Yes, it is. They can do whatever they like (within the law, of course). This is not a problem because unlike Microsoft, Apple are not a monopoly.
Right. That's (Whether or not their behavior is a problem) is your opinion. It may fit within the current context of historical legal precedent. It may be a well reasoned, with many facts to back up your assertions. But as you can see from the various threads, many disagree. However, I do happen to (mostly) agree. I find Apple's actions somewhat distasteful, but not morally repugnant. At least, not yet. *shrug*.
My question was intended not to elicit opinions in reply, but to rhetorically delineate the difference in judgments between ethical values and personal necessity. There are almost certainly some folks here who refuse to accept that Microsoft has done anything wrong in thier business practices, and equate Apple's (or any corporation's) behavior here as proper business conduct. They might buy Microsoft products gleefully. Just as there are others who refuse to accept Apple's (and by extension, Microsoft's) conduct for the same reason. They might instead run Free Software exclusively. And there are those of us who sit in the middle weighing ethics with necessity, changing our opinions on the matter over time as circumstances warrant. Not a very principled position, but pragmatic nonetheless. *sigh*
Is Apple's behavior legal? Most certainly. Is it desirable? Not to me. What am I going to do about it? For the moment, not much.:) --M
Is it OK for a medium sized business with a small percentage of aggregate market-share to use restraint of trade practices, ethically dubious legal machinations to control product information flow, and closed source development methodology? Complaints about Microsoft have ranged from outright code theft and distribution (Stacker) to breach of contract and restraint of trade while holding a monopoly. And closed source development methodology. Which is worse? Which of the two might cause greater damage across the whole economy? Toss these questions in your ethical scale and decide for yourselves. I know where I sit.
I'm not pleased with Apple's behavior of late. But IMO Microsoft has a long history of much worse. I'll stick with Apple as long as their product does what I need at a price I can afford (both time and hardware/software expense). I bought a Mac because I don't have time to maintain a Linux box at home any longer. I ran both Linux or *BSD on my home PCs for over ten years, and if I had the time to tinker, I'd go back. Not now. I work full time, I take two evening classes, and I'm a part time landlord. My computer is now a tool, not a toy. So, Mac it is - warts and all.
*sigh* As good as much Free Software is, sometimes one must make a tradeoff between necessity and available time. And if that means accepting Apple's somewhat rude and abusive behavior, for the moment I'm willing to do so for expidiency's sake. But that doesn't mean I like it. Apple may convince me yet to make my next purchase an Opteron running Linux. --M
You lost me. Are you arguing about a TV show's quality, or about its popularity (the two are, if anything, negatively correlated)?
Popularity negatively correlates with quality. Wow. Is that really true? This is a difficult question because it's not a binary proposition. Yes and no offer nothing in the way of an answer. Some terrible programs are popular while some artistic masterpieces of television lay fallow. And I don't know why.
I listed some lesser known television programs at the bottom of my prior post that are considered "masterpieces": The Decalogue; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Tanner 88. These programs were certainly well received at their original broadcast, though they were not all blockbusters (The Decalogue is Polish and unfortunately never made it to US television). So, this is quality television. Art in the real sense. And on a budget significantly lower than any of the popular Network programs I listed like CSI, Law & Order, Alias, ER, etc.
So how can I claim that something like CSI or ER is "good" while B5 is "crap"? I'm talking about writing (both dialog and episodic story arc); acting talent; directing, photography, editing; production values (set design and location, costuming, lighting, camera and equipment); etc. The high budget and production values of ER or CSI allow writers enough time to edit their work before shooting begins. They have the money for multiple takes to get exactly the right shot. They have time to edit the work properly. They buy quality equiment. In general, this allows them to produce work which fits a certain standard of "good workmanship".
Does this make it art? Is it highly original or daring? No. But it does make (on average) competently produced television. Which (usually) draws an audience. Maybe. And an audience draws advertising dollars, which pays for production, blah blah blah.
A more interesting question is what's the comparative barrier to entry for SF vs. traditional drama? Is budget consumed on expensive effects the primary cause for low dramatic quality (on average) or are the writers fulfilling the expectations of their target demographic on purpose? I don't know the answer to that, either. --M
What makes, say, Hamlet a great work (and I'm comparing JMS to Shakespeare) is not the "suspense" of whether Hamlet's going to kill himeself or the king. We know the ending, yet we return over and over again.
Why am I forgetting the name of that old story of the king who holds a magic ring that brings him love and adoration. He has three sons and because he can't separate the ring (or its magic) into three for each of his sons, he has copies made of it and hands them out instead. But the sons see that the magic doesn't work and soon they fight over which is the "real" ring. Until a wise man tells them that the magic is not in the ring but in the man. And henceforth they each learn to act justly. King Lear came long after that, and in certain plot points is similar. Jeesh, I really should remember this. Brain fart. It sucks getting older.
Anyway, while I wouldn't compare B5 to Hamlet (you're certainly welcome to), I will say that I'm not competent to say why Shakespeare is as good as he is. He is. IMO, B5 is not. Nowhere close. To compare film adaptations of Shakespeare, I'll take Kurasawa's Throne of Blood (MacBeth) or RAN (King Lear). Polansk's '71 adaptation of MacBeth is damn good too. But that's JMO. --M
> > But - gratuitous overgeneralization commences - I suspect
> [...]you have a hig hly inflated sense of your own importance, and think > your opinion is somehow indicative of "what geeks want."
No, my opinion is just that - my opinion. And he, at least I admit as much from the start. Sorry you disagree.
> Fucking CSI, for Christ's sake?! Good lord. Law & Fucking Order, the > most formulaic, exploitive, "ripped from today's headlines" junk this > side of reality TV?
It sells. A lot. When it stops selling, it will be cancelled. Just like Enterprise was (about four seasons too late for my taste). So, considering how much you hate network TV fate, how about Deadwood, The Soprano's, Huff, or The L Word (hey, hot lesbian action there!). All those programs kick B5s ass in terms of writing, acting, and production values. Or maybe you disagree. In which case, turn flip the channel to SciFi and "share and enjoy." 'Cause "It tastes not quite unlike tea!" *cough!*
For the life of me I can't understand why SF fans accept such terrible writing. I still think it's because they would rather see some esoteric idea poorly expressed within a narrative (usually as some lame soliloquy instead of presented as direct action within the plot), instead of competent writing, acting, and direction creating suspense which leads to final denouement.
Which doesn't preclude SF writers (or any other genre) from creating suspenseful stories, it just means that the average of that genre - well *ahem!* sucks. JMO!:) --M
So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
You've received some good replies, but I'll toss another one out there for your consideration. Babylon 5 is crap. The dialog is abominable and some of the principles are simply incompetent actors (as you note, I'm thinking particularly of Michael O'Hare, Bruce Boxleitner, Claudia Christian as the worst). So why is this such a popular program among the SF crowd?
Beats me. I can't speak for 'em as I'm not one. But - gratuitous overgeneralization commences - I suspect the reason is that geeks want to see certain nontraditional ideas (either science, or sociological) expressed in narration and will forgive terrible acting, dialog and even ridiculous special effects in the process. I offer Dr. Who as a prime example of this. A terrible program that offered certain ideas about time travel, space, intelligent robots, and the occasional bouncing boobs. Awful stuff that a certain segment of adult geeks will still pay to watch. Babylon 5 offers similar awful dialog and acting, but slightly better special effects.
When B5 fans offer its long story arc as reason enough to like the program, what they're really saying is that the ideas presented were "complex", "interesting" and "thought provoking" across years worth of episodes. Unfortunately, there's little concern for "suspense", which the vast majority of the TV viewing public prefers. Hence, the disparity between highly rated programs like CSI, Law & Order, Alias, etc (which offer reasonable writing, competent acting, and high production values) vs. what's targeted to SF geeks - who will watch anything from the worst low budget schlock flick on the SciFi channel (as long as it's set in space, or has aliens, or has an alien with bouncing tits), to ST Enterprise, Stargate SG1, and even Battlestar Galactica (which is probably the best SF on TV right now).
Sigh. I wrote too much. But look, you will not find that B5 is a classic of television. It is not Kieslowski's The Decalogue, or Tinker, Tailor, soldier, Spy or Tanner 88. It is what it is. Which for some people is a lot of "Hmmm, very interesting" fun. And for others, it is a total, complete, unimaginable ("who the fuck green-lighted this shit?!?!?!") bore. *cough!* --M
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
Population explosions, deforestation, fossil fuel depletion, global climate change, or other causes of environmental over-reach, are something we might want to avoid. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a warning we might want to heed. Or, to put it another way, it's one thing to say, "Hey, we've got the right," quite another to be willing to pay for the aftermath. And cleaning up a big mess is almost always more expensive than not making the mess in the first place. Rabbit population explosion leading to depopulation crashes provide a decent model for what often happens in unplanned scenarios. Rabbits aren't expected to have the brain power to plan their population growth, but (hopefully) people noting the potential for severe negative consequences have an opportunity to act accordingly.
Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion.
Isn't that what this debate is all about? The scientific community is saying that we have passed a dangerous THRESHOLD and ought to act or else bad things will happen. Of course, if you think these scientists are wrong, I'd love to see some factual criticism. IMO: "Hey, we've got the right," ain't it. --M
Clark may offer opinions on television now, but when he worked in teh cabinet for Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II he didn't just offer opinion to the President, he wrote policy. Now, whatever you may think of the merit of his policy, the fact is that he was directly involved in setting National Security policy for the United States of America. Given this, what he has to say deserves some attention. After listening, by all means, critique his words if you believe he is mistaken; his opinion on Microsoft Software may be completely off base. I don't think so, but you're welcome to disagree. In fact, I'd love to read a cogent retort. But IMO: yours wasn't it. --M
"[..]the potential implications for breast implants!"
...that's Silicone, not Silicon.BIG difference. Not the lease of which is feel. Imagine your wife with a hard and lumpy P4 in there, instead of a Silicone Gel breast implant, and you'll get the idea. Oh wait, yeah... some weirdos around here would dig that. Nevermind! *ahem!*--M
> >"But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation, > > not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out > > how in my profile."
> "You should really avoid offering to provide legal advice unless you > are admitted in the poster's home state. Depending on the state you > could be breaching the local ethics code which could be potentially > be harmful down the line if you need to be admitted pro hac vice."
IANAL: But, wow... that's an interesting comment. Certainly not deserving of the -1, Flamebait moderation tag. However, based on reading the original statement I don't see an offer of either legal advice or an offer for legal service. His offer to accept a communication could mean anything from offering a referral to commiseration. So speaking as a layperson, I ask: where do you see the ethics breach?
Given that many restraining orders not only specify locations where one may not enter, but also specify people one must avoid at a certain distance, does this not also mean that victims will soon be wearing GPS devices as well as criminals? Otherwise, how else to enforce a restraining order specifying a person instead of a place? --M
Anyway, it's worth reading from an academic point of view: to see what crazy ideas other people can come up with, but post-modernism is nothing to take too seriously: it's a toy for philosophers who've lost the competition with other scientists.
That's certainly one opinion to take, though I never thought "philosophers" were "scientists." I will note that you haven't offered any critique of what these people said, you've simply impugned the entire body of work with an ad-hominem attack calling it an "[un]serious"... "toy". Which, while possibly an arguable interpretation compared to other historical philosophical trends (not scientific though - because it's not a scientific theory), is neither factual nor relevant here. Basically, you've just offered us the tautology:
"It's the suckiest suck that ever did suck" (It sucks because it sucks)
and left it at that. Great. Now we've all learned something. *cough!* --M
OK, so I'm running under the assumption this post is a troll. But the questions do deserve an answer, so here goes:
On Postmodernism: Read some Jean-Francois Lyotard for starters. From the Postmodern Condition is his most important work. You might want to follow that up with some Bertens or Hamermas. And as I'm sure you already know, this wikipedia entry and this answers.com entry offer basic overviews (though the wikipedia entry is better IMO).
Meme is a term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. Wikipedia also offers an overview of the term here.
I wonder how long until our right to vote is transferred to our employers...
Interestingly... could you imagine Microsoft (or any other large corporate entity) pulling this stunt on the Chinese government? This is a hardball power play, and while 800 jobs might have a marginal affect on the local economy, frankly China (or Denmark for that matter) could easily give Microsoft the finger and eat the loss.
All of these companies are playing a 'divide and conquer' game to foster a legislative and regulatory 'rush to the bottom' between states here in the US and nation-states in the nascent EU, or between smaller nations throughout the world. Their plan has worked spectacularly here in the US where States are weak and the federal government policy makers (in both political parties) are ideologically in agreement with corporate-elite class. But unlike the US, many member states in the EU have a long history of labor organization and revolt, with the populace well educated and rightly suspicious of corporate power gone awry.
Whether the EU populace cares enough about the issue of software patents is of less importance than whether the citizens of various EU member states begin organizing across old national boundaries like the private concerns have already done. Organized labor and citizenry should provide a check against both government and corporate usurpation of political power regardless of popular will. Where decentralized organization and policy-making have failed, the countries have fallen into various states of authoritarianism, from outright totalitarianism to repressive centralized republics. Thus, our vote becomes worthless if we can't set the policy agenda.
China is an example of a totalitarian government with the power to check large multinationals like Microsoft, but without any measure of democratic freedom or citizen involvement in the political process. The US is an example of a republic which has been centralizing power by dismantling organized labor in order to foster pro-multinational business policies, and in the process destroying traditional democratic freedom for its citizenry. We citizens in the US risk being as marginalized as the Chinese or Russian citizenry, though political rhetoric from our leaders would never admit as much. The EU is the best example of disjointed patchwork of nations, some of which still foster the goal of decentralized political power spread among the populace. Much of this due to the lessons of the French Revolution still reverberating through their culture.
One thing I think is certain: sovereignty is collapsing all across the world as nations fold into one another to form power checks against corporations and other larger nations. While the collapse of the old Soviet Union may be seen as a counter-example against this trend, looking at Eastern European states requesting entry into the EU or NATO, or Middle Eastern bordering states like Turkey requesting entry into the EU, and we see a pattern of centralizing power as a check against the United States. That is a political and military alliance, however it also has the effect of creating a power-base to check against corporate tyranny as well. The outcome may well be a collapse to three or four world governments as a result. Whether those governments will turn democratic and spread power among the citizenry or centralize their power base is the real question.
The question becomes: where is the natural power balance between nation, corporation, and citizen in a free state?
WOW!!! That is an amazingly useful link for me. I have one of those phones and the cable, but don't own a "supported" Windows PC. Because of you, now I know where to get software to use it. Thanks a bunch! --M
Hm. Then you have an ongoing series of expensive and dangerous organ replacement surgeries.
Can't have it all. Hey, it's amazing we're seeing the creation of such technology right now. de Grey's stuff is pretty speculative and far off, but this is the real thing. And it is in direct counterpoint to your assertion that this technology is next to impossible due to scale differences between individual cells vs. complex morphology. If/when this technology matures, we'll see a real solution to organ donor scarcity. as well as transplant rejection (as transplant organs will be grown from our own stem cells). WOW, huh?:) --M
Living things have elvolved to grow their organs from small or large by multiplying cells in a certain pattern. I'm not sure that cell replacement can adequately maintain that pattern.
Made-to-measure skin and bones, which could be used to treat burn victims or patients who have suffered severe disfigurements, may soon be a reality using inkjets which can print human cells.
[...]
Professor Brian Derby, Head of the Ink-Jet Printing of Human Cells Project research team, said: "It is difficult for a surgeon to reconstruct any complex disfiguring of the face using CT scans, but with this technology we are able to build a fragment which will fit exactly. We can place cells in any designed position in order to grow tissue or bone."
This breakthrough overcomes problems currently faced by scientists who are unable to grow large tissues and have limited control over the shape or size the tissue will grow to. It also allows more than one type of cell to be printed at once, which opens up the possibility of being able to create bone grafts.
[...]
Using the printers, they are able create 3-dimensional structures, known as 'tissue scaffolds'. The shape of the scaffold determines the shape of the tissue as it grows. The structures are created by printing very thin layers of a material repeatedly on top of each other until the structure is built. Each layer is just 10 microns thick (1,000 layers equals 1cm in thickness).
[...]
Professor Derby believes the potential for this technology is huge: "You could print the scaffolding to create an organ in a day," he says.
First, how much did Melinda's influence on the Post's board affect the deal, and second, what ties does Slate still have to MS, beyond Melinda? Earlier attempts to sell off Slate had many strings attached in the contract leaving MS more or less still in editorial control.
Beats me. I stopped caring about Slate after Kinsley left as editor. It may be a step above Salon by their unwillingness to print licentious subject matter as a readership draw, but it's several steps below when it comes to printing real investigative journalism. Slate reminds me of the old Spy Magazine - plenty of snark, little bite. --M
So are you pro or anti nuclear power. It just wasn't clear.
This is something I just don't understand. Why not decide a pro/oppose position based on the specifics of each situation? I oppose the use of nuclear weapons, until faced with an asteroid hurtling toward earth. I think traditional steam nuclear power is "dangerous" but better than oil-dependency induced economic collapse. I'm not convinced RTGs strapped to a controlled explosion (rocket) are such a good idea, but this doesn't make me opposed to all nuclear solutions. I sure would like to read a report on the subject that is more factual and less politically motivated though. --M
Plutonium has killed no one. Are you arguing cars have killed no one? A car is much worse for the environment (has a 100% chance of poluting the environment vs a launch accident)
Cars most certainly kill large numbers of people yearly. Cars are a danger to the environment. But the risk / reward in transport has made them indispensable for society at large. Whether the risk of a nuclear powered space probe is worth the relative risk of nuclear contamination is a different matter. Which is an entirely different matter from the risk/reward of nuclear power, given limits on oil extraction. But I'm reading a similarly knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of risk in the use of nuclear technology as to the dangers of nuclear technology feared in the late '70s and early '80s. JMO. --M
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is. They can do whatever they like (within the law, of course). This is not a problem because unlike Microsoft, Apple are not a monopoly.
:) --M
Right. That's (Whether or not their behavior is a problem) is your opinion. It may fit within the current context of historical legal precedent. It may be a well reasoned, with many facts to back up your assertions. But as you can see from the various threads, many disagree. However, I do happen to (mostly) agree. I find Apple's actions somewhat distasteful, but not morally repugnant. At least, not yet. *shrug*.
My question was intended not to elicit opinions in reply, but to rhetorically delineate the difference in judgments between ethical values and personal necessity. There are almost certainly some folks here who refuse to accept that Microsoft has done anything wrong in thier business practices, and equate Apple's (or any corporation's) behavior here as proper business conduct. They might buy Microsoft products gleefully. Just as there are others who refuse to accept Apple's (and by extension, Microsoft's) conduct for the same reason. They might instead run Free Software exclusively. And there are those of us who sit in the middle weighing ethics with necessity, changing our opinions on the matter over time as circumstances warrant. Not a very principled position, but pragmatic nonetheless. *sigh*
Is Apple's behavior legal? Most certainly. Is it desirable? Not to me. What am I going to do about it? For the moment, not much.
Is it OK for a medium sized business with a small percentage of aggregate market-share to use restraint of trade practices, ethically dubious legal machinations to control product information flow, and closed source development methodology? Complaints about Microsoft have ranged from outright code theft and distribution (Stacker) to breach of contract and restraint of trade while holding a monopoly. And closed source development methodology. Which is worse? Which of the two might cause greater damage across the whole economy? Toss these questions in your ethical scale and decide for yourselves. I know where I sit.
I'm not pleased with Apple's behavior of late. But IMO Microsoft has a long history of much worse. I'll stick with Apple as long as their product does what I need at a price I can afford (both time and hardware/software expense). I bought a Mac because I don't have time to maintain a Linux box at home any longer. I ran both Linux or *BSD on my home PCs for over ten years, and if I had the time to tinker, I'd go back. Not now. I work full time, I take two evening classes, and I'm a part time landlord. My computer is now a tool, not a toy. So, Mac it is - warts and all.
*sigh* As good as much Free Software is, sometimes one must make a tradeoff between necessity and available time. And if that means accepting Apple's somewhat rude and abusive behavior, for the moment I'm willing to do so for expidiency's sake. But that doesn't mean I like it. Apple may convince me yet to make my next purchase an Opteron running Linux. --M
You lost me. Are you arguing about a TV show's quality, or about its popularity (the two are, if anything, negatively correlated)?
Popularity negatively correlates with quality. Wow. Is that really true? This is a difficult question because it's not a binary proposition. Yes and no offer nothing in the way of an answer. Some terrible programs are popular while some artistic masterpieces of television lay fallow. And I don't know why.
I listed some lesser known television programs at the bottom of my prior post that are considered "masterpieces": The Decalogue; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Tanner 88. These programs were certainly well received at their original broadcast, though they were not all blockbusters (The Decalogue is Polish and unfortunately never made it to US television). So, this is quality television. Art in the real sense. And on a budget significantly lower than any of the popular Network programs I listed like CSI, Law & Order, Alias, ER, etc.
So how can I claim that something like CSI or ER is "good" while B5 is "crap"? I'm talking about writing (both dialog and episodic story arc); acting talent; directing, photography, editing; production values (set design and location, costuming, lighting, camera and equipment); etc. The high budget and production values of ER or CSI allow writers enough time to edit their work before shooting begins. They have the money for multiple takes to get exactly the right shot. They have time to edit the work properly. They buy quality equiment. In general, this allows them to produce work which fits a certain standard of "good workmanship".
Does this make it art? Is it highly original or daring? No. But it does make (on average) competently produced television. Which (usually) draws an audience. Maybe. And an audience draws advertising dollars, which pays for production, blah blah blah.
A more interesting question is what's the comparative barrier to entry for SF vs. traditional drama? Is budget consumed on expensive effects the primary cause for low dramatic quality (on average) or are the writers fulfilling the expectations of their target demographic on purpose? I don't know the answer to that, either. --M
What makes, say, Hamlet a great work (and I'm comparing JMS to Shakespeare) is not the "suspense" of whether Hamlet's going to kill himeself or the king. We know the ending, yet we return over and over again.
Why am I forgetting the name of that old story of the king who holds a magic ring that brings him love and adoration. He has three sons and because he can't separate the ring (or its magic) into three for each of his sons, he has copies made of it and hands them out instead. But the sons see that the magic doesn't work and soon they fight over which is the "real" ring. Until a wise man tells them that the magic is not in the ring but in the man. And henceforth they each learn to act justly. King Lear came long after that, and in certain plot points is similar. Jeesh, I really should remember this. Brain fart. It sucks getting older.
Anyway, while I wouldn't compare B5 to Hamlet (you're certainly welcome to), I will say that I'm not competent to say why Shakespeare is as good as he is. He is. IMO, B5 is not. Nowhere close. To compare film adaptations of Shakespeare, I'll take Kurasawa's Throne of Blood (MacBeth) or RAN (King Lear). Polansk's '71 adaptation of MacBeth is damn good too. But that's JMO. --M
> > But - gratuitous overgeneralization commences - I suspect
:) --M
> [...]you have a hig hly inflated sense of your own importance, and think
> your opinion is somehow indicative of "what geeks want."
No, my opinion is just that - my opinion. And he, at least I admit as much from the start. Sorry you disagree.
> Fucking CSI, for Christ's sake?! Good lord. Law & Fucking Order, the
> most formulaic, exploitive, "ripped from today's headlines" junk this
> side of reality TV?
It sells. A lot. When it stops selling, it will be cancelled. Just like Enterprise was (about four seasons too late for my taste). So, considering how much you hate network TV fate, how about Deadwood, The Soprano's, Huff, or The L Word (hey, hot lesbian action there!). All those programs kick B5s ass in terms of writing, acting, and production values. Or maybe you disagree. In which case, turn flip the channel to SciFi and
"share and enjoy." 'Cause "It tastes not quite unlike tea!" *cough!*
For the life of me I can't understand why SF fans accept such terrible writing. I still think it's because they would rather see some esoteric idea poorly expressed within a narrative (usually as some lame soliloquy instead of presented as direct action within the plot), instead of competent writing, acting, and direction creating suspense which leads to final denouement.
Which doesn't preclude SF writers (or any other genre) from creating suspenseful stories, it just means that the average of that genre - well *ahem!* sucks. JMO!
So I don't believe I'm trolling when I ask: can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't consider the failure of this to become a movie anything other than a benefit to mankind?
You've received some good replies, but I'll toss another one out there for your consideration. Babylon 5 is crap. The dialog is abominable and some of the principles are simply incompetent actors (as you note, I'm thinking particularly of Michael O'Hare, Bruce Boxleitner, Claudia Christian as the worst). So why is this such a popular program among the SF crowd?
Beats me. I can't speak for 'em as I'm not one. But - gratuitous overgeneralization commences - I suspect the reason is that geeks want to see certain nontraditional ideas (either science, or sociological) expressed in narration and will forgive terrible acting, dialog and even ridiculous special effects in the process. I offer Dr. Who as a prime example of this. A terrible program that offered certain ideas about time travel, space, intelligent robots, and the occasional bouncing boobs. Awful stuff that a certain segment of adult geeks will still pay to watch. Babylon 5 offers similar awful dialog and acting, but slightly better special effects.
When B5 fans offer its long story arc as reason enough to like the program, what they're really saying is that the ideas presented were "complex", "interesting" and "thought provoking" across years worth of episodes. Unfortunately, there's little concern for "suspense", which the vast majority of the TV viewing public prefers. Hence, the disparity between highly rated programs like CSI, Law & Order, Alias, etc (which offer reasonable writing, competent acting, and high production values) vs. what's targeted to SF geeks - who will watch anything from the worst low budget schlock flick on the SciFi channel (as long as it's set in space, or has aliens, or has an alien with bouncing tits), to ST Enterprise, Stargate SG1, and even Battlestar Galactica (which is probably the best SF on TV right now).
Sigh. I wrote too much. But look, you will not find that B5 is a classic of television. It is not Kieslowski's The Decalogue, or Tinker, Tailor, soldier, Spy or Tanner 88. It is what it is. Which for some people is a lot of "Hmmm, very interesting" fun. And for others, it is a total, complete, unimaginable ("who the fuck green-lighted this shit?!?!?!") bore. *cough!* --M
Hasn't Trek set some kind of all time television record for number of old storylines ripped-off?
Naaaa, you're just confused about the timeline. All Trek stories are completely original once placed in proper temporal-multiverse order. *cough!* --M
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
Population explosions, deforestation, fossil fuel depletion, global climate change, or other causes of environmental over-reach, are something we might want to avoid. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a warning we might want to heed. Or, to put it another way, it's one thing to say, "Hey, we've got the right," quite another to be willing to pay for the aftermath. And cleaning up a big mess is almost always more expensive than not making the mess in the first place. Rabbit population explosion leading to depopulation crashes provide a decent model for what often happens in unplanned scenarios. Rabbits aren't expected to have the brain power to plan their population growth, but (hopefully) people noting the potential for severe negative consequences have an opportunity to act accordingly.
Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion.
Isn't that what this debate is all about? The scientific community is saying that we have passed a dangerous THRESHOLD and ought to act or else bad things will happen. Of course, if you think these scientists are wrong, I'd love to see some factual criticism. IMO: "Hey, we've got the right," ain't it. --M
Clark may offer opinions on television now, but when he worked in teh cabinet for Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II he didn't just offer opinion to the President, he wrote policy. Now, whatever you may think of the merit of his policy, the fact is that he was directly involved in setting National Security policy for the United States of America. Given this, what he has to say deserves some attention. After listening, by all means, critique his words if you believe he is mistaken; his opinion on Microsoft Software may be completely off base. I don't think so, but you're welcome to disagree. In fact, I'd love to read a cogent retort. But IMO: yours wasn't it. --M
P4 breast implants? Women get warm enough during sex as it is without bloody intel radiators in there as well.
They do?!?!? *Sigh*, I've wondered about that. It seems mine's defective... --M
> >"But then again, I am not your lawyer, and this is just an observation,
> > not legal advice. If you like, feel free to contact me. You can find out
> > how in my profile."
> "You should really avoid offering to provide legal advice unless you
> are admitted in the poster's home state. Depending on the state you
> could be breaching the local ethics code which could be potentially
> be harmful down the line if you need to be admitted pro hac vice."
IANAL: But, wow... that's an interesting comment. Certainly not deserving of the -1, Flamebait moderation tag. However, based on reading the original statement I don't see an offer of either legal advice or an offer for legal service. His offer to accept a communication could mean anything from offering a referral to commiseration. So speaking as a layperson, I ask: where do you see the ethics breach?
Given that many restraining orders not only specify locations where one may not enter, but also specify people one must avoid at a certain distance, does this not also mean that victims will soon be wearing GPS devices as well as criminals? Otherwise, how else to enforce a restraining order specifying a person instead of a place? --M
Shouldn't that be "Habermas"?
... "toy". Which, while possibly an arguable interpretation compared to other historical philosophical trends (not scientific though - because it's not a scientific theory), is neither factual nor relevant here. Basically, you've just offered us the tautology:
That's called a typo. Whoops.
Anyway, it's worth reading from an academic point of view: to see what crazy ideas other people can come up with, but post-modernism is nothing to take too seriously: it's a toy for philosophers who've lost the competition with other scientists.
That's certainly one opinion to take, though I never thought "philosophers" were "scientists." I will note that you haven't offered any critique of what these people said, you've simply impugned the entire body of work with an ad-hominem attack calling it an "[un]serious"
"It's the suckiest suck that ever did suck" (It sucks because it sucks)
and left it at that. Great. Now we've all learned something. *cough!* --M
OK, so I'm running under the assumption this post is a troll. But the questions do deserve an answer, so here goes:
On Postmodernism: Read some Jean-Francois Lyotard for starters. From the Postmodern Condition is his most important work. You might want to follow that up with some Bertens or Hamermas. And as I'm sure you already know, this wikipedia entry and this answers.com entry offer basic overviews (though the wikipedia entry is better IMO).
Meme is a term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. Wikipedia also offers an overview of the term here.
Cheers,
--Maynard
I wonder how long until our right to vote is transferred to our employers ...
Interestingly... could you imagine Microsoft (or any other large corporate entity) pulling this stunt on the Chinese government? This is a hardball power play, and while 800 jobs might have a marginal affect on the local economy, frankly China (or Denmark for that matter) could easily give Microsoft the finger and eat the loss.
All of these companies are playing a 'divide and conquer' game to foster a legislative and regulatory 'rush to the bottom' between states here in the US and nation-states in the nascent EU, or between smaller nations throughout the world. Their plan has worked spectacularly here in the US where States are weak and the federal government policy makers (in both political parties) are ideologically in agreement with corporate-elite class. But unlike the US, many member states in the EU have a long history of labor organization and revolt, with the populace well educated and rightly suspicious of corporate power gone awry.
Whether the EU populace cares enough about the issue of software patents is of less importance than whether the citizens of various EU member states begin organizing across old national boundaries like the private concerns have already done. Organized labor and citizenry should provide a check against both government and corporate usurpation of political power regardless of popular will. Where decentralized organization and policy-making have failed, the countries have fallen into various states of authoritarianism, from outright totalitarianism to repressive centralized republics. Thus, our vote becomes worthless if we can't set the policy agenda.
China is an example of a totalitarian government with the power to check large multinationals like Microsoft, but without any measure of democratic freedom or citizen involvement in the political process. The US is an example of a republic which has been centralizing power by dismantling organized labor in order to foster pro-multinational business policies, and in the process destroying traditional democratic freedom for its citizenry. We citizens in the US risk being as marginalized as the Chinese or Russian citizenry, though political rhetoric from our leaders would never admit as much. The EU is the best example of disjointed patchwork of nations, some of which still foster the goal of decentralized political power spread among the populace. Much of this due to the lessons of the French Revolution still reverberating through their culture.
One thing I think is certain: sovereignty is collapsing all across the world as nations fold into one another to form power checks against corporations and other larger nations. While the collapse of the old Soviet Union may be seen as a counter-example against this trend, looking at Eastern European states requesting entry into the EU or NATO, or Middle Eastern bordering states like Turkey requesting entry into the EU, and we see a pattern of centralizing power as a check against the United States. That is a political and military alliance, however it also has the effect of creating a power-base to check against corporate tyranny as well. The outcome may well be a collapse to three or four world governments as a result. Whether those governments will turn democratic and spread power among the citizenry or centralize their power base is the real question.
The question becomes: where is the natural power balance between nation, corporation, and citizen in a free state?
Free peoples, be mindful of this maxim: "Liberty may be gained, but can never be recovered." --Rousseau, Book II, chapter 8, "The Social Contract"
and the freeware bitpim software
WOW!!! That is an amazingly useful link for me. I have one of those phones and the cable, but don't own a "supported" Windows PC. Because of you, now I know where to get software to use it. Thanks a bunch! --M
Hm. Then you have an ongoing series of expensive and dangerous organ replacement surgeries.
:) --M
Can't have it all. Hey, it's amazing we're seeing the creation of such technology right now. de Grey's stuff is pretty speculative and far off, but this is the real thing. And it is in direct counterpoint to your assertion that this technology is next to impossible due to scale differences between individual cells vs. complex morphology. If/when this technology matures, we'll see a real solution to organ donor scarcity. as well as transplant rejection (as transplant organs will be grown from our own stem cells). WOW, huh?
Interesting counterpoint:
From Eurekalert: University of Manchester makes made-to-measure skin and bones a reality using inkjet printers
First, how much did Melinda's influence on the Post's board affect the deal, and second, what ties does Slate still have to MS, beyond Melinda? Earlier attempts to sell off Slate had many strings attached in the contract leaving MS more or less still in editorial control.
Beats me. I stopped caring about Slate after Kinsley left as editor. It may be a step above Salon by their unwillingness to print licentious subject matter as a readership draw, but it's several steps below when it comes to printing real investigative journalism. Slate reminds me of the old Spy Magazine - plenty of snark, little bite. --M
Now M$ is trying to sell it.
Slate was sold to the Washington Post in December of '04. --M
So are you pro or anti nuclear power. It just wasn't clear.
This is something I just don't understand. Why not decide a pro/oppose position based on the specifics of each situation? I oppose the use of nuclear weapons, until faced with an asteroid hurtling toward earth. I think traditional steam nuclear power is "dangerous" but better than oil-dependency induced economic collapse. I'm not convinced RTGs strapped to a controlled explosion (rocket) are such a good idea, but this doesn't make me opposed to all nuclear solutions. I sure would like to read a report on the subject that is more factual and less politically motivated though. --M
Plutonium has killed no one. Are you arguing cars have killed no one? A car is much worse for the environment (has a 100% chance of poluting the environment vs a launch accident)
Cars most certainly kill large numbers of people yearly. Cars are a danger to the environment. But the risk / reward in transport has made them indispensable for society at large. Whether the risk of a nuclear powered space probe is worth the relative risk of nuclear contamination is a different matter. Which is an entirely different matter from the risk/reward of nuclear power, given limits on oil extraction. But I'm reading a similarly knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of risk in the use of nuclear technology as to the dangers of nuclear technology feared in the late '70s and early '80s. JMO. --M
maybe even make someone sick
Maybe even kill a few people. Are you arguing that radiological accidents have killed no one? --M