The styles of yesterday's future were adopted into yesterday's present.
And vice-versa: the ideas and styles of yesterday's present were adopted into yesterday's future. For instance, Sci-Fi books and films from the 1960's and 70's quite often picture big mainframe computers and other technology (or other fads like cybernetics) from that era.
One could say that it's because we think in and operate with terms and objects that are already there. We can think of what the future might be like, but most of the time, we still get stuck in the present and come up with things like those airplane-like cars from the 1950's (weren't jet planes the big thing at that time?) that were novel at that time, but completely unlike what we are used to seeing today. It takes a genius to come up with something completely new and unseen (for instance, take a look at the work of Franco Scaglione or Luigi Colani), but even this will look old someday.
Because the flag is *not* actually meant so much for future generations (from other planets?) to see, but for people living on this planet right now. The message is: "America was here." "America is a great country" -- for not any old country can build and launch a probe to Mercury.
The spacecraft team wanted to leave a flag on Mercury to show, for all time, that Americans were there.
I'd say they are assuming a bit too much. First of all, they are assuming that someday, someone will drop by and find that flag. Secondly, i personally wouldn't be so optimistic as to think that America and its star spangled banner will everywhere and always be remembered. Supposing that a future mission would actually find that flag on Mercury, the odds are that it would only serve to show that someone has already been there.
Actually, i'd venture that you were simply modded down twice ("Overrated" times two), in which case you'll lose the karma bonus (RTFAQ!), and then modded up once ("Funny"). Nothing mysterious here.
The "story" does suck, though. What on Earth is Hemos smoking?
I once tried switching all the "editors" off. It didn't work. I checked to exclude all the Authors and Sections and whatnot, but (after a lot of experimenting with different section-author combinations -- some didn't work) i *still* ended up with two Jonkatz stories on the front page. So, basically, you're still stuck with dupes if you feel like reading the front page.
Another thing is that even if i did stop reading Taco's stories, i would still be stuck with all those other "editors" who apparently have still not quite grasped the idea of spellchecking.
Support the War on TERROR and our President! Postpone elections until the last terrorist is eliminated.
There's this old joke that communism comes only after the last communist has died. Makes me wonder, what will happen if the last terrorist is eliminated:H
As far as i can tell, they used the same names you did. The reason most probably being that all those flashy names like "Phantom" and "Sabre" and so on were good for propaganda, as only warmongers would give such names to their weapons.
Goddard's first successful launch was already in 1926. It's true that Tsiolkovsky's designs are much older than this, but AFAIK, the Soviets didn't get to launching a liquid fuel rocket until 1933.
The problem is that language consists of two things: The words (signifiers) and the actual objects they represent (signifieds)
Well, to be more precise then it's a language sign that consists of the signifier and the signified; these two things are but like the two sides of a sheet of paper. But that's not important right now, is it?
And if the signifier/signified relationship is different for everyone, is it really a language?
What you are doing now is that you're confusing a "text" for a "sign." At some other level, it would be correct; however, right now, it would be more correct to compare a piece of music to a novel or a poem or something like that. Even better, let's compare it to a painting. A painting ("a text") is, at the same time, a whole and the sum of its components ("signs"). We all see the same picture, but no two people will likely get the same thing out of it.
Then how can we say that it's a language (sign system) if everyone perceives it differently? Well, the object itself still remains the same, and so will a (big?) part of what we "get." It's also the same with natural language (like English): it's quite likely that some of these words i've written carry a slightly different meaning for me than they do to you. We can still communicate, though, as our languages overlap.
The film received the longest standing ovation in the history of the Cannes festival!
I remember once reading about a (17th century) playwright who had (proudly) measured the success of his play by the fact that four ushers had been killed at the premiere.
Well, trading wasn't exactly usury, but it was still considered to be something just as bad, as it meant taking more than you needed to survive and this was also a sin. Furthermore, trading was usually coupled with "usury," as you still needed to acquire some capital to start trading.
Yes, i know about the Hanseatic League. In fact, i live in one of the former Hanse cities. But i don't see what difference it should make, as even the Hanseatic merchants, as rich and powerful as they may have been, were still outside the nobility hierarchies.
Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power.
This isn't entirely correct. A nobility title came with land (a feud), not with wealth. You could be piss poor and still be an aristocrate, and then again, in the Middle Ages, you could be the richest merchant in the world and still not hold any title. This was, at least in part, because of religion: trading was considered to be usury (for obvioud reasons -- noone would sell goods for the price they bought them), and usury was considered to be a mortal sin.
The only thing I find really that stupid is that they're going to have to completely reinvent all the relevant characters to fit this 'new' spider man, so what is the point? Why not just make a new super hero?
Because Spider Man is already a well-established brand. Meaning that even though he might not be popular in India, it will still be easier to sell "famous American comic book hero Spider Man" than a brand new superhero.
I think what's implied here is not that robots should wear shoes, but rather that they're still far from having the coordination needed for tying shoelaces.
How come there's always someone who just has to spoil all the fun i'm trying to have?
I know Stalin is not exactly an example of a bright mind. This is something you don't need to tell me. He did have an ounce or two of intelligence -- otherwise he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did --, but i doubt that he was the mastermind that some people would like him to have been.
As to French intellectuals and Stalinism: Stalinism had quite a lot of influence on the French Communist Party, especially before the war. Louis Althusser is perhaps the most influential post-war Stalinist (i think he was considered one even in 1968). Other intellectuals (quite a few of them, actually) were influenced by Maoism, which they had a pretty skewed picture of.
Makes me wonder, how the history would have turned out if Joe Stalin had thought "Oh my, we lost many people in The Great War and i have killed even more over the last decade, i think we'd better surrender to the Germans or they'll kill even more." Fact is, however, that he didn't.
Let's face it: all this "Any tactician with an ounce of intelligence..." nonsense is just to hide the fact that France wasn't prepared for the war.
You see, the future is never too bright. It's always something dark, mysterious, if you may. There's nothing to look forward to, except for pain and misery and Armageddon (a global disaster or whatever). Hell, we don't even know for sure whether there will be an end to the mankind at all! And that's perhaps the worst part -- the fact that we can't reliably predict the future (although we try).
The past, however, is much brighter. We know what has happened in the past. And the past times were always much better; even the bad times were better, as we managed to survive them, right?
Even more, what happens now was always caused by what happened in the past. The past is where we come from, and that's why we should never forget it. History has shown that when some group loses its touch with the past, it will soon lose itself -- in a sense, we are our past.
And for fuck's sake people, please don't mod this up. Michael is a cock-sucking retard (whose English is even worse than mine) and i would be ashamed if i were modded up in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
And vice-versa: the ideas and styles of yesterday's present were adopted into yesterday's future. For instance, Sci-Fi books and films from the 1960's and 70's quite often picture big mainframe computers and other technology (or other fads like cybernetics) from that era.
One could say that it's because we think in and operate with terms and objects that are already there. We can think of what the future might be like, but most of the time, we still get stuck in the present and come up with things like those airplane-like cars from the 1950's (weren't jet planes the big thing at that time?) that were novel at that time, but completely unlike what we are used to seeing today. It takes a genius to come up with something completely new and unseen (for instance, take a look at the work of Franco Scaglione or Luigi Colani), but even this will look old someday.
No. It's the one that Al Gore wins.
Because the flag is *not* actually meant so much for future generations (from other planets?) to see, but for people living on this planet right now. The message is: "America was here." "America is a great country" -- for not any old country can build and launch a probe to Mercury.
I'd say they are assuming a bit too much. First of all, they are assuming that someday, someone will drop by and find that flag. Secondly, i personally wouldn't be so optimistic as to think that America and its star spangled banner will everywhere and always be remembered. Supposing that a future mission would actually find that flag on Mercury, the odds are that it would only serve to show that someone has already been there.
The "story" does suck, though. What on Earth is Hemos smoking?
I wonder if they could save even more by replacing the editors (well, everyone but Taco) with a Perl script. If anything, it would make things better.
Another thing is that even if i did stop reading Taco's stories, i would still be stuck with all those other "editors" who apparently have still not quite grasped the idea of spellchecking.
...with exactly HOW many people living there?
There's this old joke that communism comes only after the last communist has died. Makes me wonder, what will happen if the last terrorist is eliminated :H
Whatever that party does, of course.
As far as i can tell, they used the same names you did. The reason most probably being that all those flashy names like "Phantom" and "Sabre" and so on were good for propaganda, as only warmongers would give such names to their weapons.
Goddard's first successful launch was already in 1926. It's true that Tsiolkovsky's designs are much older than this, but AFAIK, the Soviets didn't get to launching a liquid fuel rocket until 1933.
Well, to be more precise then it's a language sign that consists of the signifier and the signified; these two things are but like the two sides of a sheet of paper. But that's not important right now, is it?
And if the signifier/signified relationship is different for everyone, is it really a language?
What you are doing now is that you're confusing a "text" for a "sign." At some other level, it would be correct; however, right now, it would be more correct to compare a piece of music to a novel or a poem or something like that. Even better, let's compare it to a painting. A painting ("a text") is, at the same time, a whole and the sum of its components ("signs"). We all see the same picture, but no two people will likely get the same thing out of it.
Then how can we say that it's a language (sign system) if everyone perceives it differently? Well, the object itself still remains the same, and so will a (big?) part of what we "get." It's also the same with natural language (like English): it's quite likely that some of these words i've written carry a slightly different meaning for me than they do to you. We can still communicate, though, as our languages overlap.
Bloody hell. It seems that i've somehow managed to reply to the wrong post.
I remember once reading about a (17th century) playwright who had (proudly) measured the success of his play by the fact that four ushers had been killed at the premiere.
Well, trading wasn't exactly usury, but it was still considered to be something just as bad, as it meant taking more than you needed to survive and this was also a sin. Furthermore, trading was usually coupled with "usury," as you still needed to acquire some capital to start trading.
Yes, i know about the Hanseatic League. In fact, i live in one of the former Hanse cities. But i don't see what difference it should make, as even the Hanseatic merchants, as rich and powerful as they may have been, were still outside the nobility hierarchies.
This isn't entirely correct. A nobility title came with land (a feud), not with wealth. You could be piss poor and still be an aristocrate, and then again, in the Middle Ages, you could be the richest merchant in the world and still not hold any title. This was, at least in part, because of religion: trading was considered to be usury (for obvioud reasons -- noone would sell goods for the price they bought them), and usury was considered to be a mortal sin.
Because Spider Man is already a well-established brand. Meaning that even though he might not be popular in India, it will still be easier to sell "famous American comic book hero Spider Man" than a brand new superhero.
I think what's implied here is not that robots should wear shoes, but rather that they're still far from having the coordination needed for tying shoelaces.
Well, this article (that is, this one here) wasn't, but this one was.
I know Stalin is not exactly an example of a bright mind. This is something you don't need to tell me. He did have an ounce or two of intelligence -- otherwise he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did --, but i doubt that he was the mastermind that some people would like him to have been.
As to French intellectuals and Stalinism: Stalinism had quite a lot of influence on the French Communist Party, especially before the war. Louis Althusser is perhaps the most influential post-war Stalinist (i think he was considered one even in 1968). Other intellectuals (quite a few of them, actually) were influenced by Maoism, which they had a pretty skewed picture of.
Well, i've heard that some French "intellectuals" did it all the time, so why the hell not?
Let's face it: all this "Any tactician with an ounce of intelligence..." nonsense is just to hide the fact that France wasn't prepared for the war.
The past, however, is much brighter. We know what has happened in the past. And the past times were always much better; even the bad times were better, as we managed to survive them, right?
Even more, what happens now was always caused by what happened in the past. The past is where we come from, and that's why we should never forget it. History has shown that when some group loses its touch with the past, it will soon lose itself -- in a sense, we are our past.
And for fuck's sake people, please don't mod this up. Michael is a cock-sucking retard (whose English is even worse than mine) and i would be ashamed if i were modded up in this thread.