> Can Sean Connery play James Bond today? I think he could.
I'd love to see Connery reprise as James Bond called out of retirement for some emergency that needed his talent. Provided the script didn't suck.
As for Indy IV, Ford's age suggests a movie set in the late '50s or early '60s, so it might be fun to have him run in to James Bond during the course of his adventure.
> Harrison better make sure it has all the essentials. It's not good to mess with the formula that geeks have come to know and love:
* Snakes, and Indy saying how much he hates them.
* Guns, and Indy saying how much he hates them.
* Nazis.
* A big nasty strong guy whom Indy defeats with cunning rather than brawn.
* A scrawny little guy with pince-nez glasses and a thick accent.
* An artifact of supernatural powers.
* A scene in which the terrible power of the artifact is realised.
* Hat and bullwhip.
* Sassy love interest.
* John Rhys-Davies in a red fez.
* Denholm Elliot stuttering his way through his lines.
* One or more booby traps.
Sounds like the details of the script have already leaked out...
> So, if something, some event, were to happen, in which our government does something heinous enough to incite a sizable part of the population to revolt, then it could happen.
> Of course the counter-argument to that is, such incidents have already happened (see: Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge) and generated a minor firestorm of controversy in the media, followed by what could generally be described as a "collective yawn."
The revolution we need isn't from a bunch of kooks & criminals who were even more right-wing than the government is.
If you want something to get riled up about, pause to think how many more people are dying before their time for no crime other than being born poor in a society that would rather spend your tax money on corporate welfare than human welfare.
> The article itself points out that they benefit from a range of different criminal activities. Further limiting domestic rights to fight foreign troublemakers doesn't seem to work.
More likely it will make the situation worse, by making for-profit bootlegs take a bigger share of the market.
Look what the war on drugs has done money-wise for everyone from the kingpins of the international cartels down to your neighborhood gang.
At any rate, I'm rather skeptical that an assistant sheriff would actually know anything about international terrorism. I think a good investigative follow-up would be to find out who 0wns him.
> I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but I believe that, while it's nowhere near perfect, BASIC is a much better educational language. Maybe if it were structured with no line numbers, but no data types either, other than strings and numbers..
I disagree with your opinion that Pascal isn't any good for learners. IMO the type rules are a good way to introduce beginners to the idea that you have to say what you mean and mean what you say when telling a computer what to do.
However, IMO the real jewel for teaching is Scheme, at least for CS students. You can cover the essential syntax in one lecture, and jump right in to things like recursion on the second lecture of the semester. It lets you teach the students to think about algorithms and problem solving rather than "programming".
Might not be good for self-teaching, though. For that I'd probably recommend Pascal.
> If these departments suddenly stopped paying for proprietary software and switched to FOSS, the schools know they won't reap any of the purported savings.
What is the value of "savings" on stuff you don't buy?
> Ironically, no, you see the problem here is that you are practicising epistomology in saying that, that is, the nature of what can be be said to be known. OP poster is right, you just don't get the full span of what the term 'epistomology' refers to, for example, the logic of mathematics certainly falls within its balliwick.
No, epistemology is relevant to science, but science itself is not "a type of epistomology" as the OP claimed.
> Science is a branch of philosophy-- specifically, science is a type of epistomology, the study of "how we know things."
No, science is the attempt to know things, not the study of how we know them.
Science is no different in principle from what you do when your car won't start. Based on what you know, or think you know, about how cars work, you generate some possible explanations and then check to see whether any of them are the real explanation.
The difference is that in science there is no Users Manual for the universe you're trying to study, and of course you can't give up and call in a mechanic.
> I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information.
That's true, but it's a simple fact that science can't deal in supernatural answers.
Supernatural aswers are useless you can invent an arbitrary supernatural explanation for any set of observations. The world is round because Iluvatar got bent. Earthquakes happen because The Great Kirby causes them. You need to be tortured because Jebus told me you do.
Like it or not, science is stuck with natural explanations and "I don't know".
And like the halting problem, there's no way of distinguishing between "I don't know, because there isn't any natural explanation" and "I don't know, because I haven't found the natural explanation". But when you start making up supernatural explanations, you've quit doing science. That is the 'problem' that religious conservatives want to define away.
> > In short, God can be un-caused, but nature can't be.
> Why?
Because the argument starts with the desired conclusion and invents some pseudo-logic to prop it up. Kind of like Intelligent Design an its pseudo-science.
> I want my children to learn BOTH ideas. Yes...both. I am trying to educate them, and they need to understand both ways of thinking.
For fundamentalists, religion isn't a "way of thinking" but rather a set of beliefs that must be held to no matter what the evidence says.
Intelligent Design was invented for the express purpose of stopping thinking. Having "proven" that a Designer exists, they disavow any ability to follow up with an investigation of what designers do and how they do it.
> > You ask this question innocently but only because you are not a religious fundamentalists. To the taliban (afghan or american) it's heresy to even ask the question.
> Comparing religious Americans to the Afghan Taliban just doesn't fly. Get back to me when mainstream American christians applaud murder in their god's name.
He wasn't talking about "mainstream" Christians; he was talking about fundamentalists.
Unless of course you think they are mainstream, in which case it's easy enough to find "mainstream" Christians who applaud divinely sanctioned murder.
Heck, look at what God purportedly ordered for the Amalekites.
> So, your idea of a 'Good God' is essentially living in a dictatorship?
So what's Heaven going to be like? Will people still have free will there? Will they get kicked out if they exercise their free will and break the rules?
> So, it's OK if atheists complain that thier kids have to hear someone mention God but it's not OK for Catholics to complain when the teachers tell them premarital sex and contraception are good things that they should be partaking in?
> Intelligent Design is NOT a theory with real merits. It is a hypothesis with equal logical potential to what is presently the most likely theory.
The 'logic' offered in support of ID is really screwed up. ID has exactly the same merits as Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory and Last Thursdayism: an 'explanation' supported by neither observation nor logic, and in fact an answer to a non-existent problem.
Except of course the social problem of "how do I keep my kids from believing in evolution".
Slashdot Mirror
> with Lucas doing a camio as the fat old disgruntled bad guy
You mean "the director", of course.
> Can Sean Connery play James Bond today? I think he could.
I'd love to see Connery reprise as James Bond called out of retirement for some emergency that needed his talent. Provided the script didn't suck.
As for Indy IV, Ford's age suggests a movie set in the late '50s or early '60s, so it might be fun to have him run in to James Bond during the course of his adventure.
> Now where are they gonna find some Nazi's I wanna know.
Brazil. Expect another sight gag with an equally aged Hitler.
> Harrison better make sure it has all the essentials. It's not good to mess with the formula that geeks have come to know and love:
* Snakes, and Indy saying how much he hates them.
* Guns, and Indy saying how much he hates them.
* Nazis.
* A big nasty strong guy whom Indy defeats with cunning rather than brawn.
* A scrawny little guy with pince-nez glasses and a thick accent.
* An artifact of supernatural powers.
* A scene in which the terrible power of the artifact is realised.
* Hat and bullwhip.
* Sassy love interest.
* John Rhys-Davies in a red fez.
* Denholm Elliot stuttering his way through his lines.
* One or more booby traps.
Sounds like the details of the script have already leaked out...
> I'd suggest that anyone who really cares about values such as Freedom and Liberty move to a country that counts those values are core values.
I'd suggest that they stay here and vote, and work to educate their friends, neighbors, and associates about what's going on.
> So, if something, some event, were to happen, in which our government does something heinous enough to incite a sizable part of the population to revolt, then it could happen.
> Of course the counter-argument to that is, such incidents have already happened (see: Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge) and generated a minor firestorm of controversy in the media, followed by what could generally be described as a "collective yawn."
The revolution we need isn't from a bunch of kooks & criminals who were even more right-wing than the government is.
If you want something to get riled up about, pause to think how many more people are dying before their time for no crime other than being born poor in a society that would rather spend your tax money on corporate welfare than human welfare.
> The article itself points out that they benefit from a range of different criminal activities. Further limiting domestic rights to fight foreign troublemakers doesn't seem to work.
More likely it will make the situation worse, by making for-profit bootlegs take a bigger share of the market.
Look what the war on drugs has done money-wise for everyone from the kingpins of the international cartels down to your neighborhood gang.
At any rate, I'm rather skeptical that an assistant sheriff would actually know anything about international terrorism. I think a good investigative follow-up would be to find out who 0wns him.
> 1. Where do I apply
Local security firm.
> 2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section
That's given out on the basis of seniority. You'll spend 30 years examining fat old men before you get your turn.
> A flaw in its random number generator seems to have protected 10% of the internet from the Witty worm."
And non-MS OSes protected another 10%...
> I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but I believe that, while it's nowhere near perfect, BASIC is a much better educational language. Maybe if it were structured with no line numbers, but no data types either, other than strings and numbers..
I disagree with your opinion that Pascal isn't any good for learners. IMO the type rules are a good way to introduce beginners to the idea that you have to say what you mean and mean what you say when telling a computer what to do.
However, IMO the real jewel for teaching is Scheme, at least for CS students. You can cover the essential syntax in one lecture, and jump right in to things like recursion on the second lecture of the semester. It lets you teach the students to think about algorithms and problem solving rather than "programming".
Might not be good for self-teaching, though. For that I'd probably recommend Pascal.
> If these departments suddenly stopped paying for proprietary software and switched to FOSS, the schools know they won't reap any of the purported savings.
What is the value of "savings" on stuff you don't buy?
"It's dead, Jim."
> Ironically, no, you see the problem here is that you are practicising epistomology in saying that, that is, the nature of what can be be said to be known. OP poster is right, you just don't get the full span of what the term 'epistomology' refers to, for example, the logic of mathematics certainly falls within its balliwick.
No, epistemology is relevant to science, but science itself is not "a type of epistomology" as the OP claimed.
> Science is a branch of philosophy-- specifically, science is a type of epistomology, the study of "how we know things."
No, science is the attempt to know things, not the study of how we know them.
Science is no different in principle from what you do when your car won't start. Based on what you know, or think you know, about how cars work, you generate some possible explanations and then check to see whether any of them are the real explanation.
The difference is that in science there is no Users Manual for the universe you're trying to study, and of course you can't give up and call in a mechanic.
> Many of the ID group do not believe in any sort of "supernatural" beings.
Can you name three?
> I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information.
That's true, but it's a simple fact that science can't deal in supernatural answers.
Supernatural aswers are useless you can invent an arbitrary supernatural explanation for any set of observations. The world is round because Iluvatar got bent. Earthquakes happen because The Great Kirby causes them. You need to be tortured because Jebus told me you do.
Like it or not, science is stuck with natural explanations and "I don't know".
And like the halting problem, there's no way of distinguishing between "I don't know, because there isn't any natural explanation" and "I don't know, because I haven't found the natural explanation". But when you start making up supernatural explanations, you've quit doing science. That is the 'problem' that religious conservatives want to define away.
> > In short, God can be un-caused, but nature can't be.
> Why?
Because the argument starts with the desired conclusion and invents some pseudo-logic to prop it up. Kind of like Intelligent Design an its pseudo-science.
BTW, you're not supposed to ask.
> Personally I like the turtles all the way down theory.
That's what Intelligent Design offers when you start asking where the Designer came from.
> I want my children to learn BOTH ideas. Yes...both. I am trying to educate them, and they need to understand both ways of thinking.
For fundamentalists, religion isn't a "way of thinking" but rather a set of beliefs that must be held to no matter what the evidence says.
Intelligent Design was invented for the express purpose of stopping thinking. Having "proven" that a Designer exists, they disavow any ability to follow up with an investigation of what designers do and how they do it.
> > You ask this question innocently but only because you are not a religious fundamentalists. To the taliban (afghan or american) it's heresy to even ask the question.
> Comparing religious Americans to the Afghan Taliban just doesn't fly. Get back to me when mainstream American christians applaud murder in their god's name.
He wasn't talking about "mainstream" Christians; he was talking about fundamentalists.
Unless of course you think they are mainstream, in which case it's easy enough to find "mainstream" Christians who applaud divinely sanctioned murder.
Heck, look at what God purportedly ordered for the Amalekites.
> > Existance without creation is what makes "god" god.
> Let me sum up the religious argument: Assumption: god exists
Therefore: god exists
On talk.origins the argument usually takes the form -
a) Everything requires a cause.
b) God doesn't require a cause.
c) Ergo, God is the cause of everything.
You can "prove" anything you want if you're willing to apply sloppy thinking to a set of mutually contradictory axioms.
> So, your idea of a 'Good God' is essentially living in a dictatorship?
So what's Heaven going to be like? Will people still have free will there? Will they get kicked out if they exercise their free will and break the rules?
> So, it's OK if atheists complain that thier kids have to hear someone mention God but it's not OK for Catholics to complain when the teachers tell them premarital sex and contraception are good things that they should be partaking in?
Who, precisely, is saying both of those things?
> Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design?
Any reason we shouldn't call a spade a spade?
> I'm guessing the insanely biased headline is a sign for all the slashdotters out there that this is simply a topic for attacking Christians?
So much for the Christian pretense that ID is science rather than religion...
> Intelligent Design is NOT a theory with real merits. It is a hypothesis with equal logical potential to what is presently the most likely theory.
The 'logic' offered in support of ID is really screwed up. ID has exactly the same merits as Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory and Last Thursdayism: an 'explanation' supported by neither observation nor logic, and in fact an answer to a non-existent problem.
Except of course the social problem of "how do I keep my kids from believing in evolution".