I love this post. I honestly do. This is the poster child of the new Slashdot, where assertions replace fact, and are moded up for it. Once upon a time, ideas were exchanged here, and the flames and crap were weeded. Now it seems that crap just fertilizes more of the same.
Case in point:
"For example at the moment there is a sizable faction of the Republican party that spends its time talking about the need to start a trade war with China."
Really? Truly? Wow, I guess must be reading all the wrong newspapers etc. I have yet to encounter this idea from the current elected Republicans in congress. And it is from a SIZABLE fraction no less. How could I have missed this? It may be because I don't get most of information from Blogs, but instead rely on accountable press. Who knows?.
All I can say is in an older, more civilized Slashdot, you had to back up such spurious claims with many links to be moded up. Now, if you call Bush or America or Republicans bad, you get a seemingly automatic +2. In any case, I would love to see your source for this information. Please.
"According to the CIA world fact book China's economy is worth 7.2 trillion and is growing at 9.1%, the Us economy is worth 11.8 trillion and is growing at 4.4%. At that rate China overtakes the US in 10 years time."
As some may have learned in the dot com boom, looking at past events and drawing exponential trends tends to leave some heartache. The sky does have limit kids. If you go on to read the CIA fact book, and not just post the tidbits that make you sound smart, it says:
" China in 2004 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor......
The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (growing income disparities and rising unemployment).....> From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs....
Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north....
In short, the Chinese economy has improved over the low starting place that the great communist experiment had inflicted on its poor people. However, equalization will set in and it will face the limits/problems that the US and Europe face. Oh, and in the name of intellectual honesty, since I posted excerpts from the fact, here is the link so you can read the parts I left out, mostly to shorten the post some. They further highlight the limits.
Oh, and this is very good ad hoc attack:
"The US is currently facing the same problem that hit the British Empire. In the 1920s a bunch of politicians got into power who were really into the whole imperialism thing.."
Again, really? I watched, read, and discussed a great deal during the last election. I somehow missed the great debate on how the US should make and empire. In fact, no one even mentioned and may I suggest, even thought about becoming an Empire. Last I heard, the US still has a president who will leave office in 2008, and will not rule for life. The last I checked, the other territories that make up the fictional US empire seem to still have sovereignty, and are free to disagree with the so-called imperial US decrees. In fact, they often do, and make policies that run contrary to US wishes. For example, French seem to have this quaint notion they can do what they want, even against US interests. Not a very Roman like atmosphere, is it?
I do not wish to misinterpret the original posters intent. My understanding is that it was a justification of why China is investing so heavily into space and why it is ok if they include militarizatio
Wow, that is a great world occupied by some if 0.25 is near the price point for song. For the rest of us, we tend to pay 15 dollars for a cd, of about 10 songs, which is a $1.50 per song give or take. At a quarter a song,that is $2.50 cents for a cd, which means the editor basically wants his music for free.
It is ok to dream people, but honestly, shouldn't realistic expectations be part of the equation some where. The current offerings are about 1 dollar per song, or about $10 dollars for a cd, which is a savings to the consumer. There is a thing called fair price, afterall. I guess some are not happy until the cost reaches 0. Now, that would be nice...
The key is, that your friend is descibing the SQUADRON budget, not an RD budget. As a budgetary cost center, yes the squadron has incentive to spend what it can, or it may lose it in the future. When you look at large organizations, this is a reoccuring problem and is quite famous.
However, research budgets are much different. The budget is distributed to a large cost center, such as space elevator research program. It is then distributed into smaller chunks by a program manager, who assigns priority and checks progress. Although the manager probably will distribute all the money for the same above reasons, each indavidual project suffers from this less.
Why? Because the manager watches indavidual efforst likea @##@@@ hawk for waste, infefficiency, and graft. Ever project will have a strict time scale it needs to be completed. Every resource used must be justified. Milestones along the way must be met, or FUNDING CAN BE PULLED AT ANY POINT, and given to a competitor.
How do I know this? Unlike most on this list, I am not a Unix guy but a biodefense researcher. I have worked with DARPA, DOD, ONR etc on many occasions, and this is true for each organization. The rules applied to my University research group are the same for my collegues in industry. I have seen populations from both groups have funding cut for over-zealously budgeting or missing milestones. So, although it sounds cool to say "THE GOV IS INEFFICIENT AND WASTES TONS DOLLARS" the reality is that this happens less than you think. If you look closely, that is. But, hey, I am not cool and that is probably why I post in a news for nerds forum...:)
In the original movie, Han Solo and Greedo are in the Cantina sitting at a table together. Greedo informs Han there is a bounty on his head, and threatens his life. Han in a casual sort of way shoots Greedo before he can get a shot off. In the re-release, Lucas changed this so that mean, evil Greedo shots first, but misses, and the more honorable Solo takes him down after that.
The reason this upsets so many people is that this scene established Han Solo as an anti-hero in the movie. He was a rogue and a pragmatist. The core appeal of this character was that he was not so damn foolish as to take his chances and let someone get the first hit in, if he knew a fight was coming. Han was street smart. He would strike first to survive.
Although many on slashdot are loathe to admitt it, this was part of the charm and good writing in the first movie that created its appeal. You had classic heroes,like skywalker. Who were good, but naive and ultimately had super powers to help them do the right thing. You also had heroes like Han who would do the right thing, but get dirty doing it. Characters like Leia were somewhere in between. She was "good" but willing to lie and sacrafice others for her cause. Reality tends to reflect this, which is why the movie spoke to so many so strongly. The changing of the Greedo scene cheapened the movie and its core complexities. Hence, the hatred on these fair forums.
I am afraid that we may end up exploring later than sooner. I sad trend I have noticed is that in the engineering classes that I teach, students are showing increasing disinterest in space travel. In general, they feel it is a waste of time, non-interesting, and too dangerous. At some point, the younger generation (god, am I that old?) has made the transition from a Can Do to Can't Do nation. To me, what makes this more sad is that I am in the department of Chemical Engineering, for which the fences really are closing in on the fronteir. Really, almost all is known about fluid flow through pipes and how to make polyethelyne. I try to impress upon students that Chem. E. in space adds quite a bit of room for real, novel engineering. Afterall, current plans call for chemical plants on the moon. How does one do that? But when I survey, non-plan to work for NASA or other organizations. Sad, really.
I will blow a nice string of +5 posts on this, but here it goes since it is important....
As much as it may pain some to admit it, China really is a facist/totalitarain state. It may be trendy or cool to hate the Bush admin or US bash, but at the end of the day, it is a democracy, people do have a free voice, and by any rational measure, it is not totalitarian or facist. If you don't agree, then please go to China, become a citizen, and post anti-Chinese statements everywhere you can. When you are finished, please write back and tell about real totalinarism from the comfort of prison cell, if you are still alive. Disagree? Ask someone who practices falun gong about voicing different opinions. Or, is it easier to behave like a child? Rational people can disagree with out hyperbole.
We should cooperate with when we can, and especially with the other great free counties, such as those found in Europe.. But when dictors become greater than you, it is not a happy day for civilization.
-My two cents,
-Iowa
The physics says...
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
When you look at the euqations for the optical properties of metals, all of them do well in reflecting long wavelength light (such as IR or microwave) with near perfection. Foil hat would work great.
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.:)
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
As an educator, I see a nightmare if this technology goes mainstream. Kids will send messages through calculators, which is bad enough. How the hell would you stop this?
What amazes me is that we never seem to learn. As a scientist, I see this scenerio played out over and over. Someone discovers something new and kinda cool. Then, in the ferver of excitement that follows, the sun, moon and stars are promised. Much activity occurs. Some progress is made. Real work gets done. But, at the end of the day, we have no sun, moon, and stars.
Carbon nanotubes are an interesting discovery, but making them in adundance is non-trivial. Forming them into useful macro structures is also not well understood, to put it mildly. I hate to break it to you, but there will be no space elevator, at least any time soon.
This irrational exuberance of science tends to hurt more than help. Becuase when someone promises the world and then doesn't deliver. It hurts the entire discipline in the way of funding cuts by politicians who feel burned for beleiving the hype. Just some perspective.
It always saddens me to see posts like this get continually modded up so high. Sure, it sounds good because we all like to think of a kindergarten world where life is simpler. You know, the type of place where mom was in the kitchen baking goodies and keeping a watchful eye so we were all nice safe and secure. In this vision, people are all good and like to share. There is plenty for everyone, and there is never, ever a reason to fight.
But then we grow up. we realize the world is complicated. There are bills to pay. Some DO have more than others. Most don't like to share, since they will have less. Worse, there are even bullies who will do more than just throw mud. As an adult, you study history, and supposedly learn that people really aren't all that nice to each other, most of the time. Some people even kill each other. The reasons very. Sometimes it is for simple ideas like power to control another. Usually, the reasons are more complex, spanning from wealth to philosophy. As an adult, you find that world really is complicated, and does not boil down to simple reasons.
Since we are all basically lazy, it would be so much nicer if wars and arguements and other such things had simple roots such as, just that one rich guy wants to be richer. Complicated situations mean complicated answers. When you investigate the cause of things, and think about, I mean really think about, not just nibble on all the sound bites, it turns out that events have a lot of reasons behind them. That, arguements that seem so very black and white when viewed in a microcosim, look less sure when viewed as a part of the greater whole.
I am sure the average reader of these forums, knows and believes these things. But sometimes, in the rush to judge, or form opinions, we type from the heart and not the head. So, it may sound good to say, "I am angry because those in power like to destroy than build." And our instinct is to say, "right on, we should do that." But, as thinking adults we get past this and realize that security is a real issue. The playground is not very safe. Other kids may want to take what you have, in fact, they may even kill you because you have it.
So please, please remember the only reason that we can even have this dialogue is because a few nations were strong enough to provide enough stability to allow a good fraction of the world to be calm. In fact, the only times in history where knowledge, philosophy, and discovery have flourished was under the aegis of a strong nation or empire. History also teaches that every time this strength fades, these periods of reason get swept aside like so much pretty glass in a huricane. In this context, you may want to rethink simple minded suggestions that only science and exploration is worth funding by a society. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for. Do you feel the storm coming?
Barbarism has existed since time immortal. I understand how you can have tose feelings. But, having children involved is something new, or at least, uncommon. Horrible weapons have existed for a long time, but the use of them has gone up drammatically in last 100 years.
Considering that murder rates are up, teen pregnancy is up, crime is up, etc. they (grandma) may have had a point. By most measures, society is more course. It is more violent. It is more immoral. We don't want to face it, and tend to laugh it off, but, if you think of it...
For example, when you read Dracula, written the reason it was so spectacular and horrified people was because he murdered, something not written about much at the time. Now, the average 8 year old commits it 10,000 times a year, digitally, and we wonder how somethign like columbine happens.
Let me see, by acting, you mean the ability to adopt a personality not your own, and convey a range of emotions and expression that convince the audience that you are that other person? Then consider this, everyone new who Gandalf was, and had a mental image of him. At any point, did you scream, God, that is not Gandalf? The genius of McKellen was that he took a character who was well known and flawlessly concinced us he was real. Can you comprehend what an increadible feat that was? Do you honestly think, any one could have pulled it off? Flash, Mr. K. Reeves as Gandalf.
I have seen the other movies. To me, Sean Penn played an interesting character, but he was still Sean Penn as he is in most movies. Over-acting and political correct lines are not good acting.
Thanks for sharing this sight. This list is more in tune with my percieved reality of the excitement generated by the movie at the time. I liked spider, but everyone saw ET and there were lines people would stand in for days for the original star wars movies. I think the rising ticket prices has masked a lot of things. Damn lies and all that...
I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.
By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.
Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.
Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.
Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
I read a time magazine article recently about Pixar/Dsney. They had a chart showing profits of last 5 films for each company. The long and the short of it is that finding nemo made as much as the last five Disney combined. Only Lilo and Stitch was even close to making the amount of the average Pixat flick, so yeah, I think this is a smart move by Jobs.
No one has yet to mention that as games shifted from the "old school" to the modern fight/race paradigm, the arcades became less popular. These games appeal greatly to a few, but not to most.
It is not just from consoles either, since the atari and nintendo was there in the zenith. I think it is the fact that games have become more about graphics (flash) than playability.
Though days later, and probably never read, I will respond to this, since you sir, are an obnoxious twit. Your arguments have no factual basis, and are rooted in shear emmotion.
For example, when you say, "you only think the space station... is less international..." you imply that is not the case. This is pure emmotion, no fact. What I (correctly) said was that the space station is mostly a US effort backed by hyper links to money and facts. You offer nothing. So, let me put it in simplier terms:
NASA may think the ISS is a mostly US venture, because by all objective measures, it is.
You may find it annoying, but offer up facts to contrary if you are going to argue.
I understand the difference between great deal of credit and sole. Do you? Was there any specific statement in the original post that implied otherwise. Or, do you like to just have nice sounding attacks with out facts?
When you counter my statement about many in the US by stamping your feet on the ground and crying, IS NOT! Well, gee, that is really smart and provacative. It comes down to he said, she said. Personally, I know and socalize with people ranging from accademics to store clerks, and in many states of the union. They understand the multi nation nature of WWII. Perhaps, you surround yourself with stupid people. Come to think of it, based upon your random assertions and use of no concrete evidence to fit a reality that does not exist, I will guess that the company you keep is indeed no smarter than you and would have some misconceptions about the world. So sad.
In this battle of wits, you have shown up naked and baseless. Until you can back up any statement with something more than your trivial opinion, perhaps you should spend more time reading and not posting...
-Iowa
Ps. To the other guy who replied. Read the post slower and understand. Russia was able to beat back the German agression because they were figthing a two(three) front war. THe US and UK were coming up through Italy and France. This caused many units to be diverted. The UK did not have the resources to invade by themselves, so the US intervention was required. The other end of the post, which does require some reading comprehension, is that without the USSR fighting valiantly, the Germans would have had an even stiffer defense in preparation and the US/UK nvansion would have likely failed. See, they all played a major role...
I never understand why ecconomists are so respected. It seems to me that only they and weathermen can be that inaccurate and still employed. For example, when was the last time you saw a ecconomic crisis predicted beforehand? Oh, after the @!## hits the fan, the ecconos come out and say, of course it is becuase of this. But, honestly, I can stick my head out and know it is raining. Only forsight is useful...
You mean, like your high school math teacher, who makes about that? So yes, many people do feel that is a normal amount of money for a 4 year degree. I won't even get into nursing etc. Just a thought.
This appears to be the only stable job as the US decides to ecconomically hermorage itself into the third world. In this job, you would facilitate large coorporations to move employment over seas. Of course, someday you would lose your job once there is nothing left to outsource, but, hey, atleast you would be last.
By joint mission, you are perhaps refering to the fact that the US shoulders ~85% of the cost compared to the European 8.3. Interestingly, the GDP of the US is 10.45 trillioncompared to a European 11.52 trillion (this is a bit of overestimate for member space nations, but not 80% off). So, yes, in some bizzare way the American media has come to conclusion that the ISS is mostly a NASA success.
Living in the US and talking to many people, I can tell you that few take complete credit for winning WWII. The general opinion is that it was the US, Russia, and England were the important players. If you believe resisting invasion for ~14 days should mean getting credit, then we will have to just agree to disagree. Victory in the war in the Pacific was pretty much a United States effort. In Europe, Russia and England showed amazing heroics holding out, but were in little danger of ultimately overrunning Germany by itself. (Keep in mind that although Russia did stage an impressive counter attack after stalingrad, this was possible in large part because a two (3) front war existed. Take away the US/British fronts and...) However, it was the massive influx of men and material from the US that in the end saved the day. So, yes we somehow believe that the US deserves a great deal of credit for the war. To me, this is not too far off base.
The assumption that the entire federal government lays paralyzed while this hot issue is debated is absurd and frankly simple minded. I find it amazing that in a discussion list full of IT people fail to realize the importance of standardization. At first glance it may seem trivial, but having all government docs in the same font and formet saves time and energy and layout. It also projects a constistant image, which is more professional. In addition, if font type and size were not controlled, then US government docs could be posted in dingbats, chancery, or 8 point font depending on the whim of a random bureaucrat. Rules are what holds a large organization together. At face value, it may seem silly, but underneath it can streamline processes.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this post. I honestly do. This is the poster child of the new Slashdot, where assertions replace fact, and are moded up for it. Once upon a time, ideas were exchanged here, and the flames and crap were weeded. Now it seems that crap just fertilizes more of the same.
.....
....>
Case in point:
"For example at the moment there is a sizable faction of the Republican party that spends its time talking about the need to start a trade war with China."
Really? Truly? Wow, I guess must be reading all the wrong newspapers etc. I have yet to encounter this idea from the current elected Republicans in congress. And it is from a SIZABLE fraction no less. How could I have missed this? It may be because I don't get most of information from Blogs, but instead rely on accountable press. Who knows?.
All I can say is in an older, more civilized Slashdot, you had to back up such spurious claims with many links to be moded up. Now, if you call Bush or America or Republicans bad, you get a seemingly automatic +2. In any case, I would love to see your source for this information. Please.
"According to the CIA world fact book China's economy is worth 7.2 trillion and is growing at 9.1%, the Us economy is worth 11.8 trillion and is growing at 4.4%. At that rate China overtakes the US in 10 years time."
As some may have learned in the dot com boom, looking at past events and drawing exponential trends tends to leave some heartache. The sky does have limit kids. If you go on to read the CIA fact book, and not just post the tidbits that make you sound smart, it says:
" China in 2004 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor.
The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (growing income disparities and rising unemployment).
From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs....
Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north....
In short, the Chinese economy has improved over the low starting place that the great communist experiment had inflicted on its poor people. However, equalization will set in and it will face the limits/problems that the US and Europe face. Oh, and in the name of intellectual honesty, since I posted excerpts from the fact, here is the link so you can read the parts I left out, mostly to shorten the post some. They further highlight the limits.
Oh, and this is very good ad hoc attack:
"The US is currently facing the same problem that hit the British Empire. In the 1920s a bunch of politicians got into power who were really into the whole imperialism thing.."
Again, really? I watched, read, and discussed a great deal during the last election. I somehow missed the great debate on how the US should make and empire. In fact, no one even mentioned and may I suggest, even thought about becoming an Empire. Last I heard, the US still has a president who will leave office in 2008, and will not rule for life. The last I checked, the other territories that make up the fictional US empire seem to still have sovereignty, and are free to disagree with the so-called imperial US decrees. In fact, they often do, and make policies that run contrary to US wishes. For example, French seem to have this quaint notion they can do what they want, even against US interests. Not a very Roman like atmosphere, is it?
I do not wish to misinterpret the original posters intent. My understanding is that it was a justification of why China is investing so heavily into space and why it is ok if they include militarizatio
Wow, that is a great world occupied by some if 0.25 is near the price point for song. For the rest of us, we tend to pay 15 dollars for a cd, of about 10 songs, which is a $1.50 per song give or take. At a quarter a song,that is $2.50 cents for a cd, which means the editor basically wants his music for free.
It is ok to dream people, but honestly, shouldn't realistic expectations be part of the equation some where. The current offerings are about 1 dollar per song, or about $10 dollars for a cd, which is a savings to the consumer. There is a thing called fair price, afterall. I guess some are not happy until the cost reaches 0. Now, that would be nice...
My two cents,
-Iowa
The key is, that your friend is descibing the SQUADRON budget, not an RD budget. As a budgetary cost center, yes the squadron has incentive to spend what it can, or it may lose it in the future. When you look at large organizations, this is a reoccuring problem and is quite famous.
:)
However, research budgets are much different. The budget is distributed to a large cost center, such as space elevator research program. It is then distributed into smaller chunks by a program manager, who assigns priority and checks progress. Although the manager probably will distribute all the money for the same above reasons, each indavidual project suffers from this less.
Why? Because the manager watches indavidual efforst likea @##@@@ hawk for waste, infefficiency, and graft. Ever project will have a strict time scale it needs to be completed. Every resource used must be justified. Milestones along the way must be met, or FUNDING CAN BE PULLED AT ANY POINT, and given to a competitor.
How do I know this? Unlike most on this list, I am not a Unix guy but a biodefense researcher. I have worked with DARPA, DOD, ONR etc on many occasions, and this is true for each organization. The rules applied to my University research group are the same for my collegues in industry. I have seen populations from both groups have funding cut for over-zealously budgeting or missing milestones. So, although it sounds cool to say "THE GOV IS INEFFICIENT AND WASTES TONS DOLLARS" the reality is that this happens less than you think. If you look closely, that is. But, hey, I am not cool and that is probably why I post in a news for nerds forum...
My two cents
-Iowa
In the original movie, Han Solo and Greedo are in the Cantina sitting at a table together. Greedo informs Han there is a bounty on his head, and threatens his life. Han in a casual sort of way shoots Greedo before he can get a shot off. In the re-release, Lucas changed this so that mean, evil Greedo shots first, but misses, and the more honorable Solo takes him down after that.
The reason this upsets so many people is that this scene established Han Solo as an anti-hero in the movie. He was a rogue and a pragmatist. The core appeal of this character was that he was not so damn foolish as to take his chances and let someone get the first hit in, if he knew a fight was coming. Han was street smart. He would strike first to survive.
Although many on slashdot are loathe to admitt it, this was part of the charm and good writing in the first movie that created its appeal. You had classic heroes,like skywalker. Who were good, but naive and ultimately had super powers to help them do the right thing. You also had heroes like Han who would do the right thing, but get dirty doing it. Characters like Leia were somewhere in between. She was "good" but willing to lie and sacrafice others for her cause. Reality tends to reflect this, which is why the movie spoke to so many so strongly. The changing of the Greedo scene cheapened the movie and its core complexities. Hence, the hatred on these fair forums.
my two cents,
-Iowa
If someone recited Shakespeare at Kirk, he would kick the crap outa em alla star trek VI style. Or, as summarized by one of my favorite Kirk lines:
"Diamonds, rubies, emeralds. I would trade them all for a hand phaser or a good stout club."
You da man, Kirk. You da man!
-Iowa
I am afraid that we may end up exploring later than sooner. I sad trend I have noticed is that in the engineering classes that I teach, students are showing increasing disinterest in space travel. In general, they feel it is a waste of time, non-interesting, and too dangerous. At some point, the younger generation (god, am I that old?) has made the transition from a Can Do to Can't Do nation. To me, what makes this more sad is that I am in the department of Chemical Engineering, for which the fences really are closing in on the fronteir. Really, almost all is known about fluid flow through pipes and how to make polyethelyne. I try to impress upon students that Chem. E. in space adds quite a bit of room for real, novel engineering. Afterall, current plans call for chemical plants on the moon. How does one do that? But when I survey, non-plan to work for NASA or other organizations. Sad, really.
My two cents
-Iowa
I will blow a nice string of +5 posts on this, but here it goes since it is important....
/totalitarain state. It may be trendy or cool to hate the Bush admin or US bash, but at the end of the day, it is a democracy, people do have a free voice, and by any rational measure, it is not totalitarian or facist. If you don't agree, then please go to China, become a citizen, and post anti-Chinese statements everywhere you can. When you are finished, please write back and tell about real totalinarism from the comfort of prison cell, if you are still alive. Disagree? Ask someone who practices falun gong about voicing different opinions. Or, is it easier to behave like a child? Rational people can disagree with out hyperbole.
As much as it may pain some to admit it, China really is a facist
We should cooperate with when we can, and especially with the other great free counties, such as those found in Europe.. But when dictors become greater than you, it is not a happy day for civilization.
-My two cents, -Iowa
When you look at the euqations for the optical properties of metals, all of them do well in reflecting long wavelength light (such as IR or microwave) with near perfection. Foil hat would work great.
:)
Furthermore, there is only a narrow window where IR light can penetrate into the atmosphere, where water does not adsorb. Condsidering that any fear you have of IR is that the water in your body will get heated, this makes such a weapon silly. If you ignore the window, you have a very notrivial amount of humid atmosphere to do the job for you. Especially if like me, you live in Houston.
I hate to let facts get in the way of fantasy, but thought you would want to know.
My two cents
-Iowa
As an educator, I see a nightmare if this technology goes mainstream. Kids will send messages through calculators, which is bad enough. How the hell would you stop this?
-Iowa
What amazes me is that we never seem to learn. As a scientist, I see this scenerio played out over and over. Someone discovers something new and kinda cool. Then, in the ferver of excitement that follows, the sun, moon and stars are promised. Much activity occurs. Some progress is made. Real work gets done. But, at the end of the day, we have no sun, moon, and stars.
Carbon nanotubes are an interesting discovery, but making them in adundance is non-trivial. Forming them into useful macro structures is also not well understood, to put it mildly. I hate to break it to you, but there will be no space elevator, at least any time soon.
This irrational exuberance of science tends to hurt more than help. Becuase when someone promises the world and then doesn't deliver. It hurts the entire discipline in the way of funding cuts by politicians who feel burned for beleiving the hype. Just some perspective.
My two cents,
-Iowa
It always saddens me to see posts like this get continually modded up so high. Sure, it sounds good because we all like to think of a kindergarten world where life is simpler. You know, the type of place where mom was in the kitchen baking goodies and keeping a watchful eye so we were all nice safe and secure. In this vision, people are all good and like to share. There is plenty for everyone, and there is never, ever a reason to fight.
But then we grow up. we realize the world is complicated. There are bills to pay. Some DO have more than others. Most don't like to share, since they will have less. Worse, there are even bullies who will do more than just throw mud. As an adult, you study history, and supposedly learn that people really aren't all that nice to each other, most of the time. Some people even kill each other. The reasons very. Sometimes it is for simple ideas like power to control another. Usually, the reasons are more complex, spanning from wealth to philosophy. As an adult, you find that world really is complicated, and does not boil down to simple reasons.
Since we are all basically lazy, it would be so much nicer if wars and arguements and other such things had simple roots such as, just that one rich guy wants to be richer. Complicated situations mean complicated answers. When you investigate the cause of things, and think about, I mean really think about, not just nibble on all the sound bites, it turns out that events have a lot of reasons behind them. That, arguements that seem so very black and white when viewed in a microcosim, look less sure when viewed as a part of the greater whole.
I am sure the average reader of these forums, knows and believes these things. But sometimes, in the rush to judge, or form opinions, we type from the heart and not the head. So, it may sound good to say, "I am angry because those in power like to destroy than build." And our instinct is to say, "right on, we should do that." But, as thinking adults we get past this and realize that security is a real issue. The playground is not very safe. Other kids may want to take what you have, in fact, they may even kill you because you have it.
So please, please remember the only reason that we can even have this dialogue is because a few nations were strong enough to provide enough stability to allow a good fraction of the world to be calm. In fact, the only times in history where knowledge, philosophy, and discovery have flourished was under the aegis of a strong nation or empire. History also teaches that every time this strength fades, these periods of reason get swept aside like so much pretty glass in a huricane. In this context, you may want to rethink simple minded suggestions that only science and exploration is worth funding by a society. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for. Do you feel the storm coming?
My two cents,
-Iowa
Barbarism has existed since time immortal. I understand how you can have tose feelings. But, having children involved is something new, or at least, uncommon. Horrible weapons have existed for a long time, but the use of them has gone up drammatically in last 100 years.
Considering that murder rates are up, teen pregnancy is up, crime is up, etc. they (grandma) may have had a point. By most measures, society is more course. It is more violent. It is more immoral. We don't want to face it, and tend to laugh it off, but, if you think of it...
For example, when you read Dracula, written the reason it was so spectacular and horrified people was because he murdered, something not written about much at the time. Now, the average 8 year old commits it 10,000 times a year, digitally, and we wonder how somethign like columbine happens.
My two cents,
-Iowa
Let me see, by acting, you mean the ability to adopt a personality not your own, and convey a range of emotions and expression that convince the audience that you are that other person? Then consider this, everyone new who Gandalf was, and had a mental image of him. At any point, did you scream, God, that is not Gandalf? The genius of McKellen was that he took a character who was well known and flawlessly concinced us he was real. Can you comprehend what an increadible feat that was? Do you honestly think, any one could have pulled it off? Flash, Mr. K. Reeves as Gandalf.
I have seen the other movies. To me, Sean Penn played an interesting character, but he was still Sean Penn as he is in most movies. Over-acting and political correct lines are not good acting.
My two cents
-iowa
Thanks for sharing this sight. This list is more in tune with my percieved reality of the excitement generated by the movie at the time. I liked spider, but everyone saw ET and there were lines people would stand in for days for the original star wars movies. I think the rising ticket prices has masked a lot of things. Damn lies and all that...
I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.
By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.
Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.
Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.
Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
My two cents,
Iowa
I read a time magazine article recently about Pixar/Dsney. They had a chart showing profits of last 5 films for each company. The long and the short of it is that finding nemo made as much as the last five Disney combined. Only Lilo and Stitch was even close to making the amount of the average Pixat flick, so yeah, I think this is a smart move by Jobs.
No one has yet to mention that as games shifted from the "old school" to the modern fight/race paradigm, the arcades became less popular. These games appeal greatly to a few, but not to most.
It is not just from consoles either, since the atari and nintendo was there in the zenith. I think it is the fact that games have become more about graphics (flash) than playability.
Though days later, and probably never read, I will respond to this, since you sir, are an obnoxious twit. Your arguments have no factual basis, and are rooted in shear emmotion.
For example, when you say, "you only think the space station... is less international..." you imply that is not the case. This is pure emmotion, no fact. What I (correctly) said was that the space station is mostly a US effort backed by hyper links to money and facts. You offer nothing. So, let me put it in simplier terms:
NASA may think the ISS is a mostly US venture, because by all objective measures, it is.
You may find it annoying, but offer up facts to contrary if you are going to argue.
I understand the difference between great deal of credit and sole. Do you? Was there any specific statement in the original post that implied otherwise. Or, do you like to just have nice sounding attacks with out facts?
When you counter my statement about many in the US by stamping your feet on the ground and crying, IS NOT! Well, gee, that is really smart and provacative. It comes down to he said, she said. Personally, I know and socalize with people ranging from accademics to store clerks, and in many states of the union. They understand the multi nation nature of WWII. Perhaps, you surround yourself with stupid people. Come to think of it, based upon your random assertions and use of no concrete evidence to fit a reality that does not exist, I will guess that the company you keep is indeed no smarter than you and would have some misconceptions about the world. So sad.
In this battle of wits, you have shown up naked and baseless. Until you can back up any statement with something more than your trivial opinion, perhaps you should spend more time reading and not posting...
-Iowa
Ps. To the other guy who replied. Read the post slower and understand. Russia was able to beat back the German agression because they were figthing a two(three) front war. THe US and UK were coming up through Italy and France. This caused many units to be diverted. The UK did not have the resources to invade by themselves, so the US intervention was required. The other end of the post, which does require some reading comprehension, is that without the USSR fighting valiantly, the Germans would have had an even stiffer defense in preparation and the US/UK nvansion would have likely failed. See, they all played a major role...
I never understand why ecconomists are so respected. It seems to me that only they and weathermen can be that inaccurate and still employed. For example, when was the last time you saw a ecconomic crisis predicted beforehand? Oh, after the @!## hits the fan, the ecconos come out and say, of course it is becuase of this. But, honestly, I can stick my head out and know it is raining. Only forsight is useful...
My two cents,
-Iowa
You mean, like your high school math teacher, who makes about that? So yes, many people do feel that is a normal amount of money for a 4 year degree. I won't even get into nursing etc. Just a thought.
Wow, this is like a typical slashdot post, except thought out and informative. :)
This appears to be the only stable job as the US decides to ecconomically hermorage itself into the third world. In this job, you would facilitate large coorporations to move employment over seas. Of course, someday you would lose your job once there is nothing left to outsource, but, hey, atleast you would be last.
By joint mission, you are perhaps refering to the fact that the US shoulders ~85% of the cost compared to the European 8.3. Interestingly, the GDP of the US is 10.45 trillioncompared to a European 11.52 trillion (this is a bit of overestimate for member space nations, but not 80% off). So, yes, in some bizzare way the American media has come to conclusion that the ISS is mostly a NASA success.
Living in the US and talking to many people, I can tell you that few take complete credit for winning WWII. The general opinion is that it was the US, Russia, and England were the important players. If you believe resisting invasion for ~14 days should mean getting credit, then we will have to just agree to disagree. Victory in the war in the Pacific was pretty much a United States effort. In Europe, Russia and England showed amazing heroics holding out, but were in little danger of ultimately overrunning Germany by itself. (Keep in mind that although Russia did stage an impressive counter attack after stalingrad, this was possible in large part because a two (3) front war existed. Take away the US/British fronts and...) However, it was the massive influx of men and material from the US that in the end saved the day. So, yes we somehow believe that the US deserves a great deal of credit for the war. To me, this is not too far off base.
The assumption that the entire federal government lays paralyzed while this hot issue is debated is absurd and frankly simple minded. I find it amazing that in a discussion list full of IT people fail to realize the importance of standardization. At first glance it may seem trivial, but having all government docs in the same font and formet saves time and energy and layout. It also projects a constistant image, which is more professional. In addition, if font type and size were not controlled, then US government docs could be posted in dingbats, chancery, or 8 point font depending on the whim of a random bureaucrat. Rules are what holds a large organization together. At face value, it may seem silly, but underneath it can streamline processes.
My two cents,
Iowa