No new designs in the field? Ever heard of 'clean' nuclear weapons (minimal fissile yield, sizable fusion presentation)? Tactical nulear devices (tac-nukes, able to be fielded/deployed by a single unit)? Gamma burst nukes (leave structures standing, kill all biological life)? Plasma window low-yield weapons (a variant of nuclear weapons which create a high-energy plasma field around the blast to contain the effects of fallout similar to a forcefield)? Yeah. We've got new stuff. We can just thank God and some sensible CIC & JCOS that these have not been used in actual operations. Horrible in aftermath, weapons with an incredible standoff reach, and just about the only deterrent technologically advanced countries have left that is legally permissible (re: the ban on bioweaps, etc).
I guess we can be glad that these weapons are not available in general circles as well. These aren't terrorist strap-yourself-with-one weapons. These are WMDs, and you don't blow up a building with them, you extinguish millions of human lives at once and making life hell for another few mililon. Read a copy of "Hiroshima" The written accounts of the survivors of the bomb... if you can find a copy, because it's rare, it's gripping and horrifyingly detailed. The true power of a nuclear weapon is not so much death and destruction, but rather the pain, suffering, and almost otherworldly tableau that it uses as a palette to transform the lives of all of its survivors.
Also: read "The Fourth Protocol".
I gotta look on both sides of this issue.
1) I'm disappointed - the movies have been great lately, especially out of Marvel Studios. I pray they keep that creative genius constant - don't fire anyone.
2) On the flip side, I can't think of anyone who I'd rather have building a brand new theme park with nothing but Marvel Characters. Universal did a decent job, but if anyone has the money, guts, space, and Imagineering to pull off a truly twenty-first century full sensory experience that's pure Marvel, Disney would be my first hope. I hear they were thinking of putting together a new park in Orlando/Kissimmee anyway. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
...on what really matters. Where are you looking? When a rabbit goes down the rabbit hole, it is focusing on the end, and not the journey. The Matrix Trilogy show us that it is not the end that begs focus, but rather our means. We're not looking at salvation, but rather how we get there - we're seeing the rabbit hole for what it truly is and learning to understand what it is so that we may manipulate the path we take (whether in the real world or in a "Matrix".)
These movies are metaphorical - entirely representational - of many things in good storytelling and in life, and point to philisophical and epistemological concepts that everyone is not perceptive enough (or open-minded enough) to grasp. Two things may fix this: 1) learn to widen your perceptions - see what things are truly there, whether you agree with them or not, and 2) educate yourself - learn of what may and might exist so that you may make an informed decision as to whether you believe those things do or do not exist. (Ironically enough, isn't this the summation of the first movie?)
As a Christian, I have learned that the same story (or parable) may have different depths of interpretation, which lead to new and progressive applications in life. Most movies are not like this, but instead are straightforward WYSIWYG chatter, though the story they tell may be something that appeals to us. The difference between these and the Matrix Trilogy is in the core of the story, which is inherently (and entirely) the clash of philosophy with perception. I heard a philosophy professor once state, "This is the essence of what it means to live as a sentient being." What do you believe?
I have a problem with those who condemn these types of movies because the action did not suit their preferences or because the CGI wasn't perfect. True, they help solidify the credence of the story in our minds, but if you understand the ideas that these things represent, then hasn't the story-writer accomplished his purpose? Feel free to e-mail me at zuriel@umich.edu with personal comments.
Promised in the 80's. Lauded in the 90's. Still not a reality in the 21st century. People never seem to be looking in the direction of the growth of technology... I could tell you that flying cars will come soon, but you and i both know that though people have been promising them for years, every auto company out there is still trying to figure out how to get a 10% fuel-to-power increase out of the main driveshaft. The computers of the future will be surprisingly un-intuitive... basic, even. Remember X-parc... go back to basics.
Slashdot Mirror
No new designs in the field? Ever heard of 'clean' nuclear weapons (minimal fissile yield, sizable fusion presentation)? Tactical nulear devices (tac-nukes, able to be fielded/deployed by a single unit)? Gamma burst nukes (leave structures standing, kill all biological life)? Plasma window low-yield weapons (a variant of nuclear weapons which create a high-energy plasma field around the blast to contain the effects of fallout similar to a forcefield)? Yeah. We've got new stuff. We can just thank God and some sensible CIC & JCOS that these have not been used in actual operations. Horrible in aftermath, weapons with an incredible standoff reach, and just about the only deterrent technologically advanced countries have left that is legally permissible (re: the ban on bioweaps, etc). I guess we can be glad that these weapons are not available in general circles as well. These aren't terrorist strap-yourself-with-one weapons. These are WMDs, and you don't blow up a building with them, you extinguish millions of human lives at once and making life hell for another few mililon. Read a copy of "Hiroshima" The written accounts of the survivors of the bomb... if you can find a copy, because it's rare, it's gripping and horrifyingly detailed. The true power of a nuclear weapon is not so much death and destruction, but rather the pain, suffering, and almost otherworldly tableau that it uses as a palette to transform the lives of all of its survivors. Also: read "The Fourth Protocol".
I gotta look on both sides of this issue. 1) I'm disappointed - the movies have been great lately, especially out of Marvel Studios. I pray they keep that creative genius constant - don't fire anyone. 2) On the flip side, I can't think of anyone who I'd rather have building a brand new theme park with nothing but Marvel Characters. Universal did a decent job, but if anyone has the money, guts, space, and Imagineering to pull off a truly twenty-first century full sensory experience that's pure Marvel, Disney would be my first hope. I hear they were thinking of putting together a new park in Orlando/Kissimmee anyway. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
These movies are metaphorical - entirely representational - of many things in good storytelling and in life, and point to philisophical and epistemological concepts that everyone is not perceptive enough (or open-minded enough) to grasp. Two things may fix this: 1) learn to widen your perceptions - see what things are truly there, whether you agree with them or not, and 2) educate yourself - learn of what may and might exist so that you may make an informed decision as to whether you believe those things do or do not exist. (Ironically enough, isn't this the summation of the first movie?)
As a Christian, I have learned that the same story (or parable) may have different depths of interpretation, which lead to new and progressive applications in life. Most movies are not like this, but instead are straightforward WYSIWYG chatter, though the story they tell may be something that appeals to us. The difference between these and the Matrix Trilogy is in the core of the story, which is inherently (and entirely) the clash of philosophy with perception. I heard a philosophy professor once state, "This is the essence of what it means to live as a sentient being." What do you believe?
I have a problem with those who condemn these types of movies because the action did not suit their preferences or because the CGI wasn't perfect. True, they help solidify the credence of the story in our minds, but if you understand the ideas that these things represent, then hasn't the story-writer accomplished his purpose? Feel free to e-mail me at zuriel@umich.edu with personal comments.
-Zuriel 7
Promised in the 80's. Lauded in the 90's. Still not a reality in the 21st century. People never seem to be looking in the direction of the growth of technology... I could tell you that flying cars will come soon, but you and i both know that though people have been promising them for years, every auto company out there is still trying to figure out how to get a 10% fuel-to-power increase out of the main driveshaft. The computers of the future will be surprisingly un-intuitive... basic, even. Remember X-parc... go back to basics.