I agree with you also. In my idealistic mind, I would love to see heavy government investment into the university system.
Do the universities really require more special treatment from the governments? Isn't it funny how universities are about the only institutions around that aren't taxed, can raise prices every single year (no matter inflation, deflation or the state of the economy-- and yet also beg for money to be donated while sitting on in many cases billions of dollars), and the real kicker--are in such cahoots with the government that student loans are the only debt that can never be discharged even in bankruptcy! That's right, mortgages...credit cards...bank loans. None of them are as special as student loans which never go away.
Because, hardcore libertarians aside, most people are rational enough to realize that the government should hold a monopoly on the use of force (ie, police and military) and that the government should handle roads.
You certainly do hear people complain about the government's involvement in the car industry as socialism. I will personally never buy from GM now.
If we're talking software patents and business methods, sure, I think they're stupid and should probably not be allowed. But given that they are, by their very nature stupid, how detrimental could they possibly be? ie, they're a total strawman in this conversation.
What on earth do specious patents (patents which are a GOVERNMENT granted monopoly) have to do with what the original poster said?
Secondly, quite frankly, I think you're crazy if you honestly believe "biology can't go anywhere" or "computer programmers can't get anywhere" because those two fields are moving faster than just about any other right now. I'd love to see how exactly you can define the situation so that what you said is remotely connected to reality though?
Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil
That's a very interesting interpretation. I think a lot of people (myself included) would disagree with you. Think about the main thing people in this article are complaining about--Han vs Greedo. Who shot first? Originally it was of course Han. Han was a smuggler! A criminal! A liar, a braggart, and a killer. But he was also a good guy--a true hero! Show me one character in the prequels who has 1/2 as much complexity?
I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan though I do respect and like the originals, but the prequels did not do it for me. I do think 3 was the best of them, but that's not saying a ton.
How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself?
Because in the original Star Wars universe the force (excuse me, a high midichlorian count) wasn't a super all-powerful thing that made its users gods? Because Luke--being Vader's son--was perhaps an even better pilot! Because Obi-Wan knew his time was past and that Luke was the one who could challenge the Empire? These are all things to argue about, but again, what kind of questions like these can one raise about the prequels? Remember how upsetting Obi-Wan's death was? Did you feel that way about Qui-Gon? I sure as heck didn't.
It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.
Is that really the message that comes across? I mean, everyone seems pretty happy and prosperous before the Emperor takes over. Things obviously go down hill after (storm troopers everywhere, deathstars to control the populace, etc). Isn't the lesson of the story that the Jedi DID do a really good job of keeping the peace?
I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom?
I enjoyed Crystal Skull with the exception of the last 20 minutes. I know Lucas has said they wanted to transition the series from the WW2 era to a more scifi / 1950s camp era, but blegh. It to me just felt so incredibly out of place. I mean you've got a series that's camp, humorous and doesn't take itself to seriously. You've got an archaeologist, mystical relics, cults, nazis, etc. And then aliens. Wtf?
Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.
Well, speaking for myself only, I think it's absolutely silly to expect people to be grateful to a movie director? Again speaking for myself, the reason I dislike the prequel (and strongly dislike parts of them) is:
1) Horrible acting (imho due to horrible writing and green screens) 2) Horrible writing 3) Special effects / cute overload 4) Hayden + Natalie = bleeeeeeh
I actually started laughing in the theater when Anakin/Darth said: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" or the line about "but from MY POINT OF VIEW, it's the JEDI that are evil!"
How hamfisted. Poorly written, poorly acted. Anakin came across to me like a spoiled brat teenager, nothing more. I found his fall particularly impossible to believe.
THe builtin voice control definitely does NOT do that. With builtin OS voice control you can dial from address book, dial by number, play songs (by artist, etc), maybe some other things I'm forgetting, but that's all I ever use.
I think you're confused by something here. Polygamy refers to having multiple spouses at the same time. A spouse is specifically a partner who some organ of society--either church or state or society (depending on time and place)--has recognized in some formalized fashion.
You're quite correct when you talk about sex without marriage (it's absolutely beyond the obvious to even state that), but I fail to see the relevance to anything I said?
some cultures don't really care whether some organ of society has blessed your union or not
Interesting, where do marriages take place where church, state, or society doesn't come into it at all?
Traditionally? You mean: in the modern world, today.
You're absolutely right, and I should have made that point more in the way of "MOST traditionally male jobs used to have high fatality rates." For most men in the workforce today, there's not a huge risk of being killed on the job.
For women, the rate has definitely gone up, especially since women joined the factory workplaces in huge numbers (eg, Triangle Shirtwaist fire), and have increased their numbers as police, soldiers, etc.
All that said: male-male mate competition is a huge factor in human evolution.
That's another great reason I forgot to mention. Prestige and conquest. For instance, it's estimated that a huge percentage of males in Central Asia are direct descendants of Genghis Khan (8%+). Similarly in South America (though differing greatly by country) HUGE percentages of the mestizo / native population are descended from European males and indigenous females. Relatively few descended from indigenous males and European females.
Sure, no argument from me. Many people in monogamous cultures have affairs. Polyandry by comparison worldwide is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. So what's the problem?
In addition Polygamy is often held to include practice of taking a consort in addition to a wife, and not just having multiple wives.
No, polygamy means having multiple spouses.
And the romans and greeks definitely did not conform to monogamy.
And yet, according to a genetic study 80% of women have reproduced while only 40% of men reproduced. 60% died without ever reproducing. Until recently, the winners reproduced and the losers didn't. But even women losers managed to reproduce most the time.
There are many reasons for this in premodern societies. (and here I'll use premodern to mean pre industrial revolution roughly)
1) Traditionally mens jobs were more dangerous, and fatalities among men were more common 2) Traditionally men often had to fight in defense of home/state/county/country/whatever in higher numbers, where fatalities were high. 3) In many more traditional societies, women HAD to get married and have children. Less so for men. Maybe not the norm, but think of such famous examples as Newton. It's really only recently even in the US where there is not as much a stigma of a woman choosing to either not get married or not have children. 4) Polygamy or multiple consorts/concubines/girlfriends/what not IS a reason. One rich man can support several wives. Polyandry is not nearly as common.
Polygamy (formal as wives or informal as lovers/mistresses) is very common for the wealthy now and in the past.
But polygamy means one thing--having more than one spouse. Having affairs doesn't mean polygamy.
Monogamy has only been the societal norm for a few hundred years
Well, that completely depends on what part of the world you're talking about (polygamy is still practiced in parts of Africa for instance), but if you're talking about Europe / North America, you're just absolutely and completely wrong. Polygamy has not been a regular part of culture in most parts of Europe for millennia. The Greeks and the Romans didn't practice polygamy, and with Christianization neither did the few parts of the rest of Europe that did practice polygamy (ie, the Vikings). Certainly I think it's safe to say that in most of Europe, polygamy has been extinct for a thousand plus years, and in other parts, several thousand years perhaps.
Amongst the other major cultures of the world, most Islamicate countries allowed polygamy until relatively recently, though depending on the country, the number of practicing polygamists could vary widely (polygamy was only for the very wealthy in many areas).
With regards to China I don't have as much knowledge, but as I understand it polygamy has been rare / forbidden amongst Han for thousands of years (while like in Islamic areas, the wealthy may have a mistress who is in effect a second wife).
And regardless, even in areas where polygamy was allowed, thanks to population realities, I don't think you could even say that polygamy was the "societal norm." Think if you have a roughly 50/50 male/female ratio (I know that's not accurate, but close enough for these purposes)...how do you expect the average male to have 2 wives? Or 3 wives? Or 4 wives (the max allowed in Islam)? There aren't enough women to go around!
So you're saying the Ipad is good, because a real device produced by a billion dollar company, is better than a fictional device that visual effects guys tried to come up with, 23 years ago, and on presumably a much smaller budget than Apple R&D for those effects? I mean, are you expecting that when we see special effects, the guys are actually meant to implement the device for real, and you're suprised that when actual products come out decades later, they might work properly?
I think you're confused, or replying to the wrong post? *I'm* not saying any of those things, the parts of my post with the little grey line in front of them are quotes from if you had RTFA.
Well, I know the Ipad's turned out to be a bit of a wet blanket after those months of hype how it would revolutionise mobile computing. But I never thought I'd see it get to the stage of touting the Ipad because it's better than what the visual effects guys cobbled together 23 years ago for a Star Trek.
I thought you might like to know the name of the product is "iPad" btw. If you're going to capitalize, that's the proper capitalization, though of course ipad is perfectly acceptable. Ipad just makes you seem like a hater. The iPad is pretty nice. I like mine a lot. I don't know if it will revolutionize mobile computing, but it has changed how I use computers a lot.
And yes, there are other tablets besides the Ipad, as people have pointed out in comments. You just don't hear about them, because the media coverage is for nothing but Apple.
They also tend to be significantly bulkier, have much worse battery life, and generally considered harder to use (not Android based). They are also cheaper, yes.
I'd say the real replacement though is the netbook - it fills that gap between laptop and phone, whilst still giving you a physical keyboard, and well as running the same full OS as laptops/desktops do.
Perhaps. I don't agree though. You do a lot of presuming in your post, just like the GP does. The point is exactly that the iPad CAN do most or all of what MOST people need from a laptop. No, it's not a 100% replacement and never has been billed as such. Is it the best option if you're a coder for instance? Absolutely not! For the vast majority of users your and the GP's stark lines don't exist.
I have a 3g iPad and also a new Eee pc. I hate the Eee pc. I find the screen crappy, and the keyboard and mouse painful to use. I actually do far prefer iPad through either the touch screen / portable keyboard to the netbook (and for those of us who travel a lot, you don't even have to take the iPad/kindle/tablets out of your bag at the airport secrutiy). If I needed more than an iPad I would take my full laptop, never a netbook. I would guess that netbooks almost completely die out over the next couple of years, but we'll see.
I guess "a fancy way of surging the web and watching videos" might cover spreadsheets/word processor, our company physical security system access, and remote desktop/VNC, but I personally would never have thought that or said that... I think that's far stretching the meaning of each of those words quite far.
*shrug* I've stopped taking my notebook on trips since I got an iPad. True, I can't code, but I can monitor the office security cameras (app), do word processing/excel (net and app), email, web,and remote desktop with a tiny portable bluetooth keyboard. Even without the keyboard it's still a good enough notebook replacement for me...my typing is fast.
There's little that I can't do on my iPad that I regularly do on my notebook, how about that?
Fair enough. My assumption was that they didn't show it because it was hard to portray.
Memory Alpha has a longer article on PADDs, and though a number of examples of PADD functionality comes from Enterprise (which should barely be considered canonical imho) I think the intent was there.
Beyond that, how much is an iPad really different from a clipboard? You read things and write things. iPad just does it with more style;-)
You rarely saw data uploaded to a PADD and you never saw it running complex applications or interacting with the world; that's what Tricorders were for.
All it really took was reading the article for several examples of how that's not true.
Slashdot Mirror
The moral of the story (for the GP) is: be careful what you wish for! ;-)
I know we grew-up with it, but there's never going to be anything new until we STOP paying for the same old stuff.
There IS new stuff. It's called The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith.
If only it held the monopoly on force...
Does it not?
And roads themselves are also an act of subsidizing car industry.
Ok, you can make that argument, but what's your point? ie, what's the relevance of this statement?
I agree with you also. In my idealistic mind, I would love to see heavy government investment into the university system.
Do the universities really require more special treatment from the governments? Isn't it funny how universities are about the only institutions around that aren't taxed, can raise prices every single year (no matter inflation, deflation or the state of the economy-- and yet also beg for money to be donated while sitting on in many cases billions of dollars), and the real kicker--are in such cahoots with the government that student loans are the only debt that can never be discharged even in bankruptcy! That's right, mortgages...credit cards...bank loans. None of them are as special as student loans which never go away.
Because, hardcore libertarians aside, most people are rational enough to realize that the government should hold a monopoly on the use of force (ie, police and military) and that the government should handle roads.
You certainly do hear people complain about the government's involvement in the car industry as socialism. I will personally never buy from GM now.
So what's "fundamental science"?
If we're talking software patents and business methods, sure, I think they're stupid and should probably not be allowed. But given that they are, by their very nature stupid, how detrimental could they possibly be? ie, they're a total strawman in this conversation.
What on earth do specious patents (patents which are a GOVERNMENT granted monopoly) have to do with what the original poster said?
Secondly, quite frankly, I think you're crazy if you honestly believe "biology can't go anywhere" or "computer programmers can't get anywhere" because those two fields are moving faster than just about any other right now. I'd love to see how exactly you can define the situation so that what you said is remotely connected to reality though?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was going for. People can be so judgmental (especially people who claim to be open-minded) !
Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil
That's a very interesting interpretation. I think a lot of people (myself included) would disagree with you. Think about the main thing people in this article are complaining about--Han vs Greedo. Who shot first? Originally it was of course Han. Han was a smuggler! A criminal! A liar, a braggart, and a killer. But he was also a good guy--a true hero! Show me one character in the prequels who has 1/2 as much complexity?
I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan though I do respect and like the originals, but the prequels did not do it for me. I do think 3 was the best of them, but that's not saying a ton.
How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself?
Because in the original Star Wars universe the force (excuse me, a high midichlorian count) wasn't a super all-powerful thing that made its users gods? Because Luke--being Vader's son--was perhaps an even better pilot! Because Obi-Wan knew his time was past and that Luke was the one who could challenge the Empire? These are all things to argue about, but again, what kind of questions like these can one raise about the prequels? Remember how upsetting Obi-Wan's death was? Did you feel that way about Qui-Gon? I sure as heck didn't.
It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.
Is that really the message that comes across? I mean, everyone seems pretty happy and prosperous before the Emperor takes over. Things obviously go down hill after (storm troopers everywhere, deathstars to control the populace, etc). Isn't the lesson of the story that the Jedi DID do a really good job of keeping the peace?
I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom?
I enjoyed Crystal Skull with the exception of the last 20 minutes. I know Lucas has said they wanted to transition the series from the WW2 era to a more scifi / 1950s camp era, but blegh. It to me just felt so incredibly out of place. I mean you've got a series that's camp, humorous and doesn't take itself to seriously. You've got an archaeologist, mystical relics, cults, nazis, etc. And then aliens. Wtf?
Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.
Well, speaking for myself only, I think it's absolutely silly to expect people to be grateful to a movie director? Again speaking for myself, the reason I dislike the prequel (and strongly dislike parts of them) is:
1) Horrible acting (imho due to horrible writing and green screens)
2) Horrible writing
3) Special effects / cute overload
4) Hayden + Natalie = bleeeeeeh
I actually started laughing in the theater when Anakin/Darth said: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" or the line about "but from MY POINT OF VIEW, it's the JEDI that are evil!"
How hamfisted. Poorly written, poorly acted. Anakin came across to me like a spoiled brat teenager, nothing more. I found his fall particularly impossible to believe.
Lastly, I alway
Back in the day Science and math was shared freely
Back in what day?
Stop trying to replace it with a capitalistic mockery of science.
I'm not quite sure what relevance your sentence has to this post, but would you care to expound? What exactly is a capitalistic mockery of science?
While there are iPhone apps for doing voice search, they aren't integrated into the voice search on the iPhone.
Isn't that what I said?
I think the iPhone bing / google apps do?
THe builtin voice control definitely does NOT do that. With builtin OS voice control you can dial from address book, dial by number, play songs (by artist, etc), maybe some other things I'm forgetting, but that's all I ever use.
I think you're confused by something here. Polygamy refers to having multiple spouses at the same time. A spouse is specifically a partner who some organ of society--either church or state or society (depending on time and place)--has recognized in some formalized fashion.
You're quite correct when you talk about sex without marriage (it's absolutely beyond the obvious to even state that), but I fail to see the relevance to anything I said?
some cultures don't really care whether some organ of society has blessed your union or not
Interesting, where do marriages take place where church, state, or society doesn't come into it at all?
Traditionally? You mean: in the modern world, today.
You're absolutely right, and I should have made that point more in the way of "MOST traditionally male jobs used to have high fatality rates." For most men in the workforce today, there's not a huge risk of being killed on the job.
For women, the rate has definitely gone up, especially since women joined the factory workplaces in huge numbers (eg, Triangle Shirtwaist fire), and have increased their numbers as police, soldiers, etc.
All that said: male-male mate competition is a huge factor in human evolution.
That's another great reason I forgot to mention. Prestige and conquest. For instance, it's estimated that a huge percentage of males in Central Asia are direct descendants of Genghis Khan (8%+). Similarly in South America (though differing greatly by country) HUGE percentages of the mestizo / native population are descended from European males and indigenous females. Relatively few descended from indigenous males and European females.
!Monogamy is not (only) Polygamy
Sure, no argument from me. Many people in monogamous cultures have affairs. Polyandry by comparison worldwide is so rare as to be statistically insignificant. So what's the problem?
In addition Polygamy is often held to include practice of taking a consort in addition to a wife, and not just having multiple wives.
No, polygamy means having multiple spouses.
And the romans and greeks definitely did not conform to monogamy.
Oh?
And yet, according to a genetic study 80% of women have reproduced while only 40% of men reproduced. 60% died without ever reproducing. Until recently, the winners reproduced and the losers didn't. But even women losers managed to reproduce most the time.
There are many reasons for this in premodern societies. (and here I'll use premodern to mean pre industrial revolution roughly)
1) Traditionally mens jobs were more dangerous, and fatalities among men were more common
2) Traditionally men often had to fight in defense of home/state/county/country/whatever in higher numbers, where fatalities were high.
3) In many more traditional societies, women HAD to get married and have children. Less so for men. Maybe not the norm, but think of such famous examples as Newton. It's really only recently even in the US where there is not as much a stigma of a woman choosing to either not get married or not have children.
4) Polygamy or multiple consorts/concubines/girlfriends/what not IS a reason. One rich man can support several wives. Polyandry is not nearly as common.
Polygamy (formal as wives or informal as lovers/mistresses) is very common for the wealthy now and in the past.
But polygamy means one thing--having more than one spouse. Having affairs doesn't mean polygamy.
Why do you have so much hate?
Monogamy has only been the societal norm for a few hundred years
Well, that completely depends on what part of the world you're talking about (polygamy is still practiced in parts of Africa for instance), but if you're talking about Europe / North America, you're just absolutely and completely wrong. Polygamy has not been a regular part of culture in most parts of Europe for millennia. The Greeks and the Romans didn't practice polygamy, and with Christianization neither did the few parts of the rest of Europe that did practice polygamy (ie, the Vikings). Certainly I think it's safe to say that in most of Europe, polygamy has been extinct for a thousand plus years, and in other parts, several thousand years perhaps.
Amongst the other major cultures of the world, most Islamicate countries allowed polygamy until relatively recently, though depending on the country, the number of practicing polygamists could vary widely (polygamy was only for the very wealthy in many areas).
With regards to China I don't have as much knowledge, but as I understand it polygamy has been rare / forbidden amongst Han for thousands of years (while like in Islamic areas, the wealthy may have a mistress who is in effect a second wife).
And regardless, even in areas where polygamy was allowed, thanks to population realities, I don't think you could even say that polygamy was the "societal norm." Think if you have a roughly 50/50 male/female ratio (I know that's not accurate, but close enough for these purposes) ...how do you expect the average male to have 2 wives? Or 3 wives? Or 4 wives (the max allowed in Islam)? There aren't enough women to go around!
I thought it was obvious?
So you're saying the Ipad is good, because a real device produced by a billion dollar company, is better than a fictional device that visual effects guys tried to come up with, 23 years ago, and on presumably a much smaller budget than Apple R&D for those effects? I mean, are you expecting that when we see special effects, the guys are actually meant to implement the device for real, and you're suprised that when actual products come out decades later, they might work properly?
I think you're confused, or replying to the wrong post? *I'm* not saying any of those things, the parts of my post with the little grey line in front of them are quotes from if you had RTFA.
Well, I know the Ipad's turned out to be a bit of a wet blanket after those months of hype how it would revolutionise mobile computing. But I never thought I'd see it get to the stage of touting the Ipad because it's better than what the visual effects guys cobbled together 23 years ago for a Star Trek.
I thought you might like to know the name of the product is "iPad" btw. If you're going to capitalize, that's the proper capitalization, though of course ipad is perfectly acceptable. Ipad just makes you seem like a hater. The iPad is pretty nice. I like mine a lot. I don't know if it will revolutionize mobile computing, but it has changed how I use computers a lot.
And yes, there are other tablets besides the Ipad, as people have pointed out in comments. You just don't hear about them, because the media coverage is for nothing but Apple.
They also tend to be significantly bulkier, have much worse battery life, and generally considered harder to use (not Android based). They are also cheaper, yes.
I'd say the real replacement though is the netbook - it fills that gap between laptop and phone, whilst still giving you a physical keyboard, and well as running the same full OS as laptops/desktops do.
Perhaps. I don't agree though. You do a lot of presuming in your post, just like the GP does. The point is exactly that the iPad CAN do most or all of what MOST people need from a laptop. No, it's not a 100% replacement and never has been billed as such. Is it the best option if you're a coder for instance? Absolutely not! For the vast majority of users your and the GP's stark lines don't exist.
I have a 3g iPad and also a new Eee pc. I hate the Eee pc. I find the screen crappy, and the keyboard and mouse painful to use. I actually do far prefer iPad through either the touch screen / portable keyboard to the netbook (and for those of us who travel a lot, you don't even have to take the iPad/kindle/tablets out of your bag at the airport secrutiy). If I needed more than an iPad I would take my full laptop, never a netbook. I would guess that netbooks almost completely die out over the next couple of years, but we'll see.
I guess "a fancy way of surging the web and watching videos" might cover spreadsheets/word processor, our company physical security system access, and remote desktop/VNC, but I personally would never have thought that or said that... I think that's far stretching the meaning of each of those words quite far.
*shrug* I've stopped taking my notebook on trips since I got an iPad. True, I can't code, but I can monitor the office security cameras (app), do word processing/excel (net and app), email, web,and remote desktop with a tiny portable bluetooth keyboard. Even without the keyboard it's still a good enough notebook replacement for me...my typing is fast.
There's little that I can't do on my iPad that I regularly do on my notebook, how about that?
Fair enough. My assumption was that they didn't show it because it was hard to portray.
Memory Alpha has a longer article on PADDs, and though a number of examples of PADD functionality comes from Enterprise (which should barely be considered canonical imho) I think the intent was there.
Beyond that, how much is an iPad really different from a clipboard? You read things and write things. iPad just does it with more style ;-)
You rarely saw data uploaded to a PADD and you never saw it running complex applications or interacting with the world; that's what Tricorders were for.
All it really took was reading the article for several examples of how that's not true.