The problem isn't necessarily bizarre experiments. It's bizarre results.
It's tempting to think we know all we'll need to know about genetic engineering to fix different problems, but the world is a complex place, and the human body is a very complex system. We haven't been mucking around with genes (directly) long enough to even know the short-term consequences well, let alone the long-term consequences.
Yes, we need to pursue this, but it's not something we should rush into the moment we have enough knowledge to turn a monkey green.
I found the script well written and a plot that actually flowed with continuity from one episode to the next, which is unusual with popular programming these days.
Unusual? What are you talking about? It's VERY common these days, look at 24 or Lost or Heroes or Alias or Prison Break or Sopranos or The Shield or Sopranos or any number of shows that have been playing for the past few years. Terminator rode those coattails.
In tuxgeek's defense, I think he meant a plot that flowed logically from one episode to the next. I can't say anything about the other shows, because I never watched them, but both Prison Break and 24 had such flights of illogical nonsense that they were hard to watch and follow at times, even if they did flow continuously from one episode to the next. I gave up on Prison Break the minute Scofield reveald his "hidden" tattoo.
Well, I wasn't talking about Jack. He. at least, we know is exempt from death. Tony would've been a good example...if they'd've let him rest in peace the first time. (Whatever they paid Carlos Bernard for sacrificing his dignity like that wasn't nearly enough.)
When I talked about major characters dying, I was thinking more of Edgar and characters at that level The writes (generally speaking) have no qualms with killing a character the audience has been followiing for multiple seasons. When they do it well, it enhances the drama of the show and can even make it more powerful. The problem is, they haven't killed off a character in that kind of powerful way in quite a while. Instead, we get soap opera-level "He didn't die. He fell 1,000 feet into a really soft pile of pillows!" kind of "deaths".
I think you're right that the shark has long been past. I used to watch it religiously. This season, I caught maybe half the episodes. And the scary thing is, unlike some other seasons, this season it didn't seem to matter if you missed any. The plot is nonsensical either way.
Too many shows are successful with that flaw. See 24, Chuck, and more.
I don't think that you can necessarily be safe having "Chuck" on that list. Last I heard, this past season was going to be Chuck's last, unless something changes (for basically the same reason: not enough viewers).
I also don't think 24 belongs on that list. In fact, the 24 writers have a habit of killing off main characters just to keep things interesting. Sure, Jack seems to be exempt from that, but they've had a lot of big characters die on the show. (Mostly, I don't think it's helped. The writers seem to be obsessed with plot twists for their own sake, and they made this past season barely watchable.)
I think the Sarah Connor Chronicles died because it just wasn't much of a show. It seemed to be a retread of where the movies had already gone. They just made the John Connor of T1 slightly older.
I actually had high hopes for the series, but it became evident pretty quickly that they weren't really going to do anything new with it.
The only difference with labels is that you can't have two labels with the same name. You can easily have, for example, a label for "Consulting" label and a "Work" label, and you can have a "Project" label that is associated with either one (or both). You can have every message with certain text labeled both "Work" and "Project", or "Consulting" and "Project", depending on the text.
The important thing is the archiving. If you don't archive, your Inbox does look messy, but you can have messages auto-archived after they're labeled. I don't have anything in my Inbox at this point. Everything gets auto-archived and is accessible either through the labels or searching.
I do concede that labels are a much different paradigm than people are used to with folders. When I first started with Gmail, I tried to delete all my Sent Mail and accidentally ended up deleting every message from any person I had ever replied to. (Good thing it wasn't a lot of mail at that point!)
Gmail automatically groups all your e-mails by thread, without you having to do anything, and without taking up the space involved with the organizational tree approach. In addition, Gmail allows you to filter your e-mail and label it, which has the benefit of letting you organize e-mail in more than one way (as opposed to folders, where you either have to pick where you put the e-mail, or copy it into multiple folders).
One of the benefits of Web mail is that it's *not* a stand-alone app. Why would you want to use a Web app that looks and acts like Outlook (but, arguably, without Outlook's good points)? I use Gmail precisely because it's *not* a carbon copy of other non-Web e-mail clients, and actually brings some ideas to the table. Recreating Outlook in a Web app seems pointless.
I actually tried to correct this, but I don't see my correction posted. The problem was I tried to use the left caret/less than symbol while in HTML mode. Anyway, here's what I meant to say:
I have less than 500MB in my Gmail account right now. That's mainly because when things come in I delete them if I don't want them, and I always delete spam. If I didn't, I could see me using up 2.8 GB, I guess.
I tried the new Yahoo Mail. I think it's more cutesy than anything really useful or innovative. There doesn't seem to be conversations or threading of any kind. And filtering would also be nice. It's noticeably absent here.
All in all, this seems to be Web mail for people who actually like the way Outlook works. That really says all you need to know, doesn't it?
(I guess that'll teach me for not using Preview first!)
Article II, giving the president Commander-In-Chief powers in time of war.
Also, to be precise, keep in mind that this isn't, strictly speaking, "domestic" spying. This is monitoring international phone calls, where one party to the phone call is in the U.S. The NSA isn't listening to you calling your Aunt Mary in Toledo.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't necessarily bizarre experiments. It's bizarre results. It's tempting to think we know all we'll need to know about genetic engineering to fix different problems, but the world is a complex place, and the human body is a very complex system. We haven't been mucking around with genes (directly) long enough to even know the short-term consequences well, let alone the long-term consequences. Yes, we need to pursue this, but it's not something we should rush into the moment we have enough knowledge to turn a monkey green.
I found the script well written and a plot that actually flowed with continuity from one episode to the next, which is unusual with popular programming these days. Unusual? What are you talking about? It's VERY common these days, look at 24 or Lost or Heroes or Alias or Prison Break or Sopranos or The Shield or Sopranos or any number of shows that have been playing for the past few years. Terminator rode those coattails.
In tuxgeek's defense, I think he meant a plot that flowed logically from one episode to the next. I can't say anything about the other shows, because I never watched them, but both Prison Break and 24 had such flights of illogical nonsense that they were hard to watch and follow at times, even if they did flow continuously from one episode to the next. I gave up on Prison Break the minute Scofield reveald his "hidden" tattoo.
Well, I wasn't talking about Jack. He. at least, we know is exempt from death. Tony would've been a good example...if they'd've let him rest in peace the first time. (Whatever they paid Carlos Bernard for sacrificing his dignity like that wasn't nearly enough.) When I talked about major characters dying, I was thinking more of Edgar and characters at that level The writes (generally speaking) have no qualms with killing a character the audience has been followiing for multiple seasons. When they do it well, it enhances the drama of the show and can even make it more powerful. The problem is, they haven't killed off a character in that kind of powerful way in quite a while. Instead, we get soap opera-level "He didn't die. He fell 1,000 feet into a really soft pile of pillows!" kind of "deaths". I think you're right that the shark has long been past. I used to watch it religiously. This season, I caught maybe half the episodes. And the scary thing is, unlike some other seasons, this season it didn't seem to matter if you missed any. The plot is nonsensical either way.
I think you're right. I meant T2. :)
Too many shows are successful with that flaw. See 24, Chuck, and more.
I don't think that you can necessarily be safe having "Chuck" on that list. Last I heard, this past season was going to be Chuck's last, unless something changes (for basically the same reason: not enough viewers). I also don't think 24 belongs on that list. In fact, the 24 writers have a habit of killing off main characters just to keep things interesting. Sure, Jack seems to be exempt from that, but they've had a lot of big characters die on the show. (Mostly, I don't think it's helped. The writers seem to be obsessed with plot twists for their own sake, and they made this past season barely watchable.) I think the Sarah Connor Chronicles died because it just wasn't much of a show. It seemed to be a retread of where the movies had already gone. They just made the John Connor of T1 slightly older. I actually had high hopes for the series, but it became evident pretty quickly that they weren't really going to do anything new with it.
The only difference with labels is that you can't have two labels with the same name. You can easily have, for example, a label for "Consulting" label and a "Work" label, and you can have a "Project" label that is associated with either one (or both). You can have every message with certain text labeled both "Work" and "Project", or "Consulting" and "Project", depending on the text.
The important thing is the archiving. If you don't archive, your Inbox does look messy, but you can have messages auto-archived after they're labeled. I don't have anything in my Inbox at this point. Everything gets auto-archived and is accessible either through the labels or searching.
I do concede that labels are a much different paradigm than people are used to with folders. When I first started with Gmail, I tried to delete all my Sent Mail and accidentally ended up deleting every message from any person I had ever replied to. (Good thing it wasn't a lot of mail at that point!)
I'm not sure what you mean by "useless pile".
Gmail automatically groups all your e-mails by thread, without you having to do anything, and without taking up the space involved with the organizational tree approach. In addition, Gmail allows you to filter your e-mail and label it, which has the benefit of letting you organize e-mail in more than one way (as opposed to folders, where you either have to pick where you put the e-mail, or copy it into multiple folders).
One of the benefits of Web mail is that it's *not* a stand-alone app. Why would you want to use a Web app that looks and acts like Outlook (but, arguably, without Outlook's good points)? I use Gmail precisely because it's *not* a carbon copy of other non-Web e-mail clients, and actually brings some ideas to the table. Recreating Outlook in a Web app seems pointless.
I actually tried to correct this, but I don't see my correction posted. The problem was I tried to use the left caret/less than symbol while in HTML mode. Anyway, here's what I meant to say: I have less than 500MB in my Gmail account right now. That's mainly because when things come in I delete them if I don't want them, and I always delete spam. If I didn't, I could see me using up 2.8 GB, I guess. I tried the new Yahoo Mail. I think it's more cutesy than anything really useful or innovative. There doesn't seem to be conversations or threading of any kind. And filtering would also be nice. It's noticeably absent here. All in all, this seems to be Web mail for people who actually like the way Outlook works. That really says all you need to know, doesn't it? (I guess that'll teach me for not using Preview first!)
I have like the way Outlook works. That really says all you need to know, doesn't it?
Article II, giving the president Commander-In-Chief powers in time of war. Also, to be precise, keep in mind that this isn't, strictly speaking, "domestic" spying. This is monitoring international phone calls, where one party to the phone call is in the U.S. The NSA isn't listening to you calling your Aunt Mary in Toledo.