@m1ndtr1p: All of the negative effects that you mention are a product of the drugs being illegal, not of the drugs themselves. When alcohol was made illegal almost overnight brutal criminal gangs appeared to supply the demand for booze. Later on, when prohibition was repealed, the gangs disappeared (or moved into other rackets) because they could no longer compete with legal suppliers of alcohol.
As for addiction, yes that is a problem, but the fact is that there are *FAR* more alcoholics than there are drug addicts.... We all know the devastating effects alcohol addiction can have on lives and families... why not make that illegal as well?
As for addiction, yes that is a problem, but the fact is that there are *FAR* more alcoholics than there are drug addicts.... We all know the devastating effects alcohol addiction can have on lives and families... why not make that illegal as well?
@hoboslobobabe: Let's just say there's no point in arguing with someone like you who supports the unconstitutional, life-destroying, taxpayer-wasting and 30-year failure that is the War on Drugs.
How about this... you want heroin users / dealers locked up, why don't YOU pay for it? I, for one, would rather not have my money wasted on prosecuting victimless crimes. If someone wants to ram some chemical up their veins, I might think that it's a bad idea, but I'm sure as hell not going to throw my money on the table to lock them in cages.
Like all other warmongers, drug warriors always want OTHER people's money to deal with THEIR personal bugaboos.
How about this... you want heroin users / dealers locked up, why don't YOU pay for it? I, for one, would rather not have my money wasted on prosecuting victimless crimes. If someone wants to ram some chemical up their veins, I might think that it's a bad idea, but I'm sure as hell not going to throw my money on the table to lock them in cages.
Like all other warmongers, drug warriors always want OTHER people's money to deal with THEIR personal bugaboos.
@Tyrunn: Yes, it is. I'm not saying anything about whether the alternate-universe is scientifically feasible. I'm just saying that your theory doesn't make sense given the narrative structure of Lost. When they show us something, generally it's true or real (except for instances of apparitions or fantasies experienced by a single character, which are generally made clear as such). Thus, it just doesn't make sense that the writers would show us Oceanic 815 landing safe in LAX if that didn't actually happen, in some universe or other. Why would they even go to the trouble to shoot all those scenes and pay all the actors if that wasn't real? What are they going to do, pop up later and say "nope that didn't happen"? Was it all in Jack's head or something? Come on, give the writers a little more credit than that.
@Tyrunn: Yeah, that's a theory that seems to be popular, but I just don't see how that makes sense. We saw everyone land and get off Oceanic 815. How could it also be that they had all of their island experiences?
So here's a question... if the island's purpose is to be a trap for the Man in Black, and there is no island in the alternate universe, where is the MiB in that world? Presumably he would have escaped.
I think this might be the "catch" to the alternate universe... while all of the characters' lives seem to be working out better, at the end of the day, smoke monster's gonna swoop in and destroy the world. Maybe the final choice for our characters to make will be, your lives in this world, as much as they suck, vs. your lives improved but in a doomed world.
Umm, with some qualifications, I think I have to say "move along, nothing to see here." Pun intended.
What did they do? They made a metamaterial that operates in the 1.4 - 2.7 region. Sure, that's "optical" but it's not "visible." And it's not a trivial extension to get this to work in the visible range... Au and Ag, the workhorses of the metamaterials field as well as plasmonics in general, are significantly more lossy in the visible region. It's not clear whether this strategy will ever work with visible light.
Researchers have been making metamaterials operating in the mid-IR for some time... Not to denigrate the importance of this work but it's really irresponsible to take these advances and run with them as "invisibility cloaks," with all the attendant Harry Potter fantasies. These are important advances in nano-optics and will probably wind up making a big difference in telecom and semiconductor devices, but let's not think we're getting our invisibility cloaks anytime soon based on this research. You're just setting yourself up for a "flying cars by 1999" disappointment.
And to some extent, the researchers in the field have only themselves to blame... the choice of the word "optical" (instead of "mid-IR") in the title in indicative of the conscious self-promotion these scientists are engaging in. Remember, scientists are all about self-promotion too, especially in the nanoscience world.
@Strangeite: I think that this theory is very interesting, and worth some fleshing out... but I wanted to point out a problem. At one point we (the audience) were shown the empty graves from which Widmore took the bodies he put in the fake crashed plane. Thus, I think that we have every indication to believe that Widmore did indeed fake that plane crash.
I know the writers are a tricky bunch, but I think when they show something like that explicitly to the audience you can assume it's real.
But this doesn't necessarily invalidate your theory....
Question for anyone who cares to clarify: At one point when Jack was talking to Dogen, Jack asked something like "where did you come from?" Dogen said they were "brought here" or something along those lines, and then said something like "don't you know what I mean?" As if Jack specifically knew what he was talking about. Anyone know what was meant by this? Was this an important clue about where the Others came from?
Oh yeah, and enough Kate, etc etc.
I did a double take with the scale bar there.... I'm used to that being in mm or um.... no, that's MEGA meters.
@Scott Landano: Nah, Jude Law played the role of Ted Pikul, Allegra Geller's handler. Chris Eccleston had a minor role as the guy supervising the eXistenZ product test session.
WHAT, no "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank"?!?!? I bid you GOOD DAY sir.
@Spiral: AWESOME episode, always one of my faves. Great bit of dark psychological thriller in the middle of the otherwise vanilla TNG.
"....all the LDS he took during the sixties." Wow, Leonard Nimoy's a relapsed Mormon? You heard it here first!
@icelight: Are they "perfectly open" about the nuclear weapon connection of this research? Because I don't remember hearing anything about weapons in the press releases, but I do hear a lot about the "energy of tomorrow!"
As for AI, look, I'm chemist, not a computer scientist Jim! Yes that was just my opinion. That and $4 will get you a latte at starbucks. However, in my defense, just look at the materials costs: All of AI's material needs are computing power. That's something we've got a lot of (the question is, how much is necessary etc). But ITER is a classic "big science" project, massive facilities, HUGE operational budget and power requirements, and a small army of technicians required for ONE experiment, let alone running the thing long-term as a viable power source.
Do you really think that $1 billion spent on these fusion projects will get us any closer to practical fusion power than the equivalent $1 billion towards AI? Or solar energy for that matter?
@Atnakena: You're right, we understand the science of fusion. The rest is just, as many pure scientists love to say, "engineering." And that's where it's been for the past 50 years.
As for AI, my own opinion is that it will emerge organically, either in an uncontrolled fashion out on the internet or through some kind of evolutionary learning algorithm-based approach. I don't think that we'll really wind up "creating" AI, but rather creating conditions under which an AI could emerge. Therefore the timescale for that could be tomorrow, could be 50 years from now.
@Kakkoister: So what, ITER's going to last 2 seconds! And then they have to shut the whole thing down and repaint the walls with Lithium, because the plasma eats the walls of its container. Do you seriously think that resources are better spent on Fusion rather than solar, which is making great strides towards actually paying for itself rather than requiring X billion dollars from the government to even become remotely practical?
@GreyHammer: Hate to break it to you, but the government's engaged in all kinds of nulcear weapons research as we speak. Wikipedia shall we? [en.wikipedia.org]
"In 2006, the Bush administration also proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which is now in the process of design and development, to develop an entirely-new family of nuclear ICBMs."
"In 2006, the Bush administration also proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which is now in the process of design and development, to develop an entirely-new family of nuclear ICBMs."
Also, check any news announcement of new supercomputers coming online, i.e. [news.cnet.com] or [publicaffairs.llnl.gov] . You'll almost always find some mention of "nuclear weapons simulations" somewhere in the description of the applications.
But by all means, continue to believe that our government has no further interest in nuclear weapons.
Dude, sorry but I think you got taken for a ride by the government science propaganda machine. There are a lot of serious concerns about whether this project has anything to do with fusion, or if rather it's a cover for nuclear weapons research. Check out this metafilter thread for more details : [www.metafilter.com]
Fusion, like AI has been perpetually "just 10 years away" since the 1950's. Unlike AI however, there are serious concerns about whether we'll ever get there. So let's stop dumping limited taxpayer resources into a pipe dream.
Nope. They get my money ONCE. Sorry studios, you get to punch the "80's cartoon nostalgia" ballot once and once alone.
Chalk me up for "didn't like it." Sorry, I'm not a trekker/ie by any stretch of the imagination, but I know what Star Trek is and what it isn't. It is about (a) wooden characters, (b) high-minded "hard sci-fi" and (c) utopian UN-style ideals. It's not about explosions and parachuting down from orbit, as inherently cool as those things might be. I guess I really wanted to see a lot more of Kirk and Spock at the academy, and less of the tacked-on "ZOMG save the universe!" plot. Oh well.
