CGI-heavy is kind of relative. The more lameness in the storytelling (acting/script/direction) the easier it becomes to feel like a movie is too CGI-heavy.
If you want to draw some *real* attention to the issue, get some super-hackers to rig a major election (doesn't have to be prez, guv or senator would be big enough) so that some crazy-wing write-in wins it. The powers-that-be would know something was up (especially if they were trying to rig it themselves), would probably nullify the election, and probably halt the use of the machines while an investigation ensued. The winner you pick would have to be a crazy fringe candidate, though. The crazier the better. So that *no one* would think for a second that the election was valid.
That would be Sarah Connor (no "O'"). The one you're thinking of was sent back in time from an alien planet to stop immortal scottish robots by cutting their heads off. Sarah O'Connor MacLeod.
Does free will require intelligence and the ability to think
What if free will isn't binary. What if there are degrees of freedom? That would mean the greater your ability to think, the more free your will is. Probably doesn't work with the accepted definition of free will, though. But don't people start to lose their ability to choose for themselves in certain extreme situations (mob mentality, sleep deprivation, under the influence of mind-altering substances, etc.) Seems like some of those situations impair peoples' ability to think...
Then they couldn't convince everyone that wrestling is futuristic.
Wasn't there a time in the WWF when one of the wrestlers was Robocop? That'd be futuristic and sciencey. And wrestling already has the "fiction", so....
How are you supposed to get any work done when you're constantly teaching the other guy?
That's a good point. When you miss your deadlines because you have to spend your time teaching this guy things he should already know, you'll get the blame and he'll get the raise. And when layoffs come around (which sounds like they will if your company is so poorly managed), who do think will get the axe?
My advice: stop training him until you've already met all your deadlines. And polish up your resume. You'll need it in either case.
I didn't read all the responses, so sorry if this has been mentioned before. While the intent of the fairness doctrine is to do what you describe (equal time for opposing views), in practice it didn't work. People were so afraid of getting sued for not giving exactly equal time that they started avoiding controversial issues altogether. I think you and I agree with the intent of the FD, but in practice I think it needs a little more tweaking before it fulfills that intent.
Do you ever wonder if the ancient Egyptians had it right all along, since Ra is older than the Bible?
Can't speak for DwySteve, but yeah, I wonder stuff like that sometimes. Had a conversation with my pastor recently along those lines. He said, "Yeah, we might die and find out that Islam was right all along, for example..." But he also talked about the assurance and confidence we can have because of the evidence that there is, even if the evidence isn't overwhelming. I think the thing an honest person has to do is admit that they just don't know either way. I would think an atheist would wonder, in his heart of hearts, "Maybe it's all true?" And maybe an agnostic would wonder, "Maybe there is a way to know, and I'm just missing it?" I think if anyone professes absolute knowledge that just means that they have a limited imagination, or lack the fortitude to really test themselves.
But I would also say that we don't need 100% proof in order to believe, either atheism or some religion. But the more evidence we have the easier it is to believe, if we want to.
You admit you've had a "crisis of faith". How do you get over that? Ultimately, you have to swallow your questions and suppress them.
That's one way to deal with it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In the book The Case for Faith (Lee Strobel), there's a whole chapter on doubt, where a prominent theologian talks frankly about doubts and how he deals with them. He doesn't suggest suppressing them. It's better to face your questions, try to find answers with an open mind, but even if you can't find any answers then it's ok just to say that you don't know. It's honest and mentally healthy. But a lot of people have a problem with that. They think that if they can't find an answer then one doesn't exist, and that's not necessarily true.
The best evidence for this is how much our personality and "who we are" changes when the brain is damaged.
Don't scientists constantly update their theories based on new evidence? Isn't that what we say makes science so great? Then why throw out these supernatural theories of self completely rather than alter them to fit the evidence like any good open-minded scientist would?
I think the fact that a personality can change after brain damage just indicates that souls, if they exist, are more distinct from personalities than we assume. Or, maybe souls aren't immutable, like we assume. Either way -- adapt the theory, but throwing it out altogether is acting like the religious paranoids slashdotters are so often mocking (with good reason, sometimes).
So what is the mountain of evidence against a supernatural reality?
I wonder if the anti-evolutionists were around when I was a kid; I don't remember ever hearing about them.
Probably creationists didn't see it as a threat as much as some do now. In "Mere Christianity", CS Lewis uses the evolution of man as an analogy for man's spiritual evolution. The tone he uses when speaking of evolution is one of total acceptance; I think he basically believed evolution was all true, and expected his readers would have the same belief.
Still, I'm gonna get started building a rocket I can put my only son into and send him off to a distant primitive alien planet where the light of its red sun will give him powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal aliens-from-red-sunned-planets.
Just hope no fragments from Earth's explosion end up following him there...
iirc, there were a few bumps in the road when Bush moved in, too. Either the team that's responsible isn't funded enough, has their hands tied for most of the transition period, or the task is more complex than it sounds. I'm guessing it's all of the above.
Slashdot Mirror
CGI-heavy is kind of relative. The more lameness in the storytelling (acting/script/direction) the easier it becomes to feel like a movie is too CGI-heavy.
Love that is was Long.
You mean the movie, or....?
My pants are pants.
If you want to draw some *real* attention to the issue, get some super-hackers to rig a major election (doesn't have to be prez, guv or senator would be big enough) so that some crazy-wing write-in wins it. The powers-that-be would know something was up (especially if they were trying to rig it themselves), would probably nullify the election, and probably halt the use of the machines while an investigation ensued. The winner you pick would have to be a crazy fringe candidate, though. The crazier the better. So that *no one* would think for a second that the election was valid.
Why programmed it with W's vocabulary?
Figured 200k neurons could handle that.
That would be Sarah Connor (no "O'"). The one you're thinking of was sent back in time from an alien planet to stop immortal scottish robots by cutting their heads off. Sarah O'Connor MacLeod.
Does free will require intelligence and the ability to think
What if free will isn't binary. What if there are degrees of freedom? That would mean the greater your ability to think, the more free your will is. Probably doesn't work with the accepted definition of free will, though. But don't people start to lose their ability to choose for themselves in certain extreme situations (mob mentality, sleep deprivation, under the influence of mind-altering substances, etc.) Seems like some of those situations impair peoples' ability to think...
I am Slashdotted.
I don't think big oil is the problem. I think it's more about keeping the corn farmers happy.
Big corn?
Does that mean I can retire at 35?
Then they couldn't convince everyone that wrestling is futuristic.
Wasn't there a time in the WWF when one of the wrestlers was Robocop? That'd be futuristic and sciencey. And wrestling already has the "fiction", so....
How are you supposed to get any work done when you're constantly teaching the other guy?
That's a good point. When you miss your deadlines because you have to spend your time teaching this guy things he should already know, you'll get the blame and he'll get the raise. And when layoffs come around (which sounds like they will if your company is so poorly managed), who do think will get the axe?
My advice: stop training him until you've already met all your deadlines. And polish up your resume. You'll need it in either case.
As another slashdot poster once said, "A plus 1! A plus 1! My kingdom for a plus 1!"
I didn't read all the responses, so sorry if this has been mentioned before. While the intent of the fairness doctrine is to do what you describe (equal time for opposing views), in practice it didn't work. People were so afraid of getting sued for not giving exactly equal time that they started avoiding controversial issues altogether. I think you and I agree with the intent of the FD, but in practice I think it needs a little more tweaking before it fulfills that intent.
Look into my eye.
Do you ever wonder if the ancient Egyptians had it right all along, since Ra is older than the Bible?
Can't speak for DwySteve, but yeah, I wonder stuff like that sometimes. Had a conversation with my pastor recently along those lines. He said, "Yeah, we might die and find out that Islam was right all along, for example..." But he also talked about the assurance and confidence we can have because of the evidence that there is, even if the evidence isn't overwhelming. I think the thing an honest person has to do is admit that they just don't know either way. I would think an atheist would wonder, in his heart of hearts, "Maybe it's all true?" And maybe an agnostic would wonder, "Maybe there is a way to know, and I'm just missing it?" I think if anyone professes absolute knowledge that just means that they have a limited imagination, or lack the fortitude to really test themselves.
But I would also say that we don't need 100% proof in order to believe, either atheism or some religion. But the more evidence we have the easier it is to believe, if we want to.
You admit you've had a "crisis of faith". How do you get over that? Ultimately, you have to swallow your questions and suppress them.
That's one way to deal with it, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In the book The Case for Faith (Lee Strobel), there's a whole chapter on doubt, where a prominent theologian talks frankly about doubts and how he deals with them. He doesn't suggest suppressing them. It's better to face your questions, try to find answers with an open mind, but even if you can't find any answers then it's ok just to say that you don't know. It's honest and mentally healthy. But a lot of people have a problem with that. They think that if they can't find an answer then one doesn't exist, and that's not necessarily true.
The best evidence for this is how much our personality and "who we are" changes when the brain is damaged.
Don't scientists constantly update their theories based on new evidence? Isn't that what we say makes science so great? Then why throw out these supernatural theories of self completely rather than alter them to fit the evidence like any good open-minded scientist would?
I think the fact that a personality can change after brain damage just indicates that souls, if they exist, are more distinct from personalities than we assume. Or, maybe souls aren't immutable, like we assume. Either way -- adapt the theory, but throwing it out altogether is acting like the religious paranoids slashdotters are so often mocking (with good reason, sometimes).
So what is the mountain of evidence against a supernatural reality?
How do you know that when you die you're going to wink out of existence?
I wonder if the anti-evolutionists were around when I was a kid; I don't remember ever hearing about them.
Probably creationists didn't see it as a threat as much as some do now. In "Mere Christianity", CS Lewis uses the evolution of man as an analogy for man's spiritual evolution. The tone he uses when speaking of evolution is one of total acceptance; I think he basically believed evolution was all true, and expected his readers would have the same belief.
And in the end, the only real answer is : "Because it makes me happy"
But you also need the follow-on supporting thought: "And my happiness is more important than everybody else's."
two more words: "upload virus".
Just hope no fragments from Earth's explosion end up following him there...
iirc, there were a few bumps in the road when Bush moved in, too. Either the team that's responsible isn't funded enough, has their hands tied for most of the transition period, or the task is more complex than it sounds. I'm guessing it's all of the above.
He isn't acting. :-P
But if he doesn't seem to be acting, is he not, as Rei describes it, acting perfectly?
With enough silk you could call it "blankets-in-a-pig."