pudge's Journal: Pudge Answers

I've finally answered the questions from the recent Ask Pudge. I took your questions and ran them through speech synthesis and played them back and recorded the whole thing and it resulted in this. Download the audio file directly or subscribe to the podcast feed.

Let me know what you think. Or not. And send me new questions for next time. Or not.

"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually real"

[jdavidb]

I loved your answer to the question about Star Trek eliminating poverty. :)

The question reminded me of my high school English class, where we were encouraged to pretend that novels were somehow laboratories which put real humans into real situations and performed tests on them which could yield meaningful insight into human nature, rather than artificial constructions created by an author possibly to prove a point.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

Pudge, this isn't an Ask Pudge question (yet) since this JE isn't an Ask pudge. Feel free to answer anyway. You too jdavidb.

Isn't the Future, by definition, fiction, because it doesn't exist yet?

More important though, is Pudge missed the point that replicator technology isn't free, even in Star Trek's future. The replicators use up resources to create and repair them, not to mention the elements and compounds that get turned into food and goods.

What my question was driving at is that Star Trek's future E

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

More important though, is Pudge missed the point that replicator technology isn't free, even in Star Trek's future ... What my question was driving at is that Star Trek's future Earth apparently has a semi-socialistic society in which people are guaranteed minimums of food and shelter to live a lifestyle better than "poverty".

No, you're misrepresenting the series. We know that Earth is a paradise. We know that there is no money on Earth. So it necessarily follows -- and we know it from watching the serie

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[jdavidb]

What my question was driving at is that Star Trek's future Earth apparently has a semi-socialistic society in which people are guaranteed minimums of food and shelter to live a lifestyle better than "poverty".

If it becomes cheap enough, I would be happy to help voluntarily fund a program that provides a minimum of food and shelter to every sentient being. Currently it is not cheap enough to do this for everybody, and so I would like to be choosy with my help. I would like to help those who are most re

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

Other than through seeking preferential government privilege, people generally achieve wealth by serving other people and getting paid for it. This is a great system. It's when the government messes with it that it gets screwed up.

That's why the quote said "standing on the backs of the poor" and not 'standing on the backs of others'.

To me that implies Clemens was talking about exploitation. If you want to play fast and loose with the definition of exploitation, then every worker and manager is exploited by

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

To me that implies Clemens

Twain!

was talking about exploitation. If you want to play fast and loose with the definition of exploitation, then every worker and manager is exploited by his or her boss.

That's not playing fast and loose with the definition, that is being correct according to the actual definition.

In ST, people who want to work will still have bosses, but apparently those who don't want to work don't have to. There won't be factories and sweatshops exploiting workers ten hours a day, six days a w

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

Twain!

How do you figure?

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

And what difference does it make?

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

You should just identify the correct person. Being correct is important.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

How do I figure what? It was Mark Twain.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

Did he legally change his name to Mark Twain or pay his taxes under that name? It was his pen name. Even most brief biographies of him remark on both names. His name duality makes him different from other famous figures [thenationaldebate.com] who change their names and wholly adopt the new one.

Oh, and as far as that episode goes, his character is credited [photobucket.com] as Samuel Clemens, and Troi refers to him Mr. Clemens.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

Look, you have your facts, I have mine. And Mr. Twain and Mr. Clemens have theirs.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

Except that Mr. Twain and Mr. Clemens are two personas of the same person. That's why it can be correct to refer to that person by either name depending on the situation.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

IT'S A JOKE!

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

With you it's hard to tell since you've often found no point too small to contest.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

And here, as before, you've shown yourself to particularly dense in the face of the obvious.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

When you spoke your original reply that it was Mark Twain, were you making an unfunny joke then, or just being mistaken?

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

Sigh. Who the hell doesn't know that Samuel Clemens is Mark Twain?

Maybe the same person who thinks we can immanentize the eschaton.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

You were taking an unfunny joke pretty seriously when we were at

Twain!

How do you figure? And what difference does it make?

You should just identify the correct person. Being correct is important.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

No, I wasn't taking it seriously at all. I laughed when I posted it.

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[NeMon'ess]

That's not playing fast and loose with the definition, that is being correct according to the actual definition.

The reason Clemens phrased it using "backs of the poor" was because he meant definition #2 of what Websters says:

1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE
2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage

Re:"It's Science-Fiction ... it's not actually rea

[pudge]

The reason Clemens phrased it using "backs of the poor" was because he meant definition #2 of what Websters says:

The reason Twain said it is because he misunderstands how economies actually have to work in order to be successful.

Reloading and moderation

[jdavidb]

It might have changed since the FAQ was penned, but the official slashdot stance has been that moderation picks from the "middle of the pack" in order to avoid persons such as "obsessive compulsive reloaders" for some time now: http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm520 [slashdot.org]

Uh?

[Dark Coder]

Pity a portion of your audience that have moderate or severe hearing loss...

Re:Uh?

[pudge]

No, I won't. They need not my pity.

Really?

[nandorman]

"He'll run if he has no reason not to" (regarding if Rossi will run). Wow, quite sage, mein Bruder....

Re:Really?

[pudge]

Most people need to find reasons TO run. Rossi is searching for reasons NOT to. And it is unlikely he will find any.

Re:Really?

[nandorman]

Right. But that, in my nitpicking way, is what I'm saying. (You just explained one reason why someone wouldn't run (lack of reasons to run).)

Re:Really?

[pudge]

Like several of my answers, they assumed context most readers are not so familiar with. Rossi already ran, and lost by about 150 votes out of 3 million, and all the polls said he would have won by a lot more if they had another election right away, and he still leads the polls 1.5 years later ... so it's a given he has lots of reasons to run. :-)

Thanks for the answer...

[Kymermosst]

I was mainly curious since I am one of the editorial staff on the "other publication [oregoncommentator.com]" that published the Mohammed cartoons. You were almost right as to our reasons for publishing them. It wasn't necessarily us showing the no-fear attitude as much as it was about three things: We wanted to show exactly what all the fuss was about, we wanted to discredit some of the cartoons as not really being about Mohammed or even Islam, and we wanted to call all of the other on-campus rags cowards for giving opnions on

Re:Thanks for the answer...

[pudge]

Yes, of course, there are many good reasons to publish the cartoons, especially to inform the public about what is causing mass riots in the Middle East. But I am just saying that even if there was not another good reason, threatening me if I do is reason enough.

And yeah, funny how many on the far left are first to complain about someone else's exercise of free speech. I see far more cries of censorship from the left than from the right, not that most people realize it.

Pudge asks, etc

[Timex]

Loved your commentary about the comics in Oregon. I thought it was spot-on.

Pudge asks: "If you could create or get rid of any holiday, what holiday would it be?"
Timex answers: That's a tough call. My initial reaction is that there are too many holidays (in the United States). I might consider making Patriot's Day a national holiday-- it's currently only recognized in Maine and Massachusetts.

My question for the next Ask Pudge: What is your take on the recent push for a national language for the United St