Moore’s Law

TEAM EDWARD [James Olmos]

THERE IS A NEW HE PODCAST!!! EPISODE 82 – C2E2 2011 Webcomics Rountable featuring: Joel Watson of HijiNKS ENSUE, Kris Wilson and Rob DenBleyker of Cyanide and Happiness, Ryan Sohmer of Least I Could Do, and Danielle Corsetto from Girls With Slingshots.

If you preordered HE Book 2, please read the updated shipping times on THIS PAGE.



Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , .


    • I didnt realize it at the time that DS9 ended but I really think Space Jesus DOES show up in the finale. The whole series is based on the Bajorans seeing the wormhole aliens as gods and Sisko as Jesus and him just writing it all off as "super powerful aliens." Towards the end of the finel season he has embraced his role as Space Jesus, though with a grain of salt. He looks at it more like "hey, im not hurting anyone and they seem to like it." Then he sacrifices himself, ascends to "heaven" and comes back to tell his kid he will be resurrected eventually and he's cold chillin with the space gods now. The show never says "turns out it wasn't science, it was space magic" but after BSG I think thats where RDM was going.

      • So basically a priest touched Ron Moore's wiener back when he was a kid, and this all his way of working through that?

        • My honest opinion is that he uses every possible opportunity to ask the question, "what is the difference between super advanced science and magic/religion, and further more does it even matter as long as the result is the same?" The problem is, every time he asks that question, he strings the audience along for 5 years then gives us a resounding "huh… i dunno" for an answer.

            • See my problem with the whole 'science/magic/religion' thing is that if you know how to do the science, you can see HOW a thing works (with the exception of quantum) whereas magic/religion just say "It is done!" and expect you to be impressed. Science doesn't expect you to be impressed, it just is.

              And I guess it ultimately doesn't matter if the result is the same EXCEPT that the result of science being responsible means that you are free to hold any illogical beliefs that you like as long as you accept that they are illogical; whereas if religion/magic were responsible, you would be expected to follow a bunch of rules some guy made up 2000 years ago.

              • Tony hit the nail on the head.

                We can go in the other direction, as well. Let's say we live 2000 years in the future, granted we haven't blown ourselves up by then (even 100 years would likely suffice). We happen to have a time machine at our disposal and are going to bring back all sorts of neat technologies with us to 2011 CE because even after 2000 years, we still aren't a particularly wise species. Even though all of those technologies can be perfectly explained using science, it would be nigh impossible for us to explain it all because our scientific advancement is so much further ahead than theirs. The people of 2011 won't have a chance at understanding those advanced sciences, so the we may as well be performing rather fancy magic. You can also think of it like this: it's similar to (though hardly alike) The Doctor trying to explain to one of his companions precisely how the TARDIS (or even time itself) works.

                • I completely agree, but for me the difference is that science always has the potential *to be learned* whereas magic/religion *just is*.

                  While we *now* may not be able to understand any tech brought back from 2000 years in the future, we have the potential to understand how it works *eventually* when we have the education and understanding of the tech. With magic/religion, you aren't *supposed* to understand it otherwise you are either 'seeing how the trick works': something magicians don't like or 'setting yourself beside god': something religions don't like.

                  I do agree that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic *to someone who doesn't know that there are scientific/mathematic/chemical principles behind it* but if you know that an observable set of universal rules governs the way things works and that this tech operates within those rules you have the understanding that even though you don't understand how it works, it IS based on an observable set of rules that can be seen to work in the wider universe, and therefore, if you can apply those rules to the workings of the tech, you will eventually figure out how it works.

                  Of course, if science overturns everything we currently think we know about the universe in the next 2000 years then I agree that the tech WOULD appear to us to be magical because we wouldn't understand the underlying principles and rules on which it was/will be based.

                  This discussion reminds me strongly of the first Foundation novel which I have just read for the first time. The Foundation provides technology to the periphery but makes a religion of it, and not teaching the users HOW it works so they can't rise up against the Foundation. It appears to be god, but is in fact science.

                  • I agree with your assessment up to a point. One could argue (and I'm going to) that magic itself is a science that is beyond our understanding. It is the force of will alone acting upon matter/energy instead of using mechanical assistance to act upon it. We just don't know how to do that, yet.

          • Isn't there a quote from Arthur C. Clarke (or someone) about how true science is indistinguishable from magic? Could it be that's what Moore is trying to embrace with his shows?

          • I think at least in the ending of DS9, you can see that there is a difference between Trek science and magic/religion, but it comes down to the faith/belief of people and how they act in the face of evil…are you going to shewt 'em with your pulse phasers and quantum torps, or throw yourself and the Big Bad into the flaming fires of hell?
            Both of them are options, but do they come to the same end results? Maybe, maybe not.

            As Kira once said to Odo: "That's the thing about faith. If you don't have it you can't understand it. And if you do, no explanation is necessary."

            Sadly, too many "religious" figures in our world have taken that to its absurd extreme.

    • Actually, been re-watching Seasons 5-7 of DS9 lately (feeling melancholy about things, I suppose and that cheers me up), and The Sisko is actually human…Season 7, Ep2 (Shadows and Symbols) he finds out that one of the Prophets (Sarah) inhabited the body of a human woman, married his father, gave birth to him, then the woman left his father after Sisko turned 1, when the Prophet left her body.

      Not quite immaculate conception, but pretty close to it w/o driving the thumpers nuts: "Why did you do this?" "The Sisko is necessary".

    • Man, I loved it when he went all Hawk from "Spencer for Hire." That made him look so badass and made me question where on that Starfleet uniform he was hiding the sawed off shotgun.

  1. "Thank you, that was an excellent read. Just a few questions before we proceed. It says on your bio that you had a run-in with the law a while back. Care to explain that?"

    • "Er..ah. Well, it was in a country where the laws were pretty restrictive and they took great exception to me saying what I believed in. There was a whole show trial and I was essentially made a scapegoat for the whole situation. I guess I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time."

      • "Well, that's…certainly understandable…"
        *fills in the space on the paperwork: "Sheen Situation Potential: (X) Definite, ( ) Unclear at present"*

  2. I wonder if Sir Reginald Blinky Doodad Surrendershorts' new character will continue the trend of always landing in a large pile of pussy…
    As funny as Sir Reginald Blinky Doodad Surrendershorts is, Gaius' real nickname should have been Pussy Jesus.

    • I am just now getting into BSG for the first time (just started the second season), and i am TOTALLY going to refer to Dr. Gaius Baltar as Sir Reginald Blinky Doodad Surrendershorts from now on. But there should be another adjective in there, like maybe "Crazydick" or "Bitchyface" or something.

Leave a Reply