Lemuel

Me, interested in AI? Only from the perspective of being an unrepentant sci-fi fan. Don't get me wrong ... "Data" would be a remarkable accomplishment. But in the meantime, I'd dig more things like the Roomba. I think the robotics industry would be a fun one to get involved in. How exciting it must be to develop little commercial droids, make some serious bank, throw it into R&D and develop even better bots! I shoulda studied engineering ...

So I'm a big fan of the robots. BIG fan. Walken says "more cowbell" and I say "more robots". Although I think that building humanoid robots constitutes a lack of imagination, I'm delighted at some of the advances they're making with them. Here's a download (.wmv) of another one ... somewhat animatronic, but a little more lifelike ... HERE. Kinda looks like Grace Park ... SynthLord

Already there's something going on, the Liberty Dollar. The Liberty Mint is very tied in with the Libertarian movement, and probably holds more appeal (in principle) as a non-US-Gov't currency than as an objective tool of trade. There are some valid points. If enough small businesses start using the currency, and issuing silver Notes as change, eventually the fractional reserve system can be replaced without causing a massive nationwide economic imbalance (at the very least). It's totally legal - Federal law treats exchanging gold/silver for goods and services as a barter. In the unlikely event that the bankers (who profit highly from the current system) mend their wayward practices (and disavow their secret society cabals ), a Mint for gold and silver coinage is already built. Of course, there are some annoying practical issues: 1. Convenience: Only Liberty Dollar associates accept the silver coins and notes. If these were independent local grocers and gas stations, it might work out. But most of the associates seem like businesses that don't have huge economic impacts on their local economies (certainly not national economics). Try dropping a silver piece at Best Buy ... it took a nationally embarrasing incident for them to learn the two dollar bill was legal tender. 2. Efficacy: The coins are expensive, costing twice their "print value", i.e. $20 for one $10 coin. You think gas prices are high now ... 3. Principle: Anyone unaware of how money really works has to withstand a crash course in the evils of fractional reserve banking, and why silver/gold is better, and then pay $20 for $10 of money. Trying to explain this to people is like pushing molasses up a sandy hill. (There are times I have to describe it all to myself again, just to make sure I'm getting it right. Dammit, Jim ... I'm a musician, not an economist.) 4. Circulation: Many people who buy these silver coins don't actually spend them; they collect them, along with Sacajawea dollars and $2 bills. Many of the tesimonials on the Lib.$ site tell the same story: a free man (FREE!) pays for like a happy-meal or something with a Lib.$, tells the befuddled clerk about it all (or gives him a pamphlet ... sheesh); the clerk pockets the coins, then pays for it with his own money. (I can imagine the beanstalk-Jack conversations these clerks get into after they go home ...) Trust me, I'd love a return to the gold standard, but I'm wary of these libertarians (I have seen the light!). Then again, maybe there's nothing wrong with it all, and I just haven't found an airtight argument for what the Lib.$ folks are doing.

This is where you betray yourself, skap35. It is an issue of value heirarchy, indeed, but you put those relationships before your values, and if I'm right the result is guilt. Not the kind of guilt that as if you've perpetrated an evil against someone, but the kind that comes with compromising your values, and knowing it. Enough of this becomes shame. Which is more painful - a perceived estrangement from people who accept a different moral code than yours, or paying lip service to your family (in the form of religious participation, no matter how trivial) at the expense of your Objectivist values? Being lonely, or involved in a romance with someone who thinks your values are evil? Keeping this kind of secret to yourself, in such close proximity to your family and lover, can gnaw at you psychologically. Eventually, your behavior will be affected by it to the point where you'll either give in completely and abandon your values, engage in a series of irrational behaviors to keep it hidden and deflect others' attention, or cause you to violently explode in admission ... by that time it's too late. Now, I certainly don't think it's fruitful to wear atheist on your sleeve. It's dangerous and bad-mannered. What I recommend is that, the next time you visit your family, politely decline their invitation to church. Find something to replace the activity ("gee, Mom, I wanted to spend time with you and the folks, and relax a little bit ... why don't we skip church and beat the brunch crowd?"). With a potential lover, the same applies. Think of atheism as what it is, a consequence of a benevolent reality where great things are possible with the application of your mind. The word "atheist" is a negative term, and those who are Believers immediately respond emotionally to a statement of rejection. Instead of rejecting them, show them what you believe - what you know - to be true. Don't treat them with comtempt, treat them as if they haven't seen the light yet. Even with a lover, your solid yet benevolent attitudes will rub off more than wishy-washy superstition ever will.

I've been thinking about an AS movie for a while, and one problem comes to bear - Galt's speech. It's really, really long, and I don't care if James Earl Jones delivers it, it's going to lose my attention at some point. But, of course, how do you dramatize AS without the speech? It's the final major plot-event that sets up the climax! Potential solution: Galt's speech narrates the movie, filling in where the dramatic novel events might have to be trimmed, or substituting a bit of character development. The drama of the film is presented as "flashback", until the speech ends and the action has caught up to it. From there, we're in "realtime" until the film ends. Would this work?

I can't give you a specific name, but perhaps another serious criterion: don't give your son a name that everyone else has. I was born in 1974, and apparently the early 70s was a popular time for the name 'Jason'. Every neighborhood, every school class, every job I've ever had: there's always been at least one other Jason. In the 4th grade there were 2 of us, and the teacher thought it cute to call us Number 1 and Number 2. Guess who was No.2. My 5th grade class actually had 4 Jasons, so we were all referred to by our last names ... not "Mr.", just simply "Stanfield". I've always liked my name but hated the fact that everyone else was also Jason. Go to this website to track popular names throughout the past century.

Is space debris really that much of a problem? Would it be? Space is really big, and the chances of getting nailed by something are probably comparable to the chances of getting hit by a meteorite that's been floating around since the formation of the planets. A lot of debris would stay inside the gravity well, and burn up in atmospheric re-entry. Some of it might escape the gravity well, and be hurled into the void. I imagine only a small amount would actually remain in orbit, and there would be a small probablity of it becoming fatal projectiles. Besides, if things are falling off space ships at such a rate that it causes serious orbital impact concern, the ship designers need to go back to the drawing board.

I probably should have fabricated a parable for that scenario, rather than use actual names of people & companies with whom I have no knowledge ... But .... as majority owner BG can do what he wants ... however, it could have long-term fallout that could hurt the company, especially if their product development is dependent on BG's re-investment in the company. (I have no idea about this, I'm just speculating with names here.) If BG decides that he's not so personally interested in operating systems any more, and he wants to build moon rockets, that could be a very risky move: destabilizing the company, ultimately affecting customer confidence and profits. So BG would have to carefully assess the risk of pouring billions into completely speculative, dangerous, and expensive capital ventures. If he decides to do it, and even bankrupts MS in the process, it's not 'waste', as Guru Kid stated. It might be a failure, but it would only be a waste if BG approaced the endeavor from a completely irrational, non-scientific direction.

It is unlikely that a private corporation would "waste" money on space exploration; it's very likely that the government would. Space travel is expensive, and most companies - even those with very individualistic CEOs - have a board of directors and outside investors that get voting priveleges on new venture capitalist endeavors. If (for example) Microsoft doesn't care about space stations, Bill Gates risks losing his company by divesting corporate funds against the board's interests. When people like Dennis Tito and Richard Branson invest in space flight, they're using their own personal money, or money that was raised by them from others interested in the same thing: private space flight. The government will waste that money because they'll do it for all the wrong reasons. We have to beat the Reds to the moon, or the President gets a Senator's vote on a foreign aid bill if he gets more pork-barrel cash to keep a rocket test facility open. There are a number of other reasons for the goverment to maintain a facade of interest in space flight, but none are directly serving the interests of economic development. Besides, as a consumer, you have some control over private space flight. Let's say that Coca-Cola is pouring money into space planes, PepsiCo is paying for public landmark restoration, and those irritating Fanta girls are sponsoring PETA rallies: when you go buy a soda, you can make a choice based on who you support. Apply that on a massive scale (how many sodas are sold in a day?), and the success of those companies' activities is directly dependent on how much revenue they bring in. If the consumers don't like something, they'll boycott .... more than a decade after Prince William Sound, I still know people that would rather push their car uphill to a BP than spend a dime at Exxon. With the government, space flight requires unnecessary levels of redundancy, protocols that make little sense, compromise on every decision, little to no real risk-taking, and whatever else it takes to make as many people as possible care about a shuttle launch. It costs way more, and that money comes involuntarily out of your earnings. What if you care more about Yellowstone than Mars? What choice is there with a beauracracy making the decisions?

The major media is, of course, being a bunch of jerks. Turn on CNN and you hear cries that the government isn't responding fast enough, and the lack of preparedness (how do you prepare for a storm that picks up and moves casinos?); Turn on Fox, and they're asking reporters how much their gas prices and insurance prices are expected to rise (uh, dude, could you have a little tact and wait until they clear the bodies out of the streets before whining about your wallet?). On Fox News radio this afternoon they were interviewing people in the region, and one reporter was talking to someone who had lost absolutely everything. The reporter asked "What do think about President Bush sending relief into the area?" to which the person replied something like "Bush!? I heard that son of a b*tch was golfing yesterday!" Shockingly, Fox quickly cut the feed ...

I think a miniseries would be an excellent idea. Not only is it a good idea, but there are many indications that it would play well enough to get a sizable TV audince. Many of the most acclaimed series on TV are playing on basic cable, a place where chances can be taken on (what could be see by some as) controversial material, and where Standards & Practices is a bit more lenient. SciFi did a very daring thing when they aired a new vision of Frank Herbert's Dune in miniseries form. It had already been a feature film (that I love), but it didn't do too well (among other reasons: 1. Terminology primers handed out at the theater; 2. David Lynch). So John Harrison "re-imagined" it, and it became one of the highest-rated TV events of the past decade. The sequel Children of Dune did even better. (I think that they did so well because Harrison stayed very close to the source material.) Battlestar: Galactica did even better, and the series it spawned is gtting spectacular ratings for a basic-cable scifi show. Given the right director, a screenplay that broadens Atlas' appeal while maintaining the material's integrity, and a capable and lucid cast, a miniseries would work the best ... for me. And, while I'm rambling ... I disagree with may of the more recent casting choices in this hread. Not that the actors mentioned would be bad in the roles, but my choices would be somewhat younger (for the heros definitely), and perhaps a bit less known than Brad Pitt and Gillian Anderson ... Yeah, Galt and Dagny should be played by recognizable actors that would draw a new audience, but I'd like to see a group of startlingly good Actors[i/]. (Christian Bale - very good choice!) But my list changes with the seasons, so that's my $.02.

I've been reading a lot on 'transhumanism' and 'extropianism' lately. Some of it sounds like Timothy Leary meets the Borg, pompous and laughable. But I am a big fan of using technology to better mankind. Isn't that what it's all about anyway? After all, how is a chip implant that makes doors slide open for you any different than the rubber mat at WalMart? My carpal-tunnel-weary arms could use a break from mousing & typing all day long, so I'd dig a real efficient voice-recognition operating system for my PC. Technology that might allow me to digitally store sensitive data within my body, rather than on a computer exposed to wi-fi hackers, seems like a good idea. What about robotics? Engineers on the verge of opening the floodgates on robotic limbs that respond to the same kinds of impulses once sent to pre-amputated limbs. Artificial eyes, anyone? I think all this is a good thing, personally. But, with all technological advances, there's a morality involved. There will be some who abuse it, and depend on it. I mean, how long will it be before we see sub-dermal universal TV remotes?

As I understand it, Posse Comitatus only applies to action taken against civilian Americans by the military. Even if the raid had been conducted by the FBI, it wouldn't apply. But I could be wrong on this. Law enforcement raids on raves are nothing new, though. I've attended several raves in my day, as I enjoy and oten produce dance music. Only a few of the attendees are "freaks; twisted, perversions of humanity who live hedonistic existences". Most are just people who like electronic music, DJ culture, and partying in baggy, flourescent logowear. And they're not even much like what movies or TV shows portray. Yeah, there are a few who indulge in narcotics, even those who show up with pockets full of pills, but they're a minority. Most rave promoters take steps to keep out drug dealers and minors and hire private security for ID checks and pat-downs. Most of them are very successful averting trouble. Promoters of larger parties sometimes even hire an off-duty ambulance & EMTs, should someone who's already consumed large doses of drugs, or others who become overheated and dehydrated, get sick on the property. These police raids are a modern extension of what went on during Prohibition, when agents would break into speakeasies and arrest everyone on site. It's the official policy of many state governments to shut down raves that are held outside city limits or zoned entertainment districts as an application of the War on Drugs. Since search and arrest warrants won't be issued without probable cause, and since the warrant has to specifically mention what's being looked for, they can't be obtained very easily. So law enforcement agents, "knowing" that there are drugs on the premises, find any little excuse to raid - licenses aren't in order, capacity has been exceeded, the property isn't zoned for entertainment, they're violating noise or parking ordinances .... anything to shut the rave down. Then comes the invariable "oh, look what I found, Lieutenant!" when pills are found on someone there. Then it hits the papers the next day with a banner "DRUG RAVE BUSTED" headline, and the voters can go back to bed comfortable in the knowledge that we're winning the War on Drugs. The most frustrating thing for these promoters is when they get shut down, yet everything was in perfect order, and no laws were being broken, and no drugs were found. (Seriously, this has happened a lot.) They don't get their equipment back, or any cash confiscated from on-site vendors. They lose, and the State doesn't have to take responsibility for it. In 2003, President Bush signed that Amber Alert law, upon which the Rave Act (deemed too intrusive to pass alone) was attached. It reads like the PATRIOT Act, but more forceful and less filler-material.

A good friend of mine had read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and spoke of it often, but never pressed. He's a really smart guy who I've always respected and valued as a friend. When I transferred to another college, I checked Fountainhead out of the library, read it, bought a copy and read it twice again. I read Rand's earlier fiction, then Atlas, then her non-fiction. I couldn't get enough of it ... still can't, really.

Of the many ... From Gattaca, the scene where the brothers race each other to a buoy in the ocean. The natural-born brother with a heart condition ends up dragging his older, genetically-modified brother back to shore. The "superior" one asks his brother how he always wins, to which the brother answers "I never saved anything for the swim back." In Contact, the scene where Ellie first hears the alien signal and races back to the SETI control room, barking cordinates to her colleagues, who are frantically re-patching and aligning the equipment. The coffee shop scene from Heat, where the two rivals face each other in a civil conversation when so much is at stake. It's fun to watch the chemistry between Pacino and DeNiro. In The Incredibles, when the family is being chased through the forest on the island, their son Dash is super-speeding along when he suddenly notices he's running across the surface of a lake, and lets out the most delightfully happy giggle. The scene in The Last Samurai when Tom Cruise's character (unarmed at first) gracefully dispatches six Ronin in the streets of Tokyo in less than a minute. The teleportation and exam scene from Galaxy Quest. The climactic duel at the end of Rob Roy. The stake-out sequence from Ronin where DeNiro and McElhone gather intel on the "man with the case", and almost any scene from Spy Game. The scene in Sneakers where the team of hackers discovers that the chip they've stolen can decrypt every known security code. The knife duel between Muad'Dib and Piter de Vries in Jon Harrison's Dune. In the Battestar: Galactica miniseries, the scene where Sec. Laura Roslin - 37th in the line of succession - is sworn in as President of the Twelve Colonies. The scene in X-Men 2, where the united mutants are aboard the plane, and Magneto seduces Pyro (who can manipulate fire) to the "dark side" with one evil sentence: "You are a god among insects." Any scene that involves a light saber.

If you haven't met HR-2, check the little toaster out here ... Now we just need to get HR-2 and ASIMO together!

I can't find the "key log" in this issue. If the issue is simply one of property rights, one would have to side with the car dealer. It's his land, and he wants to expand his business: good for him. I'm not a big fan of zoning laws, i.e. forcing land owners to do what a community (that doesn't own the property) wants. But, were I in your situation, I wouldn't want stadium lights shining through my window all night, or the indecipherable blare of a receptionist screaming into the PA system for a salesman to come in and get the phone .... Nor would I want a billboard blocking the morning sun, a strip club's neon-dancing-girl-sign ouside my kids' bedroom window, or a helicopter refueling and repair station next to my music studio. If the dealer does get his way, and you want to get out, be the first to sell your house. Proportionally, you'll get more for it if you're the cause of a neighborhood panic sell, not caught at the end of it.

Goes to show you that physical attributes aren't a great catalyst for determining anything but what you're attracted to on a surface level. Beyond that ... It's a momentary thing ... physical beauty captures my attention, yes, but it takes a lot to keep that attention. That's when a woman becomes really attractive to me, and not just pretty. Big difference.

West Wing - great writing, fun wit, distasteful politics ... I miss the Sorkin years My current weekly addictions: Battlestar: Galactica - wicked awesome scifi The 4400 - derivitive X-Files meets X-Men series, but, oh the potential Monk The Dead Zone Family Guy American Dad Rescue Me I'm going to give Over There a shot ... the premier was pretty tense. And I'm looking foward to the next season of Nip/Tuck. If I had HBO, I'd be back into The Sopranos and Carnivale.

Paris Hilton ... blech. Give me Mary McDonnel, Natascha McElhone (rowr), Anne Archer, Emily Watson, Claire Forlani, Julia Ormond, Janel Moloney, Allison Janney ... the list goes on. Classy, interesting women all, and not just the characters they've played.

Here are a few very intelligent films that only got a little press, if any at all: A Murder of Crows - great legal drama, very heroic role for Cuba Gooding Jr. The Spanish Prisoner - a smart Roark paradigm; written by David Mamet Spartan - minimal, but smart & concise military/political drama; also Mamet Contact - of course I could go on for a while, but I have to work tomorrow ...

While sexuality is indeed a psychological science, there's some biology as well. At the root is the sex drive, and physical attraction can be the most effective catalyst to inspire that drive. It's what you do with that drive - your choices, your standards, your desires ... morality - that elevate a basic drive into a proper and healthy sexuality. Sure, you can be attracted to someone's physical attributes, but how long does that alone last? Is it the foundation of a loving, inspirational, and challenging relationship? Is it real love, or just a momentary reaction? Atlas does portray sexuality in its proper context, but Eddie Willers , d'Anconia, Rearden, and Galt don't fall in love with Dagny because she's just beautiful. Her beauty is only a part of who she is, more a consequence of her confidence, pride, ability, and intellect than a pursuit of aesthetic excellence. (Heterosexuality is "intrinsic"? Danger, Will Robinson. This is where you tread into some deep, psychologically complex territory. Watch your step ... lots of logical potholes in there.) Physical attraction just sparks the sexual drive. It is important, but only a component of sexuality. The best physical attraction is that where "classic beauty" or traditional standards are bypassed in favor of a person whose poise, character, wit, and charm are manifest in a wry smile, a gleam of the eye, and an interesting choice of words. (I've often been made fun of - largely by female friends - because my list of 'Hollywood hotties' is way outside the A-list covergirls ...)

And they always say, "it doesn't have to be perfect!" How can anyone - especially a working musician - not want to completely perfect their craft to levels that maybe only they'll enjoy? Sure, I want people to think I'm a good player, but not because they're too drunk to notice otherwise. Besides, I don't play primarily for their enjoyment; I play for mine. I've never been happier with my music than the time since I stopped playing in bands ...

Although I play a variety of instruments, my primary axes are keyboards & synthesizers. I'm not much of a "pianist" - there's a particular technique to making a piano really sing, and I haven't put my hands on a grand in years. Besides, a piano is always just a piano ... I need a wider range of sounds under my hands. But I dig playing funky clavinet and rhodes, bluesy wurly and organs, and especally enjoy ripping up a synth solo, especially when there are lots of encoders to tweak! Honestly, though, I rarely hear the music that seriously influences me. I hope to move out of my apartment (which is literally next to a freeway on-ramp) into something quieter, so I can get some of my stuff finished up and mixed. I still laugh at the fact that I've been thrown out of 4 bands in 3 years, all because I wanted the music polished, rehearsed, and flawless before a gig.

I'm a regular blood donor (O-) so tattoos are out for me. If they ever make it so I can get a permanent tattoo, and it won't taint my blood, I'm getting this: Most likely it will just be the black & orange logo, but maybe the cool modern text underneath could be added later. Propellerheads Reason is a software music compsition program that's just absolutely fantastic. I use it for practically everything I write because it's self-contained, very logically written, and musically powerful. As I've told musician friends in the past "Get Reason - it's a way of life. And the software's not bad either."