I'm another person who's really excited about a gaming system for the first time in a long time, but the way you addressed the graphics, it sounds like you're saying that better graphics are worse.
The machine is not perfect, but it does look damn cool enough to make me want one, and that's perfect enough for now.
Restructuring your statement, however, I'd say this: there are some real disadvantages to riding the cutting edge of technology. That cutting edge has made the pricetags so sharp on the 360 and the PS3, that they can draw blood. Products too close to the cutting edge aren't meant for a wide public consumption, but a narrower one made up of fools and people with large amounts of disposable income(see current state of HD-DVD players)
Main inductees page is here. Click the ultra-light grey link in the sidebar to see the 2003 inductees.
Astroboy is also in. Not terribly knowledgeable regarding the character or its impact, but I've heard him mentioned enough that I can't argue his place there. R2-D2 and C-3PO are in as well.
Then there's one last science fiction member: HAL 9000. All these years, I could've sworn he was a computer... but, well.
I don't care if you DID like A.I. -- David is not in the same class as Gort or the robot from Metropolis, and neither should he be inducted with them.
Sheesh. Two landmark science fiction films... and that thing. Where is the justification for this totally pointless, and yet nonetheless infuriating decision?...
Haven't read "I Sing the Body Electric" yet, but I have faith in Bradbury that his story was probably better. I take his dystopian future (Fahrenheit 451) over the more popular Orwell one.
"Certainly. But if the movie is about David becoming human, and yet it denies making available to him the penultimate human moment -- death -- then it has not lived up to its premise."
You seem to be implying that death is the human experience. I cannot make out how that is.
Death does not separate us from any other living thing -- all that lives eventually dies. Hell, all things larger than the basic motes of matter and energy eventually break down and apart.
Knowledge of mortality doesn't separate us either. Animals on the brink of death will seek out places to die. Even if this was the definitive human element, it would not take in David, regardless of the ending you choose, because he never showed any recognition of his own mortality.
Humanity isn't a simple thing. The simplest definition I can come up with in relation to David is this: Humanity is overcoming his programming, and becoming more than just the some of his parts/code.
Personally, I thought the teddy bear came much closer to humanity than David did... but I didn't like the movie very much... at all. In the least. Rather loathed it, actually.
Genndy Tartakovasky, the master of style over substance. His presence, combined with a quote like the following from Lisa Henson, does not fill me with confidence:
"I am sure that his visualization of Brian Froud's designs will thrill fans of the original film as well as audiences who are meeting these beloved characters for the first time."
The quote is also disheartening for that "audiences who are meeting these beloved characters for the first time," bit. I can understand about slashdotters missing out on items like the movie being "set hundreds of years after the events of the first movie," but to neglect a fact like that while being quoted for a press release is rather disturbing.
You know you play too much WoW, when you read this story and think: "Hey! It makes the car appear on the minimap! I wonder if it also puts a large red arrow above it and prevents it from stealthing!"
"We can't prove that an animal that builds a display to attract a mate is not as as proud of his creation and that it is not appreciated as much by those around it."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, eh? I wouldn't argue that with you. I have two dogs now, and, indeed, have had dogs all my life, and don't like to underestimate their intelligence. Still, you wrote this line:
"Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are."
Say what you will of astrology and crystal gazing, but your argument in support of the artistic taste of animals is often used in support of the existence of a God. Indeed, religion at its best gives a mental structure to the Universe. Being lost in a cold, finite, structureless world is a hard thing to deal with. Not everyone can adjust to the idea. Have you ever seen an animal struggling with its existence?
Again we can come back to absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Communication between humans and other creatures is a major barrier. Most of those we reckon as being the smartest are merely those that communicate the most to us.
So far as setting animals low, I do not seek to do that. I seek to find some deliniation between humans and animals. Somehow, in some way, humans have become the dominant animal on the planet, effecting climate change, diverting rivers, creating lakes, destroying mountains, building new land, and on and on. More than just genetics set housecats apart from every other creature in the world, and more than just genetics set us apart likewise. The question is, how?
"Because it make him feel special. All warm and tingly."
I do not deny that.
Lacking enough evidence to make a decision with any sort of finality, I feel that I have the latitude to take on beliefs that I want. So long as I remember that that is what they are, I see no harm in them.
I disagree with you on interpretation, though. I take it more as an expression of Hamlet's appreciation for the good of the earth, the air, the sky, and mankind, and how his bitterness, which has consistently grown since his father's death, has marred that appreciation. The full quote, with previous line from Guildenstern:
Guil. My lord, we were sent for.
Ham. I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late,--but wherefore I know not,--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,--why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" --From Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117ish)
Most of the people who are, or will argue with you will likely cite art, and the appreciation of abstract beauty in their proofs. For me, I'd include those, and also that it is what I want to believe.
Why are you attached to the idea of setting us so low?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd put that a little differently, actually.
I'm another person who's really excited about a gaming system for the first time in a long time, but the way you addressed the graphics, it sounds like you're saying that better graphics are worse.
The machine is not perfect, but it does look damn cool enough to make me want one, and that's perfect enough for now.
Restructuring your statement, however, I'd say this: there are some real disadvantages to riding the cutting edge of technology. That cutting edge has made the pricetags so sharp on the 360 and the PS3, that they can draw blood. Products too close to the cutting edge aren't meant for a wide public consumption, but a narrower one made up of fools and people with large amounts of disposable income(see current state of HD-DVD players)
Anything that progresses the development of robots and/or provides an opportunity for Futurama references is okay in my book.
That's awful alx5000. Especially the making out part.
If not, I don't think he'd be too happy about it. Doesn't want anyone thinking he's a robosexual.
Can I have a +4 funny now? ...
No?
Ah well. Congrats on your good fortune you funny dog you.
"I know I sure as hell am NOT going to say to the store clerk 'Hi, I'd like to buy that Wii you have there.'"
Me neither.
I'm probably going to buy mine online.
"I'd feel embarrassed asking for a Nintendo 'Wii'"
A Penny Arcade comic for you.
Not saying that it's a good name or anything.... Just saying...
I think I was there once.
Robby is already in the hall.
Main inductees page is here. Click the ultra-light grey link in the sidebar to see the 2003 inductees.
Astroboy is also in. Not terribly knowledgeable regarding the character or its impact, but I've heard him mentioned enough that I can't argue his place there. R2-D2 and C-3PO are in as well.
Then there's one last science fiction member: HAL 9000. All these years, I could've sworn he was a computer... but, well.
Can anyone explain what HAL is doing there?
Two classics and... who? from where?
...
I don't care if you DID like A.I. -- David is not in the same class as Gort or the robot from Metropolis, and neither should he be inducted with them.
Sheesh. Two landmark science fiction films... and that thing. Where is the justification for this totally pointless, and yet nonetheless infuriating decision?
If you need me, I'll be in the angry dome.
Haven't read "I Sing the Body Electric" yet, but I have faith in Bradbury that his story was probably better. I take his dystopian future (Fahrenheit 451) over the more popular Orwell one.
"Certainly. But if the movie is about David becoming human, and yet it denies making available to him the penultimate human moment -- death -- then it has not lived up to its premise."
You seem to be implying that death is the human experience. I cannot make out how that is.
Death does not separate us from any other living thing -- all that lives eventually dies. Hell, all things larger than the basic motes of matter and energy eventually break down and apart.
Knowledge of mortality doesn't separate us either. Animals on the brink of death will seek out places to die. Even if this was the definitive human element, it would not take in David, regardless of the ending you choose, because he never showed any recognition of his own mortality.
Humanity isn't a simple thing. The simplest definition I can come up with in relation to David is this: Humanity is overcoming his programming, and becoming more than just the some of his parts/code.
Personally, I thought the teddy bear came much closer to humanity than David did... but I didn't like the movie very much... at all. In the least. Rather loathed it, actually.
Zoiby want balloon! Want Balloon now!
Spock,
What
Do you
Make of this?
A new lifeform, or...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!
I don't know where you are, but I know where you're not going.
Offtopic? Inconceivable!
Genndy Tartakovasky, the master of style over substance. His presence, combined with a quote like the following from Lisa Henson, does not fill me with confidence:
"I am sure that his visualization of Brian Froud's designs will thrill fans of the original film as well as audiences who are meeting these beloved characters for the first time."
The quote is also disheartening for that "audiences who are meeting these beloved characters for the first time," bit. I can understand about slashdotters missing out on items like the movie being "set hundreds of years after the events of the first movie," but to neglect a fact like that while being quoted for a press release is rather disturbing.
You know you play too much WoW, when you read this story and think: "Hey! It makes the car appear on the minimap! I wonder if it also puts a large red arrow above it and prevents it from stealthing!"
Arguments of reading, waffling, and sundry aside, let me rephrase:
All people exit the birth canal with the same prior experiences in the world. They have done the same number of wrongs, and the same number of rights.
Let's start again with that.
"We can't prove that an animal that builds a display to attract a mate is not as as proud of his creation and that it is not appreciated as much by those around it."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, eh? I wouldn't argue that with you. I have two dogs now, and, indeed, have had dogs all my life, and don't like to underestimate their intelligence. Still, you wrote this line:
"Personally, I take religion (and astrology, and crystal gazing, and a bunch of other things) as evidence we're not nearly as smart as we'd like to think we are."
Say what you will of astrology and crystal gazing, but your argument in support of the artistic taste of animals is often used in support of the existence of a God. Indeed, religion at its best gives a mental structure to the Universe. Being lost in a cold, finite, structureless world is a hard thing to deal with. Not everyone can adjust to the idea. Have you ever seen an animal struggling with its existence?
Again we can come back to absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Communication between humans and other creatures is a major barrier. Most of those we reckon as being the smartest are merely those that communicate the most to us.
So far as setting animals low, I do not seek to do that. I seek to find some deliniation between humans and animals. Somehow, in some way, humans have become the dominant animal on the planet, effecting climate change, diverting rivers, creating lakes, destroying mountains, building new land, and on and on. More than just genetics set housecats apart from every other creature in the world, and more than just genetics set us apart likewise. The question is, how?
"Meh. Picard did it. That's good enough for me."
:-(
Yeah, but then he made Q mad.
"Because it make him feel special. All warm and tingly."
I do not deny that.
Lacking enough evidence to make a decision with any sort of finality, I feel that I have the latitude to take on beliefs that I want. So long as I remember that that is what they are, I see no harm in them.
You got the quote pretty damn close. Good job. :)
I disagree with you on interpretation, though. I take it more as an expression of Hamlet's appreciation for the good of the earth, the air, the sky, and mankind, and how his bitterness, which has consistently grown since his father's death, has marred that appreciation. The full quote, with previous line from Guildenstern:
Guil.
My lord, we were sent for.
Ham.
I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your
discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no
feather. I have of late,--but wherefore I know not,--lost all my
mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so
heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth,
seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the
air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical
roof fretted with golden fire,--why, it appears no other thing
to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a
piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in
action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the
beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what
is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman
neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
Reread my post.
You read through to the third sentence of my post, and then skipped the rest. It really wasn't that long.
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"
--From Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117ish)
Most of the people who are, or will argue with you will likely cite art, and the appreciation of abstract beauty in their proofs. For me, I'd include those, and also that it is what I want to believe.
Why are you attached to the idea of setting us so low?