Ha! It's funny you bring up the context of a kid learning a new word on here. When I was young, probably about 7 or 8, I read parts of this book for fun, and I assumed, exactly as you proposed a kid might, that nigger was just another word. At some point later, I explicitly recall using that word around the one African-American student in my class at the time. You know what happened? I got a classic fist to the face and the shock of all shocks. I didn't know what I had done. One of my teachers told me that I was too nice of a boy to use such language, and I couldn't understand the problem because I had read that word so many times in one of my favorite adventure books. So, I started asking people, my teachers, my parents, even the kid that punched me in the face, why such a bad word would be used in the book if it was so bad. Well, I got a plethora of explanations, some of which involved the historical context and literary nuances being employed by Twain. It didn't all sink in until I reread the book much later, a few times, but I definitely got the lesson of a lifetime regarding the context and evolution of "bad words." Best of all, it was in a relatively harmless manner since my fat lip healed a few days later.
So you're exactly right, some young kids might read these stories, and start using that word. But so what? If they start using it in public, they will learn really quickly just what that word encompasses, and it will be a lesson that they won't forget soon. I say leave it in. Let kids learn about the world through experience, rather than through instruction.
...realizes that humans, as a whole, are a pretty messed up bunch
I don't disagree with the primary point of your post, but I don't think this can really be acknowledged as necessarily true. Humans are no more messed up than any other animal on Earth. We simple follow our natural habits given the context of situations presented at hand. The fact that we developed a powerful enough intellect that involves a conscience, necessarily, gives us the power to judge ourselves. Thus, we can consciously look at our own actions, and decide whether they are, "good," or, "bad" based on whatever values we want to assign to the good and bad categories. Such judgments, however, are little more than subjective interpretations of our own experience based upon an in-built bias to our species.
So we aren't really messed-up, or good, or bad, or ugly, or anything else in general. Outside of our own perception, we just are. We have our habits just like dogs and cats. And, just like a dog that chases it's own tail isn't stupid, humans destroying one another, or doing whatever else they want to do, aren't really bad inherently. They just are. Of course, being human, and being social creatures, we do have do decide what constitutes good and bad within our communities and, thus, we can label one another good and bad as we see fit. That's why I don't generally disagree with your overall point. Religion is just one more mechanism humans have developed as a result of having a naturally evolved conscience structure in their brain. But when it comes straight down to it, outside of our own personal context as a species, we aren't anymore good or bad than anything else in the universe. We just are.
I make this point because it is one of the main reasons I find the idea of a judgmental god so offensive. What right does a member of another species have to judge our actions? We are what we are, and we change based on our own chosen values as a species. That seems fine to me. If we kill ourselves in the process, it will be our own choosing, and nobody else's. So having some extra-species executor is just insulting in my opinion. Anyways, food for thought.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay.
You're wrong, so much so that it betrays an incapability on your part to perform an effective literary analysis. I don't think the intent of the word was to offend, but it most certainly was central to the story. While calling Nigger Jim exactly that was not a plot device in and of itself, it was an ironic device used to develop the characters, something very central to the story. At the time, African-Americans were considered to be primitive, brutish, lower class members of society in the South. Throughout their travels, Huck Finn and Nigger Jim stumble across all manner of illicit, terrible people that are dressed up to be high class citizens. They run across other characters, white characters, that are supposed to be more civilized, but display anything but moral accountability. Thus, naming one of the primary characters Nigger Jim, helped to underscore the irony of the story, showing that an African-American, when called by a very degrading name at the time, could still be more friendly, loving, and civilized than most of the white folk in the story.
Furthermore, by continually painting Jim's character as part of the social underclass, and showing how easy it is for Huck to befriend him, Mark Twain is championing the cause of the less wealthy, simpler lifestyles of some white people at the time. This is another common theme in his writing, that simple hicks, as we might call them today, can be more civilized and, for that matter, better people, than the high-to-do aristocrats and southern dandies.
By continually portraying Jim's character to be part of an underclass, by instantly and continually labeling him with a title that is not respectable, Twain explicitly carries these themes every time the character is mentioned. So it is very central to the story. The fact that label is even more offensive today, if anything, rams that theme home even further by showing that character is part of a culture that has had to carry and make peace with it's social stigma. Thus, that character, still displaying virtue in his actions, stands now as a symbol that, even if you are an African-American that has to deal with racism on a daily basis (by having it embedded in your very identity), you can still be a good person, and you can still stand prouder and taller than those who would seek to put you down with that slur.
Taking away that label for that character completely dumbs down and deemphasizes these themes, and it is a fucking literary tragedy.
Off the top of my head, some of the design issues that I can think of for doing something like this are (in no particular order):
Deployment: Having a large, long, skinny rectangle (probably hollow to save mass) bolted to a launch vehicle is a bad idea. Rockets shake the ever living shit out of their payloads and that monolith is going to be one big wiggling moment arm unless the basic internal frame is super rigid. That said, it seems like making the monolith some form of deployable, maybe a telescoping rectangle, might be the best bet.
Landing: Landing on the moon is going to require some form of controlled descent, unless you just want to recreate the LCROSS mission. That said, a whole lander system (small rocket powered) is probably going to be needed to land, place the monolith, and let it otherwise deploy. Putting rockets on the monolith itself would probably be a bit difficult as tanks and thermal control issues tend to distort the nice, necessary rectangle geometry of the object. Also, stabilizing a tall object like that with rockets on the base is similar to an inverted pendulum control problem. It can be done, but it is tricky and requires a powerful control system, which requires power, which might necessitate something like solar panels. In other words, the basic geometrical nature of this particular payload would be very constraining if you wanted to turn the monolith itself into a vehicle.
Thermal control: If the monolith has any sort of electronics or equipment inside of it, they are going to cook. The vehicle will likely see sun on it's way to the moon. If the monolith itself is exposed to view, then you will have a nice, large area, black surface absorbing solar radiation. That sucker is going to get hot. Basically this would be similar to pointing a typical spacecraft's radiator straight at the sun, which is a big no-no in spacecraft design, unless you like melting things.
Cosmetics: This isn't really a mission killer, but if you truly want a big black monolith on the moon, it probably won't be particularly black by the time it gets their. Between atomic oxygen in the upper atmosphere and direct exposure to solar radiation, whatever surface coating you put on the ol' girl is going to get beat up. So it will more than likely end up a, "mostly black but very scuffed," color. Not a big deal, but something to consider.
Of course, all of these problems are solvable. Maybe the whole monolith could be stored in a box. It could erect itself by deploying some lightweight rods in a rectangular geometry and pulling a black skin between them, unless of course the outer material has to be one solid piece. Covering or storing the monolith during transit in such a fashion would help regulate the thermal issues. The most expensive part of the project, like all space projects, will be buying a launch vehicle. Lander development would also be expensive, but perhaps the project could purchase existing hardware from someone like Armadillo or White Space, once their platforms get tested.
Either way, fun project, but it will definitely be expensive and not simple by any means.
I liked the artist's rendition of the black monolith front view. That made me laugh out loud at work. It would appear that the paper's name, Ironic Sans is quite appropriate.
You know, it's funny, I've heard a lot of folk in this country scrambling about and talking about being exposed to more culture. They want to travel to experience culture. They want to go to art studios to experience culture. They want to speak different languages to learn about more culture. That's a grand and noteworthy goal. However, many of those same people seem to make comments about how shallow and vapid American culture is. As a natural born American, I am damn ashamed to hear that about my country and my culture. We may be a young country, relatively speaking, but we have an incredibly rich culture that is more diverse than most places I've been.
Our culture involves everything from the Puritans fleeing England up through electing a black president while seeking hope and change. Our country was the first to try the grand social experiment of a democratic republic, based loosely on ideals from the ancient city-state architecture of Greece. Our people developed an entire branch of music known as Jazz. Our people blended with, reproduced with, lived with, and learned from the Native American population that we found here. From them, we learned to place a vast amount of importance on the individual and independence. We learned an appreciation for nature, and the resources it provides (who, before us, had a national forest preservation system?). Our culture includes the blending of numerous ethnic communities into a veritable melting pot of ideas and values. We have Latin folk. We have Gaelic folk. We have Greco-Roman folk. We have Asian folk. We have African folk. We have Slavic folk. We have Native American folk. We have Arab and Persian folk. We have a land made up of a culture that combined the values and ideals of the greatest enemies and contestants from history. American culture was enriched by French folk living next to English folk, by Japanese folk living next to Chinese folk, by Grecian and Italian folk living next to Persian and Arab folk, by African folk learning to live alongside the descendants of their former slave-masters. And you know what? We were and still are stronger for that!
We have had dark times in our short history, and we will continue to have dark times as time marches on. We had eras dominated by racism. We had eras dominated by sexism. Currently we are trying to end an era dominated by sexual preference intolerance. We have had wars. We have had depressions. We have had Civil Wars where brothers killed brothers and fathers fought their sons. Yeah, we've had some dark times. We ran the Native American population into the ground. But you know what? We learned from those times. We were hardened by those times. We took away great lessons from those times and grew out of them. And we are still growing. Those dark spots in our history are just as important as the American golden ages. Hell, I'd go so far to say that they are even more important, as they forced us to look in the mirror and learn from the ugly visages that gazed back at us. They forced us to change, for the better.
So now we are supposed to destroy our culture in the name of political correctness? We are supposed to whitewash our history so that we don't hurt anyone's feelings? You know what I think about NewSouth Book's attempt to destroy our culture? I say fuck them! And I can say that word proudly as an American because it is part of our culture, part of our ugly, dirt ridden, blood stained, beautiful, evolving, realistic, free, and loving culture. If I recall correctly, Huck Finn was friends with Nigger Jim. That's a damn important lesson, and the full name is damn important. It showed that a straw-chewing little white boy could be friends with someone that was different to a socially unacceptable level back then. That's a lesson in friendship. That's a lesson in love. And having Nigger Jim be that character's name underscores that lesson every time the name is mentioned. That is something we should preserve, not destroy. That is our culture: a culture of brother- and sisterhood derived from ha
Meh, I don't really understand why you feel the need to post AC, but that didn't stop you did it?
My intentions for posting were basically: I read the summary. I had an idle thought where I fondly remembered how bent out of shape some people would get over embarrassing driver's license pictures. My brain made the connection that there are a lot more embarrassing pictures on people's facebooks account. It amused me to think about being an old codger one day and looking back on the good ol' days of crappy driver's license pictures. Then, as I wrote that first line, it dawned on me that using Facebook as a single credential login, or license, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is retarded because, basically, anyone can pretend to be anything they want to be on the internet. If they put enough effort into it, they can even make a fake identity convincing enough to dance around Facebook's, "Only use a real name and information..." clause in their terms of use. So I proceeded to ramble, using my own various web experiences as an example of something similar.
So there yah go. Now you know why I wrote what I wrote. Feel free to judge me as you see fit. I couldn't really give a less of a damn, I'm just trying to pass the time.;)
Hehe, and we will look fondly back on the days when we thought having an embarrassing DMV picture on your driver's license was a problem.
I don't know if we could honestly implement this in any serious way. I know that 90% of what I post to Facebook is little more than crap, lies, and flamebait to prank my friends on the internet. There's nothing like watching one of your good buddies get all worked up over a Youtube video that doesn't really mean anything. Most of my FB contacts are aware of the nature of my profile, and, therefore, take my senseless BS tongue in cheek so it works out okay. If that profile starts being used as some sort of license (to do what exactly, access internet content?) then that license is going to be issued to a person that is fundamentally different in all dealings, social or otherwise, than the person that I am face to face, or, hell for that matter, different than even my Slashdot user account.
One of my coworkers likes to say that the thing people tend to forget is that the internet isn't real. I would say that goes doubly so for user made pages like Facebook, where you can post whatever you want after a healthy dose of Photoshop, trolled Wikipedia references, and sketchy video editing techniques.
Heh, that post reminded me of my younger, religious years. I always thought one of the cooler parts about being Christian was that you could use God's name and such and such to battle demons. I always thought the whole, holy warrior, demon slaying, Constantine thing was pretty sweet. So I started buying a bunch of books from local Christain booksellers about exorcisms and battling the dark powers and such and such (such gullible, noble, idealistic times...ah). Anyways, I started dating a gal that was a proper Christian lass, far more of a 'good Christian' than I had ever been, whatever that meant. She was browsing my bookshelf one day and was shocked that I was reading such literature. She started warning me, in dark ominous tones, about reading such things because it would draw the attention of dark powers, soliciting, supposedly, a holy arms race between myself and Satan or something like that. It was all fantastical and silly, looking back on it, but it was good times.
When I tried to make the case that it is better to know and be prepared, rather than to remain ignorant intentionally out of fear, she became rather irate. Eventually she dumped me because Jesus couldn't love me enough, or some such rubbish like that. I grew out of my religious phase, though I still think it would be sweet to be able to shoot holy lightning out my hands, but I digress.
A similar thing happened when my sister found me reading a copy of the Neconomicon (some book written to mimic that in Lovecraft's work). She was afraid my eyes were going to burn out or something. I just shrugged and told her it would give me an excuse to get robotic eyes. She also didn't like that answer. But it always stuck with me as odd at how adverse some folk could react to studying, "dark knowledge..."
No, in reality, he was the problem and the very reason we need training and licenses indicating the holder has had training.
See, the funny thing is, he holds a hunting license to this day. I doubt he would change his behavior all that much. So, your stupid licensing system doesn't appear to be doing much.
In a more civilized land, assuming this was a recreational hunting trip and not a matter of not knowing where he was or some other desperation situation,
It wasn't a civilized land, that was the point of my trying to relate the remoteness of the location. There were, and I would wager still are, some parts of this country where you aren't anywhere near civilization. This happened to be one of those areas. The fact that another fella' decided to build a home in the middle of the forest doesn't make that location civilization.;)
BEFORE firing lethal weapons at wildlife on it for fun,
It was for food, not for fun. Some folk couldn't always afford a steak at the grocery store you know.
Face facts: Your buddy's dad was a primitive hick.
Oh I get it, you're one of those smug city slicker pansy fucks that think they know a thing or two about how us primitive hicks should live our lives when we purposefully make a point to move the as far away from you as possible. Pro-tip, when your family can't afford meat, and you've been stalking a buck all day through the bush, don't hesitate to pull the trigger even if the deer is eating some other dude's Petunias. Your growling tummy will blame you for not taking the ticket all night long.
Besides, I prefer associating with primitive hicks that understand the concept of context when safety is concerned, rather than piddling around with a smug wanker like yourself who assumes a rigid application of arbitrary rules is the best solution to every situation. Let me guess, you also support keeping marijuana illegal because, well, that's the law, don't you?;)
There was nobody around. The "front yard" was multiple acres large (the advantage of living in the middle of nowhere). There was no fence up. There were no "No Trespassing" signs up. So in reality, no, there was no reckless endangerment. At the time, the trespassing laws were loose enough that it didn't really qualify as trespassing either. He did end up getting a ticket, for discharging a firearm near a residence, or something like that. But that wasn't really a big deal.
I understand the necessity for firearm safety and rational application of hunting skills and tools, but before you go slapping a bunch of legal terms on a simple anecdote, you might want to understand the context of the story first. In the county where he grew up, some forty years ago, the entire police force consisted of a local constable, the sheriff, and a self-proclaimed private investigator. It was a different time in a place remote enough that you might not be all that familiar with the history.
The resident owner's biggest complaint about the whole deal was that he didn't get to shoot the buck himself apparently.
When I was growing up my buddy's dad told us a story. He talked about how he and his dad used to go out into the woods and cut firewood, fish, and hunt without a license. They just took these rights for granted. Hell, he even told us about how he shot a buck in some guy's front yard when he was a teenager. That was life back then in the sticks. Anyways, when he was younger, his dad made the comment to him that, when he got older, one would need a license to fish, hunt, and cut firewood. He also predicted that, eventually, you would only be allowed to do these things in certain, designated parts of the wilderness, rather than anywhere the road ended in bush.
Anyways, those predictions have come true, at least here in the California. That always stuck with me and got me thinking. I have ten bucks that says, when I am my roomate's dad's age, you'll need a license to upload most, if not all, content that you want to the internet. You might require a license to legally access the internet at all. You'll be required to get a license to allow you to consume alcohol, if it's not prohibited outright. And you'll need a license to run a wireless networking node, you know, so that you can't set up a shady mesh network that is not policed.
So those are my predictions for the next 20 years. Every time I see a story like this from Saudi Arabia, China, or, hell, even places like Australia with their internet censorship boogeyman that their government keeps bringing up, I just figure that the U.S. will wait a year or two before enacting those same policies here. I'm so sick of this bullshit about living in the land of the free but continually watching our freedoms get sold to the highest bidder. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but mark my words, the internet will be licensed in the U.S. before long.
Oh, one more, if 3D printing becomes cheap and accessible, you'll be required to get a manufacturing license to produce anything. That one will get enacted under the name of that God-foresaken commerce clause.
The real scary part is when you realize that if Sarah Palin does become an overlord, you can't even move to Canada to be safe, as she probably considers that part of the United States and will try to move the armed forces in to occupy it.
The 'alien lifeform debacle' as you chose to propagandize it, was a very important and interesting discovery regarding the fundamental ingredients for life that is still being reviewed by major microbial scientists worldwide. Not recognizing the significance of that announcement just because it wasn't the discovery of alien life (something that NASA never advertised, but, rather, a speculation that the media over-hyped) does little more than betray your ignorance on that particular matter.
I dunno, Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day inspired me in a pretty realistic way....."We will not go quietly into the night!..." Ah, it still sends shivers down my spine...
The list of worst sci-fi movies carries mostly expected candidates, but I found these two pieces from the article interesting:
But not all sci-fi films were mocked by NASA experts, they did agree to praise 1982s Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford. The movie which they said “convincingly portrayed a futuristic Los Angeles now only eight years away”
And the most “realistic” sci-fi film according to NASA, goes to 1997s Gattaca, starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law and Uma Thurman. The movie was about “a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.”
It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street. Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?
If I recall correctly, 2012 was the disaster movie that caused hundreds (maybe thousands) of overly emotional retards to call NASA directly and ask whether the world was actually going to end. I think one caller even asked NASA if they should kill their child now, in order to save them the pain of having to deal with the 2012 apocalypse. I know if a particular movie turned my work phone into a spam pot for dipshits I would declare that movie the ultimate fuck up of all time as well.
I think next we'll see NASA using it's orbital lasers to melt John Cusack's for his role in that film, at least, I can dream.
Unusual slashdot posting, in that there seems little to ridicule in anything or anyone about the event.
You're just not trying hard enough! I say he's a pinko, commie, socialist, hippy for expecting other scientists to gather the data for him first! As our overlord Sarah Palin would say, he wasn't man enough to gather it himself. Now fuck off you peace-loving, sweet talking, idealist progressive. This is just one more reason why America is better than socialist England!
For the record, I do not work for Fox News, I'm just an overachiever when it comes to misplaced criticism sometimes.;)
In theory, sure. In practice, nah, not really. They don't answer to anyone because there is not a significant enough chunk of folk that give a damn anymore.
That said, I do not think the profit motive is a better option either. The best solution would probably just involve setting up some kind of distributed network that doesn't require payment to a central authority to access. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to go about doing that.
I talk to a lot of folk about this, how we can reset our political will in this country, etc. So far as I can tell, very few people outside of slashdot can be bothered to give a damn. Citing various excuses from, "I'm too busy," to, "Come on, it's not that bad."
I think the combination of working 40 hour weeks making people too tired to care, and the steady stream of nationalist propaganda convincing folk that we are still the best place to live in the world is going to keep our population copulating our government overlords for quite some time to come. I always found it fun to fantasize about the collapse of society and revolution and such in my younger years, but the older I grow the more I figure that it's just not going to happen.
On a somewhat related note, can anyone think of a country with a strong space industry I can move to?
Pedestrian crossing points with audible signals telling you when it's safe to go. Why, they don't have that in your country yet?
I live in a relatively small college town in California. We just started implementing these at intersections when they get redone. A week and a half ago, while walking home from the bars, I saw one of my fellow drunks talking to the talking traffic signal pole.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! It's funny you bring up the context of a kid learning a new word on here. When I was young, probably about 7 or 8, I read parts of this book for fun, and I assumed, exactly as you proposed a kid might, that nigger was just another word. At some point later, I explicitly recall using that word around the one African-American student in my class at the time. You know what happened? I got a classic fist to the face and the shock of all shocks. I didn't know what I had done. One of my teachers told me that I was too nice of a boy to use such language, and I couldn't understand the problem because I had read that word so many times in one of my favorite adventure books. So, I started asking people, my teachers, my parents, even the kid that punched me in the face, why such a bad word would be used in the book if it was so bad. Well, I got a plethora of explanations, some of which involved the historical context and literary nuances being employed by Twain. It didn't all sink in until I reread the book much later, a few times, but I definitely got the lesson of a lifetime regarding the context and evolution of "bad words." Best of all, it was in a relatively harmless manner since my fat lip healed a few days later.
So you're exactly right, some young kids might read these stories, and start using that word. But so what? If they start using it in public, they will learn really quickly just what that word encompasses, and it will be a lesson that they won't forget soon. I say leave it in. Let kids learn about the world through experience, rather than through instruction.
...realizes that humans, as a whole, are a pretty messed up bunch
I don't disagree with the primary point of your post, but I don't think this can really be acknowledged as necessarily true. Humans are no more messed up than any other animal on Earth. We simple follow our natural habits given the context of situations presented at hand. The fact that we developed a powerful enough intellect that involves a conscience, necessarily, gives us the power to judge ourselves. Thus, we can consciously look at our own actions, and decide whether they are, "good," or, "bad" based on whatever values we want to assign to the good and bad categories. Such judgments, however, are little more than subjective interpretations of our own experience based upon an in-built bias to our species.
So we aren't really messed-up, or good, or bad, or ugly, or anything else in general. Outside of our own perception, we just are. We have our habits just like dogs and cats. And, just like a dog that chases it's own tail isn't stupid, humans destroying one another, or doing whatever else they want to do, aren't really bad inherently. They just are. Of course, being human, and being social creatures, we do have do decide what constitutes good and bad within our communities and, thus, we can label one another good and bad as we see fit. That's why I don't generally disagree with your overall point. Religion is just one more mechanism humans have developed as a result of having a naturally evolved conscience structure in their brain. But when it comes straight down to it, outside of our own personal context as a species, we aren't anymore good or bad than anything else in the universe. We just are.
I make this point because it is one of the main reasons I find the idea of a judgmental god so offensive. What right does a member of another species have to judge our actions? We are what we are, and we change based on our own chosen values as a species. That seems fine to me. If we kill ourselves in the process, it will be our own choosing, and nobody else's. So having some extra-species executor is just insulting in my opinion. Anyways, food for thought.
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay.
You're wrong, so much so that it betrays an incapability on your part to perform an effective literary analysis. I don't think the intent of the word was to offend, but it most certainly was central to the story. While calling Nigger Jim exactly that was not a plot device in and of itself, it was an ironic device used to develop the characters, something very central to the story. At the time, African-Americans were considered to be primitive, brutish, lower class members of society in the South. Throughout their travels, Huck Finn and Nigger Jim stumble across all manner of illicit, terrible people that are dressed up to be high class citizens. They run across other characters, white characters, that are supposed to be more civilized, but display anything but moral accountability. Thus, naming one of the primary characters Nigger Jim, helped to underscore the irony of the story, showing that an African-American, when called by a very degrading name at the time, could still be more friendly, loving, and civilized than most of the white folk in the story.
Furthermore, by continually painting Jim's character as part of the social underclass, and showing how easy it is for Huck to befriend him, Mark Twain is championing the cause of the less wealthy, simpler lifestyles of some white people at the time. This is another common theme in his writing, that simple hicks, as we might call them today, can be more civilized and, for that matter, better people, than the high-to-do aristocrats and southern dandies.
By continually portraying Jim's character to be part of an underclass, by instantly and continually labeling him with a title that is not respectable, Twain explicitly carries these themes every time the character is mentioned. So it is very central to the story. The fact that label is even more offensive today, if anything, rams that theme home even further by showing that character is part of a culture that has had to carry and make peace with it's social stigma. Thus, that character, still displaying virtue in his actions, stands now as a symbol that, even if you are an African-American that has to deal with racism on a daily basis (by having it embedded in your very identity), you can still be a good person, and you can still stand prouder and taller than those who would seek to put you down with that slur.
Taking away that label for that character completely dumbs down and deemphasizes these themes, and it is a fucking literary tragedy.
Off the top of my head, some of the design issues that I can think of for doing something like this are (in no particular order):
Deployment: Having a large, long, skinny rectangle (probably hollow to save mass) bolted to a launch vehicle is a bad idea. Rockets shake the ever living shit out of their payloads and that monolith is going to be one big wiggling moment arm unless the basic internal frame is super rigid. That said, it seems like making the monolith some form of deployable, maybe a telescoping rectangle, might be the best bet.
Landing: Landing on the moon is going to require some form of controlled descent, unless you just want to recreate the LCROSS mission. That said, a whole lander system (small rocket powered) is probably going to be needed to land, place the monolith, and let it otherwise deploy. Putting rockets on the monolith itself would probably be a bit difficult as tanks and thermal control issues tend to distort the nice, necessary rectangle geometry of the object. Also, stabilizing a tall object like that with rockets on the base is similar to an inverted pendulum control problem. It can be done, but it is tricky and requires a powerful control system, which requires power, which might necessitate something like solar panels. In other words, the basic geometrical nature of this particular payload would be very constraining if you wanted to turn the monolith itself into a vehicle.
Thermal control: If the monolith has any sort of electronics or equipment inside of it, they are going to cook. The vehicle will likely see sun on it's way to the moon. If the monolith itself is exposed to view, then you will have a nice, large area, black surface absorbing solar radiation. That sucker is going to get hot. Basically this would be similar to pointing a typical spacecraft's radiator straight at the sun, which is a big no-no in spacecraft design, unless you like melting things.
Cosmetics: This isn't really a mission killer, but if you truly want a big black monolith on the moon, it probably won't be particularly black by the time it gets their. Between atomic oxygen in the upper atmosphere and direct exposure to solar radiation, whatever surface coating you put on the ol' girl is going to get beat up. So it will more than likely end up a, "mostly black but very scuffed," color. Not a big deal, but something to consider.
Of course, all of these problems are solvable. Maybe the whole monolith could be stored in a box. It could erect itself by deploying some lightweight rods in a rectangular geometry and pulling a black skin between them, unless of course the outer material has to be one solid piece. Covering or storing the monolith during transit in such a fashion would help regulate the thermal issues. The most expensive part of the project, like all space projects, will be buying a launch vehicle. Lander development would also be expensive, but perhaps the project could purchase existing hardware from someone like Armadillo or White Space, once their platforms get tested.
Either way, fun project, but it will definitely be expensive and not simple by any means.
I liked the artist's rendition of the black monolith front view. That made me laugh out loud at work. It would appear that the paper's name, Ironic Sans is quite appropriate.
S'ok, I'll buy you a beer once we get there for having a sense of humor. ;)
You know, it's funny, I've heard a lot of folk in this country scrambling about and talking about being exposed to more culture. They want to travel to experience culture. They want to go to art studios to experience culture. They want to speak different languages to learn about more culture. That's a grand and noteworthy goal. However, many of those same people seem to make comments about how shallow and vapid American culture is. As a natural born American, I am damn ashamed to hear that about my country and my culture. We may be a young country, relatively speaking, but we have an incredibly rich culture that is more diverse than most places I've been.
Our culture involves everything from the Puritans fleeing England up through electing a black president while seeking hope and change. Our country was the first to try the grand social experiment of a democratic republic, based loosely on ideals from the ancient city-state architecture of Greece. Our people developed an entire branch of music known as Jazz. Our people blended with, reproduced with, lived with, and learned from the Native American population that we found here. From them, we learned to place a vast amount of importance on the individual and independence. We learned an appreciation for nature, and the resources it provides (who, before us, had a national forest preservation system?). Our culture includes the blending of numerous ethnic communities into a veritable melting pot of ideas and values. We have Latin folk. We have Gaelic folk. We have Greco-Roman folk. We have Asian folk. We have African folk. We have Slavic folk. We have Native American folk. We have Arab and Persian folk. We have a land made up of a culture that combined the values and ideals of the greatest enemies and contestants from history. American culture was enriched by French folk living next to English folk, by Japanese folk living next to Chinese folk, by Grecian and Italian folk living next to Persian and Arab folk, by African folk learning to live alongside the descendants of their former slave-masters. And you know what? We were and still are stronger for that!
We have had dark times in our short history, and we will continue to have dark times as time marches on. We had eras dominated by racism. We had eras dominated by sexism. Currently we are trying to end an era dominated by sexual preference intolerance. We have had wars. We have had depressions. We have had Civil Wars where brothers killed brothers and fathers fought their sons. Yeah, we've had some dark times. We ran the Native American population into the ground. But you know what? We learned from those times. We were hardened by those times. We took away great lessons from those times and grew out of them. And we are still growing. Those dark spots in our history are just as important as the American golden ages. Hell, I'd go so far to say that they are even more important, as they forced us to look in the mirror and learn from the ugly visages that gazed back at us. They forced us to change, for the better.
So now we are supposed to destroy our culture in the name of political correctness? We are supposed to whitewash our history so that we don't hurt anyone's feelings? You know what I think about NewSouth Book's attempt to destroy our culture? I say fuck them! And I can say that word proudly as an American because it is part of our culture, part of our ugly, dirt ridden, blood stained, beautiful, evolving, realistic, free, and loving culture. If I recall correctly, Huck Finn was friends with Nigger Jim. That's a damn important lesson, and the full name is damn important. It showed that a straw-chewing little white boy could be friends with someone that was different to a socially unacceptable level back then. That's a lesson in friendship. That's a lesson in love. And having Nigger Jim be that character's name underscores that lesson every time the name is mentioned. That is something we should preserve, not destroy. That is our culture: a culture of brother- and sisterhood derived from ha
Meh, I don't really understand why you feel the need to post AC, but that didn't stop you did it?
;)
My intentions for posting were basically: I read the summary. I had an idle thought where I fondly remembered how bent out of shape some people would get over embarrassing driver's license pictures. My brain made the connection that there are a lot more embarrassing pictures on people's facebooks account. It amused me to think about being an old codger one day and looking back on the good ol' days of crappy driver's license pictures. Then, as I wrote that first line, it dawned on me that using Facebook as a single credential login, or license, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is retarded because, basically, anyone can pretend to be anything they want to be on the internet. If they put enough effort into it, they can even make a fake identity convincing enough to dance around Facebook's, "Only use a real name and information..." clause in their terms of use. So I proceeded to ramble, using my own various web experiences as an example of something similar.
So there yah go. Now you know why I wrote what I wrote. Feel free to judge me as you see fit. I couldn't really give a less of a damn, I'm just trying to pass the time.
Hehe, and we will look fondly back on the days when we thought having an embarrassing DMV picture on your driver's license was a problem.
I don't know if we could honestly implement this in any serious way. I know that 90% of what I post to Facebook is little more than crap, lies, and flamebait to prank my friends on the internet. There's nothing like watching one of your good buddies get all worked up over a Youtube video that doesn't really mean anything. Most of my FB contacts are aware of the nature of my profile, and, therefore, take my senseless BS tongue in cheek so it works out okay. If that profile starts being used as some sort of license (to do what exactly, access internet content?) then that license is going to be issued to a person that is fundamentally different in all dealings, social or otherwise, than the person that I am face to face, or, hell for that matter, different than even my Slashdot user account.
One of my coworkers likes to say that the thing people tend to forget is that the internet isn't real. I would say that goes doubly so for user made pages like Facebook, where you can post whatever you want after a healthy dose of Photoshop, trolled Wikipedia references, and sketchy video editing techniques.
I see you've been playing the beta of Duke Nukem Forever...
Heh, that post reminded me of my younger, religious years. I always thought one of the cooler parts about being Christian was that you could use God's name and such and such to battle demons. I always thought the whole, holy warrior, demon slaying, Constantine thing was pretty sweet. So I started buying a bunch of books from local Christain booksellers about exorcisms and battling the dark powers and such and such (such gullible, noble, idealistic times...ah). Anyways, I started dating a gal that was a proper Christian lass, far more of a 'good Christian' than I had ever been, whatever that meant. She was browsing my bookshelf one day and was shocked that I was reading such literature. She started warning me, in dark ominous tones, about reading such things because it would draw the attention of dark powers, soliciting, supposedly, a holy arms race between myself and Satan or something like that. It was all fantastical and silly, looking back on it, but it was good times.
When I tried to make the case that it is better to know and be prepared, rather than to remain ignorant intentionally out of fear, she became rather irate. Eventually she dumped me because Jesus couldn't love me enough, or some such rubbish like that. I grew out of my religious phase, though I still think it would be sweet to be able to shoot holy lightning out my hands, but I digress.
A similar thing happened when my sister found me reading a copy of the Neconomicon (some book written to mimic that in Lovecraft's work). She was afraid my eyes were going to burn out or something. I just shrugged and told her it would give me an excuse to get robotic eyes. She also didn't like that answer. But it always stuck with me as odd at how adverse some folk could react to studying, "dark knowledge..."
Good times....
No, in reality, he was the problem and the very reason we need training and licenses indicating the holder has had training.
See, the funny thing is, he holds a hunting license to this day. I doubt he would change his behavior all that much. So, your stupid licensing system doesn't appear to be doing much.
In a more civilized land, assuming this was a recreational hunting trip and not a matter of not knowing where he was or some other desperation situation,
It wasn't a civilized land, that was the point of my trying to relate the remoteness of the location. There were, and I would wager still are, some parts of this country where you aren't anywhere near civilization. This happened to be one of those areas. The fact that another fella' decided to build a home in the middle of the forest doesn't make that location civilization. ;)
BEFORE firing lethal weapons at wildlife on it for fun,
It was for food, not for fun. Some folk couldn't always afford a steak at the grocery store you know.
Face facts: Your buddy's dad was a primitive hick.
Oh I get it, you're one of those smug city slicker pansy fucks that think they know a thing or two about how us primitive hicks should live our lives when we purposefully make a point to move the as far away from you as possible. Pro-tip, when your family can't afford meat, and you've been stalking a buck all day through the bush, don't hesitate to pull the trigger even if the deer is eating some other dude's Petunias. Your growling tummy will blame you for not taking the ticket all night long.
;)
Besides, I prefer associating with primitive hicks that understand the concept of context when safety is concerned, rather than piddling around with a smug wanker like yourself who assumes a rigid application of arbitrary rules is the best solution to every situation. Let me guess, you also support keeping marijuana illegal because, well, that's the law, don't you?
There was nobody around. The "front yard" was multiple acres large (the advantage of living in the middle of nowhere). There was no fence up. There were no "No Trespassing" signs up. So in reality, no, there was no reckless endangerment. At the time, the trespassing laws were loose enough that it didn't really qualify as trespassing either. He did end up getting a ticket, for discharging a firearm near a residence, or something like that. But that wasn't really a big deal.
I understand the necessity for firearm safety and rational application of hunting skills and tools, but before you go slapping a bunch of legal terms on a simple anecdote, you might want to understand the context of the story first. In the county where he grew up, some forty years ago, the entire police force consisted of a local constable, the sheriff, and a self-proclaimed private investigator. It was a different time in a place remote enough that you might not be all that familiar with the history.
The resident owner's biggest complaint about the whole deal was that he didn't get to shoot the buck himself apparently.
When I was growing up my buddy's dad told us a story. He talked about how he and his dad used to go out into the woods and cut firewood, fish, and hunt without a license. They just took these rights for granted. Hell, he even told us about how he shot a buck in some guy's front yard when he was a teenager. That was life back then in the sticks. Anyways, when he was younger, his dad made the comment to him that, when he got older, one would need a license to fish, hunt, and cut firewood. He also predicted that, eventually, you would only be allowed to do these things in certain, designated parts of the wilderness, rather than anywhere the road ended in bush.
Anyways, those predictions have come true, at least here in the California. That always stuck with me and got me thinking. I have ten bucks that says, when I am my roomate's dad's age, you'll need a license to upload most, if not all, content that you want to the internet. You might require a license to legally access the internet at all. You'll be required to get a license to allow you to consume alcohol, if it's not prohibited outright. And you'll need a license to run a wireless networking node, you know, so that you can't set up a shady mesh network that is not policed.
So those are my predictions for the next 20 years. Every time I see a story like this from Saudi Arabia, China, or, hell, even places like Australia with their internet censorship boogeyman that their government keeps bringing up, I just figure that the U.S. will wait a year or two before enacting those same policies here. I'm so sick of this bullshit about living in the land of the free but continually watching our freedoms get sold to the highest bidder. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but mark my words, the internet will be licensed in the U.S. before long.
Oh, one more, if 3D printing becomes cheap and accessible, you'll be required to get a manufacturing license to produce anything. That one will get enacted under the name of that God-foresaken commerce clause.
The real scary part is when you realize that if Sarah Palin does become an overlord, you can't even move to Canada to be safe, as she probably considers that part of the United States and will try to move the armed forces in to occupy it.
The 'alien lifeform debacle' as you chose to propagandize it, was a very important and interesting discovery regarding the fundamental ingredients for life that is still being reviewed by major microbial scientists worldwide. Not recognizing the significance of that announcement just because it wasn't the discovery of alien life (something that NASA never advertised, but, rather, a speculation that the media over-hyped) does little more than betray your ignorance on that particular matter.
I dunno, Bill Pullman's speech in Independence Day inspired me in a pretty realistic way....."We will not go quietly into the night!..." Ah, it still sends shivers down my spine...
I'll take Harrison Ford over a unicorn any day, no matter the context.
But not all sci-fi films were mocked by NASA experts, they did agree to praise 1982s Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford. The movie which they said “convincingly portrayed a futuristic Los Angeles now only eight years away”
And the most “realistic” sci-fi film according to NASA, goes to 1997s Gattaca, starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law and Uma Thurman. The movie was about “a genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.”
It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street. Ah well, at least we get Harrison Ford and glowing umbrellas right?
If I recall correctly, 2012 was the disaster movie that caused hundreds (maybe thousands) of overly emotional retards to call NASA directly and ask whether the world was actually going to end. I think one caller even asked NASA if they should kill their child now, in order to save them the pain of having to deal with the 2012 apocalypse. I know if a particular movie turned my work phone into a spam pot for dipshits I would declare that movie the ultimate fuck up of all time as well.
I think next we'll see NASA using it's orbital lasers to melt John Cusack's for his role in that film, at least, I can dream.
Unusual slashdot posting, in that there seems little to ridicule in anything or anyone about the event.
You're just not trying hard enough! I say he's a pinko, commie, socialist, hippy for expecting other scientists to gather the data for him first! As our overlord Sarah Palin would say, he wasn't man enough to gather it himself. Now fuck off you peace-loving, sweet talking, idealist progressive. This is just one more reason why America is better than socialist England!
;)
For the record, I do not work for Fox News, I'm just an overachiever when it comes to misplaced criticism sometimes.
Politician, ultimately, answer to us.
In theory, sure. In practice, nah, not really. They don't answer to anyone because there is not a significant enough chunk of folk that give a damn anymore.
That said, I do not think the profit motive is a better option either. The best solution would probably just involve setting up some kind of distributed network that doesn't require payment to a central authority to access. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to go about doing that.
I talk to a lot of folk about this, how we can reset our political will in this country, etc. So far as I can tell, very few people outside of slashdot can be bothered to give a damn. Citing various excuses from, "I'm too busy," to, "Come on, it's not that bad."
I think the combination of working 40 hour weeks making people too tired to care, and the steady stream of nationalist propaganda convincing folk that we are still the best place to live in the world is going to keep our population copulating our government overlords for quite some time to come. I always found it fun to fantasize about the collapse of society and revolution and such in my younger years, but the older I grow the more I figure that it's just not going to happen.
On a somewhat related note, can anyone think of a country with a strong space industry I can move to?
It sucks when you get 1 upped by someone with a sense of humor doesn't it? Don't worry, have a cyber hug, you'll feel better in the morning.
/hug
Pedestrian crossing points with audible signals telling you when it's safe to go. Why, they don't have that in your country yet?
I live in a relatively small college town in California. We just started implementing these at intersections when they get redone. A week and a half ago, while walking home from the bars, I saw one of my fellow drunks talking to the talking traffic signal pole.