... then you make sure that person is the one to get hurt, and it has to be the kind of pain and humiliation that will make them fear you forever. If they don't respect you, make them fear you.
In my experience, this doesn't take much for most bullies.
No kidding, one quick karate kick to the shin was all I had to do to get my very own Malfoy to call me crazy and leave me the hell alone in elementary. His two goons didn't even step forward. Very satisfying.
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Don't believe me? Check out the comments from the show creators some time
Ha! As if I'll believe them. Remember BSG? They had a good-bye cast party for "dead" Starbuck? They said they were so sad not to work with miss Sackhoff anymore... well I didn't believe them then (yeah, they're trusting their ratings to a Starbuck-less cast, riiiiiight, suuuuuure) and I think you should learn not to believe the bullshit those hacks send your way. When people in hollywood talk about their product, they are contractually obligated to say things that will enhance shareholder value, no matter how preposterous those lies are (like the Fresh Prince telling us that I Robot was very faithful to the book, and that his character is the only guy o Earth who doesn't trust robots).
In short, they fed you a retcon, and you're trying to convince me the Emperor's clothes are super nice.
I said, "fight back" not "kill everyone that doesn't like you." You misread me. "Fight back" is understood by most readers to mean, "if you are attacked, defend yourself vigorously."
I did not misread you, and you didn't say "fight back" you said "kids from the earliest age possible to fight back", and (I will put the important bit in bold) very young kids will not understand this, not the way you expect most readers to understand it.
Was I clear enough the second time?
I'll try a third, just in case: Very young children can interpret the slightest disagreement as a fight, and they will fight back disproportionately if you taught them to immediately take their aggression from 0 to 100.
Understood?
In conclusion, the point I tried to convey to you was that the ability of very young children to accurately judge social situations is underdeveloped, and it is prudent to refrain from deliberately teaching them to act in a way that would exacerbate simple misunderstandings. It is ok to teach children to fight back, but it is not ok to give them that directive as their primary conflict-resolution strategy. It should be held for a "plan B" contingency, following non-violent attempts. I hope I was less cryptic this time around.
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
No, Hurley believed he was cursed.
You're confusing the opinion of a character with explicit exposition from a narrator.
I'm not confusing anything, you're just unaware of all the elements shown as evidence of the non-trivial nature of the numbers. I see no point in exploring the depths of your ignorance: Good day, sir.
So yeah, teach your kids from the earliest age possible to fight back with everything they've got. Tell them not to worry about hurting the bully. The bully deserves whatever they get.
Balance, grasshopper. Sometimes people tell that to their kids, and their kids become the biggest bullis ever because they interpret every little thing as worthy of righteous savage retribution.
You have to teach them to never start a fight, but if someone else decides that there is a fight, if someone else has taken the decision that someone would be hurt, then you make sure that person is the one to get hurt, and it has to be the kind of pain and humiliation that will make them fear you forever. If they don't respect you, make them fear you.
The problem with that, as I'm sure many others here can attest to, is were one to stand up to bullies, many schools somehow managed to punish the bullied student worse than the bully, who often gets off scot free, no matter what.
Well, then you have to break the principal's legs.
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What are the numbers and how are they magic? - The show creators said in interviews over and over again they randomly picked numbers and they had no major significance, unless you want to subscribe to the idea of destiny. But the numbers themselves never once do anything magical. Someone won the lottery with them. Someone used them as a code. Coincidence or destiny perhaps, but no magic.
Everyone who used those numbers in a game of chance (Hurley's lotto, that other guy and his bean-guessing game at the fair) not only won, but won with deadly consequences, the laws of probability bending around them and they were cursed with 1)disasters and 2)the numbers themselves reappearing around them non-stop.
You forgot all of that?
without specifically referencing any of them. [...]
The answers were explicitly stated. You're just looking to bitch.
No, you're just forgetting important details and contradicting yourself.
Wait, you're one of the writer from Lost, aren't you?!?
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As I said, you do not like the answers provided. You can complain that the show didn't provide the answers you wanted and remain miserable, or accept them for what they are and be at peace. It's your choice, dude. You can come into the church whenever you're ready. I forgive you.
I'm not miserable, I was expecting them to wave their hands at me, I learned my lesson with Galactica.
But you're right, I don't like the answers provided, since the answers were: "just because" and "because I said so".
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What are the numbers and how are they magic?
There were a bunch of numbered names in the cliff cave of people Jacob IDed as potential candidates. The magic numbers were the last remaining numbers, matching the candidates that arrived on the island via the plane crash.
How did they show up everywhere, then? Why did playing them in the lotto cause a meteorite to fall on Hurley's chicken stand?
Why was Kate there if she gets crossed out when she becomes a mother?
MAGIC! *waves hand*
Why did Rousseau and Claire go crazy?
Both of them had their children taken from them and had to live a long time stranded and alone on an island not knowing where their kids were.
Nope, Claire went crazy and walked off in the forest before her kid was taken.
Ok, maybe the black smoke impersonating dead people explains the "goes crazy and kills people" part...
Re:Do you want more religion with your scifi?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I make me angry to have supernatural entities like ESPers in Star Trek
ESP has been part of sci-fi for pretty much as long as there has been sci-fi. It's part of the whole "evolution - psychic powers - beings of pure energy" progression. You can view it as fantasy in sci-fi, but they usually give a "hyperspace waves of sentience" sci-fi angle.
Re:Don't understand the hate
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why other Lost fans haven't liked the last season of the show. The big questions were answered, but they seem not to like the answers provided.
What are the numbers and how are they magic? "Jacob just likes numbers" What is the black smoke? "A guy that was dropped in a magic light" What is the magic light? "A magic light. MAGIC!" What was the disease that Rouseau and the hatch guy were talking about? "*crickets*" Why did Rousseau and Claire go crazy? "Er... magic light again, maybe?"
Etc. There were no answers, just cheap hand waving.
Re:So, my only question regarding Lost is
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What the hell was that black smoke thing in the first series? You didn't see it at all through two or three, and I got so bored by then that I gave up.
So, black smoke monster; What was it?
A guy that was turned into a smoke monster by being dropped in a magic light.
The flash sideways scenes had no specific date/time associated with them.
The flash sideways occur in the days following he flight of oceanic 815 (the point at which they start).
Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 was a scheduled flight from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, California, United States, on a Boeing 777 owned by Oceanic Airlines. Under mysterious circumstances, on September 22, 2004, the airliner, carrying 324 passengers, deviated from its original course and disappeared over the Pacific Ocean. This is the central moment in the series Lost and the personal chronological beginning of the main characters' exploits on the Island.
I don't understand how being an athiest would deter you from watching a work of fiction.
When B5 pulled the "OMG alien angels!" crap, I stopped watching. You know why? Fuck that hack writer, angels aren't a universal image of good, they're from one part of the world, and I'm offended. I don't mind Ancient Astronaut storylines, but cultural imperialism like that is icky.
I tried watching it again later on: The captain was beaten and tortured, he jumped out of a tall window in a deep hole while his broke the dome, let in the toxic atmosphere and asploded with three space-nukes. That was a season finale, and I stopped watching again when I realized that all of that had failed to kill the guy. Bleark.
What a robot/android needs to be capable of is to do these actions on its own, in the right circumstance
There is no universally agreed upon definition of robot. By all accounts, a remote-controlled device of any shape is called a robot, and devices that only perform preprogrammed moves at an assembly lines are called robots.
We all WANT autonomous, aware robots, but devices don't need to be autonomous to be robots. Granted, this ambiguity of language is inconvenient, but ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.
Methinks big Japanese corporations are legally obligated to use a small part of their budget (say 1%?) for humanitarian purposes. Toyota may have many robotic divisions, but the one I'm familiar with is the Partner Robot Division, and there's an Assistance group there IIRC. It's what you think it is: assistance robots, to help in the care of elderly and disabled. The violin thing is just PR and probably was done by a couple guys who thought "hey, we can do *that*", and got green-lighted. It all comes from that same division.
Every industrial giant in japan has invested in accordance with that policy (there's tax credits IIRC), and the trend that I observe is that they all decided to concentrate on one aspect. Honda concentrated on the legs, Toyota on the hands, others are working at facial expressions, etc.
I gave a link in an earlier reply to Toyota's robot page, you can see they had a wheeled robot with nimble fingers back when honda had a walking robot with claw hands. They're competing against each other on details but cooperating on the bigger picture: Japanese domination of the humanoid robot market.
The casualties incurred in transportation are already at an easily tolerable level (demonstrated every day).
Obstetricians of the 19th century used to say the same thing about deaths in childbirth. You're acclimated to its horrors, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for progress.
Though I just went to check the rates, and perinatal still kills more than road accidents, so you have a point. I'll keep wishing that there would be more research at improving our sensors and collision avoidance algorithms.
I wish all funding for that would be diverted to making a car with a survival instinct: Proximity sensors for collision avoidance, sensors to determine road conditions of maximum safe speeds accordingly, etc.
Once it becomes rare for someone to die in a car accident, THEN they can mess around with red light idling algorithms and self-driving cars. Just pick your priorities: Safety first.
many sewerage treatment plants have been burning methane for power for decades
I visited the local plant years ago, and they had special designs in their 13-stories-deep shit silos so that the top would fly off in case of an explosion, but no way to capture and use the methane. Their rationale was a cost-effort-gains ratio. The local "dump" runs off its methane though (and you get a 10 minute speech about how they're different from a dump if you call it a dump in front of them).
I hope this "using the methane we have" trend caches on.
Slashdot Mirror
... then you make sure that person is the one to get hurt, and it has to be the kind of pain and humiliation that will make them fear you forever. If they don't respect you, make them fear you.
In my experience, this doesn't take much for most bullies.
No kidding, one quick karate kick to the shin was all I had to do to get my very own Malfoy to call me crazy and leave me the hell alone in elementary. His two goons didn't even step forward. Very satisfying.
Don't believe me? Check out the comments from the show creators some time
Ha! As if I'll believe them. Remember BSG? They had a good-bye cast party for "dead" Starbuck? They said they were so sad not to work with miss Sackhoff anymore... well I didn't believe them then (yeah, they're trusting their ratings to a Starbuck-less cast, riiiiiight, suuuuuure) and I think you should learn not to believe the bullshit those hacks send your way. When people in hollywood talk about their product, they are contractually obligated to say things that will enhance shareholder value, no matter how preposterous those lies are (like the Fresh Prince telling us that I Robot was very faithful to the book, and that his character is the only guy o Earth who doesn't trust robots).
In short, they fed you a retcon, and you're trying to convince me the Emperor's clothes are super nice.
I said, "fight back" not "kill everyone that doesn't like you."
You misread me. "Fight back" is understood by most readers to mean, "if you are attacked, defend yourself vigorously."
I did not misread you, and you didn't say "fight back" you said "kids from the earliest age possible to fight back", and (I will put the important bit in bold) very young kids will not understand this, not the way you expect most readers to understand it.
Was I clear enough the second time?
I'll try a third, just in case: Very young children can interpret the slightest disagreement as a fight, and they will fight back disproportionately if you taught them to immediately take their aggression from 0 to 100.
Understood?
In conclusion, the point I tried to convey to you was that the ability of very young children to accurately judge social situations is underdeveloped, and it is prudent to refrain from deliberately teaching them to act in a way that would exacerbate simple misunderstandings. It is ok to teach children to fight back, but it is not ok to give them that directive as their primary conflict-resolution strategy. It should be held for a "plan B" contingency, following non-violent attempts.
I hope I was less cryptic this time around.
No, Hurley believed he was cursed.
You're confusing the opinion of a character with explicit exposition from a narrator.
I'm not confusing anything, you're just unaware of all the elements shown as evidence of the non-trivial nature of the numbers. I see no point in exploring the depths of your ignorance: Good day, sir.
So yeah, teach your kids from the earliest age possible to fight back with everything they've got. Tell them not to worry about hurting the bully. The bully deserves whatever they get.
Balance, grasshopper. Sometimes people tell that to their kids, and their kids become the biggest bullis ever because they interpret every little thing as worthy of righteous savage retribution.
You have to teach them to never start a fight, but if someone else decides that there is a fight, if someone else has taken the decision that someone would be hurt, then you make sure that person is the one to get hurt, and it has to be the kind of pain and humiliation that will make them fear you forever. If they don't respect you, make them fear you.
The problem with that, as I'm sure many others here can attest to, is were one to stand up to bullies, many schools somehow managed to punish the bullied student worse than the bully, who often gets off scot free, no matter what.
Well, then you have to break the principal's legs.
How about killing the bullies? Before they have a chance to reproduce, of course. Clean up the gene pool! No bullies allowed!
Ah-hem!
What are the numbers and how are they magic? - The show creators said in interviews over and over again they randomly picked numbers and they had no major significance, unless you want to subscribe to the idea of destiny. But the numbers themselves never once do anything magical. Someone won the lottery with them. Someone used them as a code. Coincidence or destiny perhaps, but no magic.
Everyone who used those numbers in a game of chance (Hurley's lotto, that other guy and his bean-guessing game at the fair) not only won, but won with deadly consequences, the laws of probability bending around them and they were cursed with 1)disasters and 2)the numbers themselves reappearing around them non-stop.
You forgot all of that?
without specifically referencing any of them.
[...]
The answers were explicitly stated. You're just looking to bitch.
No, you're just forgetting important details and contradicting yourself.
Wait, you're one of the writer from Lost, aren't you?!?
As I said, you do not like the answers provided. You can complain that the show didn't provide the answers you wanted and remain miserable, or accept them for what they are and be at peace. It's your choice, dude. You can come into the church whenever you're ready. I forgive you.
I'm not miserable, I was expecting them to wave their hands at me, I learned my lesson with Galactica.
But you're right, I don't like the answers provided, since the answers were: "just because" and "because I said so".
What are the numbers and how are they magic?
There were a bunch of numbered names in the cliff cave of people Jacob IDed as potential candidates. The magic numbers were the last remaining numbers, matching the candidates that arrived on the island via the plane crash.
How did they show up everywhere, then? Why did playing them in the lotto cause a meteorite to fall on Hurley's chicken stand?
Why was Kate there if she gets crossed out when she becomes a mother?
MAGIC! *waves hand*
Why did Rousseau and Claire go crazy?
Both of them had their children taken from them and had to live a long time stranded and alone on an island not knowing where their kids were.
Nope, Claire went crazy and walked off in the forest before her kid was taken.
Ok, maybe the black smoke impersonating dead people explains the "goes crazy and kills people" part...
I make me angry to have supernatural entities like ESPers in Star Trek
ESP has been part of sci-fi for pretty much as long as there has been sci-fi. It's part of the whole "evolution - psychic powers - beings of pure energy" progression. You can view it as fantasy in sci-fi, but they usually give a "hyperspace waves of sentience" sci-fi angle.
I don't understand why other Lost fans haven't liked the last season of the show. The big questions were answered, but they seem not to like the answers provided.
What are the numbers and how are they magic? "Jacob just likes numbers"
What is the black smoke? "A guy that was dropped in a magic light"
What is the magic light? "A magic light. MAGIC!"
What was the disease that Rouseau and the hatch guy were talking about? "*crickets*"
Why did Rousseau and Claire go crazy? "Er... magic light again, maybe?"
Etc. There were no answers, just cheap hand waving.
What the hell was that black smoke thing in the first series? You didn't see it at all through two or three, and I got so bored by then that I gave up.
So, black smoke monster; What was it?
A guy that was turned into a smoke monster by being dropped in a magic light.
The flash sideways scenes had no specific date/time associated with them.
The flash sideways occur in the days following he flight of oceanic 815 (the point at which they start).
Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 was a scheduled flight from Sydney, Australia to Los Angeles, California, United States, on a Boeing 777 owned by Oceanic Airlines. Under mysterious circumstances, on September 22, 2004, the airliner, carrying 324 passengers, deviated from its original course and disappeared over the Pacific Ocean. This is the central moment in the series Lost and the personal chronological beginning of the main characters' exploits on the Island.
I don't understand how being an athiest would deter you from watching a work of fiction.
When B5 pulled the "OMG alien angels!" crap, I stopped watching. You know why? Fuck that hack writer, angels aren't a universal image of good, they're from one part of the world, and I'm offended. I don't mind Ancient Astronaut storylines, but cultural imperialism like that is icky.
I tried watching it again later on: The captain was beaten and tortured, he jumped out of a tall window in a deep hole while his broke the dome, let in the toxic atmosphere and asploded with three space-nukes. That was a season finale, and I stopped watching again when I realized that all of that had failed to kill the guy. Bleark.
story arc centric show in which the writers make shit up as they go along. For some reason, TV producers seem to think this is a good idea.
That reason is money: Short term profit is the ONLY thing that matters to TV producers.
Long term? Who the hell cares, they'll be working at another studio by then, a better one if they make a lot of short-term money in the interim.
When it can play Flight of the Bumblebee
Waseda University has you covered.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/humanoids/this-robot-toots-its-own-flute
Question: was the robot just performing pre-programmed moves
Question: Why would not assume that mundane explanation unless given extraordinary proof of the contrary?
What a robot/android needs to be capable of is to do these actions on its own, in the right circumstance
There is no universally agreed upon definition of robot. By all accounts, a remote-controlled device of any shape is called a robot, and devices that only perform preprogrammed moves at an assembly lines are called robots.
We all WANT autonomous, aware robots, but devices don't need to be autonomous to be robots. Granted, this ambiguity of language is inconvenient, but ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.
Methinks big Japanese corporations are legally obligated to use a small part of their budget (say 1%?) for humanitarian purposes. Toyota may have many robotic divisions, but the one I'm familiar with is the Partner Robot Division, and there's an Assistance group there IIRC. It's what you think it is: assistance robots, to help in the care of elderly and disabled. The violin thing is just PR and probably was done by a couple guys who thought "hey, we can do *that*", and got green-lighted. It all comes from that same division.
The Japanese government has an official policy of furthering the development of humanoid robots.
Every industrial giant in japan has invested in accordance with that policy (there's tax credits IIRC), and the trend that I observe is that they all decided to concentrate on one aspect. Honda concentrated on the legs, Toyota on the hands, others are working at facial expressions, etc.
I gave a link in an earlier reply to Toyota's robot page, you can see they had a wheeled robot with nimble fingers back when honda had a walking robot with claw hands. They're competing against each other on details but cooperating on the bigger picture: Japanese domination of the humanoid robot market.
They also have one that plays the trumpet: http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/special/robot/
And backup dancers.
The casualties incurred in transportation are already at an easily tolerable level (demonstrated every day).
Obstetricians of the 19th century used to say the same thing about deaths in childbirth. You're acclimated to its horrors, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for progress.
Though I just went to check the rates, and perinatal still kills more than road accidents, so you have a point. I'll keep wishing that there would be more research at improving our sensors and collision avoidance algorithms.
I wish all funding for that would be diverted to making a car with a survival instinct: Proximity sensors for collision avoidance, sensors to determine road conditions of maximum safe speeds accordingly, etc.
Once it becomes rare for someone to die in a car accident, THEN they can mess around with red light idling algorithms and self-driving cars. Just pick your priorities: Safety first.
many sewerage treatment plants have been burning methane for power for decades
I visited the local plant years ago, and they had special designs in their 13-stories-deep shit silos so that the top would fly off in case of an explosion, but no way to capture and use the methane. Their rationale was a cost-effort-gains ratio. The local "dump" runs off its methane though (and you get a 10 minute speech about how they're different from a dump if you call it a dump in front of them).
I hope this "using the methane we have" trend caches on.
Then I wonder if cows and their food can live in space.
They already do. What you mean is "how much smaller can you make a spaceship in which cows & their food are living".
Would you stop trashing his space-cowboy dream? You're harshing his buzz that bringing him down to earth lke that.