Slashdot Mirror

There are a couple of Pratchett books that have made it onto the screen via animation - Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music . (There was a rumor earlier this year that Wee Free Men might be made into a movie, as well.) My wife and I enjoyed Soul Music, but haven't seen Wyrd Sisters yet. I have to admit that I'm tending to avoid it because I have a firm mental image of Esme, Gythia, and Magrat. I would really would hate to have that overlaid with someone else's conception of those characters.

All that to point out that, IMHO, there is one Discworld book that I think would translate to the big screen particularly well: Feet of Clay. It would almost certainly have to be animated, though. I can't think of anything in the book that would really have to be spelled out for new viewers, and the subject matter (fantasy homicide investigation) is particularly down-to-earth, and would probably have pretty broad appeal outside of the realm of F/SF fandom. Not to mention that there's a built-in love interest substory already. A bizzare one, of course, but at least it would mean that the studios wouldn't feel the overwhelming need to graft one in.

There is an interesting anecdote about why Pratchett is able to exercise so much control over optioning his books, as well...

There are a couple of Pratchett books that have made it onto the screen via animation - Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music . (There was a rumor earlier this year that Wee Free Men might be made into a movie, as well.) My wife and I enjoyed Soul Music, but haven't seen Wyrd Sisters yet. I have to admit that I'm tending to avoid it because I have a firm mental image of Esme, Gythia, and Magrat. I would really would hate to have that overlaid with someone else's conception of those characters.

All that to point out that, IMHO, there is one Discworld book that I think would translate to the big screen particularly well: Feet of Clay. It would almost certainly have to be animated, though. I can't think of anything in the book that would really have to be spelled out for new viewers, and the subject matter (fantasy homicide investigation) is particularly down-to-earth, and would probably have pretty broad appeal outside of the realm of F/SF fandom. Not to mention that there's a built-in love interest substory already. A bizzare one, of course, but at least it would mean that the studios wouldn't feel the overwhelming need to graft one in.

There is an interesting anecdote about why Pratchett is able to exercise so much control over optioning his books, as well...

This word has been thrown around by drug warriors for so long it has lost any meaning which we can agree on. One man's addiction is another man's "problem" is another man's recreational activity. This is addressed in depth in Sullum's Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.

Right now thousands upon thousands of people are compulsively attached to SOMETHING. They are not healthy. This does not mean that the THING is what caused the problem, it lies in the person. They lack willpower. In fact we all do a bit. It's just how we manage it--some people have simply given up. As Erich Fromm wrote, "All of us are more or less insane, or more or less asleep." You can choose not to get out of bed, but of course that wouldn't work out in the long run.

Thomas Szasz has argued much of the same. Addiction lies in the individual, who chooses to start and stop all behaviors. Reject "voodoo pharmacology"!

As for specific advice: If you are worried about your internet usage, unplug it. Live without it for a while. Meditate. Step back. Let go. You can do it.

I don't know about that. You somehow don't dig that cool G5 tower case? God that thing is gorgeous, and I've never seen anything that had easier-to-remove drives or easier-to-access memory and PCI slots. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the original lamp-style flat-panel iMac is impossible to upgrade, but the screen positioning is ( IMHO ) still unmatched by anything, and I know people who simply adore the slick, space-saving clean design of the current iMac. So... I'm not sure your opinion on that one is widely shared. Maybe the guts of these things leave a bit to be desired ( though, really... that G5 is still nice, especially if you have some optimize Altivec going on... dual dual core processors on the new one? Smokin'... )...

the Apple fans who go on about how Apple *hardware* is so great are, well, full of it.

Or focused on things that are different from what you're focused on; like I said, I find all of the above designs appealing, but you notice I didn't heap praise on the non-expandability of the iMacs or the superiority of FireWire or the floating-point goodness of the CPUs... not a big deal. Fast enough that I'm not bored waiting for compiles or large documents to open? Ok, fast enough. You didn't state why you don't think Mac hardware is so poor, or whose you like so much better... prior to the introduction of the flat-panel iMac I might agree with you, though the cases of the older blue and grey PowerMacs were pretty nice with that easy-latch-open door, and some people really liked the 50s-era plastics on those earlier iMacs. Anything earlier, though... god those beige powermac cases were godawful. Do you just not like the emphasis on pretty cases, or did you just keep your opinion from that earlier beige-box era? Would you mind sharing with those of us who are apparently less informed what is so disgraceful about Apple's hardware, other than the laptop keyboard that we've already agreed to dislike? That'd be really helpful, because the simple opinion that you don't like Apple hardware leaves nothing but a lot of questions and you looking like someone who just hates for no reason. Which is OK, but if you don't have a reason for disliking Apple's hardware, I won't bother talking to you about your opinion...

3. If Apple treated the current OS X prices as the "OS X upgrade" price for systems already shipping with OS X support (which is pretty close to what it is, excepting the half dozen or so remaining people still running OS X on Sonnet-upgraded Powermac 7500s), and released a "Generic OS X (single CPU)" for something like the price of Windows XP pro, and a "Dual CPU" version about $100-$200 more, I think they'd make as much profit per sale as they're making per bundled Mac now.

That's an interesting theory, but...

First... the price of OS X is already far cheaper what a Windows upgrade costs. It's $129... at most a new version of OS X has ever been is $149. How much do you want it to cost?

The full price of Windows XP pro was 'list price' $299... you want Apple to charge that much for a generic OS X Intel crippled single-CPU ( er... does that count dual cores ? You *want* a crippled version? What a horrible thing to sell, why?!? ) and a $400-$500 dual-cpu version? So... they'll make as much profit per sale, maybe, but the piracy rate is going to look like what ? Oh... maybe you want them to abuse their customers with a Microsoftian phone-home hardware-key activation like is in XP ? Good lord, tell me you don't want that... ugh... I'd rather be limited to Apple hardware, thanks. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see OS X Intel able to legally run on any to-spec off-the-shelf hard

I don't know about that. You somehow don't dig that cool G5 tower case? God that thing is gorgeous, and I've never seen anything that had easier-to-remove drives or easier-to-access memory and PCI slots. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the original lamp-style flat-panel iMac is impossible to upgrade, but the screen positioning is ( IMHO ) still unmatched by anything, and I know people who simply adore the slick, space-saving clean design of the current iMac. So... I'm not sure your opinion on that one is widely shared. Maybe the guts of these things leave a bit to be desired ( though, really... that G5 is still nice, especially if you have some optimize Altivec going on... dual dual core processors on the new one? Smokin'... )...

the Apple fans who go on about how Apple *hardware* is so great are, well, full of it.

Or focused on things that are different from what you're focused on; like I said, I find all of the above designs appealing, but you notice I didn't heap praise on the non-expandability of the iMacs or the superiority of FireWire or the floating-point goodness of the CPUs... not a big deal. Fast enough that I'm not bored waiting for compiles or large documents to open? Ok, fast enough. You didn't state why you don't think Mac hardware is so poor, or whose you like so much better... prior to the introduction of the flat-panel iMac I might agree with you, though the cases of the older blue and grey PowerMacs were pretty nice with that easy-latch-open door, and some people really liked the 50s-era plastics on those earlier iMacs. Anything earlier, though... god those beige powermac cases were godawful. Do you just not like the emphasis on pretty cases, or did you just keep your opinion from that earlier beige-box era? Would you mind sharing with those of us who are apparently less informed what is so disgraceful about Apple's hardware, other than the laptop keyboard that we've already agreed to dislike? That'd be really helpful, because the simple opinion that you don't like Apple hardware leaves nothing but a lot of questions and you looking like someone who just hates for no reason. Which is OK, but if you don't have a reason for disliking Apple's hardware, I won't bother talking to you about your opinion...

3. If Apple treated the current OS X prices as the "OS X upgrade" price for systems already shipping with OS X support (which is pretty close to what it is, excepting the half dozen or so remaining people still running OS X on Sonnet-upgraded Powermac 7500s), and released a "Generic OS X (single CPU)" for something like the price of Windows XP pro, and a "Dual CPU" version about $100-$200 more, I think they'd make as much profit per sale as they're making per bundled Mac now.

That's an interesting theory, but...

First... the price of OS X is already far cheaper what a Windows upgrade costs. It's $129... at most a new version of OS X has ever been is $149. How much do you want it to cost?

The full price of Windows XP pro was 'list price' $299... you want Apple to charge that much for a generic OS X Intel crippled single-CPU ( er... does that count dual cores ? You *want* a crippled version? What a horrible thing to sell, why?!? ) and a $400-$500 dual-cpu version? So... they'll make as much profit per sale, maybe, but the piracy rate is going to look like what ? Oh... maybe you want them to abuse their customers with a Microsoftian phone-home hardware-key activation like is in XP ? Good lord, tell me you don't want that... ugh... I'd rather be limited to Apple hardware, thanks. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see OS X Intel able to legally run on any to-spec off-the-shelf hard

It was a serious problem in the U.S. Army during World War II. The Army found out that training troops by shooting at traditional bulls-eye targets did not adequately prepare them to shoot at real human beings in battle. It led to a complete revision of the Army's training techniques.

See Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command by S.L.A. Marshall.

When I was in the Army, the static bulls-eye targets had been replaced with pop-up silhouettes that gave you a limited time to aim and fire.

I can just imagine some soldiers finishing a tough game and wiping the sweat from their brow, only to be told afterward that they just destroyed the last opposition and made the world safe for America, and then having to live with genocide on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

(If you don't get it, I just spoiled the SF classic Ender's Game for you, sorry.)

What about Ringworld?

Larry Niven would probably be involved in the screenplay somehow, and if we are to judge by his current work, he's more interested in bizarre sex and action than in the smooth and cool storytelling of the early Known Space classics. Just look at the new story in the collection Crashlander , or The Ringworld Throne and Ringworld's Children . Who knows what would happen to the original 1970s story if its author returned to it?

What about Ringworld?

Larry Niven would probably be involved in the screenplay somehow, and if we are to judge by his current work, he's more interested in bizarre sex and action than in the smooth and cool storytelling of the early Known Space classics. Just look at the new story in the collection Crashlander , or The Ringworld Throne and Ringworld's Children . Who knows what would happen to the original 1970s story if its author returned to it?

What about Ringworld?

Larry Niven would probably be involved in the screenplay somehow, and if we are to judge by his current work, he's more interested in bizarre sex and action than in the smooth and cool storytelling of the early Known Space classics. Just look at the new story in the collection Crashlander , or The Ringworld Throne and Ringworld's Children . Who knows what would happen to the original 1970s story if its author returned to it?

Odd John by Olaf Stapledon is a ground breaking but dated SF novel about a superior mutant kid growing up and finding others of his kind.

It is still in print, teamed up with a much better novel about an intelligent dog:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486211339/

Now, the curious thing about the edition noted above is the copyright notice. It is: (c) 1961 by George Pal.

George Pal is the emigre filmmaker responsible for War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao and many others.

Huh?

I puzzled over this for many years before meeting up with Forrey Ackerman. He had the dirt: George Pal bought the rights to Odd John but never had a chance to make movie out of it.

I can't believe no Ellison stories were mentioned. His script for I, Robot was just amazing.

Two things -- you have to be around girls, and you have to have the balls to talk to them.

As far as being around girls ... learn to dance. Ballroom dance. Lots and lots of girls, and you'll get lots of confidence in those tricky things like, "will you dance this with me?" Plus, if it's a good school, they'll have recommendations for decent places to go and actually dance and/or meet people. Oh yeah, and there's absolutely no competition. None.

BTW, dance is not gay. Yes, you can learn to wiggle your hips. Girls (some (many? all?)) love it, so don't discount it.

Confidence...that's a real tough one. Watch how others interact with girls, and see what you like and don't like. Lose the panicky feeling when you approach a girl. Best advice: talk to lots of women!

Oh yeah, and be upfront. If you want to "be friends," ok, but if you a "girlfriend," make sure there's no confusion.

Being in love is an amazing, spectacular experience. As high as it goes, there can also be an unbelievable low. Just don't do that suicide thing when you hit bottom! :)

Never confuse "lust" with "love." The two are very, very different. Yes, you can have "love at first sight," but usually, it's lust. Lust wears off somewhere between 3 minutes and 3 months. The lucky ones manage not to have kids/get married in those 3 months. Count on needing to know someone for at least 9-12 months before you have any chance of really knowing them enough to make a judgement call concerning kids or marriage.

I don't like to recommend books, but "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is a good book about dating, why it sucks, and how to do it better. Much better. Also, "How to Make Someone Love You in 90 Minutes" is an excellent book. Scary effective, and it's an interesting introductory text to NLP and related ideas. Finally, on the totally tacky end, the Fleshlight people (google it) have an interesting little manual covering the basic "howto" of these things they give you after you buy their product. I can't really vouch for that last one as I'm still a virgin, but it seems effective. The one girl I got to 2nd base with was plenty happy. (The fleshlight people are discreet, as advertised.)

I Kissed Dating Goodbye
http://www.joshharris.com/ikdg/ikdgmain.htm

How to Make Someone Love You...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076112862X/103-21 74958-0551820?v=glance&n=283155

Enjoy!

It's much harder to get out of a relationship than to get into one. Pick wisely.

cej102937

Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution. The actual text was written by a man named Gouverneur Morris. The ideas of course came from many sources, James Madison often being considered foremost among them. The Constitution was written between 1786 and 1787, and ratified by 1789. Jefferson was in France during this entire period, and did not directly participate in the creation of the Constitution. He was in fact somewhat skeptical of it, although he did eventually accept it. It does, of course, incorporate some of his ideas, which were well known at the time. But he can hardly be characterized as "The guy that wrote the Constitution of the US".

James Paul Gee has written several times on how video games are generally good for us, and are better at teaching that our current school systems. His book "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy" has been extremely well-received among the learning community.

Note: I work for Common Ground, the publisher of a couple of his works, including his latest "Why Video Games are Good for Your Soul."

I once sent a copy of TID to a friend who had been reading Spinrad and has a childish fascination with all things Nazi. The cover of that particular edition did nothing to indicate that it wasn't for real, and she anxiously IMed me, afraid that her entire understanding of 20th-century history was bogus! Though now she will not admit under any circumstances, that she was taken in.

I suspect that part of the appeal of ARG is playing that kind of game with outsiders.

Just to clarify about eXistenZwhich for the 90% of the population, who have never even heard of it much less saw it, was like The Matrix only it would have done better had it some out a year or two before it. Like Eragon and Prince before it.. Existenz was overshadowed by the more popular (notnecessarily better) precursor.

Save yourself some money by buying the book here: Essential PHP Security. And if you use the "secret" A9.com Instant Reward discount, you can save an extra 1.57%!

Save yourself some money by buying the book here: Essential PHP Security. And if you use the "secret" A9.com Instant Reward discount, you can save an extra 1.57%!

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I respectfully maintain that you missed his point.

If knew me, you will find that I seek to be painstakingly honest about everything. Please, try to understand what I am trying to say.

Modern day science using modern day tools do not exist in great abundance in the hands of those who allegedly find holes in perfectly natural evolution.

Historical thinkers are not relevant to this point because they did not have the tools either--or the knowledge of biochemistry that we have today. They could not explore the issue properly in ways that are most relevant to the point--the nitty gritty details of biological systems.

People who make films like the following do not have a lot of resources:
"Unlocking The Mystery Of Life" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007KLDW
(Though the film is very well done: 4.5 / 5 stars.)

I encourage you to watch the video and think about what these people are trying to say. I do not believe all of them have a religious agenda, but are genuinely learned people--philosophers and scientsts like you talked about at the beginning of your last post. They just don't have enough research support to dig deep enough fast to keep up with the growing tide of misunderstandings of them. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm just saying that they aren't given the attention and resources they need to explore this issue to the very depths of a conclusion that would be satisfying to them and a number of others.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Some people may use their material to advance a religious agenda, but that is besides the point--ignore those people and focus on the material itself. It is my contention that responsible thinkers who watch the film above will have to agree that the makers of the film should be given the opportunity to go to ultimate depths of research to study the objections that they have. Science demands that every area of criticism be fully explored and satisfied.

I still have to agree with the original poster, these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong. Watch the film and I believe you may see my point better.

Again, make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda! This is the 'growing tide of misunderstandings' that I talked about earlier.

• Essential PHP Security — the book covered in this review
• php|architect's Guide to PHP Security
• Pro PHP Security
• Professional PHP5 Security

• Essential PHP Security — the book covered in this review
• php|architect's Guide to PHP Security
• Pro PHP Security
• Professional PHP5 Security

• Essential PHP Security — the book covered in this review
• php|architect's Guide to PHP Security
• Pro PHP Security
• Professional PHP5 Security

• Essential PHP Security — the book covered in this review
• php|architect's Guide to PHP Security
• Pro PHP Security
• Professional PHP5 Security

Back in the 1980s there was the same vibe over cold fusion, and we all know how that turned out.

I can't remember what I owned first, but I knew I had a Mac Plus, a Commodore, and a 64bit Tandy when I was small, and gathered up various other bits of hardware as time went on. Recently I read Fire in the Valley , Paul Freiberger & Michael Swaine's story of the rise of the PC, and felt all nostalgic about all these little gadgets I haven't thought of in 15 years or more.

8085-based.

See "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" by David Heiserman. It makes a great starting point.

I just built the computer bits, not the robot bits, because my family was living in a tiny military housing home at the time, and there was no room for all of Rodney. I remember ignoring my teachers to write assembly in class and being frustrated with switch-flipping.

There was a series of Byte articles on building your own processor out of LS components, too... "Komputar" or something like that. I didn't build that one, but maybe I still will. Of course, I'll do it today with VHDL just to tickle my programmer.

If my wife is pregnant, and there's a fraction of a percent chance that my cat could cause serious complications for her or the baby, guess what... the cat dies. Well, not really. But the cat is certainly gone.

While I can certainly agree with your point about priorities, this strikes me as nonsensical. Just about every activity in life carries with it risks. Statistically speaking, your hypothetical pregnant wife has many times more of a chance of losing her baby (and her life) by driving a car than by handling cat feces. But how many pregnant women avoid driving a car? Given the impracticality, I wouldn't think many.

Further, the most common, by far, method of infection is through raw or improperly cooked foods. I'm not sure of the statistics on this one, but after reading Kitchen Confidential, it would seem plausible that eating in a restaurant is more of a risk than owning a cat.

This is really all about cost and benefit. As good as it may sound to say, you would not eliminate EVERYTHING in your life that causes your unborn baby even the slightest risk of death. Besides being impractical in many cases, it would just make you miserable for no measurable payoff. You may take precautions that can reduce the risk for many of the risks and that is normal for most parents to be.

Back to cats: assuming you own a cat, you bought the critter for a reason. It brings something to your life and that is the reason you got it. Now entirely eliminating that benefit for a tiny chance of infection (a percentage which is dwarfed by many, many other risks you probably take daily) just doesn't seem very rational to me. If the chance of infection via the cat were greater (IOW, higher than insignificant), or there were no reasonable precautions you could take against infection, then I could understand it.

Like most other issues, this gets blown out of proportion by reactionaries, especially in the media. The risk is small, but talking to some people, it would seem as though every cat in the world should be killed.

So get the facts before you go out making a bad decision. Some spend years training, getting to know and form a bond with a cat just to piss it away because of an irrational fear. That is just poor decision making, in my book.

Taft

The long answer can be found here. The short answer is: the RCC took pagan ideas, symbols, practices, and theology and put Christian names on it. The mother-and-child motif is from Ishtar and Tammuz, that was turned into Mary-and-the-infant-Jesus.

I describe the question of a god's existence as an essentially insignificant one, because if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.

Do you have no training in the philosophy of religion? Scholars have shown that a lot follows from the assumption of God's existence. For example, Swinburne argues in Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) that the existence of God leads to a belief in the saving death of Christ on the cross. In The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994) he argues that the existence of a Creator would also demand three Persons in one God as in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Plantinga has written extensively on this as well, just look at the literature.

I describe the question of a god's existence as an essentially insignificant one, because if a god exsits, nothing at all follows from that premise.

Do you have no training in the philosophy of religion? Scholars have shown that a lot follows from the assumption of God's existence. For example, Swinburne argues in Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) that the existence of God leads to a belief in the saving death of Christ on the cross. In The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994) he argues that the existence of a Creator would also demand three Persons in one God as in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Plantinga has written extensively on this as well, just look at the literature.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

Sagan's story shows that he should have stuck to cosmology, since he had no training in the philosophy of religion. The matter of God has little to do with the assertion that "there's something in my garage", and really starts from the idea "there's a universe, could there be a first cause?" Natural evidence leads many to believe in a creator. I should give you some citations, so let's refer to the work of Richard Swinburne (although others, such as Plantinga, have written extensively on this). Arguments for general theism can be found in his work The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1993), but if you want a simpler explanation you could refer to his papers in Brody's Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (Prentice Hall, 1992).

If God exists, then he would decide ethical rules since he is by definition the perfect being. In a world where humans have acted in against these guidelines, what are the ramifications of such these guidelines? Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford University Press, 1989) contains the argument that if we assume the existence of God (a fait accompli for most philosophers), then the Christian doctrine of the saving death of Christ on the cross naturally follows.

If God exists and sets ethical rules, then he would naturally try to communicate these to us. There is no need to demand that he come down in a fiery flame and address the whole world at once. Rather, communication through prophets and the written word can be shown to be acceptable. See Swinburne's Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, three Persons in one God, can also be shown to follow from the existence of a single Creator. For these arguments, see Swinburne's The Christian God (Oxford University Press, 1994).

The concept of the saving death on the cross by the Son himself has already been argued by Swinburne in Responsibility and Atonement, but in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003) he shows that treating the evidence we have with the probability calculus (Bayesian theorem), we have yet another support.

So, as you can see, the existence of the Christian God can be deduced from natural evidence. In reality, the defence of the Christian faith has little to do with the strawman that Sagan builds up.

It seems to me that evolutionary problems are solved *much* faster than one has any right to expect.

Actually, the reverse is true. Given the scope for diversity within a given phenome, and the plausible rate of mutation in most genomes, evolution seems to proceed more slowly than the maximum possible - by two orders of magnitude or so. Given strong enough selection pressures, evolution can take place extraordinarily rapidly (for example, the Bull Island Mouse, although not a speciation, arose within less than ten generations) and most evolutionary "advances" take place over and over again before the "final" version appears. [Yes, I know I'm using loose language here.]

The best books on this subject, in my opinion, are Richard Dawkins'. I particularly recommend "The Ancestor's Tale".

Can a man live inside of a fish for three days?

Was Eve fashioned out of Adam's rib?

the earth has four corners

Which Bible

Why do you go to church on Sunday

Why do most of the Christian[sic] holidays coincide exactly with pagan holidays that are centuries older

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316823/sr=8-8 /qid=1139811019/ref=pd_bbs_8/104-2445523-0884742?_ encoding=UTF8

The coolest part is how he describes the evolution of the eye, in terms of real living creatures we can observe today, in very small increments of functionality.

Richard Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable"

Amazon review...
"While an enzyme molecule or an eye might seem supremely improbable in their complexity, they are not accidental, nor need we assume that they are the designed handiwork of a Creator, asserts Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish Gene). This foremost neo-Darwinian exponent explains the dazzling array of living things as the result of natural selection?the slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of chance variants. Both a frontal assault on creationism and an enthralling tour of the natural world, this beautifully illustrated study is based on a set of BBC lectures, imparting a tone at once conversational and magisterial. Dawkins explores how ordered complexity arose by discussing spiders' web-building techniques, the gradual evolution of elephant trunks and of wings (birds, he concludes, evolved from two-legged dinosaurs, not from tree gliders) and the symbiotic relationship between the 900 species of figs and their sole genetic companions, the miniature wasps that pollinate specific fig species. Using "computer biomorphs" (simulated creatures "bred" from a common ancestor), Dawkins demonstrates how varieties of the same plant or animal species can vary in shape because of differences in just a few genes."

Well, thanks for the tip on the book. I'll keep that in mind.

If you're interested in learning more about how fundamentalist Christians really think creation took place, may I recommend the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" by Henry Morris. It very clearly explains why many Christians consider the theory of evolution to be absurd. :)

I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. I had a virulent form of cancer that required a year of intensive treatment that included arduous chemotherapy and surgeries. I never really got used to it but figured that things would eventually get better.

Knowledge of how permanent and terrible the side effects would be didn't really set in until after the treatment had ended. Some of them include perpetual physical weakness and loud ringing in my ears, as well as some hearing loss. The horror of the treatment I didn't really understand until after it was over. I often thought about suicide, even more so than I had while I was sick, although I obviously didn't carry it out. I can only theorize that I was too busy being treated to contemplate how awful my life was, and that after it ended I realized that things would never be the same.

Still, part of me wonders whether your comment about the Nazi camps is totally true. Viktor Frankl wrote a book called "Man's Search for Meaning" about his experience. Frankl was a Jewish psychiatrist -- he had a Ph.D. -- from Vienna who the Nazis imprisoned. He observed that people within the camp tended to give up wanting to live, and that in doing so they would often succumb to malnutrition or rampant disease. Yet he saw in those who persevered a willingness to maintain a positive outlook even in the face of conditions that most of us would consider untenable. Perhaps some of those survivors were in a state similar to mine after treatment. I wonder if that's when they killed themselves, after they got out and realized their lives had been destroyed even if their bodies continued to live. I felt that way, and still often do. Maybe some of the Japanese the article describes do too. If so, I emphasize, especially given the callous comments of some of the posters in this thread.

(Posted AC for obvious reasons.)

Leave it to Japanese to LARP Somtow Sucharitkul's Mallworld.

I'm glad to see in these comments that a large number of ./ readers believe that science and faith do not have to be at odds. There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist by trade, which argues this point. The author uses the writings of promenent scientists, theologians, and the Bible to show why he believes that science and religion form a duality. It's a good read, no matter which "camp" you're from.

Something that this book has led me to look into is the writings of Darwin, specifically "The Origin of the Species." The following two excerpts come from Darwin's closing remarks in "The Origin of the Species."

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

In both cases, notice that Darwin himself noted the possibility of a Creator, some higher force that set the world in motion. Evolution as it is often thought of today is macro-evolution, something that Darwin never spoke of and something that, judging by his own writings, Darwin did not seem to believe. If anything, evidence points to Darwin being the first observer of what we now call "intelligent design." That is my just opinion on the matter based on my observations from the writing.

It is a wonderful search engine. It is based on Google for normal search but you can add extra panels and having it use diffferent vehichles.

Doing a Wikipedia search concurrently with a general search is in my oppinion the best of both worlds.

Huge amounts of people don't exercise, and they stay inside for large amounts of time where the air quality is the worst, usually (and our news media constantly hits us with the message that sunlight causes cancer, anyway).

To label the effects of a parasitic infection on an organ as mind control is an unnecessary distinction. It's simply one of many possible parasitic infections that alter the functioning of the the body. If what we're evaluating is altered behavior, a typical flu offers a more immediate demonstration. Typical flu vicitms will (for a time) become less active, communicate less, etc. I think that what intrigues many about this particular instance is the concept of invisible, "subconscious" control... that something we're not aware of may be nudging us into different thoughts and feelings. This, however, implies that there is some uncorruptable state of free will which one ideally operates within, which simply isn't established. Our thoughts and actions are in situ the result of numerous interactions not apparent to our conscious consideration. We're just along for the ride, parasite or no.
Beyond this, if Toxoplasma gondii infection is indeed so prevelant, it's likely been a factor in the dynamics of human evolution, anyway. Our brains perhaps already assume the potential for such influence in their normal operation.

Toxoplasma, will respond to drugs like haloperidol; the growth of the parasite stops. Haloperidol is an antipsychotic, used to treat schizophrenia.

I'm no doctor, but haloperidol is used not just for schizophrenia but a number of conditions, including Tourette's (see Oliver Sack's excellent An Anthropologist on Mars where he uses it with a patient only for the patient to say he prefers his Tourette's as it often gives the patient excellent reflexes).

Look on the brightside. At least we know now what's driving the current administration.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974935999/qid=11 39738040/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-7398167-2312735?s =books&v=glance&n=283155