thread-crashing and for what it's worth, I most definitely do not labor under the delusion that profanity is equivalent to rage. It (oh sweet, sweet profanity) is, shall we say, an invaluable addition to the woefully inadequate arsenal of punctuation provided for in the (otherwise bountiful and rich specimen of lexicographical goodness that is the) English language. Also, I believe snark is the greatest invention since bubble wrap (and for much the same reason).
I don't really have any basis on which to guess what makes you equate 'profanity' with rage, so I won't try. Whatever your basis, you're wrong.
I agree. He's an idiot. When I read your post, I automatically pictured a unicorn dancing on a rainbow singing the words "Fuck you!" in an enchanting soprano. Why it would seem angry is beyond comprehension.