Well, I saw Phantom Menace last night, and I am forced to agree with the critics. It's an okay film, but I would have been sorely disappointed if I had been standing in line for four hours to see it.
Visually, it was stunning, but we knew that was inevitable. What surprised and disappointed me was the age group the movie seems to have been aimed at. This might as well had had a Disney Logo instead of LucasFilms, it was so sanitized and watered-down.
You know there's a bad guy in it, and you know he's going to fall, but when that fall came, not a single person cheered. No one applauded. With a crowd that applauded the Fox logo and cheered the Lucasfilms logo I would have expected a better reaction when the bad guy was defeated. But we weren't engaged by the film, and there was no emotional response when that moment came.
It's a good film. It's visually stunning. It's certainly fun. But don't bother standing in line to see it. Wait until the lines die down...it won't be long.
Well, that's what I thought, but then I decided to see if I could make it work. By cursively "looping" each character and drawing a straight, uniform length line from one character to the next, the system does translate into a written alphabet quite nicely.
As cr0sh predicted, it looks quite alien, especially when the inter-character segments are vertical or even diagonal!
What a fresh approach to writing! I tried out the applet and really liked it, though it looks like some practice is necessary to get fast input. I wonder how many words per minute one could "type" with this? To increase input, though, I'd like to have some function keys to make shifting case, numerics, punctuation, etc. a bit faster.
I don't like the name, though. While playing it, I was reminded of an old parlor game I used to play when I was a kid. Why not call it "Ouija Write?"
Thanks Jon. But Open Source is an approach to producing and distributing a nonmaterial good (computer programs). Wah's response pointing to sites like Slashdot as a more important example to counter established journalism seems closer to the mark.
Still, I guess journalism could be considered a nonmaterial good, can't it? In that respect, I guess Slashdot then becomes Open Source journalism.
Anyway, you are right about the Net's ability to form and reform around Holy Circles. As long as there are no restrictions, no FCCs of the internet demanding sites have licenses, then the internet emerges as a new medium that can have profound impact on society and government.
But there is still the risk that the net borders on irrelevancy. With all those websites and newsgroups, with all the bytes flying all over the world, it is so difficult to not only keep track of the facts your interested in, but the facts you should be interested in.
For example, there is currently an article in Salon that claims that Bob Dole tried to get the President and Congress of the US interested in what was happening in Kosovo back in 1990. It claims he warned both Bush and Clinton that events there were rapidly worsening, but neither president listened. Setting the accuracy of this statement aside, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing the internet should be good for. Dole hops on the net, tells us all about that dangerous land, and suddenly we find ourselves galvanized into action!
Except, how would that work? Bob could put up a website, spotlighting the abuses and warning people about the future, but how with all the other sites out there, can he compete to get our attention enough that we can do something about it?
There are thousands of sites out there that demand one political change or another, and in that digital cacophony, we're left not only unaware of what the issues are, but which ones are even relevant.
I have this image in my mind, and maybe you're the one who put it there, that the internet is a great, big wall plastered with posters about one important issue or another. The wall stretches for mile after mile, and we surfers pace back and forth, ignoring most of the posters to stop and read only a favored few. That image somehow highlights the (potential?) futility of the new medium for political and social change.
Jon, your views are hopeful; but I fear they won't carry far. What threat does the internet hold for the Holy Circles if the Holy Circles have already found ways to exploit it? While dissenting voices are finally being heard over the web, newsgroups, and email, they are being drowned out by larger corporations with the money and resources to package their views in more attractive containers.
CNN and ABC aren't likely to lose their grip on their viewers; they'll add a "dot com" to their names and continue to serve gullible masses the same junk they've dished out before.
I agree there will be changes, but I worry they won't be major, with most of the existing Holy Circles adapting to the environment. The only real change will be the addition of a few newcomers to those Holy Circles. Of course, I sure hope I'm wrong.
Well, Big Blue, I see you understand the principle, but isn't that essentially what I said: The power ultimately didn't come from the sun, but rather a long dead star?
Heh, nor have you failed to disappoint me, valpohl:
"Can you say cars? Hybrid power plants can double the efficiency for peanuts"
I was hoping you'd go down that street. Tell me, once you've gotten your "super-efficient" hybrid car in your driveway, how are you going to charge it? What's that you say, you'll plug it in? Super! But just where do you think that electricity is coming from, God's butt? It's coming from your utility, good sir, and there's a real good probability that that electricity is being produced by burning coal or gas. And then it gets shunted through mile after mile of wire and transformers and finally trickles out that power spigot in your garage. Is that an efficient use of that fuel?
You plug that expensive, plastic and aluminum deathtrap into your outlet, and you'll be paying not only to put gas in the fuel tank, but electric bills that are several times higher.
And if the idea catches on, then whole neighborhoods will start drawing more power, putting greater demand on the utility company to provide more electricity...in a time when many communities already experience summertime brownouts thanks to excessive peak loads!
The only time automobiles like this truly become practical is when the utility has a source of power like nuclear (fission presently, or fusion someday). THEN electric and hybrid cars start to make more sense. Otherwise you're shifting the pollution away from the individual car and onto the power company...which has to burn more fuel to get the same amount of power to you.
"Remember that ALL forms of energy have roots in solar fusion. There are no exceptions to this!"
Sorry, Big Blue, but you'll find that fission has nothing to do with the sun...fissile materials come from whatever star that blew up and formed the heavier elements from which the earth (and the rest of the solar system) condensed.
Also, if zero-point field energy proves genuine, the sun has nothing to do with that, either. In fact, we can probably rule out fusion from your set of things powered by the sun.
Ummm, pardon me, but don't we already do this? Most office and industrial construction is done with an eye towards reducing energy demands for one very obvious reason: it saves the client money. So there's a real strong incentive there already without even considering feel-good tax incentives.
The problem isn't really one of conservation, we're doing that almost to practical limits. It's one of an expanding economy, and an expanding economy with all its new office buildings and industrial plants requires more power. That power has to come from somewhere.
A further point you've missed is that power plants that have been built to date aren't going to last forever. I know it's a damn shame, but those coal-fired plants are going to have to be replaced eventually. No new nuclear plants are even planned at the moment (and they're gonna get old and shut down too), so what's the option? A bigger coal plant? Natural gas? But...don't most geologists acknowledge that these so-called fossil fuels are in limited, non-renewable supply? They're gonna get pretty pricey before they run out, you know.
Nope, your rant against "Star Trek" mentalities aside, we need something better. Fusion looks good, zero-point field energy might have a future, and even improvements in fission reactors might see use if people could over-come their hysterical anti-nuke knee-jerks.
Unfortunately, prijks, McDonald's spends more on a single restaurant each year than is spent by the entire planet in the search for earth-crossing asteroids.
You arrogant treehuggers...
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
Humans in one form or another will be here long after your precious nature has been incinerated in the expansion of the sun. They have an adaptability born of tool-using sentience that goes beyond the adversities that would kill other species.
Joss, what are the long-term dangers of just letting nature do her thing? We don't know. We don't know the long-term effects of GM either, but this is actually true of ANYTHING HUMAN BEINGS DO. What are the long-term effects of computer technology? Modern medicine? The Tele-Tubbies? No one knows, but is that a rational justification for deliberate ignorance? The precautionary principle is just a deflated excuse to refrain from any progress.
Johann, if this were just between scientists, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it has gone beyond that stage now, and activists, lobbyists, and politicians are getting involved. It is time to hold up our preconceptions and knock them down or reinforce them before a hysterical multitude runs away with the situation.
Of course not. If they did, the seeds with a terminator gene would fail to reproduce, leaving only those without the gene. Voila! The problem fixes itself.
Well, the intention of the creator doesn't seem to be focused on giving sight to the blind, but giving animal-like sight to robots, which can be almost as useful.
I think you're right; this might have applications in "bionic" vision, but even in those who are congenitally blind, the basic hardwiring in the brain for vision may still be intact. There would certainly be an adjustment period for those who are given sight for the first time, but I doubt that it wouldn't take in their cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Visually, it was stunning, but we knew that was inevitable. What surprised and disappointed me was the age group the movie seems to have been aimed at. This might as well had had a Disney Logo instead of LucasFilms, it was so sanitized and watered-down.
You know there's a bad guy in it, and you know he's going to fall, but when that fall came, not a single person cheered. No one applauded. With a crowd that applauded the Fox logo and cheered the Lucasfilms logo I would have expected a better reaction when the bad guy was defeated. But we weren't engaged by the film, and there was no emotional response when that moment came.
It's a good film. It's visually stunning. It's certainly fun. But don't bother standing in line to see it. Wait until the lines die down...it won't be long.
As cr0sh predicted, it looks quite alien, especially when the inter-character segments are vertical or even diagonal!
I don't like the name, though. While playing it, I was reminded of an old parlor game I used to play when I was a kid. Why not call it "Ouija Write?"
Still, I guess journalism could be considered a nonmaterial good, can't it? In that respect, I guess Slashdot then becomes Open Source journalism.
Anyway, you are right about the Net's ability to form and reform around Holy Circles. As long as there are no restrictions, no FCCs of the internet demanding sites have licenses, then the internet emerges as a new medium that can have profound impact on society and government.
But there is still the risk that the net borders on irrelevancy. With all those websites and newsgroups, with all the bytes flying all over the world, it is so difficult to not only keep track of the facts your interested in, but the facts you should be interested in.
For example, there is currently an article in Salon that claims that Bob Dole tried to get the President and Congress of the US interested in what was happening in Kosovo back in 1990. It claims he warned both Bush and Clinton that events there were rapidly worsening, but neither president listened. Setting the accuracy of this statement aside, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing the internet should be good for. Dole hops on the net, tells us all about that dangerous land, and suddenly we find ourselves galvanized into action!
Except, how would that work? Bob could put up a website, spotlighting the abuses and warning people about the future, but how with all the other sites out there, can he compete to get our attention enough that we can do something about it?
There are thousands of sites out there that demand one political change or another, and in that digital cacophony, we're left not only unaware of what the issues are, but which ones are even relevant.
I have this image in my mind, and maybe you're the one who put it there, that the internet is a great, big wall plastered with posters about one important issue or another. The wall stretches for mile after mile, and we surfers pace back and forth, ignoring most of the posters to stop and read only a favored few. That image somehow highlights the (potential?) futility of the new medium for political and social change.
ACK! Have I just argued in favor of Holy Circles?
CNN and ABC aren't likely to lose their grip on their viewers; they'll add a "dot com" to their names and continue to serve gullible masses the same junk they've dished out before.
I agree there will be changes, but I worry they won't be major, with most of the existing Holy Circles adapting to the environment. The only real change will be the addition of a few newcomers to those Holy Circles. Of course, I sure hope I'm wrong.
Well, Big Blue, I see you understand the principle, but isn't that essentially what I said: The power ultimately didn't come from the sun, but rather a long dead star?
You plug that expensive, plastic and aluminum deathtrap into your outlet, and you'll be paying not only to put gas in the fuel tank, but electric bills that are several times higher.
And if the idea catches on, then whole neighborhoods will start drawing more power, putting greater demand on the utility company to provide more electricity...in a time when many communities already experience summertime brownouts thanks to excessive peak loads!
The only time automobiles like this truly become practical is when the utility has a source of power like nuclear (fission presently, or fusion someday). THEN electric and hybrid cars start to make more sense. Otherwise you're shifting the pollution away from the individual car and onto the power company...which has to burn more fuel to get the same amount of power to you.
Sorry, Big Blue, but you'll find that fission has nothing to do with the sun...fissile materials come from whatever star that blew up and formed the heavier elements from which the earth (and the rest of the solar system) condensed.
Also, if zero-point field energy proves genuine, the sun has nothing to do with that, either. In fact, we can probably rule out fusion from your set of things powered by the sun.
The problem isn't really one of conservation, we're doing that almost to practical limits. It's one of an expanding economy, and an expanding economy with all its new office buildings and industrial plants requires more power. That power has to come from somewhere.
A further point you've missed is that power plants that have been built to date aren't going to last forever. I know it's a damn shame, but those coal-fired plants are going to have to be replaced eventually. No new nuclear plants are even planned at the moment (and they're gonna get old and shut down too), so what's the option? A bigger coal plant? Natural gas? But...don't most geologists acknowledge that these so-called fossil fuels are in limited, non-renewable supply? They're gonna get pretty pricey before they run out, you know.
Nope, your rant against "Star Trek" mentalities aside, we need something better. Fusion looks good, zero-point field energy might have a future, and even improvements in fission reactors might see use if people could over-come their hysterical anti-nuke knee-jerks.
Unfortunately, prijks, McDonald's spends more on a single restaurant each year than is spent by the entire planet in the search for earth-crossing asteroids.
Humans in one form or another will be here long after your precious nature has been incinerated in the expansion of the sun. They have an adaptability born of tool-using sentience that goes beyond the adversities that would kill other species.
Joss, what are the long-term dangers of just letting nature do her thing? We don't know. We don't know the long-term effects of GM either, but this is actually true of ANYTHING HUMAN BEINGS DO. What are the long-term effects of computer technology? Modern medicine? The Tele-Tubbies? No one knows, but is that a rational justification for deliberate ignorance? The precautionary principle is just a deflated excuse to refrain from any progress.
Johann, if this were just between scientists, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it has gone beyond that stage now, and activists, lobbyists, and politicians are getting involved. It is time to hold up our preconceptions and knock them down or reinforce them before a hysterical multitude runs away with the situation.
Of course not. If they did, the seeds with a terminator gene would fail to reproduce, leaving only those without the gene. Voila! The problem fixes itself.
Well, the intention of the creator doesn't seem to be focused on giving sight to the blind, but giving animal-like sight to robots, which can be almost as useful.
I think you're right; this might have applications in "bionic" vision, but even in those who are congenitally blind, the basic hardwiring in the brain for vision may still be intact. There would certainly be an adjustment period for those who are given sight for the first time, but I doubt that it wouldn't take in their cases.