For whatever reason, many of those who love either Star Wars or Star Trek seem to have either disdain or condescension for fanboys of the other franchise. Throughout the years I have heard many arguments between those who think that Star Wars is the epitome of storytelling and those who think that Star Trek provides great intellectual depth and something to aspire to as the human race. I don't understand the debate at all, though, because neither series really should be considered part of the same genre.
Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better? They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right? So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better. Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.
While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end. Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.
Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away). The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story. The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.
Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements. The setting not only drives the story, it is the story. An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing? We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"
The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises. There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much. I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either. Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws. There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.
Sunday, November 08, 2015
Saturday, June 27, 2015
men in space
I have noted before that I am extremely excited about the New Horizons Pluto flyby that is coming in the upcoming weeks. Something that I've taken note of is that, while some people express some interest when I mention it, most people they don't seem to have too much interest at all. I sort of get it. It's a bit of a nerdy topic, and if you're not naturally interested in planets and moons and such why would you care that we're going to see pictures of another dwarf planet. To me, this just seems like such a big deal, but I do not decide what should or should not be a big deal. After some contemplation, I think I understand where my interest departs from mainstream. I'm more interested in the planets than the astronauts.
Every once in a while I will hear a line of thinking that states that the United States has slouched in the space race since the seventies when we sent men to the Moon. The rationale goes that we haven't even put together a credible plan to put a man on Mars three or four decades since we stopped visiting the Moon, and we do not even have the equipment to get a man to the Moon today. This must mean we're stagnating in space. This line of thinking makes me think the real thing that interests a lot of people about space isn't space, but is rather astronauts.
Honestly, I don't know why so many people focus on sending men or women to the Moon or to Mars. I don't understand why sending a person to another planet is much more exciting than sending a lander/rover to a nearby planet or a probe to a further-away planet, for those of us who are not astronauts. In both scenarios I am not on the planet, but I am experiencing it through pictures. In both scenarios very similar scientific data is gathered about the planet. Why should I care if a human set up that camera on the surface or it is attached to a rover controlled from the earth? All that does is increase the gravity of mistakes made on the mission.
The U.S. has not slouched in space in the last few decades. In the time since the first man landed on the moon we have sent robotic equipment to gather pictures and measurements to all of the planets, at least one comet, and a few asteroids. This year alone there are two missions that will send back details about dwarf planets (Ceres and Pluto). Multiple Mars landers have already sent pictures from the planet, and performed tests to determine the compositions of areas of the ground. A lander was also sent to one of Saturn's moons that returned images and measurements of a cool and alien world. Complete maps have been created of all of the three other inner planets' surfaces. Two spacecraft have been sent into the heliosphere (the area where the Sun's influence gives way to the galaxy's influence), and one more is on it's way. This says nothing of what has been photographed and detected by telescopes in recent years.
This is a great time to be alive if you're a space nerd like me who is unconcerned with whether we get our Mars data from a rover or a human! That would be me.
Every once in a while I will hear a line of thinking that states that the United States has slouched in the space race since the seventies when we sent men to the Moon. The rationale goes that we haven't even put together a credible plan to put a man on Mars three or four decades since we stopped visiting the Moon, and we do not even have the equipment to get a man to the Moon today. This must mean we're stagnating in space. This line of thinking makes me think the real thing that interests a lot of people about space isn't space, but is rather astronauts.
Honestly, I don't know why so many people focus on sending men or women to the Moon or to Mars. I don't understand why sending a person to another planet is much more exciting than sending a lander/rover to a nearby planet or a probe to a further-away planet, for those of us who are not astronauts. In both scenarios I am not on the planet, but I am experiencing it through pictures. In both scenarios very similar scientific data is gathered about the planet. Why should I care if a human set up that camera on the surface or it is attached to a rover controlled from the earth? All that does is increase the gravity of mistakes made on the mission.
The U.S. has not slouched in space in the last few decades. In the time since the first man landed on the moon we have sent robotic equipment to gather pictures and measurements to all of the planets, at least one comet, and a few asteroids. This year alone there are two missions that will send back details about dwarf planets (Ceres and Pluto). Multiple Mars landers have already sent pictures from the planet, and performed tests to determine the compositions of areas of the ground. A lander was also sent to one of Saturn's moons that returned images and measurements of a cool and alien world. Complete maps have been created of all of the three other inner planets' surfaces. Two spacecraft have been sent into the heliosphere (the area where the Sun's influence gives way to the galaxy's influence), and one more is on it's way. This says nothing of what has been photographed and detected by telescopes in recent years.
This is a great time to be alive if you're a space nerd like me who is unconcerned with whether we get our Mars data from a rover or a human! That would be me.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
no problem
A while back—probably a year or two ago—Golden asked me why I always respond to people thanking me with, "No problem." She noted that, "You're welcome," would be better. Old habits die hard, so I have not really changed things, though I think about it more. I do think that this has exposed a difference in how I think versus how she and I am sure many others think, and I would never had even considered it had that conversation not occurred.
I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect that most people answer one way or the other, and do not alternate between the two too much. The reason I think this is that there is a very specific reason that, "No problem," seems natural to me. If someone does not have that same personality quirk, I would suspect that they would tend to use, "You're welcome," more than, "No problem," as well.
For one reason or another (or a hundred) I am very highly motivated not to put someone out. I view it as a personal failing to have unnecessarily inconvenienced someone. I called it a quirk earlier, but I think that most people don't like inconveniencing others. At the extreme I reach it is a flaw or worse. It has caused me more problems than good, for sure. So, to me the act of thanking someone is a form of apology for requiring them to go out of their way. I like to receive the response, "No problem," because this signals that the person in question is not bothered by being put out.
I suspect, though I do not know first hand, that those who prefer to hear, "You're welcome," prefer that because they are more likely to see someone doing something for someone else as a gift. The "You're welcome," would then signify that the gift was sincerely given and can be genuinely appreciated.
Do you have a preferred way to respond to thanks, or a preferred way for others to respond to your thanks? Do you have your own theories regarding why someone would prefer one response over the other? I'd love to hear about it in the comments.
I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect that most people answer one way or the other, and do not alternate between the two too much. The reason I think this is that there is a very specific reason that, "No problem," seems natural to me. If someone does not have that same personality quirk, I would suspect that they would tend to use, "You're welcome," more than, "No problem," as well.
For one reason or another (or a hundred) I am very highly motivated not to put someone out. I view it as a personal failing to have unnecessarily inconvenienced someone. I called it a quirk earlier, but I think that most people don't like inconveniencing others. At the extreme I reach it is a flaw or worse. It has caused me more problems than good, for sure. So, to me the act of thanking someone is a form of apology for requiring them to go out of their way. I like to receive the response, "No problem," because this signals that the person in question is not bothered by being put out.
I suspect, though I do not know first hand, that those who prefer to hear, "You're welcome," prefer that because they are more likely to see someone doing something for someone else as a gift. The "You're welcome," would then signify that the gift was sincerely given and can be genuinely appreciated.
Do you have a preferred way to respond to thanks, or a preferred way for others to respond to your thanks? Do you have your own theories regarding why someone would prefer one response over the other? I'd love to hear about it in the comments.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
despicable assumption
Of the myriad of movies that our kids like, Despicable Me 2 is near the top of almost everyone in our family's list of enjoyable films. Seriously, it's worth watching, whether you have kids or not. If you haven't seen it, stick it in your Netflix queue, or plan on renting it, or whatever you do to see older movies. It is that good.
Having acknowledged how entertaining and brilliant the movie is there is one glaring issue I have with it, and I have embedded a clip that illustrates the problem below.
I apologize that this is going to be fairly dark considering the source material, but it is what bugs me every time this scene comes up. I genuinely cannot enjoy this scene, and this might ruin it for you too. If you don't want this scene ruined skip the rest of this article. I'm serious on that.
I want you to imagine for a moment you are that horrible woman on the date with Gru. You're sitting at a table dining with your date when you decide to humiliate him in a heartless fashion. You reach for his toupee then everything goes black. You regain consciousness the next morning in your own bed, you are sore and bruised, and you have no recollection of anything that happened after the beginning of your meal. What would you assume had happened the night before?
If I were that woman I would assume that Gru had slipped a roofie into my drink. Even though the woman was not mistreated in the way she would probably assume, there very few scenarios where what this turn of events will not scar her. It's played for laughs because we assume the woman deserves to feel a little bruised the next day, and the physical damage can be written off with cartoon physics and all, but the emotional damage that she will experience in this situation would likely far outweigh any physical pain she'd experience. This is a serious issue even before considering the real possibility that Gru would loose his girls and wind up in prison based on strong circumstantial evidence that he is a loner with psychological issues who must have badly mistreated his far-more-attractive date on that night.
If you read through that, I am sorry to spoil that part of the movie for you. The rest of this film is entertaining, though this scene is unfortunately key in establishing why Gru should care about Lucy, so it can't be easily skipped. It's just one of those scenes that I'll just always have to grit my teeth through. Now, maybe it will be for you as well.
Having acknowledged how entertaining and brilliant the movie is there is one glaring issue I have with it, and I have embedded a clip that illustrates the problem below.
I apologize that this is going to be fairly dark considering the source material, but it is what bugs me every time this scene comes up. I genuinely cannot enjoy this scene, and this might ruin it for you too. If you don't want this scene ruined skip the rest of this article. I'm serious on that.
I want you to imagine for a moment you are that horrible woman on the date with Gru. You're sitting at a table dining with your date when you decide to humiliate him in a heartless fashion. You reach for his toupee then everything goes black. You regain consciousness the next morning in your own bed, you are sore and bruised, and you have no recollection of anything that happened after the beginning of your meal. What would you assume had happened the night before?
If I were that woman I would assume that Gru had slipped a roofie into my drink. Even though the woman was not mistreated in the way she would probably assume, there very few scenarios where what this turn of events will not scar her. It's played for laughs because we assume the woman deserves to feel a little bruised the next day, and the physical damage can be written off with cartoon physics and all, but the emotional damage that she will experience in this situation would likely far outweigh any physical pain she'd experience. This is a serious issue even before considering the real possibility that Gru would loose his girls and wind up in prison based on strong circumstantial evidence that he is a loner with psychological issues who must have badly mistreated his far-more-attractive date on that night.
If you read through that, I am sorry to spoil that part of the movie for you. The rest of this film is entertaining, though this scene is unfortunately key in establishing why Gru should care about Lucy, so it can't be easily skipped. It's just one of those scenes that I'll just always have to grit my teeth through. Now, maybe it will be for you as well.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
foreign policy
I am thirty-five now, and I will be thirty-six later this year, so I cannot use age as an excuse any more as to why I haven't become president of the United States yet. The only excuses I have left are simply not wanting it enough and not having a strong enough get-out-the-vote machine built up in the swing states.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
automated bathrooms
A couple of months back I was in a store or restaurant bathroom with NJ and he stuck his hands under the sink expecting it to automatically come on. He knows how manual sinks work—our house bathroom sink is a typical manual one—but he is accustomed enough to automated sinks in businesses that it makes sense to him to expect one. In related news, I am feeling old.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
the great war
Recently, there has been quite a bit of news regarding the one-hundred-year anniversary of Ottoman destruction of the Armenian people during World War I. This got me to thinking about something that has been on my mind some over the past few years. Why does World War II hold a significant place in American memory and consideration, but World War I does not?
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
I figured for a long while that the reason for World War II's place in the American heart when compared to other wars was due to the fact that it came into being when film-making was in a bit of a golden age. There is a lot of reasonable-quality film of everything from the battles over the Pacific to D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge to the dropping of the atomic bombs, so this was the first opportunity people had to really experience the war. I now think it is something different.
When it comes to war people like to know that they are on the right and noble side. They like to know that the sacrifices that are being made are virtuous stands against a grievous evil, and that there is no question that what is being done is necessary. Unlike most conflicts, World War II has this in spades. Between the genocide committed by the Nazis and the atrocities of the Japanese, it is easy to see the Allies as the white knight against the obvious Axis evil. I believe this is also why so many movies have been created using World War II as a setting. The story teller doesn't have to waste any effort at all establishing who the good and the bad guys are. It is also a nice shortcut to positive feelings of patriotism.
World War I was completely different, though. Countries were dragged into war, not because of some overwhelming moral imperative, but rather because they had treaties allying them with other countries that had already declared war. The United States was only drawn in when its trading interests to the United Kingdom were threatened by Germany, so the primary purposes of entering the war were economic (and revenge for the sinking of the Lusitania). To an objective observer there was no honorable side. Looking from the outside, there were only sides who sent millions of soldiers off to die horrible deaths in order to protect their political and economic interests.
Had I understood this about the Great War I think I would have been more interested in it. The complexity of the politics leading up to the war, and the ludicrous inability of nations to take appropriate steps to avoid their own destruction is fascinating. The fact that World War II can be blamed on the economic fallout that followed World War I indicates that the one only happened due to the other. The entirety of history and everything that has happened in the world in the last hundred years has been a direct result of the poor decisions that were made in the lead-up to World War I.
It is simply astounding that the shape of the world today can be directly tied to decisions a few world leaders and diplomats made over one hundred years ago. You never know how far-reaching one decision or series of decisions will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
