Incorrect. Politicians look for cost savings DURING THEIR TERM. As long as it looks good long enough to keep the job or help them get a promotion (alderman -> mayor -> governor -> president or whatever) they're all for it.
Well, getting rid of the right to seceed kind of has repercussions. If a state does not agree with the federal government, it would have the ability to show massive disdain by seperating from the USA. Now that the Civil War has passed, this would mean war. Against the worlds largest army.
you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen
Even if the reason is not to track citizens, it will eventually be used for it if allowed. Speed pass records have been confiscated in investigations ever since the speed pass was introduced. Do you think that the government won't subpoena records of where you've been if they deem you a threat? It's already done with credit card records, cell phone usage records, etc etc. Except in this case the ID card scanner will probably have to phone home to a central server to verify the card. Now the government won't have to go through the hassle of collecting all this data, when it's already in their hands. Allows for a lot more shuffling of locational data to make a case appear to fit (even if the data is only circumstantial.)
Granted, this data mining will probably be used MOSTLY on investigations where there is already a suspect, and this information could also be subpoenad by a defendant to prove his innocence. Basically if you feel that your government is generally benevolant, there should not be a problem with using this tech. However if you have fears that your government is moving towards more totalitarianisticor even fascist state, then you might actually has a valid reason to fear this.
I thought the Vogons looked like a cross between the "good" aliens in The Fifth Element that are wearing the clunky brass spacesuits from the opening scene in the pyramid and the Skekses from The Dark Crystal. Well, if this hybrid was wearing a wetsuit.
If anything, Adam's stuff would go into a category with Terry Pratchet. Maybe "sci-fantasy" would be an appropriate name for the genre? Ahhh... found it. Hyseterical Realism or some variant thereof.
(from chapter 11) He tapped irritably at a control panel. Trillian quietly moved his hand before he tapped anything important. Whatever Zaphod's qualities of mind might include - dash, bravado, conceit - he was mechanically inept and could easily blow the ship up with an extravagant gesture. Trillian had come to suspect that the main reason why he had had such a wild and successful life that he never really understood the significance of anything he did.
(from chapter 12) One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly was so - but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence the act. He proffered people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous. This above all appeared to Trillian to be genuinely stupid, but she could no longer be bothered to argue about it.
And a lot of the gross stupidity in the movie was due to one of Zaphod's heads (which carried half the brain) being absent. And according to the books, Zaphod had hid a lot of information from himself, which allows for a good portion of the seemingly stupid behavior.
Considering that we are friend of a friend and friend of a foe, no idea how to take this one.:)
Yes, the movie is different from the book. The book was different from the radio series. The infocom game was different from all of these. The only things that Douglas Adams wanted to remain True is that The Guide itself is there for narration and asides, and that Arthur is the quintissential british anti-hero. Aside from those, he couldn't care less as long as it made a decent story.
So if you are going in demanding that they make a retelling of the book, then yes, you are better off staying at home. If you want to see a different look on this amazing world that Adams has created (with help from Jim Henson's Creature Shop and it does indeed show if you look) and maybe get a couple of chuckles, then it may be worth seeing the movie. Oh... and if you actually enjoy enjoying movies, do not, I repeat DO NOT read reviews before going to see the movie. Most reviews seem to be done by people who are just bitter that they couldn't actually make it into the business themselves. Having read those reviews the feeling carries with you into the viewing.
Some of my favorite things were simply references to jokes in the book, such as the scintillating jewelled scuttling crabs and the chair (or was it a statue?) based on the elegant gazelle-like creatures with silken coats and dewy eyes. The old marvin costume in line at the queue. And other moerately subtle things like the thing that was so important to Zaphod that Humma took from him.
And of course the singing dolphin bit. I saw a lot of blank faces in the theatre on that.
Eh... the initial lack of interest doesn't surprise me. Go out to a bar with a towel on your shoulder and see how many wierd looks you get. Even at a really geeky bar.
Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked?
I had heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, so when I went to see it, I had somewhat low expectations, and they were very much surpassed.
I don't know how many times this has happened to me. People that love the book/comic book/whatever that a movie is based on slam the movie so much that I start to believe them a little. If I do end up going to see it, I usually end up loving it. But if a movie is hyped and hyped and hyped (I'm talking grassroots hyping here... I've pretty much learned to ignore advertising) when I go to see it I'm usually underwhelmed.
And if I go to a movie that I had heard absolutely nothing about besides "it's kinda funny, actually" or something I often end up entranced. Even if the movie isn't all that good. So I've learned to A)go on opening night B)watch a lot more "art house" style movies (except the ones trumped as "a magestic triumph of the human spirit" or something. Those are just plain boring to me. Or finally C)watch a B or C rated "horror" flick for the sheer mind-numbing entertainment.
Not hanging around movie sites when I want to see a movie helps me enjoy movies much more. So does (Uh oh... have I just become that guy?) not really watching TV on a regular basis.
Watching the previews, Marvin was my biggest concern. That concern ended up not panning out,,, he fit in pretty well. I'd say just put aside your preconceptions and go watch a movie. There are enough of the little things added that only a Hitchiker's afficiondo would appreciate to make it worth your time. Just don't get stuck up in the "Well, they did it different in the book" trap. This is alot easier to do if you realize that Douglas Adams never intended for previous works to be Canon. He's just telling a story. It has to be altered a bit here and there to allow for different mediums, so while some of the old gems are lost, new things show up.
Synopsis sans spoiler: while I didn't bust a gut laughing, I did laugh out loud in the theatre. That's alot more than I can say for just about any other "comedy" I've seen in a while.
Somehow I could see people actually listening to the traffic alerts if they paid for the box to give them alerts moreso than if their taxes paid for a sign or radio broadcast.
Hmm... maybe we could eventually implement a system to allow for timeshifting traffic rather than spatial shifting. Reward people for driving in off peak hours (or rather penalize for driving in peak hours) such as higher tolls during rush hour in places that already have tolls. Reward companies that offer more flexible scheduling. Schedule semis/other large trucks to avoid rush hour traffic. Dynamic planning of delivery routes which incorporates traffic flow information. This would, however, take a lot more sociological engineering than a box that says "I recommend that you take a right at the next exit."
No doubt. My roomate makes video games. A while back we were camping with a group of people. As he looked intensely to the fire, he suddenly got a disturbed look on his face. Then he told us why: for a couple long moments he was trying to figure out the framerate.
non-lethal weapons would be loaded with lethal ammunition.
Nice. Although I have noticed that it's usually not so much city planners that cause problems, but either A)a lack of planning or B)their advice being ignored by those with power. Although I'm sure there are some really bad urban planners out there.
I'd say that's four steps, with turn signals and not cutting people off being separate. However I guess they really could be lumped into one group of "learn how to use lanes" which I think is my biggest pet peeve. I guess this rant is more directed at freeway traffic, so stop signs and lights aren't that big of an issue.
The major points are:
-Find a lane and stick with it. Weaving in and out of lanes to get a car ahead almost never actually moves you ahead in traffic, and is a big part of why there is congestion in the first place. The major exception is in using the left, or passing lane. Use it when the person in front of you is going slower than what you are comfortable with. Get out of it when someone is coming up on your tail. -Get into the lane you need to be in as soon as is reasonably safe. Don't swerve over four lanes of traffic to barely make your exit. It's annoying, dangerous, stressful and just plain dumb. -Learn how to merge and switch lanes: if one car goes at a time from each lane/ramp merging, traffic fits together like a zipper and can move smoothly. If people keep nosing in, traffic comes to a halt and accidents ensue. Using a turn signal and actually looking is a definate prerequisite. And if someone wants to merge into the opening in front of you (You do have a big enough gap, right? more on this later) let them. There's a good chance that they'll be switching over to the next lane or exit soon anyways.
Notes to traffic engineers (I bet there's a couple of slashdot):
-Left lanes are PASSING LANES. They are NOT on/off ramps. That's what the right lane is for. If there isn't enough room to fit the ramp on the right, maybe a ramp isn't needed there.
-Merging traffic needs time to actually merge. Two or three car lengths is NOT enough space to effectively merge into.
Notes on tailgating:
-Stop it already. Creeping up on the person in front of you will not get them to go any faster. I repeat, it will not get them to go any faster. I see the person being tailgated slow down more often than speed up or get out of the way. Tailgating also actually gets you through SLOWER than not tailgating. If the person in front of you makes a minor speed adjustment, you need time to compensate. If you are tailgating, a minor slowdown on a curve or from being cut of means you end up stomping on the breaks. That means the person behind you has to step on the breaks harder... eventually someone can't stop in time. You aren't getting yourself where you want to go any faster, you're just tying up traffic, being a hazard, and stressing yourself out.
-If you are the one being tailgated, ask yourself, are you in the passing lane? If yes, get out of the way. I'd rather have that asshole in front of me where I can see him and react (Because I leave enough room that I KNOW I can react) than behind me where I have no control over the situation and what he'll do. Chances are he'll end up passing you on the right and cutting you off anyways.
And wherever you are: give right of way to emergency vehicles. It should be common sense and common decency, but it doesn't seem to be a common act. If the lights and siren are going, that means there is AN EMERGENCY
But, I guess I really didn't say much new from what you said, just kinda expounded on basically the same things.
I remember hearing somewhere that rubbernecking is the NUMBER ONE cause of accidents. Although that may have been distractions was the number one cause, of which rubbernecking was a majore part of that group. Right now I can't find a good listing with actual numbers to confirm this, though.
One potential flaw with this reasoning is that the 50 minutes to get there and 50 minutes to get back does not have to be wasted time in a well organized system. Take care of some reading or light paperwork. Work out a problem that you have. This would take a slight improvement on the technology as I doubt the current American train or bus is the best place for studying/reading/working, but the concept is there. If you are driving those 15 minutes each way pretty much HAVE to be spent driving.
And increasing the ridership of mass transit would allow for funding to make it more efficient, but this does take a certain population density. Take New York City or London, where the subway/tube is often the quickest way around town.
There is a bigger problem in the U.S. than just the volume of the trains: a perceived problem that mass transit will allow the unwashed masses out into the suburbs. In many metropolitan areas the urban core pushes for mass transit alternatives, while the suburbs push for more freeway. I'll give you two guesses which group usually has more political clout when it comes to regional transportation planning.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Politicians look for cost savings DURING THEIR TERM. As long as it looks good long enough to keep the job or help them get a promotion (alderman -> mayor -> governor -> president or whatever) they're all for it.
Well, getting rid of the right to seceed kind of has repercussions. If a state does not agree with the federal government, it would have the ability to show massive disdain by seperating from the USA. Now that the Civil War has passed, this would mean war. Against the worlds largest army.
you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen
Even if the reason is not to track citizens, it will eventually be used for it if allowed. Speed pass records have been confiscated in investigations ever since the speed pass was introduced. Do you think that the government won't subpoena records of where you've been if they deem you a threat? It's already done with credit card records, cell phone usage records, etc etc. Except in this case the ID card scanner will probably have to phone home to a central server to verify the card. Now the government won't have to go through the hassle of collecting all this data, when it's already in their hands. Allows for a lot more shuffling of locational data to make a case appear to fit (even if the data is only circumstantial.)
Granted, this data mining will probably be used MOSTLY on investigations where there is already a suspect, and this information could also be subpoenad by a defendant to prove his innocence. Basically if you feel that your government is generally benevolant, there should not be a problem with using this tech. However if you have fears that your government is moving towards more totalitarianisticor even fascist state, then you might actually has a valid reason to fear this.
If they outlaw those devices, I'm pretty sure the good old microwave oven would do the job.
I thought the Vogons looked like a cross between the "good" aliens in The Fifth Element that are wearing the clunky brass spacesuits from the opening scene in the pyramid and the Skekses from The Dark Crystal. Well, if this hybrid was wearing a wetsuit.
H2G2 looks less menacing than HHGG?
I actually thought that was clever. The largest slapstick scene in the movie was them getting hit with, well, slapsticks. Very DNA.
If anything, Adam's stuff would go into a category with Terry Pratchet. Maybe "sci-fantasy" would be an appropriate name for the genre? Ahhh... found it. Hyseterical Realism or some variant thereof.
Not really...
(from chapter 11) He tapped irritably at a control panel. Trillian quietly moved his hand before he tapped anything important. Whatever Zaphod's qualities of mind might include - dash, bravado, conceit - he was mechanically inept and could easily blow the ship up with an extravagant gesture. Trillian had come to suspect that the main reason why he had had such a wild and successful life that he never really understood the significance of anything he did.
(from chapter 12) One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn't understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly was so - but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence the act. He proffered people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous. This above all appeared to Trillian to be genuinely stupid, but she could no longer be bothered to argue about it.
And a lot of the gross stupidity in the movie was due to one of Zaphod's heads (which carried half the brain) being absent. And according to the books, Zaphod had hid a lot of information from himself, which allows for a good portion of the seemingly stupid behavior.
Or just wait for the extended version to be released on DVD.
Considering that we are friend of a friend and friend of a foe, no idea how to take this one. :)
Yes, the movie is different from the book. The book was different from the radio series. The infocom game was different from all of these. The only things that Douglas Adams wanted to remain True is that The Guide itself is there for narration and asides, and that Arthur is the quintissential british anti-hero. Aside from those, he couldn't care less as long as it made a decent story.
So if you are going in demanding that they make a retelling of the book, then yes, you are better off staying at home. If you want to see a different look on this amazing world that Adams has created (with help from Jim Henson's Creature Shop and it does indeed show if you look) and maybe get a couple of chuckles, then it may be worth seeing the movie. Oh... and if you actually enjoy enjoying movies, do not, I repeat DO NOT read reviews before going to see the movie. Most reviews seem to be done by people who are just bitter that they couldn't actually make it into the business themselves. Having read those reviews the feeling carries with you into the viewing.
The army of battleships eaten by a small dog
Didn't stay for the credits I take it?
Possible slight spoilers
Some of my favorite things were simply references to jokes in the book, such as the scintillating jewelled scuttling crabs and the chair (or was it a statue?) based on the elegant gazelle-like creatures with silken coats and dewy eyes. The old marvin costume in line at the queue. And other moerately subtle things like the thing that was so important to Zaphod that Humma took from him.
And of course the singing dolphin bit. I saw a lot of blank faces in the theatre on that.
Eh... the initial lack of interest doesn't surprise me. Go out to a bar with a towel on your shoulder and see how many wierd looks you get. Even at a really geeky bar.
Also, in the credits, the BBC is thanked for providing the original Marvin suit from the TV series. I haven't watched the series yet, but is that how Marvin looked?
It's the robot standing in line on Vogosphere.
I had heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie, so when I went to see it, I had somewhat low expectations, and they were very much surpassed.
I don't know how many times this has happened to me. People that love the book/comic book/whatever that a movie is based on slam the movie so much that I start to believe them a little. If I do end up going to see it, I usually end up loving it. But if a movie is hyped and hyped and hyped (I'm talking grassroots hyping here... I've pretty much learned to ignore advertising) when I go to see it I'm usually underwhelmed.
And if I go to a movie that I had heard absolutely nothing about besides "it's kinda funny, actually" or something I often end up entranced. Even if the movie isn't all that good. So I've learned to A)go on opening night B)watch a lot more "art house" style movies (except the ones trumped as "a magestic triumph of the human spirit" or something. Those are just plain boring to me. Or finally C)watch a B or C rated "horror" flick for the sheer mind-numbing entertainment.
Not hanging around movie sites when I want to see a movie helps me enjoy movies much more. So does (Uh oh... have I just become that guy?) not really watching TV on a regular basis.
First off, I was there with towel on shoulder...
Watching the previews, Marvin was my biggest concern. That concern ended up not panning out,,, he fit in pretty well. I'd say just put aside your preconceptions and go watch a movie. There are enough of the little things added that only a Hitchiker's afficiondo would appreciate to make it worth your time. Just don't get stuck up in the "Well, they did it different in the book" trap. This is alot easier to do if you realize that Douglas Adams never intended for previous works to be Canon. He's just telling a story. It has to be altered a bit here and there to allow for different mediums, so while some of the old gems are lost, new things show up.
Synopsis sans spoiler: while I didn't bust a gut laughing, I did laugh out loud in the theatre. That's alot more than I can say for just about any other "comedy" I've seen in a while.
Somehow I could see people actually listening to the traffic alerts if they paid for the box to give them alerts moreso than if their taxes paid for a sign or radio broadcast.
Hmm... maybe we could eventually implement a system to allow for timeshifting traffic rather than spatial shifting. Reward people for driving in off peak hours (or rather penalize for driving in peak hours) such as higher tolls during rush hour in places that already have tolls. Reward companies that offer more flexible scheduling. Schedule semis/other large trucks to avoid rush hour traffic. Dynamic planning of delivery routes which incorporates traffic flow information. This would, however, take a lot more sociological engineering than a box that says "I recommend that you take a right at the next exit."
No doubt. My roomate makes video games. A while back we were camping with a group of people. As he looked intensely to the fire, he suddenly got a disturbed look on his face. Then he told us why: for a couple long moments he was trying to figure out the framerate.
non-lethal weapons would be loaded with lethal ammunition.
Nice. Although I have noticed that it's usually not so much city planners that cause problems, but either A)a lack of planning or B)their advice being ignored by those with power. Although I'm sure there are some really bad urban planners out there.
I'd say that's four steps, with turn signals and not cutting people off being separate. However I guess they really could be lumped into one group of "learn how to use lanes" which I think is my biggest pet peeve. I guess this rant is more directed at freeway traffic, so stop signs and lights aren't that big of an issue.
The major points are:
-Find a lane and stick with it. Weaving in and out of lanes to get a car ahead almost never actually moves you ahead in traffic, and is a big part of why there is congestion in the first place. The major exception is in using the left, or passing lane. Use it when the person in front of you is going slower than what you are comfortable with. Get out of it when someone is coming up on your tail.
-Get into the lane you need to be in as soon as is reasonably safe. Don't swerve over four lanes of traffic to barely make your exit. It's annoying, dangerous, stressful and just plain dumb.
-Learn how to merge and switch lanes: if one car goes at a time from each lane/ramp merging, traffic fits together like a zipper and can move smoothly. If people keep nosing in, traffic comes to a halt and accidents ensue. Using a turn signal and actually looking is a definate prerequisite. And if someone wants to merge into the opening in front of you (You do have a big enough gap, right? more on this later) let them. There's a good chance that they'll be switching over to the next lane or exit soon anyways.
Notes to traffic engineers (I bet there's a couple of slashdot):
-Left lanes are PASSING LANES. They are NOT on/off ramps. That's what the right lane is for. If there isn't enough room to fit the ramp on the right, maybe a ramp isn't needed there.
-Merging traffic needs time to actually merge. Two or three car lengths is NOT enough space to effectively merge into.
Notes on tailgating:
-Stop it already. Creeping up on the person in front of you will not get them to go any faster. I repeat, it will not get them to go any faster. I see the person being tailgated slow down more often than speed up or get out of the way. Tailgating also actually gets you through SLOWER than not tailgating. If the person in front of you makes a minor speed adjustment, you need time to compensate. If you are tailgating, a minor slowdown on a curve or from being cut of means you end up stomping on the breaks. That means the person behind you has to step on the breaks harder... eventually someone can't stop in time. You aren't getting yourself where you want to go any faster, you're just tying up traffic, being a hazard, and stressing yourself out.
-If you are the one being tailgated, ask yourself, are you in the passing lane? If yes, get out of the way. I'd rather have that asshole in front of me where I can see him and react (Because I leave enough room that I KNOW I can react) than behind me where I have no control over the situation and what he'll do. Chances are he'll end up passing you on the right and cutting you off anyways.
And wherever you are: give right of way to emergency vehicles. It should be common sense and common decency, but it doesn't seem to be a common act. If the lights and siren are going, that means there is AN EMERGENCY
But, I guess I really didn't say much new from what you said, just kinda expounded on basically the same things.
I remember hearing somewhere that rubbernecking is the NUMBER ONE cause of accidents. Although that may have been distractions was the number one cause, of which rubbernecking was a majore part of that group. Right now I can't find a good listing with actual numbers to confirm this, though.
One potential flaw with this reasoning is that the 50 minutes to get there and 50 minutes to get back does not have to be wasted time in a well organized system. Take care of some reading or light paperwork. Work out a problem that you have. This would take a slight improvement on the technology as I doubt the current American train or bus is the best place for studying/reading/working, but the concept is there. If you are driving those 15 minutes each way pretty much HAVE to be spent driving.
And increasing the ridership of mass transit would allow for funding to make it more efficient, but this does take a certain population density. Take New York City or London, where the subway/tube is often the quickest way around town.
There is a bigger problem in the U.S. than just the volume of the trains: a perceived problem that mass transit will allow the unwashed masses out into the suburbs. In many metropolitan areas the urban core pushes for mass transit alternatives, while the suburbs push for more freeway. I'll give you two guesses which group usually has more political clout when it comes to regional transportation planning.