it would be cool to actually do this

imho, it wouldn't "never stretch or slacken"....

relatively speaking, yes

but if you actually did this, you'd need at least...idk...1000 km of slack...just a guess

the IAU should grant Pluto a once-in-the-universe exception to the definition of 'planet'

it's perfect for kids...

why?

because Pluto technically isn't a planet even though historically it is known as one of the planets

why isn't it a planet?

see...it's just a big excuse to talk about astronomy

put an asterisk by it in the textbooks

the IAU could bolster its reputation by doing this as well

After reading KS Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) I just don't know if anything except the real thing will be worth reading

The appendices of Mars Trilogy have actual fictional research papers...it's pretty detailed.

The science hasn't changed that much, and he explores all different kinds of colonization approaches and technical solutions.

From a practical standpoint, i guess a technical description of actual robots we could make and use with existing technology would be an interesting read, but it's still just science fiction unless...you know....you're actually going to do it

Youtube is a great example of how the tech industry really works.

Sure, they had their ideas for how their site would be used, but it was a **free site** where users could **post video**

free video posting

and it actually worked 99% of the time

Man, me too...

I *love* Radio Shack.

I love going in and rummaging through the parts to see what kind of stuff I could make.

Well...now it's different. When I was a kid it was with my dad for fun, now I'm making hand-crafted electronics and it's more immediate.

I just can't help but think that with the right merchandising Radio Shack can be a hit.

A deal with Apple makes total sense...b/c Radio Shack is so many places where Apple stores are not.

Ah well...

I hope the current locations can stay open where I live at least when the Sprint changeover comes.

my most proud moment was my research as an undergrad...it was publishable and way beyond what many of my prof's had done as far as original research

I surveyed my campus about their media use, their perceptions of how useful it is, and correlated that to whether they voted.

It was great...sparked a lifelong interest in what people do and why and how it affects their behavior.

The "I don't own a television" snobbishness has also really interested me for fun.

I saw the internet develop in as a HS & college student in the 90s and the whole "I don't watch/own TV" thing is always fun

all media has low useless trash and amazing, life-changing stuff too...video has reality television vs documentaries (and Taratino films)....music has Country top 40 vs indie stuff of all genres...books have 50 Shades of Grey vs J.R.R. Tolkein...you get the idea...

what is interesting to me is that, because how the tech developed and was implemented video in the form of ****television**** has taken the lion's share of bad reputation, among other media types

wow...sorry for the long post...you can tell i enjoy this stuff

word, good comments

so, I used to be a Human-Computer Interaction researcher and I've done my own research surveys (only published as Conference proceedings)

it starts with Cybernetics, Comm theory particulary media theory...that's where i get my "it's all video" stuff from

now, the **difference in perception** of the same type of media, but different presentation (video as a movie in a theater vs watching same movie on Netflix) isn't a particularly 'hot' research topic, but in general, it is relevant to find out how/why people get their info/entertainment

also, there's my life in academia, meeting tons of people and having these conversations

so, it's *some* actual first-hand science but it guides me; it's really a combination of many things that has led me to this thesis

you don't have to have done work like I have to come to the conclusions I have, but it's something i think about more often because it's my field

false dichotomy

if a peer-reviewed, published research study is your burden of proof for every contention, you're dead in the water

there's more ways to prove something than a peer-reviewed, published research study, especially when it comes to ****human behavior****

it's not "either research study or opinion"

rationality and logic are our friends...you should meet them

you can use rationality, logic and collected knowledge from education (including looking at research), and personal experience to understand this my friend

here's the thing, is there any type of media where the above *isn't* true?

also, broadcast/cable TV is in a new golden age right now...executives are working to make shows that cater to an intelligent, wide audience...the garbage TV is worse than ever, but mainstream 'TV' is actively marketing shows they think are intelligent to people who want those shows

you watch "TV" even if all you do is watch Netflix original series and movies in the movie theater...

you watch video

thanks for the comments!

right, i agree...my comment is about why

my main comment is that **in this instance** the factors i mentioned (wanting to sound 'smart') i feel is the main **source** of the confusion

some just confused, but for the reasons i stated, many more than normal that skews the results

i used to do this kind of research, on media usage and usefulness across 'platforms', in an academic setting

the misperceptions about media use filter up and downward...you will see billion dollar deals based on **perception of media value**

see, the criminal analogy just isn't working

no one surveys people like that, and it's a completely different issue b/c being a criminal is way different than watching too much TV...it's also too non-specific...what kind of criminal...

just word the question differently

they key is the notion that smart people don't "watch TV"

if people weren't irrationally trying to seem smart (according to an archaic maxim) then i'd agree with you, but imho the problem is precisely *because* these types want to project an image

i grant you that in common parliance, one couldn't always expect all honest respondents to combine 'TV' and other video, but the usage in the common parliance is rooted in the same problem as stated above: people don't want to be know as 'watching alot of TV'

the fix is the wording of the question and answers

spot on

it's video...and if everyone was answering accurately, results would skew towards **more** and definitely not "significantly less"

people want to be smart...for decades old /.'ers like me can remember "watching too much TV" is what stupid people do.

smart people read books

but this is all pre-internet and mostly even before cable TV that these ideas were ingrained

this is why techie men and hipsters tend to under-report their "TV" viewing

"TV" means all video...and the **type** of media is no longer an indication of intelligence, although only consuming one type, even if it's books, is now regressive and looked upon as not informed

what i want is to drop the pretention...hipsters and techies both...

what's harsh and unrealistic about GRRM hiring a co-writer because he got in over his head?

GRRM is out of his league...his only option was to hire help.

It doesn't matter at all to this discussion whether yo *think* he owes you anything or not.

I'm not talking about the question "Does GRRM owe Maxo-Texas anything?"

i'm talking the question of "What could GRRM have done to salvage his books after he wrote himself into a corner?"

you said this, not me

i did not say GRRM's writing was "not good"....I said he is a hack.

alot of people have good imaginations and GRRM does that no doubt, but to be an actual storyteller is a different kind of talent

GRRM is a ****hack storyteller**** who uses shopworn storytelling devices and trite interpersonal conflicts and moves the goalposts as he writes

that's why his writing is bad...