I never said they came from abortions - by the time someone even knows they need one, if I'm right, it's a little late to harvest anything useful that you can't harvest from a live birth.
I only mentioned abortion to establish that I'm not a right-wing anti-abortionist, to say that I consider the source human, without denouncing it as outright murder, which it isn't. It smells a little like it, but it's not the same thing.
For instance, you have people going nuts over abortions, equating it to infanticide. They'll work themselves up to a frenzy in marches and if you shove a camera in their face. But compare their reaction to what would happen if (somehow, legally) you had a place that "aborted" babies post-partum. You'd have masses streaming in with torches to burn the place down. Not the same reaction, and not the same thing.
Applying cloning techniques to (embryonic) stem cell research is an obvious logical step, and one that many researchers have made it clear they covet cloning for. At the moment, it is honestly the only useful purpose for cloning, beyond the novelty of it. Creating a viable dividing zygote is difficult as it is, but it's so much easier when you have no intent for the product to survive to birth, or worry about later developmental problems. When that happens, you've just created a new human (note that I don't say "person" - I'm talking about the human animal, not "souls" or personalities).
Also, when they seperate a cluster of stem cells, no matter how you rationalize it, they've just created a number of individual clones of the original. When they say stem cell "lines", they don't mean individual cells, but the multitude of cells divided from it. When you take a single differentiated cell, it doesn't count as an individual because only technology can make it one. But when you allow stem cells to divide and subdivide, each cluster or even individual cell is in itself a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go, would gestate into a human.
I'm not howling "Stem cells are murder!". That's semantics, and it's a judgement call for individuals. But I am saying that the processes of working with embryonic (not umbilical) stem cells does indeed involve creating biologically-individual, even if cloned, humans. The fact that they never get beyond a few cells (due to environment and human interference) does not change that.
That is what seems to make most people nervous, and why most people don't howl for it's illegality, yet you also don't see the masses demanding full federal support. Everyone looks at it askance because we *know* what it is, but we still want the benefits that we *know* it will give us.
But... if we do end up leaping into all-out cloning whatever we want...
Can we PLEASE start with Marylin Monroe? A whole bunch of her, vat-grown to age 25 or so, conditioned to obey, and given out by lottery? Please?
As expected, everyone's sounding off about stem cell research. So... he's my inflation-depreciated.02.
Stem cell research is a boon to medical science. Umbilical stem cells, which in no way hurts anyone (and which only a few outsider whacko groups are against), have proved invaluable to health care research. Embryonic stem cells (the ethical problem) are even more invaluable.
Here is the problem. As an individual, I support the legality of abortion. I don't like the fact that it's necessary at times, and I'd be glad to see it discouraged in any positive way possible. I can respect those who come to the painful realiziation that they simply cannot support a child due to serious personal issues (be it drug abuse, abject poverty, mental illness, etc). And conversely I have absolutely zero respect for those who terminate simply because it wouldn't suit their lifestyle. One is little different from an animal reabsorbing their fetus under stress, and the other is not far from infanticide out of convenience. And while I do not consider an embryo or even a fetus to be a "baby", I don't consider them mere biological byproducts of sex either.
In a limited, controlled, publicly accountable fashion, I can easily accept open stem cell research. Let's not beat around the bush - whatever the origin, you're destroying a human embryo for medical and research gain. When that embryo is the castoff from fertility work (ie spare embryos that had a chance but will never be complete), it's not so bad. But there's just something questionable about creating a human life simply to dismantle it.
I don't consider abortion infanticide unless it's late term (ie the fetus could actually survive with a little medical assistance). It's not an independant being yet, and it's by no means an infant until it can at least breathe without a machine (not counting injury/deformity). But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is. To say it's anything less is no different from saying that a baby or a retarded person is less human than you are. I'm not even talking about souls or religion - I have grave doubts about both subjects. To me, it's just the most logical conclusion.
So... while I applaud the wonders we can perform with placental and umbilical stem cells, and would like to see that research continue at full speed, I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.
... unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman. If it's my own well-being involved, I have no ethics.
Re:And I just got a Pocket PC yesterday...
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Hehe. I forgot... don't ever use Linux or Windows in an analogy on Slashdot unless you want to change the subject.
I was in no way directly comparing the two operating systems as they were seperate analogies, and in fact said the opposite without intending to do so (that MS is worse about legacy support than Linux currently is).
As for the line-following comment, I was responding to another poster who suggested that buying a product (a pda in this case) partially from my evaluation of it's future market share was sort of a herd mentality, and I was just telling him damn straight it is.
Now, when are you people going to quit bickering over Linux vs Windows, when we all know that the optimum platform has been under our noses the whole time? That's right. The Apple III. The originator of "Plug n' Pray" technology.
Re:And I just got a Pocket PC yesterday...
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
When you pay $300-$400, and have to choose between products that are nearly equal, you tend to go with the one that will at least be compatible with what else is on the market over the next year or so.
I consider Linux, for example, to be a superior product as far as servers go, but if I had serious concerns about a new workstation's platform being at least partially abandoned by it's own maker, I'd switch to a second-favorite product in a heartbeat. This actually works against MS much of the time, as their old products aren't very scalar. Would you be inclined to buy a new workstation that you knew wouldn't work with Longhorn (screw that new name, Longhorn was a better one)?
When you're buying a product, the line behind it often defines it's future. For all the iPod owners out there... would you still buy an iPod today if Apple had lost most of it's market share, was abandoning it's old design in favor of what everyone else is using, had a bleak outlook for the near-and-long-term future, and if you were pretty sure your product would receive little more than "legacy" support at best within a year?
Line following is what created this industry - otherwise that nice highly-compatible x86-based platform you're on today would still be one of many, and instead of the Mac/Microsoft/Unix debate, you'd have a plurality of mutually incompatible systems and a shambles market. Microsoft owns the line followers because their business model was built on that concept. It's not a flaw - people who don't at least watch the line, let alone not follow it, usually get left in the dust no matter how great their new toy.
I like Palm. I think they're a superior product. And I have no intention of ever spending money on a new one since I don't like wasting money on orphan-to-be products.
And I just got a Pocket PC yesterday...
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
I've been mulling a PDA for about 2 weeks (with me, anything over $100 gets the Deep Thought treatment) I didn't make my final selection until I was actually looking at them, drooling and fingering my credit card like the technophillic freak I am. However... I had already decided early on not to go with a Palm, and grabbed an HP pocket PC w/ windows mobile on it. I had my reasons.
Palms are better built than most PDA's (my old PalmPilot got dropped multiple times and never changed a bit - I'd be scared to drop most other brands even once). The software isn't as pretty as most of the competition, but is far superior in terms of functionality. Also, their handwriting recognition system is the best I've ever used (Graffiti is even ripped off on other systems, lately).
So why did I get a Windows Mobile-based Pocket PC? Because Palm has no future as far as I'm concerned. They went from being the Poster Child of our Bright and Shining PDA Future (tm), to the broken has-been getting drunk in a bar next to Compaq. Not because of any serious flaw in their product (at least nothing spectacular), not because the competition is just that much better, but mostly because of that whole OS issue that's been a guillotine for the computer industry for the past 20 years.
Entertainment value is just as important to good sci-fi as critical and technical analysis. Virtually everyone likes Star Trek in one form or another. They might not watch it much, and only a minority become utterly and totally obsessed with it, but it has the largest audience of any other sci-fi (in terms of recognition and willingness to sit down for it). In that respect, Stargate is probably the single greatest competitor to it in terms of raw popularity. But... SG1 hasn't entered pop culture in the way Star Trek has, not yet at least.
I point out SG1 because it's one of the few major sci-fi shows out today that few people will say they do not like, and that most people will at least be willing to watch (and I'm a crochety old 31 year old who doesn't like watching newfangled tv shows unless I have to).
Also... it may not be a good idea to list any sci-fis until they've been around for at least 4-5 years, or have completed their initial run. Imagine how different any list would be if you only judged the first season or two of each sci-fi. Suddenly shows like Farscape and Sliders would leap out into better placement, the Star Treks, Babylon 5, and other biggies would suffer greatly.
I've always interpreted it as the form of an oath. It's considered cute or utterly meaningless these days, but in many cultures (particularly that of the early hebrews) it had a more serious meaning. If you said "By God I mean it!" it was one of the strongest ways you could assert the truth of a statement without going into fanciful hyperbole. To say "God damn" something, they meant it. Even more recently, that meaning still applied, just with less seriousness (ie you were no longer demanding their damnation, but you were still wishing some divine ill will upon your target).
Taking certain phrases too seriously is a little anal, but many DO take it seriously. And even those people who view it as a direct violation of a commandment, and who take it very seriously, are less vehement about enforcing it than they are about other pet concerns (of which there are a wide range).
It's not an unusual interpretation to say that simply applying the word as an unthinking and more or less meaningless expletive is more indecorous than sinful. Most "good churchgoing people" just find it mildly to strongly offensive (even if it's what they'll themselves say after hammering their thumb), but don't view it as the same level of violation as say... swearing on a bible then lying your ass off (the best modern comparison to the original intent).
I still can't get over the fact that Leviticus says I can't do both a girlfriend and her mother at the same time.
I mean, given that any girl who menstruates is perfectly valid for getting it on with (biblicaly speaking), that would easily make her mother of an equally valid age. But while I can marry them both, I can't do em both at the same time. It's... it's... it's just plain CRUEL!
Persecution? No. He didn't do much persecuting.
He could sure rant and rail about what he didn't like, though.
In general, as long as no people or animals are being tormented or abused, I think people should be able to get off on whatever they see fit. I also think they should have the sense to keep the more hardcore stuff in places where you don't just stumble in by accident. I don't get mortally offended at it, but I'd also rather not have to see the more extreme porn out there.
And the truly sick and twisted stuff is better left alone. I don't care to see anything censored, when it's private, but some things just ring too many alarm bells to be left 100% libre. Problem is... where do you draw the line, and who draws it? Until you have a clear concensus (not just people claiming one), the lines are better left undrawn.
Actually Jesus (talking about the man, not the cult built around him) said that a few specific traditions were not important (primarily dietary restrictions, mandatory temple worship, excrutiatingly complicated sacrifices, etc). Beyond that, all of his teachings followed Essenic tradition, which meant that where not explictly challenged, Leviticus would still be valid.
I simply can't picture Jesus getting down and dirty in a back alley with Judith and Paul. Sorry.
Make no mistake, while the people behind this will draw from their religious convictions, for the most part this sort of policy is due to our culture.
The bible does not forbid a great many things that could be considered deviant. I don't believe it says a word about women-on-women, never says that non-reproductive procreation is sinful (as long as your assistant is not married to anyone else), and doesn't seem to say a word about 3-ways, etc. I don't lay these down as challenges (indeed, feel free to correct me), but from what I know (yes, I've actually read the whole thing), none of these things are forbidden directly or even indirectly (though later passages imply that you shouldn't bad-touch anyone without being married to them).
Most of our "beliefs" come from cultural extrapolation of older mores. The things we home in on the most are only indirectly religious in nature. For instance, ever notice how our culture is far more obsessed with men screwing eachother (a sin, but not a major one) than it is with swearing (a violation of the ten commandments)? We make an overly-great deal about masturbation, yet the biblical quotes associated with it have nothing to do with it?
Our idea of "deviant" makes use of christian belief as an authority, but it's basis is on cultural values - those same values that make us look on non-homicidal cannibalism, polygamy, and other perfectly acceptable actions in other culture, with disgust or simple rejection.
The bible does not say that two men can't screw one woman's anus. It's our culture that quite plainly tells you that you're a sick individual if your interest in that goes beyond gross-out wanted-to-see-it-once curiosity. If you're into watching people screw animals, you have psychological issues - either that, or you live in the wrong part of the world.\
Thou shalt not lie down with a man as thou would with a woman.
So if you're tied up in an upright position, or otherwise not lying down on something, you should be ok.
Outer Limits never portrayed technology as evil, it just used technology to show the darker side of humanity.
That's a good indicator of what sci-fi is when at it's best... not stories about cool futuristic technologies, but stories about how technology affects the way we think and interact with eachother.
Shows like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone were not always sci-fi, but when they were, they were usually the absolute best. Cutting out these shows would be like cutting Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and others from a list of the best rock music, because some of their music wasn't rock.
I have never understood why so many people seem to believe that "sci-fi" must include aliens or space ships to be sci-fi. Sci-fi often becomes confused with fantasy.
If we were to make a list of "best" sci-fi, and strictly adhered to them being actual sci-fi, I do not believe you could get a list of 50 if you limited yourself to television. In order to have a list with any meaning, you would have to seperate the truly great from shows that either failed entirely, or were never able to garner more than a niche audience. And because of the non-linear nature of the best specimens of sci-fi (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc - shows that were not dedicated to sci-fi-only), you would be forced to either include these sometimes-sci-fi shows, or admit that your list just lost it's heaviest hitters.
In such a list, I get the feeling that Farscape MIGHT only stand a chance of getting in. As for Lexx, First Wave, this new BSG, and many of the other shows experiencing a brief period of popularity or who have a dedicated and vocal but small audience... they wouldn't stand a chance.
As for Stargate, I never personally got into the show, but it would most likely make it into such a list intact. It's probably the only currently running show that would.
And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact. Twilight Zone would be next in line, then probably Lost In Space (another show I never loved, but has stood the test of time).
Did you read that article? Critical analysis was possible but difficult. I realize he thought it out, but I'm not sure he was entirely sober when he wrote it.
Also, a simple perusal of our skeletal structure will show that we are clearly apes, not monkeys.
On that note... the single greatest difference between ourselves and the apes, and our greatest simularity to dogs, is not that we kill (which apes do as well as we do)... it's that we'll do it on command.
...and realizing that in today's net-driven society, all it can take is for people to quote you, and others automatically assume you're important. I have no idea who this guy is, and I'm already assuming he's someone since./ quoted him in an article.
A good place to start would be many of it's filters and effects. Some of those filters are available for Photoshop as well, but require some hunting and some extra capital.
Gimp has features that make it comparable to Illustrator in some respects, as opposed to just Photoshop comparisons.
Now, if Adobe combined Photoshop and Illustrator...
Gimp is a powerful tool, and has a wealth of features (in many respects overshadowing Photoshop itself).
But, it has a clunky interface (at least to my eyes), and requires more work to perform many tasks. The win32 versions I've used have always been buggy (I have to save often, and have lost countless hours of work due to Gimp crashes). And it is loaded with a number of features I wish it didn't waste my navigation with (like that cute little image-stamper tool).
I think one strength of Gimp is it's freedom to experiment with interfaces, so in that light I'd rather the core version didn't try to emulate Photoshop... rather concentrating on trying to be something different and potentially better.
But aside from that, the changes I see this guy putting out are making me pitch a tent.
You hear a number of people, both in the news and in forums like this one, who either imply or outright say that Naw'lins should be totally abandoned, or that it's a waste of money to rebuild it.
While I'm not sure it's a great idea to band together and fund the total reconstruction of an entire city, there are some cities that define us as a nation. If Philidelphia was destroyed, we'd be at a loss if it were not rebuilt. If San Francisco was seriously damaged in an earthquake, which it almost certaintly will be eventually, a defining characteristic of this country would be laid waste if it were simply abandoned just because it might happen again. If some previously unrecognized geological flaw meant that Chicago were flooded out, not rebuilding it would reek of cowardice.
New Orleans is a more significant part of our culture than most of our major cities. That alone is a significant reason to rebuild it. If it's biggest populations centers shifted to another (safer) part of town, so be it - the historical areas would still be right there. And regardless of any cultural significance, it is of economic importance as well. The Delta is a shipping center, an economic hub for a large chunk of the Gulf Coast.
As others have pointed out, history is filled with bustling metropoli that succumbed to their fate, leaving only ruins at best. But in each case, there is a sense of loss that goes with it... and often a question. Why did they just let them go (when they had the option, anyway)?
We live with danger in almost every major city. All of our major West Coast cities are sitting on a geological time bomb, but keep growing anyway. Florida is wracked by hurricanes like a meterological leper, but it keeps building up. Houston (where I live) is built on a swamp, and occasionally reverts to it when things go badly (AND it gets blasted by hurricanes).
If any of these cities got trashed... not destroyed, but thoroughly messed up as in the case of New Orleans, would you want to just let them go to seed, or would you rather give Mother Nature the middle finger and try to get it right next time?
You could never get that kind of money allocated towards a protective non-millitary venture, not in the US.
At least, not until something happens. Now that we've had our distaster, and once we've counted the casualty list, I'm sure congress will be more willing to talk dollars.
Then again, it's easier to allocate massive funding to protect your entire country from flooding (ie Holland, etc), than it is to allocate it to protect one relatively poor area. And admit it, that is one of the poorest areas of this country, and without more electoral votes they don't stand a chance.
That's a very archaic way of thinking. If cars didn't go over 10 km/h then people would never get where they wanted to go, and people would never drive them. It's all about supply, demand, and market forces, my good man.
Personally, I'm not so sure this Horseless Carriage thing will last very long. They're stinky, they're noisy, dangerous, and a disturbance to the peace. Good Godfearing people have no need to triapse across town, when they can just go to their local General Store.
And quickly following today's findings, it has now been verified that the Sarcasm Cortex has only been detected in male subjects so far. It is not yet clear if female subjects possess this neural hardware, though most researchers don't hold out a great deal of hope on the matter.
Being anatomically associated with what is loosely referred to in scientific circles as "The Grunt Lobe", the recently identified cortical area believed to allow males to translate short gutteral sounds into complex syntactical commentary, these are potential examples of male neurological development.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they came from abortions - by the time someone even knows they need one, if I'm right, it's a little late to harvest anything useful that you can't harvest from a live birth.
I only mentioned abortion to establish that I'm not a right-wing anti-abortionist, to say that I consider the source human, without denouncing it as outright murder, which it isn't. It smells a little like it, but it's not the same thing.
For instance, you have people going nuts over abortions, equating it to infanticide. They'll work themselves up to a frenzy in marches and if you shove a camera in their face. But compare their reaction to what would happen if (somehow, legally) you had a place that "aborted" babies post-partum. You'd have masses streaming in with torches to burn the place down. Not the same reaction, and not the same thing.
Applying cloning techniques to (embryonic) stem cell research is an obvious logical step, and one that many researchers have made it clear they covet cloning for. At the moment, it is honestly the only useful purpose for cloning, beyond the novelty of it. Creating a viable dividing zygote is difficult as it is, but it's so much easier when you have no intent for the product to survive to birth, or worry about later developmental problems. When that happens, you've just created a new human (note that I don't say "person" - I'm talking about the human animal, not "souls" or personalities).
Also, when they seperate a cluster of stem cells, no matter how you rationalize it, they've just created a number of individual clones of the original. When they say stem cell "lines", they don't mean individual cells, but the multitude of cells divided from it. When you take a single differentiated cell, it doesn't count as an individual because only technology can make it one. But when you allow stem cells to divide and subdivide, each cluster or even individual cell is in itself a biologically viable entity that, given a suitable place to go, would gestate into a human.
I'm not howling "Stem cells are murder!". That's semantics, and it's a judgement call for individuals. But I am saying that the processes of working with embryonic (not umbilical) stem cells does indeed involve creating biologically-individual, even if cloned, humans. The fact that they never get beyond a few cells (due to environment and human interference) does not change that.
That is what seems to make most people nervous, and why most people don't howl for it's illegality, yet you also don't see the masses demanding full federal support. Everyone looks at it askance because we *know* what it is, but we still want the benefits that we *know* it will give us.
But... if we do end up leaping into all-out cloning whatever we want...
Can we PLEASE start with Marylin Monroe? A whole bunch of her, vat-grown to age 25 or so, conditioned to obey, and given out by lottery? Please?
As expected, everyone's sounding off about stem cell research. So... he's my inflation-depreciated .02.
... unless they're willing to ship 10% of them to me, refrigerated and boxed, so I can crack em and suck the fresh stem cells down and become a REAL Superman. If it's my own well-being involved, I have no ethics.
Stem cell research is a boon to medical science. Umbilical stem cells, which in no way hurts anyone (and which only a few outsider whacko groups are against), have proved invaluable to health care research. Embryonic stem cells (the ethical problem) are even more invaluable.
Here is the problem. As an individual, I support the legality of abortion. I don't like the fact that it's necessary at times, and I'd be glad to see it discouraged in any positive way possible. I can respect those who come to the painful realiziation that they simply cannot support a child due to serious personal issues (be it drug abuse, abject poverty, mental illness, etc). And conversely I have absolutely zero respect for those who terminate simply because it wouldn't suit their lifestyle. One is little different from an animal reabsorbing their fetus under stress, and the other is not far from infanticide out of convenience. And while I do not consider an embryo or even a fetus to be a "baby", I don't consider them mere biological byproducts of sex either.
In a limited, controlled, publicly accountable fashion, I can easily accept open stem cell research. Let's not beat around the bush - whatever the origin, you're destroying a human embryo for medical and research gain. When that embryo is the castoff from fertility work (ie spare embryos that had a chance but will never be complete), it's not so bad. But there's just something questionable about creating a human life simply to dismantle it.
I don't consider abortion infanticide unless it's late term (ie the fetus could actually survive with a little medical assistance). It's not an independant being yet, and it's by no means an infant until it can at least breathe without a machine (not counting injury/deformity). But in at least a limited way, once a fertilized ovum undergoes it's first cell division (not at fertilization, as it hasn't become a new entity yet), it has become a new human in every sense that a fetus or a toddler is. To say it's anything less is no different from saying that a baby or a retarded person is less human than you are. I'm not even talking about souls or religion - I have grave doubts about both subjects. To me, it's just the most logical conclusion.
So... while I applaud the wonders we can perform with placental and umbilical stem cells, and would like to see that research continue at full speed, I can more than understand why some people don't like seeing their tax dollars go to embryonic stem cell research. I personally don't care for the idea of creating human organisms, concious or not, simply for the gain of others.
Hehe. I forgot... don't ever use Linux or Windows in an analogy on Slashdot unless you want to change the subject.
I was in no way directly comparing the two operating systems as they were seperate analogies, and in fact said the opposite without intending to do so (that MS is worse about legacy support than Linux currently is).
As for the line-following comment, I was responding to another poster who suggested that buying a product (a pda in this case) partially from my evaluation of it's future market share was sort of a herd mentality, and I was just telling him damn straight it is.
Now, when are you people going to quit bickering over Linux vs Windows, when we all know that the optimum platform has been under our noses the whole time? That's right. The Apple III. The originator of "Plug n' Pray" technology.
When you pay $300-$400, and have to choose between products that are nearly equal, you tend to go with the one that will at least be compatible with what else is on the market over the next year or so.
I consider Linux, for example, to be a superior product as far as servers go, but if I had serious concerns about a new workstation's platform being at least partially abandoned by it's own maker, I'd switch to a second-favorite product in a heartbeat. This actually works against MS much of the time, as their old products aren't very scalar. Would you be inclined to buy a new workstation that you knew wouldn't work with Longhorn (screw that new name, Longhorn was a better one)?
When you're buying a product, the line behind it often defines it's future. For all the iPod owners out there... would you still buy an iPod today if Apple had lost most of it's market share, was abandoning it's old design in favor of what everyone else is using, had a bleak outlook for the near-and-long-term future, and if you were pretty sure your product would receive little more than "legacy" support at best within a year?
Line following is what created this industry - otherwise that nice highly-compatible x86-based platform you're on today would still be one of many, and instead of the Mac/Microsoft/Unix debate, you'd have a plurality of mutually incompatible systems and a shambles market. Microsoft owns the line followers because their business model was built on that concept. It's not a flaw - people who don't at least watch the line, let alone not follow it, usually get left in the dust no matter how great their new toy.
I like Palm. I think they're a superior product. And I have no intention of ever spending money on a new one since I don't like wasting money on orphan-to-be products.
I've been mulling a PDA for about 2 weeks (with me, anything over $100 gets the Deep Thought treatment) I didn't make my final selection until I was actually looking at them, drooling and fingering my credit card like the technophillic freak I am. However... I had already decided early on not to go with a Palm, and grabbed an HP pocket PC w/ windows mobile on it. I had my reasons.
Palms are better built than most PDA's (my old PalmPilot got dropped multiple times and never changed a bit - I'd be scared to drop most other brands even once). The software isn't as pretty as most of the competition, but is far superior in terms of functionality. Also, their handwriting recognition system is the best I've ever used (Graffiti is even ripped off on other systems, lately).
So why did I get a Windows Mobile-based Pocket PC? Because Palm has no future as far as I'm concerned. They went from being the Poster Child of our Bright and Shining PDA Future (tm), to the broken has-been getting drunk in a bar next to Compaq. Not because of any serious flaw in their product (at least nothing spectacular), not because the competition is just that much better, but mostly because of that whole OS issue that's been a guillotine for the computer industry for the past 20 years.
I will miss the old Palm.
Entertainment value is just as important to good sci-fi as critical and technical analysis. Virtually everyone likes Star Trek in one form or another. They might not watch it much, and only a minority become utterly and totally obsessed with it, but it has the largest audience of any other sci-fi (in terms of recognition and willingness to sit down for it). In that respect, Stargate is probably the single greatest competitor to it in terms of raw popularity. But... SG1 hasn't entered pop culture in the way Star Trek has, not yet at least. I point out SG1 because it's one of the few major sci-fi shows out today that few people will say they do not like, and that most people will at least be willing to watch (and I'm a crochety old 31 year old who doesn't like watching newfangled tv shows unless I have to). Also... it may not be a good idea to list any sci-fis until they've been around for at least 4-5 years, or have completed their initial run. Imagine how different any list would be if you only judged the first season or two of each sci-fi. Suddenly shows like Farscape and Sliders would leap out into better placement, the Star Treks, Babylon 5, and other biggies would suffer greatly.
I've always interpreted it as the form of an oath. It's considered cute or utterly meaningless these days, but in many cultures (particularly that of the early hebrews) it had a more serious meaning. If you said "By God I mean it!" it was one of the strongest ways you could assert the truth of a statement without going into fanciful hyperbole. To say "God damn" something, they meant it. Even more recently, that meaning still applied, just with less seriousness (ie you were no longer demanding their damnation, but you were still wishing some divine ill will upon your target).
Taking certain phrases too seriously is a little anal, but many DO take it seriously. And even those people who view it as a direct violation of a commandment, and who take it very seriously, are less vehement about enforcing it than they are about other pet concerns (of which there are a wide range).
It's not an unusual interpretation to say that simply applying the word as an unthinking and more or less meaningless expletive is more indecorous than sinful. Most "good churchgoing people" just find it mildly to strongly offensive (even if it's what they'll themselves say after hammering their thumb), but don't view it as the same level of violation as say... swearing on a bible then lying your ass off (the best modern comparison to the original intent).
I still can't get over the fact that Leviticus says I can't do both a girlfriend and her mother at the same time.
I mean, given that any girl who menstruates is perfectly valid for getting it on with (biblicaly speaking), that would easily make her mother of an equally valid age. But while I can marry them both, I can't do em both at the same time. It's... it's... it's just plain CRUEL!
Persecution? No. He didn't do much persecuting. He could sure rant and rail about what he didn't like, though. In general, as long as no people or animals are being tormented or abused, I think people should be able to get off on whatever they see fit. I also think they should have the sense to keep the more hardcore stuff in places where you don't just stumble in by accident. I don't get mortally offended at it, but I'd also rather not have to see the more extreme porn out there. And the truly sick and twisted stuff is better left alone. I don't care to see anything censored, when it's private, but some things just ring too many alarm bells to be left 100% libre. Problem is... where do you draw the line, and who draws it? Until you have a clear concensus (not just people claiming one), the lines are better left undrawn.
Actually Jesus (talking about the man, not the cult built around him) said that a few specific traditions were not important (primarily dietary restrictions, mandatory temple worship, excrutiatingly complicated sacrifices, etc). Beyond that, all of his teachings followed Essenic tradition, which meant that where not explictly challenged, Leviticus would still be valid. I simply can't picture Jesus getting down and dirty in a back alley with Judith and Paul. Sorry.
Make no mistake, while the people behind this will draw from their religious convictions, for the most part this sort of policy is due to our culture.
The bible does not forbid a great many things that could be considered deviant. I don't believe it says a word about women-on-women, never says that non-reproductive procreation is sinful (as long as your assistant is not married to anyone else), and doesn't seem to say a word about 3-ways, etc. I don't lay these down as challenges (indeed, feel free to correct me), but from what I know (yes, I've actually read the whole thing), none of these things are forbidden directly or even indirectly (though later passages imply that you shouldn't bad-touch anyone without being married to them).
Most of our "beliefs" come from cultural extrapolation of older mores. The things we home in on the most are only indirectly religious in nature. For instance, ever notice how our culture is far more obsessed with men screwing eachother (a sin, but not a major one) than it is with swearing (a violation of the ten commandments)? We make an overly-great deal about masturbation, yet the biblical quotes associated with it have nothing to do with it?
Our idea of "deviant" makes use of christian belief as an authority, but it's basis is on cultural values - those same values that make us look on non-homicidal cannibalism, polygamy, and other perfectly acceptable actions in other culture, with disgust or simple rejection.
The bible does not say that two men can't screw one woman's anus. It's our culture that quite plainly tells you that you're a sick individual if your interest in that goes beyond gross-out wanted-to-see-it-once curiosity. If you're into watching people screw animals, you have psychological issues - either that, or you live in the wrong part of the world.\
It's not religion. It's culture.
Thou shalt not lie down with a man as thou would with a woman. So if you're tied up in an upright position, or otherwise not lying down on something, you should be ok.
Outer Limits never portrayed technology as evil, it just used technology to show the darker side of humanity.
That's a good indicator of what sci-fi is when at it's best... not stories about cool futuristic technologies, but stories about how technology affects the way we think and interact with eachother.
Shows like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone were not always sci-fi, but when they were, they were usually the absolute best. Cutting out these shows would be like cutting Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and others from a list of the best rock music, because some of their music wasn't rock.
I have never understood why so many people seem to believe that "sci-fi" must include aliens or space ships to be sci-fi. Sci-fi often becomes confused with fantasy.
If we were to make a list of "best" sci-fi, and strictly adhered to them being actual sci-fi, I do not believe you could get a list of 50 if you limited yourself to television. In order to have a list with any meaning, you would have to seperate the truly great from shows that either failed entirely, or were never able to garner more than a niche audience. And because of the non-linear nature of the best specimens of sci-fi (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc - shows that were not dedicated to sci-fi-only), you would be forced to either include these sometimes-sci-fi shows, or admit that your list just lost it's heaviest hitters.
In such a list, I get the feeling that Farscape MIGHT only stand a chance of getting in. As for Lexx, First Wave, this new BSG, and many of the other shows experiencing a brief period of popularity or who have a dedicated and vocal but small audience... they wouldn't stand a chance.
As for Stargate, I never personally got into the show, but it would most likely make it into such a list intact. It's probably the only currently running show that would.
And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact. Twilight Zone would be next in line, then probably Lost In Space (another show I never loved, but has stood the test of time).
Did you read that article? Critical analysis was possible but difficult. I realize he thought it out, but I'm not sure he was entirely sober when he wrote it.
Also, a simple perusal of our skeletal structure will show that we are clearly apes, not monkeys.
On that note... the single greatest difference between ourselves and the apes, and our greatest simularity to dogs, is not that we kill (which apes do as well as we do)... it's that we'll do it on command.
It's a typo.
Wait... they haven't reinstituted floggings for those yet, have they?
Just curious as to who this guy is...
...and realizing that in today's net-driven society, all it can take is for people to quote you, and others automatically assume you're important. I have no idea who this guy is, and I'm already assuming he's someone since ./ quoted him in an article.
A good place to start would be many of it's filters and effects. Some of those filters are available for Photoshop as well, but require some hunting and some extra capital.
Gimp has features that make it comparable to Illustrator in some respects, as opposed to just Photoshop comparisons.
Now, if Adobe combined Photoshop and Illustrator...
Gimp is a powerful tool, and has a wealth of features (in many respects overshadowing Photoshop itself).
But, it has a clunky interface (at least to my eyes), and requires more work to perform many tasks. The win32 versions I've used have always been buggy (I have to save often, and have lost countless hours of work due to Gimp crashes). And it is loaded with a number of features I wish it didn't waste my navigation with (like that cute little image-stamper tool).
I think one strength of Gimp is it's freedom to experiment with interfaces, so in that light I'd rather the core version didn't try to emulate Photoshop... rather concentrating on trying to be something different and potentially better.
But aside from that, the changes I see this guy putting out are making me pitch a tent.
You hear a number of people, both in the news and in forums like this one, who either imply or outright say that Naw'lins should be totally abandoned, or that it's a waste of money to rebuild it.
While I'm not sure it's a great idea to band together and fund the total reconstruction of an entire city, there are some cities that define us as a nation. If Philidelphia was destroyed, we'd be at a loss if it were not rebuilt. If San Francisco was seriously damaged in an earthquake, which it almost certaintly will be eventually, a defining characteristic of this country would be laid waste if it were simply abandoned just because it might happen again. If some previously unrecognized geological flaw meant that Chicago were flooded out, not rebuilding it would reek of cowardice.
New Orleans is a more significant part of our culture than most of our major cities. That alone is a significant reason to rebuild it. If it's biggest populations centers shifted to another (safer) part of town, so be it - the historical areas would still be right there. And regardless of any cultural significance, it is of economic importance as well. The Delta is a shipping center, an economic hub for a large chunk of the Gulf Coast.
As others have pointed out, history is filled with bustling metropoli that succumbed to their fate, leaving only ruins at best. But in each case, there is a sense of loss that goes with it... and often a question. Why did they just let them go (when they had the option, anyway)?
We live with danger in almost every major city. All of our major West Coast cities are sitting on a geological time bomb, but keep growing anyway. Florida is wracked by hurricanes like a meterological leper, but it keeps building up. Houston (where I live) is built on a swamp, and occasionally reverts to it when things go badly (AND it gets blasted by hurricanes).
If any of these cities got trashed... not destroyed, but thoroughly messed up as in the case of New Orleans, would you want to just let them go to seed, or would you rather give Mother Nature the middle finger and try to get it right next time?
You could never get that kind of money allocated towards a protective non-millitary venture, not in the US.
At least, not until something happens. Now that we've had our distaster, and once we've counted the casualty list, I'm sure congress will be more willing to talk dollars.
Then again, it's easier to allocate massive funding to protect your entire country from flooding (ie Holland, etc), than it is to allocate it to protect one relatively poor area. And admit it, that is one of the poorest areas of this country, and without more electoral votes they don't stand a chance.
That's a very archaic way of thinking. If cars didn't go over 10 km/h then people would never get where they wanted to go, and people would never drive them. It's all about supply, demand, and market forces, my good man.
Personally, I'm not so sure this Horseless Carriage thing will last very long. They're stinky, they're noisy, dangerous, and a disturbance to the peace. Good Godfearing people have no need to triapse across town, when they can just go to their local General Store.
...you've not heard of Janeane Garofalo or Daria.
I think you're confusing "sarcasm" with "bitterness".
And quickly following today's findings, it has now been verified that the Sarcasm Cortex has only been detected in male subjects so far. It is not yet clear if female subjects possess this neural hardware, though most researchers don't hold out a great deal of hope on the matter.
Being anatomically associated with what is loosely referred to in scientific circles as "The Grunt Lobe", the recently identified cortical area believed to allow males to translate short gutteral sounds into complex syntactical commentary, these are potential examples of male neurological development.