f13.net

I read a little of the novel on a flight a while back, but wtf is the big deal about this topic anyways? Whether on TV, radio, the Net, or people I run into, I've been hearing a lot about it lately.

I won't get into my religous beliefs or whatnot, but just as someone who tries to educate himself about history (if only but a little), I find myself offended that this nonsense is being taken so seriously by so many people. It's entertaining fiction and all, but it's gone farther than that. It seems that most folks do not care for learning about history unless it's either some kind of sensationalist revision, or there's "conspiracy" involved.

Hmm..I guess a similar complaint could be made for how the sciences are treated as well.

Anyways, if anyone wants to know the "facts", I suggest they get acquainted with the idea of "royal myth" first. It's nothing new, and it's always bullshit.

Yes, the 'history' in the book is very skewered... but it IS a very entertaining book.  Luckily, it's fiction which makes the fact that people are taking it seriously rather odd.

The same could be said of:

The Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591502241/qid=1106580811/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/103-3976809-0032626?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

"Jesus.  I am your father!"

"This is CNN."

I could launch a rather lengthy reply to MrHats topic but I subscribe to the "Believe and let believe" mindset. People aren't going change their beliefs no matter what we say.

As for the book it was a bit entertaining I just wish people would think more after reading it. Its kind of sad that the American populace nowadays seems to accept whatever we tell them without too much second thought.

Thank God for cynic hostile communities like f13 ;P

You should watch the history channel special on the Da Vinci Code. It was pretty good and presented both sides well.  The "facts" that he's basing the story on are very tenuous in some circumstances.  Some of the assumptions are plain out thought to be wrong.  However, some of them are also very probable and bring up some very good points that counter some of the pillars of the early (and modern) church.   Anyhow, it's not like anyone has an early Christian highlight reel to verify the facts.  

Anyhow, it's a good fun read.  It's pretty much the same damn thing as his Angels and Demons.  It's like they're copied from a stencil on how to write a religious thriller.

Having your beliefs tested is a good thing.  It either results in changing to a new belief system or it strengthens your resolve in your original belief system.  People do and will change their beliefs if they are offered plausable alternatives by someone they respect.  I see it daily.



Couldn't the same be said for the Bible?  Like what he says or not, MrHat makes a good point.  Religious zealots such as the KKK use twisted passages of the Bible to validate their existence when their mission is obviously contrary to the message of the Bible.  As for people accepting whatever we tell them, isn't that contrary to your statement earlier? (i.e. people aren't going to change their beliefs... )

Most people are selective listeners or acceptors if you will.  They accept what they agree with and reject what doesn't fit.  The issue as I see it relates more to people accepting things based on dogma or faith rather than accepting them based on challenge.  It's fine to believe in something once you have tested the notion of your belief thoroughly.  I'm just not convinced this is the case for most people.

The "Da Vinci Code" is a sort of secular equivalent to the "Left Behind" series, in the sense that these books have huge numbers of readers who confuse religious-based fiction and reality.  But while "Left Behind" appeals to the fundamentalist crowd who want to imagine themselves as imminent survivors of the apocalypse, Da Vinci has a much broader appeal.  After all, the whole concept of Jesus spawning an heir is kinda cool, not to mention secret societies and all that.  But in both cases, some people take the fiction a little to literally, mainly because they do not have the education or background to distinguish fact from fiction.  Hence the several titles I've seen which claim to explain "Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction" (talk about a cushy author job, why didn't I think of that).

I heard a funny piece on NPR, where a reporter visited the real sites in Rome, Paris, Scotland and other places featured in Dan Brown's books.  European tourism operators are catering to Americans who want to see the sites, and the tour guides expressed some surprise at how literally the tourists take the books.  But then again, it had a happy ending.  The sites do tend to be architecturally interesting, and there is plenty of good history to be learned even without believing in the modern existence of the Illuminati.

I read the book and found it somewhat entertaining while taking all of the 'facts' with a grain of salt.

The movie should be quite interesting though with Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou (Schild's favorite), Jean Reno (My favorite), and Ron Howard directing.

Imdb link for lazy people (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9ZGEgdmluY2kgY29kZXxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=21;fm=1)

What a cast!  I'll look forward to this movie, for a change.  There is even a chance I won't be disappointed.

(Hey look!  It's Ookii!  Hey Ookii! I miss your funny face!)

As I tell everyone who has read this book... If you enjoed it, DO NOT READ ANY OF HIS OTHER BOOKS. If you think he is a formulistic hack, read his other books and you will be vindicated.

Haha yeah, I read "Angels and Demons" after "Da Vinci," and I laughed my ass off.  There were just so many funny, absolutely unbelievable scenes, such as the part where a cardinal is roasted alive while suspended from a ceiling.  I'm like "WTF it would take a team of Hungarian gymnasts to pull this off, combined with a pyrotechnic expert from the CIA."  Meanwhile, it's just one freaking guy behind it all.  And our hero, a random academic dude, repeatedly pulls off Herculean physical feats, including free-falling from 50,000 feat with no parachute and surviving.

Enough plot holes to drive the Queen Elizabeth through, written by a guy who makes Tom Clancy look like Ernest Hemingway.  I strongly suspect that Dan Brown got serious editing help, and possibly even ghost writing, for the Da Vinci Code.  And I will lay money he never repeats the feat.  You just can't beat the Baby Jesus Junior as a plot twist.

Yes, he is ridiculously formulaic. Deception point is the same exact plotline as Digital Fortress. I mean that literally. Even the bad guys are the same type. Just replace the NSA with NASA and you've read both books.

Angels and Demons was good though, except the ending made me want to punch him in the face. The pacing was excellent however.

They're the exact same book.  

1.  Captain Harvard get mysteriously pulled into a murder investigation.
2.  Murder investigation involves a fatherly figure to a brilliant, foreign, hot, mid thirties female.  
3.  Plot is revealed to be a threat from an ancient anti-modern-day church society.  
4.  Plot becomes a race against the clock to stop a religious fanatic that goes around murdering everyone in his path.
5.  The main bad guy is revealed, and it's someone you didn't expect! He (the baddie) comes to realize his intentions were misplaced.
6.  Captain Harvard bones the female lead.

There's some slight deviations, but if you've read either be for the other, you get a huge sence of deja vu throughout the second one.  Captain Harvard is a bit more daring in the first one as it's a little more far fetched and in actuality (the plot) is a more of a red herring than Da Vinci.

Both, IMO are about equally as entertaining. Da Vinci is a bit more thought provoking though.  I'd liked reading Dan Brown to Clive Cussler. It's formulaic with amateurish regard to reality, but it's fun.

Edit: Yep, Paelos, the pacing in A&D was perfect. IMO it moved a lot better than Da Vinci.

If I want to read a modern author, I bee-line for Caleb Carr. Killing Time,  (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/044661095X/qid=1106599079/sr=8-6/ref=pd_csp_6/104-0867205-6363160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) The Alienist,  (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553572997/qid=1106599079/sr=8-8/ref=pd_ka_1/104-0867205-6363160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)and Angel of Darkness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345427637/qid=1106599079/sr=8-7/ref=pd_csp_7/104-0867205-6363160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) are all quite good.

Digital Fortress was a pile of suck and turned me off all of Brown's other books. He's a terrible hack that did nothing but show the stupidity of the majority. To put it another way, he writes for children, and there are apparently a whole shitload of children buying books.

Edit: BBCode is hard.

Sometimes you just want a quick, brainless read.  That's why Brown, Cussler, and other paint by numbers authors are good to pick up every now and again.  Don't condem us all to childhood.

Anyone know when the new Harry Potter is due out anyhow?

If I want brainless, I generally turn to something funny. Like Jon Stewart's America or a George Carlin book. At least those enrich my sense of humor. Cussler and Brown just make me stupid.

ROFL "Captain Harvard" indeed.  Spot-on with the plot parallels.  I just felt that A&D crossed *way* too far over the unbelievability threshhold.  With Da Vinci, yes I knew it was historically inaccurate with some silly plot twists, but the plot overall seemed about 500% more plausible.  I guess with this genre I may be unrealistic, but I tend to say "Assuming that the background for this scenario could occur (i.e. a two-thousand year old secret society, etc), can I actually imagine myself in this story?"  

I tend to break down laughing when our claustrophobic hero gets trapped underneath a stone sarcophagus, yet still has the presence of mind to use the decaying skeleton to preserve an air hole, is rescued by firemen, runs off to be nearly suffocated in a fiendish trap in an airtight library, discovers the secret lair of the villain and defeats him hand-to-hand, manages to get aboard a space-plane and free-fall several miles into a river while saving the Vatican from antimatter annihilation, and proceeds to get laid.  All in a 4-hour period, or thereabouts.

I can sum up Deception Point in about 30 seconds.

OMG SPACE BUGS IN A ROCK!
Are you sure?
Wait, floating green things?
Let's kill some scientists, they know too much.
Drilling cores make no sense.
We've found intelligent life!
My campaign is screwed!
LIES!
ASSASSINS!
S'all good.
Bone the lead.

Oooooh oooh, let me do Digital Fortress.

There's code running amok in the database!
Oh noes!
Fix the code!
We can't fix the code!
Fat guy bones a girl!
We can't fix the code!
What is code?
This is code.
Oh! Ok! We can't fix that!
Traitor, shoot him!
Wait, we still can't fix the code!
Oh, there's how you fix the code!
The code is fixed!
Aren't my books better than yours?
I'm god. You suck. Noobler.

The end.

So, just how much of their stuff have you read exactly?

Oh cmon, with that kind of setup, you know I was just the first guy to say it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Cussler is the guy who write all the underwater adventures right? I've read 2 or 3 of his books. They are OK - underwater Crichton books basically. (Kind of a strange niche) They're the kind of books I will buy on the last day of the library book sale for 25 cents, read that night, then shelve forever.
---

The thing about the DaVinci code is, most people are interested in it for the "non-fiction" parts. (Which were mostly lifted from another book) Of course it's all total bullshit. But you know what is true? The Spear of Destiny that that Roman soldier used to stab Christ was carved from the horn of the same Narwhale the Atlanteans worshipped before their city sunk into the sea.

Or something like that. It is kind of scary that the book is garnering such an interest among a large number of apparently pretty dumb people. The author really managed to hit the jackpot.

I think the reasion Dan Brown got so popular is becasue his books are page turners, you WANT to know what happens next. Also, he take thinks that are pretty complex and lets the layman fele like they are an expert. So joe public just eats up his stuff.

I read like 3 or 4 (I cant recall cause they where all the same) of his books while on a trip and I found them in my girlfriends bags.

To sum it up in the words of my girlfriend they are "Junkfood reading". They seem good at the time, but  containe no real nurishment, and the majority of america loves them.

I think your girlfriend is right. I won't eat McDonalds and I won't read that shit either.

The Alienist is the shit.  Everyone should read it.  Angel of Darkness I didn't like as much, although it might have just suffered in comparison.

I thought The Da Vinci Code was a dumbed down ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum.  It's actually a bit of a let down to hear that it's acutally a virtual copy of the author's existing books.

And Captain Harvard is priceless.

Yeah, I got kinda pissed off at the last "riddle" in Da Vinci Code, the one about Newton's orb.  It was a stupidly easy riddle, but the main characters stood around going "uhhmmmmmm" for several pages to make the reader feel like it was the hardest one in the book.  It was obvious that the author was setting one up for me so I could feel clever too.  Jackass.

I may disagree with schild on movies and games from time to time, but it seems we have the same taste in women. Audrey is the hottest chick in movies (present day!) as far as I'm concerned. Still, she doesn't seem right for the part. Rachel Weisz or Cate Blanchett would be more believable imo.

I don't see Hanks as Captain Harvard either. I heard Russell Crowe and Dennis Quaid were up for the part once. They would have been better choices.

Edit: Ghetto internet makes me cry.

You both hit it spot on.

I read Da Vinci Code first, then A&D, then Digital, then that other one.  And they got shittier and shittier the more I read.  Wish I'd stopped at A&D.

Personally, I hate that they got big-dick Hanks to play in the movie.  He's too big for it.  They should've gotten someone a wee bit younger.  I would buy Quaid in it after seeing In Good Company.  Not Crowe, he's likes a good fightin'.  Hahaha, they should ask Mel Gibson just so he can go ape shit on them.  Tautou makes a perfect female lead for that.  She's hot, she's kind of quirky, she's french!, and I could totally buy that she's a daughter of Christ.

There are some (most) people who will take ANY text of authority, and tweak the context to suit their own ends.  The Bible is a favorite punching bag, but it's hardly alone.  Anything religious, political, or scientific is all fair game for being the victims of literary revisionism.  Keep in mind too that this counts towards both sides - people using text X to support their view, as well as those people who mock that same text.

Global warming.  Is it happening?  How quickly?  As a result of what?  Insert thirty oppinions of various groups, all pulling their favorite scientific sources to back their personal agendas.  Even where studies are generally considered within scientific communities to be carried out appropriately, the conclusions earned from the studies are not always the same.  What is the real cost/risk analasys of this issue?  How close can we get to knowing what "real" is, in such a complex system?

First Gulf War - we went to war not because Saddam invaded Kuwait, but because he had a lot of potential to disrupt oil trade.  But that's not what Bush pitched when he built a coalition, either within our country or with other countries.  Was this wrong?  Was Kuwait a close second in terms of priorities, or was it not even a real consideration?  Should they have been?  Should we accept the President's arguments (Kuwait) because we agree with those merits, or disagree with his argument because he was not entirely straightforward with his reasons?

Bible - it is a historical document.  Yes, it is.  That does not mean it is a literal recording of the past (we do have examples of other historical documents we are certain contain propoganda), but it does mean it is not rubbish just because there are religious movements organized around it.  To what extent can the text be trusted to be true?  How do you determine that?  Is it merely belief - either for or against - or is there some logical, scientific process that could be applied?  How far could it take us?

Untested belief isn't relegated just to religion, or just to the Bible.  All throughout our lives we simply accept things for one reason or another, because we simply don't have time to go through the entire background and research of every topic we come up against.  Some people - scientific, religious, and political - have tried to exploit that.  It leaves you with religious zealots, scientists who are out for fame or accolades on their large egos, or political figures looking to spread their propoganda.

And it doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, either.  You can't tell if someone is a propogandist if they're actually GOOD at what they do.  What they say may sound really off compared to your understanding of the world, but that doesn't make them wrong (the world is round?  laughable!).  If you either accept or reject anything based on face value, and argue that view home, you run the risk of showing your ignorance.

This is the exact same reason Michael Crichton is popular. What a fucking hack.

I give Crichton I lot more credit than I give John Grishom. If you want to discuss a hack, Grishom takes the cake for the most repetative story lines ever.

OK, so its about this lawyer right, and he's got this conflict of interest, and then he finds out something that changes his life, and does something to take on <insert big system here>.

Yes, you are correct. Grisham has got to be considered King Hack of All Hacks everywhere.

Crichton is a lot better than Brown.  At least he's isn't asserting that his work is based off fact.  Also, the man does a lot of research for these books and writes a much more complex story than Brown could ever handle.  Of course, one could read Prey and then just tell me I'm full of shit (god that book was formulaic).

I take it, you haven't read his latest: "Global Warming Is A Damn Dirty Lie And My Book Has Footnotes, So It Must Be True"?

It's hard to believe in global warming when you've been hit by a record breaking snow storm. Evidently the melting of all those arctic ice caps is having less of an impact in the general future than alarmists would have hoped. Maybe in 20 years people will start caring.

I wait until paperback.  I guess I should have chosen my words a bit more carefully.  Crichton bases a lot of his work off scientific research and theory.  But he presents the fantasy parts as fantasy parts (it's seemingly obvious if you aren't an idiot).  Brown takes a lot of conjecture and presents it as plain fact.

But...but Brown wrote about super fast planes, and crazy weapons that make bullets out of snow, and melting ice with frickin lasers, and an interconnected global network of spying devices on the sea floor. He had to research those right? They exist, right?

Those exist.



That doesn't.



Doable, but I'm guessing he had some sort of super laser?



That exists.

The plane in question got from the Northeastern US to the North Pole in two hours. I presume it was actually Santa's sleigh.

As for the network under the water, it was so finely tuned in the book that it heard an S.O.S. signal being tapped out in Morse Code with an ice hammer on a floating piece of ice in the middle of an uncharted piece of ocean where there just happened to be a nearby super-secret stealth sub positioned to pick up the survivors.

And people thought roasting a cardinal was silly.

The Blackbird, with a speed over mach 3, could make the trip from Main to the north pole in under an hour and a half.  It could circumnavigate the globe in just over 11 hours.  To go from 46 degrees latitude (somewhere in Maine) to the pole in exactly 2 hours would be mach 2.1.  At mach 3, travelling for 2 hours, you could go about 64 degrees of latitude, which puts you starting in Mexico.  Very doable for the government.



Yeah, that sounds far fetched.

Edit: but, maybe not.  There is a law enforcement project, unclassified, that can pinpoint the location of gunfire.  You setup the system, turn it on, and it will notify you whenever it detects a gunshot, and where it occured.  You can tie it into GPS, which in turn can give you an address if you like.  Right now it's a mobile system, since cost prohibits setting the thing up all over the place permanently, but they're working on it.

Unrelated, anyone know of a good place to get a silencer?

Your local black market?

Despite popular belief, you can buy or make a gun suppressor in some states. And in many countries, they're perfectly legal.

Don't call them "silencers". Only Brown or Chrichton would use such a word.

Technically they're legal in 30-odd states but the Feds classify them as title 2 weapons (same category as machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, etc.).  Costs you $200 to apply to the BATF for a license, takes several months to process, and violations are very costly (don't even loan it to someone else for fun.)

I *think* they're obligated to issue you one unless there's some specific reason you don't qualify, but expect the Feds to do a little digging into your life regardless.

Rochester, NY, is one of a few cities getting a permanent installation of a system like this.  The company that makes it is out of Kalifornia.  Basically, they install tiny boxes in a grid over the city, such that any point is within a mile of 3 sensors.  They can then pinpoint gunfire to within like 20 feet or so, and tell if the shooter is moving(like a drive-by), how many shots there were, etc...  In the space of 5-10 seconds.  Most of which is waiting for the sounds to reach the sensors.

Ah, found link.  ShotSpotter (http://www.shotspotter.com/)

Alkiera

You've fallen into that trap of believing that because something is badly named, it isn't evident.  The whole 'Warming' thing should have been scrapped from the start and called Climate Change or summat.  After all, you WERE JUST HIT BY A RECORD BREAKING SNOW STORM.  That should be evidence, if any were needed, that things are changing.  I mean, didn't you watch The Day After Tomorrow ??  CLIMATE CHANGE KILLED BILBO !!  A Hobbit was at Steak !!

Regarding global warming, one must remember that temperatures will not rise universally at every location.  Apparently much of the USA has seen slight declines in temperature recently.  But the entire planet has seen a significant rise in temperature, using aggregate figures from every location on the globe.  The Arctic and Antarctic regions are seeing particularly huge swings, but I'm afraid that the weather girl at WRAL does not report on those.

It's a good thing for the 'gobal warming' crowd that nature never does anything in a cyclic fashion... 'cause that would make for a really simple solution for the question of why average temperatures have gone up by 1 degree over the last 150 years or so.  Occam's Razor would even support such a thing.  And those tests where they looks at cores of ice bored up from various areas, and determined that temps have been notably colder lately than they were in, say, the middle ages, they'd seem to support the cyclic hypothesis too.

But no, nature is never cyclic.  Man just has an incredible ability to destroy an ecosystem which has repeatedly recovered from, say, volcano eruptions that put off more 'pollutants' in a single event than the human race has since before the industrial revolution.  Phear our mighty p0w3r!

Alkiera

And this is why every conversation about global warming breaks down into oversimplification.  Yes, nature has cycles.  The question is whether the current cycle is natural or man-made.  And if it is man-made, what will be the effects, how quickly will we see those effects, and is it reversible?  Then of course, it all breaks down into political mudslinging, as various sides trot out their experts.   It is a classic example of how science is inevitably political.

However, I think it means something that nearly every international organization of scientists is coming to the conclusion that the cycle is man-made, and the burden of proof is getting heavier for the neigh-sayers.  And saying "OMG I just got a lot of snow, fuck the tree-huggers" doesn't cut it.

Meanwhile, for the great masses of humanity who sit inside their air-conditioned rooms playing MMO games 18 hours per day, it probably doesn't matter unless their utility bills start to cut into their gaming budget.

Here's the fun part of the whole global warming/environmentally conscious debate. It's all a crock of shit.

The "World" will still be here, even if we manage to fuck up the environment so much that this planet becomes completely unhabitable to mankind. OUR world won't be, but nature itself will just make a few corrections and keep doing whatever it's going to do with our without us. The whole environmental debate is all about making sure humans are comfortable with the environment they are in. It's got nothing to do with saving the planet.

Carlin said it best I think.

Yes, yes he did. Or to quote:

Humanity: "Why are we here?"

The Planet: "Plastic, asshole."

Wow.  Something I can really agree with George Carlin on.

Alkiera

That is some damn funny stuff from Carlin, but I can't say I would personally rely on a comedian for my world view.  Sure, if you think humanity is headed for an inevitable apocalypse, I guess you might as well run 10 credit cards to the max, dump your wife for hookers and drugs, and drive around in your Hummer mowing down animals for fun.  Isn't nihilism great!  Sure, environmentalists are self-interested, but who the hell isn't?  Maybe they just happen to be slightly more optimistic about the chances of humans to do anything other than dig themselves a mass grave.

George Carlin is a notable linguist among other things. If there's a single comedian you could learn something from - it's him.

I'm glad the government is going to have such a device.  They would never, ever abuse such a power, would they?

It's a great quote from Carlin and all, but I don't really care if the planet will recover in a few millenia after we'd left our mess behind if I and mine don't get to recover with it.

Cynicism is fine, but I don't see any reason to just giving the planet to the roaches just yet - I like other species better. Homo Sapiens is one of them.

Replace "is going to have" with "has had for some time".  And this is unclassified.  Really, the unclassified stuff doesn't bother me so much, because there are a shitton of people watching it.  Even if you personally don't know where they're stting it up and what they're doing with it, you know that there are a lot of people are involved with the project, know about it, and oversee it.  It's really hard to abuse a system this public and get away with it, because so many people know what you're doing.

Why not? If you cannot look at a universe that gives humanity the ability to think of larger things than itself, then give it a lifespan that isn't even an eyeblink in the cosmic scheme of things, as well as inflicting crimes like rotting crotch diseases and New Kids on the Block on us while tempting us with riches and sex with supermodels, if you can't look at all that shit and laugh your ass off, what the fuck is the point of living?

I'd rather take my world view from comedians than say politicians, philosophers and religious sumbitches.

See, this is something we don't know.
We could be the only intelligent race in the whole damn universe and therefore the one species most important to protect.
We sure as hell are unique on earth and therefore we could be only past the first percentile of the species lifespan with great and wonderful things in store if we don't fuck it up.
Be all teen angst and fashionable cynicism, if that makes you happy. Me I'm sticking around for at least 100 years more and I hope the planet stays a rather comfortable place.

Good luck with that.

Oh, I can definitely look at all that and laugh my ass off.  Carlin is funny, and so is a lot of stuff on comedy central.  I laugh my ass off at Chapelle, but I don't write him letters asking for advice on how to live.  And at the end of the day, it's perfectly possible to have a sense of humor, yet also try to be a responsible citizen who gives a shit about leaving something decent for the next generation.

I'd rather develop my own world view rather than listen to a guy that gets to go through life with a fuckton of money for bitching. All love to Carlin for his act, but he's not exactly a great thinker of the age. He's a smart man that knows his craft.

And in any given fight, I take humanity. We are just mean and petty enough to destroy this planet and move on to another.

Earth will not ever be a comfortable place for humans as long as humans live on it: this thread is proof of that.  Anybody that has the gall to sneer at George Carlin is displaying some incredible dumbassery.

"Sneer" is not the proper term.  Laugh at his comedy act, yes.  Admit he's damn right about the ability and propensity of humans to destroy themselves.  Sure.  But in the end, the Carlin quote is flat out nihilistic.  There is something heroic about admitting that nihilists may be right, but still deciding to believe that we are capable of something better, and trying to make it happen.  It's easy to destroy, much harder to create.  

Just ask the MMO game developers we all talk about so much.... There are lots of lousy games and crappy online worlds, yet we all seem to believe it's possible to make something better.  Otherwise why the hell would we talk so much about it.

(http://www.phonelosers.org/cwp/cwp_melbrooks.jpg)

I would say he's a cunning linguist. But that's just my take on it.

If you think Carlin or, for that matter, myself are nihilistic, you haven't been paying attention. Nihilism is the ultimate circle jerk fantasy of retarded slackers with nothing better to do. It is the penultimate poseur's paradise. Nihilist wouldn't care enough to create anything.

Whatever you may think of my writing, or Carlin's comedy, they are both creations. If either of us were really nihilist in our outlook, we wouldn't bother, because really, what's the point?

Shit, if your going to label me anything, call me an existentialist. At least they had the audacity to claim that things were worth doing, despite their complete and utter lack of certainty that anything made any difference whatsoever.

Nihilists. Gen X slackers and extreme sports punks have more important things to say than nihilists.

I always had you pegged as a Utilitarian with Teurets syndrom and an english degree.

And that makes my day.

Oh for fucks sake, jesus boy.



It's Tourette's and syndrome.

I figured he was one of the German guys from the Big Lebowski...  Bah, can't find a decent picture.

Sure, existentialism works.  You can always hug a tree, when the great tsunami comes for you!

You registered to correct my spelling? I'm semi-honored.

Back off, chucklefuck. Spelling correction is my territory.

you're slacking, asstweaker.

Also fuck's is possessive, not plural.

I like the new guy, he's sassy. Although the Hasselhomo pic has to go. Talk to Signe, she's our avatar expert, and she's kinda nuts so it works.

I would, but I'm to lazy to pronounce it!

Carlin wrote something about his wife when she died that was read at one of my Aunt's funerals.  It was very beautiful.

Even if we are only at the first percentile of our species (though genus might be a better measure here as species is a bit nebulous in evolutionary terms over long periods) lifespan it would still be a pretty huge failure by paleontological standards.  20 million years?  Shit there were dinosaur species that were around for 100.  Compare that to something like sharks or crocodiles.  Hell, horseshoe crabs.  And getting into single celled organisms, archea.  Some of them have been around in pretty much the same general form for 1.5 billion years.  


Regardless though, it doesn't matter, because the human species will be made or broken in the next 1000 years.  At the rate of technological progression, at that point, either we will have spread out into space, making ourselves virtually unkillable as a species barring cosmic phenomena, or we'll all have killed each other.


Regardless though, it doesn't matter, because anyone reading this forum will be lucky to live 80 more years.  Enjoy the time you've got.


On-global warming:

Man-made disasters and environmental concerns have a way of working themselves out as technology progresses.  One hundred years ago the big problem was that industrial cities were covered with soot and people were getting lung cancer.  Another problem was that tanners were dumping mercury into rivers.  Another was that horses shit in the street, causing very much displeasure to all concerned.

Two-hundred years ago the forests of europe were being clear cut to build ships.  Deforestation was rampant.

Three-hundred years ago it was that major cities had human shit running through the streets as cities had not been designed with sewers yet.  This caused obvious problems such as cholera and hepititis outbreaks, etc.

Well, steel-making technology advanced, leatherworking methods improved, cars came along, ships begain being made from iron, sewers were constructed, etc.  These advancements didn't come along so much due to government mandates but because they were generally desirable by everyone.  Conservation efforts were definately important, yes, but ultimately the main actor in solving these problems was not that people decided to stop polluting, but that better options came along.  No one had to tell people to stop building ships out of wood, or stop using horse-drawn carriages.

50 or 100 years from now a cheap alternative to burning fossil fuels will come along, which will perform better for the purposes fossil fuels are used for now that fossil fuels do.  200 years from now we'll all be looking back at global warming in the same way we do naval deforestation or equine fecal contamination now.

The important factor then becomes:  Will global warming cause substantial damage to human civilization?

(Not the planet, as nothing humanity could do short of intentionally nuking every inch of land surface could impact the planet all that much. There are birds living and happilly reproducing in the dead radioactive husk of chernobyl right now. Most animals don't have such human concerns as needing or desiring long cancer free lifespans.  At worst we mess up land usage and kill some species which live in environments that no longer exist, for which replacements will evolve within a few million years after we die out.)

Well, the average temp in the 20th century increased 0.6 degrees C.  The entire history of human industrialization has increased co2 levels by about 100ppm, from 280ppm to 380ppm.  Computer estimates project in the next 100 years, at the current rate of economic growth, the temperature will increase maybe 3.4C., with CO2 levels increasing to 540 ppm

(source - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12065912%255E1702,00.html  - this article is also an excellent example of alarmism, in 2001 estimates were 2-5C, a new set of computer models come out which estimates global warming at 2-11C, but with a median and average of around 3.4.  Headlines read "global warming estimates double" because it gets more buys than "global warming estimates statistically exactly the fucking same".)


What will 3.4C in a global rise in temperature mean to us?  The answer lies somewhere around "No one has any clue at all".  Well, we've got 100 years to find out.  We certainly have an answer to the question "what will 0.6C in global temperature rise mean to us?"  Which is "not a whole fucking lot".

Ultimately the important question, though, is "Will the benefit from cutting fossil fuel related production lead to a better and longer life for more people than the goods and economic benefit provided from that production?"

If you can answer that one you should stop reading this and go pick up your nobel prize, and get to work on that middle east thing.

I just want my fucking flying car, goddamnit. 2005 and I can't even fly wily-nily about centers of urban decay. What good's the future without flying fucking cars?

You got me on that one.



I guess that means I'll have to say: Up your's.