Not sure about the accuracy of those numbers either, seeing as there were more than 17 comics (close to 30), more than one novel (closer to 10) and arguably more than 4 movies (if you include the released-to-DVD "Salvation" machinima and the the "T2 Battle Across Time" tour/rides ;-)

Actually there's an argument that software should be protected by copyright rather than patents.

While I agree that someone who comes up with a novel and interesting algorithm should have some protection, at this point, I tend to lean toward software patents doing more harm than good.

Basically, it should be a lot harder to get a software patent.

There is still plenty of optimistic sci-fi out there (Iain M. Banks Culture novels are probably the best example).

But the problem that most sci-fi writers have is that they're generally reasonably smart people who look at the world, look at what we're doing to it and say "yeah, we're fucked".

I have every confidence that if we worked together science could solve all the problems facing us today.

I have zero confidence that we will actually do that.

She is also co-host of on-again-off-again #1 health podcast DVDASA and best-selling author of a novel titled "Insatiable: Porn. A Love Story."

She's surprisingly refreshing.

Damn, that totally suckered me with the movie/novel title bit!

WP, sir, WP!

The Lord Of The Rings was written by a real person, who was eye witness to many actual events and also a professor, lexicographer, and scholar.
The bible is a fantasy novel of various myths complied by a pagan emperor as a political tool to consolidate power.

The bible was written by real people, eye witnessess to actual events. The Lord of the Rings is a fantasy novel.

Hmm. Zombies. So Novel for 1990.

No, I didn't watch the video. No need, because: zombies. Please move on entertainment industry, because it was pathetic 10+ years ago, and today there isn't even a word in the english language that can describe the fail that is adding to this already "dead" genre. (har har)

people were whining the same song with guardians of the galaxy.
it's too obscure they cried.
nobody knows the characters they bemoaned.
why can't they make a movie i want to see?
why is marvel doing this to me?????
this movie is going to suck balls!!

holy crap! this movie is awesome!

and then the earth lost a bit in its rotation as the nerd horde back-pedaled in synchronicity.

seems a large chunk of the problem is that most of the nay-sayers had never read the book.
imagine that...
formulating an opinion based on never having read the source material.

out of all the avengers,ant-man has the most complex and nuanced...
and most human.i wish this movie was about hank pym but it appears they are using the timeline from "the irredeemable ant-man" graphic novel.which is cool...antman is kind of a dick in the beginning.

that being said,
where is my goddamn deadpool movie!!?

The Silmarillion reads very differently than Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, or any novel really... It has a sort of scripture / Biblical feel about it, even beyond the creation story that starts the book being a Tolkien-style Genesis.

But even beyond that, there is a lot of great material in there if you can get around the denseness of it. The story of the war that finishes off the first age is really, really good.

But before you give the book a shot, know that 1 page of Silmarillion takes longer to digest than 1 page of most texts. Very helpful to get the footnote annotated edition that has an appendix to refer to to help remind you when characters pop up that haven't been mentioned for a LONG time, etc.

"you appear,and please correct me if i am wrong,to pigeon hole anybody who claims a religion as being a fundamentalist"

I hereby correct you, I did no such thing, and did not mention fundamentalism.

"to say religion has not produced a single novel or new idea,totally ignores the massive contributions in regards to:philosophy,math,astrology,physics.the list is pretty extensive."

Extensive, huh? I'd like to see that list, in fact, enlighten me, and mention just ONE idea that was actually helped along by religion? Do you mean any idea that comes from a person defined as religious in any way? Can you show, in no uncertain terms, that it was the persons religious beliefs that helped solve a particular problem?

The closest I can think of is someone like Mendel, a monk, because his monastary allowed him to spend lots of time growing and studying pea-plants. But you can hardly call it a result of religious studies. If anything, Mendel must have skipped some biblereading to count all his peas.

What I'm talking about is when a proper good idea or concept has emerged from studying or following religious scripture or teaching.

@BicycleRepairMan
i do not understand what you are arguing against.
you could have stuck with "no" and that would have sufficed,but you went off on a tirade about religion that had very little to do with what NDT was attempting to convey.

simply put:keep science and religion distinctively separate.that you could BE a scientist and still be a religious person.

he didnt get into the details because (and i am assuming here) he is full aware of the complexities of ones personal beliefs,religion being only a single facet.

to say religion has not produced a single novel or new idea,totally ignores the massive contributions in regards to:philosophy,math,astrology,physics.the list is pretty extensive.

you appear,and please correct me if i am wrong,to pigeon hole anybody who claims a religion as being a fundamentalist.this is not only staggeringly inaccurate but reveals a massive lack of understanding.

which is why NDT didnt even mention the fundamentalist,because the chances of a fundamentalist being a scientist hovers around 0%.

so why are you making an argument against fundamentalism when NDT did not even proceed from that assertion?

why do you care if a scientist also happens to hold a religious or spiritual philosophy?
are you suggesting that a scientist who DOES hold to these philosophies can no longer function properly as a scientist?

has it ever occurred to you that an intelligent person may hold a religious philosophy and keep that philosophy separate from their work?

or considered that a religious person may actually view their work as the continuing study of god/creator/universal consciousness? that by unraveling the mysteries of the known physical universe is their way of revealing god?there is a certain poetry to seeking and attempting to understand the mysteries of the universe.

i am totally with you in regards to fundamentalism,which brings a stagnation to the inquisitive mind and hampers the desire to know and seek those answers.the fundamentalist externalizes those questions in the form of scripture and in the process..stops asking the questions.

but to suggest that anybody who adheres to a religious or spiritual philosophy is somehow a fundamentalist,and therefore unworthy of consideration,is just plain inaccurate.

yeah i read that article.truthout is on my feed (as are many others) but giroux writes many articles for truthout and i adore him.just like hedges and truthdig.

but i always appreciate when you share interesting articles of information.we all cant be everywhere,so sharing is the best way for all of involved.

i dont know if you ever saw stallones dredd but it was bad..i mean BAAAAD.the remake is damn near perfect.fast paced and really keeps the tone of the graphic novel/comic.

i think you will enjoy it immensely.

While I agree that cool science is cool on it's own, many people are far less interested in science and more interested in flashy effects. I appreciated the novel approach to telling what could be a rather dry scientific story, and the fact that it likely introduced a large portion of the audience to the mission.

Your video, Guy flips his car in a novel way, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.