Huh. That's interesting. I mean, it was obviously meant to be a flashback, and it's unlikely that Simon could maintain such cover as a fugitive. On the other hand it would also correct various things like why River didn't bring up Miranda on the show, without needing a retcon.
Am I really the only one who thinks Buffy s06 was the pinnacle of the show (and no, not just for the musical one)? Now, s07, I can agree with you there, but I think it was because they were trying too hard to go back to the feel of the earlier seasons, while also doing the "final conflict" thing. Angel, well, yeah...
You may be right about Firefly, anyway. As I understand, the original treatment of Mal was much darker; war-scarred and almost totally out of touch. His quirky humor that people seem to like was partly Executive Meddling.
Apropos of almost nothing, Firefly is the only show he managed to pace correctly from square one; Buffy took two seasons, and Dollhouse took maybe 3/4 of its run just to get up to speed.
You mean "a major character," that being Shepherd Book.
But seriously, it'd be a bit challenging to keep things going. River is now a fully-capable uber-assassin and psychic, which would make continuing petty heists kind of unbelievable after a while; not to mention that she could almost replace the entire crew, from Jayne to Kaylee, single-handed. Either she and Simon would leave (which is kind of unsatisfying) or the crew would go full-out revolutionary (which could very easily come off cheesy).
Still, the worst bar would be that the original cast had an incredibly strong chemistry. It's very unlikely to repeat that, esp. in a lower-budget cable show.
have they really won much, or even anything? all I've heard is of their being smacked down, including a huge judgment against them (although it was overturned). anyway, from their websites; videos; and the interview with Phelps' son (who left them at 18), I'm completely convinced they are serious loons. You are right though, from the way Phelps describes his take on "love thy neighbor," he considers it his duty to troll the world. Their theology is an extreme branch of Calvinism, but not unique to them.
as for anonymous, if scientology and everyone involved with HBGary haven't taken down anonymous yet, WBC has no chance. scientology has, for free, dozens of lawyer-believers of phelps' calibre or better, along with/much/ dirtier tactics, and they've scored almost no points.
on the contrary, the "godhates$foo" websites (there are a LOT of them) are fairly sophisticated, easily in the 90th percentile of baptist websites... i like to keep an eye on these loons, partly as a barometer and partly for the black humor.
the weird thing is, the sites already tend to load very slowly; i can't imagine it's demand.
constitutionality has jack-all to do with defense spending not being cut... simply imagine: if, for some reason, our current military were unconstitutional, do you really think anyone in power would give a damn?
and it deserves wider circulation. i've always considered objectivism to be a great (if strenuous) personal ideal but horrible social policy, and i'm glad to see that ms. rand agreed.
well, struggling to live on the street and squatting in flophouses can be considered "interesting;" he didn't say "fruitful."
an ayn rand quote would be all too easy to find, so here's one from the radical left: ""Down with a world in which the guarantee that we will not die of starvation has been purchased with the guarantee that we will die of boredom."
OK, that's one for one. Whoop-dee-doo. What makes this interesting is the 7/8 claim. Please produce seven years of historical articles. Maybe they're out there and all vetted; I don't give a fuck.
Yes, of course; I agree with everything you said as general principles.
Getting to the point: their simulations have not been tested against empirical data nor have they bothered to explain how one would even begin to design this study. Their assumptions are also extremely brittle (as most results based on ordinary differential equations tend to be; it's a sobering thought, that to merely analyze the conduction of heat along an idealized rod requires more sophisticated mathematics than they use...). They don't assume merely that "a gene exists"; they assume a simple mendelian model for genetics, and a very simple population dynamics. With these assumptions in place, I can assure you, it would be a strange miracle if their model were to hold...
My points are: their model is so simple that it will be falsified if ever put to test (note, they don't and probably can't); and that I really hate the use of the word "support" in science when empirical validation is not being done. The latter point is perhaps aesthetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. That's interesting. I mean, it was obviously meant to be a flashback, and it's unlikely that Simon could maintain such cover as a fugitive. On the other hand it would also correct various things like why River didn't bring up Miranda on the show, without needing a retcon.
Am I really the only one who thinks Buffy s06 was the pinnacle of the show (and no, not just for the musical one)? Now, s07, I can agree with you there, but I think it was because they were trying too hard to go back to the feel of the earlier seasons, while also doing the "final conflict" thing. Angel, well, yeah...
You may be right about Firefly, anyway. As I understand, the original treatment of Mal was much darker; war-scarred and almost totally out of touch. His quirky humor that people seem to like was partly Executive Meddling.
Apropos of almost nothing, Firefly is the only show he managed to pace correctly from square one; Buffy took two seasons, and Dollhouse took maybe 3/4 of its run just to get up to speed.
No, I didn't forget about Space Xander.
You mean "a major character," that being Shepherd Book.
But seriously, it'd be a bit challenging to keep things going. River is now a fully-capable uber-assassin and psychic, which would make continuing petty heists kind of unbelievable after a while; not to mention that she could almost replace the entire crew, from Jayne to Kaylee, single-handed. Either she and Simon would leave (which is kind of unsatisfying) or the crew would go full-out revolutionary (which could very easily come off cheesy).
Still, the worst bar would be that the original cast had an incredibly strong chemistry. It's very unlikely to repeat that, esp. in a lower-budget cable show.
you mean Roman Polanski? he's on the lam, and of course interpol has better things to do than bother with mere cross-border rape cases.
have they really won much, or even anything? all I've heard is of their being smacked down, including a huge judgment against them (although it was overturned). anyway, from their websites; videos; and the interview with Phelps' son (who left them at 18), I'm completely convinced they are serious loons. You are right though, from the way Phelps describes his take on "love thy neighbor," he considers it his duty to troll the world. Their theology is an extreme branch of Calvinism, but not unique to them.
as for anonymous, if scientology and everyone involved with HBGary haven't taken down anonymous yet, WBC has no chance. scientology has, for free, dozens of lawyer-believers of phelps' calibre or better, along with /much/ dirtier tactics, and they've scored almost no points.
on the contrary, the "godhates$foo" websites (there are a LOT of them) are fairly sophisticated, easily in the 90th percentile of baptist websites... i like to keep an eye on these loons, partly as a barometer and partly for the black humor.
the weird thing is, the sites already tend to load very slowly; i can't imagine it's demand.
i look forward to his proclaiming "4chan: land of the sodomite damned!" it may be the first time his judgment is received enthusiastically.
sorry, accidental negative moderation. undoing. fuck this trackpad. mod this message down.
constitutionality has jack-all to do with defense spending not being cut... simply imagine: if, for some reason, our current military were unconstitutional, do you really think anyone in power would give a damn?
their dragons don't generally breathe fire.
except for them it's typical. for example, a turkey is (literally translated as) a "fiery chicken".
between "too smart for her own good" and "seems smarter than she actually is," there isn't much room in formal schooling i'm afraid.
also, note the sweet irony of her including the derogations: "complainer," "rude, beligerent [sic], argumentative fuck," and "tactless."
see you in hell, bitch.
could you repeat that in english?
have you seen the vatican?
this particular quarrel is not with the catholic church, but the apple church.
and it deserves wider circulation. i've always considered objectivism to be a great (if strenuous) personal ideal but horrible social policy, and i'm glad to see that ms. rand agreed.
well, struggling to live on the street and squatting in flophouses can be considered "interesting;" he didn't say "fruitful."
an ayn rand quote would be all too easy to find, so here's one from the radical left: ""Down with a world in which the guarantee that we will not die of starvation has been purchased with the guarantee that we will die of boredom."
As god is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!
OK, that's one for one. Whoop-dee-doo. What makes this interesting is the 7/8 claim. Please produce seven years of historical articles. Maybe they're out there and all vetted; I don't give a fuck.
ah yes, of course, because that paragon of journalism, Wired magazine, reported it.
this shit happens (sometimes unwittingly) to real scientists. somehow i'm just not trusting EA Games at their word...
1. run enough independent simulations to predict each team as winning in one of them.
2. only report the right one
3. profit!
protip: replace "team" with "drug," and "winning" with "effective," for supermegaprofit!
That's not true and, strictly speaking, not even wrong if you bother to analyze it. "causation in the given data set" is meaningless.
Bulllshit like this is how databases, and other mere collections of information, will become copyrightable. Whoever wins, we'll lose.
Yes, of course; I agree with everything you said as general principles.
Getting to the point: their simulations have not been tested against empirical data nor have they bothered to explain how one would even begin to design this study. Their assumptions are also extremely brittle (as most results based on ordinary differential equations tend to be; it's a sobering thought, that to merely analyze the conduction of heat along an idealized rod requires more sophisticated mathematics than they use...). They don't assume merely that "a gene exists"; they assume a simple mendelian model for genetics, and a very simple population dynamics. With these assumptions in place, I can assure you, it would be a strange miracle if their model were to hold...
My points are: their model is so simple that it will be falsified if ever put to test (note, they don't and probably can't); and that I really hate the use of the word "support" in science when empirical validation is not being done. The latter point is perhaps aesthetic.