You'd probably be interested in Amrita, an adaptive mesh refinement CFD software package that is completely open source. You'd have to contact the creator, James Quirk, for the full details on its use. But it's a fantastic package that can do an incredible amount -- far more than just CFD (you can use it for solids, etc.). The web page is fairly old (it's been in use for over 6 years so the "trials" period is long over).
Not trying to troll here folks, but it's things like this that makes me glad I don't live in America sometimes.
You'll be less glad when Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to declare war on your country for some random reason under the guise of the war on terror!:)
I don't think it is the governments responsibility todo "General" research with my money.
One of the problems with your post is that you never really define what you mean by "General" research. You follow this sentence with the following statement:
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Using this as a reference, I'll assume you mean the government should only fund research that has immediate application to "important" areas such as defense. There are a lot of problems with this viewpoint. First, is how to draw the line between "general" research and "applied" research. Almost every scientist can do some wordsmithing to claim that their research has some concrete benefit now or in the future. So one could place a time barrier and state that only research that will pay off in new technological improvements within the next N years should be funded. The problem with this is that long-range research never gets funded. Another problem is that estimates of how long it will take the basic research to generate improved technology will always be wrong and scientists will give overly optimistic estimates so they can get their funding. There's also the big problem of identifying what research that seems pretty "pure", "general", "theoretical", whathaveyou, will produce useful "applied" results. I can't imagine the snide comments that mathematician George Boole must have endured when he developed an algebra assuming only two digits: 0 and 1. But today Boolean Algebra, as it is known today, is very applied stuff. Fourier faced similiar problems when no one recognized the practical importance of Fourier series and transforms when he introduced it.
Your statements also indicate that you are really upset at government research assistance for commerical technologies. The problem is that American companies are very short sighted. Their stockholders demand that they not engage in risky, long-range R&D developments. Without government seed money, most American companies wouldn't tackle the "big problems". Other governments, however, are more than willing to use their resources to give their companies an edge. The MagLev train is an obvious example. This idea was developed at MIT and they went so far as to develop a minature prototype. However, funding went dry. The governments of Japan and Germany saw the potential and began developing the technology in cooperation with their native hi-tech companies and they quickly leapt ahead of the US in the development of viable technology. The US is starting to gain back some of the ground now, but if the US government had funded this thing throughout, the US would be a lock for the first nation to bring this technology to the worldwide market.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that Iraq is under very strict UN sanctions and that their computer technology is quite limited. So there probably aren't as many Iraqi computer geeks as you might imagine. Not to say that Saddam isn't trying to build up his computer tech any way he can. This article cites a classified military document that expresses concern over Iraq's attempt to import thousands of Playstation2 videogame consoles. Military officials fear that Saddam is trying to get around the UN sanctions on computer equipment by linking the videogame consoles together to form an ad-hoc parallel supercomputer. But the fact that they have to go to such extremes just goes to show you that their baseline computer capability is quite limited. Thus, computer access is probably also limited and there isn't enough free CPU cycles for Iraqi geeks to hone their cracking skills.
As for Al Queda, remember that they try to commit "spectacular attacks". Significant damage can be done via cyberattacks but those don't have the camera appeal of explosions. Remember these guys had the 9/11 attacks planned so that the second airplane would strike the twin towers long enough after the first so that reporters would already be on the scene and could witness the second explosion. And it would be hard for Al Queda to recruit new members simply by shuting down our stock exchange for a day or two.
The numbering system doesn't work for the movies if you're interested in space babes, though:
1: Sexy bald chick
2: Space skanks
3: Were there any chicks in this one besides Savvak and Uhura?
4: Kinda sexy whale-lovin' mama
5: Muscle-bound klingon
6: Iman. 'Nuff said.
7: Whoopi Goldberg? Gees...
8: When chicks do that abdomen wrigging thing, it's sexier if they're actually connected to their hips at the time...
9: Sexy mature quail who's read one to many "live life to the fullest" self-help books
10: Who knows? But originally 7 of 9 was going to cameo and they decided to go with Janeway. Doesn't look good...
Gees, I'm not sure how my original post got a "+5 Informative" because I didn't even include the link to the review I read! I mean, "+3 Insightful" or "+4 Interesting" I can understand...
Anyhow, here's the review I mentioned. Needless to say, plot spoilers are featured. Like I said, the review makes Nemesis sound like an okay, but not great, Trek flick.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen more (any really) previews on television for Nemesis.
I've been thinking the same thing but I'm starting to worry if the studio thinks the movie is going to be a bomb. As others have mentioned, there is stiff competition in the action/adventure genre from Bond and LotR. Perhaps they are worried that it just won't be able to keep pace and they are cutting their losses by not spending much on advertisting. The die-hard Trek fans will go to see it anyhow. A lot of people will go see any film just because they are tired of holiday shopping. The number-crunchers at Paramount may have calculated that negative word-of-mouth will override any benefit obtained by an aggressive marketing campaign.
Just my thoughts. But I have already read one review for the movie that suggests that this film will not even come close to fulfilling expectations for a film billed as the "final TNG adventure".
The Internet has enormous potential to contribute to public welfare and private well-being. One dimension of that potential involves the use of the Internet to enhance and transform education for the nation's youth, and many public policy decisions have been taken to provide Internet access for educational purposes. Easy access to the Internet (and related online services) has many advantages for children--access to educational materials; collaborative projects, publications, online friendships, and pen pals; access to subject matter experts; recreation, hobby, and sports information; and so on.
It might be useful for someone to produce a 400+ page report examining the above stated and widely-held belief that Internet access is going to magically "enhance and transform education for the nation's youth". I, for one, am not sure that filling cash-strapped schools with computer equipment is somehow going to result in brighter children than if we just stuck to the basics.
First of all space is NOT demilitarized already. US has large amounts of military hardware up there, Russia has somewhat less, and China has less yet.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. The nations have tentatively agreed not to weaponize space but they have no problem militarizing space. The problem, of course, comes with how to do draw the line between weaponizing and militarizing? Obviously, space-based lasers designed to strafe cities safely from orbit is weaponization. Surveillance satellites that use radars to cover large portions of a battlefield is not weaponizing. But how about GPS-guided weapons which rely on satellites to guide them to targets? Well, the fact that we have them suggests that we certainly don't consider that weaponization. What about launching weapons from the ground designed to destroy enemy satellites? What about using our satellites to destroy enemy satellites? Each administration has its own boundaries about what is acceptable and what isn't. It's only natural that this line will change over time.
I may be alone on this one, but please hear me out.
You're not alone but you realize, of course, that you are inviting all sorts of cruel replies because of the "love your fellow man" tone of your post. But I think you are exactly right. There are all sorts of threats to humanity: biological/nuclear warfare, overpopulation, destruction of environment, etc. but when it comes down to it, it's really because people tend to do what benefits themselves the most and they don't care about how it will effect others. Biological and nuclear weapons are harmless until they are actually used by one country attempting to gain control over another. Overpopulation is at the root of many problems but that's largely due to increased competition (for resources, fame, etc.). Laws designed to protect the environment are skirted by corporations looking to increase their profit margin by a percent or two. If people would take the bigger picture into account everytime they do something, the risks to our species would go down measurably. I realize that it's a hopeless goal to get everyone to "play nice" but if we could get a large number of people to "do the right thing", it would be interesting to see how strongly that changes things. Perhaps significantly, perhaps insignificantly. There is a mentality that the fate of our species will ultimately be determined by the worst elements of our society. If that is true, then we are all doomed because there are some really evil people out there. But even if we are doomed to extinction, being a decent person can reap personal rewards as well, making your time on planet Earth more enjoyable.
It's really too bad that we can't, as a society, somehow make being a decent, caring, loving human being "cool". Ah well...
Using a user-friendly tool like Photoshop would defeat the whole geeky purpose! He was able to use the words "custom program" and "hacked" in the same sentence -- a prerequisite for recognized by slashdot. The only things that could have made this cooler would have been:
Reverse-engineering the Photoshop software and then modifying it for his purpose
Using assembly instead of C
Making his webpage with a text editor while watching Star Trek
Considering that Star Trek was supposed to be a serious show about the future, there were an awful lot of gorgeous women running around in skimpy outfits on the set and you had your shirt off half the time. How did you, the other actors, and Roddenberry feel about the sexual undertones in Star Trek? Was it something forced on you by the studio? Or did you feel it was a legitimate part of the show?
Yeah! Okay, um, when you were gonna beam down to the planet, okay, for the last time in Episode 25? Well um, I was wondering if you could settle a bet for me and my friends, okay? Um, like, when you... um, left your quarters for the last time? And you opened up your safe? Um... what was the combination?
A simple counting wouldn't show who's the bigger stud. I mean, a green alien chick is probably worth 5 or 6 human chicks...
GMD
Biggest professional regret
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Mr. Shatner:
What is your single biggest regret over your entire professional career (actor, author, cult figure, etc.) and why?
GMD
The Transformed Man wasn't supposed to be "music"
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 2
I'd love to hear William talk about the Transformed Man LP. How seriously did you take the project at the time, and how do you feel about the way it's metamorphosed into a camp classic?
I read an interview with him where he discussed that album briefly. Basically, he said that he approached the project as audio-only theatre and that he didn't really intend for it to come off as a musical album. He says that he can understand why people think it's hilarious since they are looking at it as a (poorly-done) musical work but that they are missing what the album was supposed to be about.
Q: Why did the jetliner crash over Warsaw?
A: There were Poles on the right half of the plane!
Q: What is the Fourier Transform of this? (moves hand in a horizontal fashion to indicate a constand function)
A: This! (give person The Finger to indicate the Dirac Delta function).
A mathematician, a physicist and an industrial enginner are asked "Are all odd numbers prime?". So the mathematican goes "Let's see 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime... okay by mathematican inducation all odd numbers are prime." The physicist is next. "1 works, 3 works, 5 does, 7 does, 9 doesn't, 11 does, 13 does... okay that 9 is probably experimental error so, yes, all odd numbers are prime." The industrial engineer is last. "Okay 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime, 5 is odd and prime, 7 is odd and prime, 9 is odd and prime..."
He declined, saying he and his friends had gotten used to the voice, and it was "his".
Not to mention the legions of fans who follow his side-career as a gangsta rapper with due vigor! Changing his would give his music a very different sound!
GMD
Violent vs. non-violent crimes
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sarcasm aside, you are on the right track. That is, the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, the question is, How broad is the impact?
I think all of us, deep down inside, have a gut feeling that 'punishment should fit the crime'. The problem is that it gets difficult sometimes to measure the impact of a crime.
Let's consider a drastic example: a sexual predator rapes and kills a 5 year old girl. Forensic evidence indicates that she died a very slow and painful death. This is obviously horrific but what is the "impact"? A girl is dead and her parents and a handful of others who knew and loved her will suffer severe emotional distress. Now consider someone involved in white collar non-violent crime, like the Enron debacle. Scores of people have lost their life savings. Scores! Now here's the question: which of these crimes has a more severe impact on society? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one crunching the numbers on that one.
And who is going to compute the impact? It's hardly a straightfoward calculation. So that leaves it open to broad interpretation. In other words, you can probably come up with any number you want. A hacker could be accused of providing sensitive information to terrorists. As for proof, the government would simply state they didn't know who the hacker gave the data too.
Another thing to consider is premeditation. A white collar crime is ALWAYS premeditated. A violent crime may not be. The legal system is set up to punish premeditated crimes much more harshly than 'heat of the moment' ones.
Trying to make the punishment fit the crime sounds great in theory but there are some significant problems with trying to implement it in practice.
And, for the record, I think life in prison for hackers is a bit steep, myself.
I agree that it's my duty to filter what my child sees. However the one place that should be a safe place to drop the kid off is the library.
What the hell? Your second sentence is completely at odds with your first one! First you accept responsiblity for filtering the data your child gets. Then you follow that up with a claim that you should be able to shirk your responsibilities by dropping the little tyke off at the library.
Do we really want to discourage children spending time at a place where they can learn?
There is so much wrong with that sentence... where to start. No one is talking about discouraging children from going to the library. Hell, if kids think they can look at nude pictures, they'll probably beg to go to the library. So the problem isn't on their end, it's with you. You're choosing to discourage them because of your personal beliefs. Second, they will be learning at the library it's just that you're afraid of them having access to material that you don't like. It sounds kind of funny but when a child sees some dirty picture, they are learning that such material exists. Filters or no filters, they will continue to learn at the library.
Parents have little enough time - forcing them to spend what they have watching what their kids see at a place that should be a safe haven is going to discourage discovery and learning on the behalf of the kids.
Hey, the library is not a babysitting service. You're going to have to make a choice here. What's more important: monitoring what your children see or your free time. Don't give us this "safe haven" crap. A library is full of information. If you don't want you kids to have access to certain kinds of information, then be prepared to take the responsibility yourself.
I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies".
What do you suggest people put their faith in when it comes to health matters? Alternative medicine? Prayer/God? Their own gut feeling/experiences? I would argue that all these are obviously much more dubious than scientific studies when it comes to something important like your health. Granted, scientific studies are often wrong. But eventually the truth will come out. People put faith in scientific studies because (1) they are performed by intelligent, cautious people, (2) they're gonna get reviewed by other intelligent, cautious people, (3) people have seen how science has lead to incredible medical breakthroughs in the past.
Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.
And what are you basing your opinion on? Your exhaustive search of the medical literature? Your own personal research? A chat with a medical friend over drinks? I'm guessing it's just your gut feeling. I happen to agree with you on this but I find it odd that you decry the faith people put in scientific studies and then follow that up with your own faith-based (not talking reglious here) statement.
If you want to be annoyed with something, then target your frustration at science reporting in the mainstream media. Or direct your anger at our pathetic science education system that gives most people a poor understanding of the scientific process. Don't get pissed off about the fact that people look to science for the answers to life's most vexing questions. It's not flawless but it's the best system we got.
Anime porn has more emotional content, better plots, etc. Plus you can really dive into darker things like domination, shame, without creating a snuff film. That can make things more exciting and makes topics available for self-examination without actually watching a real person get beat up or whatever.
You have done a very good job of explaining why people like hentai films. Allow me to elaborate...
I watch American porn because the women are really sexy. But you're right that there is no plot to speak of and the acting is rediculous. There is no way around it: porn is full of stupid white trash. And there's a limit as to how exciting that can be, especially when it's all the same. The most important organ in sexual arousal is the brain. When I see some sexy female ninja or spaceship captain in a hentai flick, I feel attracted to her in a much different way than I do to the bimbos in American porn. This hentai woman actually has skills and capabilites. She's compatent! And her face and body is at least as sexy as those of real women. For me, that's a great combination. I'd rather fuck hentai girls than the sluts in American porn.
The other advantage hentai has over real-life porn is the ability to display some real hardcore stuff. It's just not very much fun watching a real woman being raped. Even if you know it's just a movie, it's hard to get around the fact that it looks an awful lot like what happens in real life. However, the non-consentual scenes in hentai are so over-the-top and rediculous that it's very clear this is not realistic at all. When you watch some sexy 19 year old girl with green hair and 38DDs being attacked by a monster with tentacles, it's very, very clearly an absurd bondage fantasy. It's something that could never, ever happen. And it's something that you're certainly never going to experience. So it's exciting. There are some live-action japanese porn films where they try to do the tentacle thing and it just doesn't work.
American Hardcore porn lacks any real emotion or acting or plot. American softcore porn lacks any hardcore action.
Exactly right. The hardcore stuff is actually kind of boring. You're just watching some stupid guy screw some stupid chick. You know that these people are pathetic. There's a limit how much fun you can have watching these losers fuck each other. The softcore stuff you find on Cinemax and such can be much more exciting because there is actually a story and motivation for the characters to screw. But you don't get to see the goods. Hentai provides the best of both worlds, plus it also shows some stuff that is too hardcore for American hardcore films. The Onion had an interview with (porn producer) Ron Jeremy once where he admitted that American porn is so tame that they can't sell their stuff overseas. Everyone else thinks it's boring. Of course, they can't make it any more hardcore than it is now or the feminists will scream bloody murder. So if you want to see something really kinky and naughty, hentai anime is for you!
Slashdot Mirror
You'd probably be interested in Amrita, an adaptive mesh refinement CFD software package that is completely open source. You'd have to contact the creator, James Quirk, for the full details on its use. But it's a fantastic package that can do an incredible amount -- far more than just CFD (you can use it for solids, etc.). The web page is fairly old (it's been in use for over 6 years so the "trials" period is long over).
GMD
Not trying to troll here folks, but it's things like this that makes me glad I don't live in America sometimes.
You'll be less glad when Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld decide to declare war on your country for some random reason under the guise of the war on terror! :)
GMD
I don't think it is the governments responsibility todo "General" research with my money.
One of the problems with your post is that you never really define what you mean by "General" research. You follow this sentence with the following statement:
If the research represents technology for defense, or security... I am for it, but just pork barrelling our dollars into random research projects, that then get sold into private industry so that I can buy back the result of the research I funded pisses me off.
Using this as a reference, I'll assume you mean the government should only fund research that has immediate application to "important" areas such as defense. There are a lot of problems with this viewpoint. First, is how to draw the line between "general" research and "applied" research. Almost every scientist can do some wordsmithing to claim that their research has some concrete benefit now or in the future. So one could place a time barrier and state that only research that will pay off in new technological improvements within the next N years should be funded. The problem with this is that long-range research never gets funded. Another problem is that estimates of how long it will take the basic research to generate improved technology will always be wrong and scientists will give overly optimistic estimates so they can get their funding. There's also the big problem of identifying what research that seems pretty "pure", "general", "theoretical", whathaveyou, will produce useful "applied" results. I can't imagine the snide comments that mathematician George Boole must have endured when he developed an algebra assuming only two digits: 0 and 1. But today Boolean Algebra, as it is known today, is very applied stuff. Fourier faced similiar problems when no one recognized the practical importance of Fourier series and transforms when he introduced it.
Your statements also indicate that you are really upset at government research assistance for commerical technologies. The problem is that American companies are very short sighted. Their stockholders demand that they not engage in risky, long-range R&D developments. Without government seed money, most American companies wouldn't tackle the "big problems". Other governments, however, are more than willing to use their resources to give their companies an edge. The MagLev train is an obvious example. This idea was developed at MIT and they went so far as to develop a minature prototype. However, funding went dry. The governments of Japan and Germany saw the potential and began developing the technology in cooperation with their native hi-tech companies and they quickly leapt ahead of the US in the development of viable technology. The US is starting to gain back some of the ground now, but if the US government had funded this thing throughout, the US would be a lock for the first nation to bring this technology to the worldwide market.
GMD
One thing you have to keep in mind is that Iraq is under very strict UN sanctions and that their computer technology is quite limited. So there probably aren't as many Iraqi computer geeks as you might imagine. Not to say that Saddam isn't trying to build up his computer tech any way he can. This article cites a classified military document that expresses concern over Iraq's attempt to import thousands of Playstation2 videogame consoles. Military officials fear that Saddam is trying to get around the UN sanctions on computer equipment by linking the videogame consoles together to form an ad-hoc parallel supercomputer. But the fact that they have to go to such extremes just goes to show you that their baseline computer capability is quite limited. Thus, computer access is probably also limited and there isn't enough free CPU cycles for Iraqi geeks to hone their cracking skills.
As for Al Queda, remember that they try to commit "spectacular attacks". Significant damage can be done via cyberattacks but those don't have the camera appeal of explosions. Remember these guys had the 9/11 attacks planned so that the second airplane would strike the twin towers long enough after the first so that reporters would already be on the scene and could witness the second explosion. And it would be hard for Al Queda to recruit new members simply by shuting down our stock exchange for a day or two.
GMD
The numbering system doesn't work for the movies if you're interested in space babes, though:
1: Sexy bald chick2: Space skanks
3: Were there any chicks in this one besides Savvak and Uhura?
4: Kinda sexy whale-lovin' mama
5: Muscle-bound klingon
6: Iman. 'Nuff said.
7: Whoopi Goldberg? Gees...
8: When chicks do that abdomen wrigging thing, it's sexier if they're actually connected to their hips at the time...
9: Sexy mature quail who's read one to many "live life to the fullest" self-help books
10: Who knows? But originally 7 of 9 was going to cameo and they decided to go with Janeway. Doesn't look good...
GMD
Gees, I'm not sure how my original post got a "+5 Informative" because I didn't even include the link to the review I read! I mean, "+3 Insightful" or "+4 Interesting" I can understand...
Anyhow, here's the review I mentioned. Needless to say, plot spoilers are featured. Like I said, the review makes Nemesis sound like an okay, but not great, Trek flick.
GMD
I'm surprised that I haven't seen more (any really) previews on television for Nemesis.
I've been thinking the same thing but I'm starting to worry if the studio thinks the movie is going to be a bomb. As others have mentioned, there is stiff competition in the action/adventure genre from Bond and LotR. Perhaps they are worried that it just won't be able to keep pace and they are cutting their losses by not spending much on advertisting. The die-hard Trek fans will go to see it anyhow. A lot of people will go see any film just because they are tired of holiday shopping. The number-crunchers at Paramount may have calculated that negative word-of-mouth will override any benefit obtained by an aggressive marketing campaign.
Just my thoughts. But I have already read one review for the movie that suggests that this film will not even come close to fulfilling expectations for a film billed as the "final TNG adventure".
GMD
From the conclusion in section 14.1:
It might be useful for someone to produce a 400+ page report examining the above stated and widely-held belief that Internet access is going to magically "enhance and transform education for the nation's youth". I, for one, am not sure that filling cash-strapped schools with computer equipment is somehow going to result in brighter children than if we just stuck to the basics.
GMD
First of all space is NOT demilitarized already. US has large amounts of military hardware up there, Russia has somewhat less, and China has less yet.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. The nations have tentatively agreed not to weaponize space but they have no problem militarizing space. The problem, of course, comes with how to do draw the line between weaponizing and militarizing? Obviously, space-based lasers designed to strafe cities safely from orbit is weaponization. Surveillance satellites that use radars to cover large portions of a battlefield is not weaponizing. But how about GPS-guided weapons which rely on satellites to guide them to targets? Well, the fact that we have them suggests that we certainly don't consider that weaponization. What about launching weapons from the ground designed to destroy enemy satellites? What about using our satellites to destroy enemy satellites? Each administration has its own boundaries about what is acceptable and what isn't. It's only natural that this line will change over time.
GMD
In a day when nuclear weapons are wide-spread, I'd rather strike first than burn later.
The problem, of course, is that the guys on the other side of the ocean are thinking the exact same thing...
GMD
I may be alone on this one, but please hear me out.
You're not alone but you realize, of course, that you are inviting all sorts of cruel replies because of the "love your fellow man" tone of your post. But I think you are exactly right. There are all sorts of threats to humanity: biological/nuclear warfare, overpopulation, destruction of environment, etc. but when it comes down to it, it's really because people tend to do what benefits themselves the most and they don't care about how it will effect others. Biological and nuclear weapons are harmless until they are actually used by one country attempting to gain control over another. Overpopulation is at the root of many problems but that's largely due to increased competition (for resources, fame, etc.). Laws designed to protect the environment are skirted by corporations looking to increase their profit margin by a percent or two. If people would take the bigger picture into account everytime they do something, the risks to our species would go down measurably. I realize that it's a hopeless goal to get everyone to "play nice" but if we could get a large number of people to "do the right thing", it would be interesting to see how strongly that changes things. Perhaps significantly, perhaps insignificantly. There is a mentality that the fate of our species will ultimately be determined by the worst elements of our society. If that is true, then we are all doomed because there are some really evil people out there. But even if we are doomed to extinction, being a decent person can reap personal rewards as well, making your time on planet Earth more enjoyable.
It's really too bad that we can't, as a society, somehow make being a decent, caring, loving human being "cool". Ah well...
GMD
Someone get this man a copy of Photoshop, stat!
Using a user-friendly tool like Photoshop would defeat the whole geeky purpose! He was able to use the words "custom program" and "hacked" in the same sentence -- a prerequisite for recognized by slashdot. The only things that could have made this cooler would have been:
All in all, a good geek project!
GMD
Mr. Shatner:
Considering that Star Trek was supposed to be a serious show about the future, there were an awful lot of gorgeous women running around in skimpy outfits on the set and you had your shirt off half the time. How did you, the other actors, and Roddenberry feel about the sexual undertones in Star Trek? Was it something forced on you by the studio? Or did you feel it was a legitimate part of the show?
GMD
Yeah! Okay, um, when you were gonna beam down to the planet, okay, for the last time in Episode 25? Well um, I was wondering if you could settle a bet for me and my friends, okay? Um, like, when you... um, left your quarters for the last time? And you opened up your safe? Um... what was the combination?
GMD
A simple counting wouldn't show who's the bigger stud. I mean, a green alien chick is probably worth 5 or 6 human chicks ...
GMD
Mr. Shatner:
What is your single biggest regret over your entire professional career (actor, author, cult figure, etc.) and why?
GMD
I'd love to hear William talk about the Transformed Man LP. How seriously did you take the project at the time, and how do you feel about the way it's metamorphosed into a camp classic?
I read an interview with him where he discussed that album briefly. Basically, he said that he approached the project as audio-only theatre and that he didn't really intend for it to come off as a musical album. He says that he can understand why people think it's hilarious since they are looking at it as a (poorly-done) musical work but that they are missing what the album was supposed to be about.
GMD
A: There were Poles on the right half of the plane!
Q: What is the Fourier Transform of this? (moves hand in a horizontal fashion to indicate a constand function)
A: This! (give person The Finger to indicate the Dirac Delta function).
A mathematician, a physicist and an industrial enginner are asked "Are all odd numbers prime?". So the mathematican goes "Let's see 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime ... okay by mathematican inducation all odd numbers are prime." The physicist is next. "1 works, 3 works, 5 does, 7 does, 9 doesn't, 11 does, 13 does ... okay that 9 is probably experimental error so, yes, all odd numbers are prime." The industrial engineer is last. "Okay 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime, 5 is odd and prime, 7 is odd and prime, 9 is odd and prime ..."
Laugh, damn you!
GMD
How are they going to monitor it. What about a site that is about furry teddies one day and porn the next.
Actually, someone has already created a site that combines both in order to save time.
GMD
He declined, saying he and his friends had gotten used to the voice, and it was "his".
Not to mention the legions of fans who follow his side-career as a gangsta rapper with due vigor! Changing his would give his music a very different sound!
GMD
Sarcasm aside, you are on the right track. That is, the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, the question is, How broad is the impact?
I think all of us, deep down inside, have a gut feeling that 'punishment should fit the crime'. The problem is that it gets difficult sometimes to measure the impact of a crime.
Let's consider a drastic example: a sexual predator rapes and kills a 5 year old girl. Forensic evidence indicates that she died a very slow and painful death. This is obviously horrific but what is the "impact"? A girl is dead and her parents and a handful of others who knew and loved her will suffer severe emotional distress. Now consider someone involved in white collar non-violent crime, like the Enron debacle. Scores of people have lost their life savings. Scores! Now here's the question: which of these crimes has a more severe impact on society? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one crunching the numbers on that one.
And who is going to compute the impact? It's hardly a straightfoward calculation. So that leaves it open to broad interpretation. In other words, you can probably come up with any number you want. A hacker could be accused of providing sensitive information to terrorists. As for proof, the government would simply state they didn't know who the hacker gave the data too.
Another thing to consider is premeditation. A white collar crime is ALWAYS premeditated. A violent crime may not be. The legal system is set up to punish premeditated crimes much more harshly than 'heat of the moment' ones.
Trying to make the punishment fit the crime sounds great in theory but there are some significant problems with trying to implement it in practice.
And, for the record, I think life in prison for hackers is a bit steep, myself.
GMD
I agree that it's my duty to filter what my child sees. However the one place that should be a safe place to drop the kid off is the library.
What the hell? Your second sentence is completely at odds with your first one! First you accept responsiblity for filtering the data your child gets. Then you follow that up with a claim that you should be able to shirk your responsibilities by dropping the little tyke off at the library.
Do we really want to discourage children spending time at a place where they can learn?
There is so much wrong with that sentence ... where to start. No one is talking about discouraging children from going to the library. Hell, if kids think they can look at nude pictures, they'll probably beg to go to the library. So the problem isn't on their end, it's with you. You're choosing to discourage them because of your personal beliefs. Second, they will be learning at the library it's just that you're afraid of them having access to material that you don't like. It sounds kind of funny but when a child sees some dirty picture, they are learning that such material exists. Filters or no filters, they will continue to learn at the library.
Parents have little enough time - forcing them to spend what they have watching what their kids see at a place that should be a safe haven is going to discourage discovery and learning on the behalf of the kids.
Hey, the library is not a babysitting service. You're going to have to make a choice here. What's more important: monitoring what your children see or your free time. Don't give us this "safe haven" crap. A library is full of information. If you don't want you kids to have access to certain kinds of information, then be prepared to take the responsibility yourself.
GMD
GMD
I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies".
What do you suggest people put their faith in when it comes to health matters? Alternative medicine? Prayer/God? Their own gut feeling/experiences? I would argue that all these are obviously much more dubious than scientific studies when it comes to something important like your health. Granted, scientific studies are often wrong. But eventually the truth will come out. People put faith in scientific studies because (1) they are performed by intelligent, cautious people, (2) they're gonna get reviewed by other intelligent, cautious people, (3) people have seen how science has lead to incredible medical breakthroughs in the past.
Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.
And what are you basing your opinion on? Your exhaustive search of the medical literature? Your own personal research? A chat with a medical friend over drinks? I'm guessing it's just your gut feeling. I happen to agree with you on this but I find it odd that you decry the faith people put in scientific studies and then follow that up with your own faith-based (not talking reglious here) statement.
If you want to be annoyed with something, then target your frustration at science reporting in the mainstream media. Or direct your anger at our pathetic science education system that gives most people a poor understanding of the scientific process. Don't get pissed off about the fact that people look to science for the answers to life's most vexing questions. It's not flawless but it's the best system we got.
GMD
Anime porn has more emotional content, better plots, etc. Plus you can really dive into darker things like domination, shame, without creating a snuff film. That can make things more exciting and makes topics available for self-examination without actually watching a real person get beat up or whatever.
You have done a very good job of explaining why people like hentai films. Allow me to elaborate...
I watch American porn because the women are really sexy. But you're right that there is no plot to speak of and the acting is rediculous. There is no way around it: porn is full of stupid white trash. And there's a limit as to how exciting that can be, especially when it's all the same. The most important organ in sexual arousal is the brain. When I see some sexy female ninja or spaceship captain in a hentai flick, I feel attracted to her in a much different way than I do to the bimbos in American porn. This hentai woman actually has skills and capabilites. She's compatent! And her face and body is at least as sexy as those of real women. For me, that's a great combination. I'd rather fuck hentai girls than the sluts in American porn.
The other advantage hentai has over real-life porn is the ability to display some real hardcore stuff. It's just not very much fun watching a real woman being raped. Even if you know it's just a movie, it's hard to get around the fact that it looks an awful lot like what happens in real life. However, the non-consentual scenes in hentai are so over-the-top and rediculous that it's very clear this is not realistic at all. When you watch some sexy 19 year old girl with green hair and 38DDs being attacked by a monster with tentacles, it's very, very clearly an absurd bondage fantasy. It's something that could never, ever happen. And it's something that you're certainly never going to experience. So it's exciting. There are some live-action japanese porn films where they try to do the tentacle thing and it just doesn't work.
American Hardcore porn lacks any real emotion or acting or plot. American softcore porn lacks any hardcore action.
Exactly right. The hardcore stuff is actually kind of boring. You're just watching some stupid guy screw some stupid chick. You know that these people are pathetic. There's a limit how much fun you can have watching these losers fuck each other. The softcore stuff you find on Cinemax and such can be much more exciting because there is actually a story and motivation for the characters to screw. But you don't get to see the goods. Hentai provides the best of both worlds, plus it also shows some stuff that is too hardcore for American hardcore films. The Onion had an interview with (porn producer) Ron Jeremy once where he admitted that American porn is so tame that they can't sell their stuff overseas. Everyone else thinks it's boring. Of course, they can't make it any more hardcore than it is now or the feminists will scream bloody murder. So if you want to see something really kinky and naughty, hentai anime is for you!
GMD