Neither one is truly provable, as both are proven in the terms of the people attempting to prove it.
The difference is that creationism isn't disprovable. New evidence in the future could blow a big hole in evolution theory, but creationists can always say that God put the evidence there, and His reasons are ineffable. ___
Heh. Lucas should of thought of this whole thing before he gave the Empire all the cool threads. I mean, come on! Who wants to dress like Han Solo? And Luke in Return of the Jedi was just a set of black clothes and one black glove! ___
Or, at least, not exactly. If a company does not wish its wares to be distributed in this way, it should have the option to distribute them electronically itself. This would stop companies from holding on to old properties without publishing them. In fact, I would suggest extending this to all other forms of intellectual property - video, books, and software, for example. The worst part of copyright is that it allows such things to go out of print without allowing anyone else to publish it.
I would support a "use it or lose it" copyright, except it favors big publishing houses (A small publisher may not to be able to afford to publish everything they hold copyright to). A fix for this problem is a system where the copyright holder was given royalties from an "unavailable elsewhere" download service, but could make higher royalties if they published it themselves (which would remove it from the download service). They could also make lower royalties, if they so wished (ie free software "publishes" by making stuff freely available). Most importantly, we are promoting "progress of science and the useful arts" by ensuring that authors get compensated, and also ensuring that nothing ever goes out of print.
Of course, there are loopholes. A company could set the price for an online version of their product to be astronomically high, to "compensate for the piracy that is sure to ensue," but it's a start. ___
(a) directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus
A much improved patent would be to build on this one, but use visible light. I think the cat would be much more interested in it if it could see the "bright highly-focused pattern of light" being produced. ___
I really have the feeling that more of the human race understands Lucas' use of the acronym than yours. Plus, there are only so many usable acronyms... ___
Unless this is the first time the stimulus was given to the subjects, how do we know that both results are not just the memory of it happening to us? The results given when the stimulus is applied to the subject could be a memory of the last time it happened to the subject - I know I have the same reaction when I see someone get a hypodermic shot as I do just before (rather than as) I get the shot myself. It's certainly empathy, but rather than two events using the same part of the brain, they could both be the same event. ___
It all depends on how you look at it. To my mind, this could just as easily be an argument for *more* violence in media (if there's anyone who is a proponent of that) - watching someone get stabbed activates the same neurons as getting stabbed yourself, and increases your empathy towards victims of violence.
I think it only works if you've experienced the thing you're seeing. As in, actual victims of violence may be more empathetic (and therefore either more engrossed, or more turned off) with the character on the show. ___
Yet by any even halfheartedly rigorous definition, very few of these works are truly SF.
People who try to make a rigorous definition of SF generally end up ruling out a significant portion of it. I've generally ended up operating under the "I know it when I see it" approach. Not a good standard for a law, but it works for personal use... ___
Of course, the author also screws up by failing to note the most important thing to know about science fiction -- that as literature, most of it is abysmal.
Not that I disagree, but how does this distinguish it from any other genre? ___
Anyone ever read _Steel_Beach_? Everyone had the right to work, but technology took care of all needs, so there were "road workers" who stood by the side of the road leaning on their shovels. ___
Re:Why pay money for anonymous information?
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
They want to increase their coolness factor, and therefore enrollment. Haven't you seen their new ads targeted at kids? "Join the Marines and you can swordfight giant lava demons!" ___
Yes it does. It is aimed at survival. There are numerous survival strategies, of which physical strength, stealth, speed and intelligence are examples.
On some planets, you won't need much intelligence to survive, but on earth you do.
I wouldn't say that it's necessary on Earth to be intelligent. That has been one very good strategy (for us), and with enough effort, we could probably outcompete (destroy) almost any species. However, our ability to do so is almost directly proportional to how complicated (advanced) that species is. We could take out the apes, no problem. Squirels would be harder. Any particular bacterial species would be well-nigh impossible.
Also, some of the most successful species on Earth are not intelligent. Sharks have remained almost unchanged, and at the top of the food chain, since the time of the dinosaurs. As I said above, we could destroy them if we really wanted to, but we don't directly compete with them, so they don't need intelligence to be successful. Also, pure numbers are a good strategy that requires no intelligence. Examples are bacteria, grass, and locusts.
The most intelligent species are eradicating the no-so-intelligent species. For example: humans are more intelligent than apes. The number of humans is rising, the number of apes is declining. I believe that when apes had an IQ of 180, humans would get a very tough time...
We've got a good head start on them... I think we could take 'em, with pure numbers.:) However, I think this is actually evidence of fewer intelligent species in the universe, since it is likely that two intelligent species on a planet would compete with each other, and possibly result in the destruction of one.
I think it is extremely unlikely that when life exists on other planets, none of these require intelligence for survival but earth.
I'd be surprised if any planets required intelligence for survival.
Also, I think it is unlikely life only exists on just one planet.
No argument there.
Therefore, given the sheer number of stars and planets, many intelligent species must exist in space.
I also agree with this, but I suspect that my 'many' may be less than yours.
___
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that creationism isn't disprovable. New evidence in the future could blow a big hole in evolution theory, but creationists can always say that God put the evidence there, and His reasons are ineffable.
___
Appropriate? Maybe not. But you should not legislate what is appropriate speech, and arbitrary decisions by school officials are even worse.
Would your graduation have been better if the president had stood up there and insulted everyone?
Well, yeah. It would have taken my mind off of the heat. As it was, DC Mayor Marion Barry crashed my graduation. It was pretty funny.
What exactly would that have solved?
I wasn't really looking for the class president's speech to solve anything.
___
The Judean People's Front hates the People's Front of Judea, eh?
___
Heh. Lucas should of thought of this whole thing before he gave the Empire all the cool threads. I mean, come on! Who wants to dress like Han Solo? And Luke in Return of the Jedi was just a set of black clothes and one black glove!
___
I would support a "use it or lose it" copyright, except it favors big publishing houses (A small publisher may not to be able to afford to publish everything they hold copyright to). A fix for this problem is a system where the copyright holder was given royalties from an "unavailable elsewhere" download service, but could make higher royalties if they published it themselves (which would remove it from the download service). They could also make lower royalties, if they so wished (ie free software "publishes" by making stuff freely available). Most importantly, we are promoting "progress of science and the useful arts" by ensuring that authors get compensated, and also ensuring that nothing ever goes out of print.
Of course, there are loopholes. A company could set the price for an online version of their product to be astronomically high, to "compensate for the piracy that is sure to ensue," but it's a start.
___
When not grounded, my old Gateway PC gave a mild electric shock if you touched any metal component... I never thought of using it in that way...
___
A much improved patent would be to build on this one, but use visible light. I think the cat would be much more interested in it if it could see the "bright highly-focused pattern of light" being produced.
___
Big Macs.
But in France, they're called "Le Big Mac."
___
___
You don't have the right not to be offended. You have the ability.
___
I really have the feeling that more of the human race understands Lucas' use of the acronym than yours. Plus, there are only so many usable acronyms...
___
It would suck if it was inversely related, though. Wouldn't it?
___
We should form an impenetrable shell of pollution around the Earth. If we start now, it should be strong enough before the Sun blows up.
___
Unless this is the first time the stimulus was given to the subjects, how do we know that both results are not just the memory of it happening to us? The results given when the stimulus is applied to the subject could be a memory of the last time it happened to the subject - I know I have the same reaction when I see someone get a hypodermic shot as I do just before (rather than as) I get the shot myself. It's certainly empathy, but rather than two events using the same part of the brain, they could both be the same event.
___
All you need to do to preserve the mystery of nature is to ignore scientific discoveries. Then it's all still a mystery to you.
___
I think it only works if you've experienced the thing you're seeing. As in, actual victims of violence may be more empathetic (and therefore either more engrossed, or more turned off) with the character on the show.
___
People who try to make a rigorous definition of SF generally end up ruling out a significant portion of it. I've generally ended up operating under the "I know it when I see it" approach. Not a good standard for a law, but it works for personal use...
___
Not that I disagree, but how does this distinguish it from any other genre?
___
I thought the first 5 were sabotaged before completion, and the sixth vanished without a trace?
___
I can see it now. Chunks of ore on mantlepieces... "Oh, that was hand-mined by this charming fellow down in the village. Isn't it quaint?"
___
Anyone ever read _Steel_Beach_? Everyone had the right to work, but technology took care of all needs, so there were "road workers" who stood by the side of the road leaning on their shovels.
___
Shoot them from bamboo guns at Gorns.
___
What happened to the blacksmiths?
___
They want to increase their coolness factor, and therefore enrollment. Haven't you seen their new ads targeted at kids? "Join the Marines and you can swordfight giant lava demons!"
___
On some planets, you won't need much intelligence to survive, but on earth you do.
I wouldn't say that it's necessary on Earth to be intelligent. That has been one very good strategy (for us), and with enough effort, we could probably outcompete (destroy) almost any species. However, our ability to do so is almost directly proportional to how complicated (advanced) that species is. We could take out the apes, no problem. Squirels would be harder. Any particular bacterial species would be well-nigh impossible.
Also, some of the most successful species on Earth are not intelligent. Sharks have remained almost unchanged, and at the top of the food chain, since the time of the dinosaurs. As I said above, we could destroy them if we really wanted to, but we don't directly compete with them, so they don't need intelligence to be successful. Also, pure numbers are a good strategy that requires no intelligence. Examples are bacteria, grass, and locusts.
The most intelligent species are eradicating the no-so-intelligent species. For example: humans are more intelligent than apes. The number of humans is rising, the number of apes is declining. I believe that when apes had an IQ of 180, humans would get a very tough time...
We've got a good head start on them... I think we could take 'em, with pure numbers. :) However, I think this is actually evidence of fewer intelligent species in the universe, since it is likely that two intelligent species on a planet would compete with each other, and possibly result in the destruction of one.
I think it is extremely unlikely that when life exists on other planets, none of these require intelligence for survival but earth.
I'd be surprised if any planets required intelligence for survival.
Also, I think it is unlikely life only exists on just one planet.
No argument there.
Therefore, given the sheer number of stars and planets, many intelligent species must exist in space.
I also agree with this, but I suspect that my 'many' may be less than yours.
___