The two units describe different things. You can describe the size of a battleship cannon in Volkswagons, but attempting to describe the energy release in Volkswagons makes no sense whatsoever.
The point is, if you know the energy released in Libraries of Congress and the size in Volkswagons, you can easily calculate the velocity in football fields per second.
I know, that's why I used absurdism instead. I find it mind-boggling that anyone could possibly take a link to a "Howling Mad" Murdock site seriously.
However in my defense good comedy doesn't need me to be very smart.
Only smart enough to click a link. Or just smart enough to read the URL, for that matter; "www.ateamshrine.co.uk/murdock.php" in easily visible green letters should have been clue enough, surely. Besides, even if you weren't expecting humour you still obviously didn't bother check the relevance of the link to what I wrote, so feeble comedy is really no excuse: having a rant was clearly far more important to you than clarifying my intended meaning. That's your choice, but don't expect to be taken seriously for it.
...it's a fairly common practice today for some writers/pundits to use humour/ridicule to disarm people (usually aimed at clueless kids)-- to assist in sneaking in their own philosophical opinions under guise of a harmless giggle.
Of course. Saying I'd vote for a person because they work for an insane fictional character (instead of the "Murdock" you meant, whichever one that is) is hardly a compliment.
But you're right, and the reason humour is aimed at "clueless kids" is because they don't have the necessary skills to cope with it rationally, so they end up ranting in response and looking silly. And ranting more when its pointed out how silly they look. Part of growing up is learning to accept our mistakes and not hide behind vapid generalisations disguised as excuses; its how we learn to avoid those same mistakes later.
Usually these people aren't "bystanders" taking a break and most often they typically have a strong slant left or right.
What bias would you have detected if you'd clicked the link? I really don't care about what happens "usually"; responding to what's written is the only mark of respect I recognise, whether serious or in jest. Which brings us to:
Being "serious" at times is really only a respect, honesty and maturity around others--without trying to always manipulate them with emotions.
While making wild assumptions about my political leanings based on a single sentence taken out of context is respect, honesty and maturity?
I sometimes have a laugh about them but I don't imagine people that really care about "whatever" spend much time ridiculing their pet issues.
Not everyone in the world is utterly humourless about the things that matter to them; in fact, people that are usually earn the label "zealot". But a question, and think hard (for your own benefit, not mine): how many people have you managed to convert to your way of thinking with this approach, or do eyes glaze over when you start talking politics?
I'm pretty sure US soldiers in the field don't laugh at many latenight jokes as they are emptying their m-16s
Kettle says: who's manipulating emotions now, Mr Pot? BTW, leaping to an unrelated but emotionally charged issue is a classic propaganda technique, made famous by Godwin's favourites.
because of light hearted political debates that got them there.
Odd, I seem to recall most debates over military deployment being rather heated. If you're going to use an issue like this as an example, at least try not to make it look like you're twisting the facts to suit yourself. Honesty evaporated pretty quickly in favour of hyperbole, I see.
I'm not trying to discourage you from using humour around politics.
You wouldn't succeed anyway. I've personally dealt with far too many politicians for that to happen.
Use whatever allows you to cope with the issues of life
That, in my experience, is the catch phrase of anyone who regularly misses jokes but still believes they have an intimate understanding of psychology. Vapid generalisations aside (see, insulting isn't it?), not being from t
I'm guessing either you (a) didn't click the link; (b) are too young to remember the A-Team; or (c) genuinely consider a link to a shrine site for a character from a tacky 80's action show to be a serious political statement.
You're funnier trying to be serious than I am trying to be funny; I surrender!
...but none at all to them being bad for humans to eat.
Think back over what you looked at; do you recall seeing a mention of any predators at all? I didn't, which doesn't prove anything, but it is rather unusual.
Source please?
David Attenborough, explaining why hyenas don't eat these creatures, so technically the source is the BBC Natural History Unit. Sadly the toxicology of scavenging animals isn't a big web phenomenon*, so you'll probably have to watch the documentary for verification (and I'm not sure it applies to non-African vultures, but I wouldn't recommend personally testing the theory).
*Hmm, maybe a guide to edible organisms wouldn't be a bad idea.
Agreed. I handle a lot of MiniDV and DVCAM material (works fine over 100MB ethernet) on multiple machines, so something like this looks pretty appealing price-wise.
I couldn't agree more. What might have made good practical sense once has, I suspect, simply become an unquestioned belief. Why its still there is another issue completely, and I agree that conditioning people to accept a set of rules is one of the ways religions exert power.
I was just saying that it looks like nonsense now, but given the conditions under which the rules were invented it makes some sense. Remarkably few traditions (religious or not) make sense until you look at the historical context. Why do we wear neck ties? A slip-knot around the neck is a stupid, dangerous idea but its a tradition that very few seem to question, yet hats, which have a real practical value (keeping the head safe from sun and rain), are very unfashionable.
There's little point in trying to ascribe logic or reason to mass beliefs. That's why marketing works.
Or, in my case, you start out atheist and stay atheist, but you find the strange, archaic rules that people subject themselves to an interesting subject to study, because its an insight into human behaviour.
Religious texts aren't only instructive for those who believe in them...
One of the basics is not eating scavenging animals, which makes sense when you consider the flesh of vultures and jackals is poisonous. Or, to put it differently, if you lived in a desert and decided to eat the first thing that came along, you'd probably die pretty quickly.
There is a historical/natural basis for the belief; it isn't nonsense just because you aren't aware of the context (I'd say its more anachronistic, but isn't every religion?).
...it's due to the Sun's motion through the galaxy
Unless the compression of the heliopause is on the leading edge relative to the sun's motion through the galaxy, this can be safely ruled out. This would also imply some hitherto undetected galactic medium causing a braking effect; surely any non-magnetic influence would affect solid matter as well, and cause the galaxy's rotation to slow over time (unless the medium rotates with the galaxy, in which case the motion of the medium relative to the sun is zero and braking should apply equally to all sides...the effect of motion again cancels out, so we're back to where we started).
perhaps extrasolar winds which remain undetected
Maybe, but without identifying a source of those winds its impossible to explain the uneven shape: what lies in that direction that could produce such a powerful effect? That's not to exlude the possibility, but it seems less likely than the weak magnetic field's influence, given what we do know about charged particles.
or the bubble is variable like the solar wind itself
That's probably true for small differences over time, but we're talking about an 11% variation. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that any variation in solar activity that could cause that kind of change in the space of a few years would be detectable from observation. They probably considered this, checked, and found no link.
or maybe even gravitational tides due to the orbiting planets are influencing its shape.
On the plane of the elliptic where the planets magnetic fields and gravity have most influence that might make sense, but these are the polar regions; why would gravitational tides affect one pole one way, and the other pole the other way when the mass is distributed more or less evenly between them (gravity always pulls in, remember)? Besides, the particles involved already have the velocity to escape the sun's gravity, so even Jupiter's gravitational influence would have negligable effect. Its also known that charged particles are deflected by the Van Allen belt, while larger objects plow straight through because of gravity; magnetic fields are far more significant than gravity in this case.
there's so little to go on that a lot of rank speculation is required.
I'm not claiming we know everything (far from it), but we can use what we do know to eliminate what doesn't make sense. Put it this way: if I can point out the flaws with what you suggest with my meagre knowledge of astrophysics, the people who do it for a living are probably way ahead of both of us.
Perhaps a series of probes need to be sent out to the region of the Kuiper Belt to study the phenomenon more closely.
I agree with you 100% there. There is definitely someting interesting going on, but I suspect the explanation is more obvious than extraordinary.
Oh, I didn't know Bacall was still around. My mistake.
If I might, I'd suggest you track down a movie called "Primer". Sci-fi, but almost no special effects, purely plot and concept driven and remarkably gripping.
Also interesting, nearly dialogue free, but containing some nudity (used as a device to accentuate the utter subservience of a humanoid robot, a situation more morally repugnant than sexual which is in a way reversed by the end of the piece) and an equally small amount of CGI is a short film called "Eve".
Obviously I'm a sci-fi fan. To be honest, I see well written sci-fi as a plot device (like the transporters in Star Trek were originally a method of eliminating the boring bit of getting from scene to scene), and the stories themselves are really other genres disguised by gizmos. Alien: horror. Soylent Green: conspiracy/mystery. Solaris: boring;) (actually I liked the original, so: psychodrama)
As much as I agree with what you said, I also think there are some wonderful opportunities opened up to film makers by the new technologies. Granted, this is often used to make plotless drivel. I wouldn't call the Star Wars series "art" by any stretch, although I do respect them as technically well made action films which (compared to the old Zane Gray, Tarzan and Flash Gordon films) are highly absorbing on a purely escapist level. I don't expect brilliant writing or deep examination of characters from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg, though, because they grew up watching those old action films, and that over-awed-child-like thrill is exactly what they're aiming for. I can enjoy them on that level, despite the two-by-fours delivering crass dialogue, but I don't take them seriously.
But speaking as a very minor film maker myself (I'd link to my IMDB listing, but I want to keep some anonymity around here), I prefer to make films that rely first and foremost on story. I also co-produce a show on community TV devoted to short films, and I must say I'm consistently impressed by the imagination and thought that goes into them, and the high standards that are achieved on tiny budgets; but I know many of these directors could produce truly remarkable results, given adequate funding and a free hand (absolute directorial freedom? Not from any funding body I can name). The problem I see isn't that money inherently makes things bad, but that money comes with strings attached.
I could go on, but the point I'm making is that trite action films have always been there (don't tell me Sylvester Stallone is any more of an ape than Johnny Weissmuller;)...well, maybe), and it is only the filter of time that separates the wheat from the chaff. Our age is no different, except that the major studios have now pegged the cost of production, distribution and promotion so high that they can't afford not to be populist. There are as many good writers, actors and directors as ever, but you won't see them in your local multiplex. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but search them out and you'll be pleasantly rewarded, I assure you; the internet is good for that, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
The two units describe different things. You can describe the size of a battleship cannon in Volkswagons, but attempting to describe the energy release in Volkswagons makes no sense whatsoever.
The point is, if you know the energy released in Libraries of Congress and the size in Volkswagons, you can easily calculate the velocity in football fields per second.
I would kick a robot dog because it's a robot dog.
*CLANG* "Ouch, my foot!"
"First law violation...self-destruct!!!" *KABOOM*
That sounds like fun!
So for the sake of convenience, we should combine the three laws of robotics with Godwin's law. I'd suggest:
1: A robot may not speak of Nazis, nor through inaction allow a human to speak of Nazis...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/00 23208
I disagree. Since so few people expect it to ship at all, anything will far exceed expectations.
It's where the current US President has a ranch.
Well, that doesn't make me want to know more...
Meteor sizes are measured in the "Texa".
Damn it, when are you Americans going to start using internationally recognised units?!?
Brilliant calculation, but useless without knowing the meteor's volume in Volkswagens.
Also it's no longer the worst bill.
What, it also covers salami and other smallgoods now? You mentioned dead cats...
Like Mars. Oh, wait, that's a rouge planet...
Irony is often difficult to translate online.
...it's a fairly common practice today for some writers/pundits to use humour/ridicule to disarm people (usually aimed at clueless kids)-- to assist in sneaking in their own philosophical opinions under guise of a harmless giggle.
I know, that's why I used absurdism instead. I find it mind-boggling that anyone could possibly take a link to a "Howling Mad" Murdock site seriously.
However in my defense good comedy doesn't need me to be very smart.
Only smart enough to click a link. Or just smart enough to read the URL, for that matter; "www.ateamshrine.co.uk/murdock.php" in easily visible green letters should have been clue enough, surely. Besides, even if you weren't expecting humour you still obviously didn't bother check the relevance of the link to what I wrote, so feeble comedy is really no excuse: having a rant was clearly far more important to you than clarifying my intended meaning. That's your choice, but don't expect to be taken seriously for it.
Of course. Saying I'd vote for a person because they work for an insane fictional character (instead of the "Murdock" you meant, whichever one that is) is hardly a compliment.
But you're right, and the reason humour is aimed at "clueless kids" is because they don't have the necessary skills to cope with it rationally, so they end up ranting in response and looking silly. And ranting more when its pointed out how silly they look. Part of growing up is learning to accept our mistakes and not hide behind vapid generalisations disguised as excuses; its how we learn to avoid those same mistakes later.
Usually these people aren't "bystanders" taking a break and most often they typically have a strong slant left or right.
What bias would you have detected if you'd clicked the link? I really don't care about what happens "usually"; responding to what's written is the only mark of respect I recognise, whether serious or in jest. Which brings us to:
Being "serious" at times is really only a respect, honesty and maturity around others--without trying to always manipulate them with emotions.
While making wild assumptions about my political leanings based on a single sentence taken out of context is respect, honesty and maturity?
I sometimes have a laugh about them but I don't imagine people that really care about "whatever" spend much time ridiculing their pet issues.
Not everyone in the world is utterly humourless about the things that matter to them; in fact, people that are usually earn the label "zealot". But a question, and think hard (for your own benefit, not mine): how many people have you managed to convert to your way of thinking with this approach, or do eyes glaze over when you start talking politics?
I'm pretty sure US soldiers in the field don't laugh at many latenight jokes as they are emptying their m-16s
Kettle says: who's manipulating emotions now, Mr Pot? BTW, leaping to an unrelated but emotionally charged issue is a classic propaganda technique, made famous by Godwin's favourites.
because of light hearted political debates that got them there.
Odd, I seem to recall most debates over military deployment being rather heated. If you're going to use an issue like this as an example, at least try not to make it look like you're twisting the facts to suit yourself. Honesty evaporated pretty quickly in favour of hyperbole, I see.
I'm not trying to discourage you from using humour around politics.
You wouldn't succeed anyway. I've personally dealt with far too many politicians for that to happen.
Use whatever allows you to cope with the issues of life
That, in my experience, is the catch phrase of anyone who regularly misses jokes but still believes they have an intimate understanding of psychology. Vapid generalisations aside (see, insulting isn't it?), not being from t
...since just about everything else Apple is i (iPod, iTunes, iYouNameIt...).
I'm sitting in front of two eMacs...what happened, an involuntary vowel movement?
I'm guessing either you (a) didn't click the link; (b) are too young to remember the A-Team; or (c) genuinely consider a link to a shrine site for a character from a tacky 80's action show to be a serious political statement.
You're funnier trying to be serious than I am trying to be funny; I surrender!
No need to be so pessimistic; we can take advantage of this. Send 'em into the bunkers, then weld the doors shut.
"government survival"? If something bad enough happens that they need to run to their bunkers, they deserve to be shot when they come back out.
I'd go one step further: they should be shot on their way in (and know they will be), that way the crisis might be averted.
Heck even the Libetarians would be worth a shot if it wasn't for the fact William Crystol works for Murdock.
http://www.ateamshrine.co.uk/murdock.php
He's Crystol's boss? I'd vote Libertarian on that basis alone.
...but none at all to them being bad for humans to eat.
Think back over what you looked at; do you recall seeing a mention of any predators at all? I didn't, which doesn't prove anything, but it is rather unusual.
Source please?
David Attenborough, explaining why hyenas don't eat these creatures, so technically the source is the BBC Natural History Unit. Sadly the toxicology of scavenging animals isn't a big web phenomenon*, so you'll probably have to watch the documentary for verification (and I'm not sure it applies to non-African vultures, but I wouldn't recommend personally testing the theory).
*Hmm, maybe a guide to edible organisms wouldn't be a bad idea.
Agreed. I handle a lot of MiniDV and DVCAM material (works fine over 100MB ethernet) on multiple machines, so something like this looks pretty appealing price-wise.
I couldn't agree more. What might have made good practical sense once has, I suspect, simply become an unquestioned belief. Why its still there is another issue completely, and I agree that conditioning people to accept a set of rules is one of the ways religions exert power.
I was just saying that it looks like nonsense now, but given the conditions under which the rules were invented it makes some sense. Remarkably few traditions (religious or not) make sense until you look at the historical context. Why do we wear neck ties? A slip-knot around the neck is a stupid, dangerous idea but its a tradition that very few seem to question, yet hats, which have a real practical value (keeping the head safe from sun and rain), are very unfashionable.
There's little point in trying to ascribe logic or reason to mass beliefs. That's why marketing works.
Or, in my case, you start out atheist and stay atheist, but you find the strange, archaic rules that people subject themselves to an interesting subject to study, because its an insight into human behaviour.
Religious texts aren't only instructive for those who believe in them...
If you take any behaviour, not matter how smart it is, to a context in which it stops being sensible, well: it stops being sensible.
;)
Actually, I agree. But this is religion we're talking about here, being sensible doesn't enter the equation
Fact is, we live in an ever-increasingly dangerous world.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand's smoking remains might be surprised to hear that.
One of the basics is not eating scavenging animals, which makes sense when you consider the flesh of vultures and jackals is poisonous. Or, to put it differently, if you lived in a desert and decided to eat the first thing that came along, you'd probably die pretty quickly.
There is a historical/natural basis for the belief; it isn't nonsense just because you aren't aware of the context (I'd say its more anachronistic, but isn't every religion?).
...it's due to the Sun's motion through the galaxy
Unless the compression of the heliopause is on the leading edge relative to the sun's motion through the galaxy, this can be safely ruled out. This would also imply some hitherto undetected galactic medium causing a braking effect; surely any non-magnetic influence would affect solid matter as well, and cause the galaxy's rotation to slow over time (unless the medium rotates with the galaxy, in which case the motion of the medium relative to the sun is zero and braking should apply equally to all sides...the effect of motion again cancels out, so we're back to where we started).
perhaps extrasolar winds which remain undetected
Maybe, but without identifying a source of those winds its impossible to explain the uneven shape: what lies in that direction that could produce such a powerful effect? That's not to exlude the possibility, but it seems less likely than the weak magnetic field's influence, given what we do know about charged particles.
or the bubble is variable like the solar wind itself
That's probably true for small differences over time, but we're talking about an 11% variation. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that any variation in solar activity that could cause that kind of change in the space of a few years would be detectable from observation. They probably considered this, checked, and found no link.
or maybe even gravitational tides due to the orbiting planets are influencing its shape.
On the plane of the elliptic where the planets magnetic fields and gravity have most influence that might make sense, but these are the polar regions; why would gravitational tides affect one pole one way, and the other pole the other way when the mass is distributed more or less evenly between them (gravity always pulls in, remember)? Besides, the particles involved already have the velocity to escape the sun's gravity, so even Jupiter's gravitational influence would have negligable effect. Its also known that charged particles are deflected by the Van Allen belt, while larger objects plow straight through because of gravity; magnetic fields are far more significant than gravity in this case.
there's so little to go on that a lot of rank speculation is required.
I'm not claiming we know everything (far from it), but we can use what we do know to eliminate what doesn't make sense. Put it this way: if I can point out the flaws with what you suggest with my meagre knowledge of astrophysics, the people who do it for a living are probably way ahead of both of us.
Perhaps a series of probes need to be sent out to the region of the Kuiper Belt to study the phenomenon more closely.
I agree with you 100% there. There is definitely someting interesting going on, but I suspect the explanation is more obvious than extraordinary.
Oh, I didn't know Bacall was still around. My mistake.
;) (actually I liked the original, so: psychodrama)
;)...well, maybe), and it is only the filter of time that separates the wheat from the chaff. Our age is no different, except that the major studios have now pegged the cost of production, distribution and promotion so high that they can't afford not to be populist. There are as many good writers, actors and directors as ever, but you won't see them in your local multiplex. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but search them out and you'll be pleasantly rewarded, I assure you; the internet is good for that, at least.
If I might, I'd suggest you track down a movie called "Primer". Sci-fi, but almost no special effects, purely plot and concept driven and remarkably gripping.
http://primermovie.com/
Also interesting, nearly dialogue free, but containing some nudity (used as a device to accentuate the utter subservience of a humanoid robot, a situation more morally repugnant than sexual which is in a way reversed by the end of the piece) and an equally small amount of CGI is a short film called "Eve".
http://www.visceralpsyche.com/welcome.html
Obviously I'm a sci-fi fan. To be honest, I see well written sci-fi as a plot device (like the transporters in Star Trek were originally a method of eliminating the boring bit of getting from scene to scene), and the stories themselves are really other genres disguised by gizmos. Alien: horror. Soylent Green: conspiracy/mystery. Solaris: boring
As much as I agree with what you said, I also think there are some wonderful opportunities opened up to film makers by the new technologies. Granted, this is often used to make plotless drivel. I wouldn't call the Star Wars series "art" by any stretch, although I do respect them as technically well made action films which (compared to the old Zane Gray, Tarzan and Flash Gordon films) are highly absorbing on a purely escapist level. I don't expect brilliant writing or deep examination of characters from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg, though, because they grew up watching those old action films, and that over-awed-child-like thrill is exactly what they're aiming for. I can enjoy them on that level, despite the two-by-fours delivering crass dialogue, but I don't take them seriously.
But speaking as a very minor film maker myself (I'd link to my IMDB listing, but I want to keep some anonymity around here), I prefer to make films that rely first and foremost on story. I also co-produce a show on community TV devoted to short films, and I must say I'm consistently impressed by the imagination and thought that goes into them, and the high standards that are achieved on tiny budgets; but I know many of these directors could produce truly remarkable results, given adequate funding and a free hand (absolute directorial freedom? Not from any funding body I can name). The problem I see isn't that money inherently makes things bad, but that money comes with strings attached.
I could go on, but the point I'm making is that trite action films have always been there (don't tell me Sylvester Stallone is any more of an ape than Johnny Weissmuller
Happy viewing!