If Lucas had made the original Star Wars as lacking in emotional impact as episodes 1, 2 and 3 then it would have tanked. No other movies would have been made and you'd have no shitty prequels to defend. Period.
And, by the way, want to know my opinion about the movie your handle's namesake is from?
No. Not unless you give rational reasons for disliking it. However, you just call it "trash" without giving any reason why you felt that way.
And seeing how you want to defend the Star Wars prequels, of all things, it would take a lot more than that to convince me that any of your opinions on movies are worth much of anything really.
Not a perfect movie by any means, but no more flawed than either of the three original films.
I thought it was more flawed than the original movies for one specific reason. In ROTS, I did not give one flying fuck what happened to any of the characters.
The original movie had some believable characters, clever dialog, and this thing known as emotion that made you care about what happened. You could see a little bit of yourself in their attitudes and situations. As a kid, it made your imagination run wild so that you could daydream about you yourself being in Lucas's beautiful world.
Not so in the prequels. Wooden characters with unbelievable stories reciting shitty dialog by actors unable to sell any of it - and for good reason. Any attempt to humanize the story in the prequels was laughably cheesy. "By God, Jar-Jar sucks. Oh look! A young Anakin single-handedly wiped out an entire fighting force by accident." And in this last movie we're supposed to care about these people? You simply cannot create a decent tragedy without characters worth feeling sorry for. When Anakin was burning up in lava with his limbs missing I did not care. When Padme died in child birth I did not care.
These three movies amount to just one big wasted opportunity.
Also, I studied black holes for a bit (quantum field theory in curved spacetime 'n' all that). At no point was I able to make a connection between what I studied and the pop science description you just attempted. I think it probably bears little relation to the real physics!
That's odd. His explanation of Hawking Radiation sounded like one I heard before, so I looked it up. In A Brief History of Time (in Black Holes Ain't So Black), Hawking's explanation matches the parent's explanation pretty damn closely. I'm sure Hawking dumbed this particular description down a bit, but the gist of it should be accurate.
Errrrr... what are you talking about? The solution to Zeno's paradox is that a sum of an infinite series of numbers can be finite. That's why traveling any given finite distance, which consists of infinite possible subdivision of distances, can be done in finite time. How you get from there to "uncaused cause" is a mystery to me. Is there a link to some website or something you can give me that makes that argument?
God can be uncaused but nautre can't? Why? Why can't it be possible that what we label "nature" has always existed in one form or another but God can? The big difference between the two is that God is conscious/self-aware while nature is not. (Unless one believes in panpsychism).
As far as I'm concerned, the only real reason people feel it makes more sense to consider a God that causes certain things to happen rather than everything following some set of natural laws is that we as conscious beings find it difficult to imagine nature acting without any conscious influence. Just because something is difficult, or even impossible, to understand does not automatically mean it is untrue.
If we're too cynical, all the politician has to do is say, "This individual did [insert any petty mistake done as a young man] and therefore should be ignored."
I'm sure all of the people mentioned have used hyperbole or distortions to make a point. But some are better than others.
We're all human beings bound to make mistakes from time to time when trying to make the case for what we feel is the truth. But if we just give up and believe everyone is equally full of crap without evaluating what was an honest mistake, what was an intentional distortion, and how it affects the speaker's overall points, then rational discourse is impossible.
I read Franken's book and the objections to it. The only really big mistake I found with it was when he mentioned the GAO regarding the condition the White House was in after Clintion left. (It didn't say what he said it did). Personally, I feel that Franken is more reliable than just about all of the people he pokes fun of in the book. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong.
Let's say someone discovers especially grievous misconduct from a politician and makes it public. If we're too cynical, all the politician has to do is say, "This individual did and therefore should be ignored." (Realistically, they create a media campaign discredit the whistle-blower and just hide in the shadows.) Happens all the time.
Ack! Gravitational fields do NOT slow down the speed of light. It can only bend the path that it travels. Only when it travels through a material, because of the time it takes for molecules to absorb a photon and release an identical one in its place, does it slow down.
That's OK. Doctor Who's better than Star Trek anyways.
;)
Re:If you REALLY want to know yourself,...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
If the processing occurs, then internal it "feels" like conscioussness, but externally it just looks like your brain is processing things
Feels like to whom? It looks like you're saying that the brain tricks our conscious self into believing there is a conscious self, which is a nonsensical statement.
Well, if you decide to define the problem in such a way that it can never be analyzed scientifically, then yes, of course, every scientifica analysis will fail. That is because you are forcing it to be a philosophical debate, and not a scientific one.
I'd say that looking at the questions the book claims to solve, it is asking philosophical questions and trying to use scientific analysis to fake the answers. The characterization of science is perfectly fair when we insist on using the right tool for the right job.
We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do.
-Scientific American
Nine factual errors can be seious depending on what they are. Do you know the details or are you just taking a novelist's word for it?
I think his acting is fine - it's just that he's being a dick. If he didn't think highly of Doctor Who then he should have thought of that before he accepted the part. Better to let the role go to someone with a sense of responsibility.
Apologies if this turns out to be an April Fool's gag.
This is exactly right. Right after I read the first page I was thinking, "No Microsoft did not invent Virtual Memory and you're not clear on what Virtual Memory is in the first place."
If the rest of the article is as inaccurate then we ain't missing much from the Slashdotting.
The story does depend way too much on just pure action. But seeing as how this is the first Doctor Who episode in a long time and it needs to grab the attention of a lot of people who are not hardcore fans, I can forgive them for now. If the whole season continues the same way, however, it will suck.
The acting from the supporting cast has always been on the cheesy side, but part of Doctor Who's charm is that it is a bit cheesy. Hell, the acting from extras on older episodes like The Talons of Weng-Chiang is hilariously bad, and they're still great episodes.
I like Eccleston's acting, but I hate the accent. I often had trouble understanding what he was saying. A northern English accent is just not appropriate for a Time Lord.
The only thing about the show I absolutely hated with hateful hate was how the inside of the TARDIS looked. It was made to look flashy, alien and advanced. In the past it was just made to look homey, and that makes sense. Why would a bunch of super-intelligent beings feel the need to flaunt their technological superiority? I can remember an older episode when much more of the inside of the TARDIS was shown. It had an olympic sized pool, a huge garden (with a carniverous plant), and something like an engine room disguised as a museum. In everywhere except for the control room that was routinely shown, the underlying technology of the ship remained hidden.
Robot episode? That's a little vague considering that a lot of episodes have robots in it. I hope it's not the first one, Rabbot. That episode is pretty awful, imo.
Pardon me for thinking that you're full of shit, but thirty episodes? Assuming you aren't lying, after about three you should have said, "Hey, this isn't for me," and moved on.
ATHF is kind of like the modern version of Monty Python. Absurdist humor which is impossible for the people who get it to explain to the people who don't.
Don't know how old you or the girl are. I'm less than a month from 32 and like I said, I love it.
nor am I into that Aqua Teen Hunger Force thing - I watched several seasons in one sitting and only laughed one time in 30 episodes)
Riiiggghhhhhht. Why would you watch several seasons in one sitting of a show you don't like?
I absolutely love the show, and I couldn't watch any more than 3 episodes in one sitting. Random nonsensical humor, no matter how well written, can only be taken in small doses.
Her weight is absolutely perfect. For women to be attractive (something that is dictated by us by their capability to have children) they need hips and bosoms. The way they get those? The right amount of fat. By your own standard, Marilyn Monroe is way too fat. And that standard is wrong.
Want to have sex with lean people with skinny hips? Follow your unconscious desires and try fucking guys.
Other than mathematical proofs and the fact of one's own existence, everything we take to be as "true" are simply beliefs. It's just that some beliefs take bigger leaps of faith than others.
There are an infinite number of entities one can posit exists simply by saying they are beyond the reach of all of our senses. In philosophy, these are known as "metaphysical claims". Why should God get more consideration than any other of these possible claims?
The original agnostics took the position that all metaphysical claims were bunk, and refused to answer on the existence of God one way or the other. In my opinion, this is a much stronger position than what agonsticism came to mean.
If someone has the position that they're not sure whether or not they believe in something, the logical thing to ask is "What evidence would it take to convince you?", and if the requirements are outrageous enough then the next question is "So what do you gain in entertaining the idea in the first place?"
The original agnostics answered, "I refuse to answer on the existence of God as it is a metaphysical claim and all metaphysical calims are meaningless. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." The definition of agnosticism as it is twisted to mean today is simply a position of laziness.
In no way was I trying to belittle agnosticism, atheism or theism. If you would have read one of the posts I included, you would have seen the following...
The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:
They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
Sorry I left out the "probably", but since agnosticism (like theism or atheism) is just one of many beliefs, I felt the "probably" was kind of implied.
I'm still honestly confused as to what I said to piss you off or why.
In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology.
I'm sorry, but I think you are unfamiliar with the terminology as well. Agnosticism does not mean that God may or may not exist and Atheism does not necessarily mean that God must not exist. Agnosticism means that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable and an Atheist simply looks at the current evidence for the existence of God and arrives at the belief that He does not exist.
You can see definitions for Agnosticism here and here. One of the links comes from a religious source and the other a non-religious one.
Keep in mind, being an Atheist does not mean that someone has "an absoulte disbelief in God" in the sense that they would continue to not believe in God if offered proper evidence that He did. The position of an Atheist is simply "I do not believe that God exists." The Agnostic believes that, ultimately, the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined.
How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist? By Occam's Razor stating that, when it comes to explanation, "entities should not be multiplied whithout necessity." If I try to explain a natural phenomenon and the explanation adds complexity without adequately explaining what I am trying to establish in the first place, then it is meaningless to consider. Many people feel that this is the case with God.
Any rational Atheist will tell you that if adequate evidence is offered for the existence of God, then they will no longer be an Atheist.
The medical profession generally agrees that you cannot get physically addicted to marijuana. But lots of people I know smoked for years because they didn't think there was a good reason to quit. The difference between this state and physical addiction seems dubious to me.
The way I heard it, being physically addictive to a drug means you will be sick without it for a while after you stop using this. So nicotine is physically addicitive (people feel sick for about 3 days after they stop smoking), alcohol is physically addictive (the DTs) and heroin, among others. This is something that does not happen when someone stops using marijuana. It is believed this is the case because THC leaves the system so slowly, so it's not something that your body becomes suddenly deprived of no matter how suddenly you quit.
Believe it or not, cocaine is not physically addicitvie. It can become a serious addiction (possibly one of the most serious addictions out there) since it practically rewires your brain to feel like it needs cocaine. However, if you stop suddenly you won't feel sick.
Slashdot Mirror
And, by the way, want to know my opinion about the movie your handle's namesake is from?
No. Not unless you give rational reasons for disliking it. However, you just call it "trash" without giving any reason why you felt that way. And seeing how you want to defend the Star Wars prequels, of all things, it would take a lot more than that to convince me that any of your opinions on movies are worth much of anything really.
I thought it was more flawed than the original movies for one specific reason. In ROTS, I did not give one flying fuck what happened to any of the characters.
The original movie had some believable characters, clever dialog, and this thing known as emotion that made you care about what happened. You could see a little bit of yourself in their attitudes and situations. As a kid, it made your imagination run wild so that you could daydream about you yourself being in Lucas's beautiful world.
Not so in the prequels. Wooden characters with unbelievable stories reciting shitty dialog by actors unable to sell any of it - and for good reason. Any attempt to humanize the story in the prequels was laughably cheesy. "By God, Jar-Jar sucks. Oh look! A young Anakin single-handedly wiped out an entire fighting force by accident." And in this last movie we're supposed to care about these people? You simply cannot create a decent tragedy without characters worth feeling sorry for. When Anakin was burning up in lava with his limbs missing I did not care. When Padme died in child birth I did not care.
These three movies amount to just one big wasted opportunity.
That's odd. His explanation of Hawking Radiation sounded like one I heard before, so I looked it up. In A Brief History of Time (in Black Holes Ain't So Black), Hawking's explanation matches the parent's explanation pretty damn closely. I'm sure Hawking dumbed this particular description down a bit, but the gist of it should be accurate.
Errrrr... what are you talking about? The solution to Zeno's paradox is that a sum of an infinite series of numbers can be finite. That's why traveling any given finite distance, which consists of infinite possible subdivision of distances, can be done in finite time. How you get from there to "uncaused cause" is a mystery to me. Is there a link to some website or something you can give me that makes that argument?
God can be uncaused but nautre can't? Why? Why can't it be possible that what we label "nature" has always existed in one form or another but God can? The big difference between the two is that God is conscious/self-aware while nature is not. (Unless one believes in panpsychism).
As far as I'm concerned, the only real reason people feel it makes more sense to consider a God that causes certain things to happen rather than everything following some set of natural laws is that we as conscious beings find it difficult to imagine nature acting without any conscious influence. Just because something is difficult, or even impossible, to understand does not automatically mean it is untrue.
Hit Sumbit by accident. End should read...
If we're too cynical, all the politician has to do is say, "This individual did [insert any petty mistake done as a young man] and therefore should be ignored."
We're all human beings bound to make mistakes from time to time when trying to make the case for what we feel is the truth. But if we just give up and believe everyone is equally full of crap without evaluating what was an honest mistake, what was an intentional distortion, and how it affects the speaker's overall points, then rational discourse is impossible.
I read Franken's book and the objections to it. The only really big mistake I found with it was when he mentioned the GAO regarding the condition the White House was in after Clintion left. (It didn't say what he said it did). Personally, I feel that Franken is more reliable than just about all of the people he pokes fun of in the book. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong.
Let's say someone discovers especially grievous misconduct from a politician and makes it public. If we're too cynical, all the politician has to do is say, "This individual did and therefore should be ignored." (Realistically, they create a media campaign discredit the whistle-blower and just hide in the shadows.) Happens all the time.
I certainly hope Frankenlies has improved.
He isn't? So you honestly think that Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are more honest, sensible personalities?
Please.
Ack! Gravitational fields do NOT slow down the speed of light. It can only bend the path that it travels. Only when it travels through a material, because of the time it takes for molecules to absorb a photon and release an identical one in its place, does it slow down.
Feels like to whom? It looks like you're saying that the brain tricks our conscious self into believing there is a conscious self, which is a nonsensical statement.
Well, if you decide to define the problem in such a way that it can never be analyzed scientifically, then yes, of course, every scientifica analysis will fail. That is because you are forcing it to be a philosophical debate, and not a scientific one.
I'd say that looking at the questions the book claims to solve, it is asking philosophical questions and trying to use scientific analysis to fake the answers. The characterization of science is perfectly fair when we insist on using the right tool for the right job.
Don't know whether or not you're willing to undergo the surgery though.
-Scientific American
Nine factual errors can be seious depending on what they are. Do you know the details or are you just taking a novelist's word for it?
I think his acting is fine - it's just that he's being a dick. If he didn't think highly of Doctor Who then he should have thought of that before he accepted the part. Better to let the role go to someone with a sense of responsibility.
Apologies if this turns out to be an April Fool's gag.
This is exactly right. Right after I read the first page I was thinking, "No Microsoft did not invent Virtual Memory and you're not clear on what Virtual Memory is in the first place."
If the rest of the article is as inaccurate then we ain't missing much from the Slashdotting.
The story does depend way too much on just pure action. But seeing as how this is the first Doctor Who episode in a long time and it needs to grab the attention of a lot of people who are not hardcore fans, I can forgive them for now. If the whole season continues the same way, however, it will suck.
The acting from the supporting cast has always been on the cheesy side, but part of Doctor Who's charm is that it is a bit cheesy. Hell, the acting from extras on older episodes like The Talons of Weng-Chiang is hilariously bad, and they're still great episodes.
I like Eccleston's acting, but I hate the accent. I often had trouble understanding what he was saying. A northern English accent is just not appropriate for a Time Lord.
The only thing about the show I absolutely hated with hateful hate was how the inside of the TARDIS looked. It was made to look flashy, alien and advanced. In the past it was just made to look homey, and that makes sense. Why would a bunch of super-intelligent beings feel the need to flaunt their technological superiority? I can remember an older episode when much more of the inside of the TARDIS was shown. It had an olympic sized pool, a huge garden (with a carniverous plant), and something like an engine room disguised as a museum. In everywhere except for the control room that was routinely shown, the underlying technology of the ship remained hidden.
Robot episode? That's a little vague considering that a lot of episodes have robots in it. I hope it's not the first one, Rabbot. That episode is pretty awful, imo.
Pardon me for thinking that you're full of shit, but thirty episodes? Assuming you aren't lying, after about three you should have said, "Hey, this isn't for me," and moved on.
ATHF is kind of like the modern version of Monty Python. Absurdist humor which is impossible for the people who get it to explain to the people who don't.
Don't know how old you or the girl are. I'm less than a month from 32 and like I said, I love it.
Riiiggghhhhhht. Why would you watch several seasons in one sitting of a show you don't like?
I absolutely love the show, and I couldn't watch any more than 3 episodes in one sitting. Random nonsensical humor, no matter how well written, can only be taken in small doses.
Her weight is absolutely perfect. For women to be attractive (something that is dictated by us by their capability to have children) they need hips and bosoms. The way they get those? The right amount of fat. By your own standard, Marilyn Monroe is way too fat. And that standard is wrong.
Want to have sex with lean people with skinny hips? Follow your unconscious desires and try fucking guys.
Seriously? Which episodes have you seen?
I only know the Tom Baker episodes, but I seem to recall The Doctor having to save an assistant at least once every story. Specific examples...
Talons of Weng-Chiang:
Doctor saves Leela from bad guy sucking away her life energy.
Seeds of Doom:
Doctor saves Sarah Jane from being forceably transformed into plant monster.
The Sontaran Experiment:
Doctor saves Sarah Jane from experiments performed by alien.
Which Doctor are you familiar with who never once ends up saving the life of one of his female companions?
There are an infinite number of entities one can posit exists simply by saying they are beyond the reach of all of our senses. In philosophy, these are known as "metaphysical claims". Why should God get more consideration than any other of these possible claims?
The original agnostics took the position that all metaphysical claims were bunk, and refused to answer on the existence of God one way or the other. In my opinion, this is a much stronger position than what agonsticism came to mean.
If someone has the position that they're not sure whether or not they believe in something, the logical thing to ask is "What evidence would it take to convince you?", and if the requirements are outrageous enough then the next question is "So what do you gain in entertaining the idea in the first place?"
The original agnostics answered, "I refuse to answer on the existence of God as it is a metaphysical claim and all metaphysical calims are meaningless. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." The definition of agnosticism as it is twisted to mean today is simply a position of laziness.
In no way was I trying to belittle agnosticism, atheism or theism. If you would have read one of the posts I included, you would have seen the following...
The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:
They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
Sorry I left out the "probably", but since agnosticism (like theism or atheism) is just one of many beliefs, I felt the "probably" was kind of implied.
I'm still honestly confused as to what I said to piss you off or why.
I'm sorry, but I think you are unfamiliar with the terminology as well. Agnosticism does not mean that God may or may not exist and Atheism does not necessarily mean that God must not exist. Agnosticism means that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable and an Atheist simply looks at the current evidence for the existence of God and arrives at the belief that He does not exist.
You can see definitions for Agnosticism here and here. One of the links comes from a religious source and the other a non-religious one.
Keep in mind, being an Atheist does not mean that someone has "an absoulte disbelief in God" in the sense that they would continue to not believe in God if offered proper evidence that He did. The position of an Atheist is simply "I do not believe that God exists." The Agnostic believes that, ultimately, the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined.
How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist? By Occam's Razor stating that, when it comes to explanation, "entities should not be multiplied whithout necessity." If I try to explain a natural phenomenon and the explanation adds complexity without adequately explaining what I am trying to establish in the first place, then it is meaningless to consider. Many people feel that this is the case with God.
Any rational Atheist will tell you that if adequate evidence is offered for the existence of God, then they will no longer be an Atheist.
The way I heard it, being physically addictive to a drug means you will be sick without it for a while after you stop using this. So nicotine is physically addicitive (people feel sick for about 3 days after they stop smoking), alcohol is physically addictive (the DTs) and heroin, among others. This is something that does not happen when someone stops using marijuana. It is believed this is the case because THC leaves the system so slowly, so it's not something that your body becomes suddenly deprived of no matter how suddenly you quit.
Believe it or not, cocaine is not physically addicitvie. It can become a serious addiction (possibly one of the most serious addictions out there) since it practically rewires your brain to feel like it needs cocaine. However, if you stop suddenly you won't feel sick.