Yes, even though the Bucaneers won, to the dismay of the rest of my family who watch the Superbowl, it was worth sitting through just for the trailers.
Fantastic Lad, I've been reading your posts for quite some time, and I haven't yet decided whether you are a talented troll, or utterly sincere, or some combination thereof. I'm going to throw caution to the wind and treat you as if you were serious.
First of all, regarding faith. We all take some matters on faith. It is pragmatic to do so; if I didn't have faith that I would reach the other side of the road when I commenced crossing it, then I would never venture forth. I accept on faith that Benjamin Franklin existed, as I can conceive of no reasonable advantage that anyone would gain by having fabricated his existance, and I have no acutely compelling reason to disbelieve. I accept on faith that the sun rose yesterday, even though I did not observe it, for the simple reason that I have no model of the universe which would have allowed it not to rise and all of us still be alive. In every one of these particulars, I could be wrong, of course, but I have no reason, at this point, to question those things that I accepted on faith.
This leniency (laziness?) doesn't apply to every belief. I met a man on IRC who insisted that he was Jesus Christ, and he may have been, but I had no pragmatic or evidentiary reason to believe him, so I remained,and remain, skeptical. I don't believe that Joseph Smith was ever directed to golden plates, or that lotus blossoms sprouted in Sidhartha's footsteps. These things possibly occurred, but I am not willing to accept them on faith.
In short, if I accept something without concrete evidence, it must be logical for me to do so, and not contradict other beliefs which I have about the universe. I will discard any belief, without exception, if my current beliefs can no longer be supported. Indeed, I have done so several times in my life.
I'm 42 years old, and I've never read a single scrap of evidence which convinced me that anything paranormal/supernatural/extra-physical has ever happened at any time or place in the world. I don't believe in U.F.O.'s (read: that crafts piloted by E.T's have ever visited our planet), the Loch Ness monster, spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, any claims of spiritualism, the afterlife, the soul, channeling, crystal healing - I am skeptical of it all.
It might all be true, however. I would like huge dollops of it to be true, because life would certainly be more interesting if it was.
I don't believe that Jesus ever turned water into wine. I don't believe that the founder of the Shakers, Ann Lee, was the second coming of Christ, that Krishna ever walked the earth, that... well, you get the idea.
Again, maybe I should have faith. But in what? Things that I have arbitrarily chosen, that tickle my fancy? I'm not interested in deceiving myself. I'd like to find the truth, or as close an approximation of it as my brain can manage.
I formerly believed in a phenomenon called speaking in tongues. I spoke in tongues, or at least believed that I did. I believe now I was deluding myself. If you had asked me then, I would have reported that I absolutely KNEW that what I believed was true. Knowledge is a belief about which you are certain until it is replaced by another belief.
Revelation as a source of knowledge doesn't work for me. This eliminates prayer or staring deep within a hypothesized soul or anything else which has, IMHO, a fairly large percentage chance of being wishful-thinking.
Christians KNOW that Jesus died for their sins. Indian Sadhu's will sit with piles of shit on their head, for years, KNOWING that it brings them closer to their God[s]. Raelains KNOW that Claude Vorilhon is telling them the truth. Scientologists KNOW the same about L. Ron Hubbard.
My problem? My worldview doesn't stretch far enough for all of these things to be true.
Roman Catholics believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, has appeared occasionally and left messages to the faithful. Maybe she has appeared: she has been seen by millions of people. Still, I don't think it is unreasonable of me to have my doubts.
I want to believe. Show me a Loch Ness monster washed up on shore. Show me Dan Rather interviewing an alien. Show me anything that constitutes real proof - physical evidence that as a non-metallurgist/biologist/botanist I can determine is probably not of this world. Introduce me to a channel or a psychic who indisputably knows something that should be impossible for them to know (what do I have in my left hand as I type this, for instance? And no, I'm not making a vulgar joke) and I'll happily believe in ten impossible things before breakfast.
Personal testimony isn't good enough, no matter how reliable the witness. Human memory and powers of observation are too fallible. Photographs are useless, especailly in this digital age. Arthur Conon Doyle believed in fairies, and he based his belief on photographic evidence. This was in 1917, and two teenage girls were the perpetrators (only confessing in 1982). Methods of deception have gotten much more sophisticated in the interim, but the credulity of the public is about the same.
I'm not looking for a preponderance of anecdotal or circumstantial evidence here; I want clear proof. If it can't be offered, then my lack of faith isn't such a bad thing, is it?
Still, I would prefer to believe. I don't need a plethora of cases. Just give me one. Not where an anomaly is merely unexplainable, but where the evidence leads inarguably to a paranormal/supernatural/extra-physical explanation. If it can't be proven with the same certainty that I can prove that milk is an ingredient in cheese, then I'm not interested.
I've already identified the types of things I will believe on faith, and I've probably missed a couple. Basically, if I have a pragmatic reason for believing, and no substantive reason for disbelieving, and no credible alternative, I'll accept the most logical explanation before entertaining more fantastic explanations.
So show me! I want to believe in something incredible, and I'm not particular what it is! Upset my paradigm, please!
You're right - you really don't understand. Yes, free fonts are available from multiple places, but most of them are shite.
Lousy font rendering/choice is one of the last major hurdles in Linux desktop adoption. It stymied me until last year, when Redhat 8 made the Linux desktop viewable without me wanting to chunder.
Rather than regurgitating the lists of my favorite, been-around-for-a-long-time authors, I'll actually attempt to answer the question that you asked.
To wit, here are my suggestions for new SF/Fantasy authors for you to peruse:
1. China Mieville 2. Robin Hobb 3. Jim Butcher 4. Philip Pullman 5. Garth Nix
Not all of the authors listed above are new in the sense that they started writing/publishing yesterday, but their important works have all been published within the last decade.
China Mieville's Perdido Street Station is brilliant, as is its follow-up novel, The Scar. The novel Perdido Street Station was published in 2001, and The Scar in 2002.
Robin Hobb previously published as Megan Lindholm, but achieved no real success until The Farseer Trilogy in 1996.
Jim Butcher writes in the vein that Laurell K. Hamilton pioneered, which is a recommendation for Laurel K. Hamilton fans. I used to like Hamilton, but now her books are indistinguishable from erotica. Butcher is her better replacement.
Philip Pullman has been writing for quite a long while, and he makes Rowling look like warmed-over shite, but he is largely unknown outside of England. I consider him "newish." Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials is astounding.
Garth Nix writes fairly literary fantasy for Young Adults, and I recommend his Sabriel and Liriel highly.
I do live in the US, actually, though I haven't always. However, the supermarket where I primarily shop doesn't hire baggers; the customer bags his or her own groceries. It is least expensive grocery store in town, prolly because of this sort of money-saving feature.
There is no contradiction here - there are always exceptions (which is perhaps the only category of truth guaranteed not to have an exception). I don't personally find it necessary to belabor this rather obvious point every time I make a generalization. The generalization is still true: a cell phone isn't a necessity, it is a convenience.
I could add "UNLESS.." but this would be belaboring the point.:-)
Sorry, no. Cell phones haven't existed for that long, and somehow people managed without them before their invention. They aren't a necessity, yet, for anybody, they are a convenience.
My teenage daughter has a cell phone, and I certainly rest easier knowing that she can call me at any time, day or night, regardless of her location, but she, like the millions of young women before her, could live without one. Many are the times that her cell phone has come in handy, but a necessity it is not.
A cell phone is like any other appliance: once you condition yourself to its use, you can't imagine not having one, but somehow you managed before, and could manage again. So the fat woman at the grocery store who just has to gossip with her friend while trying to write a check and neglecting to bag her groceries, the cell phone might be vital for her social life, but a pain in the ass for all of us who wait behind her.
Re:Congratulations Mr. Marthouse, You've Invented.
on
The End of Solotrek
·
· Score: 2
I caught a train in to work on a regular basis for over a year. I arrived at the station, boarded the train, and paid the conductor when he came to issue my ticket.
What part of that scenario was inconvenient? I required no insurance, had no vehicle maintenance costs, no car payment, no fuel costs, never had to look for a parking place (I lived a 10 minute walk from the station), and I got to read the newspaper over a cup of tea and a biscuit during the trip. I could even nap on my way to work, if I desired (and sometimes did).
I love commuting by train. I don't need to commute at all now (I live a 15 minute walk from work), but I would certainly take the train for trips into the next town if it were available, and said town is only eight miles away. I hate the inconvenience of a car, a sinkhole for money, on wheels.
But I guess we all have our own definitions of convenience, right?
Okay, when it's raining and cold, and I want to rent a video at 10:30pm because I can't sleep, a car is fantastic. I'll acknowledge they do have their uses. I don't have a washer or dryer, and I take the car to the laundromat. Grocery shopping is easier with a car. But those are all near-destinations; for commuting, which by defintion means that your destination is not local, a train is ideal. Different tools for different uses.
How I long for the convenience of train service when I need to drive the 350+ miles to Seattle...
...sounds like you seem to think that releasing source code is somehow a loss for the person who wrote it.
That is what it sounds like, but I think he meant that such a donation doesn't help the bereft, at least not monetarily. William Scarboro is dead; he is beyond benefiting. If he were alive, I expect that the continued financial health of his family would be more important to him than his posthumous contributions under the GPL, however praiseworthy that may be.
First, the genre "science fiction" hasn't been adequately defined to determine what might make a particular science fiction universe the "best." Second, I would argue that a science fiction film is a different creature from a science fiction novel, and what makes one "best" is not necessarily what makes the other "best." Lastly, "best" hasn't been defined: is it really different strokes for different folks? Is Manimal really as good as Blade Runner because Viewer X thinks that it is? Or are we using some other criteria?
I can define science fiction easily by giving examples of what it is and isn't. Dune and Stranger in a Strange Land and Blade Runner are science fiction. Yes, I know that I'm mixing medias. But some quality binds them into the same genre. I'm not prepared to say what that is - if I did, a dozen people would disagree with me, perhaps all with valid reasons. Still, although a consensus proves nothing, most would probably agree that the three works I mentioned are science fiction.
Now, IMHO, Star Wars isn't science fiction. It looks like science fiction, it uses the apparatus of science fiction, but I would personally label it fantasy and not science fiction. I expect many to disagree, but that okay. It just helps to illustrate the problem of defining anything.
As for the differences between science fictions films and books, that's again subjective. I am not an eye candy person. I love eye candy, but if the rest of the film is lacking no amount of eye candy can redeem it. Give me shitty or non-existant F/X any day, but as long as the acting and the direction/writing are good, I'm happy. Some people are exactly the opposite.
IMHO, good/enjoyable science fiction films:
Blade Runner A Clockworge Orange The Day the Earth Stood Still Terminator Robocop THX 1138 Metropolis Scanners The Matrix The Thirteenth Floor eXistenZ
IMHO, bad science fiction films:
Tron The Black Hole Battlestar Galactica The Abyss Total Recall Robocop 2
I didn't include any of the Star Wars pictures in the second list because I do not categotize them as science fiction. Also, there are many films missing from both lists.
As for science fiction literature, do you read for story or for shimmering prose? I'm a shimmering prose man. I prefer that a novel has a good story, but I can happily read 800 pages about licking postage stamps if it is told well, versus 25 pages of the most fascinating tale, poorly written.
IMHO, good/enjoyable science fiction authors:
Gene Wolfe Robert Silverberg Sheri S. Tepper James Morrow William Gibson Bruce Sterling
IMHO, bad science fiction authors:
Marion Zimmer Bradley Alan Dean Foster Piers Anthony R.A. Salvatore Christopher Stasheff
There are many books missing from both lists. I've also noticed that some fantasy authors slipped onto my second list. Whoops. I guess that's because I find that science fiction tends to be better written than fantasy. Sorry about the inconsistency.
The best science fiction universes for me are those universes that are so involved and with philosophical questions posed that are so complex that I, as a viewer/reader, am left in a state of pondering wonder for years after the film/book has been digested. I saw Blade Runner 20 years ago, and I still can spend a satisfying evening debating it in my mind, or over coffee with friends.
That's my answer. Your answer may differ. If we re-phrase the question, and ask what makes a particular science fiction universe the most saleable, then we should probably ask George Lucas, as he seems to have figured out the answer.
I don't think the whole affair is about "the right to cheat". To me it is about poorly implemented anti-cheating measures.
Contradicts this:
It's simply impossible to create a waterproof client.... which appears in the same paragraph. If a waterproof client in impossible to create, then "poorly implemented anti-cheating measures" have nothing to do with the failure of the programmers to keep out the cheaters.
However, your argument doesn't work, at any rate. Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars on a lock (or thousands of dollars developing a lock) to keep out scum? A lock should only be required to keep out casual thieves - the "accidental" thieves. Those thieves who some flaw in their nature can't resist the theft if it is too easy. If the keys are left in the car, etc. No, I'm not excusing that behavior, but it is moderately understandable.
But the hardcore thieves, and the hardcore cheaters, are human excrement. No excuse exists for their behavior.
It is because of these fuckheads that we will one day live in a totalitarian state: the powers that be will deprive all of us of our basic rights because talented and bored assholes exercise their "rights" to snoop on other peoples servers.
There is only one point in which I concur with your review (or, rather, your weak synopsis), and that is in your derision towards the invisible car. The invisible car was laughable. Or groanable.
Oh, two points: Solaris *is* worth a few more words.
Comparisons will be made to 2001 and Apocalypse Now, two other slow-moving, philosophical movies.
Such comparisons might be made by a dimwit, but not by anyone who paid attention.
[I]t's [Solaris is] a trivial love story, told many times before.
First, Solaris is not a trivial love story. Second, are there any love stories which cannot be dismissed with those words?
...and the sci-fi twist is not enough to save it, IMHO.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, humble or otherwise, but I would hardly call a philosophical problem as profound as Lem investigated in this story to be a "twist." This is not an O.H. Henry or Ray Bradbury short story (and I am not denigrating either of those authors).
Overall: Solaris was a deeply satisfying movie with marvellous performances. Clooney I used to hate when he was a soap-opera pretty boy, but now that he is slighly long in tooth he chooses his films well. Three Kings, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and now Solaris - he is now an actor of some merit.
Learning to read before you post might be a good idea, don't you think?
Oh, never mind you don't think. Sorry!
I wasn't complaining about customers per se, but rather about a particular species of customer (and this species I delineated rather carefully) who cost retailers millions of dollars a year.
I don't work for a high-pressure sales emporium. We don't employ any of the tactics which you describe. I'll spend an hour trying to help you figure out whether you have a USB port, and send you to the competition if we don't stock what you need. I'll even phone the competition to make sure that they stock the item before I send you on your way.
Why am I such a nice guy? I don't know - genetics? Environment? Whatever the reason, I genuinely give a shit that you, as a customer, leave the store happy. However, there are exceptions to this, and I described those exceptions in my previous post.
Unfortunately, not fast enough, as I don't have any moderator points.
E-mail addresses can be obtained too easily to warrant any bitching. Further, generally speaking, anonymity breeds nothing but noise.
Of course, there are those chickenshits who work at McDonald's claiming that the Fortune 500 company where they are secretly a CEO (unknown to their wives or family) would disapprove of their postings... but who cares about them?
I'm not saying that privacy isn't important, and I do see that you are not posting as an Anonymous Coward, for which I salute you, but is requiring a working e-mail address really that onerous?
The last time they told me NO they looked up my history and said "You return too much stuff".
I'm sorry, but I work sales, and I have done for years, so I know from experience that most customers who "return too much stuff" aren't worth retaining as customers. Every time I wait on you, and you return an item, either because you found it cheaper mail-order, or you were really borrowing it and not buying it (this happens more frequently than you would imagine), or you bought the wrong printer cartridge because you were too fucking stupid to check what type of printer you owned before you walked into the store, or you realized that you needed to buy tickets to the football game and after returning that keyboard you have enough cash - every time you do one of those things, you cost the store money.
I get paid to sell you the item orginally, and to take it back, which is usually a longer process, so there is lost revenue. If you lie to me and tell me that it is broken, which happens all too often, then our technicians in the back waste money verifying that you are a sack of shit and it does indeed work fine, or that you spilled coffee inside it but you paid cash so we don't know who you are. If the packaging is less than pristine, we lose money again because the next customer won't pay full-price for something that is used.
Other examples: the customers who buy several cables because they don't remember whether they needed a parallel cable, a firewire cable, a USB cable, or a serial cable. But it's okay if we buy them all and return the ones that we don't need, right? I live 5 miles away. Certainly, Sir, Ma'am. Of course, the extra time and paperwork diminish our profits, but the customer is always first.
Or: Can I return this ream of paper, I've only used half of it? Or: Can I return this CPU, it's only two months out of warranty? Or the customer who buys RAM (which has a life-time warranty) at $29 for X capacity, and, if price rises to $49 for that same capacity, tries to return it it? And if they have paid cash, is often successful? Or: the customer who deliberately damages equipment just so that he can return it? Or: the customer who tries to return products that he knows he didn't buy at our store?
All of these things have happened to me on numerous occasions, so I entirely understand the need to collect customer information. We aren't selling it to anyone, and if you are so fucking paranoid that you worry about such shit all of the time, please take your business elsewhere.
Be careful: don't step into the blade of the black helicopter on your way out.
Footnote: Yes, I know restocking fees would solve many of the problems listed above, but then we would be penalizing the customers who do have legitimate cause to make a return.
The BBC is reporting that Lucas Arts is putting the Star Wars universe online this December.
I normally trust the BBC, but I think they are wrong on this occasion. According to details on Amazon.com, Star Wars Galaxies will be released on February 14, 2003.
Amtrak sucks by design. The government apathy towards the commuter rail industry is too extreme to be accidental. I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that huge payoffs are involved somewhere.
I lived in England for many years, and caught a train into London three days a week. It wasn't cheap, but the prices weren't as inflated as Amtrak (relatively speaking), and I never had to look at schedules or make reservations. I showed up at the station and a stepped aboard a train which invariably arrived (yes, sometimes it was late), purchased my ticket, read my paper, sometimes ate breakfast or enjoyed a cup of tea, and all was bliss.
Amtrak could do the same if they got anywhere near the same coddling that the airline industry receives.
Because those are laws that we create by politicians we put into office. That is the voice of the people. That is the voice of the nation.
I was born in this country, but I didn't cast any vote that made it so. As it happens, I am quite happy to have been born here; there are plenty of worse places to be from. However, the "voice of the nation" doesn't give me my rights - I was born with them. And I, like Fischer, have the right to visit any country that I want without approval of the government.
Fuck the government when through "the voice of the people" or any other instrument they try to deprive me of my rights instead of guarantee them.
Any law which does not exist to protect my rights (and the rights of my fellow-citizens) is unjust. It is nice when they can be changed through the established protocols, but this isn't always possible.
I am a largely law-abiding citizen. However, no one can tell me what I might imbibe, eat, read, write, where I might travel, or whom I may have sexual relations with, unless I am trampling on the rights of others by my actions.
1. Did you write any of the novels that bear your name, or were they ghosted? If you did "write" them, was your contribution 100%, or were there contributors?
2. I saw Disney's The Black Hole when I was a teen. I didn't see a worse film until Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which shared similarly cheesey themes. Did you direct this movie as an unconscious homage, or were the parallels deliberate?
3. Are you bothered by the homoerotic fan-fiction which flourishes on the 'net (most of it involving you and Spock)?
Hmm... Since when did a paperback weigh an entire megabyte? Few novels reach 800,000 characters let alone 1M.
First, a megabyte is not a measure of weight. Second, many novels reach 800,000 characters, assuming that by characters you mean bytes of information.
A quick scan of the Amazon bestseller lists reveal that seven out of the top twenty-five science fiction and fantasy novels easily top 800,000 characters.
...the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
This is true as far as it goes; however, it ignores the other mechanism in existence which guaranteed the livelihood of those renaissance artists whom we remember today: patronage.
Respected artists and philosophers of the renaissance didn't have to work, because some rich noble or institution supported them, or because they were already independently wealthy. I know that this doesn't apply to all artists of that era, but to a significant minority.
This also ignores another issue. Let's suppose that the RIAA, etc. didn't exist. That I produced a work of art accompanied by a license of my own composition in which I requested that you didn't distribute my creation, and deleted it from your HD after 24 hours unless you paid me $5.
Wouldn't I have the right to do that? Does an artist who chooses a digital medium automatically forfeit rights that a sculpture in bronze or clay doesn't?
I we expect the GPL to be honored, then what about the rights of artists who choose to be protected by copyright law? I mean, the RIAA aside, doesn't Metalicca have the right to choose which license they distribute their wares (not warez) under?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, even though the Bucaneers won, to the dismay of the rest of my family who watch the Superbowl, it was worth sitting through just for the trailers.
The Hulk trailer especially...
A friend of my My brother-in-law just lost 5,000 plat in Everquest on a Superbowl bet.
At least it wasn't REAL money...
I don't care who won or lost, but weren't those trailers awesome?
Fantastic Lad, I've been reading your posts for quite some time, and I haven't yet decided whether you are a talented troll, or utterly sincere, or some combination thereof. I'm going to throw caution to the wind and treat you as if you were serious.
First of all, regarding faith. We all take some matters on faith. It is pragmatic to do so; if I didn't have faith that I would reach the other side of the road when I commenced crossing it, then I would never venture forth. I accept on faith that Benjamin Franklin existed, as I can conceive of no reasonable advantage that anyone would gain by having fabricated his existance, and I have no acutely compelling reason to disbelieve. I accept on faith that the sun rose yesterday, even though I did not observe it, for the simple reason that I have no model of the universe which would have allowed it not to rise and all of us still be alive. In every one of these particulars, I could be wrong, of course, but I have no reason, at this point, to question those things that I accepted on faith.
This leniency (laziness?) doesn't apply to every belief. I met a man on IRC who insisted that he was Jesus Christ, and he may have been, but I had no pragmatic or evidentiary reason to believe him, so I remained,and remain, skeptical. I don't believe that Joseph Smith was ever directed to golden plates, or that lotus blossoms sprouted in Sidhartha's footsteps. These things possibly occurred, but I am not willing to accept them on faith.
In short, if I accept something without concrete evidence, it must be logical for me to do so, and not contradict other beliefs which I have about the universe. I will discard any belief, without exception, if my current beliefs can no longer be supported. Indeed, I have done so several times in my life.
I'm 42 years old, and I've never read a single scrap of evidence which convinced me that anything paranormal/supernatural/extra-physical has ever happened at any time or place in the world. I don't believe in U.F.O.'s (read: that crafts piloted by E.T's have ever visited our planet), the Loch Ness monster, spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, any claims of spiritualism, the afterlife, the soul, channeling, crystal healing - I am skeptical of it all.
It might all be true, however. I would like huge dollops of it to be true, because life would certainly be more interesting if it was.
I don't believe that Jesus ever turned water into wine. I don't believe that the founder of the Shakers, Ann Lee, was the second coming of Christ, that Krishna ever walked the earth, that... well, you get the idea.
Again, maybe I should have faith. But in what? Things that I have arbitrarily chosen, that tickle my fancy? I'm not interested in deceiving myself. I'd like to find the truth, or as close an approximation of it as my brain can manage.
I formerly believed in a phenomenon called speaking in tongues. I spoke in tongues, or at least believed that I did. I believe now I was deluding myself. If you had asked me then, I would have reported that I absolutely KNEW that what I believed was true. Knowledge is a belief about which you are certain until it is replaced by another belief.
Revelation as a source of knowledge doesn't work for me. This eliminates prayer or staring deep within a hypothesized soul or anything else which has, IMHO, a fairly large percentage chance of being wishful-thinking.
Christians KNOW that Jesus died for their sins. Indian Sadhu's will sit with piles of shit on their head, for years, KNOWING that it brings them closer to their God[s]. Raelains KNOW that Claude Vorilhon is telling them the truth. Scientologists KNOW the same about L. Ron Hubbard.
My problem? My worldview doesn't stretch far enough for all of these things to be true.
Roman Catholics believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, has appeared occasionally and left messages to the faithful. Maybe she has appeared: she has been seen by millions of people. Still, I don't think it is unreasonable of me to have my doubts.
I want to believe. Show me a Loch Ness monster washed up on shore. Show me Dan Rather interviewing an alien. Show me anything that constitutes real proof - physical evidence that as a non-metallurgist/biologist/botanist I can determine is probably not of this world. Introduce me to a channel or a psychic who indisputably knows something that should be impossible for them to know (what do I have in my left hand as I type this, for instance? And no, I'm not making a vulgar joke) and I'll happily believe in ten impossible things before breakfast.
Personal testimony isn't good enough, no matter how reliable the witness. Human memory and powers of observation are too fallible. Photographs are useless, especailly in this digital age. Arthur Conon Doyle believed in fairies, and he based his belief on photographic evidence. This was in 1917, and two teenage girls were the perpetrators (only confessing in 1982). Methods of deception have gotten much more sophisticated in the interim, but the credulity of the public is about the same.
I'm not looking for a preponderance of anecdotal or circumstantial evidence here; I want clear proof. If it can't be offered, then my lack of faith isn't such a bad thing, is it?
Still, I would prefer to believe. I don't need a plethora of cases. Just give me one. Not where an anomaly is merely unexplainable, but where the evidence leads inarguably to a paranormal/supernatural/extra-physical explanation. If it can't be proven with the same certainty that I can prove that milk is an ingredient in cheese, then I'm not interested.
I've already identified the types of things I will believe on faith, and I've probably missed a couple. Basically, if I have a pragmatic reason for believing, and no substantive reason for disbelieving, and no credible alternative, I'll accept the most logical explanation before entertaining more fantastic explanations.
So show me! I want to believe in something incredible, and I'm not particular what it is! Upset my paradigm, please!
Lousy font rendering/choice is one of the last major hurdles in Linux desktop adoption. It stymied me until last year, when Redhat 8 made the Linux desktop viewable without me wanting to chunder.
Yes, you are missing the point.
Rather than regurgitating the lists of my favorite, been-around-for-a-long-time authors, I'll actually attempt to answer the question that you asked.
To wit, here are my suggestions for new SF/Fantasy authors for you to peruse:
1. China Mieville
2. Robin Hobb
3. Jim Butcher
4. Philip Pullman
5. Garth Nix
Not all of the authors listed above are new in the sense that they started writing/publishing yesterday, but their important works have all been published within the last decade.
China Mieville's Perdido Street Station is brilliant, as is its follow-up novel, The Scar. The novel Perdido Street Station was published in 2001, and The Scar in 2002.
Robin Hobb previously published as Megan Lindholm, but achieved no real success until The Farseer Trilogy in 1996.
Jim Butcher writes in the vein that Laurell K. Hamilton pioneered, which is a recommendation for Laurel K. Hamilton fans. I used to like Hamilton, but now her books are indistinguishable from erotica. Butcher is her better replacement.
Philip Pullman has been writing for quite a long while, and he makes Rowling look like warmed-over shite, but he is largely unknown outside of England. I consider him "newish." Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials is astounding.
Garth Nix writes fairly literary fantasy for Young Adults, and I recommend his Sabriel and Liriel highly.
I do live in the US, actually, though I haven't always. However, the supermarket where I primarily shop doesn't hire baggers; the customer bags his or her own groceries. It is least expensive grocery store in town, prolly because of this sort of money-saving feature.
There is no contradiction here - there are always exceptions (which is perhaps the only category of truth guaranteed not to have an exception). I don't personally find it necessary to belabor this rather obvious point every time I make a generalization. The generalization is still true: a cell phone isn't a necessity, it is a convenience.
:-)
I could add "UNLESS.." but this would be belaboring the point.
Sorry, no. Cell phones haven't existed for that long, and somehow people managed without them before their invention. They aren't a necessity, yet, for anybody, they are a convenience.
My teenage daughter has a cell phone, and I certainly rest easier knowing that she can call me at any time, day or night, regardless of her location, but she, like the millions of young women before her, could live without one. Many are the times that her cell phone has come in handy, but a necessity it is not.
A cell phone is like any other appliance: once you condition yourself to its use, you can't imagine not having one, but somehow you managed before, and could manage again. So the fat woman at the grocery store who just has to gossip with her friend while trying to write a check and neglecting to bag her groceries, the cell phone might be vital for her social life, but a pain in the ass for all of us who wait behind her.
I caught a train in to work on a regular basis for over a year. I arrived at the station, boarded the train, and paid the conductor when he came to issue my ticket.
What part of that scenario was inconvenient? I required no insurance, had no vehicle maintenance costs, no car payment, no fuel costs, never had to look for a parking place (I lived a 10 minute walk from the station), and I got to read the newspaper over a cup of tea and a biscuit during the trip. I could even nap on my way to work, if I desired (and sometimes did).
I love commuting by train. I don't need to commute at all now (I live a 15 minute walk from work), but I would certainly take the train for trips into the next town if it were available, and said town is only eight miles away. I hate the inconvenience of a car, a sinkhole for money, on wheels.
But I guess we all have our own definitions of convenience, right?
Okay, when it's raining and cold, and I want to rent a video at 10:30pm because I can't sleep, a car is fantastic. I'll acknowledge they do have their uses. I don't have a washer or dryer, and I take the car to the laundromat. Grocery shopping is easier with a car. But those are all near-destinations; for commuting, which by defintion means that your destination is not local, a train is ideal. Different tools for different uses.
How I long for the convenience of train service when I need to drive the 350+ miles to Seattle...
That is what it sounds like, but I think he meant that such a donation doesn't help the bereft, at least not monetarily. William Scarboro is dead; he is beyond benefiting. If he were alive, I expect that the continued financial health of his family would be more important to him than his posthumous contributions under the GPL, however praiseworthy that may be.
Isn't it generally a good idea to read the linked article before you post?
I quote:
The software needed to enjoy Project Entropia is free to download, and this virtual universe is free to enter and spend time in.
First, the genre "science fiction" hasn't been adequately defined to determine what might make a particular science fiction universe the "best." Second, I would argue that a science fiction film is a different creature from a science fiction novel, and what makes one "best" is not necessarily what makes the other "best." Lastly, "best" hasn't been defined: is it really different strokes for different folks? Is Manimal really as good as Blade Runner because Viewer X thinks that it is? Or are we using some other criteria?
I can define science fiction easily by giving examples of what it is and isn't. Dune and Stranger in a Strange Land and Blade Runner are science fiction. Yes, I know that I'm mixing medias. But some quality binds them into the same genre. I'm not prepared to say what that is - if I did, a dozen people would disagree with me, perhaps all with valid reasons. Still, although a consensus proves nothing, most would probably agree that the three works I mentioned are science fiction.
Now, IMHO, Star Wars isn't science fiction. It looks like science fiction, it uses the apparatus of science fiction, but I would personally label it fantasy and not science fiction. I expect many to disagree, but that okay. It just helps to illustrate the problem of defining anything.
As for the differences between science fictions films and books, that's again subjective. I am not an eye candy person. I love eye candy, but if the rest of the film is lacking no amount of eye candy can redeem it. Give me shitty or non-existant F/X any day, but as long as the acting and the direction/writing are good, I'm happy. Some people are exactly the opposite.
IMHO, good/enjoyable science fiction films:
Blade Runner
A Clockworge Orange
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Terminator
Robocop
THX 1138
Metropolis
Scanners
The Matrix
The Thirteenth Floor
eXistenZ
IMHO, bad science fiction films:
Tron
The Black Hole
Battlestar Galactica
The Abyss
Total Recall
Robocop 2
I didn't include any of the Star Wars pictures in the second list because I do not categotize them as science fiction. Also, there are many films missing from both lists.
As for science fiction literature, do you read for story or for shimmering prose? I'm a shimmering prose man. I prefer that a novel has a good story, but I can happily read 800 pages about licking postage stamps if it is told well, versus 25 pages of the most fascinating tale, poorly written.
IMHO, good/enjoyable science fiction authors:
Gene Wolfe
Robert Silverberg
Sheri S. Tepper
James Morrow
William Gibson
Bruce Sterling
IMHO, bad science fiction authors:
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Alan Dean Foster
Piers Anthony
R.A. Salvatore
Christopher Stasheff
There are many books missing from both lists. I've also noticed that some fantasy authors slipped onto my second list. Whoops. I guess that's because I find that science fiction tends to be better written than fantasy. Sorry about the inconsistency.
The best science fiction universes for me are those universes that are so involved and with philosophical questions posed that are so complex that I, as a viewer/reader, am left in a state of pondering wonder for years after the film/book has been digested. I saw Blade Runner 20 years ago, and I still can spend a satisfying evening debating it in my mind, or over coffee with friends.
That's my answer. Your answer may differ. If we re-phrase the question, and ask what makes a particular science fiction universe the most saleable, then we should probably ask George Lucas, as he seems to have figured out the answer.
This:
... which appears in the same paragraph. If a waterproof client in impossible to create, then "poorly implemented anti-cheating measures" have nothing to do with the failure of the programmers to keep out the cheaters.
I don't think the whole affair is about "the right to cheat". To me it is about poorly implemented anti-cheating measures.
Contradicts this:
It's simply impossible to create a waterproof client.
However, your argument doesn't work, at any rate. Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars on a lock (or thousands of dollars developing a lock) to keep out scum? A lock should only be required to keep out casual thieves - the "accidental" thieves. Those thieves who some flaw in their nature can't resist the theft if it is too easy. If the keys are left in the car, etc. No, I'm not excusing that behavior, but it is moderately understandable.
But the hardcore thieves, and the hardcore cheaters, are human excrement. No excuse exists for their behavior.
It is because of these fuckheads that we will one day live in a totalitarian state: the powers that be will deprive all of us of our basic rights because talented and bored assholes exercise their "rights" to snoop on other peoples servers.
I guess we will all get what they deserve.
This wasn't a review at all. It wasn't even a synopsis (a weak synopsis?).
He did look at it from more than one angle, without providing any real information. If you want to read REAL reviews of Solaris, follow these links:
Solaris reviews #1
Solaris reviews #2
Solaris reviews #3
Solaris reviews #4
Solaris reviews #5
Oh, two points: Solaris *is* worth a few more words.
Comparisons will be made to 2001 and Apocalypse Now, two other slow-moving, philosophical movies.
Such comparisons might be made by a dimwit, but not by anyone who paid attention.
[I]t's [Solaris is] a trivial love story, told many times before.
First, Solaris is not a trivial love story. Second, are there any love stories which cannot be dismissed with those words?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, humble or otherwise, but I would hardly call a philosophical problem as profound as Lem investigated in this story to be a "twist." This is not an O.H. Henry or Ray Bradbury short story (and I am not denigrating either of those authors).
Overall: Solaris was a deeply satisfying movie with marvellous performances. Clooney I used to hate when he was a soap-opera pretty boy, but now that he is slighly long in tooth he chooses his films well. Three Kings, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and now Solaris - he is now an actor of some merit.
Learning to read before you post might be a good idea, don't you think?
Oh, never mind you don't think. Sorry!
I wasn't complaining about customers per se, but rather about a particular species of customer (and this species I delineated rather carefully) who cost retailers millions of dollars a year.
I don't work for a high-pressure sales emporium. We don't employ any of the tactics which you describe. I'll spend an hour trying to help you figure out whether you have a USB port, and send you to the competition if we don't stock what you need. I'll even phone the competition to make sure that they stock the item before I send you on your way.
Why am I such a nice guy? I don't know - genetics? Environment? Whatever the reason, I genuinely give a shit that you, as a customer, leave the store happy. However, there are exceptions to this, and I described those exceptions in my previous post.
Thank you very much, and have a nice day.
How fast will this get modded down, I wonder ?
Unfortunately, not fast enough, as I don't have any moderator points.
E-mail addresses can be obtained too easily to warrant any bitching. Further, generally speaking, anonymity breeds nothing but noise.
Of course, there are those chickenshits who work at McDonald's claiming that the Fortune 500 company where they are secretly a CEO (unknown to their wives or family) would disapprove of their postings... but who cares about them?
I'm not saying that privacy isn't important, and I do see that you are not posting as an Anonymous Coward, for which I salute you, but is requiring a working e-mail address really that onerous?
The last time they told me NO they looked up my history and said "You return too much stuff".
I'm sorry, but I work sales, and I have done for years, so I know from experience that most customers who "return too much stuff" aren't worth retaining as customers. Every time I wait on you, and you return an item, either because you found it cheaper mail-order, or you were really borrowing it and not buying it (this happens more frequently than you would imagine), or you bought the wrong printer cartridge because you were too fucking stupid to check what type of printer you owned before you walked into the store, or you realized that you needed to buy tickets to the football game and after returning that keyboard you have enough cash - every time you do one of those things, you cost the store money.
I get paid to sell you the item orginally, and to take it back, which is usually a longer process, so there is lost revenue. If you lie to me and tell me that it is broken, which happens all too often, then our technicians in the back waste money verifying that you are a sack of shit and it does indeed work fine, or that you spilled coffee inside it but you paid cash so we don't know who you are. If the packaging is less than pristine, we lose money again because the next customer won't pay full-price for something that is used.
Other examples: the customers who buy several cables because they don't remember whether they needed a parallel cable, a firewire cable, a USB cable, or a serial cable. But it's okay if we buy them all and return the ones that we don't need, right? I live 5 miles away. Certainly, Sir, Ma'am. Of course, the extra time and paperwork diminish our profits, but the customer is always first.
Or: Can I return this ream of paper, I've only used half of it? Or: Can I return this CPU, it's only two months out of warranty? Or the customer who buys RAM (which has a life-time warranty) at $29 for X capacity, and, if price rises to $49 for that same capacity, tries to return it it? And if they have paid cash, is often successful? Or: the customer who deliberately damages equipment just so that he can return it? Or: the customer who tries to return products that he knows he didn't buy at our store?
All of these things have happened to me on numerous occasions, so I entirely understand the need to collect customer information. We aren't selling it to anyone, and if you are so fucking paranoid that you worry about such shit all of the time, please take your business elsewhere.
Be careful: don't step into the blade of the black helicopter on your way out.
Footnote: Yes, I know restocking fees would solve many of the problems listed above, but then we would be penalizing the customers who do have legitimate cause to make a return.
The BBC is reporting that Lucas Arts is putting the Star Wars universe online this December.
I normally trust the BBC, but I think they are wrong on this occasion. According to details on Amazon.com, Star Wars Galaxies will be released on February 14, 2003.
Amtrak sucks by design. The government apathy towards the commuter rail industry is too extreme to be accidental. I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that huge payoffs are involved somewhere.
I lived in England for many years, and caught a train into London three days a week. It wasn't cheap, but the prices weren't as inflated as Amtrak (relatively speaking), and I never had to look at schedules or make reservations. I showed up at the station and a stepped aboard a train which invariably arrived (yes, sometimes it was late), purchased my ticket, read my paper, sometimes ate breakfast or enjoyed a cup of tea, and all was bliss.
Amtrak could do the same if they got anywhere near the same coddling that the airline industry receives.
Because those are laws that we create by politicians we put into office. That is the voice of the people. That is the voice of the nation.
.02 cents worth.
I was born in this country, but I didn't cast any vote that made it so. As it happens, I am quite happy to have been born here; there are plenty of worse places to be from. However, the "voice of the nation" doesn't give me my rights - I was born with them. And I, like Fischer, have the right to visit any country that I want without approval of the government.
Fuck the government when through "the voice of the people" or any other instrument they try to deprive me of my rights instead of guarantee them.
Any law which does not exist to protect my rights (and the rights of my fellow-citizens) is unjust. It is nice when they can be changed through the established protocols, but this isn't always possible.
I am a largely law-abiding citizen. However, no one can tell me what I might imbibe, eat, read, write, where I might travel, or whom I may have sexual relations with, unless I am trampling on the rights of others by my actions.
Just my
Mr Shatner,
1. Did you write any of the novels that bear your name, or were they ghosted? If you did "write" them, was your contribution 100%, or were there contributors?
2. I saw Disney's The Black Hole when I was a teen. I didn't see a worse film until Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which shared similarly cheesey themes. Did you direct this movie as an unconscious homage, or were the parallels deliberate?
3. Are you bothered by the homoerotic fan-fiction which flourishes on the 'net (most of it involving you and Spock)?
Hmm... Since when did a paperback weigh an entire megabyte? Few novels reach 800,000 characters let alone 1M.
;-)
First, a megabyte is not a measure of weight. Second, many novels reach 800,000 characters, assuming that by characters you mean bytes of information.
A quick scan of the Amazon bestseller lists reveal that seven out of the top twenty-five science fiction and fantasy novels easily top 800,000 characters.
Erm, not that I mean to be pedantic.
...the entire renissance happend without copyrights.
This is true as far as it goes; however, it ignores the other mechanism in existence which guaranteed the livelihood of those renaissance artists whom we remember today: patronage.
Respected artists and philosophers of the renaissance didn't have to work, because some rich noble or institution supported them, or because they were already independently wealthy. I know that this doesn't apply to all artists of that era, but to a significant minority.
This also ignores another issue. Let's suppose that the RIAA, etc. didn't exist. That I produced a work of art accompanied by a license of my own composition in which I requested that you didn't distribute my creation, and deleted it from your HD after 24 hours unless you paid me $5.
Wouldn't I have the right to do that? Does an artist who chooses a digital medium automatically forfeit rights that a sculpture in bronze or clay doesn't?
I we expect the GPL to be honored, then what about the rights of artists who choose to be protected by copyright law? I mean, the RIAA aside, doesn't Metalicca have the right to choose which license they distribute their wares (not warez) under?
Unfortunately, most of these decisions are made by newbie marketing types who don't understand the industry and don't think for themselves--
And you can substantiate this assertion how?