I don't think Calvin's "Verbing weirds language." was meant to be flattering -- first of all, it was Calvin talking, not exactly polite society's role model; second, did you see Hobbes's face? And are you familiar with little Calvin's performance in school? Whom will you recommend next, Monty Python?!?
Artistic license, good. Inversion of reality, bad. Rebellion, good.
I mentioned pretty unique partly because of my reverse weakness of adding intensifiers to unique, as in really unique, when what I mean is "It really is unique." Really. But's not a tenth the sin of "I could care less."
Re:A stick and a piece of string...
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 2
The saftey fanatics ruined alot of great times that would have been had by little kids.
Ruined a lot of great times for little kids... to choke?
Yes, I know what you mean.
Some subtle improvements on the toys that lived were worthwhile, like the end of a slinky -- assuming you can find a metal one -- now has a crimp so it won't stick you.
Bring back the Weebles! Bring back the Weebles! Bring back the Weebles!... (Hey! You looking at me?)
Movies -- yes they have philosophy, but it tends to be of the McDonald's variety. Not that I mind: real philosophy would leave the audience drooling unconscious in their popcorn. It's nice to see authentic touches, though.
Reconciliation -- I know that it is possible, but not for me. I'm fundamentally hard-wired by experience, and accepting of same. But there is always room for self-improvement....
Hey, Shatner's death was the only thing I liked about ST:V!!! I wouldn't paid $6 to see that, except it wasn't painful enough. Worse, it wasn't Shatner's death but Captain Kirk's. I don't remember the incident, but there was nothing anyone could do to ruin Generations, anymore than you can ruin an omelette after it's burned to a crisp.
Now, I imagine some authoritative-sound AC could post Wil's approximate salary and it would never be traced back to Wil. Right Wil?
I seriously don't care how much he made, it's just interesting to speculate. And I would like to see what a typical contract looks like, what odd clauses it might have, like the stuff they post on The Smoking Gun.
The first movie has always been my second choice, though, which makes me pretty unique in these parts.
Pretty unique? Kind of pregnant? Fairly dead? Or do you mean pretty and unique? Sorry, I'm a pedant.:)
I think it's fair to say that you are a member of a select few who really like TMP, which would have been a much better movie if someone had merely taken a razor to the whole thing and tightened it up. Having cruised the Netflix subscriber reviews, I realize that a surprising number of people like it. Many there note that the DVD has been souped up a bit, and I haven't seen this version 2.
At this point he may not care about nondisclosure, and it's hard to imagine what damages the studio could sue for on simple disclosure of his pay for a minor (sorry Wil) role. I assume he did better than scale, but doubt it was any fortune. A side Q is whether the pay is any different if his scenes are cut w/o his fault? I guess he's not looking at residuals anyway.
Speaking of bad-mouthing, Wheaton alleges credibly that he has been getting a continual string of abuse from The Trek Powers That Be (Rick Berman). See WW's blog for the latest jab, dated 12/9/02. It spoils the illusion of one big happy Trek family (I've heard similar stories about Harve Bennett, but it's hard to say -- character assassination seems to be a Hollywood hobby). Oh WTF I'll just quote it. (Note that this slight comes on the heels of numerous others, each petty and vindictive.)
Sadtimes
One of my old spacesuits is being auctioned off on eBay. I'm not sure why, but it makes me feel a little sad.
I'm sitting here, about to write a little entry about it, when my phone rings. It's a friend of mine, asking me if I'm going to the Star Trek X screening.
"Yeah, on Wednesday," I tell him.
"No, it's tonight," he tells me.
"Tonight? At Paramount?"
"No, it's in Westwood, tonight," he tells me, "I just talked with Marina about it."
Oh no.
That feeling I have gotten so many times before, when I was the only cast member not asked up on stage at the 25th anniversary party, when I was the only cast member not recognized at the screening of "All Good Things..." begins to well up. I feel a little sick.
He wouldn't do this to me, right? Not now, not after the conversations we had when I was working on the movie, not since the phone call informing me of the cut. This must be a mistake. Past is the past, right? We're cool now. There is no way he'd exclude me from this.
But he did.
He did it to me again.
I want to cry.
I tell my friend that I have to go, and hang up the phone.
I sit there alone and cold in the kitchen. I can hear Ryan watching Sabrina The Teenage Witch in the living room.
I can't believe this is happening to me. When Rick told me that my scenes were cut, he assured me that I'd still be invited to the premiere, and that he'd see me there. I was excited to see all my friends again, and share in those moments with them. Be a part of what will really be the final mission.
It turns out that the screening I was invited to will be at Paramount on Wednesday, and pretty much anyone who works at Paramount can attend. It's not the premiere, and none of the cast are going. There's really nothing special about it.
I seriously, desperately hope that this was just an oversight. I desperately hope that this is totally out of Rick's hands, and that he'll tell me that he's sorry if it ever comes up. I desperately hope this isn't personal. I want so badly to believe that it isn't. It sucks to be overlooked, but it sucks less than if I'd been intentionally not invited.
It sure fits a pattern though, huh?
I just -- I don't know what to do. I don't even know how to feel anymore.
But I'll go with hurt for now.
Really, really fucking hurt. Posted by wil at 03:52 PM | Comments (428)
Re:Erector Sets -- not dead yet
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I typed in "erector set" in Google and naturally got dozens of hits for sexual dysfunction.
Re:I was shocked that I couldn't find a Go board.
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That explains why I couldn't find any waterballoons!
As for crackpot, I'm not sure you're quite on the money; I think the availability of cheap plastic and price-sensitive consumers has led the race to the bottom. The patent (?) on a toy only increases profit to the producer; I think the retailer would prefer extremely price-competitive generic merchandise that can be marked up to what a consumer thinks is an "appropriate" price. The retailers are not making killings -- rather they are bing killed with the switch to game consoles, even Toys'R'Us has had troubles -- so the high prices probably reflect their inefficiencies and any higher cost in the wholesale would be passed straight through to the consumer.
But... it's not like I've read a market report on this or anything. Still, ignorance doesn't stop anyone from becoming a stock analyst for Merrill Lynch!
A stick and a piece of string...
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
...was always enough for me.
Yeah, my kids didn't believe me either.
Part of the fun of having kids is getting to regress. I love these old unstructured toys that don't break and don't trap you into ding the same thing over and over ad nauseum. Unfortunately I think many have fallen victim to higher labor costs and the demand for greater margins.
We've emphasized low tech toys (no batteries is ideal) and it hasn't been to hard too find them, especially as these toys have enjoyed a sort of yuppie renaissance. The main problem I have is with the expanding use of plastic and declining quality of the toys, like Lincoln Logs just aren't the same now.
So the higher end toy stores like Zany Brainy and Imaginarium (regional?) have a higher proportion of sturdy, imagination-driven toys like blocks and alphabet jigsaw puzzles (I like the Lights, Camera, Interaction! line available everywhere, even our Borders bookstore... they must be old-fashioned, they don't seem to have a website) and the like. Unfortunately, they have higher prices.
Of course, you can always take refuge in the internet.... Hey, anyone know why they discontinued Weeble Wobbles?;-) But the best toys are the ones that "made it" -- my kids play with my old Brio train set, which is a wonder of simplicity, and free.
Re:They NOT sell EVERYTHING on ebay
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Not everything.. like used underwear, where am I supposed to buy used underwear? Seriously, the list of prohibited items is lengthy and at times somewhat disturbing. (I'd link to it but they javascripted their help -- look to eBay policy if interested.)
Re:You can find kaleidoscopes everywhere
on
Low Tech Toys?
·
· Score: 2
Er, they don't have glass any more, like all the other toys that have become less deadly with time. (Remember the Bag'O'Broken Glass we used to get from Mainway Toys when we were kids?:)
Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?
That's a tough one. I saw Contact a few days ago, where you may remember Jodie Foster really fumbles that one. But the movie posed a thoughtful analogy: What amount of proof do you need to know you're in love? (Come to think of it, that popped up in the Matrix, too. No, I don't get all my philosophy from science fiction movies.:)
In terms of the bare minimum, I have no idea. For me it is a question of faith not proof, and if I believe something intangible is real, then it is real within the limits of rationality. In other words, no proof is necessary.
I am agnostic, and remain perplexed by, not disdainful of, the faith of others, including the sometimes rabid atheists.
It's not coincidence that so many familiar myths pop up in different contexts over the years. Good stories never die --- though they may get a bit garbled. The Homeric epics were oral!
I'm not an expert, but I can look stuff up... there appear to be five rivers (I hope this link formats better for you than it does here), each with its own cheery persona. It may be that the Styx was the only one with an immediate function, voyage to oblivion. I think that's what happened to the rock band, too.
Here is Bulfinch's description of Hades (Tartarus? Elysium?), and Lowell's poetic rendition of the rivers five:
"Abhorred Styx, the flood of deadly hate,
Sad Acheron of sorrow black and deep; Cocytus named of lamentation loud Heard on the rueful stream; fierce Phlegethon Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage. Far off from these a slow and silent stream, Lethe, the river of oblivion, rolls Her watery labyrinth, whereof who drinks Forthwith his former state and being forgets, Forgets both joy and grief, pleasure and pain."
Wow.
If I remember, the Greek sense of Hades and Pluto were very different from Hell and the Devil. Unlike the Devil, Pluto was just one of the gang with the other gods, even if he was kind of the depressing uncle at the reunions. He made deals with the other gods, with Hercules, with his wife, with Orpheus, and so on. Moreover, the Elysian fields ("Heaven") were right next door.
* Would be funny if you could beam people out of hell.
Perhaps I'm uncharitable, but I'd be doing quite the opposite.:)
I know, I know, and I like new gadgets as much as the next guy.
Your faith in the FCC is... unusual. Yes good things will come along for any extra bandwidth, but DTV was not necessary for that. Analog didn't take ten times the bandwidth -- more like twice, solely because of the spacing issue. The point in legislating DTV is DTV, not collateral benefits.
You can get a staggering amount of data into the bandwidth of a single TV station. So buy back a TV station license.
It sound like the phase-in will for practical reasons last a lot longer than the FCC or the broadcasters or the manufacturers have in mind. the last "deadline" for switchover I heard was the hopelessly unrealistic 2006, which would have consumers out for blood, considering that analog sets are selling strong. I don't think think the gov't should interfere in markets like this.
There are alternative approaches that I'd have to think out, but imagine that DTV spectrum was granted to TV stations to simulcast analog and digital... and we stopped there? People who wanted digital could buy in. Manufacturers would have incentive to build dual-use tuners into their boxes at low prices, to attract customers to the benefits of compatibility rather than force then to buy it. Then wait and see how DTV fares on its own merits, in a market where consumers have choice. Eventually phase out analog when DTV has won acceptance, and digital units have price parity with analog. Sure, prices will fall regardless of whether the motivator is market or mandate, but I'll bet they'll fall faster under a market model.
Seems more democratic to me than a mandate. As for the bandwidth, we don't need a couple hundred MHz all at once, as we'll be getting, and I'm sure needed bandwidth could be located elsewhere, such as an underused TV frequency -- and there are plenty. Also, doling out free double bandwidth allocations for an indeterminate time -- until that 85% figure is someday met in 10-20 years? -- seems like it will lock up a lot of bandwidth for a long longer. Lastly, as far as I could tell browsing the FCC site, this DTV initiative is being sold almost entirely as "Great picture! Great sound!" and not as extra bandwidth for other purposes. The other purposes are great, but they should buy their way in rather than shoving the rest of us aside. (Maybe if they give me a free D/A converters I'll be happy -- don't laugh, it could come to that.)
Mind you, I may sound like a libertarian, but I'm a liberal who has no problem with constructive go'vt regulation. Here, I think it is destructive. I've seen articles here and there talking about my sort of concerns, but know we are in the minority. Actually, now that I think of it, the current approach may be the wrost one if the extra bandwidth remains locked up for many years while DTV adoption stagnates.
Of course -- it's just TV! And probably at some point I'll decide I just have to have DTV. Depending on how irritated I'm feeling.:)
Yep, I basically agree with your views, not in their particulars but their acknowledgement of ambiguity in either science or the Bible.
Personally I think you'll have a long wait before science supports a young earth theory, and if it ever does it will be science that proved its existence not religion. Obviously faith skips the proof step, as it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof.
Any valid criticisms of current scientific fact and theory, regardless of the source, should be incorporated into science. My original objection, and a relatively small one, was to the logically flawed objection that have clouded debate over the history of the earth and origin of life -- to recap, that gas giants forming fast undermines theory as to the age of the earth of the universe. Let creationism stand on its own merits.
Nimoy did IV. ST IV was the biggest box-office hit of them all IIRC, though it certainly wasn't hard-core Trek. I saw it again recently and enjoyed it, the characters are at their most human in it. It was nice the "Gang of 5" got some decent lines for a change, esp. Nichols, Koenig, and Doohan. VI was cool, but closer to made-for-TV, and hardly a necessary element in the series (V was supposed to be the exit with a big bang anyway). Generations was clearly made-for-TV, in fact I think the director's entire experience had been TV shows.
I read a bunch of behind-the-scenes material from IV -- for some reason it was the most colorful there, too.
Anyway, the most horrible movie you might dredge up for comparison won't rescue V, the only one of the series I refuse even to watch (Generations would be a close second, then maybe ST:TMP). First Contact, IMHO, was very well done. No one has mentioned ST II: Wrath of Khan, which was excellent -- as always IMHO.
Sorry, nostalgia aside, TOS was at best mediocre. It was a heck of a milestone, but I just laugh at those nearly unwatchable shows now. They are so mired in 60's sexism, campy humor, and styrofoam boulders that I don't think they've traveled well. There are like three exceptions, such as The City of the Edge of Forever, that were quality science fiction (a good writer there helped).
But, I know, these debates can go on forever. Taste is a personal subjective individual thing, except that you're wrong.;-)
It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.
Amen.:) As long as we can agree to discuss, without calling anyone insane or bound for Hell, communication is possible.
Hmm. But if a day in Genesis is not necessarily a literal day, how do we know a year in Adam's 900+ year life is a literal year? (I know, I'm pushing my luck -- and I can see the appeal of rigid interpretation. And why did people live so long anyway?)
There is necessity, though. The necessity is to get rid of inefficent analog TV stations which monopolize a very large and very useful portion of the spectrum, because new technology has made it possible to broadcast video and audio in much more efficient ways. Currently, the majority of VHF and UHF channels in any given area go unused, because stations cannot operate on consecutive frequencies.
Reclaiming spectrum is the primary reason for the move, which is to please the DTV people, and to please the commercial interests who would like to exploit any liberated spectrum.
I don't think the intent is to increase the number of broadcast stations, or that we will see more. Any freed-up bandwidth will bring the gov't some money, and benefit business, as will selling a whole new generation of equipment -- but at our expense. The surge in consumerism is a goal in itself. That's the sort of misallocation of burden I don't like.
Anyway, we have cable -- broadcast means nothing to us -- yet still will have to pay. As I've been telling them for years, I don't want interactive features or digital signals, and most people I know don't either. I would like to pay less, but that doesn't appear to be in the offing any time soon. Why can't we just have what we want, to be left alone with perfectly satisfactory technology? You may think of it as quid pro quo, but what if we don't want the quo?
Granted, the technology is way cool, not that I want to see Jay Leno any sharper, or at all. Equally granted, I'm not interested, and will hold on to my analog stuff until the bitter end. I merely think you are being naive about the for-profit ventures that really lobbied for these new rules. The FCC appears to be going along because of the pressure, and because (not so much anymore) vague fears we'll be left behind the curve as countries like Japan advance. But the central concern in Washington DC, where I live, is money. Surprise.
Don't get me wrong! I don't consider this a huge tragedy. But to me it is an example of the power of lobbying.
The final battle when they meet the "God-alien" was to have been this furious battles of angels and devils and what have you. The studio put the kibosh on it partly out of fear of religious riots, but I think taste would have been enough. I shudder to picture Shatner's rendition of the battle, and the whole film was already SO arrogant -- and boring. I don't doubt that the studio interference didn't improve the film, either. Maybe they just didn't want to have to pay God residuals.
Shatner has talked about this often (more details):
William Shatner: "An awesome Godlike image appears, surrounded by angels, and demands that the Enterprise transport him back toward more populated sections of the universe. Kirk then challenges 'God,' and an argument ensues. As it escalates, 'God' begins showing his true colors and his image begins to transform, ultimately becoming unmistakably Satanic. The angels simultaneously change into hordes of gargoyles, the Furies of Hell. At that point, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, still suffering from the effects of their first real adversarial relationship, split up, with each man running in a separate direction. McCoy falls, breaking his leg, and is surround by the Furies, as is Spock. At the same time, however, Kirk has broken free, but even with a clear path toward escape, a last look back at the fates of his friends convinces Kirk to go back, risking his life in an effort to save them. Spock is first, and when he's been successfully freed, the pair immediately joins forces in an attempt to save McCoy, who's already been carried away by the minions into Hell. Descending together into the river Styx, Spock and Kirk fight off their hideous attackers and save their injured friend, with Kirk carrying McCoy on his shoulders as they flee."
I think his cameo was shopped out because the film was over 3 hours, and that now he merely appears -- no lines.
That, or they didn't want to pay him.;-) Although how much does an "extra" -- or whatever a star who doesn't talk is called -- get paid, anyway? I guess CleverNickName can tell us.
It is BECAUSE they've repressed the memory that they FORGET that V really was the worst Star Trek of all time, arguably in serious competition with bad movies in general.
Leonard Nimoy versus William Shatner as directors -- the choice is logical.
V was so bad it made the fairly forgettable III and VI look epic and skillful. Apparently Shatner did not get to do in the climax of V what he's wanted, and if he had, the movie would have at least been funny.
It's tough with something like science fiction. If, like most big-name critics, you are slightly suspicious the genre is tricked-up low-brow, then you come in with an attitude that make it harder to enjoy the movie or understand the willingness of those who do like it to view minor deficiencies in, ahem, plot for the larger vision of the film.
I'm sure books and scads of boring dissertations have been written on this question of how the critic is culturally situated.:)
More to the point, if you really like a scorecard of critics more than the well-argued view of an individual critic you trust (or perhaps just the recommendation of a friend with discriminating tatse), this site continually tallies and links to new reviews. Looks pretty evenly divided at the moment. Check elsewhere for tabulation of all current films.
I appreciate the sincerity of your views. You may also be right.
What I have disliked about creationism is its claim to being scientific when it has but one view of the possible truth, and only looks for evidence to support that presupposed truth. Unlike proposing a theory, the investigator asserts that if experimentation does not prove the assumption, then the experiment is flawed. This is closed-mindedness incompatible with science.
By contrast, "white holes" and whatever else might support creationism, would be part of the scientific discourse. This is far better than the argument that the mere possibility of a flaw in a theory means that all views are of equal value. It is really a question of probabilities, and the current estimates of the age of the earth, using different approaches, and considered to be very, very probable.
The strictly hypothetical white holes -- proposed but unproven to even the satisfaction of their proponents -- will of course require theory or evidence. Most all of the arguments I have heard for 6,000-year creationism (the "young earth" subset) amount to negative "You don't know for sure" or "There seems to be an inconsistency here" rather than positive proof of a mechanism for such a radical alternative model. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it hasn't been done, and the faith of its proponents, however sincere, can not carry weight with the rest of us.
As someone who has spent much of his life reading, I also find untenable the view that there is one literal view of the Bible. I don't see, for example, any way of proving that the "six days" was six literal days (notice "literal day" means something quite different from "literal reading" -- does this mean there is no literal meaning of literal?) as we know them, and not a part of the metaphors and poetry so prevalent in the Bible. Indeed, I challenge anyone to prove that only one interpretation of any text is possible (if I tell you to "stop," do I mean stop what you are doing? to stop talking? to stop what someone else is doing? to hand me something to hold the door open? or hand me a part for my flute?). Maybe some readings are more faithful than others, but one sole literal one? There is a big gap between stating such an interpretation and proving it. The label "literal" is to me an attempt to squelch debate, like claiming to be a patriot in a political debate.
Dr. Humphreys presents an example of the indeterminacy of literalism. If you look closely at what he's saying, he is trying very hard to extract the "right" interpretation of individual words in the rather terse Genesis story that might comport with theories or future theories of physics. This is all the more tricky because the original words were not in English, are quite ancient, and lack precise translation. So he is interpreting, as he must -- but game over for literalism. Maybe he has it backwards and should determine what the words mean by looking to the natural phenomena that the words describe rather than insisting the "six days" is precise and the rest merely needs to be interpreted to suit it. Why are some words literal and others not?
If Dr. Humphreys can pull it off and dethrone the most brilliant physicists of the last hundred years, more power to him. It will be an enormous contribution to mankind, and a boon to "young earth" creationists. But it is much much much too soon to declare such a revolution.
I am not trying to answer any of these questions, and I am not addressing the infalliability or existence of God; rather harping on the oft-proven falliability of humans to get the message right. I'll bet even creationists misunderstand or disagree with one another from time to time, or there wouldn't be so much discussion among them of what Genesis means. And how has the understanding of Bible changed in the past, and how will it change in the future? If falliability infects science, why does it not infect the "literal" reading of the Bible? Humans are flawed and have imperfect knowledge, so any scientist who tells you science can not be wrong -- not ever -- is lying or deluded. Any creationist who says the same...?
But in any event -- I do appreciate your effort to approach the question thoughtfully. Keep an open mind, I'll do the same.
if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian
Nothing I wrote goes to who is the creator. I simply take issue with adherance to a 6,000-year timeline that flies in the face of so much else that we know. I also find deeply offensive the idea that anyone who rejects the 6,000-year figure is not a good Christian.
The identity of the creator, if one exists (again, I do not reject or promote God here) goes to the origin of the universe, not its age. So nothing you have said about God as creator, however fervently you believe it, is relevant to the question here.
Yet perhaps you mean that to reject the 6,000-year interpretation, developed by creationists, is to reject god as the creator. That bigoted view I do reject wholeheartedly.
Yep. I never saw a contradiction. But here, does it matter? I spun out my thinking elsewhere in this thread; if you look at it, then TWO people will ever read it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Calvin's "Verbing weirds language." was meant to be flattering -- first of all, it was Calvin talking, not exactly polite society's role model; second, did you see Hobbes's face? And are you familiar with little Calvin's performance in school? Whom will you recommend next, Monty Python?!?
Artistic license, good. Inversion of reality, bad. Rebellion, good.
I mentioned pretty unique partly because of my reverse weakness of adding intensifiers to unique, as in really unique, when what I mean is "It really is unique." Really. But's not a tenth the sin of "I could care less."
The saftey fanatics ruined alot of great times that would have been had by little kids.
... to choke?
... (Hey! You looking at me?)
:)
Ruined a lot of great times for little kids
Yes, I know what you mean.
Some subtle improvements on the toys that lived were worthwhile, like the end of a slinky -- assuming you can find a metal one -- now has a crimp so it won't stick you.
Bring back the Weebles! Bring back the Weebles! Bring back the Weebles!
Hey! It worked! But, they're just not the same.
Movies -- yes they have philosophy, but it tends to be of the McDonald's variety. Not that I mind: real philosophy would leave the audience drooling unconscious in their popcorn. It's nice to see authentic touches, though.
Reconciliation -- I know that it is possible, but not for me. I'm fundamentally hard-wired by experience, and accepting of same. But there is always room for self-improvement....
Hey, Shatner's death was the only thing I liked about ST:V!!! I wouldn't paid $6 to see that, except it wasn't painful enough. Worse, it wasn't Shatner's death but Captain Kirk's. I don't remember the incident, but there was nothing anyone could do to ruin Generations, anymore than you can ruin an omelette after it's burned to a crisp.
Now, I imagine some authoritative-sound AC could post Wil's approximate salary and it would never be traced back to Wil. Right Wil?
I seriously don't care how much he made, it's just interesting to speculate. And I would like to see what a typical contract looks like, what odd clauses it might have, like the stuff they post on The Smoking Gun.
The first movie has always been my second choice, though, which makes me pretty unique in these parts.
:)
Pretty unique? Kind of pregnant? Fairly dead? Or do you mean pretty and unique? Sorry, I'm a pedant.
I think it's fair to say that you are a member of a select few who really like TMP, which would have been a much better movie if someone had merely taken a razor to the whole thing and tightened it up. Having cruised the Netflix subscriber reviews, I realize that a surprising number of people like it. Many there note that the DVD has been souped up a bit, and I haven't seen this version 2.
Speaking of bad-mouthing, Wheaton alleges credibly that he has been getting a continual string of abuse from The Trek Powers That Be (Rick Berman). See WW's blog for the latest jab, dated 12/9/02. It spoils the illusion of one big happy Trek family (I've heard similar stories about Harve Bennett, but it's hard to say -- character assassination seems to be a Hollywood hobby). Oh WTF I'll just quote it. (Note that this slight comes on the heels of numerous others, each petty and vindictive.)
I typed in "erector set" in Google and naturally got dozens of hits for sexual dysfunction.
Check out Erector World. And for nostalgic toy types generally, there's Yesterday Land.
That explains why I couldn't find any waterballoons!
... it's not like I've read a market report on this or anything. Still, ignorance doesn't stop anyone from becoming a stock analyst for Merrill Lynch!
As for crackpot, I'm not sure you're quite on the money; I think the availability of cheap plastic and price-sensitive consumers has led the race to the bottom. The patent (?) on a toy only increases profit to the producer; I think the retailer would prefer extremely price-competitive generic merchandise that can be marked up to what a consumer thinks is an "appropriate" price. The retailers are not making killings -- rather they are bing killed with the switch to game consoles, even Toys'R'Us has had troubles -- so the high prices probably reflect their inefficiencies and any higher cost in the wholesale would be passed straight through to the consumer.
But
...was always enough for me.
... they must be old-fashioned, they don't seem to have a website) and the like. Unfortunately, they have higher prices.
;-) But the best toys are the ones that "made it" -- my kids play with my old Brio train set, which is a wonder of simplicity, and free.
Yeah, my kids didn't believe me either.
Part of the fun of having kids is getting to regress. I love these old unstructured toys that don't break and don't trap you into ding the same thing over and over ad nauseum. Unfortunately I think many have fallen victim to higher labor costs and the demand for greater margins.
We've emphasized low tech toys (no batteries is ideal) and it hasn't been to hard too find them, especially as these toys have enjoyed a sort of yuppie renaissance. The main problem I have is with the expanding use of plastic and declining quality of the toys, like Lincoln Logs just aren't the same now.
So the higher end toy stores like Zany Brainy and Imaginarium (regional?) have a higher proportion of sturdy, imagination-driven toys like blocks and alphabet jigsaw puzzles (I like the Lights, Camera, Interaction! line available everywhere, even our Borders bookstore
Of course, you can always take refuge in the internet.... Hey, anyone know why they discontinued Weeble Wobbles?
Not everything .. like used underwear, where am I supposed to buy used underwear? Seriously, the list of prohibited items is lengthy and at times somewhat disturbing. (I'd link to it but they javascripted their help -- look to eBay policy if interested.)
Er, they don't have glass any more, like all the other toys that have become less deadly with time. (Remember the Bag'O'Broken Glass we used to get from Mainway Toys when we were kids? :)
Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?
:)
That's a tough one. I saw Contact a few days ago, where you may remember Jodie Foster really fumbles that one. But the movie posed a thoughtful analogy: What amount of proof do you need to know you're in love? (Come to think of it, that popped up in the Matrix, too. No, I don't get all my philosophy from science fiction movies.
In terms of the bare minimum, I have no idea. For me it is a question of faith not proof, and if I believe something intangible is real, then it is real within the limits of rationality. In other words, no proof is necessary.
I am agnostic, and remain perplexed by, not disdainful of, the faith of others, including the sometimes rabid atheists.
I'm not an expert, but I can look stuff up
Here is Bulfinch's description of Hades (Tartarus? Elysium?), and Lowell's poetic rendition of the rivers five:
Wow.
If I remember, the Greek sense of Hades and Pluto were very different from Hell and the Devil. Unlike the Devil, Pluto was just one of the gang with the other gods, even if he was kind of the depressing uncle at the reunions. He made deals with the other gods, with Hercules, with his wife, with Orpheus, and so on. Moreover, the Elysian fields ("Heaven") were right next door.
*
Would be funny if you could beam people out of hell.
Perhaps I'm uncharitable, but I'd be doing quite the opposite.
I know, I know, and I like new gadgets as much as the next guy.
... unusual. Yes good things will come along for any extra bandwidth, but DTV was not necessary for that. Analog didn't take ten times the bandwidth -- more like twice, solely because of the spacing issue. The point in legislating DTV is DTV, not collateral benefits.
... and we stopped there? People who wanted digital could buy in. Manufacturers would have incentive to build dual-use tuners into their boxes at low prices, to attract customers to the benefits of compatibility rather than force then to buy it. Then wait and see how DTV fares on its own merits, in a market where consumers have choice. Eventually phase out analog when DTV has won acceptance, and digital units have price parity with analog. Sure, prices will fall regardless of whether the motivator is market or mandate, but I'll bet they'll fall faster under a market model.
:)
Your faith in the FCC is
You can get a staggering amount of data into the bandwidth of a single TV station. So buy back a TV station license.
It sound like the phase-in will for practical reasons last a lot longer than the FCC or the broadcasters or the manufacturers have in mind. the last "deadline" for switchover I heard was the hopelessly unrealistic 2006, which would have consumers out for blood, considering that analog sets are selling strong. I don't think think the gov't should interfere in markets like this.
There are alternative approaches that I'd have to think out, but imagine that DTV spectrum was granted to TV stations to simulcast analog and digital
Seems more democratic to me than a mandate. As for the bandwidth, we don't need a couple hundred MHz all at once, as we'll be getting, and I'm sure needed bandwidth could be located elsewhere, such as an underused TV frequency -- and there are plenty. Also, doling out free double bandwidth allocations for an indeterminate time -- until that 85% figure is someday met in 10-20 years? -- seems like it will lock up a lot of bandwidth for a long longer. Lastly, as far as I could tell browsing the FCC site, this DTV initiative is being sold almost entirely as "Great picture! Great sound!" and not as extra bandwidth for other purposes. The other purposes are great, but they should buy their way in rather than shoving the rest of us aside. (Maybe if they give me a free D/A converters I'll be happy -- don't laugh, it could come to that.)
Mind you, I may sound like a libertarian, but I'm a liberal who has no problem with constructive go'vt regulation. Here, I think it is destructive. I've seen articles here and there talking about my sort of concerns, but know we are in the minority. Actually, now that I think of it, the current approach may be the wrost one if the extra bandwidth remains locked up for many years while DTV adoption stagnates.
Of course -- it's just TV! And probably at some point I'll decide I just have to have DTV. Depending on how irritated I'm feeling.
Yep, I basically agree with your views, not in their particulars but their acknowledgement of ambiguity in either science or the Bible.
Personally I think you'll have a long wait before science supports a young earth theory, and if it ever does it will be science that proved its existence not religion. Obviously faith skips the proof step, as it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof.
Any valid criticisms of current scientific fact and theory, regardless of the source, should be incorporated into science. My original objection, and a relatively small one, was to the logically flawed objection that have clouded debate over the history of the earth and origin of life -- to recap, that gas giants forming fast undermines theory as to the age of the earth of the universe. Let creationism stand on its own merits.
Nimoy did IV. ST IV was the biggest box-office hit of them all IIRC, though it certainly wasn't hard-core Trek. I saw it again recently and enjoyed it, the characters are at their most human in it. It was nice the "Gang of 5" got some decent lines for a change, esp. Nichols, Koenig, and Doohan. VI was cool, but closer to made-for-TV, and hardly a necessary element in the series (V was supposed to be the exit with a big bang anyway). Generations was clearly made-for-TV, in fact I think the director's entire experience had been TV shows.
;-)
I read a bunch of behind-the-scenes material from IV -- for some reason it was the most colorful there, too.
Anyway, the most horrible movie you might dredge up for comparison won't rescue V, the only one of the series I refuse even to watch (Generations would be a close second, then maybe ST:TMP). First Contact, IMHO, was very well done. No one has mentioned ST II: Wrath of Khan, which was excellent -- as always IMHO.
Sorry, nostalgia aside, TOS was at best mediocre. It was a heck of a milestone, but I just laugh at those nearly unwatchable shows now. They are so mired in 60's sexism, campy humor, and styrofoam boulders that I don't think they've traveled well. There are like three exceptions, such as The City of the Edge of Forever, that were quality science fiction (a good writer there helped).
But, I know, these debates can go on forever. Taste is a personal subjective individual thing, except that you're wrong.
And of course, this is all just trek.
It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.
:) As long as we can agree to discuss, without calling anyone insane or bound for Hell, communication is possible.
Amen.
Hmm. But if a day in Genesis is not necessarily a literal day, how do we know a year in Adam's 900+ year life is a literal year? (I know, I'm pushing my luck -- and I can see the appeal of rigid interpretation. And why did people live so long anyway?)
There is necessity, though. The necessity is to get rid of inefficent analog TV stations which monopolize a very large and very useful portion of the spectrum, because new technology has made it possible to broadcast video and audio in much more efficient ways. Currently, the majority of VHF and UHF channels in any given area go unused, because stations cannot operate on consecutive frequencies.
Reclaiming spectrum is the primary reason for the move, which is to please the DTV people, and to please the commercial interests who would like to exploit any liberated spectrum.
I don't think the intent is to increase the number of broadcast stations, or that we will see more. Any freed-up bandwidth will bring the gov't some money, and benefit business, as will selling a whole new generation of equipment -- but at our expense. The surge in consumerism is a goal in itself. That's the sort of misallocation of burden I don't like.
Anyway, we have cable -- broadcast means nothing to us -- yet still will have to pay. As I've been telling them for years, I don't want interactive features or digital signals, and most people I know don't either. I would like to pay less, but that doesn't appear to be in the offing any time soon. Why can't we just have what we want, to be left alone with perfectly satisfactory technology? You may think of it as quid pro quo, but what if we don't want the quo?
Granted, the technology is way cool, not that I want to see Jay Leno any sharper, or at all. Equally granted, I'm not interested, and will hold on to my analog stuff until the bitter end. I merely think you are being naive about the for-profit ventures that really lobbied for these new rules. The FCC appears to be going along because of the pressure, and because (not so much anymore) vague fears we'll be left behind the curve as countries like Japan advance. But the central concern in Washington DC, where I live, is money. Surprise.
Don't get me wrong! I don't consider this a huge tragedy. But to me it is an example of the power of lobbying.
Shatner has talked about this often (more details):
I think his cameo was shopped out because the film was over 3 hours, and that now he merely appears -- no lines.
;-) Although how much does an "extra" -- or whatever a star who doesn't talk is called -- get paid, anyway? I guess CleverNickName can tell us.
That, or they didn't want to pay him.
It is BECAUSE they've repressed the memory that they FORGET that V really was the worst Star Trek of all time, arguably in serious competition with bad movies in general.
Leonard Nimoy versus William Shatner as directors -- the choice is logical.
V was so bad it made the fairly forgettable III and VI look epic and skillful. Apparently Shatner did not get to do in the climax of V what he's wanted, and if he had, the movie would have at least been funny.
Ah, what do the critics know?
:)
It's tough with something like science fiction. If, like most big-name critics, you are slightly suspicious the genre is tricked-up low-brow, then you come in with an attitude that make it harder to enjoy the movie or understand the willingness of those who do like it to view minor deficiencies in, ahem, plot for the larger vision of the film.
I'm sure books and scads of boring dissertations have been written on this question of how the critic is culturally situated.
More to the point, if you really like a scorecard of critics more than the well-argued view of an individual critic you trust (or perhaps just the recommendation of a friend with discriminating tatse), this site continually tallies and links to new reviews. Looks pretty evenly divided at the moment. Check elsewhere for tabulation of all current films.
I appreciate the sincerity of your views. You may also be right.
What I have disliked about creationism is its claim to being scientific when it has but one view of the possible truth, and only looks for evidence to support that presupposed truth. Unlike proposing a theory, the investigator asserts that if experimentation does not prove the assumption, then the experiment is flawed. This is closed-mindedness incompatible with science.
By contrast, "white holes" and whatever else might support creationism, would be part of the scientific discourse. This is far better than the argument that the mere possibility of a flaw in a theory means that all views are of equal value. It is really a question of probabilities, and the current estimates of the age of the earth, using different approaches, and considered to be very, very probable.
The strictly hypothetical white holes -- proposed but unproven to even the satisfaction of their proponents -- will of course require theory or evidence. Most all of the arguments I have heard for 6,000-year creationism (the "young earth" subset) amount to negative "You don't know for sure" or "There seems to be an inconsistency here" rather than positive proof of a mechanism for such a radical alternative model. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it hasn't been done, and the faith of its proponents, however sincere, can not carry weight with the rest of us.
As someone who has spent much of his life reading, I also find untenable the view that there is one literal view of the Bible. I don't see, for example, any way of proving that the "six days" was six literal days (notice "literal day" means something quite different from "literal reading" -- does this mean there is no literal meaning of literal?) as we know them, and not a part of the metaphors and poetry so prevalent in the Bible. Indeed, I challenge anyone to prove that only one interpretation of any text is possible (if I tell you to "stop," do I mean stop what you are doing? to stop talking? to stop what someone else is doing? to hand me something to hold the door open? or hand me a part for my flute?). Maybe some readings are more faithful than others, but one sole literal one? There is a big gap between stating such an interpretation and proving it. The label "literal" is to me an attempt to squelch debate, like claiming to be a patriot in a political debate.
Dr. Humphreys presents an example of the indeterminacy of literalism. If you look closely at what he's saying, he is trying very hard to extract the "right" interpretation of individual words in the rather terse Genesis story that might comport with theories or future theories of physics. This is all the more tricky because the original words were not in English, are quite ancient, and lack precise translation. So he is interpreting, as he must -- but game over for literalism. Maybe he has it backwards and should determine what the words mean by looking to the natural phenomena that the words describe rather than insisting the "six days" is precise and the rest merely needs to be interpreted to suit it. Why are some words literal and others not?
If Dr. Humphreys can pull it off and dethrone the most brilliant physicists of the last hundred years, more power to him. It will be an enormous contribution to mankind, and a boon to "young earth" creationists. But it is much much much too soon to declare such a revolution.
I am not trying to answer any of these questions, and I am not addressing the infalliability or existence of God; rather harping on the oft-proven falliability of humans to get the message right. I'll bet even creationists misunderstand or disagree with one another from time to time, or there wouldn't be so much discussion among them of what Genesis means. And how has the understanding of Bible changed in the past, and how will it change in the future? If falliability infects science, why does it not infect the "literal" reading of the Bible? Humans are flawed and have imperfect knowledge, so any scientist who tells you science can not be wrong -- not ever -- is lying or deluded. Any creationist who says the same...?
But in any event -- I do appreciate your effort to approach the question thoughtfully. Keep an open mind, I'll do the same.
if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian
Nothing I wrote goes to who is the creator. I simply take issue with adherance to a 6,000-year timeline that flies in the face of so much else that we know. I also find deeply offensive the idea that anyone who rejects the 6,000-year figure is not a good Christian.
The identity of the creator, if one exists (again, I do not reject or promote God here) goes to the origin of the universe, not its age. So nothing you have said about God as creator, however fervently you believe it, is relevant to the question here.
Yet perhaps you mean that to reject the 6,000-year interpretation, developed by creationists, is to reject god as the creator. That bigoted view I do reject wholeheartedly.
Yep. I never saw a contradiction. But here, does it matter? I spun out my thinking elsewhere in this thread; if you look at it, then TWO people will ever read it. :)