I find it strange that some people feel a scientist should feel ashamed about taking part in the Manhattan Project. Understanding and harnessing the power of the atom is one of the great achievements of the human kind. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was certainly a tragedy in human terms, but on the other hand the application of nuclear power in civilian power production and the fundamental knowledge of nature balance the books to some extent.
But most important of all, I also feel that the first use of nuclear weapons and subsequent development of even more horrific weapons signaled the coming of age for the human race: for the first time in the history we, as a species, are able to effect self-annihilation. As someone who grew up expecting to die in a nuclear holocaust before I turn 18, I have begun to appreciate it how the insanity of an all-out nuclear war and the impossibility of winning it has actually kept major world powers from (directly) waging war against each other and setting off another world war.
To anyone who is interested in the history of the atomic and hydrogen bomb, I'd recommend the following books by Richard Rhodes:
"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" ISBN 0-684-81378-5
and
"Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" ISBN 0-684-82414-0
Both books are fascinating, containing depictions of both human elements and the physics/engineering side of the atomic weapons. As an example of the former, I found it very interesting to read about SAC nuts like LeMay and his concept of a Sunday Punch strategy.
The last time I was looking for a dual CPU PC for prototyping simulation code I would have loved to go for Opteron, but since there was no high performance compiler native to AMD platform, I had to go Intel.
I would have never even assumed that an Intel compiler would produce proper code on competitor's platform. Why the heck would they have done something as stupid as that? I don't understand why everybody's acting outraged as if Intel playing dirty tricks like this was unexpected.
'It's hard to stomach having to shoot a zombie in the head the same number of times as in the body (six rounds from a pistol, thanks for asking) to dispatch it
Now that's something I've never understood in the movies or in the games. I mean, if you're a zombie, you don't have a brain. Period. It's all mush and all you want to do is to eat the brain of someone else for some obscure reason (protein content, perhaps?). So, why would a headshot be more effective against a zombie than a bodyshot? It just doesn't make any sense. If I were facing a zombie and I had a shotgun, I'd just shoot his bloody legs off and run away bravely.
Even though I do have certain affection for people who cultivate and smoke their own grass crops, bragging about any breach of the local legal code in public is a demonstration of such sheer stupidity that they deserve to get caught.
as the Indymedia server siezures (amongst many other things) show, this power is systematically and flagrantly abused
Wasn't that about someone bragging about committing a crime on Indymedia and the police confiscated the servers because Indymedia wouldn't yield the identity of that one particular poster as requested? I fail to see any problem with that.
create something with the sole purpose of f**cking with your head.
Well, to me that sounds like a great starting point for a good book, cartoon, animation or a movie: to make an impact, to really affect the reader/watcher. It doesn't really matter if the subject feels elevated or deeply disturbed after the experience.
not be remembered as a back-stabbing cheat, but as someone who strove to make the world better
I'm not saying that I agree with the original poster, but why do you think "backstabbing cheat" and "someone who strives to make the world better" are mutually exclusive?
I'd say that to effect any significant change you've got to be ruthless about it.
Yes, I think you could include stuff like ID and Noah's ark under a general phenomenon of anti-science but it's really nothing new. There has always been plenty of anti-science nuts around and they are, well... mostly harmless. As long as no-one tampers with the scientific method, it's ok.
What's more worrying is the increasingly extensive politicization of science (yes, it's always been political but it's getting even more so), the concomitant drop in the general education levels and the rise of anti-science as a source of feasible political capital.
Uh. That's not really a problem in countries that consume the most energy and cry for more. Wasteful consumption and public contempt for any conservation efforts (just witness all the dismissive comments under this article) are the worst problems. But I don't really care anymore; we, as a human race, will get what we deserve. Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.
Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive?
That is, actually, something that really bugged me in the discussion of our natioanl fifth nuclear power plant. No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.
So, why is a low growth rate or even zero-growth in energy consumption such an impossible idea? After all, we all know that infinite growth is an impossibility.
I suppose the logic goes along the lines: no one knows if fusion will ever be a feasible power source whereas spending the same money on further developing and promoting (taxation, R&D,...) existing environmentally friendly technologies is a better bet.
I don't subscribe to nihilism myself, but something in that Rorschach's monologue just keeps hitting a nerve. Another wonderful scene is Laurie and Jon on Mars discussing thermodynamic miracles.
"Thermodynamic miracles...events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son, that exact daughter...Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged.
To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... That is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle."
But what the hell. In all, Watchmen is just a bloody marvellous masterpiece.
Looks like we have a common dream. A Watchmen movie is, in fact, being produced but then again, how much will it be toned down from the original?
"Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world."
What? No mention of the C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser gate?
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why not? You're thinking in the either-or mode, which assumes that public and private research cannot coexist. The scientific information is out there and saying that "we got here first, you can't research the same thing and publish the results for free" is just nuts not to mention antithetical to the idea of science.
As I said, if ACS wants to profit, they'd better sell something that the government doesn't provide.
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
it seems that they are threatened financially by this.
Yes, sure, but isn't it essential for a business to come up with something that justifies the cost of their services? In healthcare business private clinics you get to see a specialist sooner. In public transportation it means being able to get a taxi instead of having to wait for a bus/underground.
It's outrageout to say "we produce the same data, so the government should get out of our business". ACS should come up with other services (data mining, consultation,...) by which it differentiates itself from the free service.
Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why is it that people always see public and private services as mutually exclusive options?
For instance, private and public health care as well as transportation work very well together.
Slashdot Mirror
But most important of all, I also feel that the first use of nuclear weapons and subsequent development of even more horrific weapons signaled the coming of age for the human race: for the first time in the history we, as a species, are able to effect self-annihilation. As someone who grew up expecting to die in a nuclear holocaust before I turn 18, I have begun to appreciate it how the insanity of an all-out nuclear war and the impossibility of winning it has actually kept major world powers from (directly) waging war against each other and setting off another world war.
"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" ISBN 0-684-81378-5
and
"Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" ISBN 0-684-82414-0
Both books are fascinating, containing depictions of both human elements and the physics/engineering side of the atomic weapons. As an example of the former, I found it very interesting to read about SAC nuts like LeMay and his concept of a Sunday Punch strategy.
The last time I was looking for a dual CPU PC for prototyping simulation code I would have loved to go for Opteron, but since there was no high performance compiler native to AMD platform, I had to go Intel.
I would have never even assumed that an Intel compiler would produce proper code on competitor's platform. Why the heck would they have done something as stupid as that? I don't understand why everybody's acting outraged as if Intel playing dirty tricks like this was unexpected.
For your information, I'm a fan of Romero's original films. Relax man. You need a rest.
Now that's something I've never understood in the movies or in the games. I mean, if you're a zombie, you don't have a brain. Period. It's all mush and all you want to do is to eat the brain of someone else for some obscure reason (protein content, perhaps?). So, why would a headshot be more effective against a zombie than a bodyshot? It just doesn't make any sense. If I were facing a zombie and I had a shotgun, I'd just shoot his bloody legs off and run away bravely.
Even though I do have certain affection for people who cultivate and smoke their own grass crops, bragging about any breach of the local legal code in public is a demonstration of such sheer stupidity that they deserve to get caught.
Wasn't that about someone bragging about committing a crime on Indymedia and the police confiscated the servers because Indymedia wouldn't yield the identity of that one particular poster as requested? I fail to see any problem with that.
Well, to me that sounds like a great starting point for a good book, cartoon, animation or a movie: to make an impact, to really affect the reader/watcher. It doesn't really matter if the subject feels elevated or deeply disturbed after the experience.
I'm not saying that I agree with the original poster, but why do you think "backstabbing cheat" and "someone who strives to make the world better" are mutually exclusive?
I'd say that to effect any significant change you've got to be ruthless about it.
What's more worrying is the increasingly extensive politicization of science (yes, it's always been political but it's getting even more so), the concomitant drop in the general education levels and the rise of anti-science as a source of feasible political capital.
Uh. That's not really a problem in countries that consume the most energy and cry for more. Wasteful consumption and public contempt for any conservation efforts (just witness all the dismissive comments under this article) are the worst problems. But I don't really care anymore; we, as a human race, will get what we deserve. Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.
It's not really about the negative ecological impacts. All above assumes that fusion WILL become a feasible energy source -- that is not certain.
That is, actually, something that really bugged me in the discussion of our natioanl fifth nuclear power plant. No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.
So, why is a low growth rate or even zero-growth in energy consumption such an impossible idea? After all, we all know that infinite growth is an impossibility.
I suppose the logic goes along the lines: no one knows if fusion will ever be a feasible power source whereas spending the same money on further developing and promoting (taxation, R&D, ...) existing environmentally friendly technologies is a better bet.
But what the hell. In all, Watchmen is just a bloody marvellous masterpiece.
I don't think that Watchmen could ever be turned into a movie or miniseries that would be faithful to the original graphic novel.
Looks like we have a common dream. A Watchmen movie is, in fact, being produced but then again, how much will it be toned down from the original?
Makes me shiver every time I read that.
Hmm... are you referring to the V22 Osprey?
Heh. Well, yes. It does sound a lot like like Hurd.
So, what's going to happen after the shuttle fleet retires?
(WTF?)
What? No mention of the C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhauser gate?
As I said, if ACS wants to profit, they'd better sell something that the government doesn't provide.
Yes, sure, but isn't it essential for a business to come up with something that justifies the cost of their services? In healthcare business private clinics you get to see a specialist sooner. In public transportation it means being able to get a taxi instead of having to wait for a bus/underground.
It's outrageout to say "we produce the same data, so the government should get out of our business". ACS should come up with other services (data mining, consultation,...) by which it differentiates itself from the free service.
For instance, private and public health care as well as transportation work very well together.