They say the Airlander 10 is capable of surviving a missile strike, but visions of the Hindenburg still loom large in our cultural memory.
It is the spector of traveling in an aircraft at 80mph that I am concerned with. If I am going to get off the ground in an aircraft I will be going a considerable distance. Eighty miles an hour is much too slow to be efficient.
It would be fine as an alternative to driving though. I know Americans are more used to long car journeys, but here in the UK, a long drive from (say) London to Edinburgh, which is about 400 miles, would take 5 hours in this airship, plus you could have a drink, stroll around looking at the views, read a book, etc. Driving would be at least 8 and probably more like 10 hours assuming some toilet/coffee breaks and you'd be tired and fed up by the end of it.
I know you could do it by train, but that is less fun and probably more expensive.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but his idea with Star Wars was to explore Joseph Campbell's monomyth... so he wanted the characters to represent universals rather than individuals.
As excuses go, that is a pretty feeble one.
If you read Homer, you don't come away feeling that Achilles, Hector or Odysseus are blankly emotionless ciphers.
George Lucas has said that he read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" which surveys many ancient myths for commonality. The idea of a young boy escaping his mundane life to find his "hero's journey" is primal, as is the story of a son of facing the sins of his father.
Depending on who you ask, there are only about six basic storylines for a film (or book), so I don't think George Lucas deserves any special praise for using one of them.
If anything, Guinness hurt his reputation as an actor for being in Star Wars.
Not really. Even the best actors make a lot of bad films, and they can't really be blamed: it is pretty much impossible for even a great actor to salvage a weak film, and they have to keep working to stay in the public eye.
And he remains an established actor. So what was the point of even mentioning him? I
I think that with Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman the article was trying to say that being in Star Wars should literally have transformed them into living gods. But it didn't, so Star Wars is shit. Something like that.
We're talking about different movies. I got the title wrong, it's "The Beach". It came out in the 90s, and is about Leo finding this secret commune colony on an island near Thailand and living in it for a while before some drug growers get mad at them and kick them out.
It is a mediocre film adapted from an absolutely terrible novel, one of the few books I have ever read where I was praying for all the characters to get killed before the end so I could finish it early. As it were.
Actually, the UK isn't immune from the last part: Sean Bean in Shape [sic] has magic hair that is immune to mud, gunsmoke, and everything else the napoleonic wars can throw at him. No matter how dirty his face and uniform get, his hair always looks as if he's just come from the hairdresser.
You don't understand. Sean Bean has magic hair in real life.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
But unless they can prove to non-religious people that God exists, that is a meaningless argument. It's like me thinking aliens are sending me coded messages about the Apocalypse in the TV supermarket ads.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Anti-discrimination laws discriminate against discriminators in the same way that anti-rape laws discrimiante against rapists.
In fact, there are federal laws that enforce certain types of discrimination. For example arms trade to restricted countries. The people in those countries did not choose to be citizens there yet they are restricted from access to the best of American arms manufacturing. Shame on the U.S. for discriminating.
I am required by the government, over penalty of a large fine to do business with corrupt insurance companies. I MUST purchase their product, that provides me nothing that I can't provide on my own. I like how now we equate having insurance with having access to health care. Currently I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for insurance that provides me about 5000 dollars in services a year. What could I do with that additional 5,000 dollars a year for the next 10-15 years that I am running a surplus to create a saving account that I can pay for services when I am older and running a deficit.
To make it more plain. On average the country pays more to insurance companies that they are provided in medical services... otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.
So, yes currently the government compels me to do business with a company that I don't want to
Yes, and I have to pay car and buildings insurance and get nothing back at all each year! Those evil insurance companies are just pocketing my money and buying themselves yachts.
Again: You have an old books of fallacies (Marx), we have history. You are wrong.
You can't equate "left wing" with "Marxism" , even assuming there was one such thing as Marxism. Anarchists, socialists, greens and many others are left wing but in no way Marxist.
When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.
I agree with everything DarkOx said.
I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person.
I wouldn't say that. Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the sign down. It's kind of like saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~Loyal
Similarly, there should be no law against my displaying child porn videos in my bar, right?
You can't have absolute freedom and any sort of civilisation. I don't have the freedom to murder you without repurcussions.
Ultimately the market prevails, you can the relative economic success of places across the world, and you find with a few exceptions that happen to be sitting on huge oil reserves, the wealthy places are the ones that don't have serious problems with race, or gender discrimination. I suspect that correlation is no accident.
Indeed, the Gulf States are paradises for women, gays and foreign labourers. Oh, wait...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how it would survive a missile strike.
How well does a commercial airliner or passenger train survive a missile strike?
They say the Airlander 10 is capable of surviving a missile strike, but visions of the Hindenburg still loom large in our cultural memory.
It is the spector of traveling in an aircraft at 80mph that I am concerned with. If I am going to get off the ground in an aircraft I will be going a considerable distance. Eighty miles an hour is much too slow to be efficient.
It would be fine as an alternative to driving though. I know Americans are more used to long car journeys, but here in the UK, a long drive from (say) London to Edinburgh, which is about 400 miles, would take 5 hours in this airship, plus you could have a drink, stroll around looking at the views, read a book, etc. Driving would be at least 8 and probably more like 10 hours assuming some toilet/coffee breaks and you'd be tired and fed up by the end of it.
I know you could do it by train, but that is less fun and probably more expensive.
last time I drove west from Kansas City, I didn't slow under 140 KPH for about 4 hours.
That's about 90 mph and it's speeding. The point about autobahns is that you can go 300kph+ legally. (Well, in places anyway).
Helen Mirren is great, but was she always great or did she become great after "Elizabeth I" late in her career?
No, she was always great.
It's hard to think of anything memorable in her career prior to "Cook, the Thief.." and her turn on the cop drama "Prime Suspect".
The Long Good Friday, at least.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but his idea with Star Wars was to explore Joseph Campbell's monomyth... so he wanted the characters to represent universals rather than individuals.
As excuses go, that is a pretty feeble one.
If you read Homer, you don't come away feeling that Achilles, Hector or Odysseus are blankly emotionless ciphers.
George Lucas has said that he read Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" which surveys many ancient myths for commonality. The idea of a young boy escaping his mundane life to find his "hero's journey" is primal, as is the story of a son of facing the sins of his father.
Depending on who you ask, there are only about six basic storylines for a film (or book), so I don't think George Lucas deserves any special praise for using one of them.
I read Alec Guinness' comments on how bad the 4-6 were which opened my eyes so I rewatched them and realized they are no worse than 1-3
Having your eyes gouged out with a fork isn't much worse than watching 1-3, so you're not exactly refuting Sir Alec.
If anything, Guinness hurt his reputation as an actor for being in Star Wars.
Not really. Even the best actors make a lot of bad films, and they can't really be blamed: it is pretty much impossible for even a great actor to salvage a weak film, and they have to keep working to stay in the public eye.
Harrison Ford can't act. He's a one trick pony, but it's a great trick.
Seriously, compare Han Solo to Indiana Jones to Deckard to the Fugitive guy. It's all just harrison ford being harrison ford.
Casting Harrison Ford is like casting Sean Connery, you cast him because you want the character to be like that guy rather than the other way around.
My favourite Sean Connery role was The Hunt for Red October, where he became the world's only Russian with a Scottish accent.
And he remains an established actor. So what was the point of even mentioning him? I
I think that with Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman the article was trying to say that being in Star Wars should literally have transformed them into living gods. But it didn't, so Star Wars is shit. Something like that.
Ledger's performance is possibly (probably) the all-time greatest acting performance in a comic book movie.
That's like saying "How You Remind Me" is the greatest Nickelback song of all time.
We're talking about different movies. I got the title wrong, it's "The Beach". It came out in the 90s, and is about Leo finding this secret commune colony on an island near Thailand and living in it for a while before some drug growers get mad at them and kick them out.
It is a mediocre film adapted from an absolutely terrible novel, one of the few books I have ever read where I was praying for all the characters to get killed before the end so I could finish it early. As it were.
Yes, because posting a video on YouTube equates to starring in a major movie.
His thick Austrian accent (esp. on a time-traveling robot) didn't exactly add to the realism.
I suppose all the time-traveling robots you know in real life have American accents?
Actually, the UK isn't immune from the last part: Sean Bean in Shape [sic] has magic hair that is immune to mud, gunsmoke, and everything else the napoleonic wars can throw at him. No matter how dirty his face and uniform get, his hair always looks as if he's just come from the hairdresser.
You don't understand. Sean Bean has magic hair in real life.
I'll take this crap all day every day over one more SJW/feminist public service announcement.
You only have to write "SJW" or "feminazi" on slashdot these days and you get modded insightful.
There are an awful lot of ultra right wing misogynist teenagers around, is it something to do with school holidays in the US?
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
But unless they can prove to non-religious people that God exists, that is a meaningless argument. It's like me thinking aliens are sending me coded messages about the Apocalypse in the TV supermarket ads.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Anti-discrimination laws discriminate against discriminators in the same way that anti-rape laws discrimiante against rapists.
It is indeed a moral judgement.
In fact, there are federal laws that enforce certain types of discrimination. For example arms trade to restricted countries. The people in those countries did not choose to be citizens there yet they are restricted from access to the best of American arms manufacturing. Shame on the U.S. for discriminating.
Please, please, please say that was a joke.
I am required by the government, over penalty of a large fine to do business with corrupt insurance companies. I MUST purchase their product, that provides me nothing that I can't provide on my own. I like how now we equate having insurance with having access to health care. Currently I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for insurance that provides me about 5000 dollars in services a year. What could I do with that additional 5,000 dollars a year for the next 10-15 years that I am running a surplus to create a saving account that I can pay for services when I am older and running a deficit.
To make it more plain. On average the country pays more to insurance companies that they are provided in medical services... otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.
So, yes currently the government compels me to do business with a company that I don't want to
Yes, and I have to pay car and buildings insurance and get nothing back at all each year! Those evil insurance companies are just pocketing my money and buying themselves yachts.
The world is a large place, gays will find photographers and bakers.
So racism in Asia, genocide in Africa or whatever is irrelevant, because the people there can just move somewhere else in the world? Cool.
My world view says there is only one most difficult and important thing I can change about the world. Myself.
Other than in the most superficial ways, that is the one thing in life you really can't change.
Again: You have an old books of fallacies (Marx), we have history. You are wrong.
You can't equate "left wing" with "Marxism" , even assuming there was one such thing as Marxism. Anarchists, socialists, greens and many others are left wing but in no way Marxist.
When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.
I agree with everything DarkOx said.
I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person.
I wouldn't say that. Rather--I'm glad that neither the government nor anyone else can force them to take the sign down. It's kind of like saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~Loyal
Similarly, there should be no law against my displaying child porn videos in my bar, right?
You can't have absolute freedom and any sort of civilisation. I don't have the freedom to murder you without repurcussions.
Ultimately the market prevails, you can the relative economic success of places across the world, and you find with a few exceptions that happen to be sitting on huge oil reserves, the wealthy places are the ones that don't have serious problems with race, or gender discrimination. I suspect that correlation is no accident.
Indeed, the Gulf States are paradises for women, gays and foreign labourers. Oh, wait...