I'm sure what you say is true but I think you are missing the point. I think what MagnusOceanus is referring to is that older adults mostly look with disdain upon the fad-of-the-moment embraced by the younger generation. I'm thinking particularly about music and clothing, but it really applies to "pop culture" in general.
I don't think a longer expected lifespan will change this. The preoccupations of a teenager will still look hopelessly immature to most thirty-somethings. However, there isn't such a huge gap between the mature and the elderly. I see no reason to suppose that will change either. That's because it's only the youngest who base their lives upon the ephemeral trivia of pop culture.
Once you've grown up you tend to think in more practical terms and you also begin to understand the value of more persistent forms. Hence, there is a common culture shared between generations of adults fifty years apart in age. I believe that this will continue to hold in a society where the average age is 150, "old" means over 250 years of age and the under-thirties represent only 10% of the population. Except that this common culture will now be appreciated by a greater section of the population and pop culture will be relatively marginalised instead of dominating the media as it does today.
I'd like to live to see that.
There's little doubt in my mind that such a society would place a higher value on stability and lose its fascination with risky activities (didn't Larry Niven predict the same thing?) and consequently we may see social change take on a more sedate pace. But would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Even we short-lived twencen humans have some difficulty adapting. How many people have still to learn basic computer usage, let alone master the internet? How many fifty-year olds have been thrown out of work because they are perceived as too old and too set in their ways? There are myriad examples; Alvin Toffler was dead right way back in 1970.
Maybe a gentler rate of change would be more comfortable to humans of any lifespan.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
especially if the site was located in Outer Mongolia or the like. Which court system would you be able to sue them in anyway? Your country of origin, maybe not, depends on your own countries laws. Their country, maybe not, depends on their countries laws. Neither? Possibily! Both?
In a hundred years, a united world will look back and remember the birth of the internet as the beginning of the end of the nation-state. Given the massive changes we have seen in the past 12 years, and the massive economic forces involved (the lure of truly global markets, the problems with tax collection from cross-border trades), it's even possible some of us may see this conglomeration happen in our lifetimes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think also it's hard to see a negative outcome for Microsoft from this. We can only look at previous similar cases such as Bell (split up, but still getting bigger and stronger), IBM (punished, but still getting bigger and stronger), AT&T, etc. None of these companies have truly suffered at the hands of the monopoly police that would mean time to dump the stock.
What does this mean exactly? That once a corporation reaches a certain size it can no longer be hurt? Not by competitors, nor by the public, nor by the government? Not even by mismanagement, if the company is rich enough that money in the bank continues to earn interest. Scary, isn't it?
This is probably good news - stability in the stock market is good.
I most wholeheartedly disagree. Too much stability in a market leads to unwarranted optimism, and causes distortions to go uncorrected. Notice that even Steve Ballmer claims Microsoft's share price (and that of other technology stocks) is unrealistically high.
For "market instability" read "market correction".
What is widely perceived as stability is often no more than the momentum persisting from an earlier growth period, driving against the present underlying market forces. This leads to a highly unstable position. On the other hand, what is perceived as market instability is in fact the process of seeking equilibrium (in other words a more stable state).
If, due solely to public demand, a market (such as Microsoft shares, or most internet stocks) appreciates to the point that the share capitalisation exceeds the company's assets and expected earnings by orders of magnitude, there can only be one outcome when eventually it is revealed that the emperor has no clothes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The system concerned need not be any different in principle (or scale) from an internet search engine. And they don't cost that much; they seem to get by on banner advertising and "portal" services.
But this is missing the point: as a matter of principle, all information that is not private and personal should be free.
Look, it's self-evident that distribution of information begets more information. To withhold information (and charging for it is a way of withholding it) is to prevent an otherwise inevitable multiplication of intelligence and ultimately therefore, pointlessly to stunt the development of our civilisation.
You might have noticed that much of the so-called "content" on the internet is nothing but empty presentation. The internet would be so much more useful to humanity if and only if all the useful information in the world was made freely available. As it is, the internet is not really complete. It's more like something waiting to be.
It's a matter of particular irritation to me that the results of publicly-funded scientific research (which is supposed to be freely available) is usually only accessible to those who are prepared to stump up a whopping annual subscription. And since it usually takes several publications to cover a single discipline, you'd have to spend a thousand dollars a year to be sure you weren't missing anything important within just a single area of interest.
In my opinion, every scientific paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal should be available online to anyone who wants to see it: libre, gratis and unencumbered by irrelevant charges.
Our society cannot justifiably call itself civilised until this is so.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
> Similarly, you could not feel happy all of the > time, regardless of the signals sent to yoru > brain, without an increase in seratonin > production levels among other things. If you or > someone you know has tried the street drug > Xtacy, you will be familiar with the post-high > depression that follows. The brain exhausts its > resevoir of "happy painless" chemicals and > consequently throws you into the opposite > imbalance.
Um, that's not really true. The reason some people may feel "depressed" after taking E is just because they're not as ridiculously joyful as they were three hours ago. My...friends...have found that their good moods last quite a while after the supposed 6 hour duration of the drug. There is an emotionally fuzzy period that lasts for 24 hours or so, but again, it's more the product of coming off a peak experience than anything else.
What you say is broadly correct in one sense but so is the comment you're arguing against (ignoring minor details). You are simply looking at the phenomenon from an experiential, phenomenological point of view, whereas konstant is arguing from a neurological standpoint.
There really is a depletion of neurotransmitter in the short term, though that is soon recovered. What konstant neglected to mention is this:
The central nervous system contains both neurotransmitters and neuroinhibitors. Each has multiple functions depending upon the particular location in the brain, and there is some degree of overlap, but to oversimplify somewhat they can be though of as existing in mutually antagonistic pairs.
Also, in any given synaptic membrane the population of receptors attuned to all the relevant neurochemicals is dynamic and changes according to local (intracellular and extracellular) conditions. An excess of a particular neurotransmitter will result in a decline in the number of receptors for it.
Thus, the effect of releasing one of these chemicals into the brain can be offset by the automatic release of another chemical with the opposite function, and by changes in receptor populations. In this way the normal healthy brain provides a homeostatic environment. Well-known examples are the release of endorphins to counteract an excess of the neurotransmitters which mediate the sensation of pain, and the decline in receptors for cortisol derivatives under conditions of prolonged emotional stress (anyone here burned out yet?).
The presence of elevated levels of certain neurochemicals via natural, electrical or chemical stimulation will therefore always result in elevated levels of some antagonistic neurochemical(s) and/or reduced receptor populations as the brain attempts to compensate and restore equilibrium.
Under conditions of constant stimulation, neurotransmitter depletion can occur resulting in a type of neurological fatigue, but this isn't the usual reason for post-high "comedown": when the stimulation ceases, the compensatory neurological changes that have occurred in response to the stimulation still remain and it takes time for the brain to return to normal.
When these changes take place over the short term, we describe it as "withdrawal". When the brain takes longer to recover, we talk about addiction.
Back to the main point: if the proposed electrical stimulation can be turned off to give the brain time to return to its normal state, mood swings will result in the manner described by constant. However, if the stimulation is left on indefinitely, there will be long-term changes in the quantity and distribution of receptors and neurochemical producers (qv. heroin and crack addicts) which may not be completely reversible.
PS. The brain is a complex and fragile thing. It's the best thing you own actually. So f*cking it up with chemicals *or* wires is simply stupid. Consider this too: the brain has evolved to work more or less optimally when healthy. Altered states of consciousness are non-optimal. Ever try to drive a car when you're stoned?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
What's the matter with you people? The boy wrote a story. He named his classmates and teacher in the story for a joke. It doesn't even suggest a fantasy, let alone a plan of action.
If the last couple of posts are any indication, it's no wonder that this type of overreaction is becoming more common. It is not Myrrh, but dAzED1 who exhibits paranoia here, the same paranoia exhibited by the school principal and the judge. Too many of you are guilty of the same. And if you don't learn to tell the difference between real threats and self-expression, you might as well kiss your freedom goodbye.
Who'd have thought it: dictatorship imposed from below! The land of the free, my ass.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The story of an aging captain dealing with "retirement" were handled very well in "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Search for Spock". After these films, it almost seems that those issues were forgotten in the interests of milking some more money out of the series. To be sure, "The Voyage Home" was a blast, but the later films seemed to be a little too formulaic.
OK, I can agree with you in the sense that they may have dragged it out too long, even if audiences were clearly still willing to pay. However I still can't understand your joyful reaction at seeing the character die. When I go to a movie I do my best to enter into the spirit of it, to identify with the story and the characters. Otherwise what's the point? I always admired Kirk as a character, even if Shatner began to suck later on. Remember, it was Kirk who died there, not Shatner.
As you say, we've almost argued ourselves hoarse about this. We'll just have to agree to differ.
I think that some of the planet-bound sets (particular, "City on the Edge of Forever") take some of the pressure off of the individual actors' performances, and let the director weave more interesting scenes.
I'm not seeking to disagree with you, but ironically that particular episode demonstrates the prowess of the younger Shatner very well. Admittedly the tragic nature of Kirk's role in that drama provides Shatner with the best possibly opportunity, but even so not every actor is capable of such a convincing portrayal of a man torn in half.
Just watch Kirk's face... when he confesses to Spock of his feelings for Keeler, when he clutches McCoy in horror as she dies, and afterward when he returns through the portal he looks like a man with the taste of ashes in his mouth, a man who has lost everything. That episode was about acting performances and the direction thereof. I don't feel it was really about camerawork or any other technical artistry. It was scenes like these which convinced me Shatner *was* a fine actor; it's a terrible pity that typecasting destroyed his career so early.
I wouldn't be surprised if the so called boring, drawn out scense in "Star Trek the Motion Picture" were an overreaction to the limits induced by the original sets. I think it's too bad that that experiment was ruled unsuccessful. With a little judicious editing, I think that movie is among the best Trek ever filmed.
But why? The performances were utterly banal all round, the plot nonexistent...the only thing it had was photography and specal effects. Take that away and there's nothing left at all.
IMO the best movie was The Wrath of Khan. It was somewhat heavily overacted throughout (especially by Montalban). But Spock's death scene was beautifully played; you can't overact something as intensely meaningful as the tragic (heroic) death of a friend as close as Spock was to Kirk.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Actually I did read your post very carefully. That's why I wasn't very hostile...
I don't dispute that the later Kirk was missing the energy and intensity of the younger Kirk. But you imply he was always a bad actor. This reminds me of those who mindlessly parrot the tired old jokes about his "wooden" performance and his "overacting". Well, you can't have it both ways, was he underacting or overacting? these people probably never even watched enough of it to be able to tell.
Actually I don't think Trek would have stood up for more than a fleeting moment if either of these things were true. Please note that there were several sci-fi series around at the time but only Trek achieved such a massively loyal following. Why was this?
In my opinion it was precisely because of the rapport that quickly developed between the main characters, and between the actors and the characters they played. Their nature evolved very quickly. And they were all so brightly drawn. It developed a clear subtext in the minds of the audience.
You knew that Kirk cared for nothing but his ship and his crew, and that with an obsessive intensity; long-term personal commitment outside of that was impossible for him.
You knew that Spock suffered perpetual inner turmoil because of the antagonism between his human and vulcan halves. You probably even suspected that the usually grumpy McCoy was a refugee from some intensely personal disaster. These three were all in some way broken individuals who had thrown themselves into their careers to compensate.
It doesn't really matter how this consensus was arrived at. What matters is that we all came to know it quite quickly; and consequently, being able to understand the characters, we began to care about them.
Shatner's contribution in those days was outstanding. He must have almost believed he was Kirk. He certainly made me believe in him. Sure, he played Kirk as arrogant, but it was what we evidently wanted to see. and it's what made Kirk a living legend: the man who couldn't fail.
I agree with you about Shatner's later relative dullness. I'd argue that's what would likely have happened to an ageing, disillusioned starship captain too, but I will openly concede that Stewart (as he is now) is a better actor than Shatner (as he is now).
However the chosen manner of Kirk's death was hardly his fault. Not was it Kirk's fault if the actor playing him had run out of steam. Your reasons for cheering are still ludicrous. One doesn't normally cheer the death of somebody one still remembers with respect, just because they didn't die heroically enough. The important thing was: he was gone, and there would be no more.
The fact that this apparently meant nothing to you, can only tell us about you, not about Shatner *or* Kirk, neither of whom were allowed to have any influence on the outcome.
Sorry.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I wasn't suggesting that all sagas can be classed as "worthy" in the sense of, say, a Booker Prize winner. But many people just like to sit around the fireplace and hear stories. Stories about their favourite heroes. And it has always been so. I don't see how Trek is any different in this regard than, say, Beowulf for example (and I'm not talking about the Linux clustering technology). Beowulf is just a series of adventure stories.
And if you accept the obvious fact that many Trek episodes (both old and new) attempted to convey some kind of message then how is it different from the Iliad and the Odyssey? Or the Canterbury Tales?
It's a little naive to denigrate contemporary storytelling just because it hasn't achieved the respectability of age. Future generations will likely see things with a less jaded eye.
If you don't see this, look at the way Dickens' novels and Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories are revered - and they were both originally published as cheap serials in the daily press, just to sell newspapers.
There are a lot of different reasons why *I* buy into long series, depending on the author, the story, the characters.
The reason I kept going with Trek is that I cared about the characters and the stories (in TNG anyway) were often brilliant.
I ran into trouble with STV and DS9 because the networks kept changing the broadcasting slot and I found that where those series were concerned, I didn't care enough to keep rearranging my timetable. I don't think we're that far apart on this particular issue; I just don't hate long book series the way you do (as long as they stay good).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Then there was Star Trek cartoon which went away (and is never mentioned, and I have never seen, must have been bad).
Filmation did it - same outfit that did "Lassie's Rescue Rangers". Eeek!
Actually the stories weren't really distinguishably different in tone from those of the "real" series and the voices were done by the original crew (mostly). But the animation and the music were absolutely shite.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
There was a lot of very thought-provoking stuff about politics and history in the last two instalments though. Prbblem is you need an IQ of about 250 to understand it all. I sometimes wonder about FH. I think he was somewhere on a different level.
If he only knew Kevin Anderson was writing a sequel he'd surely be turning in his grave. That guy writes the most awful trash.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I see what you're saying but I think you're ignoring the fact that the epic/saga has been around as an art form for a long time. It's altogether a different sort of thing than a standalone novel. There are certain narrative benefits to long stories. Plenty of intelligent people read them in book form, and sa far as TV is concerned, Trekkers in general are supposed to be fairly intelligent aren't they?
Having said that there is little doubt that book publishers are prone to the same sort of poor judgement as studio execs: "it sold before so it'll sell again". Just look at Larry Niven's sequel to Ringworld Engineers. Ugh.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh, come on. Terry Farrell was a centerfold girl I admit but Nana Visitor, though certainly presentable, is hardly a major babe in the conventional sense of the term. It just goes to show how girl-starved geeks will fixate on any visible female. If you ever worked in an IT department that was all guys and just one (reasonably attractive) girl then you'll know what I mean.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Nonsense. How exactly would a human detect such racial and/or cultural differences among a completely alien society? Compared to the yaening gulf between us and them, such differences would likely be very subtle, perhaps invisible.
And you claim cultural variety amongst Federation humans, yet they all speak American English - even O'Brien who is Irish (not Scottish as you claimed).
I don't think there is any evidence that the aliens were being stereotyped any more than was necessary for the plot. After all, for storytelling reasons each species had to have some identifiable characteristic that made them different from humans and the same as each other. Later, once the species characteristics had been established, individual differences would be explored: Spock's human emotional side, Quark's occasional generosity, Odo's loneliness, Worf's sensitivity.
Actually in the time-honoured manner of Hollywood, all these differences got over-exploited to the extent where each of these characters was in danger of becoming the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be. Spock and Data both became the most likely characters to have an emotional outburst; Worf the most likely to have a 'relationship' with someone (or to break up or get rejected and go off all hurt); Quark the most likely to sacrifice profit for some higher purpose. Personally I deplore this aspect of the show. Such relentless anthropomorphism simply undermined the strength of the alien characters making them less unique in the context of their colleagues, rather than adding dimension to them.
As regards Roddenberry's putative racism: in the shows which were truly Roddenberry's (the original series) it was plainly stated in several episodes that though 23rd-century humans all lived and worked together, they each took pride in their own individual cultural and racial inheritance. Uhura in her African lineage, Sulu in his Japanese ancestry, Chekhov in his Russian origins (how could you have forgotten that - it was even a running joke!) In many ways the bridge crew of the original Enterprise was a shining example of the multicultural society to which all civilised nations today aspire.
I think this pretty much disproves any notion that Roddenberry was racist.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Those stories, and many of the stories in the original series, turned on constant elements of human nature.
Absolutely. My most favourite of all was the one where Picard, in just 25 minutes, lived a whole lifetime as an artisan in an alien society 10,000 years in the past.
The moment when his late wife friend and late best friend reappeared and he remembered who he was - and his disorientation when he returned; the memory of a whole lifetime and a dearly-loved family receding like a dream upon waking.
So beautifully understated, it was priceless (especially for an American show). Pass the tissues, please. Sniff.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
You claim that 50% of a theatre full of Star Trek fans wanted Kirk dead? Just think about that for a moment. Notwithstanding the obvious difference in the appearance of the ageing actor, this must be the most ludicrous claim I ever heard.
Most people who enjoyed Kirk's earlier career (and Shatner's earlier performances) would surely have mourned the passing of a legend. What kind of person would so revile a one-time hero just because he's become middle-aged? Such an unpleasant attitude can only be described as nihilist.
Trekkers represent perhaps the most forward looking of us, and they're mostly a relatively optimistic bunch. If this particular club has now given itself up to nihilism then we're surely completely f*cked as a society. Who else is there to believe in the future if not them?
The only other possible explanation of such an extreme reaction is that most younger Trek fans are, though not wholly nihilist, at least contemptuous of people over some arbitrary age limit. I refuse to believe that the current generation of youngsters is that rotten.
Rather than either of these, it seems much more credible that you made this claim up to bolster your own minority opinion.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Like you, Tarnar, I am a longstanding fan of both old and new Star Trek. But I think the author raised some salient points and you are therefore wrong to dismiss him out of hand as a 'bitter fan'.
I agree he was a bit tough on Berman; I thought there were some really outstanding TNG episodes and I did come to care about the characters. I was very sad to see the series end. However, his assertions about Berman's attitude to TOS are certainly food for thought. It's very disapointing that Paramount would have brought him into the franchise in the first place if he had such a poor understanding of it (this is of course assuming that these assertions are true).
Secondly, Paramount certainly did franchise the thing to death, which kind of "wore out" the magic to some extent. Worst of all was putting out two series at the same time. Why on earth would Paramount do that when it would inevitably make people cease to hunger for it?
The studio never ever cared a bean about the possible significance of Trek beyond its profit potential, and they even mismanaged that in the end, sacrificing long-term appeal for the sake of increasing Trek revenue in the immediate short term.
As an aside: perhaps as a consequence of this glut of Star Trek some networks started screwing with their schedules and it became more or less impossible to know exactly when the next episode was going to be broadcast. It just wasn't unique or special enough to take pride of place any more, with so much of it about, especially when you include reruns: even in the UK at one point there would be maybe half a dozen different episodes of various ST series broadcast in a single week. That's just plain overdoing it. But ultimately it's Paramount's fault for milking its cash cow too hard and too often.
But there's nothin new about this. Parallels have already been drawn with the cheapening of the Star Wars franchise (Ewoks movies ferchrissake!!!).
Video and film are the new narrative tradition, and are as important to our culture as oral storytelling and literature have been. Unfortunately you just can't trust Philistine money-fixated studio execs with such an important legacy. They are the reason why there is so much crap, and why the few good things that emerge despite them either meet an untimely end (the Dr Who TV series) or are perverted to satisfy mass market expectations (the Americanised Dr Who TV movie) or get milked to death like Star Trek.
I just wanted to say one other thing: the only good idea for a new Trek series I ever heard was the Captain Sulu/USS Excelsior one. Pity they never suggested doing the same for Captain Scott. Look back at those TOS episodes; he was one outstanding bridge officer.
But even so, the best thing to ensure the world doesn't get terminally sick of the whole thing would be to veto any new series for now and maybe even restrict syndication for a while too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Seven levels of recursion down, the damned thing runs out of stack space!
Newbie!
The answer to that is you mostly shouldn't use recursion in real-world applications. Design your algorithm using recursion, for sure, but then unroll it into the equivalent iterative version before implementing it.
That way not only do you avoid running out of stack space (due to pointless re-copying) but you also avoid the overhead of setting up the call frame and of course the time spent copying those local PBV arguments onto the stack.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I agree with every word you said. I'm particularly pissed about the "Shop" button on Netscape 4.7 for Linux because it's pushed the "Stop" button so far to the right I can't see it when I have the window at my preferred width (half screen width at 1600x1200). This is a major failure of ergonomics IMO, on top of everything else wrong with it.
As far as IE5 goes, well, all the buttons on my current window have just DISAPPEARED for no apparent reason and I know only too well that I won't be getting them back without a reboot.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
This piece should definitely have been posted in the "Ask Slashdot" section because I know that's where I'd look first if I want to come back and refer to it later. Duh!
PS (off topic, sorry) where's the news about Butler Bloor's Linux v NT test? There's not been a single peep about it on Slashdot and I know at least one person posted about it a few days ago...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think my favorite part about this story is the comment about Americans being a likely market Not to mention the Japanese, they love tacky stuff like that. Mind you...they probably have enough glowing vegetation as it is. This is all wrong though.Why resort to such unnatural methods when we could just dispense with the trees and hang luminous jellyfish around the house at Christmas instead.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Siberian hackers are suspected to have sown large amounts of modified conifer seed in a complicated arrangement forming graphics and letters, appearantly hoping to render a functioning encryption program visible on regular satellite photos from the area, thus making it globally available without violating national export legislation.
Nah, it wasn't conifers, it was "perl" barley.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
1) They certainly do look at the facts as it's the only effective way to proceed with such experiments.
2) If the experiment succeeds and publishes a howto, it makes it possible for others to do the same in future. How is that counterproductive? It's just the opposite, contributing to the common good.
What you have failed to recognise is that sometimes the aim isn't just to find the easiest solution. Sometimes the desired aim is to find the best one, or even just to push out in a strategic direction that will take you closer to where you want to be in the future.
You seem not to realise that it's more or less axiomatically a good thing to have alternatives available. My guess is you've been using Microsoft platforms so long that alternatives seem inferior to you, a priori.
Which of us has adopted the closed minded attitude here? The revolutionary experimenter...or the conservative reactionary?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure what you say is true but I think you are missing the point. I think what MagnusOceanus is referring to is that older adults mostly look with disdain upon the fad-of-the-moment embraced by the younger generation. I'm thinking particularly about music and clothing, but it really applies to "pop culture" in general.
I don't think a longer expected lifespan will change this. The preoccupations of a teenager will still look hopelessly immature to most thirty-somethings. However, there isn't such a huge gap between the mature and the elderly. I see no reason to suppose that will change either. That's because it's only the youngest who base their lives upon the ephemeral trivia of pop culture.
Once you've grown up you tend to think in more practical terms and you also begin to understand the value of more persistent forms. Hence, there is a common culture shared between generations of adults fifty years apart in age. I believe that this will continue to hold in a society where the average age is 150, "old" means over 250 years of age and the under-thirties represent only 10% of the population. Except that this common culture will now be appreciated by a greater section of the population and pop culture will be relatively marginalised instead of dominating the media as it does today.
I'd like to live to see that.
There's little doubt in my mind that such a society would place a higher value on stability
and lose its fascination with risky activities (didn't Larry Niven predict the same thing?) and consequently we may see social change take on a more sedate pace. But would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Even we short-lived twencen humans have some difficulty adapting. How many people have still to learn basic computer usage, let alone master the internet? How many fifty-year olds have been thrown out of work because they are perceived as too old and too set in their ways? There are myriad examples; Alvin Toffler was dead right way back in 1970.
Maybe a gentler rate of change would be more comfortable to humans of any lifespan.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
especially if the site was located in Outer Mongolia or the like. Which court system would you be able to sue them in anyway? Your country of origin, maybe not, depends on your own countries laws. Their country, maybe not, depends on their countries laws. Neither? Possibily! Both?
In a hundred years, a united world will look back and remember the birth of the internet as the beginning of the end of the nation-state. Given the massive changes we have seen in the past 12 years, and the massive economic forces involved (the lure of truly global markets, the problems with tax collection from cross-border trades), it's even possible some of us may see this conglomeration happen in our lifetimes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think also it's hard to see a negative outcome for Microsoft from this. We can only look at previous similar cases such as Bell (split up, but still getting bigger and stronger), IBM (punished, but still getting bigger and stronger), AT&T, etc. None of these companies have truly suffered at the hands of the monopoly police that would mean time to dump the stock.
What does this mean exactly? That once a corporation reaches a certain size it can no longer be hurt? Not by competitors, nor by the public, nor by the government? Not even by mismanagement, if the company is rich enough that money in the bank continues to earn interest. Scary, isn't it?
This is probably good news - stability in the stock market is good.
I most wholeheartedly disagree. Too much stability in a market leads to unwarranted optimism, and causes distortions to go uncorrected. Notice that even Steve Ballmer claims Microsoft's share price (and that of other technology stocks) is unrealistically high.
For "market instability" read "market correction".
What is widely perceived as stability is often no more than the momentum persisting from an earlier growth period, driving against the present underlying market forces. This leads to a highly unstable position. On the other hand, what is perceived as market instability is in fact the process of seeking equilibrium (in other words a more stable state).
If, due solely to public demand, a market (such as Microsoft shares, or most internet stocks) appreciates to the point that the share capitalisation exceeds the company's assets and expected earnings by orders of magnitude, there can only be one outcome when eventually it is revealed that the emperor has no clothes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The system concerned need not be any different in principle (or scale) from an internet search engine. And they don't cost that much; they seem to get by on banner advertising and "portal" services.
But this is missing the point: as a matter of principle, all information that is not private and personal should be free.
Look, it's self-evident that distribution of information begets more information. To withhold information (and charging for it is a way of withholding it) is to prevent an otherwise inevitable multiplication of intelligence and ultimately therefore, pointlessly to stunt the development of our civilisation.
You might have noticed that much of the so-called "content" on the internet is nothing but empty presentation. The internet would be so much more useful to humanity if and only if all the useful information in the world was made freely available. As it is, the internet is not really complete. It's more like something waiting to be.
It's a matter of particular irritation to me that the results of publicly-funded scientific research (which is supposed to be freely available) is usually only accessible to those who are prepared to stump up a whopping annual subscription. And since it usually takes several publications to cover a single discipline, you'd have to spend a thousand dollars a year to be sure you weren't missing anything important within just a single area of interest.
In my opinion, every scientific paper ever published in a peer-reviewed journal should be available online to anyone who wants to see it: libre, gratis and unencumbered by irrelevant charges.
Our society cannot justifiably call itself civilised until this is so.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is the ghost of Ralph Clark.
When I saw Bill Gates' name on that list I laughed so much I inadvertently swallowed my tongue and choked to death.
Er...I got better...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
> Similarly, you could not feel happy all of the
> time, regardless of the signals sent to yoru
> brain, without an increase in seratonin
> production levels among other things. If you or
> someone you know has tried the street drug
> Xtacy, you will be familiar with the post-high
> depression that follows. The brain exhausts its
> resevoir of "happy painless" chemicals and
> consequently throws you into the opposite
> imbalance.
Um, that's not really true. The reason some people may feel "depressed" after taking
E is just because they're not as ridiculously joyful as they were three hours ago.
My...friends...have found that their good moods last quite a while after the supposed 6
hour duration of the drug. There is an emotionally fuzzy period that lasts for 24 hours
or so, but again, it's more the product of coming off a peak experience than anything
else.
What you say is broadly correct in one sense but so is the comment you're arguing against (ignoring minor details). You are simply looking at the phenomenon from an experiential, phenomenological point of view, whereas konstant is arguing from a neurological standpoint.
There really is a depletion of neurotransmitter in the short term, though that is soon recovered. What konstant neglected to mention is this:
The central nervous system contains both neurotransmitters and neuroinhibitors. Each has multiple functions depending upon the particular location in the brain, and there is some degree of overlap, but to oversimplify somewhat they can be though of as existing in mutually antagonistic pairs.
Also, in any given synaptic membrane the population of receptors attuned to all the relevant neurochemicals is dynamic and changes according to local (intracellular and extracellular) conditions. An excess of a particular neurotransmitter will result in a decline in the number of receptors for it.
Thus, the effect of releasing one of these chemicals into the brain can be offset by the automatic release of another chemical with the opposite function, and by changes in receptor populations. In this way the normal healthy brain provides a homeostatic environment. Well-known examples are the release of endorphins to counteract an excess of the neurotransmitters which mediate the sensation of pain, and the decline in receptors for cortisol derivatives under conditions of prolonged emotional stress (anyone here burned out yet?).
The presence of elevated levels of certain neurochemicals via natural, electrical or chemical stimulation will therefore always result in elevated levels of some antagonistic neurochemical(s) and/or reduced receptor populations as the brain attempts to compensate and restore equilibrium.
Under conditions of constant stimulation, neurotransmitter depletion can occur resulting in a type of neurological fatigue, but this isn't the usual reason for post-high "comedown": when the stimulation ceases, the compensatory neurological changes that have occurred in response to the stimulation still remain and it takes time for the brain to return to normal.
When these changes take place over the short term, we describe it as "withdrawal". When the brain takes longer to recover, we talk about addiction.
Back to the main point: if the proposed electrical stimulation can be turned off to give the brain time to return to its normal state, mood swings will result in the manner described by constant. However, if the stimulation is left on indefinitely, there will be long-term changes in the quantity and distribution of receptors and neurochemical producers (qv. heroin and crack addicts) which may not be completely reversible.
PS. The brain is a complex and fragile thing. It's the best thing you own actually. So f*cking it up with chemicals *or* wires is simply stupid. Consider this too: the brain has evolved to work more or less optimally when healthy. Altered states of consciousness are non-optimal. Ever try to drive a car when you're stoned?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
What's the matter with you people? The boy wrote a story. He named his classmates and teacher in the story for a joke. It doesn't even suggest a fantasy, let alone a plan of action.
If the last couple of posts are any indication, it's no wonder that this type of overreaction is becoming more common. It is not Myrrh, but dAzED1 who exhibits paranoia here, the same paranoia exhibited by the school principal and the judge. Too many of you are guilty of the same. And if you don't learn to tell the difference between real threats and self-expression, you might as well kiss your freedom goodbye.
Who'd have thought it: dictatorship imposed from below! The land of the free, my ass.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The story of an aging captain dealing with "retirement" were handled very well in "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Search for Spock". After these films, it almost seems that those issues were forgotten in the interests of milking some more money out of the series. To be sure, "The Voyage Home" was a blast, but the later films seemed to be a little too formulaic.
OK, I can agree with you in the sense that they may have dragged it out too long, even if audiences were clearly still willing to pay. However I still can't understand your joyful reaction at seeing the character die. When I go to a movie I do my best to enter into the spirit of it, to identify with the story and the characters. Otherwise what's the point? I always admired Kirk as a character, even if Shatner began to suck later on. Remember, it was Kirk who died there, not Shatner.
As you say, we've almost argued ourselves hoarse about this. We'll just have to agree to differ.
I think that some of the planet-bound sets (particular, "City on the Edge of Forever") take some of the pressure off of the individual actors' performances, and let the director weave more interesting scenes.
I'm not seeking to disagree with you, but ironically that particular episode demonstrates the prowess of the younger Shatner very well. Admittedly the tragic nature of Kirk's role in that drama provides Shatner with the best possibly opportunity, but even so not every actor is capable of such a convincing portrayal of a man torn in half.
Just watch Kirk's face... when he confesses to Spock of his feelings for Keeler, when he clutches McCoy in horror as she dies, and afterward when he returns through the portal he looks like a man with the taste of ashes in his mouth, a man who has lost everything. That episode was about acting performances and the direction thereof. I don't feel it was really about camerawork or any other technical artistry. It was scenes like these which convinced me Shatner *was* a fine actor; it's a terrible pity that typecasting destroyed his career so early.
I wouldn't be surprised if the so called boring, drawn out scense in "Star Trek the Motion Picture" were an overreaction to the limits induced by the original sets. I think it's too bad that that experiment was ruled unsuccessful. With a little judicious editing, I think that movie is among the best Trek ever filmed.
But why? The performances were utterly banal all round, the plot nonexistent...the only thing it had was photography and specal effects. Take that away and there's nothing left at all.
IMO the best movie was The Wrath of Khan. It was somewhat heavily overacted throughout (especially
by Montalban). But Spock's death scene was beautifully played; you can't overact something as intensely meaningful as the tragic (heroic) death of a friend as close as Spock was to Kirk.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Actually I did read your post very carefully. That's why I wasn't very hostile...
I don't dispute that the later Kirk was missing the energy and intensity of the younger Kirk. But you imply he was always a bad actor. This reminds me of those who mindlessly parrot the tired old jokes about his "wooden" performance and his "overacting". Well, you can't have it both ways, was he underacting or overacting? these people probably never even watched enough of it to be able to tell.
Actually I don't think Trek would have stood up for more than a fleeting moment if either of these things were true. Please note that there were several sci-fi series around at the time but only Trek achieved such a massively loyal following. Why was this?
In my opinion it was precisely because of the rapport that quickly developed between the main characters, and between the actors and the characters they played. Their nature evolved very quickly. And they were all so brightly drawn. It developed a clear subtext in the minds of the audience.
You knew that Kirk cared for nothing but his ship and his crew, and that with an obsessive intensity; long-term personal commitment outside of that was impossible for him.
You knew that Spock suffered perpetual inner turmoil because of the antagonism between his human and vulcan halves. You probably even suspected that the usually grumpy McCoy was a refugee from some intensely personal disaster. These three were all in some way broken individuals who had thrown themselves into their careers to compensate.
It doesn't really matter how this consensus was arrived at. What matters is that we all came to know it quite quickly; and consequently, being able to understand the characters, we began to care about them.
Shatner's contribution in those days was outstanding. He must have almost believed he was Kirk. He certainly made me believe in him. Sure, he played Kirk as arrogant, but it was what we evidently wanted to see. and it's what made Kirk a living legend: the man who couldn't fail.
I agree with you about Shatner's later relative dullness. I'd argue that's what would likely have happened to an ageing, disillusioned starship captain too, but I will openly concede that Stewart (as he is now) is a better actor than Shatner (as he is now).
However the chosen manner of Kirk's death was hardly his fault. Not was it Kirk's fault if the actor playing him had run out of steam. Your reasons for cheering are still ludicrous. One doesn't normally cheer the death of somebody one still remembers with respect, just because they didn't die heroically enough. The important thing was: he was gone, and there would be no more.
The fact that this apparently meant nothing to you, can only tell us about you, not about Shatner *or* Kirk, neither of whom were allowed to have any influence on the outcome.
Sorry.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I wasn't suggesting that all sagas can be classed as "worthy" in the sense of, say, a Booker Prize winner. But many people just like to sit around the fireplace and hear stories. Stories about their favourite heroes. And it has always been so. I don't see how Trek is any different in this regard than, say, Beowulf for example (and I'm not talking about the Linux clustering technology). Beowulf is just a series of adventure stories.
And if you accept the obvious fact that many Trek episodes (both old and new) attempted to convey some kind of message then how is it different from the Iliad and the Odyssey? Or the Canterbury Tales?
It's a little naive to denigrate contemporary storytelling just because it hasn't achieved the respectability of age. Future generations will likely see things with a less jaded eye.
If you don't see this, look at the way Dickens' novels and Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories are revered - and they were both originally published as cheap serials in the daily press, just to sell newspapers.
There are a lot of different reasons why *I* buy into long series, depending on the author, the story, the characters.
The reason I kept going with Trek is that I cared about the characters and the stories (in TNG anyway) were often brilliant.
I ran into trouble with STV and DS9 because the networks kept changing the broadcasting slot and I found that where those series were concerned, I didn't care enough to keep rearranging my timetable. I don't think we're that far apart on this particular issue; I just don't hate long book series the way you do (as long as they stay good).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Then there was Star Trek cartoon which went
away (and is never mentioned, and I have never seen, must have been bad).
Filmation did it - same outfit that did "Lassie's Rescue Rangers". Eeek!
Actually the stories weren't really distinguishably different in tone from those of the "real" series and the voices were done by the original crew (mostly). But the animation and the music were absolutely shite.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Riker:
(Shudder)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There was a lot of very thought-provoking stuff about politics and history in the last two instalments though. Prbblem is you need an IQ of about 250 to understand it all. I sometimes wonder about FH. I think he was somewhere on a different level.
If he only knew Kevin Anderson was writing a sequel he'd surely be turning in his grave. That guy writes the most awful trash.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I see what you're saying but I think you're ignoring the fact that the epic/saga has been around as an art form for a long time. It's altogether a different sort of thing than a standalone novel. There are certain narrative benefits to long stories. Plenty of intelligent people read them in book form, and sa far as TV is concerned, Trekkers in general are supposed to be fairly intelligent aren't they?
Having said that there is little doubt that book publishers are prone to the same sort of poor judgement as studio execs: "it sold before so it'll sell again". Just look at Larry Niven's sequel to Ringworld Engineers. Ugh.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh, come on. Terry Farrell was a centerfold girl I admit but Nana Visitor, though certainly presentable, is hardly a major babe in the conventional sense of the term. It just goes to show how girl-starved geeks will fixate on any visible female. If you ever worked in an IT department that was all guys and just one (reasonably attractive) girl then you'll know what I mean.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Nonsense. How exactly would a human detect such racial and/or cultural differences among a completely alien society? Compared to the yaening gulf between us and them, such differences would likely be very subtle, perhaps invisible.
And you claim cultural variety amongst Federation humans, yet they all speak American English - even O'Brien who is Irish (not Scottish as you claimed).
I don't think there is any evidence that the aliens were being stereotyped any more than was necessary for the plot. After all, for storytelling reasons each species had to have some identifiable characteristic that made them different from humans and the same as each other. Later, once the species characteristics had been established, individual differences would be explored: Spock's human emotional side, Quark's occasional generosity, Odo's loneliness, Worf's sensitivity.
Actually in the time-honoured manner of Hollywood, all these differences got over-exploited to the extent where each of these characters was in danger of becoming the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be. Spock and Data both became the most likely characters to have an emotional outburst; Worf the most likely to have a 'relationship' with someone (or to break up or get rejected and go off all hurt); Quark the most likely to sacrifice profit for some higher purpose. Personally I deplore this aspect of the show. Such relentless anthropomorphism simply undermined the strength of the alien characters making them less unique in the context of their colleagues, rather than adding dimension to them.
As regards Roddenberry's putative racism: in the shows which were truly Roddenberry's (the original series) it was plainly stated in several episodes that though 23rd-century humans all lived and worked together, they each took pride in their own individual cultural and racial inheritance. Uhura in her African lineage, Sulu in his Japanese ancestry, Chekhov in his Russian origins (how could you have forgotten that - it was even a running joke!) In many ways the bridge crew of the original Enterprise was a shining example of the multicultural society to which all civilised nations today aspire.
I think this pretty much disproves any notion that Roddenberry was racist.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Those stories, and many of the stories in the
original series, turned on constant elements of human nature.
Absolutely. My most favourite of all was the one where Picard, in just 25 minutes, lived a whole lifetime as an artisan in an alien society 10,000 years in the past.
The moment when his late wife friend and late best friend reappeared and he remembered who he was - and his disorientation when he returned; the memory of a whole lifetime and a dearly-loved family receding like a dream upon waking.
So beautifully understated, it was priceless (especially for an American show). Pass the tissues, please. Sniff.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You claim that 50% of a theatre full of Star Trek fans wanted Kirk dead? Just think about that for a moment. Notwithstanding the obvious difference in the appearance of the ageing actor, this must be the most ludicrous claim I ever heard.
Most people who enjoyed Kirk's earlier career (and Shatner's earlier performances) would surely have mourned the passing of a legend. What kind of person would so revile a one-time hero just because he's become middle-aged? Such an unpleasant attitude can only be described as nihilist.
Trekkers represent perhaps the most forward looking of us, and they're mostly a relatively optimistic bunch. If this particular club has now given itself up to nihilism then we're surely completely f*cked as a society. Who else is there to believe in the future if not them?
The only other possible explanation of such an extreme reaction is that most younger Trek fans are, though not wholly nihilist, at least contemptuous of people over some arbitrary age limit. I refuse to believe that the current generation of youngsters is that rotten.
Rather than either of these, it seems much more credible that you made this claim up to bolster your own minority opinion.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Like you, Tarnar, I am a longstanding fan of both old and new Star Trek. But I think the author raised some salient points and you are therefore wrong to dismiss him out of hand as a 'bitter fan'.
I agree he was a bit tough on Berman; I thought there were some really outstanding TNG episodes and I did come to care about the characters. I was very sad to see the series end. However, his assertions about Berman's attitude to TOS are certainly food for thought. It's very disapointing that Paramount would have brought him into the franchise in the first place if he had such a poor understanding of it (this is of course assuming that these assertions are true).
Secondly, Paramount certainly did franchise the thing to death, which kind of "wore out" the magic to some extent. Worst of all was putting out two series at the same time. Why on earth would Paramount do that when it would inevitably make people cease to hunger for it?
The studio never ever cared a bean about the possible significance of Trek beyond its profit potential, and they even mismanaged that in the end, sacrificing long-term appeal for the sake of increasing Trek revenue in the immediate short term.
As an aside: perhaps as a consequence of this glut of Star Trek some networks started screwing with their schedules and it became more or less impossible to know exactly when the next episode was going to be broadcast. It just wasn't unique or special enough to take pride of place any more, with so much of it about, especially when you include reruns: even in the UK at one point there would be maybe half a dozen different episodes of various ST series broadcast in a single week. That's just plain overdoing it. But ultimately it's Paramount's fault for milking its cash cow too hard and too often.
But there's nothin new about this. Parallels have already been drawn with the cheapening of the Star Wars franchise (Ewoks movies ferchrissake!!!).
Video and film are the new narrative tradition, and are as important to our culture as oral storytelling and literature have been. Unfortunately you just can't trust Philistine money-fixated studio execs with such an important legacy. They are the reason why there is so much crap, and why the few good things that emerge despite them either meet an untimely end (the Dr Who TV series) or are perverted to satisfy mass market expectations (the Americanised Dr Who TV movie) or get milked to death like Star Trek.
I just wanted to say one other thing: the only good idea for a new Trek series I ever heard was the Captain Sulu/USS Excelsior one. Pity they never suggested doing the same for Captain Scott. Look back at those TOS episodes; he was one outstanding bridge officer.
But even so, the best thing to ensure the world doesn't get terminally sick of the whole thing would be to veto any new series for now and maybe even restrict syndication for a while too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Seven levels of recursion down, the damned thing runs out of stack space!
Newbie!
The answer to that is you mostly shouldn't use recursion in real-world applications. Design your algorithm using recursion, for sure, but then unroll it into the equivalent iterative version before implementing it.
That way not only do you avoid running out of stack space (due to pointless re-copying) but you also avoid the overhead of setting up the call frame and of course the time spent copying those local PBV arguments onto the stack.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I agree with every word you said. I'm particularly pissed about the "Shop" button on Netscape 4.7 for Linux because it's pushed the "Stop" button so far to the right I can't see it when I have the window at my preferred width (half screen width at 1600x1200). This is a major failure of ergonomics IMO, on top of everything else wrong with it.
As far as IE5 goes, well, all the buttons on my current window have just DISAPPEARED for no apparent reason and I know only too well that I won't be getting them back without a reboot.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This piece should definitely have been posted in the "Ask Slashdot" section because I know that's where I'd look first if I want to come back and refer to it later. Duh!
PS (off topic, sorry) where's the news about Butler Bloor's Linux v NT test? There's not been a single peep about it on Slashdot and I know at least one person posted about it a few days ago...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think my favorite part about this story is the comment about Americans being a likely market
Not to mention the Japanese, they love tacky stuff like that.
Mind you...they probably have enough glowing vegetation as it is.
This is all wrong though.Why resort to such unnatural methods when we could just dispense with the trees and hang luminous jellyfish around the house at Christmas instead.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Siberian hackers are suspected to have sown large amounts of modified conifer seed in a complicated arrangement forming graphics and letters, appearantly hoping to render a functioning encryption program visible on regular satellite photos from the area, thus making it globally available without violating national export legislation.
Nah, it wasn't conifers, it was "perl" barley.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is arrant nonsense. Because:
1) They certainly do look at the facts as it's the only effective way to proceed with such experiments.
2) If the experiment succeeds and publishes a howto, it makes it possible for others to do the same in future. How is that counterproductive? It's just the opposite, contributing to the common good.
What you have failed to recognise is that sometimes the aim isn't just to find the easiest solution. Sometimes the desired aim is to find the best one, or even just to push out in a strategic direction that will take you closer to where you want to be in the future.
You seem not to realise that it's more or less axiomatically a good thing to have alternatives available. My guess is you've been using Microsoft platforms so long that alternatives seem inferior to you, a priori.
Which of us has adopted the closed minded attitude here? The revolutionary experimenter...or the conservative reactionary?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction