Star Trek I: hot bald chick
Star Trek II: ugly space skanks (what happened to those hot chicks from "Space Seed"?)
Star Trek III: better looking Savek
Star Trek IV: cute but annoying whale-lovin' chick
Star Trek V: sexy muscular Klingon chick
Star Trek VI: boring, regal chick in charge of conference
Star Trek VII: Whoopi Goldberg, ugh
Star Trek VIII: creepy-looking overconfident Borg chick
Star Trek IX: beautiful mature quail who says one too many "live life to its fullist"-style quotes.
I dunno, I'm not seeing much of a pattern here....
Maybe I'm being horribly naive or stupid or both but I can't understand how they managed to find 40+ minutes of unimportant material to cut out AFTER they've already filmed it! Shouldn't they be trimming stuff out of the story while they're refining the script? Whenever I write something I start by letting my ideas flow onto the paper (actually word processor). Then I make several passes through the story to make the logic and dialogue stronger. I also cut out non-essential stuff if I feel the story is too long. It's not difficult at all. Given how much money it costs to make a movie, shouldn't these guys in Hollywood work hard to make sure the script is really "tight" and there's no fluff in it BEFORE they start the shoot?
As I said, I know nothing about the filmmaking business but the fact that they were able to find 40+ minutes of stuff they could cut out it sounds an awful lot to me like they didn't plan things very well and were just in a rush to get another poorly-thought-out Trek product to market.
I'm not 100% what your constraints are since you state I have been wondering for a while how to stay fit (and additionally, how to bulk up) and then are there any ways to do so (while building up muscle) that don't involve expensive equipment?. The obvious answer is to get a membership at a gym. That way you don't have to junk up your house with bulky weight lifting equipment. Since that's so obvious, I'm going to make the assumption that you're not so afraid of expensive equipment as you are of spending a lot of money.
First, I'd like to state my opinion that a good weight lifting gym shouldn't cost a lot of money. A good gym should have some good quality free weights and not be cluttered up with fancy machines that look pretty and cost a mint. Look in the yellow pages and call every single gym you can find. Even those that don't take out half-page ads. For any that fall within your budget, go there and check it out. Don't be concerned with whether it's pretty and clean and has lots of hot babes running around. You might find a cheap gym that helps its members focus on the basics of building muscle.
Now, let's suppose that no gyms are suitable for you for whatever reason. You desire a way to "bulk up" and "stay fit" that doesn't involve outside sports (and I'm making the assumption that you don't want to spend much money either). That's starting to get a bit more difficult, particularly the "bulk up" portion. The key to building muscle is progressive resistance. Without a nice selection of weights, that's going to be pretty difficult. You can try isometric exercises (exerting force against an immovable object -- like trying to "curl" a doorknob) but I'm personally skeptical how much strength you can build that way. You may want to look into those elastic band resistance exercise things. They're not going to be as good as free weights but they will be cheap and I believe you can adjust the resistance they deliver because they are elastic media and obey Hooke's Law. Another possibility is to get your friends to go in with you and buy some basic free weights. Go for basics here: a power rack, a barbell, a bench and some weights. That's all you need. Don't waste your money on a leg extension table or crap like that.
As for the simple "stay fit" portion, this is much easier than the "bulk up" part. Some El Cheapo ways of getting in shape: jump rope, walk up the staircase of a building for 30 minutes, go running early in the morning inside a mega-mall (you'll see old people doing their morning walks in here a lot of times), look into sports indoors (indoor soccer, martial arts, etc.), sign up for an aerobics class (not just in the expensive gyms, check out adult ed centers, local colleges, etc.).
You might also get some ideas from simply skimming the "Sports" section of Yahoo or Google to remind yourself of the wide selection of athletic activities available to you. You might have to adapt some of them to fit your specific constraints, but that's a chance to apply your geek problem solving skills. The biggest challenge for you, as I see it, is to build muscle on the cheap. Hopefully you can find a back-to-basics gym in your area. And if you're really serious about building muscle, I strongly recommend you check out some of the books and magazines published by Hardgainer. They publish weight lifting instruction that is ideally suited for people who don't have incredible genetics which is probably the majority of geeks and slashdot readers. The methods we need to use are significantly different from what you're going to read in all those Weider Inc. glossy magazines in the bookstores. You know the ones I'm talking about: they all feature a super-muscular guy posing next to a silicon-enhanced bikini girl. Following the advice you find in there is a sure fire way to frustration.
This is quite true. If you are in a fast-paced and relatively new field like programming, you'd better not make your plans too rigid. It's interesting that you mention "typewriter repair jobs" because I was actually going to use the now-defunct Smith Corona Typewriter company as an example of changing technology spoiling the best laid plans.
The person asking the Ask Slashdot question also states that he's "in his 20s". Are you 20 or 29? There's a huge difference. Are you married? Any kids? Not only will technology and the world around you change, but you are certainly going to change in the next 30 years. The goals I set for myself when I was 20-24 are certainly not what I consider my goals are now. And your future family might not be thrilled with your goals if they require 60 hour work weeks during your midlife.
It's nice to give some thought to your long term goals but I would be wary of making rigid plans 30 years down the line. The advice this finance guy gave you about how "success depends on setting long-term goals" sounds like something you'd read in an Anthony Robbins book (or inside a fortune cookie). Life is pretty complicated. You can't expect the secret to professional success to be captured in a single sentence. Be smart. Be able to work with people. Be flexible and adaptable. These suggestions, too, are no guarantee that professional success will come to you but it will help you a lot more than planing for the year 2030.
many people turn to religion to explain the unexplainabkle, but unfortunately religion is flawed, religion can be disproven,
i dont believe the bible because there is proof that many of those things didn't happen, if there wasn't proof that things didn't happen i might be inclined to believe them, personally i think theres some higher power, not necisaraly god, but something
I'm a die-hard atheist and hostile towards religion in general but I'm actually going to have to stick up for religion here. I'm not sure what your definition of religion is but it sounds like you are equating religion with "literal interpretation of the Bible" and that's just plain wrong. My understanding of relgion is that it is really more a way of living your life and contemplating your relation to the world around you. There are scores of Christians who consider themselves religious even though they don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Religion attempts to provide answers for questions that science is not designed to address such as "Is there a God?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should I be a good person?" and so forth. Science and religion can co-exist. However, religion should not attempt to explain the natural world and science should not encroach on theological questions.
In fact, I would argue that your "i think theres some higher power" statement means that you are religious (just not a fundamentalist Christian) even though you take great pains too separate yourselves from the faithful. Non-relgious people, such as myself, do NOT believe in any higher power.
but we cant really disprove ufos, ghosts etc
That's true but the burden of proof is on those who believe in such things. And that proof better be damn convincing. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not up to scientists to disprove extraterrestial anal rapes, healing crystals, haunted houses, and so forth.
I'm no big fan of religion (and that's an understandment). But your statements about religion show a pretty big misunderstanding of what religion attempts to do for people.
GMD
Antiglobalism Protestors & Suicide Bombers
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I hear your frustration and I agree that the message of these protestors is getting lost in the carnage. But I don't think you can blame the media entirely (or even at all). The media does not exist to provide a free forum for special interest groups. The protestors realized they could get widespread publicity by inciting violence. And they have. However, all they've managed to do is get their pictures on TV. Their message has still not come through. These anti-globalization protestors need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a GOOD way of getting their message across. They've had a couple of years now to see that the violence approach doesn't work. It's time for them to quit the nonsense and figure out something that does. It's their fault now and not the media's. And the leaders of these protest groups need to demonstrate a bit of leadership skills here and make sure everyone "under their command" understands that they're not going to do the "violence thing" anymore.
The problem is not unlike Yasser Arafat and the suicide bombers. Blowing up Israeli citizens is turning into a PR nightmare for Arafat but all he does is give an occasional (and usually coerced) condemnation. He needs to really crack down on the troublemakers, else the world will view the PLO as a gang of terrorists. This is obviously a larger and more serious problem that the globalization protestors but I think the idea is still the same. The responsible protestors need to crack down on the idiots who giving the whole group a bad name.
GMD
More proactive solution
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Declare war on asteroids.
Screw this defensive "homeland security against asteroids" shit. I say we take the fight to those damn bugs who keep hurling these things at us! And if our allies are queezy about toppling the Brain Bug dictator, then we'll just have to go it alone! Already we've got a plan in the works to take down BugCentral from the inside out.
Seems that they have had success as far back as 1987, creating rain to help put out a raging forest fire.
It's a little known fact that this rain control research was originally designed by the government to extinguish burning Falun Gong protestors. The government eventually decided that beating the holy shit out of them worked better and was more cost-effective.
That's it, tps12. I've been reading your overly dramatic posts for awhile now and you've finally made it on to my 'foe' list.
Weather is an inconvenience, not a threat.
The people who die in hurricanes, typhones, mudslides, droughts, tornadoes, and so forth may disagree with you.
We need to concentrate on using our biological and biotechnological knowledge and research to solve world hunger (by growing so-called "super food" and eliminating pests), stablize primitive nations (using factory-produced soldiers so none of our sons need die), and put an end to child labor (by creating affordable and reliable robotic labor in the world's developing regions).
There's more than enough food on the planet to feed the starving people. The problem is not technological, it's a problem of politics and distribution. Besides, if you're against fooling with Mother Nature regarding the weather, why are you so gung-ho about "eliminating pests"? As far as your other two examples, I don't even know where to begin...
Never mind the fact that the primitive cultures, and even Christianity (see, e.g., the Bible) often attribute the workings of weather to divinity.
So weren't supposed to be laisse-faire on the weather because primitive cultures believe the winds to be controlled by the gods?
The weather is quite literally a phenomenon that occurs in the domain of the Heavens.
Actually, the weather occurs in the domain of the atmosphere.
But when we start to presume that we can control the weather, then we are on the road to our own destruction.
Y'know, in spite of the fact that you're written a moderately lengthy post, you never once gave us any real reason why the weather is, as you put it, "not the kind of thing we should be messing with."
It's not the "cool" factor -- really, it isn't. You wear a wearable computer on the subway to work, and you deserve to be beaten down.
I'm sure we would have thought the same thing several years ago about portable phones. Yet I see those bloody things (rather, I hear them) all over the place.
Admittedly, the article focuses on the use of wearable computers by astronauts and such, but as for use by the common man on a daily basis outside niche markets, its not going to happen.
You make a reasonable point here about no absolutely necessary reason for people to have a portable computer but how is that much different from today's cell phones? I always roll my eyes skyward when people tell me about how essential a cell phone is for today's lifestyle. There are plenty of times I've heard a cell phone go off in the movie theater. And while I've struggled to keep from throwing tomatoes at those morons who feel the need to chatter on their cell phone while grocery shopping, I'm not promising I'll hold off indefinitely. But of all the times I've overheard people gabbing on their cell phones (and there have been many such times), I cannot for the life of me remember one conversation that struck be as being essential to carry on at that moment.
I'm sure I'm inviting a slew of angry replies to this and probably some Troll or Flamebait mod points, but my point is that cell phones have florished in spite of the fact that the majority of people using them do not have a vital need for them. Rather, their "need" has simply been invented because the technology exists. So will it be with wearable computers.
Don't fall into the lies, guys. Cooking can be as masculine as anything. Did I mention they make titanium cookware? Mmmmm.... titanium...
I'm always a bit surprised when people consider cooking to be un-geeky. I think of the choice "to cook or not to cook" to have some parallels to what kind of operating system you run on your computer. Hear me out. We all gotta eat and we all gotta use a computer. A great many of us either run Windows exclusively or have a Windows partition on our machine. Why? Because it's useful sometimes. Windows is crap and we all know it but the convienence is hard to ignore. Much like fast food. Fast food may be tasty but no one is going to argue that it is well-constructed cuisine. Windows is the fast food of operating systems. It's not good but it's ubiquitous and does the job.
Some people oppose eating at fast food restaurants on principle just like some people absolutely refuse to use Windows. However, there's no denying that going to a restaurant or heating up some frozen food in the microwave is a step above fast food. Similarly, some people like their Macs. You're still somewhat at the mercy of what's been created for you, but at least it's not fast-food/Windows.
But for the real power-user who wants to fully understand what's "under the hood" and be free to tinker it to their heart's content, there's nothing like Linux/unix. Infinitely configurable, the performance of the finished product relies quite a bit on your ability and knowledge of what you're doing. Cooking is for the "power eater" who is not content to trust someone else and is willing to get their hands dirty in order to make sure the finished product is just how they like it.
So don't think of cooking as "women's work." Think of it as the culinary equivalent of Linux/unix. The finished product is in your hands. If you're capable, you can create something just how you like it and your friends will be amazed. If you don't know what you're doing, then perhaps you'd better stick with Billy Gates' McOperatingSystem. It sucks but at least you won't die of food poisoning.
The Mayans liked to drink their chocolate rather than eat it
No, actually a short filmstrip I saw at the Ah Fudge! chocolate factory said that they mixed it with tabacco, rolled it and smoked it. Nowdays, of course, it comes in a hygenic package.
After that filmstrip, me and the others from the school field trip when ape shit in the factory, swiming in vats of chocolate and beating up the chocolate bean mascot they had.
You bastard! Now you got me wondering what Jon Katz is going to be like lecturing his grandkids:
"Ah, yes, I still remember where I was when I watched the two towers come down on 9/11. That was a life changing event, I tell you. Back in my day, people actually tried to help each other out instead of withdrawing into these confangled virtual reality contraptions you kids play with these days. Hey, sit down Jeffery and listen. I ain't done with my story yet. Maybe you'll learn somethin'. Now where was I? Oh yes, that Coumbine shooting was a life changing event, I tell you. Did I ever tell you about that? I did? Well, I'm gonna tell you again so quit your squirming an' listen up. Now the important thing was that I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. We did it to protest the growing threat of globalism..."
Winning by completing lines faster wasn't HALF as satisfying as killing the other guy. A non-violent game where you killed your opponent! What could be better?
How about a violent game where you killed your opponent? Like with a bazooka or something:)
2. Some of us actually pay attention to things beyond our own lives, and consider factors beyond "gee, is a family member risking his life" such as the economic and diplomatic ramifications, as well as whether or not a military action seems feasible. The US does/not/ invade places on a whim.
This is an important point. All this "robots will make war too clean" stuff is crazy. War is incredibly destructive. Not just in the number of people who die but in economic and political terms. There are some who believe that GWB is waiting for the American economy to bounce back before he fulfills his dream of knocking off Saddam. Right now, our economy probably couldn't take the strain of a difficult conflict (the Afghan conflict hasn't been too tough on us, you have to admit).
Well war ethics are going to have to be completely re-written if this happens, because previously the idea was that to win a war you had to send some soldiers to their death.
I can see how military strategy would need to be rewritten but I don't understand why lack of American casualties is somehow going to change the ethics of war.
If we don't have to send in soldiers anymore then the American public will be easily distracted from our hideously hypocritical foreign policy decisions since they don't actually have to worry about their sons and daughters.
I would argue that people are already distracted from our two-faced foreign policy. The American public is almost always in favor of war if the President tells them it's necessary.
I don't quite understand everyone's moral qualms about mechanised warfare. I can see robot vs. robot being pointless but that's not likely to happen for some time in the future. In fact I can see a potential benefit to heavily mechanised, disposable warfighters. Suppose some very powerful country blatantly invades a weaker neighbor. The international community recognizes that it's a terrible act but no one is willing to go to war against the powerful aggressor because they are scared of casualties on their side. Robotic solders would allow us to "do the right thing" and not worry about how the price we'll pay.
Unfortunately, this idea only works if you trust your elected officials to only fight just wars. But that's another matter. There is nothing wrong with robotic warriors in theory. In practice, however, it may give the President Carte Blanche to wage any war he wants. However, I would argue we're not too far away from that right now.
I agree totally, we should be able to vote on the details of all that other stuff as well.
Well, I wasn't actually advocating that kind of system where the public votes on everything. It sounds interesting but I fear that a system like that would end up being mob rule. As I mentioned before, the religious right would certainly organize a campaign to have NEA funds witheld from any artist that they didn't like. I'm sure they would successfuly be able to convince Joe Average, who knows nothing about the value of controversial art, to vote in support of their measure. Science funding would most likely take a big hit as well. Actually a lot of the stuff slashdotters hold near and dear would probably find themselves voted out. We're not exactly mainstream people here.
All I was saying in my original post is that allowing the public to vote on how their money is spent in such a micro-fashion just doesn't fit in our current system.
Its our damn tax money that pays for this stuff, I say we should be able to vote on what NASA should focus on next.
Why should NASA be different than any other government agency? There was no election held to decide whether we should bomb the bejeepers out of Afghanistan. I never got a chance to vote on the S&L bailout in the 80s. The religious people don't get a chance to veto public money being used to support artists that create blasphmous works like the "Piss Christ" and the "Dung Virgin Mary". The public never gets a chance to vote how their money is spent.
Besides, if the public had their way, they'd probably vote for NASA to blow it's budget sending N'Sync of J Lo into space. Remember how the media wouldn't shut the hell up about John Glenn's return to space a few years ago?
Also, lets do something about the space shuttle for god's sake! What total piece of shit. How sad is it that we are flying something designed 25+ years ago that has the computing power of an P90 into space in the 21st Century.
What exactly don't you like about the shuttle? Why is it a piece of shit? Is there something wrong with it? Is it not meeting our needs? I can't tell if you have a legitimate beef with it or just don't like it because it's old. Except for the tragic Challenger accident, the shuttle seems to have done a pretty good job of wethering the years. I think it's impressive that something built 25+ years ago is still in service. Like the U2, it's a testiment to the quality of the original design. And what makes you think the shuttle has the computing power of a P90? I find it hard to believe that NASA hasn't upgraded the computer system in the shuttle. And if they haven't, it's probably because they haven't needed to.
My advice is to build your own command center by studying those featured in the James Bond movies. Most of the bad guys have a fully staffed, very impressive command center filled with computers and cool looking wall-sized flat screens. Make sure you get the center chair that overlooks the whole setup. Not only will it be a joy to work at but a command center like that will impress even the most stingy of VCs or customers.
Titilation aside, I wonder if the time is approaching that mainstream America is ready for a superheroine movie that isn't a joke or B-movie trash. The popularity of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon seems to indicate the American audiences may be willing to accept women as competent, powerful fighters. But I wonder if that acceptance wasn't because the whole movie was supposed to be a fantasy (with the flying and all). What do slashdotters think about the popularity of a serious big-budget Hollywood superheronie movie? You think people would go to see it?
You're forgetting that Superman is a goody-goody and Batman kind of has a dark, evil side to him. And as Dark Helmet would say "Evil will always defeat good because good is dumb."
Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek II: ugly space skanks (what happened to those hot chicks from "Space Seed"?)
Star Trek III: better looking Savek
Star Trek IV: cute but annoying whale-lovin' chick
Star Trek V: sexy muscular Klingon chick
Star Trek VI: boring, regal chick in charge of conference
Star Trek VII: Whoopi Goldberg, ugh
Star Trek VIII: creepy-looking overconfident Borg chick
Star Trek IX: beautiful mature quail who says one too many "live life to its fullist"-style quotes.
I dunno, I'm not seeing much of a pattern here....
GMDMaybe I'm being horribly naive or stupid or both but I can't understand how they managed to find 40+ minutes of unimportant material to cut out AFTER they've already filmed it! Shouldn't they be trimming stuff out of the story while they're refining the script? Whenever I write something I start by letting my ideas flow onto the paper (actually word processor). Then I make several passes through the story to make the logic and dialogue stronger. I also cut out non-essential stuff if I feel the story is too long. It's not difficult at all. Given how much money it costs to make a movie, shouldn't these guys in Hollywood work hard to make sure the script is really "tight" and there's no fluff in it BEFORE they start the shoot?
As I said, I know nothing about the filmmaking business but the fact that they were able to find 40+ minutes of stuff they could cut out it sounds an awful lot to me like they didn't plan things very well and were just in a rush to get another poorly-thought-out Trek product to market.
Insightful responses welcome...
GMD
I'm not 100% what your constraints are since you state I have been wondering for a while how to stay fit (and additionally, how to bulk up) and then are there any ways to do so (while building up muscle) that don't involve expensive equipment?. The obvious answer is to get a membership at a gym. That way you don't have to junk up your house with bulky weight lifting equipment. Since that's so obvious, I'm going to make the assumption that you're not so afraid of expensive equipment as you are of spending a lot of money.
First, I'd like to state my opinion that a good weight lifting gym shouldn't cost a lot of money. A good gym should have some good quality free weights and not be cluttered up with fancy machines that look pretty and cost a mint. Look in the yellow pages and call every single gym you can find. Even those that don't take out half-page ads. For any that fall within your budget, go there and check it out. Don't be concerned with whether it's pretty and clean and has lots of hot babes running around. You might find a cheap gym that helps its members focus on the basics of building muscle.
Now, let's suppose that no gyms are suitable for you for whatever reason. You desire a way to "bulk up" and "stay fit" that doesn't involve outside sports (and I'm making the assumption that you don't want to spend much money either). That's starting to get a bit more difficult, particularly the "bulk up" portion. The key to building muscle is progressive resistance. Without a nice selection of weights, that's going to be pretty difficult. You can try isometric exercises (exerting force against an immovable object -- like trying to "curl" a doorknob) but I'm personally skeptical how much strength you can build that way. You may want to look into those elastic band resistance exercise things. They're not going to be as good as free weights but they will be cheap and I believe you can adjust the resistance they deliver because they are elastic media and obey Hooke's Law. Another possibility is to get your friends to go in with you and buy some basic free weights. Go for basics here: a power rack, a barbell, a bench and some weights. That's all you need. Don't waste your money on a leg extension table or crap like that.
As for the simple "stay fit" portion, this is much easier than the "bulk up" part. Some El Cheapo ways of getting in shape: jump rope, walk up the staircase of a building for 30 minutes, go running early in the morning inside a mega-mall (you'll see old people doing their morning walks in here a lot of times), look into sports indoors (indoor soccer, martial arts, etc.), sign up for an aerobics class (not just in the expensive gyms, check out adult ed centers, local colleges, etc.).
You might also get some ideas from simply skimming the "Sports" section of Yahoo or Google to remind yourself of the wide selection of athletic activities available to you. You might have to adapt some of them to fit your specific constraints, but that's a chance to apply your geek problem solving skills. The biggest challenge for you, as I see it, is to build muscle on the cheap. Hopefully you can find a back-to-basics gym in your area. And if you're really serious about building muscle, I strongly recommend you check out some of the books and magazines published by Hardgainer. They publish weight lifting instruction that is ideally suited for people who don't have incredible genetics which is probably the majority of geeks and slashdot readers. The methods we need to use are significantly different from what you're going to read in all those Weider Inc. glossy magazines in the bookstores. You know the ones I'm talking about: they all feature a super-muscular guy posing next to a silicon-enhanced bikini girl. Following the advice you find in there is a sure fire way to frustration.
Good luck!
GMD
This is quite true. If you are in a fast-paced and relatively new field like programming, you'd better not make your plans too rigid. It's interesting that you mention "typewriter repair jobs" because I was actually going to use the now-defunct Smith Corona Typewriter company as an example of changing technology spoiling the best laid plans.
The person asking the Ask Slashdot question also states that he's "in his 20s". Are you 20 or 29? There's a huge difference. Are you married? Any kids? Not only will technology and the world around you change, but you are certainly going to change in the next 30 years. The goals I set for myself when I was 20-24 are certainly not what I consider my goals are now. And your future family might not be thrilled with your goals if they require 60 hour work weeks during your midlife.
It's nice to give some thought to your long term goals but I would be wary of making rigid plans 30 years down the line. The advice this finance guy gave you about how "success depends on setting long-term goals" sounds like something you'd read in an Anthony Robbins book (or inside a fortune cookie). Life is pretty complicated. You can't expect the secret to professional success to be captured in a single sentence. Be smart. Be able to work with people. Be flexible and adaptable. These suggestions, too, are no guarantee that professional success will come to you but it will help you a lot more than planing for the year 2030.
Good luck,
GMD
many people turn to religion to explain the unexplainabkle, but unfortunately religion is flawed, religion can be disproven,
i dont believe the bible because there is proof that many of those things didn't happen, if there wasn't proof that things didn't happen i might be inclined to believe them, personally i think theres some higher power, not necisaraly god, but something
I'm a die-hard atheist and hostile towards religion in general but I'm actually going to have to stick up for religion here. I'm not sure what your definition of religion is but it sounds like you are equating religion with "literal interpretation of the Bible" and that's just plain wrong. My understanding of relgion is that it is really more a way of living your life and contemplating your relation to the world around you. There are scores of Christians who consider themselves religious even though they don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Religion attempts to provide answers for questions that science is not designed to address such as "Is there a God?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should I be a good person?" and so forth. Science and religion can co-exist. However, religion should not attempt to explain the natural world and science should not encroach on theological questions.
In fact, I would argue that your "i think theres some higher power" statement means that you are religious (just not a fundamentalist Christian) even though you take great pains too separate yourselves from the faithful. Non-relgious people, such as myself, do NOT believe in any higher power.
but we cant really disprove ufos, ghosts etc
That's true but the burden of proof is on those who believe in such things. And that proof better be damn convincing. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not up to scientists to disprove extraterrestial anal rapes, healing crystals, haunted houses, and so forth.
I'm no big fan of religion (and that's an understandment). But your statements about religion show a pretty big misunderstanding of what religion attempts to do for people.
GMD
I hear your frustration and I agree that the message of these protestors is getting lost in the carnage. But I don't think you can blame the media entirely (or even at all). The media does not exist to provide a free forum for special interest groups. The protestors realized they could get widespread publicity by inciting violence. And they have. However, all they've managed to do is get their pictures on TV. Their message has still not come through. These anti-globalization protestors need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a GOOD way of getting their message across. They've had a couple of years now to see that the violence approach doesn't work. It's time for them to quit the nonsense and figure out something that does. It's their fault now and not the media's. And the leaders of these protest groups need to demonstrate a bit of leadership skills here and make sure everyone "under their command" understands that they're not going to do the "violence thing" anymore.
The problem is not unlike Yasser Arafat and the suicide bombers. Blowing up Israeli citizens is turning into a PR nightmare for Arafat but all he does is give an occasional (and usually coerced) condemnation. He needs to really crack down on the troublemakers, else the world will view the PLO as a gang of terrorists. This is obviously a larger and more serious problem that the globalization protestors but I think the idea is still the same. The responsible protestors need to crack down on the idiots who giving the whole group a bad name.
GMD
Declare war on asteroids.
Screw this defensive "homeland security against asteroids" shit. I say we take the fight to those damn bugs who keep hurling these things at us! And if our allies are queezy about toppling the Brain Bug dictator, then we'll just have to go it alone! Already we've got a plan in the works to take down BugCentral from the inside out.
GMD
Seems that they have had success as far back as 1987, creating rain to help put out a raging forest fire.
It's a little known fact that this rain control research was originally designed by the government to extinguish burning Falun Gong protestors. The government eventually decided that beating the holy shit out of them worked better and was more cost-effective.
GMD
That's it, tps12. I've been reading your overly dramatic posts for awhile now and you've finally made it on to my 'foe' list.
Weather is an inconvenience, not a threat.
The people who die in hurricanes, typhones, mudslides, droughts, tornadoes, and so forth may disagree with you.
We need to concentrate on using our biological and biotechnological knowledge and research to solve world hunger (by growing so-called "super food" and eliminating pests), stablize primitive nations (using factory-produced soldiers so none of our sons need die), and put an end to child labor (by creating affordable and reliable robotic labor in the world's developing regions).
There's more than enough food on the planet to feed the starving people. The problem is not technological, it's a problem of politics and distribution. Besides, if you're against fooling with Mother Nature regarding the weather, why are you so gung-ho about "eliminating pests"? As far as your other two examples, I don't even know where to begin...
Never mind the fact that the primitive cultures, and even Christianity (see, e.g., the Bible) often attribute the workings of weather to divinity.
So weren't supposed to be laisse-faire on the weather because primitive cultures believe the winds to be controlled by the gods?
The weather is quite literally a phenomenon that occurs in the domain of the Heavens.
Actually, the weather occurs in the domain of the atmosphere.
But when we start to presume that we can control the weather, then we are on the road to our own destruction.
Y'know, in spite of the fact that you're written a moderately lengthy post, you never once gave us any real reason why the weather is, as you put it, "not the kind of thing we should be messing with."
This post of yours is even worse than that one you made about the giant squid.
GMD
It's not the "cool" factor -- really, it isn't. You wear a wearable computer on the subway to work, and you deserve to be beaten down.
I'm sure we would have thought the same thing several years ago about portable phones. Yet I see those bloody things (rather, I hear them) all over the place.
Admittedly, the article focuses on the use of wearable computers by astronauts and such, but as for use by the common man on a daily basis outside niche markets, its not going to happen.
You make a reasonable point here about no absolutely necessary reason for people to have a portable computer but how is that much different from today's cell phones? I always roll my eyes skyward when people tell me about how essential a cell phone is for today's lifestyle. There are plenty of times I've heard a cell phone go off in the movie theater. And while I've struggled to keep from throwing tomatoes at those morons who feel the need to chatter on their cell phone while grocery shopping, I'm not promising I'll hold off indefinitely. But of all the times I've overheard people gabbing on their cell phones (and there have been many such times), I cannot for the life of me remember one conversation that struck be as being essential to carry on at that moment.
I'm sure I'm inviting a slew of angry replies to this and probably some Troll or Flamebait mod points, but my point is that cell phones have florished in spite of the fact that the majority of people using them do not have a vital need for them. Rather, their "need" has simply been invented because the technology exists. So will it be with wearable computers.
GMD
On that note, maybe I'll start work on AICounselor_v1.0Beta.tar.gz now.. I'm sure GRACE would enjoy that module.
Better yet, why don't you start work on AICounselor_Troi_v1.0Beta.tar.gz now! I'm sure WE would enjoy that module.
GMD
Let me guess: you work as either a narrator or a writer for nature documentaries.
Ah well. I'm glad you found such profound intellectual delight in the discovery of this squid....
GMD
Don't fall into the lies, guys. Cooking can be as masculine as anything. Did I mention they make titanium cookware? Mmmmm.... titanium...
I'm always a bit surprised when people consider cooking to be un-geeky. I think of the choice "to cook or not to cook" to have some parallels to what kind of operating system you run on your computer. Hear me out. We all gotta eat and we all gotta use a computer. A great many of us either run Windows exclusively or have a Windows partition on our machine. Why? Because it's useful sometimes. Windows is crap and we all know it but the convienence is hard to ignore. Much like fast food. Fast food may be tasty but no one is going to argue that it is well-constructed cuisine. Windows is the fast food of operating systems. It's not good but it's ubiquitous and does the job.
Some people oppose eating at fast food restaurants on principle just like some people absolutely refuse to use Windows. However, there's no denying that going to a restaurant or heating up some frozen food in the microwave is a step above fast food. Similarly, some people like their Macs. You're still somewhat at the mercy of what's been created for you, but at least it's not fast-food/Windows.
But for the real power-user who wants to fully understand what's "under the hood" and be free to tinker it to their heart's content, there's nothing like Linux/unix. Infinitely configurable, the performance of the finished product relies quite a bit on your ability and knowledge of what you're doing. Cooking is for the "power eater" who is not content to trust someone else and is willing to get their hands dirty in order to make sure the finished product is just how they like it.
So don't think of cooking as "women's work." Think of it as the culinary equivalent of Linux/unix. The finished product is in your hands. If you're capable, you can create something just how you like it and your friends will be amazed. If you don't know what you're doing, then perhaps you'd better stick with Billy Gates' McOperatingSystem. It sucks but at least you won't die of food poisoning.
GMD
The Mayans liked to drink their chocolate rather than eat it
No, actually a short filmstrip I saw at the Ah Fudge! chocolate factory said that they mixed it with tabacco, rolled it and smoked it. Nowdays, of course, it comes in a hygenic package.After that filmstrip, me and the others from the school field trip when ape shit in the factory, swiming in vats of chocolate and beating up the chocolate bean mascot they had.
GMD
You bastard! Now you got me wondering what Jon Katz is going to be like lecturing his grandkids:
"Ah, yes, I still remember where I was when I watched the two towers come down on 9/11. That was a life changing event, I tell you. Back in my day, people actually tried to help each other out instead of withdrawing into these confangled virtual reality contraptions you kids play with these days. Hey, sit down Jeffery and listen. I ain't done with my story yet. Maybe you'll learn somethin'. Now where was I? Oh yes, that Coumbine shooting was a life changing event, I tell you. Did I ever tell you about that? I did? Well, I'm gonna tell you again so quit your squirming an' listen up. Now the important thing was that I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. We did it to protest the growing threat of globalism..."
GMD
I need the energy for when I go on a pr0n-renting spree.
Renting porn? Shame on you! Aren't you afraid that we're going to laugh at you?
You should be downloading it for free instead! And you call yourself a geek! Hmmmph!
GMD
Winning by completing lines faster wasn't HALF as satisfying as killing the other guy. A non-violent game where you killed your opponent! What could be better?
How about a violent game where you killed your opponent? Like with a bazooka or something :)
GMD
2. Some of us actually pay attention to things beyond our own lives, and consider factors beyond "gee, is a family member risking his life" such as the economic and diplomatic ramifications, as well as whether or not a military action seems feasible. The US does /not/ invade places on a whim.
This is an important point. All this "robots will make war too clean" stuff is crazy. War is incredibly destructive. Not just in the number of people who die but in economic and political terms. There are some who believe that GWB is waiting for the American economy to bounce back before he fulfills his dream of knocking off Saddam. Right now, our economy probably couldn't take the strain of a difficult conflict (the Afghan conflict hasn't been too tough on us, you have to admit).
GMD
Well war ethics are going to have to be completely re-written if this happens, because previously the idea was that to win a war you had to send some soldiers to their death.
I can see how military strategy would need to be rewritten but I don't understand why lack of American casualties is somehow going to change the ethics of war.
If we don't have to send in soldiers anymore then the American public will be easily distracted from our hideously hypocritical foreign policy decisions since they don't actually have to worry about their sons and daughters.
I would argue that people are already distracted from our two-faced foreign policy. The American public is almost always in favor of war if the President tells them it's necessary.
I don't quite understand everyone's moral qualms about mechanised warfare. I can see robot vs. robot being pointless but that's not likely to happen for some time in the future. In fact I can see a potential benefit to heavily mechanised, disposable warfighters. Suppose some very powerful country blatantly invades a weaker neighbor. The international community recognizes that it's a terrible act but no one is willing to go to war against the powerful aggressor because they are scared of casualties on their side. Robotic solders would allow us to "do the right thing" and not worry about how the price we'll pay.
Unfortunately, this idea only works if you trust your elected officials to only fight just wars. But that's another matter. There is nothing wrong with robotic warriors in theory. In practice, however, it may give the President Carte Blanche to wage any war he wants. However, I would argue we're not too far away from that right now.
Just some thoughts...
GMD
I agree totally, we should be able to vote on the details of all that other stuff as well.
Well, I wasn't actually advocating that kind of system where the public votes on everything. It sounds interesting but I fear that a system like that would end up being mob rule. As I mentioned before, the religious right would certainly organize a campaign to have NEA funds witheld from any artist that they didn't like. I'm sure they would successfuly be able to convince Joe Average, who knows nothing about the value of controversial art, to vote in support of their measure. Science funding would most likely take a big hit as well. Actually a lot of the stuff slashdotters hold near and dear would probably find themselves voted out. We're not exactly mainstream people here.
All I was saying in my original post is that allowing the public to vote on how their money is spent in such a micro-fashion just doesn't fit in our current system.
GMD
Its our damn tax money that pays for this stuff, I say we should be able to vote on what NASA should focus on next.
Why should NASA be different than any other government agency? There was no election held to decide whether we should bomb the bejeepers out of Afghanistan. I never got a chance to vote on the S&L bailout in the 80s. The religious people don't get a chance to veto public money being used to support artists that create blasphmous works like the "Piss Christ" and the "Dung Virgin Mary". The public never gets a chance to vote how their money is spent.
Besides, if the public had their way, they'd probably vote for NASA to blow it's budget sending N'Sync of J Lo into space. Remember how the media wouldn't shut the hell up about John Glenn's return to space a few years ago?
GMD
Also, lets do something about the space shuttle for god's sake! What total piece of shit. How sad is it that we are flying something designed 25+ years ago that has the computing power of an P90 into space in the 21st Century.
What exactly don't you like about the shuttle? Why is it a piece of shit? Is there something wrong with it? Is it not meeting our needs? I can't tell if you have a legitimate beef with it or just don't like it because it's old. Except for the tragic Challenger accident, the shuttle seems to have done a pretty good job of wethering the years. I think it's impressive that something built 25+ years ago is still in service. Like the U2, it's a testiment to the quality of the original design. And what makes you think the shuttle has the computing power of a P90? I find it hard to believe that NASA hasn't upgraded the computer system in the shuttle. And if they haven't, it's probably because they haven't needed to.
GMD
My advice is to build your own command center by studying those featured in the James Bond movies. Most of the bad guys have a fully staffed, very impressive command center filled with computers and cool looking wall-sized flat screens. Make sure you get the center chair that overlooks the whole setup. Not only will it be a joy to work at but a command center like that will impress even the most stingy of VCs or customers.
Always happy to help,
GMD
Titilation aside, I wonder if the time is approaching that mainstream America is ready for a superheroine movie that isn't a joke or B-movie trash. The popularity of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon seems to indicate the American audiences may be willing to accept women as competent, powerful fighters. But I wonder if that acceptance wasn't because the whole movie was supposed to be a fantasy (with the flying and all). What do slashdotters think about the popularity of a serious big-budget Hollywood superheronie movie? You think people would go to see it?
GMD
You're forgetting that Superman is a goody-goody and Batman kind of has a dark, evil side to him. And as Dark Helmet would say "Evil will always defeat good because good is dumb."
GMD