Apparently it's a new scheme for ripping off people and making money without doing anything. It's not like this has any real importance whatsoever. While the signal may go on forever in space, it'll be so incredibly faint. I wonder if it would even be possible to pick out this signal from the huge mess of noise generated by all of the other signals constantly being generated on this planet in huge amounts.
I can't believe that this is really true. It seems like one of those things that is so dumb they wouldn't even make a fake article about it for April Fool's Day. ---
From my understanding, smallpox does not really exist anymore. I don;t think there's been a reported case in many years, and I thought that the disease centers, because it seemed to have been eradicated compltely, destroyed any remaining live colonies they had left.
Which means if it still does exist, then yes, we would have a major epidemic. ---
It's a lot easier to find out how genetics work one they can create something from scratch, even if it is just a copy of an existing life form. This will make it easier for them to modify little bits of it and change the effects, wither for plain experimentation, or for practical purposes.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this.
Question - what if they were to create, say, human DNA with this procedure? Would that second that they put the last little bit in place suddenly make it somehow special? After all, I'm sure we'll soon be seeing laws against doing that to humans. But if you think about it, why? It's like taking that C code, and being able to put together this long program, but being restricted from putting that last function call in there because that'll make it an "illegal sequence"... ---
Of course the movie's going to not make sense for you. You seem unable to consider any supernatural influences here.
If you haven't already seen it mentioned, they followed the river south for a whole day, and ended up in the spot they started from. That's impossible in reality, and that should make it clear that there are things going on which don't make normal sense. It's supposed to get you into it more, make you realize that there's something in "control" over the situation, not that they are just stupid. Many people seem to have been unable to realize this.
Once you understand this, you can realize that other things, such as the house that was supposed to have been burned down, are yet more bad indications. ---
>What was tied up in the bundle of sticks? A piece of Josh? Could we tell what bit? If it was a piece of Josh, did she tell Mike? I didn't think she did. If she did, why would they still be hoping to find him in the house?
I think it was teeth. Bloody teeth in a bundle of sticks held together by strips of Josh's clothing. I wasn't sure when there was just the one, but when the moved it and you saw more, it looked a lot like teeth.
Enough to scare someone half to death, but not enough to mean the person was dead, or there was no hope. ---
>And I have been through that area in Maryland and it's NOT THAT HARD to get out of those woods.
The characters talk about that right in the movie. That they're in America, and that it's hard to even get lost, let alone stay lost. My own personal interpretation of them being lost in the woods like that, especially going in circles while having a compass, was that the "Blair Witch" was screwing with them, making sure they never left the woods. Not that they were just doing a poor job of getting out. I'd be interested in knowing if that was the intention of the movie, or if they meant for them to just be lost by themselves. ---
Well, I don't know if my comments are really going to be spoilers to everyone, but I put that there just in case...
I was absolutely amazed by the movie. I have never in my life been in a theater and had it so deadly silent during a movie - and it was a LARGE theater, almost entirely full. After it was over, I saw a few other girls there in the theater crying, and a lot of faces that were pretty white and expressionless.
I myself had trouble falling asleep this weekend. The movie kept coming back to me when I was lying there in the dark. I think what made it so bad for me, and probably for many others, is the fact that you never see anything. There isn't some villan to see that will allow your mind to dismiss it as a movie. Nothing in there to let you go "naw, that was fake, it couldn't happen". This lets your mind keep it, and twist it around in ways that can't be done with a regular horror movie. I can't even remember the last time a movie has affected me like this.
I think the method of "acting" they used in this movie helped so much. I'd like to know how much of it was really real, emotion-wise. Because I've never seen anyone look quite as scared on screen as they did, and nothing in there felt fake. I can see why some people would have a hard time believing that it wasn't real.
I wonder if the three actors would ever go through this sort of experience again. ---
This is what I think makes the whole issue a moot point. There should be no need to make this a court case when they had such simple means to prevent it. Otherwise things are just going to get so complicated deciding where it's acceptable and where it's not, can they point to a page if it has the ad, etc, etc.
If you don't want the link, find a way to prevent it - it's not that hard. Stupidity doesn't make good law. ---
Perhaps this is another sign that geeks need to start getting involved in politics. We sit and watch the clueless government do one thing after another to take away privacy, cripple technology research and advance, and just generally try to treat us like children.
And all the while, I see geeks complaining about it, but doing little else. Maybe it's time to start getting the word out to people what is being done, and do something to change it. All the whining in the world won't do any good if that's all that is done.
I don't know, maybe a Geek Political Party? So the geeks will know who to vote for? So some visibility may be gained? Or is this just another one of those ideas that wouldn't work? ---
>I believe it was Thoreau who said "if a law or practise is unjust, you are morally obligated to defy it."
>I think we would live in a much better world if all lived by that creed.
I have to disagree. Simply because people have different feelings about what is just and moral. What about those who think it's just to kill homosexuals? Or those who think it's just to abuse minorities? Following this logic would suggest they go right ahead and beat and kill those they don't like.
This is a blanket statement that cannot be applied to everything because to do so will lead to problems somewhere. ---
>>that adults ought not be forced to intrude on their >>children's privacy
>Does anyone else see a problem here? Isn't that sometimes >a parent's job? IOW, there are times when a parent has to >"intrude on their children's privacy" to assure that their kids >are being raised the way they see fit. My parents restricted >what I could watch when I was a kid (I'm 23 and married >now), and I'm glad they did -- it showed me they cared.
I think you're reading too much into this. Sure, a parent at times needs to invade a child's privacy to make sure things are going ok. But some parents do have some respect for the privacy of their children, and are willing to let them make their own decisions when it's something that's not harmful.
A parent that does not involve themselves with their child's life demonstrates a lack of caring or interest. One that is constantly involved and makes most/all the decisions for the child demonstrates a lack of trust/a desire to control.
His point is that if an adult doesn't want to invade their child's privacy, why should they be forced to? Do they deserve to be told that their method of parenting is totally wrong and harmful? ---
I don't think it really matters which is in charge anymore. With the two-party system, politics is continuing to grow less and less for the people, and more and more for the party. Whenever a party is in control, they use their power to shove bills through that they want, not that the people want. It's just a question of which group most people would rather have shoving crap through the system.
Perhaps if we could enough of a third party so that NONE of the groups have a majority, we'd see more politicians trying to make things better rather than play the partisian politicial "get the campaign donations" game.
It's all about where the campaign money comes from. Funding NASA doesn't get them enough campaign donations to make it worthwhile - so they look for other places to put the money and get them more donations. The republicans prefer the most to just cut it to cut taxes, which allows the rich (who always save the most from the tax cuts) to donate more money. ---
While some of them are perfectly good suggestions, I REALLY have to question some of what's being said here. DOWNLOAD the movie? Advocating pirating a movie just because a theater won't let you see it on the big screen? Sneaking into a movie you haven't paid for?
There are much better ways to handle the situation. Ones that aren't illegal. If a theater won't let the parent leave the children, talk to the manager, and let them know you're not returning if they keep this up. And be loud when talking to them so others know what's going on. Make people aware that the theater is being like this, then go elsewhere.
If no theater will let you do this, just wait a few months and purchase the video/DVD. And make sure to write the offices of the theaters and complain, and get others to do so.
Look, it's just a movie. There are limits as to how far this should be taken. And none of it is worth breaking the law.
I do like some of these, however. I can only smile with the thought of a group of people picketing a theater. I wonder how long it would take to get them to do something - I'm sure they wouldn't like that publicity. ---
>I just can't imagine where they are going to put >this enormous roller coaster on that small >island...
They moved the railroad ride in the park toward the edge, opening up quite a bit of space. They're also going to move the ferris wheel (see the press release), and it's supposed to fit into the park pretty well.
I saw a coaster site that, according to someone at Cedar Point, they've got room for 2-3 more coasters without having to take anything down, but only having to scoot things around. ---
Well, the Mean Streak (also at Cedar Point) has shown there are some practical limits to the size and speed of wooden coasters. Even after adding trim brakes to the track to slow it down, it's still going so fast that it's putting enough force on the structure to tear itself apart. It has 8 full-time carpenters on it alone, and they still cannot get it to give as smooth of a ride as it did when it opened.
I'm wondering how Kings Island's Son of Beast is going to avoid this problem - or if it's also going to be nearly unrideable in 5-6 years time. ---
I saw a transcript of a talk given by a roller coaster designer that pretty much said that there is no practical limit, heightwise, for roller coasters anywhere in sight. At least not theoretically - they'd probably be able to design one with a 1,000 foot tall lift hill. The practical limit is how much money a park is willing to spend, and if people are willing to ride the thing.
And as long as they don't start shooting up in height too fast, people will be able to get used to something of a certain size and be ready for something bigger. I know that I wouldn't want to go from a 200-foot tall coaster to a 500-foot tall one. If I were used to riding 400+ though, it may not be so bad. ---
The reason Dolly seems older is because she began life with pre-shortened telomeres in her DNA. However, any offspring that she, or any other similarly cloned animal, were to have would have normal-length telomeres (assuming a "natural" birth).
As a little bit of an off-topic aside... scientists have found ways to modify DNA as to aviod the shortening of telomeres that usually occurs in replication. And this is also teaching them how to turn the shortening back on - as this is one of the problems with cancer.
Once proper delivery systems have been developed, we may be looking at a new weapon (and a potential cure) for cancer, plus the large-scale increase of life spans. I think they've already had mice living twice as long with the proper genetic changes. ---
Leave nature be? We tamper with nature every moment of our lives. When you drive to the store, you're messing with nature.
Nature isn't like a sculpture, or painting. It's not a fixed thing that you can observe without influencing. It's a constantly changing thing, a strange mix of balance and imbalance, an equilibrium of change.
No matter what we do, short of blowing up the entire planet, nature will find a way to work it in, and acheive equilibrium again.
The way I see it, we've gone far past the point where nature will provide for us. We are changing things too fast for the equilibrium to be acheived again without serious changes. So now it is in our control, it's up to us to keep things working. And we get to decide how to do that. If cloning a species that we eliminated 70 years ago is our wish, then we can do it. And it's not like we're cloning a harmful species - I don't think there is any way this bird can possibly cause nearly as much damage as has been done by the assorted transplanting of species from one continent to another. (cats, pigs in Austrailia, for example) ---
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently it's a new scheme for ripping off people and making money without doing anything. It's not like this has any real importance whatsoever. While the signal may go on forever in space, it'll be so incredibly faint. I wonder if it would even be possible to pick out this signal from the huge mess of noise generated by all of the other signals constantly being generated on this planet in huge amounts.
I can't believe that this is really true. It seems like one of those things that is so dumb they wouldn't even make a fake article about it for April Fool's Day.
---
From my understanding, smallpox does not really exist anymore. I don;t think there's been a reported case in many years, and I thought that the disease centers, because it seemed to have been eradicated compltely, destroyed any remaining live colonies they had left.
Which means if it still does exist, then yes, we would have a major epidemic.
---
It's a lot easier to find out how genetics work one they can create something from scratch, even if it is just a copy of an existing life form. This will make it easier for them to modify little bits of it and change the effects, wither for plain experimentation, or for practical purposes.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this.
Question - what if they were to create, say, human DNA with this procedure? Would that second that they put the last little bit in place suddenly make it somehow special? After all, I'm sure we'll soon be seeing laws against doing that to humans. But if you think about it, why? It's like taking that C code, and being able to put together this long program, but being restricted from putting that last function call in there because that'll make it an "illegal sequence"...
---
Of course the movie's going to not make sense for you. You seem unable to consider any supernatural influences here.
If you haven't already seen it mentioned, they followed the river south for a whole day, and ended up in the spot they started from. That's impossible in reality, and that should make it clear that there are things going on which don't make normal sense. It's supposed to get you into it more, make you realize that there's something in "control" over the situation, not that they are just stupid. Many people seem to have been unable to realize this.
Once you understand this, you can realize that other things, such as the house that was supposed to have been burned down, are yet more bad indications.
---
>What was tied up in the bundle of sticks? A piece of Josh? Could we tell what bit? If it was a piece of Josh, did she tell Mike? I didn't think she did. If she did, why would they still be hoping to find him in the house?
I think it was teeth. Bloody teeth in a bundle of sticks held together by strips of Josh's clothing. I wasn't sure when there was just the one, but when the moved it and you saw more, it looked a lot like teeth.
Enough to scare someone half to death, but not enough to mean the person was dead, or there was no hope.
---
>And I have been through that area in Maryland and it's NOT THAT HARD to get out of those woods.
The characters talk about that right in the movie. That they're in America, and that it's hard to even get lost, let alone stay lost. My own personal interpretation of them being lost in the woods like that, especially going in circles while having a compass, was that the "Blair Witch" was screwing with them, making sure they never left the woods. Not that they were just doing a poor job of getting out. I'd be interested in knowing if that was the intention of the movie, or if they meant for them to just be lost by themselves.
---
Well, I don't know if my comments are really going to be spoilers to everyone, but I put that there just in case...
I was absolutely amazed by the movie. I have never in my life been in a theater and had it so deadly silent during a movie - and it was a LARGE theater, almost entirely full. After it was over, I saw a few other girls there in the theater crying, and a lot of faces that were pretty white and expressionless.
I myself had trouble falling asleep this weekend. The movie kept coming back to me when I was lying there in the dark. I think what made it so bad for me, and probably for many others, is the fact that you never see anything. There isn't some villan to see that will allow your mind to dismiss it as a movie. Nothing in there to let you go "naw, that was fake, it couldn't happen". This lets your mind keep it, and twist it around in ways that can't be done with a regular horror movie. I can't even remember the last time a movie has affected me like this.
I think the method of "acting" they used in this movie helped so much. I'd like to know how much of it was really real, emotion-wise. Because I've never seen anyone look quite as scared on screen as they did, and nothing in there felt fake. I can see why some people would have a hard time believing that it wasn't real.
I wonder if the three actors would ever go through this sort of experience again.
---
This is what I think makes the whole issue a moot point. There should be no need to make this a court case when they had such simple means to prevent it. Otherwise things are just going to get so complicated deciding where it's acceptable and where it's not, can they point to a page if it has the ad, etc, etc.
If you don't want the link, find a way to prevent it - it's not that hard. Stupidity doesn't make good law.
---
Perhaps this is another sign that geeks need to start getting involved in politics. We sit and watch the clueless government do one thing after another to take away privacy, cripple technology research and advance, and just generally try to treat us like children.
And all the while, I see geeks complaining about it, but doing little else. Maybe it's time to start getting the word out to people what is being done, and do something to change it. All the whining in the world won't do any good if that's all that is done.
I don't know, maybe a Geek Political Party? So the geeks will know who to vote for? So some visibility may be gained? Or is this just another one of those ideas that wouldn't work?
---
>I believe it was Thoreau who said "if a law or practise is unjust, you are morally obligated to defy it."
>I think we would live in a much better world if all lived by that creed.
I have to disagree. Simply because people have different feelings about what is just and moral. What about those who think it's just to kill homosexuals? Or those who think it's just to abuse minorities? Following this logic would suggest they go right ahead and beat and kill those they don't like.
This is a blanket statement that cannot be applied to everything because to do so will lead to problems somewhere.
---
>>that adults ought not be forced to intrude on their
>>children's privacy
>Does anyone else see a problem here? Isn't that sometimes
>a parent's job? IOW, there are times when a parent has to
>"intrude on their children's privacy" to assure that their kids
>are being raised the way they see fit. My parents restricted
>what I could watch when I was a kid (I'm 23 and married
>now), and I'm glad they did -- it showed me they cared.
I think you're reading too much into this. Sure, a parent at times needs to invade a child's privacy to make sure things are going ok. But some parents do have some respect for the privacy of their children, and are willing to let them make their own decisions when it's something that's not harmful.
A parent that does not involve themselves with their child's life demonstrates a lack of caring or interest. One that is constantly involved and makes most/all the decisions for the child demonstrates a lack of trust/a desire to control.
His point is that if an adult doesn't want to invade their child's privacy, why should they be forced to? Do they deserve to be told that their method of parenting is totally wrong and harmful?
---
I don't think it really matters which is in charge anymore. With the two-party system, politics is continuing to grow less and less for the people, and more and more for the party. Whenever a party is in control, they use their power to shove bills through that they want, not that the people want. It's just a question of which group most people would rather have shoving crap through the system.
Perhaps if we could enough of a third party so that NONE of the groups have a majority, we'd see more politicians trying to make things better rather than play the partisian politicial "get the campaign donations" game.
It's all about where the campaign money comes from. Funding NASA doesn't get them enough campaign donations to make it worthwhile - so they look for other places to put the money and get them more donations. The republicans prefer the most to just cut it to cut taxes, which allows the rich (who always save the most from the tax cuts) to donate more money.
---
While some of them are perfectly good suggestions, I REALLY have to question some of what's being said here. DOWNLOAD the movie? Advocating pirating a movie just because a theater won't let you see it on the big screen? Sneaking into a movie you haven't paid for?
There are much better ways to handle the situation. Ones that aren't illegal. If a theater won't let the parent leave the children, talk to the manager, and let them know you're not returning if they keep this up. And be loud when talking to them so others know what's going on. Make people aware that the theater is being like this, then go elsewhere.
If no theater will let you do this, just wait a few months and purchase the video/DVD. And make sure to write the offices of the theaters and complain, and get others to do so.
Look, it's just a movie. There are limits as to how far this should be taken. And none of it is worth breaking the law.
I do like some of these, however. I can only smile with the thought of a group of people picketing a theater. I wonder how long it would take to get them to do something - I'm sure they wouldn't like that publicity.
---
>I just can't imagine where they are going to put
>this enormous roller coaster on that small
>island...
They moved the railroad ride in the park toward the edge, opening up quite a bit of space. They're also going to move the ferris wheel (see the press release), and it's supposed to fit into the park pretty well.
I saw a coaster site that, according to someone at Cedar Point, they've got room for 2-3 more coasters without having to take anything down, but only having to scoot things around.
---
Well, the Mean Streak (also at Cedar Point) has shown there are some practical limits to the size and speed of wooden coasters. Even after adding trim brakes to the track to slow it down, it's still going so fast that it's putting enough force on the structure to tear itself apart. It has 8 full-time carpenters on it alone, and they still cannot get it to give as smooth of a ride as it did when it opened.
I'm wondering how Kings Island's Son of Beast is going to avoid this problem - or if it's also going to be nearly unrideable in 5-6 years time.
---
I saw a transcript of a talk given by a roller coaster designer that pretty much said that there is no practical limit, heightwise, for roller coasters anywhere in sight. At least not theoretically - they'd probably be able to design one with a 1,000 foot tall lift hill. The practical limit is how much money a park is willing to spend, and if people are willing to ride the thing.
And as long as they don't start shooting up in height too fast, people will be able to get used to something of a certain size and be ready for something bigger. I know that I wouldn't want to go from a 200-foot tall coaster to a 500-foot tall one. If I were used to riding 400+ though, it may not be so bad.
---
As a little bit of an off-topic aside... scientists have found ways to modify DNA as to aviod the shortening of telomeres that usually occurs in replication. And this is also teaching them how to turn the shortening back on - as this is one of the problems with cancer.
Once proper delivery systems have been developed, we may be looking at a new weapon (and a potential cure) for cancer, plus the large-scale increase of life spans. I think they've already had mice living twice as long with the proper genetic changes.
---
Leave nature be? We tamper with nature every moment of our lives. When you drive to the store, you're messing with nature.
Nature isn't like a sculpture, or painting. It's not a fixed thing that you can observe without influencing. It's a constantly changing thing, a strange mix of balance and imbalance, an equilibrium of change.
No matter what we do, short of blowing up the entire planet, nature will find a way to work it in, and acheive equilibrium again.
The way I see it, we've gone far past the point where nature will provide for us. We are changing things too fast for the equilibrium to be acheived again without serious changes. So now it is in our control, it's up to us to keep things working. And we get to decide how to do that. If cloning a species that we eliminated 70 years ago is our wish, then we can do it. And it's not like we're cloning a harmful species - I don't think there is any way this bird can possibly cause nearly as much damage as has been done by the assorted transplanting of species from one continent to another. (cats, pigs in Austrailia, for example)
---