Like the Sword of Truth--no matter how hard you try, it will not harm that which the wielder does not believe needs harming. Goodkind explored this aspect of its power, but IMHO never took that route as far as I would have liked.
1. Great. Cliff notes replacing knowledge. If I want information from the Art of Computer Programming, I don't want to read an opinion piece on the work; I don't want a bibliography referencing the work; I don't want a summary of the book. I want the book. And guess what? It's not online. There are an *awful* lot of similar cases.
2. See 1.
3. References are indeed published online. But that is a long, long way from ALL references being published online.
Don't get me wrong, the net is a great research tool. But it is only one tool in a toolbox, and is not (yet) sufficient for all tasks in and of itself.
I like the story and ideas, and the production is secondary to me. I recognize that a lot of the acting is pretty bad, and the dialogure isn't great in a lot of spots, but that's just not what I'm watching for.
I'd rather see good ideas poorly portrayed than bad ideas expertly portrayed.
Your point about the fact that some media never seem to return to the strength of their initial heyday is valid, but doesn't really address the point being argued. My original argument was simply that everything has NOT verifiably been done, and so the need to wonder lives on. I have seen no evidence that this is not the case. I have also seen no evidence that SF is waning significantly. True, the Kennedy-era general fervour for space itself is gone, but SF itself seems to be going strong.
Perhaps a lack of vision in the populace is--in part--responsible for a perceived waning of SF's influence in the world. There is no reason to believe that this factor is the only one or even a significant one. For that matter, the fact that a story on Slashdot gets a low comment count could hardly be considered market research. Interesting, perhaps, but certainly not anything upon which to base decisions. In fact, in Europe in 2003:
The following, extracts from the Executive Summary of a Euromonitor Report on 'Books and Publishing in the United Kingdom', provide an example of how Market Size and Trends are researched.
. ..
Fiction was the fastest growing category, with a 13.8% rise in volume sales over the period, and an even bigger 24.1% rise in value. Quality fiction, thrillers and science fiction and children's novels are the main market drivers.
And no, I am not dead yet. But I do have the capacity to dream, and I do not need a scientist somewhere to think something up before I can dream about it.
I think it would have validity if you suggested that people *feel* like everything's been done, rather than suggesting that everything actually *has* been done.
Besides, SF is something like C&W music in its ups and downs. It's out there skittering around the edges of the mainstream most of the time, and every so often something huge comes along (Star Wars, Garth Brooks) and a huge explosion in popularity occurs. After a while people just get sated and interest again wanes, and it becomes slightly uncool to be into the genre--at least, for a while.
I'm sure some sales are lost to existential apathy, but I don't know how many people don't want to dream anymore because everything worth dreaming has already been dreamed.
Sorry, but the fact that you (or I) lack the capacity to know what is coming is not sufficient to conclude that nothing new is coming. It just means that human imagination is limited.
I'm sure that at some point in every age, some pundit has claimed that humanity had done everything which could be done. There is no evidence that current claims that there is nothing left to ponder are of any more worth that those in the past.
The Daily Show is satire, and it is not Jon Stewart's role to ask tough questions. Unfortunately for him, what started as a comedy program has become the only television news show that is still respected by anyone in my large circle of friends.
Ok, didn't you just completely contradict yourself there? Or are you saying people still get their news elsewhere also, but they only "respect" The Daily Show?
There are other media than television. He said that the Daily Show is the only television news show still respected by his friend. This still leaves many news sources, including the Internet, newspapers, public radio, etc.
At any rate, if Stewart is making people think, if only by dint of making (sometimes slightly ridiculous, but usually hilarious) comments, then he's doing a lot more than most people. Sure, some people just turn him off, and some people just laugh without thinking, but some people end up trying to figure *why* what he just said was so important, or else how they can shoot it down (when he annoys them).
It is perfectly reasonable that Chinese researchers would pay more attention to a mutation once it had been proven to exist in the Chinese than they would when the mutation was only proven to exist in Caucasians.
Such a discovery would support further research into the mutation in non-Caucasians simply because now the researchers know that they have a chance of finding the mutation in other populations.
Of course not. But you do need to be a musician to be qualified to evaluate the mechanics of music; you need to be a painter to comment on the technique used in a painting. As in any field, you can only comment as a layman until you have developed your own expertise.
I agree with Ambush Bug here. Bush's possible opinion *now* is irrelevant--the fact is that he wrote this piece and entered it into the public record (in a highly accessible way, I might add). The dishonest thing would be to try to lie and play like he never said it.
To say that because the article is from the past it is irrelevant and should be purged from the record is phenomenally short-sighted.
No-one would imply that alternative energy sources are free of all impact--obviously if you extract energy from a system, you are going to affect that system. That's beside the point. The issue is choosing the methods with the lowest impact (and indeed the lowest *potential* for impact) over the longest time frame. Fossil fuels don't come close to winning any contests on this basis; their only virtues are ease and ubiquity. Nuclear will be just fine once we figure out what to do with the waste and stop arguing about Yucca Mountain (which only accounts for U.S. waste, anyway). And if you compare the potential cost (financial and enviromental) from a wind farm going belly-up to that of a reactor going belly-up, even if you factor in the difference in raw power generation, the wind farm is going to win big. Sure it might kill some birds, but not nearly the number that are killed by pet cats in any major city.
The people who are looking forward to using things like hydrogen cells are quite clever enough to realize that there is no benefit if all they are doing is moving the negative impact from the car to the power station.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the Sword of Truth--no matter how hard you try, it will not harm that which the wielder does not believe needs harming. Goodkind explored this aspect of its power, but IMHO never took that route as far as I would have liked.
true!!! but your use of ! SuXoRS!!!!!!
I wish I had points to mod you up.
Just because it's posted in a blog, that doesn't mean it's not journalism. But it doesn't mean it is, either.
100% agreed.
1. Great. Cliff notes replacing knowledge. If I want information from the Art of Computer Programming, I don't want to read an opinion piece on the work; I don't want a bibliography referencing the work; I don't want a summary of the book. I want the book. And guess what? It's not online. There are an *awful* lot of similar cases.
2. See 1.
3. References are indeed published online. But that is a long, long way from ALL references being published online.
Don't get me wrong, the net is a great research tool. But it is only one tool in a toolbox, and is not (yet) sufficient for all tasks in and of itself.
I like the story and ideas, and the production is secondary to me. I recognize that a lot of the acting is pretty bad, and the dialogure isn't great in a lot of spots, but that's just not what I'm watching for.
I'd rather see good ideas poorly portrayed than bad ideas expertly portrayed.
Whereas calling him a childish troll proves you to be a. . .?
You've answered namecalling with namecalling.
By sentence, in order:
1) I highly doubt that the sum total of knowledge is indexed by Google.
2) IT workers are neither the whole of humanity nor the
whole of the blogging population.
3) There is a difference between a reference and an essay.
4) You have just proved the author's point. Thank you.
Yes, but the bar has been lowered. A lot.
The longer one is way better. The best parts are all in the second coda.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/kilopa rsec.html
Careful, or you might learn something.
This is probably a troll, but...can't restrain the urge...
10 light years is around 632,428.7 times as far from Earth as Sol is.
There. I feel better now.
Your point about the fact that some media never seem to return to the strength of their initial heyday is valid, but doesn't really address the point being argued. My original argument was simply that everything has NOT verifiably been done, and so the need to wonder lives on. I have seen no evidence that this is not the case. I have also seen no evidence that SF is waning significantly. True, the Kennedy-era general fervour for space itself is gone, but SF itself seems to be going strong.
Some industry insiders talking it over.Perhaps a lack of vision in the populace is--in part--responsible for a perceived waning of SF's influence in the world. There is no reason to believe that this factor is the only one or even a significant one. For that matter, the fact that a story on Slashdot gets a low comment count could hardly be considered market research. Interesting, perhaps, but certainly not anything upon which to base decisions. In fact, in Europe in 2003:
And no, I am not dead yet. But I do have the capacity to dream, and I do not need a scientist somewhere to think something up before I can dream about it.
I think it would have validity if you suggested that people *feel* like everything's been done, rather than suggesting that everything actually *has* been done.
Besides, SF is something like C&W music in its ups and downs. It's out there skittering around the edges of the mainstream most of the time, and every so often something huge comes along (Star Wars, Garth Brooks) and a huge explosion in popularity occurs. After a while people just get sated and interest again wanes, and it becomes slightly uncool to be into the genre--at least, for a while.
I'm sure some sales are lost to existential apathy, but I don't know how many people don't want to dream anymore because everything worth dreaming has already been dreamed.
Sorry, but the fact that you (or I) lack the capacity to know what is coming is not sufficient to conclude that nothing new is coming. It just means that human imagination is limited.
I'm sure that at some point in every age, some pundit has claimed that humanity had done everything which could be done. There is no evidence that current claims that there is nothing left to ponder are of any more worth that those in the past.
IANAL, but I believe you've just deduced the existence of 'precedence'.
There are other media than television. He said that the Daily Show is the only television news show still respected by his friend. This still leaves many news sources, including the Internet, newspapers, public radio, etc.
At any rate, if Stewart is making people think, if only by dint of making (sometimes slightly ridiculous, but usually hilarious) comments, then he's doing a lot more than most people. Sure, some people just turn him off, and some people just laugh without thinking, but some people end up trying to figure *why* what he just said was so important, or else how they can shoot it down (when he annoys them).
It is perfectly reasonable that Chinese researchers would pay more attention to a mutation once it had been proven to exist in the Chinese than they would when the mutation was only proven to exist in Caucasians.
Such a discovery would support further research into the mutation in non-Caucasians simply because now the researchers know that they have a chance of finding the mutation in other populations.
Something like how IIS just makes Apache look like a weekend project, huh? ;)
Of course not. But you do need to be a musician to be qualified to evaluate the mechanics of music; you need to be a painter to comment on the technique used in a painting. As in any field, you can only comment as a layman until you have developed your own expertise.
Or perhaps worse, for the bone-conduction model:
"Can I borrow your phone? I need to make a really important call!"
"Sure!"
*Sticks finger in ear*
"Uh.... never mind..."
I agree with Ambush Bug here. Bush's possible opinion *now* is irrelevant--the fact is that he wrote this piece and entered it into the public record (in a highly accessible way, I might add). The dishonest thing would be to try to lie and play like he never said it.
To say that because the article is from the past it is irrelevant and should be purged from the record is phenomenally short-sighted.
No-one would imply that alternative energy sources are free of all impact--obviously if you extract energy from a system, you are going to affect that system. That's beside the point. The issue is choosing the methods with the lowest impact (and indeed the lowest *potential* for impact) over the longest time frame. Fossil fuels don't come close to winning any contests on this basis; their only virtues are ease and ubiquity. Nuclear will be just fine once we figure out what to do with the waste and stop arguing about Yucca Mountain (which only accounts for U.S. waste, anyway). And if you compare the potential cost (financial and enviromental) from a wind farm going belly-up to that of a reactor going belly-up, even if you factor in the difference in raw power generation, the wind farm is going to win big. Sure it might kill some birds, but not nearly the number that are killed by pet cats in any major city.
The people who are looking forward to using things like hydrogen cells are quite clever enough to realize that there is no benefit if all they are doing is moving the negative impact from the car to the power station.
Yeah. Hopefully someday someone will invent some other way to generate power.
Oh, wait...