We all are, actually. As it turns out, anyone with a functioning brain requires a huge amount of power -- to keep our noggin healthy and ready to go.
Our brains require a great deal of energy, and much of it goes to maintenance, according to an article published on the Scientific American website.
Here it is: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-does-the-brain-need-s
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Bring Back Kirk! (Eventually)
James T. Kirk. The very name screams out, "Star Trek!" So, where's Kirk in this new Trek movie that's coming out?
Members of the BBK movement, it seems, are more than slightly annoyed that the classic exponent of the character most identified with Trek lacks any role in the forthcoming movie.
Even Chris Pine, the star who will play the young Kirk, seems missing in action. Google "Star Trek" and you'll find articles aplenty about the new Spock, the new Uhura, and the new Scotty, but where are the interviews with Pine?
Are they dissing Kirk, and if so, why?
Just speculation, and maybe it's just me, but maybe the reason we’re not seeing Chris Pine interviews is that the producers are still holding something back for when the movie actually nears its opening date. You can’t blow everything you’ve got on PR all at once. Pacing yourself and slowly building up interest is a perfectly reasonable way to go.
We haven’t heard much from Karl Urban, the new McCoy, either, and no one is complaining as much about that.
Yes, they should honor and respect the Kirk character and that Shatner should be given his due. But we’re more than a year away from the opening date, and there’s still a lot more PR to be had. We shouldn't make premature judgments at this stage of the game.
Besides, it’s not as if Bill hasn’t been in the public eye. He’s currently the only Classic Trek alum with a starring role in a first-run network show (as Denny Crane). He’s into special effects production (he has a CGI house based in Toronto), he’s got Priceline, he’s got his Trek books, he’s doing promos for other projects of his … the man — in his own words — prefers to believe that he will continue on forever. And more power to him!
So let’s dial down the negativity, if I may ask, and let’s not weep for Mr. Shatner, but hold on to hope for the franchise he obviously still loves so well. Trek.
Members of the BBK movement, it seems, are more than slightly annoyed that the classic exponent of the character most identified with Trek lacks any role in the forthcoming movie.
Even Chris Pine, the star who will play the young Kirk, seems missing in action. Google "Star Trek" and you'll find articles aplenty about the new Spock, the new Uhura, and the new Scotty, but where are the interviews with Pine?
Are they dissing Kirk, and if so, why?
Just speculation, and maybe it's just me, but maybe the reason we’re not seeing Chris Pine interviews is that the producers are still holding something back for when the movie actually nears its opening date. You can’t blow everything you’ve got on PR all at once. Pacing yourself and slowly building up interest is a perfectly reasonable way to go.
We haven’t heard much from Karl Urban, the new McCoy, either, and no one is complaining as much about that.
Yes, they should honor and respect the Kirk character and that Shatner should be given his due. But we’re more than a year away from the opening date, and there’s still a lot more PR to be had. We shouldn't make premature judgments at this stage of the game.
Besides, it’s not as if Bill hasn’t been in the public eye. He’s currently the only Classic Trek alum with a starring role in a first-run network show (as Denny Crane). He’s into special effects production (he has a CGI house based in Toronto), he’s got Priceline, he’s got his Trek books, he’s doing promos for other projects of his … the man — in his own words — prefers to believe that he will continue on forever. And more power to him!
So let’s dial down the negativity, if I may ask, and let’s not weep for Mr. Shatner, but hold on to hope for the franchise he obviously still loves so well. Trek.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Teleportation -- The Ultimate in Connectivity
Teleporting quantized states of photons or other particles can offer a new way to process data, according to a recent article.
In theory, it would seem that changes in the quantum state of a particle at one end of any arbitrary distance would result in instantaneous changes at the other.
The article can be found here: http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID=%7BC2543A11-1587-4AC8-80AD-A8881248D901%7D&Bucket=Current+Headlines&VNETCOOKIE=NO
In theory, it would seem that changes in the quantum state of a particle at one end of any arbitrary distance would result in instantaneous changes at the other.
The article can be found here: http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID=%7BC2543A11-1587-4AC8-80AD-A8881248D901%7D&Bucket=Current+Headlines&VNETCOOKIE=NO
Not the Usual Scholarship
An interesting article on unique scholarships offered to those who have unusual talents or needs came to my attention recently. Did you know that Starfleet Academy offers a $500.00 scholarship? That's only one of the many strange offerings found in this April 29 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
You can access the article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20080429-9999-1n29scholar.html
You can access the article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20080429-9999-1n29scholar.html
New Spoiler for Star Trek XI?
Over at TrekMovie.com, they're posting excerpts from an interview with Zoe Saldana, who plays Lt. Uhura in the upcoming Star Trek movie.
[SPOILER BELOW.]
According to the interview, the end of the movie will feature the crew going off on their famous five year mission, presumably aboard the Enterprise.
[END OF SPOILER.]
So there. Something to look forward to.
[SPOILER BELOW.]
According to the interview, the end of the movie will feature the crew going off on their famous five year mission, presumably aboard the Enterprise.
[END OF SPOILER.]
So there. Something to look forward to.
Trek and Antinomy
Immanuel Kant was always one for arguing against opposites. So if Trek is humanistic, then what would be its opposite? One could argue that Starship Troopers was basically the anti-Trek. Or one of them, at any rate.
The movie Starship Troopers took Heinlein’s already somewhat militaristic juvenile-fiction approach and brought it to life. The entire mythos of Troopers is suggested by the requirement of military service in order to become a full citizen.
Trek comes together with a completely different philosophy arising from exactly the opposite view of humanity. Whether it’s the older or the younger Roddenberry, or even the second generation (Berman, Braga, Moore) that established or expanded its premises, it’s always been that Trek is identified with humanism, self-expression, individuation, and freedom.
The question is, which universe is closer to the universe in which we live?
The movie Starship Troopers took Heinlein’s already somewhat militaristic juvenile-fiction approach and brought it to life. The entire mythos of Troopers is suggested by the requirement of military service in order to become a full citizen.
Trek comes together with a completely different philosophy arising from exactly the opposite view of humanity. Whether it’s the older or the younger Roddenberry, or even the second generation (Berman, Braga, Moore) that established or expanded its premises, it’s always been that Trek is identified with humanism, self-expression, individuation, and freedom.
The question is, which universe is closer to the universe in which we live?
What Color is the Sky ... on Your Planet?
Ever wonder whether the technicolor planets in science fiction universes like Star Trek have any basis on reality? Maybe a thought experiment could lead the way to an answer.
Much of Earth is forested and much of it is desert. Even so, however, the Earth appears primarily blue with white swirls because two-thirds of it is covered by water. The browns of the land areas are comparatively muted.
Star Trek has its share of multicolored planets, sometimes of colors seemingly implausible to the modern eye. How likely, for example, is a purplish planet to exist? Perhaps more likely than one would think. If the planet in an episode had only a very small proportion of land to sea ratio, and if the atmosphere or oceans were purplish, then the planet as a whole could be more or less purple when viewed from space.
The planets in our own Solar System have a diversity of colors when viewed from space. Mercury is dark grey, Venus is white (from the cloud cover), the Earth is blue-and-white, Mars is ochre, Jupiter is striped brown, Saturn is tannish, Uranus is a pastel blue, and Neptune is a deep blue. Poor, demoted Pluto (now considered a dwarf planet) is apparently pinkish, as seen in this disco ball-like mosaic of its surface:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Pluto.jpg
Much of Earth is forested and much of it is desert. Even so, however, the Earth appears primarily blue with white swirls because two-thirds of it is covered by water. The browns of the land areas are comparatively muted.
Star Trek has its share of multicolored planets, sometimes of colors seemingly implausible to the modern eye. How likely, for example, is a purplish planet to exist? Perhaps more likely than one would think. If the planet in an episode had only a very small proportion of land to sea ratio, and if the atmosphere or oceans were purplish, then the planet as a whole could be more or less purple when viewed from space.
The planets in our own Solar System have a diversity of colors when viewed from space. Mercury is dark grey, Venus is white (from the cloud cover), the Earth is blue-and-white, Mars is ochre, Jupiter is striped brown, Saturn is tannish, Uranus is a pastel blue, and Neptune is a deep blue. Poor, demoted Pluto (now considered a dwarf planet) is apparently pinkish, as seen in this disco ball-like mosaic of its surface:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Pluto.jpg
Time For An Intervention
The increasingly contentious contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton calls out for the intervention of elder statesmen in the Democratic Party.
The latest news is that the left is angered by Obama's appearance on Fox News, claiming that it legitimizes a news channel that bloggers have sought to marginalize.
In the meantime, Clinton's victory in winning the endorsement of Governor Easley of North Carolina adds to her momentum after a significant win in the Pennsylvania primary.
Let's not forget yesterday's news cycle, which brought us more controversy from Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and John McCain's about-face on whether Wright's comments are fair game.
It's all looking a lot like a slow-motion train wreck, and unless the Democratic Party elders make a move, neither Obama nor Clinton will win anything but a pyrrhic victory. There is a real risk that turned-off voters will lean toward McCain in November.
Leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The latest news is that the left is angered by Obama's appearance on Fox News, claiming that it legitimizes a news channel that bloggers have sought to marginalize.
In the meantime, Clinton's victory in winning the endorsement of Governor Easley of North Carolina adds to her momentum after a significant win in the Pennsylvania primary.
Let's not forget yesterday's news cycle, which brought us more controversy from Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and John McCain's about-face on whether Wright's comments are fair game.
It's all looking a lot like a slow-motion train wreck, and unless the Democratic Party elders make a move, neither Obama nor Clinton will win anything but a pyrrhic victory. There is a real risk that turned-off voters will lean toward McCain in November.
Leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
"Only An Infinity"
I remember reading a piece by the great Isaac Asimov, to the effect that in mathematics, infinity was often not the end of the story. There was, in truth, not merely one infinity, but many.
A central idea of the idealism of Star Trek is the concept of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, or "IDIC," a supposedly Vulcan precept. But we all know that it was applied in reality to show up the homogeneity of Western culture, at least at the time it was developed. Trek's Big Idea was to show that diversity was a strength, and indeed was a core strength of civilization. But how much real diversity was there in Trek, and how much is there in it now?
I think we should all remember that Trek is an American production originally intended for American consumption. It would be unrealistic to expect any Trek program or movie to show a truly multicultural crew. However, I believe that its heart is in the right place and that it is an approximation of multicultural ideals as interpreted by its particular ethnographic circumstances -- i.e., by Hollywood.
A truly multicultural mileu would be difficult for any general audience to accept simply because the audience would be a product of its own cultural baggage. In any audience, there may be some discomfort with the real consequences of what critics deride as the “multi-culti” and, to be honest, that’s perfectly understandable. Not all aspects of multiculturalism are going to be acceptable to everyone, nor are all such aspects going to be accepted. Some will have to be modified. And who can deny that "multiculturalism” is so often maligned that it has come to be represent whatever bugaboo that certain elements want to assign to it?
But the general idea that humanity should be unified is something that I think everyone agree upon. We might not want to be unified as to everything, but on the things that truly matter, or on as much of them as possible, why on Earth, or beyond, wouldn’t we?
A central idea of the idealism of Star Trek is the concept of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, or "IDIC," a supposedly Vulcan precept. But we all know that it was applied in reality to show up the homogeneity of Western culture, at least at the time it was developed. Trek's Big Idea was to show that diversity was a strength, and indeed was a core strength of civilization. But how much real diversity was there in Trek, and how much is there in it now?
I think we should all remember that Trek is an American production originally intended for American consumption. It would be unrealistic to expect any Trek program or movie to show a truly multicultural crew. However, I believe that its heart is in the right place and that it is an approximation of multicultural ideals as interpreted by its particular ethnographic circumstances -- i.e., by Hollywood.
A truly multicultural mileu would be difficult for any general audience to accept simply because the audience would be a product of its own cultural baggage. In any audience, there may be some discomfort with the real consequences of what critics deride as the “multi-culti” and, to be honest, that’s perfectly understandable. Not all aspects of multiculturalism are going to be acceptable to everyone, nor are all such aspects going to be accepted. Some will have to be modified. And who can deny that "multiculturalism” is so often maligned that it has come to be represent whatever bugaboo that certain elements want to assign to it?
But the general idea that humanity should be unified is something that I think everyone agree upon. We might not want to be unified as to everything, but on the things that truly matter, or on as much of them as possible, why on Earth, or beyond, wouldn’t we?
"A Little Modesty, Herr Mozart"
Who can gainsay the brilliance of Western culture? The entire world loves it. And, despite what they say about self-loathing in Europe, no part of it loves it more than the West itself.
But to say that it is any culture — even the European-American culture — that has achieved the penultimate in civilization is to acknowledge only what is on the surface. The great Isaac Newton said that he saw much further than others not because he was, particularly, a genius, but because he stood on the shoulders of giants. (Never mind that Newton said this to disparage Leibniz; that's an entirely different story.)
Before the rise of the West, there were several civilizations that arose and maintained a degree of greatness unrivaled in their times. Leibniz aside, it is a truism that we, in the West, live in the best of worlds, since at the height of these previous civilizations, the people there, too, lived in the best of worlds — at that time. Some civilizations have endured and some rendered obsolescent, and none have attained the technological or scientific accomplishments of the West. But let us not, in our pride in what we have achieved, forget that others that have come before this civilization achieved just as much, or nearly so, and without as much the benefit of other cultures.
The West has achieved much, but at a horrendous cost. Millions have been killed in the name of progress, and the power to destroy has fast outpaced the power to create. A great imbalance exists, and an overabundance of pride can only lead to tragedy.
The ultimate in ethical development has been attained not, after all, by the West, with its history of virulent colonialism against indigenous peoples, but by the adoption of universalistic principles developed in the Middle East and elsewhere — by Jesus Christ, for example, whose people were persecuted for centuries by Europeans.
As educated people we must avoid the belief that we are so much better than anyone else. In many respects, we are not, and to pretend we are only garners resentment around the world. The sooner we humble ourselves, the less others that around the world will be inclined to maintain that resentment.
But to say that it is any culture — even the European-American culture — that has achieved the penultimate in civilization is to acknowledge only what is on the surface. The great Isaac Newton said that he saw much further than others not because he was, particularly, a genius, but because he stood on the shoulders of giants. (Never mind that Newton said this to disparage Leibniz; that's an entirely different story.)
Before the rise of the West, there were several civilizations that arose and maintained a degree of greatness unrivaled in their times. Leibniz aside, it is a truism that we, in the West, live in the best of worlds, since at the height of these previous civilizations, the people there, too, lived in the best of worlds — at that time. Some civilizations have endured and some rendered obsolescent, and none have attained the technological or scientific accomplishments of the West. But let us not, in our pride in what we have achieved, forget that others that have come before this civilization achieved just as much, or nearly so, and without as much the benefit of other cultures.
The West has achieved much, but at a horrendous cost. Millions have been killed in the name of progress, and the power to destroy has fast outpaced the power to create. A great imbalance exists, and an overabundance of pride can only lead to tragedy.
The ultimate in ethical development has been attained not, after all, by the West, with its history of virulent colonialism against indigenous peoples, but by the adoption of universalistic principles developed in the Middle East and elsewhere — by Jesus Christ, for example, whose people were persecuted for centuries by Europeans.
As educated people we must avoid the belief that we are so much better than anyone else. In many respects, we are not, and to pretend we are only garners resentment around the world. The sooner we humble ourselves, the less others that around the world will be inclined to maintain that resentment.
Gene Was Right
Those of you who haven't been living on Mars the last four decades or so may be familiar with this little cultural current called "Star Trek," a universe based on the ideas of its creator, Gene Roddenberry. You might also recall that Roddenberry believed that a united humanity was destined to find its way to the stars, boldly going where no man had gone before. Trek is as much a philosophy of life as it is a sci-fi property, and please indulge me while I get up on my soapbox and say how much I think that the obverse of what Roddenberry said has been proven true in the last few decades.
The truth is that we haven't united as a species, and we are as riven today as a planetary civilization as we ever have been. And our cause — to become a multplanetary species, to break out of this cradle we call home — has suffered accordingly.
Everything we sink into the military, creating bombs and killing machines… it’s all money, time, and effort that produces nothing of lasting value. It gives us the illusion of safety, but it’s all just that. An illusion. Something worthy of Talos IV. The only thing that barely makes it truly valuable is the research that comes out of the military-industrial complex, and even at that, there is so much of it that is wasted.
Imagine what all that mililtary funding could do in the hands of those whose objectives are pure science, or sustained research and development into fossil fuel alternatives, health care, or space applications. Not that there wouldn’t be waste in that, too, but at least there would be less of it, because the aims would be what would benefit all of us in the long run.
We’re forced into making better spears, rather than better lives, because so many of us hate each other. We hate this tribe or that, and we fear this group or the other. We stockpile weapons we can never use, to rot away and disintegrate into radioactive dust. All that energy, all that effort, condemned to reinventing better and more efficient ways to kill off the human race.
Are our fears legitimate? Yes, they are, and that’s the tragedy of it. We have legitimate fears, and we haven’t resolved them because we haven’t resolved the problems leading to the threats that cause them.
So long as we waste our lives in the futile technological pursuit of absolute safety, it will always elude our grasp. So long as we keep our eyes low to the ground, looking out for threats and keeping what is ours, the stars will be forever beyond our reach.
As each generation is born and prospers, it needs to ask the fundamental questions of war and peace and seek to pursue what is genuine and to avoid what is futile.
It has been said before, and now it is again: If not us, who? If not now, when?
The truth is that we haven't united as a species, and we are as riven today as a planetary civilization as we ever have been. And our cause — to become a multplanetary species, to break out of this cradle we call home — has suffered accordingly.
Everything we sink into the military, creating bombs and killing machines… it’s all money, time, and effort that produces nothing of lasting value. It gives us the illusion of safety, but it’s all just that. An illusion. Something worthy of Talos IV. The only thing that barely makes it truly valuable is the research that comes out of the military-industrial complex, and even at that, there is so much of it that is wasted.
Imagine what all that mililtary funding could do in the hands of those whose objectives are pure science, or sustained research and development into fossil fuel alternatives, health care, or space applications. Not that there wouldn’t be waste in that, too, but at least there would be less of it, because the aims would be what would benefit all of us in the long run.
We’re forced into making better spears, rather than better lives, because so many of us hate each other. We hate this tribe or that, and we fear this group or the other. We stockpile weapons we can never use, to rot away and disintegrate into radioactive dust. All that energy, all that effort, condemned to reinventing better and more efficient ways to kill off the human race.
Are our fears legitimate? Yes, they are, and that’s the tragedy of it. We have legitimate fears, and we haven’t resolved them because we haven’t resolved the problems leading to the threats that cause them.
So long as we waste our lives in the futile technological pursuit of absolute safety, it will always elude our grasp. So long as we keep our eyes low to the ground, looking out for threats and keeping what is ours, the stars will be forever beyond our reach.
As each generation is born and prospers, it needs to ask the fundamental questions of war and peace and seek to pursue what is genuine and to avoid what is futile.
It has been said before, and now it is again: If not us, who? If not now, when?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
