I'm in the same boat. After "sex and The City" wrapped, my wife got into "The Sopranos". Now, the show came on when I started my IT career and I was not enamored by the premise. Being an NJ native (though I will never swear to that under oath), I thought it did little to enhance NJ's reputation for being an over-populated, tax-burdened, garden of asphalt. Mind you, I've caught a few episodes over the years, and I believe the acting and writing to be excellent, though the premise still doesn't do anything for me.
That said, I thought the ending was perfect. To paraphrase a line from the online comic PvP, "David Chase is my master now." He took all the angst, the drama, the gut-wrenching of 84 episodes, and boiled it down to a simple formula: life goes on. Very Vonnegut ("And so it goes."). In one fell swoop, he gave an ending that was perplexing to the hard-core viewer and at the same time satisfying, in that Tony lives on... or not. I've seen the allusion to Schrödinger's cat, and that's exactly the point: you cannot know whether Tony's world catches up with him or whether he skates through it. Diabolical.
But it's all the same thing. Looked at rationally, the universe is a system and according to scientific theory, anything within that system is explainable in a rational fashion, as a sum of interactions between matter and energy. Quantum mechanics tells us that as we get to the level of the tiniest things, the universe gets very grainy, and our picture of it gets a bit fuzzy. It's like the crack under the door -- you can't see through the door to see what's on the other side, but the crack allows you a glimpse.
What, you may ask, has that to do with anything? Well, what really is the difference between belief and scientific fact? To take the gravity analogy, we are held down by gravitational attraction to the planet and that attraction follows certain specific laws according to science. But you're right, it's hard to prove gravity exists; the theory we have created happens to match our experience pretty well and we can calculate accurately the effect of one body on another. But it that because gravity "exists" or because we "believe" it exists? How do we know that there is not another set of theories that explains gravity even more accurately? After all, Newton was the last word in gravity until Einstein came along and went into even greater detail. Did that make Newton wrong? No. But Einstein believed there was more to it than that, and was ultimately able to come up with a theory to prove it. The scientific method is based on the idea that we "believe" something to be true and then we go out and test that belief to see if we can explain it in rational terms. Where faith-based beliefs part company with science is in the explanation, for they simply invoke another unknown ("God") as their explanation.
I don't think it's possible to truly ask the question "Does God Exist?", because we have no definition of what "God" actually is. You can say creator of everything, most powerful force in the universe, etc., but you don't really come to some set of definable characteristics that would make it possible to explore the question. I don't think we're at a point yet where we can formulate a good scientific definition of "God" and it may be that that is never truly possible.
Well, of course they are organized... but an organized minority is still an organized minority. Look, there's no point in getting worked up over this. People have to decide for themselves -- there's no point in the scientifically-minded community become zealots like the creationists. A clash of egos and belief systems isn't going to solve anything, and shouting matches over who's right only server to turn the undecided to apathy.
If Darwinism cannot stand up to scrutiny and weather the feeble attempts of the narrow-minded to erase its influence with their dogma, then it's not the all-powerful theory that we think it is. Frankly those of us who believe in the rationality of the Darwinian view don't have to defend it; it stands on its own merits. Only the most addled intellects would refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes, and they are a tiny fraction of the population. making too much hay of this only gives them strength they do not deserve.
After all, God says that there will be only one God, him (her/it/whatever), that you must follow his rules and you must give thanks to him. If that isn't self-centered, I don't know what is.
Kirk: Excuse me... but what does God need with a starship?
Well, only in USA could could a creation museum be created. Why? Because if how religious this country is and how dumb most people are.
Well, that and in this country we value freedom of speech. Let's face it: you and I might think these folks are first class loonies, but it does absolutely no good to denigrate their belief, because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them. That's because belief is a core function, based on the rational part of our mind. We have to "believe" that the world around us is the way it is in order to function in it. We have taken that mechanism and applied it to things we cannot see or experience and that's where the trouble lies, because we can convince ourselves that things we cannot see are more real than things right before our eyes.
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.
Admittedly, it's impressive, but then again climbing Everest is no longer a glamour thing. It's become pedestrian, with basically climbing "tourists" being led up the mountain by guides making big bucks while the Sherpas do most of the hard work of actually summiting. And there are plenty of people going up that mountain who have no business being up there. And every year people die because of stupidity, in a place which is unforgiving of mistakes.
I admire the guy for doing it. God knows, my wife would like to go there just to reach Advanced Base Camp (though I know if she got that far, the lure of the summit would be too great for her). There's something about it that despite the current Disneyland quality of the trip, lures you in. I just am not that impressed by the whole spectacle.
Laptop computers provide most of the computer power we need on the mountain but they have to stay lower on the mountain, at or below advanced base camp at 21,000 feet. For redundancy we brought three laptops, all different brands, just in case one particular brand proved problematic. The primary mode of failure for laptops in this environment is hard drive failure since hard drives rely upon the viscosity of air to provide lubrication and damping among the moving parts, the same manner that oil provides lubrication and damping for moving machine or engine parts.
And depending on the make and model, the second failure mode, the batteries bursting into flames, will keep you warm on those chilly Everest nights.
It is safe to say that climbing Everest has no more significance now than parking your car. Every year, a cavalcade of people charge up the mountain, to the point there are actual people jams at the approach to the summit. Ho hum.
The problem lies in that, unlike much of the drug war, which goes on unseen and unheard of, the war on terror is right out there on your local newsstand. The longer they draw this out without tangible results, the more risk they run of getting egg on their face when the next terrorist attack occurs in San Francisco or Chicago. Standing around telling everyone there have been no attacks since 9-11 is kind of like standing on railroad tracks with an express train bearing down you and claiming you still have plenty of time to get out of the way. It is a fool's errand.
My whole conception behind this is simple -- we're no better off now than we were then. Rather than trying to bomb them into the Stone Age (a strategy akin to Vietnam), we should be laying low, letting them think we've been lulled to sleep, and then spend our time and capital finding ways to infiltrate and destroy their movements from within. Seems like a much better use of resources.
Strangely there's no "monster under my bed". I'm not one of those folks cowering in fear of walking out the door because Osama Bin Laden may be parked down the street, or there may be Anthrax on my train, or a dirty bomb hidden on ship in port. I'm more likely to be killed by some nut on the NJ Turnpike.
Of course the administration wants to catch these creeps -- they'd love to parade Bin Laden around the streets and go "We told you we were going to kick his ass!". Do that, and everyone associated with the White House be a shoo-in to win election to something, anything, even the presidency. Problem: they don't have the foggiest idea how to go about it and as a result they using the "let's keep stomping around the woods" approach, which is doing nothing more than scaring the wildlife and letting the bad guys now they are coming.
The White House is nothing, if not consistent. It will not give ground on issues it deems important. They are convinced that the only way to catch terrorists on American soil is to tap everyone's phones and read everyone's email. While it may be a laudable idea in theory, the practice is far from certain to net anything useful. This is the information age. The terrorists no doubt know what is being tapped or watched. They haven't exactly proven themselves to be stupid or they would never have been able to pull off 9-11. So while the White House is sure that they'll catch them red-handed, the terrorists are no doubt finding other avenues of communication that the government can't tap into.
Al Qaeda took advantage of our false sense of security, and this is just more of that, only with bells, whistles, and the cry of "See?!? There hasn't been a terrorist attack here lately!". We're no more secure now than we were then, just more aware. What we do with that awareness will count for more than all the tapped phone calls the NSA listens to.
Sarcasm aside, testing something in the lab is not the same as knocking about in the real world. And it's not dropping it that is necessarily the bugaboo. A co-worker told me today how his daughter's video iPod has now twice locked up and refused to work, to be replaced by a new unit each time. Reliability is not something that can be tested -- it has to be built in. Apple's products are good, but they are not flawless, and while a person might conceivably live without an iPod for a period of time, many people would be helpless without their mobile phone.
Even if you can just show up at an Apple store and swap a defective phone for a new one, they stand to take a bath if the phone is unreliable. Imagine the number of times they will have to make free replacements of defective/non-functional phones, and how quickly that will eat into profits.
It will be reliability. This isn't an iPod; you're iPod breaks and so you can't listen to music or watch videos, that's a shame. But people are wedded to their mobile phones -- if these things can't stand up to the pounding that a normal mobile phone takes in the course of a day, you're going to see sales tail off pretty damned fast.
Uhura: I'm trying, sir, but they're using some sort of signal encryption...
Kirk: Mr. Spock, analysis.
Spock [leaning over viewer]: It appears to be a primitive form of encryption, Captain. It will only take me a few moments to break it.
Uhura: Sir, we're getting a signal from the alien ship.
Kirk: On audio, Lieutenant.
Voice: This is the RIAA vessel Enforcer ordering you to cease and desist your efforts to break our encryption. Our signals belong to us and you have not paid the appropriate fees to access them. Cease immediately or we will be forced to beam our lawyers aboard your ship!
Well, if you and I vote for him, that's two... all we need is a bunch more people. I like Richardson; he's not the publicity hog that Clinton and he's experienced like Obama is not.
20+ y.o. male geek, likes long walks on the beach, dark rooms, WoW, and Ubuntu, seeking female with similar interest to keep me company in my parents basement while I hack -- prefer a virgin.
Harold, I know... you've been on that Slashdot site again haven't you? Haven't you? Admit it!!!! You're fooling around with Ubuntu... behind my back!!!
Well, you can certainly fill up your Senator or Congressman's inbox with emails, but you've got to remember that rarely do they actually read all their own email. Usually it's screened by their staff for content first, so they get a sanitized picture of what constituents want. It's better to hunt these people down on the campaign trail and ask them pointed questions before news cameras. Also, even if they do "read" all their email, unless that's followed up by actual votes there's little chance of any great impact. I don't think either party is courting the "Internet voter".
I mean look at how well "deregulation" worked in the airline industry? More people can fly, flights are cheaper, to more destinations... crammed into tiny airplanes with more people... lousier food... more delays... bad customer service... bankruptcies... never mind.
Except the parents are not in the room to see the warning, as they are not policing what their kids watch on TV. My 8-year-old was bugged the other day because I wouldn't let him watch Stephen King's "The Stand" or Cops. We use the parental controls on our cable box to keep them locked out of things they don't need to watch, and to keep the cable off when they get home from school so they'll be able to do their homework. Now if I could just hook up the X-box the same way...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the same boat. After "sex and The City" wrapped, my wife got into "The Sopranos". Now, the show came on when I started my IT career and I was not enamored by the premise. Being an NJ native (though I will never swear to that under oath), I thought it did little to enhance NJ's reputation for being an over-populated, tax-burdened, garden of asphalt. Mind you, I've caught a few episodes over the years, and I believe the acting and writing to be excellent, though the premise still doesn't do anything for me.
That said, I thought the ending was perfect. To paraphrase a line from the online comic PvP, "David Chase is my master now." He took all the angst, the drama, the gut-wrenching of 84 episodes, and boiled it down to a simple formula: life goes on. Very Vonnegut ("And so it goes."). In one fell swoop, he gave an ending that was perplexing to the hard-core viewer and at the same time satisfying, in that Tony lives on... or not. I've seen the allusion to Schrödinger's cat, and that's exactly the point: you cannot know whether Tony's world catches up with him or whether he skates through it. Diabolical.
But it's all the same thing. Looked at rationally, the universe is a system and according to scientific theory, anything within that system is explainable in a rational fashion, as a sum of interactions between matter and energy. Quantum mechanics tells us that as we get to the level of the tiniest things, the universe gets very grainy, and our picture of it gets a bit fuzzy. It's like the crack under the door -- you can't see through the door to see what's on the other side, but the crack allows you a glimpse.
What, you may ask, has that to do with anything? Well, what really is the difference between belief and scientific fact? To take the gravity analogy, we are held down by gravitational attraction to the planet and that attraction follows certain specific laws according to science. But you're right, it's hard to prove gravity exists; the theory we have created happens to match our experience pretty well and we can calculate accurately the effect of one body on another. But it that because gravity "exists" or because we "believe" it exists? How do we know that there is not another set of theories that explains gravity even more accurately? After all, Newton was the last word in gravity until Einstein came along and went into even greater detail. Did that make Newton wrong? No. But Einstein believed there was more to it than that, and was ultimately able to come up with a theory to prove it. The scientific method is based on the idea that we "believe" something to be true and then we go out and test that belief to see if we can explain it in rational terms. Where faith-based beliefs part company with science is in the explanation, for they simply invoke another unknown ("God") as their explanation.
I don't think it's possible to truly ask the question "Does God Exist?", because we have no definition of what "God" actually is. You can say creator of everything, most powerful force in the universe, etc., but you don't really come to some set of definable characteristics that would make it possible to explore the question. I don't think we're at a point yet where we can formulate a good scientific definition of "God" and it may be that that is never truly possible.
Well, of course they are organized... but an organized minority is still an organized minority. Look, there's no point in getting worked up over this. People have to decide for themselves -- there's no point in the scientifically-minded community become zealots like the creationists. A clash of egos and belief systems isn't going to solve anything, and shouting matches over who's right only server to turn the undecided to apathy.
If Darwinism cannot stand up to scrutiny and weather the feeble attempts of the narrow-minded to erase its influence with their dogma, then it's not the all-powerful theory that we think it is. Frankly those of us who believe in the rationality of the Darwinian view don't have to defend it; it stands on its own merits. Only the most addled intellects would refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes, and they are a tiny fraction of the population. making too much hay of this only gives them strength they do not deserve.
Kirk: Excuse me... but what does God need with a starship?
Well, that and in this country we value freedom of speech. Let's face it: you and I might think these folks are first class loonies, but it does absolutely no good to denigrate their belief, because they have developed a system whereby there is no challenge to their faith that they cannot nullify. No amount of inconsistency in their world view is going to sway them. That's because belief is a core function, based on the rational part of our mind. We have to "believe" that the world around us is the way it is in order to function in it. We have taken that mechanism and applied it to things we cannot see or experience and that's where the trouble lies, because we can convince ourselves that things we cannot see are more real than things right before our eyes.
Let them be. They are only fooling themselves. I think it's safe to say that they are truly a minority group, and this is their chance to have a moment in the sun. The rest of us know better and can safely ignore them, unless they intend to force us to see things their way. Then the gloves come off.
Paraphrasing Contact:
Palmer: Did you love your father?
Ellie: Yes.
Palmer: Prove it.
We know all sorts of things. Our knowledge is vast, but compared to the infinity of space, insignificant. If nothing else, quantum physics teaches us that there are many gray areas, where things are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Belief and/or faith in something without scientific proof is not the death of Mankind -- belief and/or faith in something when the evidence before contradicts that belief/faith is where the madness lies.
Admittedly, it's impressive, but then again climbing Everest is no longer a glamour thing. It's become pedestrian, with basically climbing "tourists" being led up the mountain by guides making big bucks while the Sherpas do most of the hard work of actually summiting. And there are plenty of people going up that mountain who have no business being up there. And every year people die because of stupidity, in a place which is unforgiving of mistakes.
I admire the guy for doing it. God knows, my wife would like to go there just to reach Advanced Base Camp (though I know if she got that far, the lure of the summit would be too great for her). There's something about it that despite the current Disneyland quality of the trip, lures you in. I just am not that impressed by the whole spectacle.
And depending on the make and model, the second failure mode, the batteries bursting into flames, will keep you warm on those chilly Everest nights.
It is safe to say that climbing Everest has no more significance now than parking your car. Every year, a cavalcade of people charge up the mountain, to the point there are actual people jams at the approach to the summit. Ho hum.
The problem lies in that, unlike much of the drug war, which goes on unseen and unheard of, the war on terror is right out there on your local newsstand. The longer they draw this out without tangible results, the more risk they run of getting egg on their face when the next terrorist attack occurs in San Francisco or Chicago. Standing around telling everyone there have been no attacks since 9-11 is kind of like standing on railroad tracks with an express train bearing down you and claiming you still have plenty of time to get out of the way. It is a fool's errand.
My whole conception behind this is simple -- we're no better off now than we were then. Rather than trying to bomb them into the Stone Age (a strategy akin to Vietnam), we should be laying low, letting them think we've been lulled to sleep, and then spend our time and capital finding ways to infiltrate and destroy their movements from within. Seems like a much better use of resources.
Strangely there's no "monster under my bed". I'm not one of those folks cowering in fear of walking out the door because Osama Bin Laden may be parked down the street, or there may be Anthrax on my train, or a dirty bomb hidden on ship in port. I'm more likely to be killed by some nut on the NJ Turnpike.
Of course the administration wants to catch these creeps -- they'd love to parade Bin Laden around the streets and go "We told you we were going to kick his ass!". Do that, and everyone associated with the White House be a shoo-in to win election to something, anything, even the presidency. Problem: they don't have the foggiest idea how to go about it and as a result they using the "let's keep stomping around the woods" approach, which is doing nothing more than scaring the wildlife and letting the bad guys now they are coming.
The White House is nothing, if not consistent. It will not give ground on issues it deems important. They are convinced that the only way to catch terrorists on American soil is to tap everyone's phones and read everyone's email. While it may be a laudable idea in theory, the practice is far from certain to net anything useful. This is the information age. The terrorists no doubt know what is being tapped or watched. They haven't exactly proven themselves to be stupid or they would never have been able to pull off 9-11. So while the White House is sure that they'll catch them red-handed, the terrorists are no doubt finding other avenues of communication that the government can't tap into.
Al Qaeda took advantage of our false sense of security, and this is just more of that, only with bells, whistles, and the cry of "See?!? There hasn't been a terrorist attack here lately!". We're no more secure now than we were then, just more aware. What we do with that awareness will count for more than all the tapped phone calls the NSA listens to.
Sarcasm aside, testing something in the lab is not the same as knocking about in the real world. And it's not dropping it that is necessarily the bugaboo. A co-worker told me today how his daughter's video iPod has now twice locked up and refused to work, to be replaced by a new unit each time. Reliability is not something that can be tested -- it has to be built in. Apple's products are good, but they are not flawless, and while a person might conceivably live without an iPod for a period of time, many people would be helpless without their mobile phone.
Even if you can just show up at an Apple store and swap a defective phone for a new one, they stand to take a bath if the phone is unreliable. Imagine the number of times they will have to make free replacements of defective/non-functional phones, and how quickly that will eat into profits.
It will be reliability. This isn't an iPod; you're iPod breaks and so you can't listen to music or watch videos, that's a shame. But people are wedded to their mobile phones -- if these things can't stand up to the pounding that a normal mobile phone takes in the course of a day, you're going to see sales tail off pretty damned fast.
Kirk: Uhura, can you patch into their signal?
Uhura: I'm trying, sir, but they're using some sort of signal encryption...
Kirk: Mr. Spock, analysis.
Spock [leaning over viewer]: It appears to be a primitive form of encryption, Captain. It will only take me a few moments to break it.
Uhura: Sir, we're getting a signal from the alien ship.
Kirk: On audio, Lieutenant.
Voice: This is the RIAA vessel Enforcer ordering you to cease and desist your efforts to break our encryption. Our signals belong to us and you have not paid the appropriate fees to access them. Cease immediately or we will be forced to beam our lawyers aboard your ship!
Well, if you and I vote for him, that's two... all we need is a bunch more people. I like Richardson; he's not the publicity hog that Clinton and he's experienced like Obama is not.
20+ y.o. male geek, likes long walks on the beach, dark rooms, WoW, and Ubuntu, seeking female with similar interest to keep me company in my parents basement while I hack -- prefer a virgin.
Harold, I know... you've been on that Slashdot site again haven't you? Haven't you? Admit it!!!! You're fooling around with Ubuntu... behind my back!!!
Not even the CEO, but the ex-CEO handing over the reigns to the incoming CEO, who BTW is just as bag an Net Neutrality opponent.
Speaking of attacking and given AT&T's logo:
That's no moon, it's a space station!
Well, you can certainly fill up your Senator or Congressman's inbox with emails, but you've got to remember that rarely do they actually read all their own email. Usually it's screened by their staff for content first, so they get a sanitized picture of what constituents want. It's better to hunt these people down on the campaign trail and ask them pointed questions before news cameras. Also, even if they do "read" all their email, unless that's followed up by actual votes there's little chance of any great impact. I don't think either party is courting the "Internet voter".
I mean look at how well "deregulation" worked in the airline industry? More people can fly, flights are cheaper, to more destinations... crammed into tiny airplanes with more people... lousier food... more delays... bad customer service... bankruptcies... never mind.
And here I thought fleeting use had to do with the Navy...
It doesn't just have to be a word either. Remember the flap over Janet Jackson's "fleeting glimpse"?
Except the parents are not in the room to see the warning, as they are not policing what their kids watch on TV. My 8-year-old was bugged the other day because I wouldn't let him watch Stephen King's "The Stand" or Cops. We use the parental controls on our cable box to keep them locked out of things they don't need to watch, and to keep the cable off when they get home from school so they'll be able to do their homework. Now if I could just hook up the X-box the same way...
Every freakin' fr@k knows what friggin' fr@k means... dadgummit!!