I love to stare in awe at the new particle systems, the accuracy of the human computer models and the beautiful, alien landscapes painted before my eyes.
But that's me, and I am of a small minority I know.
Give me the apocalyptic opening scene of Blade Runner as tongues of flame rise over a dim cityscape, reflected in Deckard's eyes. Or give me the Millennium Falcon pulling that immelman turn through the clouds of Bespin as they turn back to rescue Luke. Or that nearly endless vertical scrolling shot of the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness in Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits. THAT is special effects.
Now the Star Wars prequels... sure, they may have been technically demanding to execute, and sure they may be intricate. But they lack soul. They are all surface and no substance, just video games on steroids.
I would like to see more prizes that are as prestigous as the Nobel for newer areas of research. There are those of us that no matter what kind of research we produce, could never be given a world renown prize simply because we are not in the right field.
Definitely. I for one would like to see the Evil Genius Awards. These would honor mad scientists in fields such as Death Ray Technology, Underground Lair Architecture, Mind Control, and Reanimation of Dead Tissue. Acceptance speeches would, of course, all begin with, "MWAHAHA!!! They laughed, they all laughed!"
I'm dumbfounded that online sellers compare an eCart to a real shopping trolley.
It's less effort to fill up a virtual shopping cart, and there's no issue with just walking away from it. Nothing says I can't pull a hundred items off the shelf at Safeway and then leave my cart in the isle, but it'll get me looked at funny and I'd feel guilty about making the staff restock everything. I have no qualms with wasting the time of a computer, though. So yeah, surprise surprise, the virtual metaphor ain't like the real thing.
Aw, you kids don't know how good you had it! Why, in my day all we got was a five pound brick of plastic with instructions, and we had to carve all the pieces ourselves, and then put the model together!
Seriously though, I agree: I still like Legos but this three-pieces-to-make-a-spaceship thing is taking it too far.
The radio show and the book each were exceptional in their own way, in my opinion. The book had some wonderful descriptions, for instance how the Vogon ships hang in the air "exactly the way that bricks don't". On the other hand, the dialogue came alive in the radio shows in a way that the books couldn't match- particularly Marvin I feel, his "pain in all the diodes line" for instance is so-so in the books and uproarious in the radio show. I felt the radio show lagged in the second half, but the ending blew me away- a very dark turn (I won't spoil it).
Concerning Dirk Gently, I reread those recently and liked them more than I had the first time around. They're not as furiously paced as the Hitchhiker's series, but they have some real gems. I loved the part about decision making software that works in reverse: starting with your decision and working back to the reasoning and evidence; they suggest you can clearly see it at work in the Pentagon (an observation as fresh now as it was then).
Intelligent Design is based on science, not theology (like many claim), although there are theological implications none the less with an intelligent designer being involved. The Intelligent Design movement makes a great case based on good scientific evidence only, and have shown the glaring flaws in Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Evolution and Natural Selection are riddled with holes, they've always been a theory
There's the difference. Evolution is a theory: a set of hypotheses explaining the material world which have repeatedly withstood scientific testing. Intelligent design is not. Intelligent design is a political movement against a scientific theory, it's an anti-theory, the "None of the Above" option, not a real answer. Who or what was the designer? Where does he come from? How does he design things? Why does he design things? When did all this happen? The 'Intelligent Design' answer is "Well, shit, I dunno... but it sure as hell ain't evolution, dammit!"
In this sense, "Intelligent Design" is a massive step backward from traditional seven-day creationism. Seven-day creationism at least provided testable hypotheses: the world was created in seven days, 6000 years ago. Geologists can go out and test that, and they've found that it's just not the case. Intelligent Design "Theory" has learned from that: if you have predictions and hypotheses, scientists can prove you wrong. So they've gone out of their way to avoid any predictions whatsoever. It's a scientific "Theory" whose main strength is the total absence of any actual theory for scientists to test. It's a rhetorical device, not serious science.
Wake up and smell the coffee people, nothing doesn't become something out of shear randomness.
The entire point of Natural Selection is that it's a nonrandom force: some variants have a better-than-average chance of survival and reproduction.
think if "trust rank" was user specific sort of the way search history works that would be ideal. You clicked on the link from the news which means 1) the article interests you and 2) you trust or are interested in what the source has to say.
The problem I see with self-selecting the news you get is that you're soon only going to be getting facts which validate your prejudices and confirm the decisions you've already made. Of course, we're already headed there with Air America, Fox News and soforth.
Just take the floormats out and put them under the wheels for traction. Or you can let some air out of the tires which will give them a bigger footprint and better traction.
The only reason normal phone lines arn't encrypted phone-to-phone is because it would be a hassle and would lower the quality (some sort of 56k modem in your phone, unless you can do some other trickery modulating with noise).
Well, that, and there may not be a huge demand for it. Most people don't have much worth hiding. I mean, in principle I don't want the cops listening in on my phone conversations... but really who wants to listen to my mother tell me what the weather is like where she's at and complain about how lousy her week was?
Well, chalk up another piece of anecdotal evidence; I thought those movies blew. They were weak; they were derivative; I didn't care about any of the characters; the acting was stilted and unbelievable.
Pft. Obviously, you're just a media invention as well.
Um, he said it was dark, dark, dark.
1000x darker than Empire.
Way dark.
Sounds like instead of going into the theater, Kevin Smith accidentally wandered into a broom closet with a burnt-out light bulb and hung out eating a big tub of popcorn for two hours.
'Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. (...) under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.' (Alabama Bill targeting Gay Authors)
Alan Turing was homosexual. Are they going to ban Turing Machines next?
Worked for Roald Amundsen. He gets criticized for that, but his plan to eat half his dogs meant his men and the other half of the dogs got back alive. Scott, on the other hand, killed his men because he didn't know what he was doing.
_Last Place on Earth_ tells the story (it's one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read). While it's pretty clear that the author has an axe to grind- he's very much an admirer of Amundsen and a detractor of Scott- from the facts he marshals, he makes a pretty strong case. Amundsen did everything possible to ensure victory; he had basically won before he even left camp. Scott did virtually everything he possibly could to ensure total failure. The guy even brought ponies to Antarctica. Thing is... ponies eat grass. And as you may have noticed, there's not a lot of that in Antarctica. Amundsen, on the other hand, knew what he was doing, because he learned from the world experts in arctic travel- the Eskimos.
I always thought that paranoids were the absolute height of egomania, since you have to think pretty highly of yourself to think that you're worth the effort.
Yeah, conspiracy and paranoia are oddly appealing. It's so much nicer to believe that the governments, corporations, and secret networks are out to get you than to believe that nobody really gives a shit whether you live or die, and that your failures are either the result of an unordered universe, or worse, your own damn fault.
Yes, but what about the electromagnetic radiation put out by that computer? That's currently off propagating into outer space in all directions at the speed of light. Sooner or later extraterrestrials or humans equipped with a faster-than-light drive will intercept that transmission and reconstruct your data.
The only true solution is to destroy all matter and energy within a radius of several light years. Or maybe a giant tinfoil sphere several light years in diameter to contain the electromagnetic radiation...
Once again, a Lego Mindstorm on steroids proves more interesting than the space shuttle.
Comments like this have no place on Slashdot, where we are supposed to mindlessly cheer for the manned space program, regardless of how much it may cost, or how little we may get back.
I fly pretty frequently throughout the United States and Canada. I usually visit New York a couple times a year, Alaska twice a year, maybe DC, and various other destinations. Most of the time I'm on pretty small planes, 737s and the like, and frequently I'm on little turboprop puddle-jumpers (say, between Alberta and Seattle). I can't even remember the last time I've flown on a 747.
I admit that my experience may have little or no bearing on international flights, but my general impression is that there is no clear move towards big aircraft, instead increased volume seems to be taken up by more flights of small aircraft. Anyhow, I'd be curious to know: do people find themselves on 747s and the like very often, or primarily on small and medium sized aircraft, particularly when flying overseas? I'm really curious to know if this bet Airbus has made is going to pay off.
Seriously, I find hard-core environmentalists to be pretty frustrating at times. If they were more practical and rational, they could get a lot more done.
I personally think that they may have taken the wrong tack on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue, for instance: sooner or later, it's going to get drilled. The nation needs oil, oil keeps getting scarcer, and the massive economic benefits for the state mean that most Alaskans favor drilling ANWR. I'm not saying that's the right outcome, just that it's the most likely one.
What I wonder is whether the environmentalists couldn't use their leverage more effectively in some other fashion. Bargain with these guys instead of fighting them head on. Put a deal on the table: agree that you'll go along with the development if it meets certain low-impact guidelines and if.1% of the revenues from the oil development go towards buying up other regions of Alaska, or the world, and putting them into conservation. If you let the oil companies develop, then they'll be happy, the Alaskans will be happy, and if more land is saved than destroyed by the deal, the environmentalists should be happy. And if that sounds a bit like extortion, well, so what?
PS. Want to help the environment? Ban Golf Courses. Take a look at a map sometime and see just how much land they take up. Not to mention the water and chemicals that are used on them. They my look green but there really is no nature left on them.
But you're forgetting about the rare Golf Ball Weevil, a beetle which bores holes in lost golf balls and lays its eggs inside of them. The larvae gnaw upon the nutritious core of the golf ball, emerge, and then fly away to find new golf courses.
The thing there, though, is that Roundup is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to kill weeds that I know of, and Roundup-ready crops make it possible to use Roundup instead of less friendly herbicides.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me the apocalyptic opening scene of Blade Runner as tongues of flame rise over a dim cityscape, reflected in Deckard's eyes. Or give me the Millennium Falcon pulling that immelman turn through the clouds of Bespin as they turn back to rescue Luke. Or that nearly endless vertical scrolling shot of the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness in Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits. THAT is special effects.
Now the Star Wars prequels... sure, they may have been technically demanding to execute, and sure they may be intricate. But they lack soul. They are all surface and no substance, just video games on steroids.
Definitely. I for one would like to see the Evil Genius Awards. These would honor mad scientists in fields such as Death Ray Technology, Underground Lair Architecture, Mind Control, and Reanimation of Dead Tissue. Acceptance speeches would, of course, all begin with, "MWAHAHA!!! They laughed, they all laughed!"
It's less effort to fill up a virtual shopping cart, and there's no issue with just walking away from it. Nothing says I can't pull a hundred items off the shelf at Safeway and then leave my cart in the isle, but it'll get me looked at funny and I'd feel guilty about making the staff restock everything. I have no qualms with wasting the time of a computer, though. So yeah, surprise surprise, the virtual metaphor ain't like the real thing.
Seriously though, I agree: I still like Legos but this three-pieces-to-make-a-spaceship thing is taking it too far.
Concerning Dirk Gently, I reread those recently and liked them more than I had the first time around. They're not as furiously paced as the Hitchhiker's series, but they have some real gems. I loved the part about decision making software that works in reverse: starting with your decision and working back to the reasoning and evidence; they suggest you can clearly see it at work in the Pentagon (an observation as fresh now as it was then).
There's the difference. Evolution is a theory: a set of hypotheses explaining the material world which have repeatedly withstood scientific testing. Intelligent design is not. Intelligent design is a political movement against a scientific theory, it's an anti-theory, the "None of the Above" option, not a real answer. Who or what was the designer? Where does he come from? How does he design things? Why does he design things? When did all this happen? The 'Intelligent Design' answer is "Well, shit, I dunno... but it sure as hell ain't evolution, dammit!"
In this sense, "Intelligent Design" is a massive step backward from traditional seven-day creationism. Seven-day creationism at least provided testable hypotheses: the world was created in seven days, 6000 years ago. Geologists can go out and test that, and they've found that it's just not the case. Intelligent Design "Theory" has learned from that: if you have predictions and hypotheses, scientists can prove you wrong. So they've gone out of their way to avoid any predictions whatsoever. It's a scientific "Theory" whose main strength is the total absence of any actual theory for scientists to test. It's a rhetorical device, not serious science.
Wake up and smell the coffee people, nothing doesn't become something out of shear randomness.
The entire point of Natural Selection is that it's a nonrandom force: some variants have a better-than-average chance of survival and reproduction.
...watch out for guys wearing leather jackets and sunglasses, asking for "Sarah Connor".
The problem I see with self-selecting the news you get is that you're soon only going to be getting facts which validate your prejudices and confirm the decisions you've already made. Of course, we're already headed there with Air America, Fox News and soforth.
Just take the floormats out and put them under the wheels for traction. Or you can let some air out of the tires which will give them a bigger footprint and better traction.
Well, that, and there may not be a huge demand for it. Most people don't have much worth hiding. I mean, in principle I don't want the cops listening in on my phone conversations... but really who wants to listen to my mother tell me what the weather is like where she's at and complain about how lousy her week was?
Pft. Obviously, you're just a media invention as well.
Sounds like instead of going into the theater, Kevin Smith accidentally wandered into a broom closet with a burnt-out light bulb and hung out eating a big tub of popcorn for two hours.
He's supposed to be collaborating with Lucas on developing a Star Wars series. Is he honestly going to tell us if this movie sucks?
People are pirating entertainment in Southeast Asia?
Alan Turing was homosexual. Are they going to ban Turing Machines next?
_Last Place on Earth_ tells the story (it's one of the best nonfiction books I've ever read). While it's pretty clear that the author has an axe to grind- he's very much an admirer of Amundsen and a detractor of Scott- from the facts he marshals, he makes a pretty strong case. Amundsen did everything possible to ensure victory; he had basically won before he even left camp. Scott did virtually everything he possibly could to ensure total failure. The guy even brought ponies to Antarctica. Thing is... ponies eat grass. And as you may have noticed, there's not a lot of that in Antarctica. Amundsen, on the other hand, knew what he was doing, because he learned from the world experts in arctic travel- the Eskimos.
Yeah, conspiracy and paranoia are oddly appealing. It's so much nicer to believe that the governments, corporations, and secret networks are out to get you than to believe that nobody really gives a shit whether you live or die, and that your failures are either the result of an unordered universe, or worse, your own damn fault.
The only true solution is to destroy all matter and energy within a radius of several light years. Or maybe a giant tinfoil sphere several light years in diameter to contain the electromagnetic radiation...
Comments like this have no place on Slashdot, where we are supposed to mindlessly cheer for the manned space program, regardless of how much it may cost, or how little we may get back.
I admit that my experience may have little or no bearing on international flights, but my general impression is that there is no clear move towards big aircraft, instead increased volume seems to be taken up by more flights of small aircraft. Anyhow, I'd be curious to know: do people find themselves on 747s and the like very often, or primarily on small and medium sized aircraft, particularly when flying overseas? I'm really curious to know if this bet Airbus has made is going to pay off.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force...as if a million voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
Easy. We rename Project Prometheus to "Project Hubris".
What I wonder is whether the environmentalists couldn't use their leverage more effectively in some other fashion. Bargain with these guys instead of fighting them head on. Put a deal on the table: agree that you'll go along with the development if it meets certain low-impact guidelines and if .1% of the revenues from the oil development go towards buying up other regions of Alaska, or the world, and putting them into conservation. If you let the oil companies develop, then they'll be happy, the Alaskans will be happy, and if more land is saved than destroyed by the deal, the environmentalists should be happy. And if that sounds a bit like extortion, well, so what?
But you're forgetting about the rare Golf Ball Weevil, a beetle which bores holes in lost golf balls and lays its eggs inside of them. The larvae gnaw upon the nutritious core of the golf ball, emerge, and then fly away to find new golf courses.
Well, apparently it really rounds up those frogs and toads as well: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg186249 43.900