And yes, you ARE advocating that books are "better" than movies. If movies/games/TV can't provide the value that books do, doesn't that mean that they have a lower overall worth?
Not if movies/games/TV can provide things that books can't. Which I believe is true. You might imagine a lion with the sharpest, best imagination in the world, reading the best description ever written, but it still won't be up to scratch compared to actually seeing a lion hunting on TV. I'd suggest a balance of the two instead.
First of all I'd like to point out that I never equated lack of imagination with lack of intelligence. One can be extremely clever and completely devoid of all other human qualities. These are all different components of a human being which can vary mostly independently of each other.
Second, You are agreeing with me with the very way you phrase your disagreement. Let me break down your argument for you:
You're saying that because you can't visualise forests when reading LotR, there is nothing to be gained from novels.
I am saying that novels provide mind expansion in the creative, imagination side of life.
So in effect, I'm saying that novel increase your "rating" in dimension A, while you're saying "I don't have any dimension A so novels suck".
Your disagreement stems from a fallacy: I never said that *everyone* gains from reading novels. I do believe that the majority of people will benefit, but it's obvious that not everyone will. One of my best friends has only read about a dozen novels in his life, and he hardly lacks imagination. Oh dear, you've caught me out - I made a wide-sweeping generalisation and you pointed out an exception. I believe that's known as "splitting hairs".
Not only that, but writing a book about something requires you to perform even more research than you would otherwise, to make sure you're not making things up.
Not very accessible to someone who's never even READ a book though...
Reading a novel isn't just about seeing a story. The story aspect is important as well - and it'd be true that a mindblowing story will be mindblowing whichever way you present it. But a movie or a game have a fundamental limitation, due to their very nature: they show you everything.
When you read a book, you exercise the muscle of your imagination. You create worlds in your head, you see things that you've never seen, your mind is at full work placing you in another universe. When you watch a movie or play a game (no matter how involved, complex, and interesting the story is), your imagination is at rest. Everything is provided ready-made.
Some movies, and probably some games, manage to work your imagination in a way similar to a book, because of the incredible genius that went into making them, but even there, they are usually lesser than the equivalent book in that respect.
I'm not advocating that books are "better" than movies (in fact I'm not advocating anything, merely presenting my point of view!:-) ), but that movies and games can never provide the same kind of value that books do - no matter how good they become. Unfortunately movies and games take a lot less effort and so are often the "easier path". This wouldn't be a problem if they were just something you do alongside reading books. But if you discard books in favour of movies and games - well, there you've made a big mistake.
Games may be better at teaching certain things than books, but they can never provide the kind of mind expansion that reading a lot of novels can. People already read little enough. Replacing books even at school will probably reinforce this trend even more - and prepare a whole generation where the majority of people will not have bothered to read a single book! What a sad state of affairs that would be...
As one who spent countless hours playing on MUDs back in the days, I can assure you that yes, when it comes to MUDs (graphical or not), gameplay is everything.
No it's not. You let your anger rise to the top and take hold of your mind, et voilà! With one fell swoop you can cut your father's/son's hand off and rule the universe as father and son.
And he said it in an interesting way. The conclusion I came to after reading that particular anecdote (and being an amateur writer it affects me too) was that the meaning of your story is in the mind of the reader. Once you've written your story, it slips out of your control and you have no determination as to its "meaning" anymore. This is actually one of the things that make great masterpieces so lasting - each person reads their own meaning into them.
She's not a "sci fi author", she's a science fiction author (difference is in the quality. Star Wars is Sci Fi, Minority Report is Science Fiction). And she's a Fantasy author. In both genres she has created a seminal series of books - in Fantasy she made the unique and fascinating Earthsea world, and in SF she made the equally fascinating universe of Anaresti/Urasti, Hainish, Earth, etc. She's on equal footing with the likes of Arthur C Clarke in terms of popularity, and above most of his books in terms of quality (Childhood's End being the only exception I've read).
After a 1s fall, any object will be falling at 9.8m/s (constant acceleration for 1 s, starting at 0, will give that speed). It will also have travelled 4.9m.
If the iPod was stopped, say by the ground, in 10ms (probably in the right order of magnitude. Might be slightly shorter or longer depending the type of ground, whether you have a shock-absorbant casing around it, etc), it would have to take an acceleration of 9.8m/s / 0.01s = 980m/s^2 for 0.01s. That would be an acceleration of 980/9.8 = 100Gs.
So from 5m height, if the ipod falls straight on its side and the shock absorption of that floor + casing stops the ipod in 10ms, the acceleration will be 100Gs. if it stopped in 1ms, it would be 1000Gs.
Feel free to make your own measurements of the time it takes for the ipod to stop:-)
Indeed. Countless great men throughout the ages have deemed their freedom to be worth fighting and dying for. The people who founded your country sure did.
If you had a bit of practice (good old MUDs tend to do the trick for that), you'd be fairly easily able to hold 3-5 double-threaded conversations at the same time, with only about 10-15 seconds between replies. (double-threaded = two threads of conversation with each person, because of lag/delay in answers)
You need to be able to type fast of course, but you learn that "on the job", so to speak;-)
If you do that, all you'll get is file sharing irc curries instead of msn junkies... Probably spend at least as much time, possibly more. At least you'll get some serious music collection built up in no time:-D
If you compare it to the trash that comes out of the US/India/Hong Kong on a weekly basis, it was certainly an excellent movie. If you compare it to the global output of all movies ever produced, then, fair enough, it was an average movie.
Maybe you need to buy some sort of hi-tech equipment from your local pharmacy (hint: it consists of a stick with a bit of cotton on it) to clean your ears then. They say that fairly clearly in the voice-off and the long speeches.
Agreed that the first two thirds of AI would have made it a better movie, but that's far from making it a "bad" movie because they left that third in (which they probably did because it was in Kubrick's script and since he died before filming it I guess Spielberg didn't want to change it - Kubrick would have had a better chance to pull off such an heterogeneous movie, cf. Full Metal Jacket).
I've seen UV-glowy paints around for years. This is nothing new. You still need a blacklight (ie UV light) for it to be visible, it doesn't just glow in the dark magically (that would be more interesting, but still nothing amazing - there are plenty of fluorescent material about). So what's so great about this that it deserves a front-page post on slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, you ARE advocating that books are "better" than movies. If movies/games/TV can't provide the value that books do, doesn't that mean that they have a lower overall worth?
Not if movies/games/TV can provide things that books can't. Which I believe is true. You might imagine a lion with the sharpest, best imagination in the world, reading the best description ever written, but it still won't be up to scratch compared to actually seeing a lion hunting on TV. I'd suggest a balance of the two instead.
Daniel
First of all I'd like to point out that I never equated lack of imagination with lack of intelligence. One can be extremely clever and completely devoid of all other human qualities. These are all different components of a human being which can vary mostly independently of each other.
Second, You are agreeing with me with the very way you phrase your disagreement. Let me break down your argument for you:
You're saying that because you can't visualise forests when reading LotR, there is nothing to be gained from novels.
I am saying that novels provide mind expansion in the creative, imagination side of life.
So in effect, I'm saying that novel increase your "rating" in dimension A, while you're saying "I don't have any dimension A so novels suck".
Your disagreement stems from a fallacy: I never said that *everyone* gains from reading novels. I do believe that the majority of people will benefit, but it's obvious that not everyone will. One of my best friends has only read about a dozen novels in his life, and he hardly lacks imagination. Oh dear, you've caught me out - I made a wide-sweeping generalisation and you pointed out an exception. I believe that's known as "splitting hairs".
Daniel
Agreed!
Not only that, but writing a book about something requires you to perform even more research than you would otherwise, to make sure you're not making things up.
Not very accessible to someone who's never even READ a book though...
Daniel
Try reading "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel Garcia Marques. I think you'll find it will compare very favourably :-)
Daniel
Maybe we just need more interesting textbooks then!
Daniel
Reading a novel isn't just about seeing a story. The story aspect is important as well - and it'd be true that a mindblowing story will be mindblowing whichever way you present it. But a movie or a game have a fundamental limitation, due to their very nature: they show you everything.
:-) ), but that movies and games can never provide the same kind of value that books do - no matter how good they become. Unfortunately movies and games take a lot less effort and so are often the "easier path". This wouldn't be a problem if they were just something you do alongside reading books. But if you discard books in favour of movies and games - well, there you've made a big mistake.
When you read a book, you exercise the muscle of your imagination. You create worlds in your head, you see things that you've never seen, your mind is at full work placing you in another universe. When you watch a movie or play a game (no matter how involved, complex, and interesting the story is), your imagination is at rest. Everything is provided ready-made.
Some movies, and probably some games, manage to work your imagination in a way similar to a book, because of the incredible genius that went into making them, but even there, they are usually lesser than the equivalent book in that respect.
I'm not advocating that books are "better" than movies (in fact I'm not advocating anything, merely presenting my point of view!
Daniel
Games may be better at teaching certain things than books, but they can never provide the kind of mind expansion that reading a lot of novels can. People already read little enough. Replacing books even at school will probably reinforce this trend even more - and prepare a whole generation where the majority of people will not have bothered to read a single book! What a sad state of affairs that would be...
Daniel
And that illustrates pretty well why I don't want to play these games anymore. I learnt my lesson with MUDs. BTL is a dangerous game...
Daniel
As one who spent countless hours playing on MUDs back in the days, I can assure you that yes, when it comes to MUDs (graphical or not), gameplay is everything.
Daniel
We, us... we're all together in this synergistic orgy of proactive brainstorming.
Daniel
would you want that as a career? The only career I can see shrinking as rapidly is the support centre phone operative.
Daniel
No it's not. You let your anger rise to the top and take hold of your mind, et voilà! With one fell swoop you can cut your father's/son's hand off and rule the universe as father and son.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Daniel
And he said it in an interesting way. The conclusion I came to after reading that particular anecdote (and being an amateur writer it affects me too) was that the meaning of your story is in the mind of the reader. Once you've written your story, it slips out of your control and you have no determination as to its "meaning" anymore. This is actually one of the things that make great masterpieces so lasting - each person reads their own meaning into them.
Daniel
She's not a "sci fi author", she's a science fiction author (difference is in the quality. Star Wars is Sci Fi, Minority Report is Science Fiction). And she's a Fantasy author. In both genres she has created a seminal series of books - in Fantasy she made the unique and fascinating Earthsea world, and in SF she made the equally fascinating universe of Anaresti/Urasti, Hainish, Earth, etc. She's on equal footing with the likes of Arthur C Clarke in terms of popularity, and above most of his books in terms of quality (Childhood's End being the only exception I've read).
Daniel
is the ultimate guide.
Enjoy!
Daniel
it's an acceleration rate. G = 9.8m/s.
:-)
After a 1s fall, any object will be falling at 9.8m/s (constant acceleration for 1 s, starting at 0, will give that speed). It will also have travelled 4.9m.
If the iPod was stopped, say by the ground, in 10ms (probably in the right order of magnitude. Might be slightly shorter or longer depending the type of ground, whether you have a shock-absorbant casing around it, etc), it would have to take an acceleration of 9.8m/s / 0.01s = 980m/s^2 for 0.01s. That would be an acceleration of 980/9.8 = 100Gs.
So from 5m height, if the ipod falls straight on its side and the shock absorption of that floor + casing stops the ipod in 10ms, the acceleration will be 100Gs. if it stopped in 1ms, it would be 1000Gs.
Feel free to make your own measurements of the time it takes for the ipod to stop
Daniel
But it will save so much time! Think about it (but don't think too hard, you might hurt yourself) - no hand recount needed!
Daniel
Indeed. Countless great men throughout the ages have deemed their freedom to be worth fighting and dying for. The people who founded your country sure did.
Daniel
If you had a bit of practice (good old MUDs tend to do the trick for that), you'd be fairly easily able to hold 3-5 double-threaded conversations at the same time, with only about 10-15 seconds between replies. (double-threaded = two threads of conversation with each person, because of lag/delay in answers)
;-)
You need to be able to type fast of course, but you learn that "on the job", so to speak
Daniel
If you do that, all you'll get is file sharing irc curries instead of msn junkies... Probably spend at least as much time, possibly more. At least you'll get some serious music collection built up in no time :-D
Daniel
If you compare it to the trash that comes out of the US/India/Hong Kong on a weekly basis, it was certainly an excellent movie. If you compare it to the global output of all movies ever produced, then, fair enough, it was an average movie.
Daniel
Hmm... some consulting firms definitely pay way less than a direct hire position...
Daniel
Maybe you need to buy some sort of hi-tech equipment from your local pharmacy (hint: it consists of a stick with a bit of cotton on it) to clean your ears then. They say that fairly clearly in the voice-off and the long speeches.
Agreed that the first two thirds of AI would have made it a better movie, but that's far from making it a "bad" movie because they left that third in (which they probably did because it was in Kubrick's script and since he died before filming it I guess Spielberg didn't want to change it - Kubrick would have had a better chance to pull off such an heterogeneous movie, cf. Full Metal Jacket).
The movie was, regardless, an excellent movie.
Daniel
Yeah, me too. all the mess ends up in ~/tmp. I only clean that up when i feel like it.
Daniel
I've seen UV-glowy paints around for years. This is nothing new. You still need a blacklight (ie UV light) for it to be visible, it doesn't just glow in the dark magically (that would be more interesting, but still nothing amazing - there are plenty of fluorescent material about). So what's so great about this that it deserves a front-page post on slashdot?
Daniel