But there has been periods in the past where it was not gradual? (you said "generally") So this has happened before? So what is so special about it happening again? Mind you it might very well suck for us, but given it happened before why again should I be surprised that it's happening again?
"Some places will get hotter, some will actually get cooler, some will get more precipitation and others will get less, over time this will shape the world we live in and our own food sources."
Yea, you might as well be worrying about a gamma ray burst from a distant star blasting it's way over the Earth. Or maybe a stray black hole wandering it's way through the solar system.
Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.
But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...
Given how often we hear researchers exclaiming they've invented the next "Greatest thing (TM)", I'll reserve judgement until I can purchase what comes out of their research.
I'd bet given the patent landscape at the moment that no matter what they have they will be sued for infringement by somebody. It's the way of things today.
1. Controversy drives people to see what people are complaining about
2. When people unfamiliar with Ender's game see the film and don't see any anti-gay homophopbic craziness they'll conclude it was a whole bunch of stupidity on the part of those picketing out front.
Picketer outside of theater
"Don't see Ender's game. It's written by a homophobic religious nut who calls for gays to be imprisoned for trying to marry!"
Movie goer:
"Really? I'll have to see this film! I bet it's filled with crazy anti-gay stuff!"
Movie goer after the film:
"What a crock of crap! There wasn't ONE instance of anti-gay stuff in that film!"
So the "deepness" of the book had to do with how much you DID'NT know about the author?
I hate to break it to you, but the depth of a novel is ALWAYS (see exception) about what the reader takes away from it, not the source authorship. The exception of course being religious texts.
Knowing who and what card does or stand for does not change the book. The ethical conflicts you detected in the book are the same. Their worth is independent of the source author's views on gay marriage.
Given how shallow Hunger games is, had it occurred to you that the story of Ender (if done right) might OUTWEIGH the authors views on other subjects?
You NEVER read the next book did you? The book after Ender's game is called "Xenocide" for pete's sake! It's EXACTLY about the struggle that Ender has with what he has done. In fact nearly ALL of the books following Ender's game have that as a primary or background focus.
A lot of posters elsewhere are using as their reasoning that they don't want their ticket money or any part of it going to Card.
Is there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales? Usually book rights are sold outright, so if that is the case he may not be getting ANY percentage of ticket sales.
From a practical viewpoint though, the press will make people who know nothing about the movie go see it...just the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.
Pleas don't put Rush in the same thread as Styx and Floyd.
Rush is playing better now and with more complexity then they did since the late 70's and early 80's. They also are all ORIGINAL band members.
Only one band can get away with rotating members in and out without anybody caring, and that's Chicago. I never knew the members in Chicago and as far as I can remember nobody else does either, but the band continues to exist and people like them...
Actually, in the 80's you probably (unless you were at a MAJOR university) did not have access to the Internet as it was a pure research network, and even if you did it was text based only (for the post part). Most people (like myself) would of logged onto a BBS and posted to FidoNet. I can't remember but there probably was a FidoNet to Usenet gateway. Once you posted a message it took DAYS for it to propagate across the planet, and more days for a response to come back.
People don't realize how much more productive they are due to instant access to information.
In the 80's if I wanted to fix my washer machine (and I didn't know how) I could pay somebody, try to find a general purpose book at the library, etc.
Now I just type in the model number of the dryer and I can probably download the maintenance manual for the darn thing. On top of that there probably is a message board dedicated to people JUST TRYING TO FIX THEIR WASHER MACHINE.
Perspective can illuminate how much things have changed since then
Not that I agree completely with him on many topics, the idea about stopping the Internet from being a massive surveillance mechanism seems like a good idea...
What I want to know, is why did it take me so LONG to realize this? I'm sure there are people who have come to this conclusion before I did (and I'm 43), but it seems many people either realize this by about my age or don't EVER realize it.
Now if I can only convince my wife we need to get rid of all the crap....
Slashdot Mirror
But there has been periods in the past where it was not gradual? (you said "generally") So this has happened before? So what is so special about it happening again? Mind you it might very well suck for us, but given it happened before why again should I be surprised that it's happening again?
"Some places will get hotter, some will actually get cooler, some will get more precipitation and others will get less, over time this will shape the world we live in and our own food sources."
Isn't that the way it's always been?
Yea, you might as well be worrying about a gamma ray burst from a distant star blasting it's way over the Earth. Or maybe a stray black hole wandering it's way through the solar system.
What point is there in worrying about it.
Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.
But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...
It's well past time for the Japanese have a decent offensive capability against that of China. Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.
Cool announcement.
But...
Given how often we hear researchers exclaiming they've invented the next "Greatest thing (TM)", I'll reserve judgement until I can purchase what comes out of their research.
I'd bet given the patent landscape at the moment that no matter what they have they will be sued for infringement by somebody. It's the way of things today.
It will backfire because
1. Controversy drives people to see what people are complaining about
2. When people unfamiliar with Ender's game see the film and don't see any anti-gay homophopbic craziness they'll conclude it was a whole bunch of stupidity on the part of those picketing out front.
Picketer outside of theater
"Don't see Ender's game. It's written by a homophobic religious nut who calls for gays to be imprisoned for trying to marry!"
Movie goer:
"Really? I'll have to see this film! I bet it's filled with crazy anti-gay stuff!"
Movie goer after the film:
"What a crock of crap! There wasn't ONE instance of anti-gay stuff in that film!"
So the "deepness" of the book had to do with how much you DID'NT know about the author?
I hate to break it to you, but the depth of a novel is ALWAYS (see exception) about what the reader takes away from it, not the source authorship. The exception of course being religious texts.
Knowing who and what card does or stand for does not change the book. The ethical conflicts you detected in the book are the same. Their worth is independent of the source author's views on gay marriage.
Given how shallow Hunger games is, had it occurred to you that the story of Ender (if done right) might OUTWEIGH the authors views on other subjects?
You NEVER read the next book did you? The book after Ender's game is called "Xenocide" for pete's sake! It's EXACTLY about the struggle that Ender has with what he has done. In fact nearly ALL of the books following Ender's game have that as a primary or background focus.
did you read the novel?
I read his statement.
I have no idea where the "Pleading" came from. There is no pleading going on.
He asked the QUESTION if supporters of gay marriage would be tolerant. The implication is of course they should, but pleading? Nah.
A lot of posters elsewhere are using as their reasoning that they don't want their ticket money or any part of it going to Card.
Is there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales? Usually book rights are sold outright, so if that is the case he may not be getting ANY percentage of ticket sales.
I agree with you completely.
From a practical viewpoint though, the press will make people who know nothing about the movie go see it...just the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.
I do, but if you asked the average person on the street in the 80's to list the band members from Chicago I doubt they could.
Good point! Still, it misses the idea, which is the members that people expect as they attained starhood are still the same as today.
I lie in bed at night..remembering line numbers from the 80's and GOTO/GOSUB statements..endlessly jumping around code 10 GOTO 40 GOTO 900 GOTO 64
AHHHHHH!!!
Then I wake up
Pleas don't put Rush in the same thread as Styx and Floyd.
Rush is playing better now and with more complexity then they did since the late 70's and early 80's. They also are all ORIGINAL band members.
Only one band can get away with rotating members in and out without anybody caring, and that's Chicago. I never knew the members in Chicago and as far as I can remember nobody else does either, but the band continues to exist and people like them...
Which Styx do you mean? the one where all but 2 of the original band members are left? Or the ACTUAL band from the 70's...
Actually, in the 80's you probably (unless you were at a MAJOR university) did not have access to the Internet as it was a pure research network, and even if you did it was text based only (for the post part). Most people (like myself) would of logged onto a BBS and posted to FidoNet. I can't remember but there probably was a FidoNet to Usenet gateway. Once you posted a message it took DAYS for it to propagate across the planet, and more days for a response to come back.
People don't realize how much more productive they are due to instant access to information.
In the 80's if I wanted to fix my washer machine (and I didn't know how) I could pay somebody, try to find a general purpose book at the library, etc.
Now I just type in the model number of the dryer and I can probably download the maintenance manual for the darn thing. On top of that there probably is a message board dedicated to people JUST TRYING TO FIX THEIR WASHER MACHINE.
Perspective can illuminate how much things have changed since then
Not that I agree completely with him on many topics, the idea about stopping the Internet from being a massive surveillance mechanism seems like a good idea...
that happened years ago
What I want to know, is why did it take me so LONG to realize this? I'm sure there are people who have come to this conclusion before I did (and I'm 43), but it seems many people either realize this by about my age or don't EVER realize it.
Now if I can only convince my wife we need to get rid of all the crap....
Agreed. "Design" is more of a theological/religious viewpoint. Not my intention.
I have incisors, which means I was designed for meat. I also have molars which means I can grind pulp and veggies.
To deny either denies what my body was made for.
No electricity! (yes, the plot is insane) but this device would fit right into that world.