The reviewer doesn't trust me at all. I'm hooked on Honor Harrington right now.:) I also read Weber's Mutineer's Moon and couldn't put it down. I don't know where the reviewer concluded that the main characters are flawless two dimensional characters. Honor's flaws come out a lot. She has a low self-esteem because she thinks she's not pretty (granted, this is normal for a woman). She's also pretty smart, but not so good with math. She has a quick temper that she struggles to keep under control (she loses it a few times here and there and it's always entertaining). She is a good leader and her people love her, but she makes mistakes. I'm on her side in The Honor of the Queen. It's entirely her fault that Admiral Corvosieur bit the big one (It happens in the first third of the book, so this isn't a spoiler), and I liked that guy! The thorough discussion of sexism in that book was good, although I do think he dropped the ball a little bit on it. The thing you can't tell about him, though, and I like it, is "who is he going to kill next?". In Basilish Station he spent most of the book delving deeply into all of the top characters (mostly the officers, since the main theme was leadership), then he kills over half of them! He wasn't nearly as bloodthirsty in the second book, though, I noticed.
Anyway, his characters may be a tad on the stereotypical side, but they're not two dimensional. Sure, they always pull through in the end. Characters that don't are either the antagonists, or the book is referred to under a very specific genre (I forget what it's called, but it's the one with the anti-heros, where the bad guys usually win or they end in draws or whatever).
Hell, even Corwin pulled through in the end for the sake of Amber. At least Weber didn't create the Heinlein SuperMommy. Talk about two dimensional....
I also think the GPs comment about Weber and David Drake was totally off the mark. Heh. The only writing David Drake ever got right was when he was collaborating with Eric Flint.:)
Actually, it does sorta look like there's an asshole right over, and there is a noticeable lack of a parineum (sp?) between the asshole and the ball-sac.
It's very simple. You just make a fish that feeds off of brainwaves and stick it in your ear. Then whenever someone is speaking to you, it'll absorb the meaning of the words, digest it, and then give off brain waves to you and you understand what the person said!
I can't believe no one thought to mention the Babelfish and how it was used to prove the non-existence of God....
Morality is legislated everyday. The simplest example::Thou shalt not kill" and statutes that implement it.
Hmmm, that's a straw man. There is evidence that allowing people to kill one another more or less wantonly is harmful to the whole group in the long run. There is a difference between legislating morality (homosexual marriage is illegal) and legislating practical laws to prevent problems before they happen (marriage is a state-recognized institution, however crappy it may be currently implemented).
When you legislate your morality, you will inevitably infringe upon another's own morality. When you legislate to prevent behaviors that are damaging to society, you might infringe another's own morality, but they have the option to leave anytime.:) (one way or another)
The problem is always "What is the line between morality and 'damaging to society'?" Many say that immorality is damaging to society (again, homosexuality is frequently cited as an example).
Personally, I prefer as few laws as possible. I think that restricting and preventing violence is a Good Thing, but not at the loss of a people's ability to defend themselves against outside forces. It's a fine line, and I don't think the problem will ever be completely solved.
I think the problem is a bit deeper. The basic problem involves the idea that the "laws of physics" and the "laws of nature" are different sets of laws. They are, in fact, one and the same. You canna change the laws of physics, Cap'n. No matter what else we do, we can't break the laws of nature. That is the only thing that is impossible. We can break what we know to be the laws of nature, but that only means we didn't know the law (no excuse, of course, goto jail: anyway).
I have a hard time believe that my truck is "unnatural", because if it really and truly were "unnatural", it wouldn't run. It wouldn't work at all. How many inventions don't work? More than do, I'm afraid.:) Those that don't tried to break nature's law, and those that do work with nature's law.
Therefore, the only possible use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" can be to distinguish between "things man hasn't done" and "things man has done". But that's not good enough. What about reproduction? Every time you get laid, there's at least a small chance that you'll produce offspring who will affect the world. Is it unnatural for you to get laid? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.;)
Take beavers as an excellent example. They build the big dam (yes, it's a God dam) and affect the environment more than any other animal on the planet (except for man, of course). Is that "natural"? It is something they do consciously. Is it natural or unnatural?
The meaning of the words "natural" and "unnatural" actually stem from religion. In more recent times, natural meant "in accordance with God's will" and unnatural went "work of the Devil".
If we throw off religion (generally a good idea anyway), then we're left with "natural" and "unnatural" having no practical meaning. Therefore, they fail as arguments against cloning, stem cell research (still the best place to find a cure for cancer), genetic engineering, and so forth. Fact is, if we genetically engineer a life-form that is unnatural, it'll just be another failed invention.
Each generation is more intelligent than the last.
Aha! So I am smarter than my parents. I thought so.
we've found that code to be reused over and over again
Aha! So God invented OOP, not Stroustrop as we previously thought.
Ok, more seriously:
You left out a significant possibility. Assume, for the moment, that the closer a group of people is to the source of all life on earth, the more likely they are to know the truth. Considering that omnipotent monotheism is actually a fairly new concept, and you insist on giving it some form of credibility, then we must give way to the idea that earlier civilizations might have a better chance at knowing the truth of matters.
First, it's pretty common knowledge that Greek and Roman mythology are parallel to one another. It's generally assumed that the first Romans were in fact Minoans or Myceneaens fleeing the Trojan Wars, or possibly Myceneaens who emigrated west during the Greek dark ages. Why then, are Greek and Egyptian mythology so similar? Not to mention that the Babylonians had a pantheon similar to both Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Furthermore, the other civilizations in the area shared similar pantheons, and when you go farther east you only find more of the same.
My point is, the possibility you haven't allowed for is the idea that very powerful, but not omnipotent, gods could have created all life on earth, in which case the use of statically-linked libraries would make a lot more sense. They'd start with their own genetics, if they had any, or they'd create genetics based on their own forms, and then proceed to start building. It's a process that could easily have taken millions of years before they achieved a sentient humanoid life form which would easily appear to be evolution to modern scientists.
After their apparent destruction (during the time of Legends, referenced by both well-known sources of mythological data as Time Bandits and Ultima II), the life took on its own form, and in order to survive, finally began to evolve as we know evolution to be.
Not that I endorse this possibility, but it's at least as credible as one omnipotent being creating the heavens and the earth and crap. Fiction is, after all, fiction.;)
Actually, from my post that was why we were tunneling through the rockies in the first place, with the line going from St Louis to Phoenix (although why there'd be a train going a straight route there is quite beyond me, but that came from a previous poster)
In any case, I suspect that a mag-lev grid would have to do something similar to the freeways. The Interstate highway system is literally a grid (with a few notable exceptions. It didn't make sense to put any interstates in Montana: nobody lives there but buffalo), and with a mag-lev it'd be the same deal. First you would travel using "normal" methods (car, bus, walk, light rail) from your hick town in Kansas to Kansas City. Then you'd catch the mag-lev down to Austin. Then you'd get drunk off your ass and hear the blues. Then you'd (hopefully!) reverse the trip to get back home (possibly calling a taxi when you get off the mag-lev). What used to be a 3-day trip turns into 4-5 hours roundtrip spent on a really fast and quiet train, with as much time in Austin as you'd want to spend. (ie it could still be a 3-day trip, you'd just spend more time partying)
That's great. Only thing is, the OP had used the words "straight shot" to describe a trip from ST Louis to Phoenix, because the "plains states" could really use them. I was just pointing out that Phoenix isn't in a plains state, and that it's separated from St Louis by mountains.:)
Actually, cutting through mountains (ignoring expense for a moment, obviously) is an excellent opportunity to put the train in a vacuum tube and shoot it up a bit faster, provided it doesn't have to stop at any cities in the mountains (like Denver).
Now, speaking of straight shots, these high-speed rails would be great in the plains states... Imagine making it from St. Louis to Phoenix in a couple of hours, on the ground!
PLains states? You realize that St. Louis to Arizona would have to cut through either New Mexico or Colorado, and those are mountain states, right?
Users only need one wheel, or they are overwhelmed.. Choice IS a bad thing in some cases..
If you're going to insist on using the wheel analogy, then I'll point out that it takes two wheels for a motorcycle, 4 wheels for a car/light truck, 6 wheels for a slightly heavier-duty truck, etc.
So basically you're talking about audio books, though apparently they've evolved slightly since the last time I bothered with one;) I tend to think they serve their purpose well in situations such as driving long distances, but then I don't use them at all (the last one I tried to listen to was Stephen King's The Gunslinger, which just put me to sleep, in part because of Stephen King's voice).
No, I'm talking about a flavor of children's book that's recently came out. It's video, and they read the book, but they show all the pictures out of the book. I suppose it could be considered a children's audio book, since a children's audio book would also require the pictures to be available. They're really fucking annoying.:)
The only effort a digital book takes out of it is the effort of turning the pages,
Hmm, I was referring to stuff they sell on DVD where some unknown voice reads the book and they show various pictures from the book on the tv screen. I've got one of those for my kids, and they love to watch it, but we keep their time spent watching that sort of thing down (not having a tv but enjoying occasional movies means there's a computer in my living room where a tv would normally be).
I totally agree with you on the digital books that are just the same old books on a new medium. I read a lot of stuff on my Clie, and I love having 4-6 books with me at all times.:)
There's nothing wrong with antisocial behavior in and of itself, though. In fact, I've found a notable lack of problem-solving ability in highly social individuals. Then again, that probably depends on the type of problem being solved, as I'm sure they could solve problems related to socializing fairly easily, especially in groups, and especially those problems that are based around opinion rather than fact or logic.
It's the same problem, excess/absence is bad, moderation is good. I'm fairly antisocial by nature, but at one point in my life I decided not to be antisocial any more and learned all the social skills I didn't previously have. It's been a great thing for me, but I still tend to be a hermit. I find moderation is the key, here.:)
While in general I agree with your premise (that TV rots the brain, etc), I don't agree with your conclusion (eliminate TV completely). If I find each hour of the Fox show "24" exciting, and I'm thoroughly entertained, than who's to say it was a waste?
Depends on how you actually do it. I don't have a TV at all because it doesn't fit in my lifestyle at all. However, I have noticed a surprising lack of resilience, determination, and original thinking in people that watch 2+ hours of TV a day. The simple answer is that TV is a passive medium, and doesn't require any action on the part of the viewer to make the entertainment happen. I find some TV shows entertaining, and when I happen to be somewhere where they're showing, I take advantage of the opportunity to watch them. Hm, I also notice a lack of problem-solving in those same people.
Too much TV, like too much of anything, is very very bad for most people (I say "most" because I"m willing to concede that for someone it's good for them, although I've never met that someone). The main problem with TV is that it's passive, and since it doesn't require action from the viewer, over time it becomes easier for the viewer to just let things happen. Contrast it with books, you have to actively participate in the book in order to be entertained. You can sit and look at the book all you want, but until you open it up and start reading it, you are not likely to become entertained. This is why I object to those so-called digital books. They take all the effort out of reading and stick it on the screen, and now kids don't learn that reading really does take effort. Of course, too much reading leads to antisocial behavior as well, I've noticed.:) It's not like there's any perfect medium, it's just a matter of realizing what the limitations of the medium are and keeping diversity in your forms of entertainment. (Sex is definitely an active form of entertainment, and very social. But with obvious limitations...)
I suspect that your conviction (if you managed to get one) would be overturned in higher courts.
It's a class C misdemeanor, as the OP says. It's the same level as traffic tickets and pot paraphernelia. I got a $50 fine for carrying a pipe attached to a bag of weed (no charge for the weed, I think the cops smoked it). Contest a class C misdemeanor? Fuck it. Plead no contest, pay the fine, and move on.
Asshole. I got really interested in the problem and wondering how you managed to convert the images to a 3d object, and then after seeing the turntable setup I was like "Yeah! Now he's going to scan the skull for a test and it'll be cool!". But it all stopped there!
Anyway, it's a fascinating project, and I wish you luck completing it.
Odd also that most people appear to have a file named "Return of the King - Crack" in the same directory as the three CD images. If I remember correctly, media files don't need cracks. Yet, at least.
Worst yet, every file named ROTK is actually either the Two Towers or Fellowship of the Ring. Can't wait till the dvd screeners actually go out and we have some random chance of picking the right movie...
Stop and think for a moment. People are happily calling Weta Digital's work on par with ILM. Weta Digital is a little wee New Zealand company. That alone is a pretty significant achievement for a country as small as NZ.
Of course, after doing Xena and Hercules, it's not surprise they could tackle something simple like LOTR.
At least now we know why all orcs and other crazy-looking creatures speak with pseudo-Aussie accents; they really are pseudo-Aussies!
No shit, dude. If I weren't married, I'd be moving to Sweden to find me a wife. Hot mathematician? All we get in the states are either big fat girls that can't get laid or shrewy skin-and-bones girls that start wrinkling when they're 14.
Slashdot Mirror
The reviewer doesn't trust me at all. I'm hooked on Honor Harrington right now. :) I also read Weber's Mutineer's Moon and couldn't put it down. I don't know where the reviewer concluded that the main characters are flawless two dimensional characters. Honor's flaws come out a lot. She has a low self-esteem because she thinks she's not pretty (granted, this is normal for a woman). She's also pretty smart, but not so good with math. She has a quick temper that she struggles to keep under control (she loses it a few times here and there and it's always entertaining). She is a good leader and her people love her, but she makes mistakes. I'm on her side in The Honor of the Queen. It's entirely her fault that Admiral Corvosieur bit the big one (It happens in the first third of the book, so this isn't a spoiler), and I liked that guy! The thorough discussion of sexism in that book was good, although I do think he dropped the ball a little bit on it. The thing you can't tell about him, though, and I like it, is "who is he going to kill next?". In Basilish Station he spent most of the book delving deeply into all of the top characters (mostly the officers, since the main theme was leadership), then he kills over half of them! He wasn't nearly as bloodthirsty in the second book, though, I noticed.
Anyway, his characters may be a tad on the stereotypical side, but they're not two dimensional. Sure, they always pull through in the end. Characters that don't are either the antagonists, or the book is referred to under a very specific genre (I forget what it's called, but it's the one with the anti-heros, where the bad guys usually win or they end in draws or whatever).
Hell, even Corwin pulled through in the end for the sake of Amber. At least Weber didn't create the Heinlein SuperMommy. Talk about two dimensional....
I also think the GPs comment about Weber and David Drake was totally off the mark. Heh. The only writing David Drake ever got right was when he was collaborating with Eric Flint. :)
Actually, it does sorta look like there's an asshole right over, and there is a noticeable lack of a parineum (sp?) between the asshole and the ball-sac.
I want a fish that can translate languages!
It's very simple. You just make a fish that feeds off of brainwaves and stick it in your ear. Then whenever someone is speaking to you, it'll absorb the meaning of the words, digest it, and then give off brain waves to you and you understand what the person said!
I can't believe no one thought to mention the Babelfish and how it was used to prove the non-existence of God....
Morality is legislated everyday. The simplest example: :Thou shalt not kill" and statutes that implement it.
Hmmm, that's a straw man. There is evidence that allowing people to kill one another more or less wantonly is harmful to the whole group in the long run. There is a difference between legislating morality (homosexual marriage is illegal) and legislating practical laws to prevent problems before they happen (marriage is a state-recognized institution, however crappy it may be currently implemented).
When you legislate your morality, you will inevitably infringe upon another's own morality. When you legislate to prevent behaviors that are damaging to society, you might infringe another's own morality, but they have the option to leave anytime. :) (one way or another)
The problem is always "What is the line between morality and 'damaging to society'?" Many say that immorality is damaging to society (again, homosexuality is frequently cited as an example).
Personally, I prefer as few laws as possible. I think that restricting and preventing violence is a Good Thing, but not at the loss of a people's ability to defend themselves against outside forces. It's a fine line, and I don't think the problem will ever be completely solved.
if it's big enough that it's head is right the same height (or higher!) than your plate of food on the table
If you don't want your dog to be a diner, make him dinner.
It's easy; Find the gene that makes people be geeks, and put it in the animal/plant. Then no other member of the species will want to breed with it.
Do you really want super-smart fish swimming in your lake? I read Animal Farm...
I think the problem is a bit deeper. The basic problem involves the idea that the "laws of physics" and the "laws of nature" are different sets of laws. They are, in fact, one and the same. You canna change the laws of physics, Cap'n. No matter what else we do, we can't break the laws of nature. That is the only thing that is impossible. We can break what we know to be the laws of nature, but that only means we didn't know the law (no excuse, of course, goto jail: anyway).
I have a hard time believe that my truck is "unnatural", because if it really and truly were "unnatural", it wouldn't run. It wouldn't work at all. How many inventions don't work? More than do, I'm afraid. :) Those that don't tried to break nature's law, and those that do work with nature's law.
Therefore, the only possible use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" can be to distinguish between "things man hasn't done" and "things man has done". But that's not good enough. What about reproduction? Every time you get laid, there's at least a small chance that you'll produce offspring who will affect the world. Is it unnatural for you to get laid? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. ;)
Take beavers as an excellent example. They build the big dam (yes, it's a God dam) and affect the environment more than any other animal on the planet (except for man, of course). Is that "natural"? It is something they do consciously. Is it natural or unnatural?
The meaning of the words "natural" and "unnatural" actually stem from religion. In more recent times, natural meant "in accordance with God's will" and unnatural went "work of the Devil".
If we throw off religion (generally a good idea anyway), then we're left with "natural" and "unnatural" having no practical meaning. Therefore, they fail as arguments against cloning, stem cell research (still the best place to find a cure for cancer), genetic engineering, and so forth. Fact is, if we genetically engineer a life-form that is unnatural, it'll just be another failed invention.
First, the jokes. :)
Each generation is more intelligent than the last.
Aha! So I am smarter than my parents. I thought so.
we've found that code to be reused over and over again
Aha! So God invented OOP, not Stroustrop as we previously thought.
Ok, more seriously:
You left out a significant possibility. Assume, for the moment, that the closer a group of people is to the source of all life on earth, the more likely they are to know the truth. Considering that omnipotent monotheism is actually a fairly new concept, and you insist on giving it some form of credibility, then we must give way to the idea that earlier civilizations might have a better chance at knowing the truth of matters.
First, it's pretty common knowledge that Greek and Roman mythology are parallel to one another. It's generally assumed that the first Romans were in fact Minoans or Myceneaens fleeing the Trojan Wars, or possibly Myceneaens who emigrated west during the Greek dark ages. Why then, are Greek and Egyptian mythology so similar? Not to mention that the Babylonians had a pantheon similar to both Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Furthermore, the other civilizations in the area shared similar pantheons, and when you go farther east you only find more of the same.
My point is, the possibility you haven't allowed for is the idea that very powerful, but not omnipotent, gods could have created all life on earth, in which case the use of statically-linked libraries would make a lot more sense. They'd start with their own genetics, if they had any, or they'd create genetics based on their own forms, and then proceed to start building. It's a process that could easily have taken millions of years before they achieved a sentient humanoid life form which would easily appear to be evolution to modern scientists.
After their apparent destruction (during the time of Legends, referenced by both well-known sources of mythological data as Time Bandits and Ultima II), the life took on its own form, and in order to survive, finally began to evolve as we know evolution to be.
Not that I endorse this possibility, but it's at least as credible as one omnipotent being creating the heavens and the earth and crap. Fiction is, after all, fiction. ;)
Actually, from my post that was why we were tunneling through the rockies in the first place, with the line going from St Louis to Phoenix (although why there'd be a train going a straight route there is quite beyond me, but that came from a previous poster)
In any case, I suspect that a mag-lev grid would have to do something similar to the freeways. The Interstate highway system is literally a grid (with a few notable exceptions. It didn't make sense to put any interstates in Montana: nobody lives there but buffalo), and with a mag-lev it'd be the same deal. First you would travel using "normal" methods (car, bus, walk, light rail) from your hick town in Kansas to Kansas City. Then you'd catch the mag-lev down to Austin. Then you'd get drunk off your ass and hear the blues. Then you'd (hopefully!) reverse the trip to get back home (possibly calling a taxi when you get off the mag-lev). What used to be a 3-day trip turns into 4-5 hours roundtrip spent on a really fast and quiet train, with as much time in Austin as you'd want to spend. (ie it could still be a 3-day trip, you'd just spend more time partying)
Um, if the train has to slow down for a stop in the tunnel, what's the point of being in a vacuum tunnel in the first place?
That's great. Only thing is, the OP had used the words "straight shot" to describe a trip from ST Louis to Phoenix, because the "plains states" could really use them. I was just pointing out that Phoenix isn't in a plains state, and that it's separated from St Louis by mountains. :)
Actually, cutting through mountains (ignoring expense for a moment, obviously) is an excellent opportunity to put the train in a vacuum tube and shoot it up a bit faster, provided it doesn't have to stop at any cities in the mountains (like Denver).
Maybe next time you Americans read what are abbreviations in metric system, before write an article that uses them.
Hey dude, at least we americans know that Kelvin is abbreviated with a capital K.
Now, speaking of straight shots, these high-speed rails would be great in the plains states... Imagine making it from St. Louis to Phoenix in a couple of hours, on the ground!
PLains states? You realize that St. Louis to Arizona would have to cut through either New Mexico or Colorado, and those are mountain states, right?
Users only need one wheel, or they are overwhelmed.. Choice IS a bad thing in some cases..
If you're going to insist on using the wheel analogy, then I'll point out that it takes two wheels for a motorcycle, 4 wheels for a car/light truck, 6 wheels for a slightly heavier-duty truck, etc.
So basically you're talking about audio books, though apparently they've evolved slightly since the last time I bothered with one ;) I tend to think they serve their purpose well in situations such as driving long distances, but then I don't use them at all (the last one I tried to listen to was Stephen King's The Gunslinger, which just put me to sleep, in part because of Stephen King's voice).
No, I'm talking about a flavor of children's book that's recently came out. It's video, and they read the book, but they show all the pictures out of the book. I suppose it could be considered a children's audio book, since a children's audio book would also require the pictures to be available. They're really fucking annoying. :)
The only effort a digital book takes out of it is the effort of turning the pages,
Hmm, I was referring to stuff they sell on DVD where some unknown voice reads the book and they show various pictures from the book on the tv screen. I've got one of those for my kids, and they love to watch it, but we keep their time spent watching that sort of thing down (not having a tv but enjoying occasional movies means there's a computer in my living room where a tv would normally be).
I totally agree with you on the digital books that are just the same old books on a new medium. I read a lot of stuff on my Clie, and I love having 4-6 books with me at all times. :)
There's nothing wrong with antisocial behavior in and of itself, though. In fact, I've found a notable lack of problem-solving ability in highly social individuals. Then again, that probably depends on the type of problem being solved, as I'm sure they could solve problems related to socializing fairly easily, especially in groups, and especially those problems that are based around opinion rather than fact or logic.
It's the same problem, excess/absence is bad, moderation is good. I'm fairly antisocial by nature, but at one point in my life I decided not to be antisocial any more and learned all the social skills I didn't previously have. It's been a great thing for me, but I still tend to be a hermit. I find moderation is the key, here. :)
While in general I agree with your premise (that TV rots the brain, etc), I don't agree with your conclusion (eliminate TV completely). If I find each hour of the Fox show "24" exciting, and I'm thoroughly entertained, than who's to say it was a waste?
Depends on how you actually do it. I don't have a TV at all because it doesn't fit in my lifestyle at all. However, I have noticed a surprising lack of resilience, determination, and original thinking in people that watch 2+ hours of TV a day. The simple answer is that TV is a passive medium, and doesn't require any action on the part of the viewer to make the entertainment happen. I find some TV shows entertaining, and when I happen to be somewhere where they're showing, I take advantage of the opportunity to watch them. Hm, I also notice a lack of problem-solving in those same people.
Too much TV, like too much of anything, is very very bad for most people (I say "most" because I"m willing to concede that for someone it's good for them, although I've never met that someone). The main problem with TV is that it's passive, and since it doesn't require action from the viewer, over time it becomes easier for the viewer to just let things happen. Contrast it with books, you have to actively participate in the book in order to be entertained. You can sit and look at the book all you want, but until you open it up and start reading it, you are not likely to become entertained. This is why I object to those so-called digital books. They take all the effort out of reading and stick it on the screen, and now kids don't learn that reading really does take effort. Of course, too much reading leads to antisocial behavior as well, I've noticed. :) It's not like there's any perfect medium, it's just a matter of realizing what the limitations of the medium are and keeping diversity in your forms of entertainment. (Sex is definitely an active form of entertainment, and very social. But with obvious limitations...)
You'll see the end at the same time as everyone else in the world, and have 20 extra minutes to do whatever suits your fancy.
Wow, I could SCREW 20 TIMES! Beats waiting for commercials...
Wouldn't quite make as much sense if the Coke ad was painted on the Helms Deep wall in the Two Towers.
There's a pretty blatant Target ad in Barbie does Swan Lake, and that's a frickin' faery tale!
I suspect that your conviction (if you managed to get one) would be overturned in higher courts.
It's a class C misdemeanor, as the OP says. It's the same level as traffic tickets and pot paraphernelia. I got a $50 fine for carrying a pipe attached to a bag of weed (no charge for the weed, I think the cops smoked it). Contest a class C misdemeanor? Fuck it. Plead no contest, pay the fine, and move on.
Asshole. I got really interested in the problem and wondering how you managed to convert the images to a 3d object, and then after seeing the turntable setup I was like "Yeah! Now he's going to scan the skull for a test and it'll be cool!". But it all stopped there!
Anyway, it's a fascinating project, and I wish you luck completing it.
Excuse me, I've got sarcasm dripping from my chin...
...so I won't tell anybody about my sarcastic dick.
Odd also that most people appear to have a file named "Return of the King - Crack" in the same directory as the three CD images. If I remember correctly, media files don't need cracks. Yet, at least.
Worst yet, every file named ROTK is actually either the Two Towers or Fellowship of the Ring. Can't wait till the dvd screeners actually go out and we have some random chance of picking the right movie...
Stop and think for a moment. People are happily calling Weta Digital's work on par with ILM. Weta Digital is a little wee New Zealand company. That alone is a pretty significant achievement for a country as small as NZ.
Of course, after doing Xena and Hercules, it's not surprise they could tackle something simple like LOTR.
At least now we know why all orcs and other crazy-looking creatures speak with pseudo-Aussie accents; they really are pseudo-Aussies!
No shit, dude. If I weren't married, I'd be moving to Sweden to find me a wife. Hot mathematician? All we get in the states are either big fat girls that can't get laid or shrewy skin-and-bones girls that start wrinkling when they're 14.