scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
QM was fucking hard to learn and understand. i still only have a pretty limited understanding of it overall, and this was after studying it in detail for years. so it's annoying when i hear it invoked inappropriately to make some unrelated point.
i mean you study history, right eddy? don't you get annoyed when people get historical facts and interpretation flat-out wrong but use it as evidence to back up some equally wrong point?
It's not. Because it doesn't really represent comics, does it? It's in comic form but I don't think it is a standard around which comics could come to rally. It's pretty much a deconstruction of comic-making.
In fact, I almost responded to the guy that originally suggested Watchmen to Podly a page back and said "um well Watchmen is a comic, but not really a good example..."
It is excellent at what it is. But what it is is unlike most comics. Isn't that more or less right? I don't really read comics, but that is what I understand.
I dunno, I can only speak for myself.
It is definitely in comic form. It is also definitely a comic.
However, it is supposed to basically be making a point about super-heroes which you don't get as well if you aren't already familiar with a lot of comics, particularly Batman.
I didn't like it because it felt overly pretentious to me. Others disagree, and that's fine, but I wouldn't call it "not a comic".
I have a huge to do list today and I don't want to do any of it
options?
Procrastinate
Masturbate
Play video games...ate
Get a copy of Bayonetta and masturbate while playing it?
you all are still fappin' to that game?
I don't even own it. I'm just thinking of the most recent example of a game that would most likely allow you to do both. I'm sure if you talk to Klyka he could give you some pointers. :P
scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
QM was fucking hard to learn and understand. i still only have a pretty limited understanding of it overall, and this was after studying it in detail for years. so it's annoying when i hear it invoked inappropriately to make some unrelated point.
i mean you study history, right eddy? don't you get annoyed when people get historical facts and interpretation flat-out wrong but use it as evidence to back up some equally wrong point?
@Podly: If you ever do want to start reading comics, I highly recommend Watchmen. It's bloody fantastic.
Bleh.
Not as good as its made out to be.
Watchmen is indeed fantastic, but it's also very subversive. I don't mean politically subversive (though it is that) but artistically subversive; Moore/Gibbons were deliberately undermining the superhero as a noble figure.
I'm well aware of what it was doing and why.
I just don't think it did it that well, and wasn't that great.
I'm not saying it was bad, I'm just saying it isn't the Comics Holy Bible that many people make it out to be.
My comment was directed more towards Podly. I'm not saying that subversive == good. (Although, personally, subversiveness goes a long way towards appealing to my tastes.)
I think appreciating just how subversive it was requires putting it in context of when it was published. The 90s were full of dark superheroes and villains. Some of them had been around for years prior but gained notoriety in the late 80s and early 90s (Punisher, for instance) and others were new creations (like Spawn). None of those series would have existed if it weren't for two titles: Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. They injected a complexity into comics storylines that I think directly fueled the renewed success of the industry in the 90s.
But to us the brooding flawed anti-hero hero is old hat, there's nothing interesting about it. That wasn't the case when Watchmen was published.
On top of that, there's a timeless quality to the Watchmen that I appreciate. It's deeply steeped in the time period in which it was produced; it is definitely a product of the 80s. But on top of that it's a treatise on power and responsibility that transcends the time period in which its written.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
I don't even own it. I'm just thinking of the most recent example of a game that would most likely allow you to do both. I'm sure if you talk to Klyka he could give you some pointers. :P
"See what you have to do is a flip kick demon slut drag which will put her vag close to her mouth so you can imagine she's eating herself out, that gets you a half stock, then do a split whore ass to ass (at this point she should have the demon cock half in her ass and vag) which will help you start stroking, I'll include a list of moves that can be completed with one hand so as to best keep your combo and stroking going."
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They should make the Watchmen movie into a comic book!
This actually happened with Road to Perdition. Though thats one of the times I prefered the movie adapation to the source.
Really? I never read the comic, forgot it was one. I also pretty much hated the movie, if memory serves. I'd have to watch it again. I thought it was stylish. But not enjoyable.
They should make the Watchmen movie into a comic book!
This actually happened with Road to Perdition. Though thats one of the times I prefered the movie adapation to the source.
Most people don't know about it, but in addition to the comic and the movie there is also the Watchmen Motion Comic.
It is, in my opinion, the best presentation of Watchmen out of the three options.
Edit: Which is to say, I liked it the most.
It wasn't too bad, but I didn't think it was a stretch to have more then one voice actor working on it. I realize it was pretty much a narration but still.
I don't even own it. I'm just thinking of the most recent example of a game that would most likely allow you to do both. I'm sure if you talk to Klyka he could give you some pointers. :P
"See what you have to do is a flip kick demon slut drag which will put her vag close to her mouth so you can imagine she's eating herself out, that gets you a half stock, then do a split whore ass to ass (at this point she should have the demon cock half in her ass and vag) which will help you start stroking, I'll include a list of moves that can be completed with one hand so as to best keep your combo and stroking going."
scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
I have a couple of books by Asimov explaining science that I thought were pretty good. But they were probably out of date when I read them more than a decade ago.
scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
QM was fucking hard to learn and understand. i still only have a pretty limited understanding of it overall, and this was after studying it in detail for years. so it's annoying when i hear it invoked inappropriately to make some unrelated point.
i mean you study history, right eddy? don't you get annoyed when people get historical facts and interpretation flat-out wrong but use it as evidence to back up some equally wrong point?
Dawkins is an awesome popularizer of science too, but his ability to do that is hampered by his reputation as an aggressive atheist. Last time I recommended The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene to someone, they were all "what, isn't that just evangelical atheism disguised as biology?"
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
We "exist" at a scale of metaphysics. However, metaphysics was created. We can move past it. QM, I think, will help give us a paradigm to understand how to move past it.
i have no idea what this means.
i am saying that regardless of whether things like the forward-flow of time, causality, or position/ velocity precision exist in the world of quantum particles, they absolutely do exist at the scales where we exist.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I wish there were some good pop philosophy. All that I know about math and science has more or less come from pop non-fiction, and I'd like to think that I have at least a decent understanding of some of the big themes. Pop philosophy tends to be utter turd. It's extremely inconvenient, because I always have friends or people at the bar being like "oh, what's a book that you'd recommend" and I'm like "ahhhhhhh start with plato and work your way down?" It sucks. I wish I had a better answer, but Sophie's World and On Bullshit are not that fucking answer.
Kingdom Come was a good response to Watchmen and Frank Miller, I thought
i hadn't really considered this.
it had too many characters, though, and was too referential to DC mythology for me to really get it at a story level.
on a story level it's actually not particularly good, but I enjoyed the meta-narrative, where Superman retreats because he can no longer handle the hyperviolent stories he's being written into and the top grossing comics are Image rags where the main characters are amoral killers. It's Neoclassical nostalgia for an earlier age of the genre.
scientists love to complain about how they can't explain science to people without them getting it wrong while simultaneously complaining about how no one in this country likes science
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
I have a couple of books by Asimov explaining science that I thought were pretty good. But they were probably out of date when I read them more than a decade ago.
Some of Sagan's books are even outdated
For instance, I was reading Dragons of Eden and I didn't really ever finish it because it was pretty out of date. Not his fault, but talking about the triune brain bothers me
They should make the Watchmen movie into a comic book!
This actually happened with Road to Perdition. Though thats one of the times I prefered the movie adapation to the source.
Road to Perdition was a graphic novel first
Yes and that got retranlated from the movie to a comic.
When are they making that into a movie?
Hehe, I actually heard their were sequel rumors.
The major difference between the source and th movie is dialogue, in the movie dialogue fills up like 2 pages, where as in the comics the characters are extremely verbose. I prefer the movie because of that, Hanks says volumes with his facial expressions.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
@Podly: If you ever do want to start reading comics, I highly recommend Watchmen. It's bloody fantastic.
Bleh.
Not as good as its made out to be.
Watchmen is indeed fantastic, but it's also very subversive. I don't mean politically subversive (though it is that) but artistically subversive; Moore/Gibbons were deliberately undermining the superhero as a noble figure.
I'm well aware of what it was doing and why.
I just don't think it did it that well, and wasn't that great.
I'm not saying it was bad, I'm just saying it isn't the Comics Holy Bible that many people make it out to be.
My comment was directed more towards Podly. I'm not saying that subversive == good. (Although, personally, subversiveness goes a long way towards appealing to my tastes.)
I think appreciating just how subversive it was requires putting it in context of when it was published. The 90s were full of dark superheroes and villains. Some of them had been around for years prior but gained notoriety in the late 80s and early 90s (Punisher, for instance) and others were new creations (like Spawn). None of those series would have existed if it weren't for two titles: Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. They injected a complexity into comics storylines that I think directly fueled the renewed success of the industry in the 90s.
But to us the brooding flawed anti-hero hero is old hat, there's nothing interesting about it. That wasn't the case when Watchmen was published.
On top of that, there's a timeless quality to the Watchmen that I appreciate. It's deeply steeped in the time period in which it was produced; it is definitely a product of the 80s. But on top of that it's a treatise on power and responsibility that transcends the time period in which its written.
I do understand the context in which it was published. I also get that it was relatively new for its time. I did not dislike it because I thought it was unoriginal.
I mean, you seem to think that the only reason I could possibly dislike it is that I don't "get it."
I wish there were some good pop philosophy. All that I know about math and science has more or less come from pop non-fiction, and I'd like to think that I have at least a decent understanding of some of the big themes. Pop philosophy tends to be utter turd. It's extremely inconvenient, because I always have friends or people at the bar being like "oh, what's a book that you'd recommend" and I'm like "ahhhhhhh start with plato and work your way down?" It sucks. I wish I had a better answer, but Sophie's World and On Bullshit are not that fucking answer.
Yeah, the proper and thorough way is never much fun.
I wish there were some good pop philosophy. All that I know about math and science has more or less come from pop non-fiction, and I'd like to think that I have at least a decent understanding of some of the big themes. Pop philosophy tends to be utter turd. It's extremely inconvenient, because I always have friends or people at the bar being like "oh, what's a book that you'd recommend" and I'm like "ahhhhhhh start with plato and work your way down?" It sucks. I wish I had a better answer, but Sophie's World and On Bullshit are not that fucking answer.
i feel like this is something i would enjoy writing.
Posts
Oh well...
yeah it is a problem.
i think the bigger problem is that there are few really good popularizers of science, and a lot of shitty charlatans. Sagan and Feynman were great popularizers, whereas stuff from those dudes who do like the Tao of Quantum or whatever other new age bullshit tends to be the stuff that i hear around.
QM was fucking hard to learn and understand. i still only have a pretty limited understanding of it overall, and this was after studying it in detail for years. so it's annoying when i hear it invoked inappropriately to make some unrelated point.
i mean you study history, right eddy? don't you get annoyed when people get historical facts and interpretation flat-out wrong but use it as evidence to back up some equally wrong point?
I dunno, I can only speak for myself.
It is definitely in comic form. It is also definitely a comic.
However, it is supposed to basically be making a point about super-heroes which you don't get as well if you aren't already familiar with a lot of comics, particularly Batman.
I didn't like it because it felt overly pretentious to me. Others disagree, and that's fine, but I wouldn't call it "not a comic".
Why? Has a hotter video-game chick come out yet?
This is either going to end terribly or be the best episode of SNL ever.
I don't even own it. I'm just thinking of the most recent example of a game that would most likely allow you to do both. I'm sure if you talk to Klyka he could give you some pointers. :P
Or both
oh my god
i have to see this
This actually happened with Road to Perdition. Though thats one of the times I prefered the movie adapation to the source.
pleasepaypreacher.net
bring back bill nye
I thought that rumor was debunked.
Most people don't know about it, but in addition to the comic and the movie there is also the Watchmen Motion Comic.
It is, in my opinion, the best presentation of Watchmen out of the three options.
Edit: Which is to say, I liked it the most.
PHEW
My comment was directed more towards Podly. I'm not saying that subversive == good. (Although, personally, subversiveness goes a long way towards appealing to my tastes.)
I think appreciating just how subversive it was requires putting it in context of when it was published. The 90s were full of dark superheroes and villains. Some of them had been around for years prior but gained notoriety in the late 80s and early 90s (Punisher, for instance) and others were new creations (like Spawn). None of those series would have existed if it weren't for two titles: Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. They injected a complexity into comics storylines that I think directly fueled the renewed success of the industry in the 90s.
But to us the brooding flawed anti-hero hero is old hat, there's nothing interesting about it. That wasn't the case when Watchmen was published.
On top of that, there's a timeless quality to the Watchmen that I appreciate. It's deeply steeped in the time period in which it was produced; it is definitely a product of the 80s. But on top of that it's a treatise on power and responsibility that transcends the time period in which its written.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i hadn't really considered this.
it had too many characters, though, and was too referential to DC mythology for me to really get it at a story level.
"See what you have to do is a flip kick demon slut drag which will put her vag close to her mouth so you can imagine she's eating herself out, that gets you a half stock, then do a split whore ass to ass (at this point she should have the demon cock half in her ass and vag) which will help you start stroking, I'll include a list of moves that can be completed with one hand so as to best keep your combo and stroking going."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Really? I never read the comic, forgot it was one. I also pretty much hated the movie, if memory serves. I'd have to watch it again. I thought it was stylish. But not enjoyable.
where is smurph he needs to see it
Road to Perdition was a graphic novel first
This is really my problem with most modern serialized comics ala DC etc that feature the major heroes/characters
It wasn't too bad, but I didn't think it was a stretch to have more then one voice actor working on it. I realize it was pretty much a narration but still.
"BAM!"
Yes and that got retranslated from the movie to a comic.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Dawkins is an awesome popularizer of science too, but his ability to do that is hampered by his reputation as an aggressive atheist. Last time I recommended The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene to someone, they were all "what, isn't that just evangelical atheism disguised as biology?"
When are they making that into a movie?
i have no idea what this means.
i am saying that regardless of whether things like the forward-flow of time, causality, or position/ velocity precision exist in the world of quantum particles, they absolutely do exist at the scales where we exist.
on a story level it's actually not particularly good, but I enjoyed the meta-narrative, where Superman retreats because he can no longer handle the hyperviolent stories he's being written into and the top grossing comics are Image rags where the main characters are amoral killers. It's Neoclassical nostalgia for an earlier age of the genre.
Yeah, last month CBR had a quote from the studio saying they had no plans of making a sequel. Pretty much cut that off at the pass.
Some of Sagan's books are even outdated
For instance, I was reading Dragons of Eden and I didn't really ever finish it because it was pretty out of date. Not his fault, but talking about the triune brain bothers me
Hehe, I actually heard their were sequel rumors.
The major difference between the source and th movie is dialogue, in the movie dialogue fills up like 2 pages, where as in the comics the characters are extremely verbose. I prefer the movie because of that, Hanks says volumes with his facial expressions.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I do understand the context in which it was published. I also get that it was relatively new for its time. I did not dislike it because I thought it was unoriginal.
I mean, you seem to think that the only reason I could possibly dislike it is that I don't "get it."
I do get it. I just don't think it's that great.
Yeah, the proper and thorough way is never much fun.
i feel like this is something i would enjoy writing.
but i'd have to be better at philosophy first.
the "for beginners" series is surprisingly good.
Any sequel without Rorschach would suck anyways.