Utterly useless movie, a total waste of huge amounts of money, and it created a precendent for the resulting chain of awful movies and serial spinoffs we endure to this day (Wrath of Khan excepted) James Kirk and his geriatric crew never looked worse.
seeing as any direct-laser weapon would need a HUGE set of batteries, probably more than the truck. Whereas laser-guided rockets are spec, maybe it's a typo.
One of the things that cries out in this story is an explanation from the NASA scientists: why their apparent "mystery force" which can be detected on spacecraft a few billion kilometres away is not noticed in Doppler and gravity observations of bodies billions of light-years apart, on the galactic scale.. a new type of force, one that doesn't work on the micrososmic or macrocosmic scale, but sort of "in the middle"? Doppler observations led to the discovery of the expansion of the universe, and since then a very accurate figure for that expansion. Why have no astronomers ever reported such findings?
Sorry, but lately whenever I see "NASA scientists" being quoted my heart sinks. They are becoming well known for launching half-baked ideas into the mediasphere (life on Mars, etc.)This looks like another.
As usual, you're just throwing up any old movie or book review you can think of, whether it's timely or relevant or not. Usually Not. As far as Slashdot "asking you", how does that work? "Hey, Jon, can you turn out another of those hyperventilated, school-boy assesments of something at least several months out of date?"
I agree with the poster, you should stick such stuff somewhere else instead .
I'm sure the church of scientology would call Germany's stance "religious intolerence" but that's their game, isn't it? In fact this action is after a looong invetsigation into the CoS, which has been found clearly on the wrong side of the law. Modern Germany has Christians of all ilk, many many Muslims from immigration and the refugee crisis, athiests, pagans no doubt, and a remaining small Jewish population, whose religious beliefs and human rights are fully protected. But Germany has decided that the CoS is a cyncical cult and ought to be suppressed. Presumably if CoS restricted itself to religious practices, then there wouldn't be a problem. Render unto Ceaser all that is Ceasers.
the reason Germany is so tough on cults like Scientology is because of the suffering wrought by said Austrian ex-colonel, on the German people and the whole world. Consequently, instead of allowing dangerous, brainwashing religions to flourish under the sort of blanket coverage provided by the US consitution, they're seeking to protect weak-willed citizens from the cult leaders and themselves. Reverse the situation: if you found that part of your operating system was developed by an avowed neo-Nazi, what would you do?
BTW, a discrimination lawsuit? In which country's courts are you gonna bring that in? What makes Americans think that their legal system is global? Thank Ghod, it's not.
All the sympathetic characters die without resolution of the plot. One bit-character survives by simply staying alive until everyone else is dead. the Mind doesn't count as a character, it's a prop.
And where are people getting the idea that IMB sf ideas are so "new?" There wasn't a single provocative idea in Phebus, which is what sf is really about. Spaceships and laser-weilding mercenaries are just dressing. The Culture is quite cool, but, hey, not actually very novel. Ask your local librarian for a long list of books in the last 300 years that have addressed Utopian ideas.
said treaties were engineered by the US President (thanks, Bill) and foisted on the world without mandate by other world leaders. It seems internet law is being made in the United States and exported through gullible stooges like the UKs Tony Blair. Only off-shore piracy will save us.
If everything rumoured to be included in the x-box turns out to be true, how is anyone going to afford it.. or even find room for it near their television set. Really I think the X-box idea sucks - a too-late entry into a now established market. And who do you know running Microsoft HARDWARE? Why should it be any better than their software, and if it isn't, who'd want to buy it?
see here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2000/mar29/quantu m.html
That used NMR to measure the quantum spin of atoms in molecules of a liquid. The same information is stored in all molecules of the liquid, and read by measuring the quantum spin of the liquid as a whole (a form of signal amplification).
Incidently, the more atoms you can use in a molecule, the more qubits you get. Consequently, caffiene (which has a bunch of suitable atoms in its molecule) may be the quantum memory of the future (insert ironic note here).
or it will be if the allegations of espionage are verified. Thanks to US willingness to invoke WTO regulations and charge penalties for Europe's just support of carribean banana farmers, the game is hotting up. United, even only economically, Europe now has plenty of stick to make the Boss of the World take note. As well, and this is unfortunate, there's an almost bigoted suspicion of America's intentions inside Europe, and plenty of people/lawyers/officials willing to "take up arms" against the US. If these allegations prove true it will only verify what a lot of Europeans have belived a long time: that you can't trust Uncle Sam.
my post did say that ESR treated the UI as an ad-on, and I stand by that as this matches his reported comments. I'm aware the UI is a layer over "lower" os layers (both Mac Aqua and Gnome (which i think is a good idea, not as you posted) but your assumption is that overall usability of the OS should be determined by the lowest level of the OS, the kernal. I'd respond that a full OS works in both directions, to bring the users and the kernel/system closer together. A system that build from the kernal up to a difficult to understand (ie poor UI) level that can only be worked by people with extreme technical experience has only done half the job. So Mac OsX when it comes out (concerns about details of the Aqua interface aside) supposes to be just that : An open source kernel of known reliability; (hopefully) transparent middle system layers developed by apple's proprietary experience of OSS; and the (also prop.) Aqua UI, developed from apples own experience and decades of mac user involvement. That it's not out yet is (for a change) hardly relevant. If Apple hadn't made any efforts in this direction, then ESRs reported comments would have made more sense. As it is, he sounds like he didn't know OsX was coming.
..with current mac developments, according to most of the reactions I've read to his talk. His comments to the effect that, Macs have good GUIs but need a better OS seem uninformed given the state of OsX development.. I think the negative reaction came from Mac developers who are well ahead in their OsX development who didn't appreciate being told to suck eggs by someone who hadn't done their homework. As well, Raymond's discounting the idea of the GUI as just a nice widget for users comes across as ignorant; the Mac interface (which followed PARC and led Windows) has set the standard for usability, which should be the FIRST priority of an OS, not just an add-on (with respect to projects like GNOME). It may be that the windows and mouse interface needs a replacement (i think so) and maybe the OsX Aqua interface goes some way to a rethink; maybe not. I prefer something like touch screens still, over voice access (i can type a CLI about ten times faster thanit would take to to explain it), but how do you deal with the messy fingerprints?
it needs binocular vision to fit its "human environment" design brief, but why can't its hearing be tweaked to make up for the defficiency? Humans who have limited sight may compensate with other senses, so it would still be ok conceptually. but presumably untrasonic sonar could give a complete 3d image of the room, and possible info about surfaces, densities, maybe even the velocities of moving objects..
I also failed in my heroic quest to read Red Mars. I left off when i noticed all the psudo mythology stuff starting, about page 50. But Antarctica is grear, really. I grew up in Christchurch New Zealand, the jumping off point for NZ and US trips to Antarctica, so we learned a lot about it in school. KSR went down as a visiting writer, and the book brings out the impact how the environment and landscape affect people personally, which (I understand) was part of what he was getting at in the bit of Red Mars he was talking about. But I liked the characters a WHOLE lot more in Antarctica. There's still a load of heavy progressive political discussions on almost every relevent topic, but even they can be rewarding; I was gripped by an explanation of the discovery of a fossilised frog. But there's also some good action, including a flotilla of ecowarriors who travel anrtarctic storms in minaturised airships, or the stricken tourist team recreating the Worst Journey in the World, a remote ice trek.
for torpedoing carter's programme to adopt metrics? that's why NASA and the whole US works with such an antiquated system of measurement. Or should we blame the electorate who voted him in?
Re:I think you're being more than fair
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
some fair points, but: I didn't say you had to surrender to a political agenda to be a christian, i said that many religious people (of all faiths) do that. 2. Importantly, scientists who don't understand the beggining of the universe do not believe that it "just happened". The correct scientific stance would be that the answer is as yet unknown. But it may become known, and there are many possibilities, apart from God and No Reason At All, that may turn out to be the truth if its ever found. The idea that you have to believe in god because there's no good alternative is simply stupid, sorry.
You we're doing alright until your last paragraph. Your perception of what appears to be designed is based on an anthropic viewpoint; it's an explanation of complex things for which you don't yet have an other explanation.
your argument is contradictory
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Proof of the miraculous would presumably mean the scientific proof that something was miraculous, and therefore, so proved, it would be no longer miraculous, but scientific. QED. A caveman who somehow slept twenty-thousand years (now there's a miracle) and witnessed a modern miracle would see it as miraculous, until someone explained to him how it worked.Sceintific proof that there is a God may in fact someday be forthcoming, but it looks increasingly unlikely. BTW, for a good study on miracles check out the development of the Fatima myth as applied recently to the Pope. A miracle, or a cyncical PR move? you decide.
I think you're being more than fair
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
You hit the nail when you point out that inherent "knowledge gap" in science is exploited by the religious to push their essentially politcal platforms. Regardless of how much human science can find out over whatever time we continue to exist, there will always be a vast amount "unknown." But science proceeds by reason and logic to discover more. Religions do not do this, and some discourage it. A tenet of Christainity is that "proof denies faith" and Pope JPII recently called apon young people to follow the Path of Faith, rather than the path of Reason, because it was deceptive. I do not dispute the personal intensity of anyone's faith but I often dispute what their faith requires them to believe. Many of the religious surender their personalities to the political and social programs fostered by churches and religions and cults. God alone knows ther answer. Communist anti-religious programmes? A government watchdog on religious teachings? Wow, I pity you Americans.
Thanks for the review, I'll avoid it
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
For a start, if it's actually worse than The Sparrow I'm staying well away. That was a mawkish, niave and embarrasing book ("The Jesuits [went into space] for the reason they always went anywhere: the Greater Glory of God" Excuse me, but that's a pile of crap.) This sounds much the same. The central premise, that the alien races survived the precise environmental conditions to create intellegence is so farcical it must invalidate any conclusion. Literary and Sf authors have debating the existance of God since the dawn of both genres, with mixed reasults, some fantastic (Do Androids Dream.. is one) But, this sounds like a theoligical version of that awful philospohical turkey, Sophie's World.
Slashdot Mirror
Utterly useless movie, a total waste of huge amounts of money, and it created a precendent for the resulting chain of awful movies and serial spinoffs we endure to this day (Wrath of Khan excepted) James Kirk and his geriatric crew never looked worse.
seeing as any direct-laser weapon would need a HUGE set of batteries, probably more than the truck. Whereas laser-guided rockets are spec, maybe it's a typo.
One of the things that cries out in this story is an explanation from the NASA scientists: why their apparent "mystery force" which can be detected on spacecraft a few billion kilometres away is not noticed in Doppler and gravity observations of bodies billions of light-years apart, on the galactic scale.. a new type of force, one that doesn't work on the micrososmic or macrocosmic scale, but sort of "in the middle"? Doppler observations led to the discovery of the expansion of the universe, and since then a very accurate figure for that expansion. Why have no astronomers ever reported such findings? Sorry, but lately whenever I see "NASA scientists" being quoted my heart sinks. They are becoming well known for launching half-baked ideas into the mediasphere (life on Mars, etc.)This looks like another.
As usual, you're just throwing up any old movie or book review you can think of, whether it's timely or relevant or not. Usually Not. As far as Slashdot "asking you", how does that work? "Hey, Jon, can you turn out another of those hyperventilated, school-boy assesments of something at least several months out of date?" I agree with the poster, you should stick such stuff somewhere else instead .
shut up bitch
I'm sure the church of scientology would call Germany's stance "religious intolerence" but that's their game, isn't it? In fact this action is after a looong invetsigation into the CoS, which has been found clearly on the wrong side of the law. Modern Germany has Christians of all ilk, many many Muslims from immigration and the refugee crisis, athiests, pagans no doubt, and a remaining small Jewish population, whose religious beliefs and human rights are fully protected. But Germany has decided that the CoS is a cyncical cult and ought to be suppressed. Presumably if CoS restricted itself to religious practices, then there wouldn't be a problem. Render unto Ceaser all that is Ceasers.
the reason Germany is so tough on cults like Scientology is because of the suffering wrought by said Austrian ex-colonel, on the German people and the whole world. Consequently, instead of allowing dangerous, brainwashing religions to flourish under the sort of blanket coverage provided by the US consitution, they're seeking to protect weak-willed citizens from the cult leaders and themselves. Reverse the situation: if you found that part of your operating system was developed by an avowed neo-Nazi, what would you do? BTW, a discrimination lawsuit? In which country's courts are you gonna bring that in? What makes Americans think that their legal system is global? Thank Ghod, it's not.
All the sympathetic characters die without resolution of the plot. One bit-character survives by simply staying alive until everyone else is dead. the Mind doesn't count as a character, it's a prop. And where are people getting the idea that IMB sf ideas are so "new?" There wasn't a single provocative idea in Phebus, which is what sf is really about. Spaceships and laser-weilding mercenaries are just dressing. The Culture is quite cool, but, hey, not actually very novel. Ask your local librarian for a long list of books in the last 300 years that have addressed Utopian ideas.
aren't you afraid you might offend someone?
said treaties were engineered by the US President (thanks, Bill) and foisted on the world without mandate by other world leaders. It seems internet law is being made in the United States and exported through gullible stooges like the UKs Tony Blair. Only off-shore piracy will save us.
If everything rumoured to be included in the x-box turns out to be true, how is anyone going to afford it.. or even find room for it near their television set. Really I think the X-box idea sucks - a too-late entry into a now established market. And who do you know running Microsoft HARDWARE? Why should it be any better than their software, and if it isn't, who'd want to buy it?
..where microsofts IE5, although excellent, could use more competition (netscape ain't it, and icab, maybe soon..) btw, isn't unbloated a great word?
see here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2000/mar29/quantu m.html
That used NMR to measure the quantum spin of atoms in molecules of a liquid. The same information is stored in all molecules of the liquid, and read by measuring the quantum spin of the liquid as a whole (a form of signal amplification).
Incidently, the more atoms you can use in a molecule, the more qubits you get. Consequently, caffiene (which has a bunch of suitable atoms in its molecule) may be the quantum memory of the future (insert ironic note here).
or it will be if the allegations of espionage are verified. Thanks to US willingness to invoke WTO regulations and charge penalties for Europe's just support of carribean banana farmers, the game is hotting up. United, even only economically, Europe now has plenty of stick to make the Boss of the World take note. As well, and this is unfortunate, there's an almost bigoted suspicion of America's intentions inside Europe, and plenty of people/lawyers/officials willing to "take up arms" against the US. If these allegations prove true it will only verify what a lot of Europeans have belived a long time: that you can't trust Uncle Sam.
my post did say that ESR treated the UI as an ad-on, and I stand by that as this matches his reported comments. I'm aware the UI is a layer over "lower" os layers (both Mac Aqua and Gnome (which i think is a good idea, not as you posted) but your assumption is that overall usability of the OS should be determined by the lowest level of the OS, the kernal. I'd respond that a full OS works in both directions, to bring the users and the kernel/system closer together. A system that build from the kernal up to a difficult to understand (ie poor UI) level that can only be worked by people with extreme technical experience has only done half the job. So Mac OsX when it comes out (concerns about details of the Aqua interface aside) supposes to be just that : An open source kernel of known reliability; (hopefully) transparent middle system layers developed by apple's proprietary experience of OSS; and the (also prop.) Aqua UI, developed from apples own experience and decades of mac user involvement. That it's not out yet is (for a change) hardly relevant. If Apple hadn't made any efforts in this direction, then ESRs reported comments would have made more sense. As it is, he sounds like he didn't know OsX was coming.
..with current mac developments, according to most of the reactions I've read to his talk. His comments to the effect that, Macs have good GUIs but need a better OS seem uninformed given the state of OsX development.. I think the negative reaction came from Mac developers who are well ahead in their OsX development who didn't appreciate being told to suck eggs by someone who hadn't done their homework. As well, Raymond's discounting the idea of the GUI as just a nice widget for users comes across as ignorant; the Mac interface (which followed PARC and led Windows) has set the standard for usability, which should be the FIRST priority of an OS, not just an add-on (with respect to projects like GNOME). It may be that the windows and mouse interface needs a replacement (i think so) and maybe the OsX Aqua interface goes some way to a rethink; maybe not. I prefer something like touch screens still, over voice access (i can type a CLI about ten times faster thanit would take to to explain it), but how do you deal with the messy fingerprints?
it needs binocular vision to fit its "human environment" design brief, but why can't its hearing be tweaked to make up for the defficiency? Humans who have limited sight may compensate with other senses, so it would still be ok conceptually. but presumably untrasonic sonar could give a complete 3d image of the room, and possible info about surfaces, densities, maybe even the velocities of moving objects..
I also failed in my heroic quest to read Red Mars. I left off when i noticed all the psudo mythology stuff starting, about page 50. But Antarctica is grear, really. I grew up in Christchurch New Zealand, the jumping off point for NZ and US trips to Antarctica, so we learned a lot about it in school. KSR went down as a visiting writer, and the book brings out the impact how the environment and landscape affect people personally, which (I understand) was part of what he was getting at in the bit of Red Mars he was talking about. But I liked the characters a WHOLE lot more in Antarctica. There's still a load of heavy progressive political discussions on almost every relevent topic, but even they can be rewarding; I was gripped by an explanation of the discovery of a fossilised frog. But there's also some good action, including a flotilla of ecowarriors who travel anrtarctic storms in minaturised airships, or the stricken tourist team recreating the Worst Journey in the World, a remote ice trek.
for torpedoing carter's programme to adopt metrics? that's why NASA and the whole US works with such an antiquated system of measurement. Or should we blame the electorate who voted him in?
some fair points, but: I didn't say you had to surrender to a political agenda to be a christian, i said that many religious people (of all faiths) do that. 2. Importantly, scientists who don't understand the beggining of the universe do not believe that it "just happened". The correct scientific stance would be that the answer is as yet unknown. But it may become known, and there are many possibilities, apart from God and No Reason At All, that may turn out to be the truth if its ever found. The idea that you have to believe in god because there's no good alternative is simply stupid, sorry.
You we're doing alright until your last paragraph. Your perception of what appears to be designed is based on an anthropic viewpoint; it's an explanation of complex things for which you don't yet have an other explanation.
Proof of the miraculous would presumably mean the scientific proof that something was miraculous, and therefore, so proved, it would be no longer miraculous, but scientific. QED. A caveman who somehow slept twenty-thousand years (now there's a miracle) and witnessed a modern miracle would see it as miraculous, until someone explained to him how it worked.Sceintific proof that there is a God may in fact someday be forthcoming, but it looks increasingly unlikely. BTW, for a good study on miracles check out the development of the Fatima myth as applied recently to the Pope. A miracle, or a cyncical PR move? you decide.
You hit the nail when you point out that inherent "knowledge gap" in science is exploited by the religious to push their essentially politcal platforms. Regardless of how much human science can find out over whatever time we continue to exist, there will always be a vast amount "unknown." But science proceeds by reason and logic to discover more. Religions do not do this, and some discourage it. A tenet of Christainity is that "proof denies faith" and Pope JPII recently called apon young people to follow the Path of Faith, rather than the path of Reason, because it was deceptive. I do not dispute the personal intensity of anyone's faith but I often dispute what their faith requires them to believe. Many of the religious surender their personalities to the political and social programs fostered by churches and religions and cults. God alone knows ther answer. Communist anti-religious programmes? A government watchdog on religious teachings? Wow, I pity you Americans.
For a start, if it's actually worse than The Sparrow I'm staying well away. That was a mawkish, niave and embarrasing book ("The Jesuits [went into space] for the reason they always went anywhere: the Greater Glory of God" Excuse me, but that's a pile of crap.) This sounds much the same. The central premise, that the alien races survived the precise environmental conditions to create intellegence is so farcical it must invalidate any conclusion. Literary and Sf authors have debating the existance of God since the dawn of both genres, with mixed reasults, some fantastic (Do Androids Dream.. is one) But, this sounds like a theoligical version of that awful philospohical turkey, Sophie's World.