The "girl inna box" sequence was explicitly an homage to Outlaw Star. Unfortunately, Fox's advertising for Firefly focused way too much on it, which made Firefly look like a ripoff (e.g, "these Americans won't have seen an anime, we can steal as much from it as we want and even advertise the fact")
Interesting! I didn't know if it was a case of homage, or a case of "good artists borrow, great artists steal." I'm not the kind to get hung up about someone taking ideas from other sources.
About Fox... in the commentary for the first episode, Wedon complains that Fox producers put the shot of River in the box in the intro (and advertising), basically ruining the surprise that was supposed to create the cliffhanger at the end of the first hour. Since Fox also showed the episodes out of order, everyone watching would have also known that River was Simon's sister. So when they saw the first episode, they would have been all "Oh hey it's the box with his sister in it!"
The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it.
Everything is conditional on knowledge. The site's existence is what pushed the date back, but we only know of its existence because we discovered it. In that sense, "known" in the headline is implied and thus redundant. But okay.
"Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right?
The settlement date would be today if someone was settling today. And indeed, someone probably is settling in North America as we speak. For them, that would be their settlement date. It would not be the settlement date for North America, as North America is already settled.
When talking about the settlement of a place, you only discuss it being settled if it was not already -- or at least wasn't settled by people you recognize as important if you're say Europeans settling America or other examples. But even in that case you wouldn't say Europeans settled America, after Europeans had already settled America. That makes no sense. The hypothetical people settling in North America today -- they settled in North America, they did not settle North America. Do you see?
So it is a good assumption that "known settlement date" implies the first known settlement, because after that it was already settled. The date of the previous oldest known settlement in North America is no longer the settlement date of North America -- by the time that settlement came around, North America was already settled.
Would it always be used that way? No, but such is language. But if you weren't using "settlement date" in that way, that's when you might want to take more care to make it clear what you meant.
Like if you told me that you believed that North America was settled only 400 years ago, and then when I expressed incredulity you went "Ha! I meant settled by Dutch immigrants!", that would be a case of being misleading and I might have to cut off your hand (erm... that was supposed to be an xkcd link but I can't find the right one... nevermind about the hand thing I wouldn't do that).
That only gives you the patch broken up in space, not in time.
The idea is that Red Hat has patches for specific issues that are developed at different points in time. These patches may modify the same files as previous ones, or even the same blocks of code. By having all patches applied at once, the singular diff does not tell you which component of the patch fixed which issue.
This is really only relevant for providing commercial support. Previously, by having patches associated with known issues applied sequentially, it was much easier for another company to say "Oh you're having Issue X? Well Patch Y will fix it." Now their options are to reverse-engineer the monolithic.diff to find the part that fixes a specific issue, or tell their customers they have to apply the entire patch. Again, that's not something you'd care about if you're a desktop end-user, but in a corporate IT environment it makes a difference.
Okay, wait, goatse link threads are not something I would normally post in, but I have to ask.
By "or something" do you mean that you didn't look at it long enough to really be sure what it was (and I pray for your sake that this is the case), or are you just giving voice to that little, terrified piece in the back of your brain that insists that cannot be human?
The grammar, syntax, and semantics are all perfectly correct. It makes sense.
It's possible you were confused by the existence of alternate definitions of some of the words. That is perfectly normal in English (completely unambiguous language is a rare exception) and indeed the majority of natural languages. Context is what makes distinguishing possible. I believe there was sufficient context in the headline to distinguish. Most other definitions of "settlement" make no sense in the context of "North America". However it is possible that you were still momentarily confused. This is not uncommon at all, does not indicate that the headline is wrong, or that you cannot read, and should just be taken in stride.
Agree completely, Cowboy Bebop, despite the name, was more Noir with Spike being the Private Dick.
Outlaw Star was more of a "Western-in-Space" style of Anime, and the one I think Firefly owes a much bigger debt. Even down to the Girl in a Box with a Mysterious Purpose. Who, I just remembered, kinda becomes part of the ship to pilot it, which is vaguely mirrored in the last episode of Firefly.
All three shows follow the basic pattern of a small group of people on a small ship trying to make ends meet.
The movie was great, and didn't have sound in space. As for the sequence firing their makeshift gun, if there was sound(can't recall) it was only the sound of the vibrations you would hear on the ships interior(my brain could have just imagined those.)
Nope, no sound even then. The entire movie and series were wholly sound-in-space free.
The movie is stuffed with politics! Granted it definitely turns the dial way more towards "mindless action" for much of the film, and is certainly no equal to the book in that regard (then again a film where main characters mentally soliloquy about politics and philosophy would be Thin Red Line, and thus awful). But it has plenty to say politically. You just have to get over the natural assumption that because it's space opera it can't have anything to say.
If they were really worried about it...they'd just ban the sale of alcohol in establishments like bars and restaurants,and only allow you to drink at home.
There we go! I knew we'd come up with the proof!
But wait, wouldn't it be easier to just ban driving? Then they'd get rid of every vehicle-related crime at once (except the crime of driving, I guess). Proof they don't care about any of it!
Actually...MADD would really love to just turn back the clock to prohibition.
They would... which is exactly why MADD's founder left the organization. They'd become something other than what she had originally been fighting for.
Yeah, that's why all our police departments and the State DA protested the DoT's "Drink. Drive. Go to Jail." ad campaign, as it might reduce the amount of drinking and driving arrests they are able to make.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen.
I meant, that's why the court house, with assistance by the local PD, hosts MADD meetings within the building to "scare people sober" with horrific stories of drunk driving accidents.
But he only tunes in after the last commercial break, where they summarize their laughable "evidence".
I've never actually watched the show, but I highly enjoyed his impression of them playing back the recording they made (with the gain all the way up, of course, because ghosts are quiet). Presses play: "Zrgthvrbhk" "Did you hear that? It said 'Get out!'" Plays it again: "Zrbhthrbark" -- "See? 'Get out!'"
It apparently adds a lot to the humor value that the people in the show seem so earnest about it all.
The show ended with a bug "fuck you" and a laugh, having never answered almost all the questions it painfully went about forcing in their face and asking.
Which was made much worse by the creators outright stating that all these mysteries had real answers, and that they would be told them. I didn't believe it and when I watched it was just to see what crazy and inexplicable stuff would happen that week. But I certainly understand why some people would take the creator's at their word -- after all, usually shows just imply they have a coherent plan when they really don't. Here, people were literally lied to. It makes sense that they'd be hostile.
Uh no if the Chinese were riffing on our stuff with this much humor -- and I'm counting unintentional humor like when ultra-low-budget Turkish filmmakers rip-off Star Trek -- I'd be cheering them on.
I love all those shows except Superjail, which I pretty much can't stand. I sometimes end up watching it anyway, and tell myself "Well, at least it isn't Assy McGee".
However if an impressionable person encounters a few other people who are willing to express their prejudices, they begin to think it's socially acceptable, and that prejudice blossoms into full scale hatred.
Yes, but the problem is that people will still express their prejudices, just more quietly. They could still find other, impressionable people. And when they do, that person will be able to say -- legitimately! -- that their views are being oppressed. That they are the victims. You've made it harder for them to connect with others, but you've also lent strength to their arguments.
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence.
Why shouldn't I have? Are you assuming I have a problem with being offended in and of itself, and that my only goal is to avoid being offended? Well that assumptions is wrong and stupid.
No, what I have a problem with is ignorance, bigotry, and hate. And you don't deal with those problems by avoiding them so you can pretend they don't exist. I read your second sentence because you informed me in advance that it would be offensive, which in context of this thread, probably means full of bigotry.
Do I think it's "okay" for you to say that? No, not really. Do I think it should be allowed? Why yes, yes I do. Especially because you don't get rid of bigotry by silencing bigotry. However, do I think I, or Apple, or any other private entity is within their rights to not provide you a platform by which to say that? That they are not required to publish your thoughts? Yes, I believe that too.
The KKK is free to hold a parade in the middle of town. They are not free to hold a convention on my lawn.
So what happens if Kepler has a 144 hour "gap" in its observations because it wasn't looking at this region for that duration? (Going into safe mode requires re-orienting the spacecraft so that the solar cells get maximum power, also there may have been some issues with the reaction wheels which point the spacecraft). I'm sure their are some very smart people programming some very powerful computers to try to minimize that impact of the loss of data but I'm curious, how will this show up? Will it mean that there is a range of orbits that won't be confirmed without a fourth transit? Will this range be large? Will it be in the "habitable zone" around G type (our sun) stars?
Kepler will have an ~144 hour gap, and it's not the first one it's had either.
But keep in mind, it only misses transits that happen during that period. So the potential missed planets are ones that crossed exactly during that time, and are sufficiently far out that we won't see a 3rd transit before the mission ends.
So it sucks, but it's not a disaster. It's not like we'll miss every planet in a certain range of orbits. Only a very small fraction of them.
This will only be a significant concern if, at the end of the mission, Kepler has found few or no earth-like planets in the habitable zone, implying that they are rare, and that one or two missed planets during the down times could double the number of planets in that category.
I'm only guessing, but based on the rate at which Kepler has found every other kind of planet, I'm betting these kinds of planets aren't rare either, and it'll be sad that we potentially missed a few, but won't significantly affect the conclusions.
Personally, my imagination was fired much more by Voyager, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and Cassini, than it ever was by the Shuttles or ISS. ISS is a worthy endeavor, I'm just saying, when I think of humans in space doing science I think that's really cool, but when I think of all these instruments studying other planets, other galaxies, expanding human knowledge of our universe, it brings tears to my eyes.
As if we would learn all we could by going to the Moon long enough to plant a flag and tool around in a buggy.
When astronauts return to the moon, it should be to check out the fully-functional habitats that were assembled robotically for them, so they can stay for an extended period of time.
All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these ½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Clear voices and tunnel "vision" are great for showing off human ingenuity (and specifically American ingenuity in the Cold War), but aren't necessarily that great for making progress. Not to knock Apollo, but seriously, what a clear voice of "We shall do [insert phenomenal but specific achievement" gets us is 10-20 years of focus on a specific task that lets us touch the place we were talking about, plant a flag, then leave with a couple samples. Great, but not what I call visionary. It was a vision, back before we had ever done it. Now it's a vision of the past.
That's why I like the current vision: Develop technologies and capabilities -- along with allowing the private sector to take over getting to LEO, which there is demand for -- so that future "visions" won't necessarily take 10 years of focused development on a one-off project.
The best part is that, assuming current development of these technologies isn't stymied by Congress' demand for a pork-rocket, when the next President comes in and cancels all the "visionary" plans, the tech will still be around, already developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Er not exactly... The Greenpeace guy left because Greenpeace wasn't militant enough.
And no, it doesn't always happen.
Other than that, good observation.
The "girl inna box" sequence was explicitly an homage to Outlaw Star. Unfortunately, Fox's advertising for Firefly focused way too much on it, which made Firefly look like a ripoff (e.g, "these Americans won't have seen an anime, we can steal as much from it as we want and even advertise the fact")
Interesting! I didn't know if it was a case of homage, or a case of "good artists borrow, great artists steal." I'm not the kind to get hung up about someone taking ideas from other sources.
About Fox... in the commentary for the first episode, Wedon complains that Fox producers put the shot of River in the box in the intro (and advertising), basically ruining the surprise that was supposed to create the cliffhanger at the end of the first hour. Since Fox also showed the episodes out of order, everyone watching would have also known that River was Simon's sister. So when they saw the first episode, they would have been all "Oh hey it's the box with his sister in it!"
Man did they screw that show up. :/
The site isn't what did the pushing. It was the discovery of it.
Everything is conditional on knowledge. The site's existence is what pushed the date back, but we only know of its existence because we discovered it. In that sense, "known" in the headline is implied and thus redundant. But okay.
"Known settlement date" could be today. There is a settlement in North America today, right?
The settlement date would be today if someone was settling today. And indeed, someone probably is settling in North America as we speak. For them, that would be their settlement date. It would not be the settlement date for North America, as North America is already settled.
When talking about the settlement of a place, you only discuss it being settled if it was not already -- or at least wasn't settled by people you recognize as important if you're say Europeans settling America or other examples. But even in that case you wouldn't say Europeans settled America, after Europeans had already settled America. That makes no sense. The hypothetical people settling in North America today -- they settled in North America, they did not settle North America. Do you see?
So it is a good assumption that "known settlement date" implies the first known settlement, because after that it was already settled. The date of the previous oldest known settlement in North America is no longer the settlement date of North America -- by the time that settlement came around, North America was already settled.
Would it always be used that way? No, but such is language. But if you weren't using "settlement date" in that way, that's when you might want to take more care to make it clear what you meant.
Like if you told me that you believed that North America was settled only 400 years ago, and then when I expressed incredulity you went "Ha! I meant settled by Dutch immigrants!", that would be a case of being misleading and I might have to cut off your hand (erm... that was supposed to be an xkcd link but I can't find the right one... nevermind about the hand thing I wouldn't do that).
That only gives you the patch broken up in space, not in time.
The idea is that Red Hat has patches for specific issues that are developed at different points in time. These patches may modify the same files as previous ones, or even the same blocks of code. By having all patches applied at once, the singular diff does not tell you which component of the patch fixed which issue.
This is really only relevant for providing commercial support. Previously, by having patches associated with known issues applied sequentially, it was much easier for another company to say "Oh you're having Issue X? Well Patch Y will fix it." Now their options are to reverse-engineer the monolithic .diff to find the part that fixes a specific issue, or tell their customers they have to apply the entire patch. Again, that's not something you'd care about if you're a desktop end-user, but in a corporate IT environment it makes a difference.
Okay, wait, goatse link threads are not something I would normally post in, but I have to ask.
By "or something" do you mean that you didn't look at it long enough to really be sure what it was (and I pray for your sake that this is the case), or are you just giving voice to that little, terrified piece in the back of your brain that insists that cannot be human?
The grammar, syntax, and semantics are all perfectly correct. It makes sense.
It's possible you were confused by the existence of alternate definitions of some of the words. That is perfectly normal in English (completely unambiguous language is a rare exception) and indeed the majority of natural languages. Context is what makes distinguishing possible. I believe there was sufficient context in the headline to distinguish. Most other definitions of "settlement" make no sense in the context of "North America". However it is possible that you were still momentarily confused. This is not uncommon at all, does not indicate that the headline is wrong, or that you cannot read, and should just be taken in stride.
Agree completely, Cowboy Bebop, despite the name, was more Noir with Spike being the Private Dick.
Outlaw Star was more of a "Western-in-Space" style of Anime, and the one I think Firefly owes a much bigger debt. Even down to the Girl in a Box with a Mysterious Purpose. Who, I just remembered, kinda becomes part of the ship to pilot it, which is vaguely mirrored in the last episode of Firefly.
All three shows follow the basic pattern of a small group of people on a small ship trying to make ends meet.
The movie was great, and didn't have sound in space. As for the sequence firing their makeshift gun, if there was sound(can't recall) it was only the sound of the vibrations you would hear on the ships interior(my brain could have just imagined those.)
Nope, no sound even then. The entire movie and series were wholly sound-in-space free.
The movie is stuffed with politics! Granted it definitely turns the dial way more towards "mindless action" for much of the film, and is certainly no equal to the book in that regard (then again a film where main characters mentally soliloquy about politics and philosophy would be Thin Red Line, and thus awful). But it has plenty to say politically. You just have to get over the natural assumption that because it's space opera it can't have anything to say.
If they were really worried about it...they'd just ban the sale of alcohol in establishments like bars and restaurants,and only allow you to drink at home.
There we go! I knew we'd come up with the proof!
But wait, wouldn't it be easier to just ban driving? Then they'd get rid of every vehicle-related crime at once (except the crime of driving, I guess). Proof they don't care about any of it!
Actually...MADD would really love to just turn back the clock to prohibition.
They would... which is exactly why MADD's founder left the organization. They'd become something other than what she had originally been fighting for.
Yeah, that's why all our police departments and the State DA protested the DoT's "Drink. Drive. Go to Jail." ad campaign, as it might reduce the amount of drinking and driving arrests they are able to make.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen.
I meant, that's why the court house, with assistance by the local PD, hosts MADD meetings within the building to "scare people sober" with horrific stories of drunk driving accidents.
No, wait, that makes no sense.
I'll think of something, I'm sure of it.
Dude, if there's some kind of apocalypse, I kindly ask you to please share your pot.
But he only tunes in after the last commercial break, where they summarize their laughable "evidence".
I've never actually watched the show, but I highly enjoyed his impression of them playing back the recording they made (with the gain all the way up, of course, because ghosts are quiet). Presses play: "Zrgthvrbhk" "Did you hear that? It said 'Get out!'" Plays it again: "Zrbhthrbark" -- "See? 'Get out!'"
It apparently adds a lot to the humor value that the people in the show seem so earnest about it all.
It's hard to describe how much Real hate I'm overcoming in order to say: That's pretty shitty.
The show ended with a bug "fuck you" and a laugh, having never answered almost all the questions it painfully went about forcing in their face and asking.
Which was made much worse by the creators outright stating that all these mysteries had real answers, and that they would be told them. I didn't believe it and when I watched it was just to see what crazy and inexplicable stuff would happen that week. But I certainly understand why some people would take the creator's at their word -- after all, usually shows just imply they have a coherent plan when they really don't. Here, people were literally lied to. It makes sense that they'd be hostile.
Uh no if the Chinese were riffing on our stuff with this much humor -- and I'm counting unintentional humor like when ultra-low-budget Turkish filmmakers rip-off Star Trek -- I'd be cheering them on.
I love all those shows except Superjail, which I pretty much can't stand. I sometimes end up watching it anyway, and tell myself "Well, at least it isn't Assy McGee".
However if an impressionable person encounters a few other people who are willing to express their prejudices, they begin to think it's socially acceptable, and that prejudice blossoms into full scale hatred.
Yes, but the problem is that people will still express their prejudices, just more quietly. They could still find other, impressionable people. And when they do, that person will be able to say -- legitimately! -- that their views are being oppressed. That they are the victims. You've made it harder for them to connect with others, but you've also lent strength to their arguments.
I see this as self-defeating.
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence.
Why shouldn't I have? Are you assuming I have a problem with being offended in and of itself, and that my only goal is to avoid being offended? Well that assumptions is wrong and stupid.
No, what I have a problem with is ignorance, bigotry, and hate. And you don't deal with those problems by avoiding them so you can pretend they don't exist. I read your second sentence because you informed me in advance that it would be offensive, which in context of this thread, probably means full of bigotry.
Do I think it's "okay" for you to say that? No, not really. Do I think it should be allowed? Why yes, yes I do. Especially because you don't get rid of bigotry by silencing bigotry. However, do I think I, or Apple, or any other private entity is within their rights to not provide you a platform by which to say that? That they are not required to publish your thoughts? Yes, I believe that too.
The KKK is free to hold a parade in the middle of town. They are not free to hold a convention on my lawn.
So what happens if Kepler has a 144 hour "gap" in its observations because it wasn't looking at this region for that duration? (Going into safe mode requires re-orienting the spacecraft so that the solar cells get maximum power, also there may have been some issues with the reaction wheels which point the spacecraft). I'm sure their are some very smart people programming some very powerful computers to try to minimize that impact of the loss of data but I'm curious, how will this show up? Will it mean that there is a range of orbits that won't be confirmed without a fourth transit? Will this range be large? Will it be in the "habitable zone" around G type (our sun) stars?
Kepler will have an ~144 hour gap, and it's not the first one it's had either.
But keep in mind, it only misses transits that happen during that period. So the potential missed planets are ones that crossed exactly during that time, and are sufficiently far out that we won't see a 3rd transit before the mission ends.
So it sucks, but it's not a disaster. It's not like we'll miss every planet in a certain range of orbits. Only a very small fraction of them.
This will only be a significant concern if, at the end of the mission, Kepler has found few or no earth-like planets in the habitable zone, implying that they are rare, and that one or two missed planets during the down times could double the number of planets in that category.
I'm only guessing, but based on the rate at which Kepler has found every other kind of planet, I'm betting these kinds of planets aren't rare either, and it'll be sad that we potentially missed a few, but won't significantly affect the conclusions.
Well yes. Safe Mode wouldn't be very useful if you couldn't communicate with the satellite to figure out what went wrong and fix it.
Personally, my imagination was fired much more by Voyager, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and Cassini, than it ever was by the Shuttles or ISS. ISS is a worthy endeavor, I'm just saying, when I think of humans in space doing science I think that's really cool, but when I think of all these instruments studying other planets, other galaxies, expanding human knowledge of our universe, it brings tears to my eyes.
As if we would learn all we could by going to the Moon long enough to plant a flag and tool around in a buggy.
When astronauts return to the moon, it should be to check out the fully-functional habitats that were assembled robotically for them, so they can stay for an extended period of time.
All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these ½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Clear voices and tunnel "vision" are great for showing off human ingenuity (and specifically American ingenuity in the Cold War), but aren't necessarily that great for making progress. Not to knock Apollo, but seriously, what a clear voice of "We shall do [insert phenomenal but specific achievement" gets us is 10-20 years of focus on a specific task that lets us touch the place we were talking about, plant a flag, then leave with a couple samples. Great, but not what I call visionary. It was a vision, back before we had ever done it. Now it's a vision of the past.
That's why I like the current vision: Develop technologies and capabilities -- along with allowing the private sector to take over getting to LEO, which there is demand for -- so that future "visions" won't necessarily take 10 years of focused development on a one-off project.
The best part is that, assuming current development of these technologies isn't stymied by Congress' demand for a pork-rocket, when the next President comes in and cancels all the "visionary" plans, the tech will still be around, already developed.
If violence isn't solving your problems, you just aren't using enough of it!