1)The Bible uses parables to instill useful values. It is largely NOT literal. Children and simple adults believe it literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons present. This is okay, because the alternative methods of instilling the same useful values to a wide variety of people have no solid track record.
I have to disagree about your statement that simple adults believe the Bible literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons. I grew up in a literalist "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" church. Sermons and lessons were chocked full of deeper moral lessons from both the Old and New Testaments. Some of the most subtle insights into human nature I've ever heard came out of sermons based on Jesus's parables.
That said, there were doctrines where my church would not bend, eg those beliefs unique to our denomination that really weren't supportable by any reasonable reading of the Bible or were in direct conflict with scientific observation. If you questioned them, you would typically get either a) an unsatisfactory misreading of one or more biblical verses b) a glassy eyed look c) an unsupportable rationalization ("well you know to God, a billion years is like a day") d) or a quick change of subject.
I think that basically what this represents is not that the believers of that church were somehow cognitively inferior, but that they simply were caught in a set of self-reinforcing memes that required them to have mental blind-spots when it came to entertaining certain questions, thoughts, or observations. It was a powerful and compelling force.
It took me years after I figured out that they believed a bunch of unsupportable fantasy before I finally broke away. The draw to believe in the group consensus view was strong enough to keep me trying for years after I had effectively lost faith and begun finding my own truth (of which science figures in prominently).
Again, shenanigans. I never claimed Drexler came up with Nanotechnology. I said he did the first substantial work on machine-phase nanotechnology... something Smalley spent well over a decade trying to discredit. I remember the arguments and counter arguments back in the early 90s. Of course lots of scientists have been working at the nano-level before and since. My point was that for that specific type of proposed nanotechnology (mechanosynthesis, assemblers, dissassemblers, etc) that these guys did the first serious theoretical work. I still stand by that based on the evidence.
The reason you got attitude from me was that your dismissive attitude towards them and their achievements. I certainly respect both theoretical and experimental research in this or any other scientific field. However, it looked like you were minimizing the importance of the necessary theoretical portions and elevating the experimental. THAT is what I was pushing back against.
I certainly wish you and your compatriots great luck and success in your efforts. I fully understand that without guys like you, its just equations on a page or simulations in a computer... worthless unless applied.
"None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab. None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms. "
I call shenanigans. Every one of these guys has substantial nanotech street cred going back 20 years or more. Every single one of them has "worked in a nanotech lab". Most of them FOUNDED the discipline of Molecular Nanotechnology.
Drexler did the first substantial theoretical work on precision mechanosynthesis of molecules, the limits and restrictions on carbon-carbon mechanosythesis, charted possible paths to research and development, and so on. Oh and besides providing the theoretical underpinnings for molecular manufacturing (a new term that had to be created because opportunists like Dr. Richard Smalley successfully co-opted the term "nanotechnology" all the while trying to kill the credibility of Drexler and mechanosythesis approaches), Drexler is one of the strongest voices promoting thinking ahead about the risks and ethical implications of widespread use of molecular machines. The Foresight Institute was set up in large part to think ahead of nanotech development and be prepared with ethical and legal guidelines for the development and use of molecular nanotechnology. Oh, and he got the first EVER PhD in Nanotechnology.
Hall, besides being the founding chief scientist of Nanorex (who are developing open-source computational tools to support research in structural DNA nanotechnology), he's published a trunkload of papers on various aspects of nanotechnology. You can find a list here
Merkle did some of the first work on computational modeling of carbon-carbon nanostructures for mechanosynthesis. He worked as a research scientist at Zyvex, the first commercial nanotech research company, for several years. He's apparently still actively researching. His list of recent research papers, along with Freitas's, are here
Freitas is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Molecular Manufacturing. He's published a raft of papers (see link above) and did the first practical research on the theoretical underpinnings of nanomedicine, which he published in his book NANOMEDICINE.
They may not be pushing atoms around with an AFM (or whatever you are doing), but they are laying the foundations for the science and engineering of molecular manufacturing.
No my analysis isn't wrong, it just didn't include that aspect of the larger election. Of course the general election will be the final repudiation of the Reagan revolution and the neocon insanities. Not one of the candidates is a champion for that camp, including the Republican candidate (which is why their base hates McCain so much. he's not "one of them".)
There is more going on in this election than a excoriation of GWB, the Reagan revolution and the Neocon philosophy. Specifically the fight between Clinton and Obama is a generational struggle for control. Yes there is more than that going on in the entire race, but it is a large component driving the contention between those two candidates supporters.
How do I really feel? Yeah, I resent the Boomers as a group. I'm one of the Gen-X generation that has been uniformly crapped on by the Boomers since we committed the ultimate sin of not worshiping them.
My rhetoric applies to both the Boomer fueled neocons (look at the neocon philosophical heavyweights - all Boomers) and the machine Democrats (they aren't cohesive enough to have their own group name), like the Clintons.
Obama isn't a Baby Boomer. He's in the post-boomer generation variously called Generation-X, Generation-13, Post-Boomers, etc. Basically those born between 1961 and 1981 (read GENERATIONS by Howe & Strauss for a profile of American generations for the last three centuries).
Also, Obama is a reformist leader who has based his campaign on changing how American government works. He is literally the voice crying "STOP" for the two frustrated generations (Gen-X & Millenials) who follow the Boomers.
Clinton is a machine Democrat with 35 years invested in keeping Washington working the way it does now (aka lobbyist rule). So your "same side" argument lacks any basic understanding of current American presidential politics. As such, I have to devalue your criticisms of our system.
So you prefer your nastiness to go on behind closed doors? I guess tastes differ. I prefer openness even if it is messier. Sunlight and fresh air will kill lots of nasty things that live in the dark places.
What the hell are you talking about with my supposed "sit back until they die" approach? I said that we are in the initial stages of shoving the fractious Boomers out of power. We certainly aren't waiting for them to die. Heck, it may require copious amounts of holy water and wooden stakes through their hearts just to get them to back down.
As to the Boomer children being taught to act like their parents, the Millennials are a largely a civic and cooperative generation unlike the Boomers, who are individualistic and rhetorically idealistic. The Millenials do not show the narcissistic sense of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" ego that the Boomers enjoy. As a group the Millennials seem to be naturally cooperative and conscientious, if somewhat immature and naive. Like most civic generations, they were sheltered and cherished so it will take them a while to mature. But when they do, America will change as it has not since the last great civic generation: the G.I. (aka "The Greatest Generation").
In the interim it is the Gen-X folks that will be taking the reigns for a while. This is the truly galling part for the Boomers. They HATE the Gen-X generation (its a long story. read GENERATIONS). So the Boomers will renew their grip and force everyone to drive them out of power inch by bloody inch. Their entire generational ego is predicated on the notion that they know better than anyone else. They won't go easily. This fight is going to take years. The 2008 election is just the first battle in a long war.
Your logic on tying the War on Drugs to the campaign rhetoric is flawed. Certainly that is one of the many stupidities we have to address, it is NOT however one of the problems with the functioning of the primary campaign (your original point). It may be an issue not addressed by the campaigns, but it isn't an issue WITH the campaigns' operations. Nice try at a redirect, but a failed one.
Finally your statement that no one over here seems to be doing anything either is specious and insulting. Of course we are doing something about it. Why do you think so many people are actively working to elect their favored candidate? Its a fight. It is ugly and it will get uglier still. We who are actively engaged in that fight know this. We aren't disheartened that it is ugly. We know things will get better. That is what we are fighting for; not just to fix some of our problems but to fix the system so that it doesn't create these catastrophes in the first place. So bear with us while we try to sort this out.
Of course you wouldn't know what it is like to have to dig in and try to fix the basics of a broken govenment, since you rely on it all being nicely sorted out in a comfortable back room some where.
Is everyone in the US so effing polarized that you can even get your website hacked by someone supporting a person you're running against,/even if they are in same party/?! We are in the early death-throws of the so-called "Culture War" here. Since the Culture War is just another name for the Boomer generation's moralistic squabbling for power amongst themselves, then yes it can get ugly. As political transitions go, historically this one isn't that bad. Read a little history; not U.S. history, just plain old history. Lots of examples of treacherous, conniving, deceitful and brutal ideological power changes from just about every major western democracy. One of the most entitled, arrogant, and narcissistic generations in American history is starting to be pushed from power. I'm surprised the transition has so far been limited to mostly bombastic rhetoric and easily fixed shenanigans like redirected web-pages.
This isn't democracy, it's a slum. And what pristine example of harmonious democracy do you hail from? Take care with that stone, you may live in a glass house.
What gives here, honestly? It's/just/ a presidential nomination, not an attack on freedom or something. Obviously you aren't paying attention. First, this is a fight for arguably the most powerful political position in the world. Don't bother protesting, we're still the Big Burrito on the block, even if our power and influence are waning.
Second should Obama win both the Democratic nomination and the presidency, Hillary Clinton will never have a shot at the presidency. Her and her supporters feel she is entitled to that position. In their minds, she was supposed to be the first woman President of the U.S. In addition to the Clintons' feelings of entitlement and the gender politics involved, lets throw in racial politics (possible first black president), a failed presidency (Bush, Jr), a faltering economy, the expensive quagmire in Iraq, and fear of losing control by a generation entitled Baby Boomers. In point of fact, the whole thing is about the future of freedom - specifically who will set the tone and policies of the next generation of U.S. politics.
If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place. Go ahead throw your stones. We can take it. We have enough real problems to deal with (like fixing our economy, ending a stupid war & bringing our troops home, repairing our standing in the world, replacing our aging infrastructure, competing with the rising new economic superpowers, and healing the internal wounds from the corrosive Culture War in-fighting of the aging Boomers). We really appreciate your constructive suggestions on how to run our political selection process.
Christ, _just get along_. We're trying. You're not helping.
I think the reason it is hard to find good SF these days is that there are lots of authors cranking out lots of books. SF & Fantasy are now mainstream. Heck the one of the best selling sub-genres in all of fiction right now is Fantasy Romance (aka vampire bodice rippers).
There are good SF authors out there producing solid stories. Below are a few that I like. Note that all of the following books are SF, except where noted. Many of the titles that look like they might be fantasy ("Fallen Dragon", "There Will Be Dragons") are in fact SF and not Fantasy:
David Brin - one of the infamous "Killer B's" of Hard SF. Read "Earth", "Kiln People" and the Uplift series.
Stephen Baxter - Read "Voyage", "Titan", "Moonseed", "Raft", "Silverhair", "Longtusk", and "The Light of Other Days" (co-authored with Arthur C. Clarke).
Greg Bear - Read "Darwin's Radio", "Blood Music"
Jim Butcher -fantasy writer. The Dresden Files series ("Storm Front", "Fool Moon", etc) is a must read whether you like fantasy or not.
Cory Doctorow - he releases all his books as free downloads simultaneously when the "dead tree" versions are published. Read "Down And Out In The Magic Kingdom" and "Eastern Standard Tribe".
Eric Flint - Read The 1632 series ("1632", "1633", "Ring of Fire", etc) and "The Philosophical Strangler" (fantasy)
Peter F. Hamilton - Read "Fallen Dragon" and The Night's Dawn series ("The Reality Dysfunction", "The Neutronium Alchemist", etc)
John Ringo - military SF writer. Read The Posleen series ("A Hymn before Battle", "Gust Front", etc) and The Council War series ("There Will Be Dragons", "Emerald Sea", etc).
Robert J. Sawyer - Read The Neanderthal Parallax ("Hominids", "Humans", "Hybrids"), "Factoring Humanity", and "Mindscan"
John Scalzi - Read "Old Man's War", "The Ghost Brigades", and "The Android's Dream". I haven't read "The Last Colony" yet, but I hear that is good too.
Charlie Stross - read "Toast", "Singularity Sky", "The Atrocity Archives", "Missile Gap" and "Glasshouse".
Vernor Vinge - Read "Across Realtime", "A Fire Across The Deep", "A Deepness In The Sky", "True Names and Other Dangers" (short story collection), and "Rainbow's End".
Well I certainly respect your responses. I agree with more points than I disagree.
The biggest area of agreement is with autonomy from government intrusion in personal life: govt. shouldn't concern itself with personal morality (smoking in home/car, etc.) if it affects quality of life/safety of others (public smoking, driving under influence, etc) then its fair game. Obviously there is plenty of room for healthy debate on what constitutes personal versus public interest. I lean towards the "Don't Tread On Me" side of that debate.
I do disagree on most of the conservative issues you list (taxes, border security, etc). Mostly because in my 44 years on this planet I haven't seen a single example of rational policy positions from either liberals or conservatives on any of those issues. I do find that I dislike the liberal answers less on some points and the conservative answers less on others. I'm a long-view pragmatic technological idealist (a designation I just made up), or "geek with a conscience" if you want something shorter.
I tend not to value using clumped ideologies but to evaluate individual policies using several scales: works/doesn't work, good for individuals/bad for individuals, good for everyone/bad for everyone, fair/unfair, practical/impractical, harmless/harmful, cost effective/not cost effective, etc. Clumping policies into so called Liberal and Conservative piles is just too simplified for me.
I'll take a pass on discussing the rightness or wrongness of Obama's response to the Rev. Wright issue. I think everyone reacted to it based on their own viewpoints and biases. I will say that I admire him for not taking the easy way out in that speech. He tried to open a very painful national dialog about a topic that is personally uncomfortable for him and for most people. I thought his speech acknowledged both the hidden rage of blacks and the hidden resentment of whites. I don't think he did a good enough job of framing it as a generational issue.
I certainly think I too fall in the "typical white person" category when it comes to race. I have plenty of older relatives that are good people but definitely have much more visceral racist attitudes than my generation or younger generations. I could easily offer multiple personal examples much worse than Obama described about his grandmother by "throwing under the bus" my Grandmother, my Mom, my Aunts and Uncles, my oldest Sister, and long line friends and mentors. Their racist comments and actions throughout the years bothered me, but I'm not going to disown them. They are/were good people overall and should be forgiven if they couldn't always "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that one. He's a Christian and forgiveness is a Christian virtue. I think he wants to get both sides to do a little talking, a little forgiving, and a little forgetting. I like that. It beats what we have been doing for the last four decades.
So I'm sticking with Obama because I like his approach better. I can live with most of his policy goals and I find his offenses far less egregious than those of Clinton or McCain. He may have lost some of his shine, but I think that tells me there is a man there, not an empty suit. Your mileage may vary.
Take care down in Austin. Just remember, Sam Houston put all the Texas Liberals in Austin so he and future governors could keep an eye on them!
I only listed the matching YES votes. He matches on some of the NO votes as well. My favorite though is one that isn't listed on the Washingon Post senate votes page I linked to: S.2390 COBURN-OBAMA Bill - Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. It established a web-accessible database of over $1Trillion in federal spending. Any citizen can go in and search that database. It sheds sunlight on a vast pit of government contracts and spending. Obama co-sponsored the bill with Tom Coburn (R-OK). Tom's a pretty conservative guy. How's that for crossing over and working with Republicans?
By the way, the spending web site is up. You can get to it here
Perhaps instead of making an unfounded claim about a politician's record and then asking someone to give you evidence countering that claim, you could keep an open mind and do that 10 seconds of research yourself.
You seem like a decent enough guy. What bothers me is that you have fallen into the "liberal/conservative" label trap that has crippled our government for who knows how long. I suggest that instead you keep an open but suspicious mind, be open to views and evidence that don't seem to support your own, and work to find the commonalities not the differences. If more of us did that, we would be much better off. I'm an Independent and that is what I try to do.
Oh, and as far as GWB and the Texas Democrats, I can only offer the late Molly Ivan's comment about the situation:
Yes, but you must remember that a Democrat in Texas is called a Republican everywhere else.
Something to consider when you tout W's "Unitier" cred.
Obama is the furthest to the left. He is the most liberal of the bunch.
Lets leave off discussing the obviously twisted use of the word "liberal" as an ad hominum slur and get to your assertion that Obama is more liberal than Clinton.
Specifically which policies are more liberal? Please feel free to define what you mean by "liberal" and use examples. If you are up for a constructive discussion, throw in the "conservative" policy alternative and describe why it is better. For the sake of the argument I'll define "liberal" as "wants more federal government involvement" and "conservative" as "wants less federal government interference".
Lets do a quick policy comparison between HRC & BHO based on those definitions:
1. Health Care - Similar plans to provide near-universal insurance coverage, but not true Socialized Medicine, ala Canada or England (consider their systems "most liberal" on health care). Major difference is that Obama's emphasizes cost cutting and allows people to not opt in if they don't need the coverage. Clinton's plan mandates everyone covered or are fined. Clinton= +1LP (Liberal Point).
2. Economy -
2a. Mortgage crisis: Clinton wants to freeze subprime lending rate increases on existing loans, have a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures, and a direct payout of bailout money to borrowers through the states. Obama wants mix of direct borrower bailouts and Mortgage Revenue Bonds to lenders for refinancing. Both want to spend $30B. Score Clinton as more liberal since her plan doesn't try to help the lenders. Clinton = +2LP, Obama = +1LP
2b. Income Taxes: Both support increased taxes on "the wealthy". Clinton wants $650M in assistance to working families for emergency energy assistance. Obama wants $500M in tax relief to working families, and immediate $75B payout to 150M qualifying citizens, similar to Bush's current payout scheme. So, Clinton= +2LP, Obama= +2LP, Bush= +1LP.
2c. Social Security: Clinton wants to add a govenment run 401k with tax incentives for contributing. Obama wants automatic workplace pension plans with 50% match on first $1k for families earning under $75k. Obama wants to eliminate taxes on social security drawing seniors making less than $50k/year. Obama wants to remove the $97k cap on social security taxes to secure fund for the future. Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +2LP
2d. Corporate Taxes: Clinton would scale back corporate subsidies by $55B and invest $50B of that in a strategic energy fund. Obama wants to lower ordinary American's taxes by $80-$85 billion by closing corporate loopholes for oil and gas companies and cracking down on international tax havens. Clinton= -1LP, Obama= -2LP (They get negative values here for REMOVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN BUSINESS and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY).
2e. Trade- Both want to renegotiate pieces of NAFTA to help American manufacturing and competetiveness. Both want to increase regulation of quality of goods coming into US (no lead paint toys, etc). Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +1LP
3. Education - Both want increases in tax credits for college tuition. Both want to address problems with unfunded mandates and No Child Left Behind, both want to address teacher retention and teacher training, both want to help at the family level with pre-K and K-12 education, and so on. They both have extensive and intrusive plans. Lets give them both the same rating. Clinton= +3LP, Obama= +3LP
4. Energy & Environment - Both link their energy and environment plans together. Both want to double current basic energy research funding. Both want to promote development of "green" energy technologies and increased fuel economy. Both want to limit growth of America's "carbon footprint". Obama's plan emphasises technology development, including clean coal development. Clinton's is mixed between policy and technology development, but lacks the detail of Obama's plan. Both want to invest heavily in development of domestic "gr
How shall we repay our debt to Robert Anson Heinlein?
I am tempted to say that it can't be done. The sheer size of the debt is staggering. He virtually invented modern science fiction, and did not attempt to patent it. He opened up a great many of SF's frontiers, produced the first reliable maps of most of its principal territories, and did not complain when each of those frontiers filled up with hordes of johnny-come-latelies, who the moment they got off the boat began to complain about the climate, the scenery and the employment opportunities. I don't believe there can be more than a handful of science fiction stories published in the last forty years that do not show his influence one way or another. He has written the definitive time-travel stories ("All You Zombies--" and "By His Bootstraps"), the definitive longevity books (Methuselah's Children and Time Enough For Love), the definitive theocracy novel (Revolt in 2100), heroic fantasy/SF novel (Glory Road), revolution novel (The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), transplant novel (I Will Fear No Evil), alien invasion novel (The Puppet Masters), technocracy story ("The Roads Must Roll"), arms race story ("Solution Unsatisfactory"), technodisaster story ("Blowups Happen"), and about a dozen of the finest science fiction juveniles ever published. These last alone have done more for the field than any other dozen books. And perhaps as important, he broke SF out of the pulps, opened up "respectable" and lucrative markets, broached the wall of the ghetto. He continued to work for the good of the entire genre: his most recent book sale was a precedent-setting event, representing the first-ever SFWA Model Contract signing. (The Science Fiction Writers of America has drawn up a hypothetical ideal contract, from the SF writer's point of view--but until Expanded Universe-- no such contract had ever been signed.) Note that Heinlein did not do this for his own benefit: the moment the contract was signed it was renegotiated upward.
You can't copyright ideas; you can only copyright specific arrangements of words. If you could copyright ideas, every living SF writer would be paying a substantial royalty to Robert Heinlein.
So would a lot of other people. In his spare time Heinlein invented the waldo and the waterbed (and God knows what else), and he didn't patent them either. (The first waldos were built by Nathan Woodruff at Brookhaven National Laboratories in 1945, three years after Heinlein described them for a few cents a word. As to the waterbed, see Expanded Universe.) In addition he helped design the spacesuit as we now know it.
Above all Heinlein is better educated, more widely read and traveled than anyone I have ever heard of, and has consistently shared the Good Parts with us. He has learned prodigiously, and passed on the most interesting things he's learned to us, and in the process passed on some of his love of learning to us. Surely that is a mighty gift. When I was five years old he began to teach me to love learning, and to be skeptical about what I was taught, and he did the same for a great many of us, directly or indirectly.
Spider wrote that essay 27 years ago and it still rings true today.
My take: if you aren't Reading For Ideas and you aren't really interested in seeing Competent Individuals Who Learn From Experience, you won't be interested in Heinlein.
I certainly understand why many people don't enjoy Heinlein's work. He was primarily a Story writer and an Idea writer. His specialty was writing ripping good yarns ala Kipling and Twain, each constructed to make you want to be more competent, more knowledgeable, more moral, and more proactive than you were when you read the first paragraph.
If all character, setting, and pointless cleverness is your thing go find some "real" literature. But if you want to know where humanity is headed and how to survive the on-rushing future, go grab yourself a double armfull of Heinlein.
I think 'matter-antimatter annihilation laser' sounds cooler, but there's a certain mad scientist flavor to the 'gamma ray' bit, too.
How about a compromise then: MAAG-LASER - Matter-Antimatter Annihilation Gamma-ray Laser
Of course the "L" should be replaced with a "G" since the Gamma-rays are the EM waves being amplified: GASER - Gamma-ray Amplified Stimulated Emission of Radiation. But we may want to stick with MAAG-LASER since MAA-GASER sounds like a southerner commenting on the result of eating too many black-eyed peas.
I'm no Hillary lover, but I keep hearing this "imagine what Hillary will do with such power" boogieman line and wonder what horrors people are imagining.
I just don't see her using expanded presidential powers to do the kinds of liberty destroying things Bush & Cheney have done in the last 6.5 years.
I'm not being sarcastic here. Really, what horrors do you foresee? While I would vastly prefer virtually any other Democratic candidate to President Hillary, I just don't see her as being the complete rights destroying budget busting horror show that Bush has been.
I didn't say it was unfair. I said if I was Google, I would drag it out in the courts. Exactly where did you read in the unfair part? Its business. Fair/unfair has nothing to do with it.
Two giants are about to start beating on each other. Best to stay out from underfoot.
Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed.
And like SCO, their real goal isn't to remove their copyrighted works from the hands of others. Their real goal is to force Google into a settlement that leeches off a steady stream of cash from Google. I'm sure that along the way they will hint to Google that they would consider dropping the lawsuit if Google licensed their copyrighted content for use on YouTube. They will put on some bizarre restrictions that will make the cable companies happy. The Billion Dollars is just the opening high bid.
If Google is smart (like IBM in the SCO case), they won't bite and they will let their lawyers drag it out until the bitter end.
While not strictly Nerdcore, I'd say MC Lars should be included. He's more of a literature geek, but his stuff is definitely White & Nerdy rap. He bills his work as "post-punk laptop rap". A few of his songs:
- Download This Song - iGeneration - Space Game - If I Had a Time Machine - Mr. Raven (based on Poe's "The Raven") - Internet Relationships - Ahab - Signing Emo
I have yet to see a single politician ever talk convincingly on any matter that involves technology.
Oh in America we heard one once:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
No, a largish filling station will need a major substation."
Instead, how about a substation sized bank of these supercapacitors at the recharge station? Use low demand times to charge the cap bank. Put enough caps in so that the station meets peak seasonal demand. Make the cap banks modular so that supplementary units can be delivered and hot-connected. The supplementary cap banks would be charged at a convenient remote location, say near a power plant.
If you wanted to avoid the trickle charge all together, just size the bank appropriately and have a truck deliver swap banks a few times a week, just like having gas delivered. Cap banks need not be swapped out. The delivery truck could also connect directly to a station. Give it an hour or so to "fill" the station's cap banks off of the truck's banks.
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.
No, the people who are complaining the most are those, like me, who have bought every piece of music they owned and then lost the DRMed selections bought online when unable to use their DRMed music player as a backup drive to recover the music after a PC hard drive crash.
Besides, why should I have to pay for the same song multiple times. I can think of at least three albums that I: Bought the cassette tape a second time because the first wore out, bought the same album when it came out on CD and again when it became unplayably scratched, and again by buying tickets to a concert where those songs were played.
So tell me again why I'm a thief when I paid for the same song at least 6 times. Not wanting DRMed music, books, videos, or software is NOT about theft. Its about reliable access to property you have purchased.
I know several women who are mid-list SF/Fantasy writers. ALL of them hate Dr. Weir's character.
If you want to save SG-1, put Weir crossover for an episode then brutally kill her off. The magnitude of the cheer rising up will triple SG-1 ratings and will guarentee SG Atlantis at least five or six more years.
My point is that any significant use of solar energy (which I am a huge proponent of) will require a non-trivial use of land.
Great example of how language limits our thinking. If you said "will require a non-trivial use of area" instead, then we get to consider all kinds of other interesting ideas like:
- Orbiting solar power arrays - Floating artificial islands covered in solar collectors(preferably anchored at the equator) - Multi-kilometer diameter greenhouses, each with a kilometer high generating tower (essentially a BIG solar air heater with a central hot air turbine generator "smokestack") - BIG upper atmosphere dirigibles covered in polymer based solar collectors.
Certainly none of those is as easy as covering New Mexico in solar panels, but they are possibilities.
Frankly, I don't think the problem is power generation or solar cell efficiency. I think the real problem is storage. If we could make cheap, small power storage units we could generate electricity in a number of ways then draw it only as needed. If only the high-speed flywheel storage cells that were being researched a few years ago had worked out, we could eliminate most transmission inefficiencies and more easily plug into lots of different sources for generating our power: fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. You could generate and store on site, or you could pay a supplier and have your power delivered via truck once a week, ala milk deliveries of yesteryear.
I think I'd rather see a good movie treatment of "Doc" Smith's Skylark series. It would be perfect for a trilogy. Start with Skylark, then move to Skylark II and then finish up with Skylark of Valeron. I really want to see the sequence where Dick Seaton creates the Skylark of Valeron. Done right it would have the audience gibbering at how cool the FX are.
Skylark had very good characters (of course the dialogue was horrible and would need to be rewritten for the movies. "Doc" wasn't strong on dialogue) and a very snappy story line... complete with a truly nasty bad guy (Blackie Duequesne), chases, betrayals, kidnapping, evil corporations, and two love stories.
In a completely seperate vein, I'd like to see someone do an autobiographical movie of Nikola Tesla. Get Mira Furlan to play his Mom. She is from Croatia and has the true acting strength to play the biggest single influence on one of the greatest minds in history.
Slashdot Mirror
1)The Bible uses parables to instill useful values. It is largely NOT literal. Children and simple adults believe it literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons present. This is okay, because the alternative methods of instilling the same useful values to a wide variety of people have no solid track record.
I have to disagree about your statement that simple adults believe the Bible literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons. I grew up in a literalist "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" church. Sermons and lessons were chocked full of deeper moral lessons from both the Old and New Testaments. Some of the most subtle insights into human nature I've ever heard came out of sermons based on Jesus's parables.
That said, there were doctrines where my church would not bend, eg those beliefs unique to our denomination that really weren't supportable by any reasonable reading of the Bible or were in direct conflict with scientific observation. If you questioned them, you would typically get either a) an unsatisfactory misreading of one or more biblical verses b) a glassy eyed look c) an unsupportable rationalization ("well you know to God, a billion years is like a day") d) or a quick change of subject.
I think that basically what this represents is not that the believers of that church were somehow cognitively inferior, but that they simply were caught in a set of self-reinforcing memes that required them to have mental blind-spots when it came to entertaining certain questions, thoughts, or observations. It was a powerful and compelling force.
It took me years after I figured out that they believed a bunch of unsupportable fantasy before I finally broke away. The draw to believe in the group consensus view was strong enough to keep me trying for years after I had effectively lost faith and begun finding my own truth (of which science figures in prominently).
And of course the tag line is: "iZombie, its for people with BRAINS!"
Again, shenanigans. I never claimed Drexler came up with Nanotechnology. I said he did the first substantial work on machine-phase nanotechnology... something Smalley spent well over a decade trying to discredit. I remember the arguments and counter arguments back in the early 90s. Of course lots of scientists have been working at the nano-level before and since. My point was that for that specific type of proposed nanotechnology (mechanosynthesis, assemblers, dissassemblers, etc) that these guys did the first serious theoretical work. I still stand by that based on the evidence.
The reason you got attitude from me was that your dismissive attitude towards them and their achievements. I certainly respect both theoretical and experimental research in this or any other scientific field. However, it looked like you were minimizing the importance of the necessary theoretical portions and elevating the experimental. THAT is what I was pushing back against.
I certainly wish you and your compatriots great luck and success in your efforts. I fully understand that without guys like you, its just equations on a page or simulations in a computer ... worthless unless applied.
"None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab. None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms. "
I call shenanigans. Every one of these guys has substantial nanotech street cred going back 20 years or more. Every single one of them has "worked in a nanotech lab". Most of them FOUNDED the discipline of Molecular Nanotechnology.
Drexler did the first substantial theoretical work on precision mechanosynthesis of molecules, the limits and restrictions on carbon-carbon mechanosythesis, charted possible paths to research and development, and so on. Oh and besides providing the theoretical underpinnings for molecular manufacturing (a new term that had to be created because opportunists like Dr. Richard Smalley successfully co-opted the term "nanotechnology" all the while trying to kill the credibility of Drexler and mechanosythesis approaches), Drexler is one of the strongest voices promoting thinking ahead about the risks and ethical implications of widespread use of molecular machines. The Foresight Institute was set up in large part to think ahead of nanotech development and be prepared with ethical and legal guidelines for the development and use of molecular nanotechnology. Oh, and he got the first EVER PhD in Nanotechnology.
Hall, besides being the founding chief scientist of Nanorex (who are developing open-source computational tools to support research in structural DNA nanotechnology), he's published a trunkload of papers on various aspects of nanotechnology. You can find a list here
Merkle did some of the first work on computational modeling of carbon-carbon nanostructures for mechanosynthesis. He worked as a research scientist at Zyvex, the first commercial nanotech research company, for several years. He's apparently still actively researching. His list of recent research papers, along with Freitas's, are here
Freitas is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Molecular Manufacturing. He's published a raft of papers (see link above) and did the first practical research on the theoretical underpinnings of nanomedicine, which he published in his book NANOMEDICINE.
They may not be pushing atoms around with an AFM (or whatever you are doing), but they are laying the foundations for the science and engineering of molecular manufacturing.
Show some respect.
No my analysis isn't wrong, it just didn't include that aspect of the larger election. Of course the general election will be the final repudiation of the Reagan revolution and the neocon insanities. Not one of the candidates is a champion for that camp, including the Republican candidate (which is why their base hates McCain so much. he's not "one of them".)
There is more going on in this election than a excoriation of GWB, the Reagan revolution and the Neocon philosophy. Specifically the fight between Clinton and Obama is a generational struggle for control. Yes there is more than that going on in the entire race, but it is a large component driving the contention between those two candidates supporters.
How do I really feel? Yeah, I resent the Boomers as a group. I'm one of the Gen-X generation that has been uniformly crapped on by the Boomers since we committed the ultimate sin of not worshiping them.
My rhetoric applies to both the Boomer fueled neocons (look at the neocon philosophical heavyweights - all Boomers) and the machine Democrats (they aren't cohesive enough to have their own group name), like the Clintons.
Obama isn't a Baby Boomer. He's in the post-boomer generation variously called Generation-X, Generation-13, Post-Boomers, etc. Basically those born between 1961 and 1981 (read GENERATIONS by Howe & Strauss for a profile of American generations for the last three centuries).
Also, Obama is a reformist leader who has based his campaign on changing how American government works. He is literally the voice crying "STOP" for the two frustrated generations (Gen-X & Millenials) who follow the Boomers.
Clinton is a machine Democrat with 35 years invested in keeping Washington working the way it does now (aka lobbyist rule). So your "same side" argument lacks any basic understanding of current American presidential politics. As such, I have to devalue your criticisms of our system.
So you prefer your nastiness to go on behind closed doors? I guess tastes differ. I prefer openness even if it is messier. Sunlight and fresh air will kill lots of nasty things that live in the dark places.
What the hell are you talking about with my supposed "sit back until they die" approach? I said that we are in the initial stages of shoving the fractious Boomers out of power. We certainly aren't waiting for them to die. Heck, it may require copious amounts of holy water and wooden stakes through their hearts just to get them to back down.
As to the Boomer children being taught to act like their parents, the Millennials are a largely a civic and cooperative generation unlike the Boomers, who are individualistic and rhetorically idealistic. The Millenials do not show the narcissistic sense of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" ego that the Boomers enjoy. As a group the Millennials seem to be naturally cooperative and conscientious, if somewhat immature and naive. Like most civic generations, they were sheltered and cherished so it will take them a while to mature. But when they do, America will change as it has not since the last great civic generation: the G.I. (aka "The Greatest Generation").
In the interim it is the Gen-X folks that will be taking the reigns for a while. This is the truly galling part for the Boomers. They HATE the Gen-X generation (its a long story. read GENERATIONS). So the Boomers will renew their grip and force everyone to drive them out of power inch by bloody inch. Their entire generational ego is predicated on the notion that they know better than anyone else. They won't go easily. This fight is going to take years. The 2008 election is just the first battle in a long war.
Your logic on tying the War on Drugs to the campaign rhetoric is flawed. Certainly that is one of the many stupidities we have to address, it is NOT however one of the problems with the functioning of the primary campaign (your original point). It may be an issue not addressed by the campaigns, but it isn't an issue WITH the campaigns' operations. Nice try at a redirect, but a failed one.
Finally your statement that no one over here seems to be doing anything either is specious and insulting. Of course we are doing something about it. Why do you think so many people are actively working to elect their favored candidate? Its a fight. It is ugly and it will get uglier still. We who are actively engaged in that fight know this. We aren't disheartened that it is ugly. We know things will get better. That is what we are fighting for; not just to fix some of our problems but to fix the system so that it doesn't create these catastrophes in the first place. So bear with us while we try to sort this out.
Of course you wouldn't know what it is like to have to dig in and try to fix the basics of a broken govenment, since you rely on it all being nicely sorted out in a comfortable back room some where.
Second should Obama win both the Democratic nomination and the presidency, Hillary Clinton will never have a shot at the presidency. Her and her supporters feel she is entitled to that position. In their minds, she was supposed to be the first woman President of the U.S. In addition to the Clintons' feelings of entitlement and the gender politics involved, lets throw in racial politics (possible first black president), a failed presidency (Bush, Jr), a faltering economy, the expensive quagmire in Iraq, and fear of losing control by a generation entitled Baby Boomers. In point of fact, the whole thing is about the future of freedom - specifically who will set the tone and policies of the next generation of U.S. politics. If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place. Go ahead throw your stones. We can take it. We have enough real problems to deal with (like fixing our economy, ending a stupid war & bringing our troops home, repairing our standing in the world, replacing our aging infrastructure, competing with the rising new economic superpowers, and healing the internal wounds from the corrosive Culture War in-fighting of the aging Boomers). We really appreciate your constructive suggestions on how to run our political selection process. Christ, _just get along_. We're trying. You're not helping.
-IV
I think the reason it is hard to find good SF these days is that there are lots of authors cranking out lots of books. SF & Fantasy are now mainstream. Heck the one of the best selling sub-genres in all of fiction right now is Fantasy Romance (aka vampire bodice rippers).
There are good SF authors out there producing solid stories. Below are a few that I like. Note that all of the following books are SF, except where noted. Many of the titles that look like they might be fantasy ("Fallen Dragon", "There Will Be Dragons") are in fact SF and not Fantasy:
David Brin - one of the infamous "Killer B's" of Hard SF. Read "Earth", "Kiln People" and the Uplift series.
Stephen Baxter - Read "Voyage", "Titan", "Moonseed", "Raft", "Silverhair", "Longtusk", and "The Light of Other Days" (co-authored with Arthur C. Clarke).
Greg Bear - Read "Darwin's Radio", "Blood Music"
Jim Butcher -fantasy writer. The Dresden Files series ("Storm Front", "Fool Moon", etc) is a must read whether you like fantasy or not.
Cory Doctorow - he releases all his books as free downloads simultaneously when the "dead tree" versions are published. Read "Down And Out In The Magic Kingdom" and "Eastern Standard Tribe".
Eric Flint - Read The 1632 series ("1632", "1633", "Ring of Fire", etc) and "The Philosophical Strangler" (fantasy)
Peter F. Hamilton - Read "Fallen Dragon" and The Night's Dawn series ("The Reality Dysfunction", "The Neutronium Alchemist", etc)
John Ringo - military SF writer. Read The Posleen series ("A Hymn before Battle", "Gust Front", etc) and The Council War series ("There Will Be Dragons", "Emerald Sea", etc).
Robert J. Sawyer - Read The Neanderthal Parallax ("Hominids", "Humans", "Hybrids"), "Factoring Humanity", and "Mindscan"
John Scalzi - Read "Old Man's War", "The Ghost Brigades", and "The Android's Dream". I haven't read "The Last Colony" yet, but I hear that is good too.
Charlie Stross - read "Toast", "Singularity Sky", "The Atrocity Archives", "Missile Gap" and "Glasshouse".
Vernor Vinge - Read "Across Realtime", "A Fire Across The Deep", "A Deepness In The Sky", "True Names and Other Dangers" (short story collection), and "Rainbow's End".
I could go on, but that should be enough for now.
-IV
Well I certainly respect your responses. I agree with more points than I disagree.
The biggest area of agreement is with autonomy from government intrusion in personal life: govt. shouldn't concern itself with personal morality (smoking in home/car, etc.) if it affects quality of life/safety of others (public smoking, driving under influence, etc) then its fair game. Obviously there is plenty of room for healthy debate on what constitutes personal versus public interest. I lean towards the "Don't Tread On Me" side of that debate.
I do disagree on most of the conservative issues you list (taxes, border security, etc). Mostly because in my 44 years on this planet I haven't seen a single example of rational policy positions from either liberals or conservatives on any of those issues. I do find that I dislike the liberal answers less on some points and the conservative answers less on others. I'm a long-view pragmatic technological idealist (a designation I just made up), or "geek with a conscience" if you want something shorter.
I tend not to value using clumped ideologies but to evaluate individual policies using several scales: works/doesn't work, good for individuals/bad for individuals, good for everyone/bad for everyone, fair/unfair, practical/impractical, harmless/harmful, cost effective/not cost effective, etc. Clumping policies into so called Liberal and Conservative piles is just too simplified for me.
I'll take a pass on discussing the rightness or wrongness of Obama's response to the Rev. Wright issue. I think everyone reacted to it based on their own viewpoints and biases. I will say that I admire him for not taking the easy way out in that speech. He tried to open a very painful national dialog about a topic that is personally uncomfortable for him and for most people. I thought his speech acknowledged both the hidden rage of blacks and the hidden resentment of whites. I don't think he did a good enough job of framing it as a generational issue.
I certainly think I too fall in the "typical white person" category when it comes to race. I have plenty of older relatives that are good people but definitely have much more visceral racist attitudes than my generation or younger generations. I could easily offer multiple personal examples much worse than Obama described about his grandmother by "throwing under the bus" my Grandmother, my Mom, my Aunts and Uncles, my oldest Sister, and long line friends and mentors. Their racist comments and actions throughout the years bothered me, but I'm not going to disown them. They are/were good people overall and should be forgiven if they couldn't always "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that one. He's a Christian and forgiveness is a Christian virtue. I think he wants to get both sides to do a little talking, a little forgiving, and a little forgetting. I like that. It beats what we have been doing for the last four decades.
So I'm sticking with Obama because I like his approach better. I can live with most of his policy goals and I find his offenses far less egregious than those of Clinton or McCain. He may have lost some of his shine, but I think that tells me there is a man there, not an empty suit. Your mileage may vary.
Take care down in Austin. Just remember, Sam Houston put all the Texas Liberals in Austin so he and future governors could keep an eye on them!
The Google search took all of 10 seconds. I count at least 7 Senate votes where Obama matched the Republicans:
Vote 42: H R 2
Vote 19: S 1
Vote 262: H R 6061
Vote 29: H R 3199
Vote 249: H R 2863
Vote 213: H R 6
Vote 9: S 5
I only listed the matching YES votes. He matches on some of the NO votes as well. My favorite though is one that isn't listed on the Washingon Post senate votes page I linked to: S.2390 COBURN-OBAMA Bill - Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. It established a web-accessible database of over $1Trillion in federal spending. Any citizen can go in and search that database. It sheds sunlight on a vast pit of government contracts and spending. Obama co-sponsored the bill with Tom Coburn (R-OK). Tom's a pretty conservative guy. How's that for crossing over and working with Republicans?
By the way, the spending web site is up. You can get to it here
Perhaps instead of making an unfounded claim about a politician's record and then asking someone to give you evidence countering that claim, you could keep an open mind and do that 10 seconds of research yourself.
You seem like a decent enough guy. What bothers me is that you have fallen into the "liberal/conservative" label trap that has crippled our government for who knows how long. I suggest that instead you keep an open but suspicious mind, be open to views and evidence that don't seem to support your own, and work to find the commonalities not the differences. If more of us did that, we would be much better off. I'm an Independent and that is what I try to do.
Oh, and as far as GWB and the Texas Democrats, I can only offer the late Molly Ivan's comment about the situation:
Something to consider when you tout W's "Unitier" cred.
Cheers from North Texas,
I.V.
Obama is the furthest to the left. He is the most liberal of the bunch.
Lets leave off discussing the obviously twisted use of the word "liberal" as an ad hominum slur and get to your assertion that Obama is more liberal than Clinton.
Specifically which policies are more liberal? Please feel free to define what you mean by "liberal" and use examples. If you are up for a constructive discussion, throw in the "conservative" policy alternative and describe why it is better. For the sake of the argument I'll define "liberal" as "wants more federal government involvement" and "conservative" as "wants less federal government interference".
Lets do a quick policy comparison between HRC & BHO based on those definitions:
1. Health Care - Similar plans to provide near-universal insurance coverage, but not true Socialized Medicine, ala Canada or England (consider their systems "most liberal" on health care). Major difference is that Obama's emphasizes cost cutting and allows people to not opt in if they don't need the coverage. Clinton's plan mandates everyone covered or are fined. Clinton= +1LP (Liberal Point).
2. Economy -
2a. Mortgage crisis: Clinton wants to freeze subprime lending rate increases on existing loans, have a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures, and a direct payout of bailout money to borrowers through the states. Obama wants mix of direct borrower bailouts and Mortgage Revenue Bonds to lenders for refinancing. Both want to spend $30B. Score Clinton as more liberal since her plan doesn't try to help the lenders. Clinton = +2LP, Obama = +1LP
2b. Income Taxes: Both support increased taxes on "the wealthy". Clinton wants $650M in assistance to working families for emergency energy assistance. Obama wants $500M in tax relief to working families, and immediate $75B payout to 150M qualifying citizens, similar to Bush's current payout scheme. So, Clinton= +2LP, Obama= +2LP, Bush= +1LP.
2c. Social Security: Clinton wants to add a govenment run 401k with tax incentives for contributing. Obama wants automatic workplace pension plans with 50% match on first $1k for families earning under $75k. Obama wants to eliminate taxes on social security drawing seniors making less than $50k/year. Obama wants to remove the $97k cap on social security taxes to secure fund for the future. Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +2LP
2d. Corporate Taxes: Clinton would scale back corporate subsidies by $55B and invest $50B of that in a strategic energy fund. Obama wants to lower ordinary American's taxes by $80-$85 billion by closing corporate loopholes for oil and gas companies and cracking down on international tax havens. Clinton= -1LP, Obama= -2LP (They get negative values here for REMOVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN BUSINESS and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY).
2e. Trade- Both want to renegotiate pieces of NAFTA to help American manufacturing and competetiveness. Both want to increase regulation of quality of goods coming into US (no lead paint toys, etc). Clinton= +1LP, Obama= +1LP
3. Education - Both want increases in tax credits for college tuition. Both want to address problems with unfunded mandates and No Child Left Behind, both want to address teacher retention and teacher training, both want to help at the family level with pre-K and K-12 education, and so on. They both have extensive and intrusive plans. Lets give them both the same rating. Clinton= +3LP, Obama= +3LP
4. Energy & Environment - Both link their energy and environment plans together. Both want to double current basic energy research funding. Both want to promote development of "green" energy technologies and increased fuel economy. Both want to limit growth of America's "carbon footprint". Obama's plan emphasises technology development, including clean coal development. Clinton's is mixed between policy and technology development, but lacks the detail of Obama's plan. Both want to invest heavily in development of domestic "gr
You think that's news you're reading?
A brief quote:
Spider wrote that essay 27 years ago and it still rings true today.
My take: if you aren't Reading For Ideas and you aren't really interested in seeing Competent Individuals Who Learn From Experience, you won't be interested in Heinlein.
I certainly understand why many people don't enjoy Heinlein's work. He was primarily a Story writer and an Idea writer. His specialty was writing ripping good yarns ala Kipling and Twain, each constructed to make you want to be more competent, more knowledgeable, more moral, and more proactive than you were when you read the first paragraph.
If all character, setting, and pointless cleverness is your thing go find some "real" literature. But if you want to know where humanity is headed and how to survive the on-rushing future, go grab yourself a double armfull of Heinlein.
-IV
I was doing my best parody of a pompus science fiction purist, many of whom draw such distinctions with great importance.
Ah, so you've met Harlan Ellison.
-I.V.
I think 'matter-antimatter annihilation laser' sounds cooler, but there's a certain mad scientist flavor to the 'gamma ray' bit, too.
How about a compromise then: MAAG-LASER - Matter-Antimatter Annihilation Gamma-ray Laser
Of course the "L" should be replaced with a "G" since the Gamma-rays are the EM waves being amplified: GASER - Gamma-ray Amplified Stimulated Emission of Radiation. But we may want to stick with MAAG-LASER since MAA-GASER sounds like a southerner commenting on the result of eating too many black-eyed peas.
-I.V.
I'm no Hillary lover, but I keep hearing this "imagine what Hillary will do with such power" boogieman line and wonder what horrors people are imagining.
I just don't see her using expanded presidential powers to do the kinds of liberty destroying things Bush & Cheney have done in the last 6.5 years.
I'm not being sarcastic here. Really, what horrors do you foresee? While I would vastly prefer virtually any other Democratic candidate to President Hillary, I just don't see her as being the complete rights destroying budget busting horror show that Bush has been.
I didn't say it was unfair. I said if I was Google, I would drag it out in the courts. Exactly where did you read in the unfair part? Its business. Fair/unfair has nothing to do with it.
Two giants are about to start beating on each other. Best to stay out from underfoot.
- I.V.
Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed.
And like SCO, their real goal isn't to remove their copyrighted works from the hands of others. Their real goal is to force Google into a settlement that leeches off a steady stream of cash from Google. I'm sure that along the way they will hint to Google that they would consider dropping the lawsuit if Google licensed their copyrighted content for use on YouTube. They will put on some bizarre restrictions that will make the cable companies happy. The Billion Dollars is just the opening high bid.
If Google is smart (like IBM in the SCO case), they won't bite and they will let their lawyers drag it out until the bitter end.
-I.V.
While not strictly Nerdcore, I'd say MC Lars should be included. He's more of a literature geek, but his stuff is definitely White & Nerdy rap. He bills his work as "post-punk laptop rap". A few of his songs:
- Download This Song
- iGeneration
- Space Game
- If I Had a Time Machine
- Mr. Raven (based on Poe's "The Raven")
- Internet Relationships
- Ahab
- Signing Emo
Give him a try. His stuff is fun.
I.V.
Oh in America we heard one once:
-I.V.
No, a largish filling station will need a major substation."
Instead, how about a substation sized bank of these supercapacitors at the recharge station? Use low demand times to charge the cap bank. Put enough caps in so that the station meets peak seasonal demand. Make the cap banks modular so that supplementary units can be delivered and hot-connected. The supplementary cap banks would be charged at a convenient remote location, say near a power plant.
If you wanted to avoid the trickle charge all together, just size the bank appropriately and have a truck deliver swap banks a few times a week, just like having gas delivered. Cap banks need not be swapped out. The delivery truck could also connect directly to a station. Give it an hour or so to "fill" the station's cap banks off of the truck's banks.
- I.V.
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.
No, the people who are complaining the most are those, like me, who have bought every piece of music they owned and then lost the DRMed selections bought online when unable to use their DRMed music player as a backup drive to recover the music after a PC hard drive crash.
Besides, why should I have to pay for the same song multiple times. I can think of at least three albums that I: Bought the cassette tape a second time because the first wore out, bought the same album when it came out on CD and again when it became unplayably scratched, and again by buying tickets to a concert where those songs were played.
So tell me again why I'm a thief when I paid for the same song at least 6 times. Not wanting DRMed music, books, videos, or software is NOT about theft. Its about reliable access to property you have purchased.
I know several women who are mid-list SF/Fantasy writers. ALL of them hate Dr. Weir's character.
If you want to save SG-1, put Weir crossover for an episode then brutally kill her off. The magnitude of the cheer rising up will triple SG-1 ratings and will guarentee SG Atlantis at least five or six more years.
My point is that any significant use of solar energy (which I am a huge proponent of) will require a non-trivial use of land.
Great example of how language limits our thinking. If you said "will require a non-trivial use of area" instead, then we get to consider all kinds of other interesting ideas like:
- Orbiting solar power arrays
- Floating artificial islands covered in solar collectors(preferably anchored at the equator)
- Multi-kilometer diameter greenhouses, each with a kilometer high generating tower (essentially a BIG solar air heater with a central hot air turbine generator "smokestack")
- BIG upper atmosphere dirigibles covered in polymer based solar collectors.
Certainly none of those is as easy as covering New Mexico in solar panels, but they are possibilities.
Frankly, I don't think the problem is power generation or solar cell efficiency. I think the real problem is storage. If we could make cheap, small power storage units we could generate electricity in a number of ways then draw it only as needed. If only the high-speed flywheel storage cells that were being researched a few years ago had worked out, we could eliminate most transmission inefficiencies and more easily plug into lots of different sources for generating our power: fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. You could generate and store on site, or you could pay a supplier and have your power delivered via truck once a week, ala milk deliveries of yesteryear.
I.V.
I think I'd rather see a good movie treatment of "Doc" Smith's Skylark series. It would be perfect for a trilogy. Start with Skylark, then move to Skylark II and then finish up with Skylark of Valeron. I really want to see the sequence where Dick Seaton creates the Skylark of Valeron. Done right it would have the audience gibbering at how cool the FX are.
Skylark had very good characters (of course the dialogue was horrible and would need to be rewritten for the movies. "Doc" wasn't strong on dialogue) and a very snappy story line... complete with a truly nasty bad guy (Blackie Duequesne), chases, betrayals, kidnapping, evil corporations, and two love stories.
In a completely seperate vein, I'd like to see someone do an autobiographical movie of Nikola Tesla. Get Mira Furlan to play his Mom. She is from Croatia and has the true acting strength to play the biggest single influence on one of the greatest minds in history.
- I.V.