Someone posted a comment the other day in regards to the vast untapped market of SW pr0n. The best part was when talked about "hot Ewok on Wookie action." I don't remember who it was, but I certainly remember almost spewing my coffee;-)
Star Trek gave many people a vision of a future much more peaceful and prosperous than the present day, and awakened who knows how many minds to the potential and wonder of the universe and science.
And it did it while dealing with the social and political issues of the day. It was that element which I think resonated so strongly with the people. Rodenberry used it as a means of social commentary, and it is that element which seems to be lacking in the most recent incarnations of Trek (for which I blame Rick Berman- along with a host of other things). That torch of social concious has been picked up by shows like South Park and The Simpsons, and those are the ones which seem to now have the hardcore fan base memorizing lines.
The original Star Treks may not have been "good" Science Fiction, but they were very good at telling stories relevant to their viewers. I have enjoyed reading many of the authors that he has listed (though I have not yet read any of his work) and many of their stories also provide parallels to society. The ideal solution would be the ability to read and watch good stories, be they "hard" SciFi, "soft" SciFi, or Fantasy.
But did anyone else notice, The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens? I guess crashes were caused by windshields after all. Instead of watching the road, we should be playing Solataire while the car drives itself. When is the trend of removing people from actual control of the devices in their life going to end?
What you're talking about is a complete renovation of our society and its mores. The problem with that is that while many think our society needs that fundamental redesign, there are far too many divergent, if not mutually exclusive, opinions of what the changes ought to be. Alas, the reality is that no changes will likely occur until we very can no longer look at ourselves in the mirror.
The studies you are referring to only apply to a very specific group of sexual offenders (and they are only the tiny minority of those of the registers).
What I should have made clear is that this is the group which I was attempting to address. For these individuals (not the 20 year old having sex with the 17 year old he picks up in the bar) there ought to be a life in prison option. Not for any and all sex offender crimes, but for those individuals who prey on the extremely young. In this particular case, the law for GPS monitoring only applies to those who committed crimes against children 11 and younger. I have no problem with a life sentence being an option in cases involving attacks against children this young. I am not advocating a minimum life sentence, I'm merely saying that Judges should have discression in egregious cases to impose such a maximum.
Regarding revenge might help you come up with, shall we say, colorful solutions to your problem. Either that or figure out a way to have all of their papers "lost" due to the virus;-) In this regards, I would suggest that you channel your inner BOFH.
A very good question. On the one hand, I think its because there is still an undercurrent in the law that people can be rehabilitated. If you lock someone up for life, then they no longer have the chance to be a productive member of society. On the other, AFAIK, the studies of recitivisim is sexual predators is just staggering compared to other crimes. with that being the case, then a life sentence ought to at least be an option when sentencing comes around. I could see the lifetime GPS monitoring getting thrown out of court pretty easily, however, for being unreasonably intrusive on someone who has served their sentence. The efforts used in creating the system would be better tspent, I think, in getting a life option.
Truth be told I'm a junk food junkie. they promised me my mailbox would be full of spam everyday if wrote nice things about them. The wierd thing is, my mailbox is empty, but my AOL account cxertainly seems to be popular. Oh wow, looks like I can get super rich helping out this poor Nigerian. Gotta go!
Shadow Wrought
Have Blog Will Travel, Ltd.
9598 Shilling Circle, Apt #2K
Bumsqueak ND, 02003
Marketingspeak used to just be funny. After reading 1984 however, the concept of making words so obtuse that they lose their meaning and create mindlessness is downright frightening. I can only write so much of it in parody before my brain hurts.
It would have been really fun to write out a longer entry using those additional (I guess in this genre they are called "talking points") but it would've hurt too much;-) I also would have liked to work in "ubiquitous."
Longhorn is the best operating system I have ever used. It is a snappy and feature rich envrionment that allows me to leverage my work schedule and makes leisure time a joy. I don't know what I ever did without it.
It also follows the long Microsoft tradition of providing an innovative product that people not only want to use, but actually look forward to using.
Longhorn truly completes me. And I say this as a former Linux power user for the last twenty years. Really. Now I know that Linux blows and it has nothing to do with that bimonthly check from Redmond. Nothing. Really.
We have been using our fighter pilots, and bomber pilots, and their reserves, in active combat, on and off, for 15 years straight now. Not training, but combat. Not all have engaged in active combat, but the rest who didn't are currently flying over New York every 15 minutes when some moron flys into a no-fly zone.
Nice to know our boys can smoke a C-172 with 30+ millions of dollars of hardware and training. I feel better now. Really.
Tell me, which country has that many pilots, including our reserves who are currently flying combat missions in 2 countries, and testing their opponents equipment not only in mock engagements, but on their own test ranges ?
Correct, no one but the good 'ol USofA.
You watch Fox News a lot, don't you?
Also, you may want to think for two seconds before opening your piehole. We have every version of every Soviet fighter ever made (they, or someone else, will sell them to us, East Germany gave us a ton, they German airforce still uses them!). You don't think Russia would sell us a nice shiney new aircraft, maybe, maybe not? What about if they sold it to Israel, would we get a copy? Yup, we would.
R. Lee? Is that you? Well, either way you should probably know that I do not doubt that we have Russian hardware (or Former Soviet States if you prefer). Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
We practice against them all the time.....do they have copies of F-22's to practice against? Didn't think so.
Well since they're not going to even reach operational capability until December of this year, I doubt our guys have even practiced against them.
Also, the F-15 is 1970/1971 technology, with some computer/radar & AAMRAM upgrades. Not too shabby, considering it'll kick the crap out of anything in the sky (from BVR and assitance from other support aircraft, thats how we fight). And yes, the US won't dogfight, because we'd probably lose some aircraft. That would be stupid, like you.
So, the whole whole point of my post was that the US shouldn't be too cocky about its fighters because in a dogfight, we could still lose. Which, you agree with shortly before calling me stupid. Wow. Looks like I wasted the arrogant hubris line a little too soon.
If you look at warfare you will see that there are really only two groups- the infantry and those who support them. Aircraft, tanks, artillery, and ships can inflict tremendous amounts of damage. They can deny territory to your enemies and engage in all sorts of offensive and defensive missions. But they cannot hold territory or captured enemies. Only infantry can do that.
What that means is that at the end of the day, whether or not we win or lose has more to do with the grunts on the ground than the airdales flying overhead. By placing so many resources and energy into single hugely expensive platforms we are potentially setting our selfs up to fail. Just because no single nation can stand up to us doesn't mean that we cannot cause our own demise.
When your equipment becomes to valuable to risk losing in a war, I think you have already headed down that unfortunate path. The war against terror is an entirely different kind of war. They are not trying to invade us with hoards of fighters and massive amphibious landings on the coasts. They are infiltrating us and using simple improvised weapons against us. An F-22 is no protection against a checkpoint car bombing.
I'm not pretending to know all of the answers to the US's foreign policies and wars anymore than I claim to be an expert on modern air to air combat tactics. However, I do think that we are investing money to protect us from threats that may no longer exist at the expense of threats which we do not yet fully recognize. Sarcasm aside, if you think about nothing else that I have written, at least ponder that one for a bit.
And we all know how modest F-18 pilots are;-) There is an old pilot saying that goe along the lines of, "You never have to ask if someone is a fighter pilot- they'll tell you before you get the chance."
F-14s, -15s, 16s, 18, and 22s are great machines and they have nop notch pilots. That doesn't mean that someone else cannot outbuild them. An F-14 with Phoenix missiles can engage 6 individual targets simultaneously from a 120 miles away. The problem, however, is that Rules of Engagement (ROE) usually require positive ID of the target. So the advantage of seeing the guy from so far away gets lost.
The other issue is training. Keeping pilots sharp is difficult to do. With all of the budget cuts US pilots just aren't flying as much as they should, thus losing some of the edge they have in training. Add to that the arrogant hubris that the military asks for (I gaurantee your neighbor will laugh if you ask him about that), and you really do have a recipe for losses.
So, in a nutshell, while the Su-30 won't just automatically spank any of the US fighters, don't think that the opposite is true either.
PS, if your neighbor will tell you, ask him how many hours of flying he gets in during a month; it'd be interesting to know if the hours have come up or not in the last few years.
What the ST Universe really needs is for Rick Berman to step down, and to let someone else take the helm. Maybe even wait a couple years, and then come out with a series that actually harkens back to the original- instead of trying to ignore it or worse. Until that happens, the entire franchise will continue to struggle.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone posted a comment the other day in regards to the vast untapped market of SW pr0n. The best part was when talked about "hot Ewok on Wookie action." I don't remember who it was, but I certainly remember almost spewing my coffee;-)
Amongst other things. Apparantly the Queen Amidala Hot Grits scene will be on the Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith Unrated DVD.
And it did it while dealing with the social and political issues of the day. It was that element which I think resonated so strongly with the people. Rodenberry used it as a means of social commentary, and it is that element which seems to be lacking in the most recent incarnations of Trek (for which I blame Rick Berman- along with a host of other things). That torch of social concious has been picked up by shows like South Park and The Simpsons, and those are the ones which seem to now have the hardcore fan base memorizing lines.
The original Star Treks may not have been "good" Science Fiction, but they were very good at telling stories relevant to their viewers. I have enjoyed reading many of the authors that he has listed (though I have not yet read any of his work) and many of their stories also provide parallels to society. The ideal solution would be the ability to read and watch good stories, be they "hard" SciFi, "soft" SciFi, or Fantasy.
To earn the l33t skilz merit badge one must obtain the IP merit badge off another Socut's uniform without the other Scout's knowledge.
Sorry. Couldn't resist after reading your sig.
But did anyone else notice, The future of cars according to Gates will involve high-definition screens? I guess crashes were caused by windshields after all. Instead of watching the road, we should be playing Solataire while the car drives itself. When is the trend of removing people from actual control of the devices in their life going to end?
Are you sure you don't want to wait 19 hours before comitting to that?
I made Soko a Friend after reading this because it made me laugh so hard (at least it certainly is at the end of the day;-)
But, Flamebait?
To borrow from High School...
The Mods,
The Mods,
The Mods are on Drugs!!!
Repeat...
What you're talking about is a complete renovation of our society and its mores. The problem with that is that while many think our society needs that fundamental redesign, there are far too many divergent, if not mutually exclusive, opinions of what the changes ought to be. Alas, the reality is that no changes will likely occur until we very can no longer look at ourselves in the mirror.
What I should have made clear is that this is the group which I was attempting to address. For these individuals (not the 20 year old having sex with the 17 year old he picks up in the bar) there ought to be a life in prison option. Not for any and all sex offender crimes, but for those individuals who prey on the extremely young. In this particular case, the law for GPS monitoring only applies to those who committed crimes against children 11 and younger. I have no problem with a life sentence being an option in cases involving attacks against children this young. I am not advocating a minimum life sentence, I'm merely saying that Judges should have discression in egregious cases to impose such a maximum.
Hopefully that clears things up.
Regarding revenge might help you come up with, shall we say, colorful solutions to your problem. Either that or figure out a way to have all of their papers "lost" due to the virus;-) In this regards, I would suggest that you channel your inner BOFH.
A very good question. On the one hand, I think its because there is still an undercurrent in the law that people can be rehabilitated. If you lock someone up for life, then they no longer have the chance to be a productive member of society. On the other, AFAIK, the studies of recitivisim is sexual predators is just staggering compared to other crimes. with that being the case, then a life sentence ought to at least be an option when sentencing comes around. I could see the lifetime GPS monitoring getting thrown out of court pretty easily, however, for being unreasonably intrusive on someone who has served their sentence. The efforts used in creating the system would be better tspent, I think, in getting a life option.
Truth be told I'm a junk food junkie. they promised me my mailbox would be full of spam everyday if wrote nice things about them. The wierd thing is, my mailbox is empty, but my AOL account cxertainly seems to be popular. Oh wow, looks like I can get super rich helping out this poor Nigerian. Gotta go!
Have Blog Will Travel, Ltd.
9598 Shilling Circle, Apt #2K
Bumsqueak ND, 02003
Marketingspeak used to just be funny. After reading 1984 however, the concept of making words so obtuse that they lose their meaning and create mindlessness is downright frightening. I can only write so much of it in parody before my brain hurts.
It would have been really fun to write out a longer entry using those additional (I guess in this genre they are called "talking points") but it would've hurt too much;-) I also would have liked to work in "ubiquitous."
It also follows the long Microsoft tradition of providing an innovative product that people not only want to use, but actually look forward to using.
Longhorn truly completes me. And I say this as a former Linux power user for the last twenty years. Really. Now I know that Linux blows and it has nothing to do with that bimonthly check from Redmond. Nothing. Really.
If she brings a towel though, it could be incredibly boring. Or exciting if the bugblatter beast decides that it can see the audience;-)
Nice to know our boys can smoke a C-172 with 30+ millions of dollars of hardware and training. I feel better now. Really.
Tell me, which country has that many pilots, including our reserves who are currently flying combat missions in 2 countries, and testing their opponents equipment not only in mock engagements, but on their own test ranges ?
Correct, no one but the good 'ol USofA.
You watch Fox News a lot, don't you?
Also, you may want to think for two seconds before opening your piehole. We have every version of every Soviet fighter ever made (they, or someone else, will sell them to us, East Germany gave us a ton, they German airforce still uses them!). You don't think Russia would sell us a nice shiney new aircraft, maybe, maybe not? What about if they sold it to Israel, would we get a copy? Yup, we would.
R. Lee? Is that you? Well, either way you should probably know that I do not doubt that we have Russian hardware (or Former Soviet States if you prefer). Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
We practice against them all the time.....do they have copies of F-22's to practice against? Didn't think so.
Well since they're not going to even reach operational capability until December of this year, I doubt our guys have even practiced against them.
Also, the F-15 is 1970/1971 technology, with some computer/radar & AAMRAM upgrades. Not too shabby, considering it'll kick the crap out of anything in the sky (from BVR and assitance from other support aircraft, thats how we fight). And yes, the US won't dogfight, because we'd probably lose some aircraft. That would be stupid, like you.
So, the whole whole point of my post was that the US shouldn't be too cocky about its fighters because in a dogfight, we could still lose. Which, you agree with shortly before calling me stupid. Wow. Looks like I wasted the arrogant hubris line a little too soon.
If you look at warfare you will see that there are really only two groups- the infantry and those who support them. Aircraft, tanks, artillery, and ships can inflict tremendous amounts of damage. They can deny territory to your enemies and engage in all sorts of offensive and defensive missions. But they cannot hold territory or captured enemies. Only infantry can do that.
What that means is that at the end of the day, whether or not we win or lose has more to do with the grunts on the ground than the airdales flying overhead. By placing so many resources and energy into single hugely expensive platforms we are potentially setting our selfs up to fail. Just because no single nation can stand up to us doesn't mean that we cannot cause our own demise.
When your equipment becomes to valuable to risk losing in a war, I think you have already headed down that unfortunate path. The war against terror is an entirely different kind of war. They are not trying to invade us with hoards of fighters and massive amphibious landings on the coasts. They are infiltrating us and using simple improvised weapons against us. An F-22 is no protection against a checkpoint car bombing.
I'm not pretending to know all of the answers to the US's foreign policies and wars anymore than I claim to be an expert on modern air to air combat tactics. However, I do think that we are investing money to protect us from threats that may no longer exist at the expense of threats which we do not yet fully recognize. Sarcasm aside, if you think about nothing else that I have written, at least ponder that one for a bit.
Plus there's the SFO equation. 1 small cloud + 2 planes in the air = 3 hour delay;-)
F-14s, -15s, 16s, 18, and 22s are great machines and they have nop notch pilots. That doesn't mean that someone else cannot outbuild them. An F-14 with Phoenix missiles can engage 6 individual targets simultaneously from a 120 miles away. The problem, however, is that Rules of Engagement (ROE) usually require positive ID of the target. So the advantage of seeing the guy from so far away gets lost.
The other issue is training. Keeping pilots sharp is difficult to do. With all of the budget cuts US pilots just aren't flying as much as they should, thus losing some of the edge they have in training. Add to that the arrogant hubris that the military asks for (I gaurantee your neighbor will laugh if you ask him about that), and you really do have a recipe for losses.
So, in a nutshell, while the Su-30 won't just automatically spank any of the US fighters, don't think that the opposite is true either.
PS, if your neighbor will tell you, ask him how many hours of flying he gets in during a month; it'd be interesting to know if the hours have come up or not in the last few years.
"No, see, this time, Howard will be all CGI!"
These are not the brainscans you are looking for...
No, I didn't think I should either.
Will the next generation of Game consoles be able to make use of this technology? Seems like the uber-realistic shooter could be nigh.
What the ST Universe really needs is for Rick Berman to step down, and to let someone else take the helm. Maybe even wait a couple years, and then come out with a series that actually harkens back to the original- instead of trying to ignore it or worse. Until that happens, the entire franchise will continue to struggle.
Don't you think that Digital Rottweiler would be a great name for an aggresive network security app?