User: khasim

You need to work on your satire.

On: A Closer Look at Star Wars on Film and Off

Satire is supposed to be bitingly funny. Not pathetically shallow.

"Postmodernism" is a reaction to or evolution of "modernism". So your statement

The thing is, as I commented before, "'satire' and 'non-satire' is a binary distinction that post-modernism transgresses proactively."

makes no sense.

So, that could be satire, but what is it satirical about?

What I mean, is that the author both is and isn't kidding. Also, I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say "transgresses binary distinctions."

No. That wouldn't be "kidding". Maybe you're trying to be funny by using those words in that structure, but you aren't saying anything. There's no joke unless it is about people who use phrases such as that (like the author).

But that doesn't work as "satire" because you're not making me laugh at the author's work.

Now, we the audience are supposed to allow our brains to quiver with joy as we connect the dots and think about whether and how the Force as a meta-explanation for plot coincidences in Star Wars can be called post-modern.

Yeah, sure. Kind of like when you're really stoned at 3 am and suddenly that left over burrito in the 'fridge looks appetising and the late night movie looks interesting. But only when you're really stoned and you've been up for 22 hours.

Or like when your brain quivers with joy after too much vodka when you think you can sing.

The author is almost certainly serious in that this explanation is a valid one for Star Wars. The author is almost certainly joking in suggesting that Star Wars is High Art. The author is both serious and not, and that's the point.

Like you can be both stoned and drunk, right? And if the author really thinks that Lucas' poor writing is actual postmodernism, he should really put down the crack pipe.

Stringing together plot holes with plot devices and cardboard characters is nothing more (nor less) than poor writing.

Instead, we're supposed to accept what the piece gives us without trying to shoe horn it into the category of "joke" or "not a joke."

Square peg, square hole. Both named "poor writing". On Lucas' part and the author's.

That article is nothing more than the pseudo-intellectual ramblings that pass for the early morning stoner "insights".

It's all about the money.

On: A Closer Look at Star Wars on Film and Off

Plot devices used to string plot holes together so that action figures can do their CGI dances.

Sell movies.
Sell games.
Sell action figures.
Sell Sell Sell.

That is the understandable part.

On: A Closer Look at Star Wars on Film and Off

The real questions are ...

Why was Ben there?

If the answer is to look after Luke, then why was Luke there?

If the answer is because that's where his family is, then why put him with his family ... when his family is also related to Darth Vader?

That just sounds stupid.

But not as stupid as having those 'droids drop in on Ben ... with the son of the guy who built them ... and Ben not recognize them or say anything to the kid.

Okay, so maybe putting the kid with Vader's kin wasn't a bad idea. I mean, Kid Vader didn't even bother to save his mommy from a life of slavery. So why expect Adult Vader to drop in and visit the family ... ever. I mean, just one twinge of middle age and the entire scheme is ruined.

Rather ... look at it as Lucas trying to tie the new 3 with the original 3 to give the old fans something to "Hey! I recognize that from when I was a kid!" about and it all makes sense.

Shame Lucas couldn't put together a better plot to tie his marketing gimickry together.

You left off the other side of the equation.

On: mTLD to enforce Web standards in .mobi

For almost every successful product/company, there is somebody who said that in the development stage.

The same goes for every failed product/company.

And there are a LOT more failures than successes.

Will they block DNS for non-compliant sites?

On: mTLD to enforce Web standards in .mobi

I think the first question would be ... what happens if your site is deemed "non-compliant".

If they do nothing, then this is all useless banter anyway.

If they do block non-compliant sites then I can see them having a lot of court battles on their hands.

Big time stupid move whichever approach they take.

A lie is a lie and you're a liar.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

First, let's go over the concept of a "lie". A lie is when you state something you believe is false. (That's something you'll learn in college.) I quite reasonably, based on the grade of your posts, thought you had not yet completed college. I then stated that you had not. Since I was stating what I believed, it was not a lie. I'm still not even sure it's false.

It's so amusing to watch you squirm. You said that I had not, but I have so you are a liar who lied.

And I agree with you on this point (100th time): yes, evolution speaks of species, not individuals. My point (which has again eluded you) is apparently, a much more prominent evolutionist than you, believes otherwise.

It doesn't elude me. As I keep pointing out, what you (and that website) believe he says doesn't matter. Evolution is about species.

Your problem is with him, not me. I'm not going to defend a statement I don't agree with, which is what you apparently want me to do.

Then don't keep trying to bring it up as support of your position.

By now it is all to obvious that you know nothing about the theory of evolution that you haven't read on such "Intelligent Design" sites.

You continually try to "support" your position by claiming that other people say that evolution is about individuals.

I've destroyed that so many times it isn't even funny anymore.

You're wrong. You're a liar and this conversation
is
over.

Request granted

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

Wow, not only have you been totally flustered, you're actually resorting to calling me a liar. What did I lie about? Can you at least give me that courtesy, or was it just a rank attempt at insulting me?

Here is where you lied.

You do not even have a BS.

Since I do, and you said I did not, you are a liar.

Is that too difficult a concept for you?

Let's go back to why I brought up the Futuyma quote. See this post:

I see it and I agree that it is NOT part of evolutionary theory.

You believe it is because you've read a page that references a book that says it is and you're to stupid to research whether that book was correct or not.

Evolution deals with species, not individuals.

So you STILL refuse to accept the most BASIC concept of evolution.

But your refusal to accept the facts does not change them. Darwin spoke of species, not individuals.

Next, you didn't "refute" anything I said, you refuted an evolutionist and then put it on me to defend him. Except one small problem: I agree that he's wrong.

Actually, I have. I've shown where the "expert" who's book you referenced made a very basic mistake with regards to what Darwin said. Again, Darwin spoke of species, not individuals.

But your original statement (and that webpage you seem to love so much) are about individuals.

And finally, in the blind fit of rage that led you to calling me a liar (without even referencing the lie I allegedly told) you moved the goal posts and said that I "still haven't shown Darwin to be wrong or ID to be correct".

I have shown where you lied. And the whole discussion has been about ID and evolution. So your claims that I "moved the goal posts" is just another lie from you.

But I'm not surprised.

If you can lengthen your attention span alllllllllllll the way to where I entered this thread, you'll see that the only thing I was trying to show was that evolutionary theory has no non-trivial predictive power.

And I'm so happy you feel that way. Just because it isn't factual is no reason for you to discard your belief.

Evolution has, accurately, predicted every discovery in the science of Biology since it was first stated. Just because you don't want to believe that does not alter that fact.

To do that, I pointed out a falsified prediction sometimes used as an example of the predictive power of evolution. When someone claimed that prediction wasn't part of the theory of evolution, I cited a prominent evolutionist (NOT another person who wrote an internet article that also happened to cite him!) who claimed otherwise. Remember now?

No. You quoted from a page, quoting Futuyma, but that referenced individuals instead of species.

I have pointed out many times in this thread that evolution is about species, not individuals.

So, your references (and that website) that depend upon the actions of individuals are not relevent to a discussion of evolution (which deals with species).

And that is mod'ed +4?

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

What else can be said about the state of scientific education today?

The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.

There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution. There is only evolution.

And experiments have been done that show that one colony of fruit flies, divided into two, will, eventually, evolve away from each other enough that they cannot inter-breed any more.

And that is the evidence that evolution is accurate.

Don't bother with the lies, kids.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

I was quoting a passage from Futuyma's book. Someone else, a few years ago, also quoted this passage. So, apparently, according to you and only you, whenever one quotes a passage, one must not only cite the source of that passage, but everyone else on any internet site who has also quoted that passage.

No, your post was IDENTICAL to his.

Since Futuyma isn't under discussion here, why bring his book into this AND quote him EXACTLY the same as the other page?

Well, the answer is obvious. You're trying to pass that page off as your own idea but you lack the intelligence to research whether that page is accurate or not. Or whether Futuyma is accurate or not.

Either you stand by your references or you don't.

But trying to lie about it just demonstrates the limitations of your intelligence.

I can refute your references, so now you have to provide better references.

I don't care what Futuyma said, Futuyma isn't being discussed. Futuyma didn't quote Darwin correctly. You're a liar. What else is there to say? Except that you still haven't shown Darwin to be wrong or ID to be correct.

Whatever.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

OH NOES!!!! You googled someone's citation and found that someone else made the same point! You clever guy, you. If you going to do that, try not to:

No, it was IDENTICAL to your post. IDENTICAL. Don't try an play if off now. You've been caught and slammed.

Carry on as if I'm making the same argument that "Robert Murphy" is making. He's talking about the contradiction in defending redwoods. I'm talking about the contradiction in advocating the termination of the human race. Actually, Murphy appears to even talk about the human extinction movement, so it seems you can't even maintain internal consistency.

Doesn't matter. You're both talking about individuals when Darwin was talking about species.

Which is understandable because you're getting your info from his page, even if you refuse to cite it correctly (and just copy it, word for word, including bolded text).

Place on me the burden of correcting Futuyma's error. You can gripe at me all day about how Futuyma is misreading evolutionary theory. It's still up to you to take it to him, not me.

I'm not asking you to correct his error.

I'm telling you that the source your source is correctly citing is incorrect because Darwin never said that.

Nor does the theory of evolution say anything about how any specific individual will behave.

If individuals helping other species at the expense of their own species doesn't contradict evolutionary theory (after moving the goalposts again), why does a prominent advocate of the theory need to claim such a falsity as evidence?

YOU can take that up with HIM.

It is possible for him to be wrong, yet for Darwin to be right. Even if he supports what he believes to be Darwin's theory.

Again, your dispute is with him, not me. It's not my fault advocates of the theory can't get their stories straight.

If you present it as support, it is your fault.

I've shown how the statement was in error because it did not correctly state what Darwin had written.

You can argue all you want about whether some guy who wrote something that wasn't peer reviewed is right when he doesn't quote Darwin correctly.

But the fact is that he did not quote Darwin correctly and Darwin's statement is supported by all the findings of the science known as Biology.

Species, not individuals.

Biology, not choices.

Don't even try it.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

At the very least you could correctly CITE your sources.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html

Yeah, I found the page you're copying from.

And since you're using that person's argument as your own, it is up to YOU to defend it.

First off, start by learning that "species" does not mean "individual".

And saving a redwood does not mean that the human race will suffer.

You're confused.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

The comment was ... "No member of any species will act for the benefit of another with no benefit for its own" is falsified by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

But the comment you quoted was Darwin laid down the challenge in The Origin of the Species: "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory..."

Acting to protect another species is one thing.

Having part(s) of your body that serve another creature and not yourself is an entirely different thing.

Don't confuse them. The first is choice. The second would disprove evolution.

Prediction is the only proof.

On: Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design

Prediction CAN be a useful aspect of science (say, for engineering purposes), but it is not a necessary one.

No. Any theory must PREDICT the result or it is useless as a theory.

Suppose an Event A occurs, and a scientist predicts on that basis that an Event B is soon to follow. Event B does follow, so his prediction receives support.

A theory that accurately predicts an outcome is considered to be "supported" by that evidence.

Now suppose a different scientist, knowing nothing about the first, arrives at the same explanation. The only difference is, he thinks of his explanation only after observing both events.

Since his theory has not predicted an outcome, his theory is not supported by evidence.

Is the explanation of the second scientist not science simply because it fails to make predictions, but only explains data?

Until it accurately predicts an outcome, it is only a hypothesis. It is not "science" because it has not been tested or supported nor does it follow the "scientific method".

You last case is the best example.

On: Microsoft's Vigilante Investigation of Zombies

Or to use a prostitution bust analogy, when a female officer dresses like a prostitute and hangs out on a street corner, she is signalling availability (much like the zombie does), but the John comes over there out of his own free will; she doesn't go to him and convince him to do it.

If she initiates the conversation, it is entrapment.

If the computer initiates the connection, it could be seen as entrapment.

So there would still be entrapment if the computer contacted the admin. Just as there would be if the cop was walking up to cars and saying "Hi, I'm available right now".

Problem: supplies.

On: How Zombies Work

So you'll survive the initial attack. Eventually you'll run out of supplies.

Instead, get a boat and plan on eating a lot of fish for a while.

Do zombies continue to decompose? Will they, eventually, turn into animated skeletons?

al Queda has the Necronomicon!

On: How Zombies Work

Terrorist forces are preparing to unleash an unholy wave of destruction as our own re-animated dead become their soldiers of conquest in America!

Petey the Pistol reminds you "Destroy the brain"!

Do YOU have what it takes to defend America against a brutal onslaught of corpses?

*Petey the Pistol is a registered trademark of the NRA. Blades do not run out of ammo.

You still don't understand.

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

That doesn't seem to be very scientific reasoning, and doesn't appear to provide any argument against the premise of the author.

It's not supposed to. That is HIS position. That is what "Intelligent Design" is all about.

Suppose someone said told me that maggots are the result of abiogenesis, because they appear to come from nowhere.

Yeah, great. Suppose someone did. But that has nothing to do with this discussion because it is easy to show that flies lay eggs that hatch maggots.

You cannot provide any evidence that a mystical "Designer" didn't design the flies to lay those eggs.

So, back to the topic: All the scientific community has to do is provide an explanation that can be tested in a repeatable fashion, and *poof* the concept disappears like the idea of Aristotelian abiogenesis. Seems logical enough to me.

Yeah, but that doesn't say much for your logic.

Again, because of the mystical "Designer", ANY experiment can be shown as "proof" that the Designer intelligently Designed the world to behave in that fashion.

I was hoping someone would provide me the scientific explanation for irreducible complexity.

Thanks for illustrating what this entire discussion has been about. You are a prime example of the flaws in our society.

There
Is
No
Scientific
Explanation
For
"Irreducible Complexity".

You don't know Darwin's work.

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

Actually, Darwin did - that, as we found more fossils, we would start to find the transition forms between species. That didn't happen.

Yet evolution allows predictions that are testable. Such as the fact that chimps and humans share 96% of their DNA.

And we have found fossils of transitional forms.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

Nope.

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

That is indeed a falsifiable statement. All someone has to do is provide a better explanation for irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Nope. Because any explanation that may appear to be non-Intelligent Design would still fit the Intelligent Design criteria. Who are you to say that the Designer did not Design whatever you are looking at to do what you saw in the fashion it did it and so forth?

While I've not investigated it personally, the original poster seems to indicate that this hasn't happened yet.

No. That's the problem. It CANNOT be done.

Just as you CANNOT "prove" that God did not create dinosaur fossils to fool evolutionists.

Just as you CANNOT "prove" that God did not create the Earth yesterday, and all of your memories of any time prior.

When you are dealing with a "Designer", what evidence can you provide to falsify the Designer's work?

Not so.

On: Microsoft's Vigilante Investigation of Zombies

Because the infected computer usually has to contact the IRC channel and report in that it is infected and available.

There is no equivalent for stealing a car because the car does not call you up and tell you that it is sitting at the corner of Pike and 5th with a broken window and no car alarm.

Which is why the issue of entrapment comes up.

They don't believe it is "religion".

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

That's the whole point.

The people pushing "Intelligent Design" are claiming that it is "science" and should be offered as an alternative TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES to "Darwinism".

If it were just a religion, no one would care. No one is trying to get transubstantiation taught in physics class as an alternative to "Newtonionism".

He doesn't make a testable statement.

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

It doesn't matter if the dogma is religious dogma or scientific dogma. If you can't question it and get reasonable answers back, it's just dogma.

I guess that depends upon what you consider "reasonable answers".

Intelligent design? As far as I know, nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

Since he doesn't make a falsifiable statement, it cannot be "refuted".

The man is not an idiot, he knows his molecular biology, and he raises some valid points.

I'm glad you think so, but I'm afraid I don't see those "valid points".

If some "designer" spent time "designing" the "designed" parts of us ... where did the "designer" come from? Who designed the designer?

If the designer didn't need a designer, then why do we?

Talking about how the consensus of scientists agree with you doesn't make the points go away.

Again, he doesn't have any testable points. It's pure religion.

Religion cannot be tested. Religion is not science.

"Intelligent Design" is religion. "Intelligent Design" cannot be tested. "Intelligent Design" is not science.

Those who believe that it is just demonstrate how poor our science education has become.

Pay attention to the comments that will appear.

On: Is The U.S. Becoming Anti-Science?

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of people reading /. who are happy to defend Intelligent Design as "science".

Before you learn how to end it, you have to learn why people WANT to believe it.

IANAL ...

On: Microsoft's Vigilante Investigation of Zombies

The only thing about "entrapment" that I can see is infecting the computer in the first place.

It comes down to whether the cops/feds took any action on their own to connect that box to that 'bot-net.

Which is why I would prefer the "clean hands" version of simply picking a few dozen boxes that are already infected. This is all about making the case as solid and complete as possible with no way for the "admin" to weasel out on technicalities.

And if any of the cops/feds are interested in a long list of IP addresses that are 99% likely to be zombies, I can provide them. Hundreds of them. With data going back months.

Been asking this since CAN-SPAM was passed.

On: Microsoft's Vigilante Investigation of Zombies

Okay, aside from issues of "entrapment", why hasn't anyone with any legal authority done this?

It isn't like it would even be difficult to do. You wouldn't even need to setup your own machine. You could find any one of the hundreds of thousands of existing zombies out there just by asking your email admin to get you the IP addresses.

If you do this for a couple dozen boxes (it shouldn't be that difficult to find people who would cooperate) you can get a LOT more info than with just one box.

US 'bot net "admins" should be a dead breed by now. We're talking money. Even if they do nothing to really fix the problem of easily owned machines, they can bust the new "admins" every few months and rake in the money in fines and confiscated property.