The only problem I have with that picture, despite the absolute grotequeness of it, is that if you're trying to insult people, you usually tell them 'hey, shove it up your ass.' Whereas it is clearly intended in this picture for the giver to be saying 'Hey, shove it up MY ass.' While I can think of an extensive catalogue of objects that I'd like to shine up real nice for ya, that isn't the point. Or is it?
And though I go back from time to time and check, I have learned whilst at my place of employment to check the actual URL for every link to make sure I don't display www.goatse.cx on my screen while, for example, my boss is standing behind me. I can only imagine how many of its hits come from clueless visitors to slashdot.
You can prove that xrays exist by postulating the effect they will have on a photographic plate of film. I've got a picture of my teeth made with x-rays, in fact. You can prove that DNA exists by using tools to analyze it. And I don't just open my mouth and swallow, like it's a religion. I own a telescope. I watched comet chunks hit Jupiter. I have seen the rings of Saturn for myself. I've looked at dinosaur fossils embedded in the rock. And I believe that nuclear forces exist because of a little thing called an atom bomb.
What really floors me is this: you can't see electrons. But they're running your computer. For that matter, you cannot see the registers of your processor. As a programmer, I know these things exist, even if I can't describe to you physically what they look like. But I'll tell you the technology based on these invisible things WORKS EVERY TIME.
Another thing that I use to examine whether or not what I'm hearing is true is simple logic. If a logical proposition forces me to assume too many things that can't be proved, I discard it. Little trick called Occam's Razor.
God is a terrible theory. There are no consequences to the God theory that can be examined in real life. No footprints, loose fibers, or blood samples have been offered. There is no experiment to perform. God hasn't personally come down from wherever and spoken to me. And I don't think he's spoken to anyone else either.
Your conclusion that there is a plan shows you have an active imagination but not too much in the way of critical thinking. When I see the diversity of life and the intricacy and beauty of things I see four billion years of random events. Having sat and watched some few minutes or hours of random events, extrapolating from my incredibly tiny time window to four billion years is not very difficult.
'Just because we are not privy to this plan does not mean it doesn't exist.' Let's get the logical idiocy out of the way right now. There is NO REASON to believe in a plan. The entire structure and history of the universe can be explained as happenstance obeying the limitations of the physical laws of the universe. It may be a displeasing explanation for you, but it has one benefit over the God theory in that all the postulates of the theory are within observation We know gravity is real. Drop a pin. Duh. We know the strong and weak nuclear forces worked (we've had some experience with them in the form of atom bombs, you know) and we know that electromagnetism works. Again, without it your computer would just be a lump of sand. Those four fundamental forces can be used to trace the evolution of the universe backwards to within a fraction of a second of the instant of creation. They do so remarkably well, despite the fact that we have no pictures or records of the event. Simply put, the universe wouldn't behave as it does if events had happened differently. Sure some new phenomenon may come along and prove it all wrong -- that's what science thrives on. Newer evidence is always the most correct evidence. It's part of not making a judgement call about that which you do not know for sure.
If you ask, what was before the universe, I will say I do not know. If you tell me God must have made it, my very first question is going to be, WHO MADE GOD AND WHY? It's an important question. And it's the same question you would ask me. What is the first cause of it all? Why complicate the issue with an invisible being whose existence cannot be proven?
To get to the second, and asthetic part of my answer: Why does there have to be a plan? Is it bothering you that there may not be a reason for your existence? That you may be born, live out your life, and die, and at the end of it it was just the processing of groceries into sewage. I'd have to say that's probably what bothers people more than the scientific issues (which you've clearly shown you don't grasp). It's the meaning of it all that people want. Well I make my own meaning. I don't require some being to direct my life. I'm an adult and can direct it myself. I don't need some preacher's 'guidance' to know who and what I am.
And I think that's the problem. You want someone to be in charge. It scares the shit out of you that you may actually have to answer for your own actions. But I have to ask you if you would rather be a sock puppet. Is that what you really want?
Tell you what. I know I can find in the archives of my home library, or the internet, proof (or disproof) for whatever scientific phenomenon you choose. It may require some effort on your part to check it out. It may require several years to understand the concepts involved. Science is hard work. If you don't want to make the effort to demonstrate yourself, do not get involved in the conversation.
If you can find a convincing proof (or even compelling logic) for the existence of a divine plan, by all means email it to me. I would be most fascinated to examine such a construct. And I promise you, I'll tear it to ribbons. I'm that sure of myself. Thirty years of constant assaults have failed to convert me to Christianity. It's not for want of trying, I'll tell you that.
You couldn't have possibly said something less correct than if you had just lied. 'Western science is a direct result of Christianity.' Do not make me laugh. Western science has advanced *at every turn* against the will and whim of the Christian religion.
Every single advancement in science, be it in the area of physics, astronomy, or biology, has been violently attacked by Christians. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, all did their work against the will of the church. Later it was Darwin, then Einstein. All of these major contributors to science were assaulted for their views by bearers of the Bible.
The roots of Christian philosophy in fact derive partly from Platonism, a school of thought in which mystical "ideal realms" and "perfect shapes" were more important than real realms and real shapes. Part of the reason they call irrational numbers irrational was due to the prejudice by Platonists that all numbers be whole and perfect and evenly divisible. While Platonism was gaining its groundswell in Greek thought, other and more valid approches to science, including those of Sun-centered astronomer Democritus were suppressed and ridiculed.
Plato, and his buddy Aristotle, it turns out, were completely wrong about almost every subject of science they chose to take a position on. But it was Platonic philosophy and Aristotelian science that formed the basis of much of the corpus of Christian thought. Aristotle's absurd constructs of invisible spheres took up prominence as the approved model of the universe, and Plato's republic (a repulsive, obnoxious and idiotic piece of work) became the model for an ideal society. What rot.
So you'd rather believe in something you can't see, touch, or feel but comforts you, than in something you can prove definitively. I realize the world according to science may be less inviting than the comic-book fantasy of a universe created solely as a stage upon which to enact a morality play. At the end of the play, of course, you get to go offstage and everything is A-OK. It would be a drag if all this stuff was real and deadly serious.
I find it also amusing that you won't 'accept' a science that disproves articles of your faith. Reality won't budge, pal. The church wouldn't 'accept' Galileo. But for under $100 you can buy a telescope or pair of binoculars and point 'em at Jupiter. Those four satellites are still there, disproving the Church's stance that all objects must revolve around the earth. It took the Catholic church almost 400 years to officially 'accept' what any child could see with his own two eyes. I don't see that as something admirable. I see it as blind ignorance and prejudice.
Science is the art of thinking for yourself. Fundamentally, I live by the premise that not one other human being on the face of the planet is more qualified than I to judge what is real. I refuse all arguments from authority. And it's surprising how often I can prove myself to be right.
Einstein's original research into relativity was obscure and still has not provided much benefit to humanity. Relativity is a very presice tool for measuring gravitation, but for such applications as the Moon shot, normal Newtonian calculations were used, as they were simpler and precise enough for the job at hand.
However . . . Einstein's work led directly to the development of another field called Quantum Mechanics. Simply put, someone was trying to calculate the energy coming off a hot body using the theory of Relativity and determined that it was radiating energy at an infinite rate. To avoid this obviously absurd result, energy was deemed to require an individual unit of measure, called a quanta.
Quantum mechanics is now proven a valid theory three hundred and fifty million times a second in the confines of the box of my PC. EVERY transistor and semiconductor on the planet bows to the rules of Quantum mechanics. So much for useless scientific research. If you find all of this to be a big waste of time, go check into your nearest cave and spend some time re-learning how to bang the rocks together, 'cause you obviously aren't fit to enjoy the benefits of advanced science and its applications towards technology.
Science is a description of known observed quantities in the universe. Statements of scientific fact include "The sky is blue" or "The earth is round." Galileo stated that the earth was not stationary and not the center of the universe. This was held to be in contradiction to officially recieved doctrine of the church. Guess who was right?
Religion is the sum of humanity's attempt to answer questions without prior knowledge of the subjects upon which they speak. Every time a new scientific discovery is made, it paves roads into that realm of unknown. Religion gets all huffy about it and claims blasphemy is occuring.
Within one or two generations, the blasphemy is accepted by the majority of society as simple fact, and the area of discourse which religion owns is eroded. This erosion will continue until 1. Civilization destroys itself or 2. Religion's territory is so reduced that it can only claim knowledge through faith of areas that are either impossible to reach or so unimportant that the exploration isn't worth the trouble.
In other words, I expect that given the current rate of humanity's expansion of knowledge that religion will become a nonsignificant side issue within at most another 500 years. The fact that it almost already has done so continues to escape most apologists. Areas of knowledge that were the purview of mystery a mere hundred years ago are now solid verifiable fact. We know the age of the universe. We have a good estimate of its size. We have a consise physical description of its origin that appears to match very closely observed reality. We can extrapolate from that knowledge to manipulate the universe on scales large and small that were unimaginable even 100 years ago.
What you believe of the universe is irrelevant. It does not need you to exist in exactly the fashion that it has always existed. Your beliefs exist inside your head. They do not shape the universe. They do not control the evolution of its destiny. If your beliefs are such that you think the universe's laws do not apply to you, it will be a rude shock to YOU not to the universe when events do not bend themselves to your perceptions. To that, all I can say is, 'it's evolution in action.'
If an artist can sell million$ of fake recordings of themselves, but in live performance can't sell out a stadium, that ought to be an indication that their actual success is due to studio gimmicry, gloss, and marketing, not to musical talent. Dave Matthews and his band beat the shit out of most of the performing artists because unlike 98% of top 40 radio music THEY CAN PLAY THEIR INSTRUMENTS. Mp3's are the best thing to happen to music because they're going to take the hype and cash out of musical performance and start drawing people towards the real thing again. Before the invention of multi-track recordings, artists (even the Beatles) had to be able to actually play the songs that went on the records. Now it's not necessary. If the drummer can't keep time, quantize him! If the singer can't sing in tune, digitize him! If the guitar player fucks up all the time, splice him!
My take is, if they can't make music for real, fuck 'em!
You know, the effa bee eye came to my company the other day to lecture our IS dept on the dangers of cyberterrorism. Though both speakers were blithely ignorant of how computers actually worked, one of them was thoughtful enough to bring up the term Social Engineering. So I ask you, would this be a Socially Engineered DOS? Or more like 'culture jamming?'
Dude, you either have a really cool program that does these from gifs, or WAY TOO MUCH TIME on your hands, coupled with some sort of all consuming obsession. Might want to get into some type of therapy.
To hear the originals of John Williams' work, listen to Stravinski's Rite of Spring, Gustav Holst's Planets, and everything by Gustav Mahler and Ludwig Van (you know who).
The Star Wars soundtrack is a hodgepodge of ripped-off themes and motifs from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It's like a MIX101 Lite radio station of classical music. John Williams is the biggest musical plagarist of all time. He's good at it, but it's plagarism all the same. Listen to the music as the Millenium Falcon is drawn into the Death Star by tractor beam. Then listen to Mars, the first movment of Holst's planets. Sound familiar?
Your prose style blows. You have a third-grader's grasp of grammar and syntax. Sorry, writing in all lowercase was done, _once_ by e.e. cummings. Doing it again means you're an unoriginal loser.
Let's look at a key sample of your awful style: "all are executed with head shots that rip apart their meager brains and cause them to crumple into convulsing heaps lying in puddles of their own blood". Look at how hard you're trying to bring the scene to life by impressing your reader with your command of adjectives and adverbs. But you kill the line by shoving so many words into it. Ten words would have done it. After ten words into _that_ sentence, I already knew everything I needed to about it, and I skipped the rest.
Your story values are horrid. I don't mean that your subject matter is repulsive -- that's obvious. But you have no grasp of pacing or setting. You might as well begin with "It was a dark and stormy night" for all the finesse you show. Reading this tripe was like being beaten by a four-year-old with a foam rubber hammer -- it was supposed to hurt, but instead it just got on my nerves.
Do yourself a favor -- don't give up your day job. And do us all a favor, and find some other outlet for your cheesy, melodramatic crap.
Do we have to put up with dipshits like Al Gore saying they 'built' the Internet (whatever!) or are we going to start forcing the same kind of critical thinking that gets us our jobs done every day onto the political landscape?
I think with a little logic filtering, our current two-party system would be washed away entirely to be replaced by a rather less monolithic party system (let's face it, they're all the same guys). People who so clearly can't think for themselves do not belong in these positions of power. The public seems to stir and almost wake up to this every couple of years (Ross Perot, as reprehensible as he was, was a good example, and Jesse Ventura's continuing popularity despite the fact that he breaks all political rules of ass-kissing is another). One day, if we're lucky, our society will wake from its doze just long enough to get a really good splash in the face. It all depends on the ability of individuals (that's youse guys) to speak up.
Let's try the corporate mindset described herein in the context of, say, Galileo. Here's what the legal writ-of-800-lb-gorilla would read:
I, Galileo Galilei, citizen of Venice and discoverer of the four moons of Jupiter, hereby claim sole and exclusive property rights to the said Medecan Moons. Persons wishing to view the moons are required to pay license fees to myself, at the Sidereal Messenger Co., Inc, Ltd, etc. Persons taking an Unauthorized Peek at said Moons will be flogged and burnt at the stake, as is common in these times.
How far can science go when the entire basis, i.e., free exchange of ideas and information, is stifled? With no way to exchange information, scientific dialogue shuts down, and progress comes to a halt. Whether this is caused by cultural disapproval of those ideas (i.e., look up WWII Germany and the unreasoning prejudice against Einstein) or by simple greed, the effect is the same.
Einstein, by the way, believed that a physicist (and by extension, any other scientist) should give his ideas away to humanity for free. I think for that among many other reasons (Relativity) he remains the greatest scientist that has ever lived. . .
Because either you're thinking this is funny, or serious. And the more I think of it, the less serious I can imagine you being. Maybe if we used the slingshot effect to put SEVERAL SMALL MOONS into interstellar trajectories, we might have a noticable effect on the earth's orbit or rotation.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's been up that long, it's probably obsolete . . . impressive, but still obsolete.
The only problem I have with that picture, despite the absolute grotequeness of it, is that if you're trying to insult people, you usually tell them 'hey, shove it up your ass.' Whereas it is clearly intended in this picture for the giver to be saying 'Hey, shove it up MY ass.' While I can think of an extensive catalogue of objects that I'd like to shine up real nice for ya, that isn't the point. Or is it?
And though I go back from time to time and check, I have learned whilst at my place of employment to check the actual URL for every link to make sure I don't display www.goatse.cx on my screen while, for example, my boss is standing behind me. I can only imagine how many of its hits come from clueless visitors to slashdot.
You can prove that xrays exist by postulating the effect they will have on a photographic plate of film. I've got a picture of my teeth made with x-rays, in fact. You can prove that DNA exists by using tools to analyze it. And I don't just open my mouth and swallow, like it's a religion. I own a telescope. I watched comet chunks hit Jupiter. I have seen the rings of Saturn for myself. I've looked at dinosaur fossils embedded in the rock. And I believe that nuclear forces exist because of a little thing called an atom bomb.
What really floors me is this: you can't see electrons. But they're running your computer. For that matter, you cannot see the registers of your processor. As a programmer, I know these things exist, even if I can't describe to you physically what they look like. But I'll tell you the technology based on these invisible things WORKS EVERY TIME.
Another thing that I use to examine whether or not what I'm hearing is true is simple logic. If a logical proposition forces me to assume too many things that can't be proved, I discard it. Little trick called Occam's Razor.
God is a terrible theory. There are no consequences to the God theory that can be examined in real life. No footprints, loose fibers, or blood samples have been offered. There is no experiment to perform. God hasn't personally come down from wherever and spoken to me. And I don't think he's spoken to anyone else either.
Your conclusion that there is a plan shows you have an active imagination but not too much in the way of critical thinking. When I see the diversity of life and the intricacy and beauty of things I see four billion years of random events. Having sat and watched some few minutes or hours of random events, extrapolating from my incredibly tiny time window to four billion years is not very difficult.
'Just because we are not privy to this plan does not mean it doesn't exist.' Let's get the logical idiocy out of the way right now. There is NO REASON to believe in a plan. The entire structure and history of the universe can be explained as happenstance obeying the limitations of the physical laws of the universe. It may be a displeasing explanation for you, but it has one benefit over the God theory in that all the postulates of the theory are within observation We know gravity is real. Drop a pin. Duh. We know the strong and weak nuclear forces worked (we've had some experience with them in the form of atom bombs, you know) and we know that electromagnetism works. Again, without it your computer would just be a lump of sand. Those four fundamental forces can be used to trace the evolution of the universe backwards to within a fraction of a second of the instant of creation. They do so remarkably well, despite the fact that we have no pictures or records of the event. Simply put, the universe wouldn't behave as it does if events had happened differently. Sure some new phenomenon may come along and prove it all wrong -- that's what science thrives on. Newer evidence is always the most correct evidence. It's part of not making a judgement call about that which you do not know for sure.
If you ask, what was before the universe, I will say I do not know. If you tell me God must have made it, my very first question is going to be, WHO MADE GOD AND WHY? It's an important question. And it's the same question you would ask me. What is the first cause of it all? Why complicate the issue with an invisible being whose existence cannot be proven?
To get to the second, and asthetic part of my answer: Why does there have to be a plan? Is it bothering you that there may not be a reason for your existence? That you may be born, live out your life, and die, and at the end of it it was just the processing of groceries into sewage. I'd have to say that's probably what bothers people more than the scientific issues (which you've clearly shown you don't grasp). It's the meaning of it all that people want. Well I make my own meaning. I don't require some being to direct my life. I'm an adult and can direct it myself. I don't need some preacher's 'guidance' to know who and what I am.
And I think that's the problem. You want someone to be in charge. It scares the shit out of you that you may actually have to answer for your own actions. But I have to ask you if you would rather be a sock puppet. Is that what you really want?
Tell you what. I know I can find in the archives of my home library, or the internet, proof (or disproof) for whatever scientific phenomenon you choose. It may require some effort on your part to check it out. It may require several years to understand the concepts involved. Science is hard work. If you don't want to make the effort to demonstrate yourself, do not get involved in the conversation.
If you can find a convincing proof (or even compelling logic) for the existence of a divine plan, by all means email it to me. I would be most fascinated to examine such a construct. And I promise you, I'll tear it to ribbons. I'm that sure of myself. Thirty years of constant assaults have failed to convert me to Christianity. It's not for want of trying, I'll tell you that.
You couldn't have possibly said something less correct than if you had just lied. 'Western science is a direct result of Christianity.' Do not make me laugh. Western science has advanced *at every turn* against the will and whim of the Christian religion.
Every single advancement in science, be it in the area of physics, astronomy, or biology, has been violently attacked by Christians. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, all did their work against the will of the church. Later it was Darwin, then Einstein. All of these major contributors to science were assaulted for their views by bearers of the Bible.
The roots of Christian philosophy in fact derive partly from Platonism, a school of thought in which mystical "ideal realms" and "perfect shapes" were more important than real realms and real shapes. Part of the reason they call irrational numbers irrational was due to the prejudice by Platonists that all numbers be whole and perfect and evenly divisible. While Platonism was gaining its groundswell in Greek thought, other and more valid approches to science, including those of Sun-centered astronomer Democritus were suppressed and ridiculed.
Plato, and his buddy Aristotle, it turns out, were completely wrong about almost every subject of science they chose to take a position on. But it was Platonic philosophy and Aristotelian science that formed the basis of much of the corpus of Christian thought. Aristotle's absurd constructs of invisible spheres took up prominence as the approved model of the universe, and Plato's republic (a repulsive, obnoxious and idiotic piece of work) became the model for an ideal society. What rot.
So you'd rather believe in something you can't see, touch, or feel but comforts you, than in something you can prove definitively. I realize the world according to science may be less inviting than the comic-book fantasy of a universe created solely as a stage upon which to enact a morality play. At the end of the play, of course, you get to go offstage and everything is A-OK. It would be a drag if all this stuff was real and deadly serious.
I find it also amusing that you won't 'accept' a science that disproves articles of your faith. Reality won't budge, pal. The church wouldn't 'accept' Galileo. But for under $100 you can buy a telescope or pair of binoculars and point 'em at Jupiter. Those four satellites are still there, disproving the Church's stance that all objects must revolve around the earth. It took the Catholic church almost 400 years to officially 'accept' what any child could see with his own two eyes. I don't see that as something admirable. I see it as blind ignorance and prejudice.
Science is the art of thinking for yourself. Fundamentally, I live by the premise that not one other human being on the face of the planet is more qualified than I to judge what is real. I refuse all arguments from authority. And it's surprising how often I can prove myself to be right.
Einstein's original research into relativity was obscure and still has not provided much benefit to humanity. Relativity is a very presice tool for measuring gravitation, but for such applications as the Moon shot, normal Newtonian calculations were used, as they were simpler and precise enough for the job at hand.
However . . . Einstein's work led directly to the development of another field called Quantum Mechanics. Simply put, someone was trying to calculate the energy coming off a hot body using the theory of Relativity and determined that it was radiating energy at an infinite rate. To avoid this obviously absurd result, energy was deemed to require an individual unit of measure, called a quanta.
Quantum mechanics is now proven a valid theory three hundred and fifty million times a second in the confines of the box of my PC. EVERY transistor and semiconductor on the planet bows to the rules of Quantum mechanics. So much for useless scientific research. If you find all of this to be a big waste of time, go check into your nearest cave and spend some time re-learning how to bang the rocks together, 'cause you obviously aren't fit to enjoy the benefits of advanced science and its applications towards technology.
Science is a description of known observed quantities in the universe. Statements of scientific fact include "The sky is blue" or "The earth is round." Galileo stated that the earth was not stationary and not the center of the universe. This was held to be in contradiction to officially recieved doctrine of the church. Guess who was right?
Religion is the sum of humanity's attempt to answer questions without prior knowledge of the subjects upon which they speak. Every time a new scientific discovery is made, it paves roads into that realm of unknown. Religion gets all huffy about it and claims blasphemy is occuring.
Within one or two generations, the blasphemy is accepted by the majority of society as simple fact, and the area of discourse which religion owns is eroded. This erosion will continue until 1. Civilization destroys itself or 2. Religion's territory is so reduced that it can only claim knowledge through faith of areas that are either impossible to reach or so unimportant that the exploration isn't worth the trouble.
In other words, I expect that given the current rate of humanity's expansion of knowledge that religion will become a nonsignificant side issue within at most another 500 years. The fact that it almost already has done so continues to escape most apologists. Areas of knowledge that were the purview of mystery a mere hundred years ago are now solid verifiable fact. We know the age of the universe. We have a good estimate of its size. We have a consise physical description of its origin that appears to match very closely observed reality. We can extrapolate from that knowledge to manipulate the universe on scales large and small that were unimaginable even 100 years ago.
What you believe of the universe is irrelevant. It does not need you to exist in exactly the fashion that it has always existed. Your beliefs exist inside your head. They do not shape the universe. They do not control the evolution of its destiny. If your beliefs are such that you think the universe's laws do not apply to you, it will be a rude shock to YOU not to the universe when events do not bend themselves to your perceptions. To that, all I can say is, 'it's evolution in action.'
If an artist can sell million$ of fake recordings of themselves, but in live performance can't sell out a stadium, that ought to be an indication that their actual success is due to studio gimmicry, gloss, and marketing, not to musical talent. Dave Matthews and his band beat the shit out of most of the performing artists because unlike 98% of top 40 radio music THEY CAN PLAY THEIR INSTRUMENTS. Mp3's are the best thing to happen to music because they're going to take the hype and cash out of musical performance and start drawing people towards the real thing again. Before the invention of multi-track recordings, artists (even the Beatles) had to be able to actually play the songs that went on the records. Now it's not necessary. If the drummer can't keep time, quantize him! If the singer can't sing in tune, digitize him! If the guitar player fucks up all the time, splice him!
My take is, if they can't make music for real, fuck 'em!
You know, the effa bee eye came to my company the other day to lecture our IS dept on the dangers of cyberterrorism. Though both speakers were blithely ignorant of how computers actually worked, one of them was thoughtful enough to bring up the term Social Engineering. So I ask you, would this be a Socially Engineered DOS? Or more like 'culture jamming?'
Dude, you either have a really cool program that does these from gifs, or WAY TOO MUCH TIME on your hands, coupled with some sort of all consuming obsession. Might want to get into some type of therapy.
I'm sorry, is this (very tiny speck of fluff) a piece of your brain?
To hear the originals of John Williams' work, listen to Stravinski's Rite of Spring, Gustav Holst's Planets, and everything by Gustav Mahler and Ludwig Van (you know who).
The Star Wars soundtrack is a hodgepodge of ripped-off themes and motifs from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It's like a MIX101 Lite radio station of classical music. John Williams is the biggest musical plagarist of all time. He's good at it, but it's plagarism all the same. Listen to the music as the Millenium Falcon is drawn into the Death Star by tractor beam. Then listen to Mars, the first movment of Holst's planets. Sound familiar?
'nuff said.
Your prose style blows. You have a third-grader's grasp of grammar and syntax. Sorry, writing in all lowercase was done, _once_ by e.e. cummings. Doing it again means you're an unoriginal loser.
Let's look at a key sample of your awful style:
"all are executed with head shots that rip apart their meager brains and cause them to crumple into convulsing heaps lying in puddles of their own blood". Look at how hard you're trying to bring the scene to life by impressing your reader with your command of adjectives and adverbs. But you kill the line by shoving so many words into it. Ten words would have done it. After ten words into _that_ sentence, I already knew everything I needed to about it, and I skipped the rest.
Your story values are horrid. I don't mean that your subject matter is repulsive -- that's obvious. But you have no grasp of pacing or setting. You might as well begin with "It was a dark and stormy night" for all the finesse you show. Reading this tripe was like being beaten by a four-year-old with a foam rubber hammer -- it was supposed to hurt, but instead it just got on my nerves.
Do yourself a favor -- don't give up your day job. And do us all a favor, and find some other outlet for your cheesy, melodramatic crap.
Do we have to put up with dipshits like Al Gore saying they 'built' the Internet (whatever!) or are we going to start forcing the same kind of critical thinking that gets us our jobs done every day onto the political landscape?
I think with a little logic filtering, our current two-party system would be washed away entirely to be replaced by a rather less monolithic party system (let's face it, they're all the same guys). People who so clearly can't think for themselves do not belong in these positions of power. The public seems to stir and almost wake up to this every couple of years (Ross Perot, as reprehensible as he was, was a good example, and Jesse Ventura's continuing popularity despite the fact that he breaks all political rules of ass-kissing is another). One day, if we're lucky, our society will wake from its doze just long enough to get a really good splash in the face. It all depends on the ability of individuals (that's youse guys) to speak up.
Let's try the corporate mindset described herein in the context of, say, Galileo. Here's what the legal writ-of-800-lb-gorilla would read:
I, Galileo Galilei, citizen of Venice and discoverer of the four moons of Jupiter, hereby claim sole and exclusive property rights to the said Medecan Moons. Persons wishing to view the moons are required to pay license fees to myself, at the Sidereal Messenger Co., Inc, Ltd, etc. Persons taking an Unauthorized Peek at said Moons will be flogged and burnt at the stake, as is common in these times.
How far can science go when the entire basis, i.e., free exchange of ideas and information, is stifled? With no way to exchange information, scientific dialogue shuts down, and progress comes to a halt. Whether this is caused by cultural disapproval of those ideas (i.e., look up WWII Germany and the unreasoning prejudice against Einstein) or by simple greed, the effect is the same.
Einstein, by the way, believed that a physicist (and by extension, any other scientist) should give his ideas away to humanity for free. I think for that among many other reasons (Relativity) he remains the greatest scientist that has ever lived. . .
Because either you're thinking this is funny, or serious. And the more I think of it, the less serious I can imagine you being. Maybe if we used the slingshot effect to put SEVERAL SMALL MOONS into interstellar trajectories, we might have a noticable effect on the earth's orbit or rotation.