> That's like disregarding every Star Trek episode > ever made as soon as they traveled back in time.
That doesn't make sense. Please expound.
A better comparison would be Dallas, where a whole season was a dream. After it was revealed as a dream should anything that occurred in that season matter to a fan? I don't think so.
* * * 13th Floor spoiler below * * *
Or imagine you're a person who learns they exist within a simulation, which in turn exists inside another simulation, ala 13th Floor. Would you still show up early for work every morning?
After watching The Matrix Reloaded I came to the conclusion that the "real world" outside the Matrix was itself a Matrix, because Neo was able to knock out the squids there. No human being can generate electromagnetic pulses. (Although Ben Stiller can stop Chinese throwing stars with the Magnum look.)
In which case, it doesn't matter what Morpheus, a human (or meta-agent), or the (sub) Architect believe. They're just constructs in a potentially endless recursion of Matrices.
The first film succeeds because it is an action movie, and so there is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. But the sequels try to be serious science fiction, and to accomplish that the Wachowski Brothers had to answer the question everyone was asking when they left the theater: Why do the machines need a Matrix in the first place?
Generating electricity from living human beings would be pretty damned inefficient. Ignoring fossil fuels, biomass, nuclear energy, geothermal and hydroelectric, dead humans burn pretty well once you get them started.
Even assuming all those energy sources had been exhausted (except the last) you still wouldn't need a Matrix because you could grow micro-encephalic humans, or lobotomize them. Or worse, just treat them as we do lab animals.
So I don't care what rationalization the WBs pulled out of their butts for the Matrix's existence, and more car chases and more Agent Smith's don't make up for that fact.
To those mouthing off, make something, or even just conceptualize something that you think is better than the Matrix concept. Add to that, how you would execute it. Until then, just shut your mouths and read a book.
Well maybe if the WBs had subjected their screenplays to some healthy criticism we'd all be buying the boxed set.
Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that?
Dear god I hope you're joking. I wouldn't let Bruce Sterling write a laundry list. He even managed to make William Gibson suck when they co-wrote "The Difference Engine".
Without explaining what it stands for (i.e., DHMO = dihydrogen monoxide) an acronym can seem pretty sinister. And DHMO sounds a little like DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), a carcinogenic agent...
IANAP (I am not a pilot), but I seem to remember the glide ratio of a 747 is 20:1, meaning it flies 20 feet forward for every foot of elevation lost. That could be pretty unsettling if you onboard, but still better than if you were on the space shuttle in the same situation!
What does that comment and the rest of your post have to do with what I said, which is that JWST is not a replacement for the HST? In fact, I don't see that I ever said anything about GWB in my post, or in fact in any post I've ever written!
Nothing. And no, you never did. I was explaining my response to DirtyJ's original post.
spanklin:
The relevant point is that Hubble can observe in the ultraviolet, optical, and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. JWST will be an infrared-optimized telescope. It will not have UV capabilities, and its optical performance will be mediocre.
You are absolutely correct. I wasn't looking at it from the user perspective. NASA is transitioning from HST to JWST, therefore that-which-is-transitioned-to replaces that-which-is-transitioned-from. That's a contractor's perspective. Won't be last time somebody says "That's great, but I liked the old one better."
I went offline to talk up some folks about JWST, HST and the shuttle. Here's what they told me:
"The shuttle will never fly again." "The shuttle will be back in service this summer."
"Hubble will be serviced again." "DUCK!!!"
"JWST isn't scheduled to launch until 2012." "Some guys over the wall are coding for JWST as we speak."
All I can say with any degree of certainty is that HST has reached its operational life expectancy, and the fact that its replacement is not on the launch pad now cannot be laid at the feet of GWB.
It takes a mature individual to recognize and take council from people smarter than themselves. You may not agree with their politics, but Bush has surrounded himself with outstanding people.
Here's an article by someone who actually attended HBS, and his opinion of GWB.
The post I replied to suggested that Bush's Mars boosterism is the "apparently just coincidental" cause of HST and the shuttle's demise. You and DirtyJ surely know the decision to decommission HST preceded any of this Mars talk.
Wasn't it Carl Sagan (once a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?)--an astronomer, not a meteorologist, mind you--who predicted a nuclear winter from the smoke of burning oil wells in the first gulf war?
There are actually three pronunciation for the word "nuclear" in the dictionary, and "nukular" is one of them. Repeat after me: "Texas, it's a whole other country."
Perhaps *you* do, but most of us probably just like to think we are not being spied on all the time. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to be 'on camera,' so to speak, all the time. And the less privacy we have as a society the more danger there is to those of us who can be victimized by an admittedly small group of criminal offenders. I would like my children to be safe, but there has to be a balance.
Okay, I understand that if for example the government does not require businesses to adequately guard the privacy of your personal information then that leaves you vulnerable to identity theft. But with regards to video surveillance, do you think your privacy should extend outside your home?
How many surveillance cameras did I appear on today? At least five: a traffic camera, the company parking lot camera, the company building camera, Quiznos' camera and 7-Eleven's camera. I didn't give any of them a second thought until just now. Do you think any of them should be prohibited?
For instance, I heard that Giant [the grocery store chain] made more last year selling data about their customers than in profits from items sold in their store. In some ways, this is good to the customers, as it allows them to find an alternate revenue stream, and keep their prices down.
I don't know how much they could make selling customer information, but Giant Eagle's 2003 profits were $4.7 billion.
Now, none of your posts have acknowledged that the Patriot Act is being abused to prosecute other kinds of crime than terrorism, despite your assertion that one has.
Huh? What assertion would that be? I have not characterized the prosecution of other crimes under the Patriot Act in any way; the two articles cited by orthogonal do not mention the word "abuse". Only you have characterized them as abuses. Again you attempt to assign some sort of straw man argument to me.
You did mention the "Bank Secrets Act", but so what? What are you driving at here? When you troll, you're "just kidding"?
Sorry, had I known I was addressing someone without a sense of humor I would have replied: "Given his commitment to law enforcement, surely John Ashcroft would not favor a provision in the Patriot Act that would serve to weaken the probability of conviction."
I am not a troll, as I have exhibited none of the behaviors associated with one in the Wikipedia. I do note, however, that two of your last twenty-four posts were flamebait...
What I'm "driving at here" is that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) existed and was being used against money launderers before there ever was a Patriot Act. So to say "the Patriot Act is going after non-terror suspects" is misleading. It would be more correct to say that "the Patriot Act uses FinCEN to obtain banking information on suspected terrorists much as it has been previously used to obtain banking information on suspected money launderers".
I've answered your specious question in all candor -
Wait, can I stop you for a minute? I've had people accuse me of having a specious argument before, but never a specious question. Your misapplication of Brobdingnagian words (e.g., malfeasance) is execrable. Please try to remember to spell-check (e.g., uncouch [sic], unnaccountable [sic], challengable [sic]).
I've answered your specious question in all candor - so come clean: why are you satisfied with these criminal investigations being undermined by easily challengable Patriot Act overreaching for inadmissible evidence? Or are you so deeply perverse that you're laundering money, and can't help cackling as these keystone kops work overtime to keep you in business?
Sir or madam, in the best tradition of the Socratic Method I put a question to orthogonal, which he answered, to my gratitude and enlightenment. I read, but did not agree with the opinion expressed by the ACLU, EFF, et al in the articles that FinCEN's use constituted an invasion of privacy. I do not recognize a constitutional right to conduct financial activities in government-regulated banks with anonymity.
Yet you snipe at me with ad hominem attacks and questions irrelevant to my personal line of inquiry: the line of demarcation between the constitutional right of the people "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...", privacy, if you will, and anonymity wherein one is free to commit acts in support of terrorism with impunity.
There's a saying that goes "Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it."
You didn't answer my question, and you are incorrectly extrapolating my position from an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment. I pointed out in my original post that the government was sniffing out money laundering before the Patriot Act--I believe as part of the drug war--and it targeted "non-terror" suspects.
Why not try to enlighten us with information instead of resorting to an unverified argument from authority?
Does it bother you how vulnerable to "due process violation" case dismissal these "Patriot Act" searches are when conducted on nonterror suspects?
Nope. I'm not a lawyer. I presume that if John Ashcroft is as much of a badass as his opponents seem to think he his, then not only will he have crafted the act to minimize the risks of due process violation, he will within six months have all the grandmother in the nation locked up for illegally downloading polka MP3s.
Here's a question for you: how do you prosecute money launderers without having access to their financial data?
Slashdot Mirror
Estonia is a parliamentary republic.
According to the World Factbook, world literacy is approximately seventy-nine percent.
The United States is sixty-sixth in literacy, with ninety-seven percent literacy.
Where's the spoiler? I read the first volume, City of Golden Shadow. Tedious. Spare me from wading through the next 2,500 pages!
> That's like disregarding every Star Trek episode
> ever made as soon as they traveled back in time.
That doesn't make sense. Please expound.
A better comparison would be Dallas, where a whole season was a dream. After it was revealed as a dream should anything that occurred in that season matter to a fan? I don't think so.
* * * 13th Floor spoiler below * * *
Or imagine you're a person who learns they exist within a simulation, which in turn exists inside another simulation, ala 13th Floor. Would you still show up early for work every morning?
After watching The Matrix Reloaded I came to the conclusion that the "real world" outside the Matrix was itself a Matrix, because Neo was able to knock out the squids there. No human being can generate electromagnetic pulses. (Although Ben Stiller can stop Chinese throwing stars with the Magnum look.)
In which case, it doesn't matter what Morpheus, a human (or meta-agent), or the (sub) Architect believe. They're just constructs in a potentially endless recursion of Matrices.
The first film succeeds because it is an action movie, and so there is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. But the sequels try to be serious science fiction, and to accomplish that the Wachowski Brothers had to answer the question everyone was asking when they left the theater: Why do the machines need a Matrix in the first place?
Generating electricity from living human beings would be pretty damned inefficient. Ignoring fossil fuels, biomass, nuclear energy, geothermal and hydroelectric, dead humans burn pretty well once you get them started.
Even assuming all those energy sources had been exhausted (except the last) you still wouldn't need a Matrix because you could grow micro-encephalic humans, or lobotomize them. Or worse, just treat them as we do lab animals.
So I don't care what rationalization the WBs pulled out of their butts for the Matrix's existence, and more car chases and more Agent Smith's don't make up for that fact.
To those mouthing off, make something, or even just conceptualize something that you think is better than the Matrix concept. Add to that, how you would execute it. Until then, just shut your mouths and read a book.
Well maybe if the WBs had subjected their screenplays to some healthy criticism we'd all be buying the boxed set.
I get about 30 MPG (city) in my Saturn SL1, and about 41 MPG highway. Original 14" tires.
Ada Lovelace is usually credited as the first computer programmer, and a century earlier.
Yep, just like in nature, a virus that kills its host can't spread as widely.
Anyone else think Bruce Sterling would've been a good choice for that?
Dear god I hope you're joking. I wouldn't let Bruce Sterling write a laundry list. He even managed to make William Gibson suck when they co-wrote "The Difference Engine".
Without explaining what it stands for (i.e., DHMO = dihydrogen monoxide) an acronym can seem pretty sinister. And DHMO sounds a little like DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide), a carcinogenic agent...
IANAP (I am not a pilot), but I seem to remember the glide ratio of a 747 is 20:1, meaning it flies 20 feet forward for every foot of elevation lost. That could be pretty unsettling if you onboard, but still better than if you were on the space shuttle in the same situation!
Nothing. And no, you never did. I was explaining my response to DirtyJ's original post.
spanklin:
You are absolutely correct. I wasn't looking at it from the user perspective. NASA is transitioning from HST to JWST, therefore that-which-is-transitioned-to replaces that-which-is-transitioned-from. That's a contractor's perspective. Won't be last time somebody says "That's great, but I liked the old one better."
I went offline to talk up some folks about JWST, HST and the shuttle. Here's what they told me:
"The shuttle will never fly again."
"The shuttle will be back in service this summer."
"Hubble will be serviced again."
"DUCK!!!"
"JWST isn't scheduled to launch until 2012."
"Some guys over the wall are coding for JWST as we speak."
All I can say with any degree of certainty is that HST has reached its operational life expectancy, and the fact that its replacement is not on the launch pad now cannot be laid at the feet of GWB.
It takes a mature individual to recognize and take council from people smarter than themselves. You may not agree with their politics, but Bush has surrounded himself with outstanding people.
Here's an article by someone who actually attended HBS, and his opinion of GWB.
The post I replied to suggested that Bush's Mars boosterism is the "apparently just coincidental" cause of HST and the shuttle's demise. You and DirtyJ surely know the decision to decommission HST preceded any of this Mars talk.
Wasn't it Carl Sagan (once a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?)--an astronomer, not a meteorologist, mind you--who predicted a nuclear winter from the smoke of burning oil wells in the first gulf war?
Relax, it's being replaced by the James Webb Space Telescope.
Oh no! You mean the James Webb Space Telescope they're replacing Hubble with is being cancelled? That's news to me.
There are actually three pronunciation for the word "nuclear" in the dictionary, and "nukular" is one of them.
Repeat after me: "Texas, it's a whole other country."
Okay, I understand that if for example the government does not require businesses to adequately guard the privacy of your personal information then that leaves you vulnerable to identity theft. But with regards to video surveillance, do you think your privacy should extend outside your home?
How many surveillance cameras did I appear on today? At least five: a traffic camera, the company parking lot camera, the company building camera, Quiznos' camera and 7-Eleven's camera. I didn't give any of them a second thought until just now. Do you think any of them should be prohibited?
I don't know how much they could make selling customer information, but Giant Eagle's 2003 profits were $4.7 billion.
Huh? What assertion would that be? I have not characterized the prosecution of other crimes under the Patriot Act in any way; the two articles cited by orthogonal do not mention the word "abuse". Only you have characterized them as abuses. Again you attempt to assign some sort of straw man argument to me.
Sorry, had I known I was addressing someone without a sense of humor I would have replied: "Given his commitment to law enforcement, surely John Ashcroft would not favor a provision in the Patriot Act that would serve to weaken the probability of conviction."
I am not a troll, as I have exhibited none of the behaviors associated with one in the Wikipedia. I do note, however, that two of your last twenty-four posts were flamebait...
What I'm "driving at here" is that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) existed and was being used against money launderers before there ever was a Patriot Act. So to say "the Patriot Act is going after non-terror suspects" is misleading. It would be more correct to say that "the Patriot Act uses FinCEN to obtain banking information on suspected terrorists much as it has been previously used to obtain banking information on suspected money launderers".
Wait, can I stop you for a minute? I've had people accuse me of having a specious argument before, but never a specious question. Your misapplication of Brobdingnagian words (e.g., malfeasance) is execrable. Please try to remember to spell-check (e.g., uncouch [sic], unnaccountable [sic], challengable [sic]).
Sir or madam, in the best tradition of the Socratic Method I put a question to orthogonal, which he answered, to my gratitude and enlightenment. I read, but did not agree with the opinion expressed by the ACLU, EFF, et al in the articles that FinCEN's use constituted an invasion of privacy. I do not recognize a constitutional right to conduct financial activities in government-regulated banks with anonymity.
Yet you snipe at me with ad hominem attacks and questions irrelevant to my personal line of inquiry: the line of demarcation between the constitutional right of the people "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...", privacy, if you will, and anonymity wherein one is free to commit acts in support of terrorism with impunity.
There's a saying that goes "Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it."
Good day.
You didn't answer my question, and you are incorrectly extrapolating my position from an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment. I pointed out in my original post that the government was sniffing out money laundering before the Patriot Act--I believe as part of the drug war--and it targeted "non-terror" suspects.
Why not try to enlighten us with information instead of resorting to an unverified argument from authority?
Nope. I'm not a lawyer. I presume that if John Ashcroft is as much of a badass as his opponents seem to think he his, then not only will he have crafted the act to minimize the risks of due process violation, he will within six months have all the grandmother in the nation locked up for illegally downloading polka MP3s.
Here's a question for you: how do you prosecute money launderers without having access to their financial data?