Guy + Guy = Good because it leaves more girls + girls + girls + girls + girls for MEEEEEEEEEE! Woo hoo!
Those guys might be batting on the other team... but in the long run, they make us hetro-guys winners!:-)
"Fill it up with everyone who knows how to root, if you know what I mean."
Kewl! I know how to log in as root. Mars must run Linux. That is what you mean isn't it? Or am I too nerdy for Mars?
Mars Needs Guitars - Hoodoo Gurus!:-)
I can think of another scenario. The Gamma Radiation turns the worlds population into Hulks (just like it did to Bruce Banner.. the original Hulk).
Just think - How angry is the average person now... stuck in traffic, having to put up with A$$Holes at work etc etc. Imagine the carnage!
Most common conversation around the office will be:
You don't want to make me angry!
Really? Well guess what! You don't want to make ME angry!
NO! YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE ME ANGRY!!!!
Which is shortly followed by two people turning into large green humanoids and smashing everything to pieces. Especially anything belonging to the US Army... because let's face it, Hulks always seem to love smashing tanks up!:-)
Yeah, Sci Fi does tend to be a little more expensive because it needs "effects" and special make-up etc. The Average Sit-Com is less expensive.
Try pitching a Sci Fi series at the Networks or a Sit-Com at the Networks and see which they prefer to hear about.
The average sit-com only needs - sets, normal make-up (nothing like Sci-Fi's creatures from other worlds etc), and actors, crew for the set, scriptwriters etc. Sci Fi has all these plus, the "special effects" departments (explosions etc), computerisation of some things, special designs for clothing from the "future" and other races, design of other races, Sci Fi consultants, special make-up artists etc etc.
By the time Friends was finishing, it could hardly be called the "Average" sit-com, as pointed out by other slashdotters, they were paying a fortune for the actors. The average sitcom doesn't pay anywhere near that amount, and you have to be doing pretty good in order to get anything like a million an episode.
Most Production companies also restrict the amount of characters, sets, internal/external scenes etc that you are allowed to use. In the old day, they also used to stipulate how much film you could use. This was because external scenes were filmed, while internal scenes were shot on video. Most just video the lot now. (It was about 3.5 minutes of film in a 24.5 minute episode... just in case anyone was wondering).
Also, check out the amount of characters needed for a Sci-Fi series compared to a Sit-com. Most Sci-Fi needs more main characters. So cast cost is slightly higher as well(but not much - that's why so many Sci Fi series use actors who aren't as well known. There are some exceptions Both of Galactica's Adama's - Lorn Greene/Edward James Olmos come to mind).
Hope that is helpful. Wish I could provide a link to somewhere to prove this, but it comes from my experience in the industry. I think the examples I've provided explain why the cost is slightly higher anyway.
A trip to your local library and it's section on "Making Movies", "TV Producers biographies" and related areas should provide insight into this. From memory, most of the ones I've read always refer to the problem of pitching Sci Fi Series at Networks because the Networks always balk at the 'cost' of Sci Fi productions.
I was going to stick a giant laser on the moon. I call it a "Death Star". And as a Cambridge scientist named Parsons designed the laser, I am calling the Project the "Alan Parsons Project".
Wonder if I'll get a Billion Trillion Dollars from the President not to use it?
"Except for the fact that under most rules of discourse, the burden of proof lies in the person making extraordinary claims."
I concure. I am not argueing in order to convert you to anything or make you reconsider your religious position. You say you are an athiest, I respect that. I was just pointing out that athiests are athiest from faith.
By my arguement, Yes, we don't know if unicorns, superman or super intelligent shades of blue don't exist. I am not argueing to suspend "disbelief" in them, but to acknowledge that it really is a case of "AFAIK" they don't exist. If in ten years time a spacecraft turns up on earth which is full of Unicorns, of course we will change our belief. This is my entire point. AFAIK these things are not known to exist but I don't rule them out 100% that they don't exist. It doesn't mean that suddenly I believe that they exist out there somewhere. For me to decide conclusively that they don't exist though, is a matter of faith.
The fact that there are arguements that God either does or doesn't exist which people use in order to make their decision still comes down to faith. Which arguement makes more sense to the person is up to the individual to decide. I have no problems with you deciding that for you, God doesn't exist.
Let me clarify what I meant too with the line, "To argue against the existance of God, (or a God) even through logic first requires that the nature of God is known.". At present, each religion claims to know God's (or a group of Gods) nature. It may be that God does not have a nature similar to any of these, in which case constructing arguments to prove that "there is no God" are really only specific to the religion (or group of religions) which make those assertions.
God (or a God) could turn up tomorrow and have a nature completely different to anything anyone could think of on Earth.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against the existances of God/Gods, but nothing conclusive has ever been presented proves 100% either way. Without that proof either way, any position you take (either for God/Gods, Against God/Gods), is a matter of faith.
That doesn't mean that anyone who decides either way is any less logical than the next person. Only that to them, the arguement weighs in favour of the decision they made.
"Where the difference lies is that there are few "atheists by faith","
How can you say this? I'm sure there hasn't been a poll to see why people are athiests, but I have met plenty of people who are "Athiests" by faith.
To argue against the existance of God, (or a God) even through logic first requires that the nature of God is known. If you talk to most Athiests, they will confirm that if "God" or "A God" was to turn up on Earth tomorrow, they would certainly believe (provided of course that reasonable proof was given to them).
Unless an athiest has 100% proof that "God" or "A God" does not exist, regardless of how much evidence or logic they beleive they have on their side, they really are "Athiests by Faith".
Of course, the fact is, you cannot prove a negative. In the arguement of "Does God exists?", only the side which is arguing that "God" (he/she or it) does exist, can ever prove thier claim. The fact that they are yet to do this, is the reason athiests and agnostics exist. (And even if they did have 100% proof, there would still be some sceptics who will hold to opposing beliefs).
I have met plenty of Athiests in my time who tell me they are athiests either because their families are, or because they think Darwin proved that God didn't exist. Both of these types of arguements are even MORE based on faith than someone who has logically thought about it. Anyone who has logically thought it through, is probably inclined to believe that the evidence suggests that God does not exist. Still, without 100% proof, they are really athiests by faith. (NOTE, this doesn't make them agnostics. I have had arguements with those who think that admitting one would change their stance when offered reasonable proof means they are on the fence. It doesn't.)
Even to assume that someone like Einstein was "self deluding himself" is a bit of a far stretch. With many scientists believing that belief in God may actually be linked with something in our brain, or chemicals in our body, then obviusly Einstein would not be "self deluding". It would be something in his make-up which he has no control over. I read about this first many years ago in an Arthur C. Clark book where he claimed scientists were on the verge of finding the part of the brain which beleived in God. He thought they were going to be cutting this bit out of peoples brains, and making everyone athiests. It hasn't happened yet. (Oh course, with all I've read over the years, these scientist may still be wrong. I bring it up, as it seems more pausible than the mojority of people on the earth being "self deluding".)
I'll have to have a look for that book you mentioned though. It sounds like an interesting read.
"First, the person will probably use the same passphrase for everything because it's too difficult to remember multiple passphrases... Second, it's difficult to remember passphrases! "
We used to use passphrases in order to make up passwords. Basically converting a passphrase into eight characters including at least one number and at least one symbol.
The reason we did this, was it was easier to remember passphrases than it was to remember complex passwords. We had about twenty of them at any one time on various routers/servers etc etc.
Usually we used things from movies. Such as:
Luke, I am your father. No never!
l1@yfnn!
(from star wars)
Or
Any one know what this is? Class?
a1kwti?c
(from Ferris Buellers Day Off)
Easy to remember. The only real difficulty was where we couldn't remember which passphrase went with which machine. (But usually didn't take long to remember, or we could ask each other. The person would normally respond with the Movie/TV Series title, and the person would remember. Anyone else hearing "Zulu" probably would have thought the password was Zulu, and not a Michael Caine quote from the movie.)
With the amount of geeks I know that have a habit of knowing Monty Python, Star Wars, Futurama and other TV/Movie quotes off by heart, the choice and rememberance of passphrases will be easy.
Like you said though, they're just longer passwords. Won't be long before Quantum computers will be able to crack something even as long as a 60 character passphrase in a matter of seconds.
Using l33t 5p34k also makes it a lot easier. Latin phrases, and in one case, I threw some Japanese in (just because I could.) More obscure quotes are better. They become an 'in joke' amongst those who know the passphrase (like the Ferris Beuller one. Even people familiar with the movie usually didn't pick it up, unless I told them the scene it was from!)
Some massaging to make it fit also helps:
Newt: They come at night... mostly.
N:tc@n.m
The Norwegian Blue prefers kipping on it's back.
tn6pk0ib
So for my money, until they get something capable of cracking long passphrases, it might be something good for the next five or so years (till the quantum computers come along).
So the next generation of passwords might look something like this:
@dv3ntur3? 3xc1t3m3nt? @ j3d1 d035 n0t cr@v3 t#353 t#1ng5!
Easy to rememeber, hard to crack at present. Darn long to type in!:-)
"Where the hell is global warming when u need it?"
Come to Perth. We've recorded some of the hottest days on record this summer. Only one caution, we get blackouts with our electricity and have been on water restrictions for years.
As the State and Federal Governments keep telling us, electricity and water are priveledges and NOT guaranteed. Apparently we are all being really selfish for thinking we deserve fresh water and electricity just because we live in a first world city. How silly of us!:-)
"Research into breeder technology was cancelled after 1986 mainly because of the chernobyl incident"
Thanks for your post, it was interesting to read. pebble bed
From the linked site:
5. & 6. There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.
The accident at Chernobyl probably had a BIG impact on the desicion for closing down, but the main reason was the design had flaws. The German program would still be going if it hadn't of had this accident. (And the reactor would still be operating). I think it was intelligent of the German Government to do what they did for two reasons.
1. They learned from Chernobyl. (Something a lot of the humans in the world don't do. An accident occurs, and they think it won't happen to them, so they continue.)
2. They realised if they continued with the design they had, and more accidents occurred (which was most likely), the bad PR would sink them.
Like most of us I think in the future a design might come into being which is meltdown proof. I'm still waiting for it. Another link on the Pebble Bed reactor - this one showing that they chose to close it down in 1988. Two years after Chernobyl:
Factsheet
Just my two cents.
Cheers.
"I guess with kids, dental records change too quickly to be 100% useful."
Um... I think the kids parents would know who the last dentist the kid saw was. The dental records will be up to date. Even if the parents were killed or something, the police would know all the dentists in the area. They could phone around and ask if the Dentist had that kid as a patient. Once they get teh last dentist to see the kid, they get the dental records for the kid.
Unless captured by a dentist, or someone who pulls the kids teeth, you should find dental records are not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Guy + Guy = Good because it leaves more girls + girls + girls + girls + girls for MEEEEEEEEEE! Woo hoo! ... but in the long run, they make us hetro-guys winners! :-)
Those guys might be batting on the other team
"Fill it up with everyone who knows how to root, if you know what I mean."
:-)
Kewl! I know how to log in as root. Mars must run Linux. That is what you mean isn't it? Or am I too nerdy for Mars?
Mars Needs Guitars - Hoodoo Gurus!
I saw the LED Zepplin light years ago. I have every album ... but doesn't seem to illuminate the room. I must have bought faulty ones.
I can think of another scenario. The Gamma Radiation turns the worlds population into Hulks (just like it did to Bruce Banner .. the original Hulk).
... stuck in traffic, having to put up with A$$Holes at work etc etc. Imagine the carnage!
... because let's face it, Hulks always seem to love smashing tanks up! :-)
Just think - How angry is the average person now
Most common conversation around the office will be:
You don't want to make me angry!
Really? Well guess what! You don't want to make ME angry!
NO! YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE ME ANGRY!!!!
Which is shortly followed by two people turning into large green humanoids and smashing everything to pieces. Especially anything belonging to the US Army
1. Steal everyones Sigs 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Sorry, that's my fault. I'm watching Survivor! Just please, please, please don't vote me off slash dot! :-)
I'm just waiting for Survivor Mars to be shown.
Which lead to the BBC lining up his new replacement. Dougal from the Magic Roundabout.
"In which case, the BBC is already sending 'round the telly-download detector van to his neighborhood."
No, their budget couldn't afford that. They're sending the Tele-tubbies around instead. Much scarier!
"So ... Does anyone actually _know_?"
... just in case anyone was wondering).
Yeah, Sci Fi does tend to be a little more expensive because it needs "effects" and special make-up etc. The Average Sit-Com is less expensive.
Try pitching a Sci Fi series at the Networks or a Sit-Com at the Networks and see which they prefer to hear about.
The average sit-com only needs - sets, normal make-up (nothing like Sci-Fi's creatures from other worlds etc), and actors, crew for the set, scriptwriters etc. Sci Fi has all these plus, the "special effects" departments (explosions etc), computerisation of some things, special designs for clothing from the "future" and other races, design of other races, Sci Fi consultants, special make-up artists etc etc.
By the time Friends was finishing, it could hardly be called the "Average" sit-com, as pointed out by other slashdotters, they were paying a fortune for the actors. The average sitcom doesn't pay anywhere near that amount, and you have to be doing pretty good in order to get anything like a million an episode.
Most Production companies also restrict the amount of characters, sets, internal/external scenes etc that you are allowed to use. In the old day, they also used to stipulate how much film you could use. This was because external scenes were filmed, while internal scenes were shot on video. Most just video the lot now. (It was about 3.5 minutes of film in a 24.5 minute episode
Also, check out the amount of characters needed for a Sci-Fi series compared to a Sit-com. Most Sci-Fi needs more main characters. So cast cost is slightly higher as well(but not much - that's why so many Sci Fi series use actors who aren't as well known. There are some exceptions Both of Galactica's Adama's - Lorn Greene/Edward James Olmos come to mind).
Hope that is helpful. Wish I could provide a link to somewhere to prove this, but it comes from my experience in the industry. I think the examples I've provided explain why the cost is slightly higher anyway.
A trip to your local library and it's section on "Making Movies", "TV Producers biographies" and related areas should provide insight into this. From memory, most of the ones I've read always refer to the problem of pitching Sci Fi Series at Networks because the Networks always balk at the 'cost' of Sci Fi productions.
"How long til I can buy this stuff at Walmart?"
:-)
You mean you didn't see them there?
Oh wait, of course not, they were camoflaged! Silly me!
I was going to stick a giant laser on the moon. I call it a "Death Star". And as a Cambridge scientist named Parsons designed the laser, I am calling the Project the "Alan Parsons Project". Wonder if I'll get a Billion Trillion Dollars from the President not to use it?
" The the Earth is not only a giant computer, but a particle accelarator as well? Pretty versatile planet really."
The mice are furious that you have worked this out. And the Dolphins send you a message. "So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
"thats why we need a space escalator."
... it's next to that pop-stick tower and has a monorail station.
Doesn't Springfield have one of those
Whouldn't it be closer to:
:-)
Nuc-lions, Tigons and Bearyons! Oh,my!
(Okay, a bit of massaging of Nucleons and Baryons to make a better fit!)
"Except for the fact that under most rules of discourse, the burden of proof lies in the person making extraordinary claims."
I concure. I am not argueing in order to convert you to anything or make you reconsider your religious position. You say you are an athiest, I respect that. I was just pointing out that athiests are athiest from faith.
By my arguement, Yes, we don't know if unicorns, superman or super intelligent shades of blue don't exist. I am not argueing to suspend "disbelief" in them, but to acknowledge that it really is a case of "AFAIK" they don't exist. If in ten years time a spacecraft turns up on earth which is full of Unicorns, of course we will change our belief. This is my entire point. AFAIK these things are not known to exist but I don't rule them out 100% that they don't exist. It doesn't mean that suddenly I believe that they exist out there somewhere. For me to decide conclusively that they don't exist though, is a matter of faith.
The fact that there are arguements that God either does or doesn't exist which people use in order to make their decision still comes down to faith. Which arguement makes more sense to the person is up to the individual to decide. I have no problems with you deciding that for you, God doesn't exist.
Let me clarify what I meant too with the line, "To argue against the existance of God, (or a God) even through logic first requires that the nature of God is known.". At present, each religion claims to know God's (or a group of Gods) nature. It may be that God does not have a nature similar to any of these, in which case constructing arguments to prove that "there is no God" are really only specific to the religion (or group of religions) which make those assertions.
God (or a God) could turn up tomorrow and have a nature completely different to anything anyone could think of on Earth.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against the existances of God/Gods, but nothing conclusive has ever been presented proves 100% either way. Without that proof either way, any position you take (either for God/Gods, Against God/Gods), is a matter of faith.
That doesn't mean that anyone who decides either way is any less logical than the next person. Only that to them, the arguement weighs in favour of the decision they made.
I hope that clarifies my position some what.
"Where the difference lies is that there are few "atheists by faith","
How can you say this? I'm sure there hasn't been a poll to see why people are athiests, but I have met plenty of people who are "Athiests" by faith.
To argue against the existance of God, (or a God) even through logic first requires that the nature of God is known. If you talk to most Athiests, they will confirm that if "God" or "A God" was to turn up on Earth tomorrow, they would certainly believe (provided of course that reasonable proof was given to them).
Unless an athiest has 100% proof that "God" or "A God" does not exist, regardless of how much evidence or logic they beleive they have on their side, they really are "Athiests by Faith".
Of course, the fact is, you cannot prove a negative. In the arguement of "Does God exists?", only the side which is arguing that "God" (he/she or it) does exist, can ever prove thier claim. The fact that they are yet to do this, is the reason athiests and agnostics exist. (And even if they did have 100% proof, there would still be some sceptics who will hold to opposing beliefs).
I have met plenty of Athiests in my time who tell me they are athiests either because their families are, or because they think Darwin proved that God didn't exist. Both of these types of arguements are even MORE based on faith than someone who has logically thought about it. Anyone who has logically thought it through, is probably inclined to believe that the evidence suggests that God does not exist. Still, without 100% proof, they are really athiests by faith. (NOTE, this doesn't make them agnostics. I have had arguements with those who think that admitting one would change their stance when offered reasonable proof means they are on the fence. It doesn't.)
Even to assume that someone like Einstein was "self deluding himself" is a bit of a far stretch. With many scientists believing that belief in God may actually be linked with something in our brain, or chemicals in our body, then obviusly Einstein would not be "self deluding". It would be something in his make-up which he has no control over. I read about this first many years ago in an Arthur C. Clark book where he claimed scientists were on the verge of finding the part of the brain which beleived in God. He thought they were going to be cutting this bit out of peoples brains, and making everyone athiests. It hasn't happened yet. (Oh course, with all I've read over the years, these scientist may still be wrong. I bring it up, as it seems more pausible than the mojority of people on the earth being "self deluding".)
I'll have to have a look for that book you mentioned though. It sounds like an interesting read.
Cheers.
No application is any good till it gets to the 3.0 stage! :-)
Not to mention Beer Henge - Legacy of Ancient Fluids! :-)
Saya Bukan seekor gajah. Saya bukan sebiji durian. But th elok and smell may confuse!
"First, the person will probably use the same passphrase for everything because it's too difficult to remember multiple passphrases...
... mostly.
:-)
Second, it's difficult to remember passphrases! "
We used to use passphrases in order to make up passwords. Basically converting a passphrase into eight characters including at least one number and at least one symbol.
The reason we did this, was it was easier to remember passphrases than it was to remember complex passwords. We had about twenty of them at any one time on various routers/servers etc etc.
Usually we used things from movies. Such as:
Luke, I am your father. No never!
l1@yfnn!
(from star wars)
Or
Any one know what this is? Class?
a1kwti?c
(from Ferris Buellers Day Off)
Easy to remember. The only real difficulty was where we couldn't remember which passphrase went with which machine. (But usually didn't take long to remember, or we could ask each other. The person would normally respond with the Movie/TV Series title, and the person would remember. Anyone else hearing "Zulu" probably would have thought the password was Zulu, and not a Michael Caine quote from the movie.)
With the amount of geeks I know that have a habit of knowing Monty Python, Star Wars, Futurama and other TV/Movie quotes off by heart, the choice and rememberance of passphrases will be easy.
Like you said though, they're just longer passwords. Won't be long before Quantum computers will be able to crack something even as long as a 60 character passphrase in a matter of seconds.
Using l33t 5p34k also makes it a lot easier. Latin phrases, and in one case, I threw some Japanese in (just because I could.) More obscure quotes are better. They become an 'in joke' amongst those who know the passphrase (like the Ferris Beuller one. Even people familiar with the movie usually didn't pick it up, unless I told them the scene it was from!)
Some massaging to make it fit also helps:
Newt: They come at night
N:tc@n.m
The Norwegian Blue prefers kipping on it's back.
tn6pk0ib
So for my money, until they get something capable of cracking long passphrases, it might be something good for the next five or so years (till the quantum computers come along).
So the next generation of passwords might look something like this:
@dv3ntur3? 3xc1t3m3nt? @ j3d1 d035 n0t cr@v3 t#353 t#1ng5!
Easy to rememeber, hard to crack at present. Darn long to type in!
Just my two cents worth.
"Where the hell is global warming when u need it?"
:-)
Come to Perth. We've recorded some of the hottest days on record this summer. Only one caution, we get blackouts with our electricity and have been on water restrictions for years.
As the State and Federal Governments keep telling us, electricity and water are priveledges and NOT guaranteed. Apparently we are all being really selfish for thinking we deserve fresh water and electricity just because we live in a first world city. How silly of us!
" It's not God, it's the giant turtle farting."
Blasphemy! Great A'Tuin doesn't "fart", she's a lady turtle. Ladies do not do that sort of thing.
Of course, it might be the auditors releasing wind as they disappear. A rincing of winds maybe?!
The New All Star Surviver!
Which star will be NEXT to be voted out of the Galaxy?
My Dog ate my sig.
I can't wait for the models which also come with surround sound! :-)
"Research into breeder technology was cancelled after 1986 mainly because of the chernobyl incident"
Thanks for your post, it was interesting to read.
pebble bed
From the linked site:
5. & 6. There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.
The accident at Chernobyl probably had a BIG impact on the desicion for closing down, but the main reason was the design had flaws. The German program would still be going if it hadn't of had this accident. (And the reactor would still be operating). I think it was intelligent of the German Government to do what they did for two reasons.
1. They learned from Chernobyl. (Something a lot of the humans in the world don't do. An accident occurs, and they think it won't happen to them, so they continue.)
2. They realised if they continued with the design they had, and more accidents occurred (which was most likely), the bad PR would sink them.
Like most of us I think in the future a design might come into being which is meltdown proof. I'm still waiting for it. Another link on the Pebble Bed reactor - this one showing that they chose to close it down in 1988. Two years after Chernobyl:
Factsheet
Just my two cents. Cheers.
Ah, you can tell I don't have kids yet. I never thought of that. :-)
"I guess with kids, dental records change too quickly to be 100% useful."
... I think the kids parents would know who the last dentist the kid saw was. The dental records will be up to date. Even if the parents were killed or something, the police would know all the dentists in the area. They could phone around and ask if the Dentist had that kid as a patient. Once they get teh last dentist to see the kid, they get the dental records for the kid.
Um
Unless captured by a dentist, or someone who pulls the kids teeth, you should find dental records are not a problem.