That's one his key points. Separation between species is a continuum and in some cases no division can be made, but in other cases, the division is quite clear. By the end of the book, species is a lot mushier concept than what people thought at the time, but still a useful one that reflects what's going on.
We use a little faith to believe that gravity will hold our shoes to the floor, and we walk to the bathroom without thinking about it and without taking any precautions that we might fly off the face of the earth.
Not really. Gravity seems to work just fine even during periods when I don't believe in it.
We don't feel the need to do Newtonian experiments every time we stand up.
Standing up *is* a Newtonian experiment. If you hit the ceiling, you might conclude that the physics had changed or that your house had flipped over.
Inheritance is not trait acquisition at all in Darwin's theory, it's the method of successful trait propagation. If he'd assumed horizontal transfer of traits instead, he might have called his book "The Illusion of Species". All though if it were the dominant form of transfer for the sorts of critters he was talking about, I dare say there wouldn't be much of an illusion.
Oooh you got me, I totally forgot that I hadn't seen the movie when I wrote that I hadn't seen the movie.
What's more, I regret that I did not explicitly inform you that my doubts are based on the well known plot of Avatar, not on how much the movie sucks in my imagination, but feel free to always assume the stupidest interpretation anytime anyone writes something.
You can't use a crime we were an accomplice to 20 years ago to justify another crime we committed 8 years ago, especially when said Kurds had already gained their independence.
Hey, thanks for making a great movie, and for being some kind of Slashdot founder, too.
I've got to say that marketing may have been insufficient. I first heard about the movie only last week through the previews extra of the new Wallace and Grommit.
I haven't seen Avatar yet, but battle for Terra was really good in a way that I doubt Avatar was:
***** SPOILER ALERT for Battle of Terra and Saving Private Ryan (??)*****
The Terrans (aliens) actually have advanced technology, but the Humans still wipe the floor with them after an initial hard fought battle. The swinging trees don't beat the storm troopers on Terra.
The stakes are extinction for both sides, so when characters you've grown to like have to kill each other, you believe their motives. Lots of movies have made me sense the evils of war by showing me its affects on those who fought and those just caught up in it. Battle for Terra is the first I've seen where the evilness hits home during the thrill ride that is on screen sci-fi combat.
There's a scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where a wall collapses. An American squad and a German squad find themselves suddenly face to face with each other. As an action scene, it's as tense as anything on film. But imagine the emotional impact if Spielberg had spent the previous hour getting you to know and like both squads. This is what Battle for Terra achieves and then some.
For what seemed like a kids movie at first, Battle for Terra didn't pull many punches.
They found Mary's grave, and Dan Brown was right, she had a kid by Jesus, only they'd stayed in Jerusalem and both Jesus and their son are buried with her. The son was named Judas.
Do you realize that 90% of the world, plus most American patriots view the invasion of Iraq as an illegal unprovoked act of aggression that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, that as a crime it's on par with China's invasion of Tibet or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
When you characterize the pro-Iraq war side of an online griefer fight as "Pro-US", it makes you look like your viewpoint is so distorted as to be completely unreliable.
That's question-begging. You're assuming that it's known that the speech will cause violence. I assert that you can't know any such thing and treating people like children who shouldn't have to hear something they don't like is the first excuse of those who trammel on free speech.
Somebody's opinion that something said could lead to a riot, just because someone else disagrees, is not even a justification for the government to look at you funny, much less censor you.
That's funny, the Western Country I live in, the USA, purposefully let it's manufacturing advantage wither on the vine so that the investor class could get richer.
"You're completely missing the point that as long as economic scarcity is a reality, without military spending to protect your economy you have no economy. "
Yes, hence the "necessary" part of "necessary evil". If bad guys didn't exist, and if accounts kept themselves, we could get rid of soldiers and accountants and be better off for it.
And yes, some people leave the military better trained, and there's military research. These are both economic benefits from military spending. Yet they could be had through direct spending that would be orders of magnitude more efficient.
Hence the "largely" part of "largely economic dead weight".
"As for your comment on "trained killers," it's a rather poor attempt to mischaracterize the military as a whole. "
Everyone I know who's been in any military has been trained as a killer, even if their ultimate job in the military ended up being lest direct. If necessary, it's still unfortunate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what your politics are, but Rush Limbaugh is a zit upon the ass of American culture any way you look at it.
It's dying because you'd be insane to fund a big budget game that wasn't targeted at a popular console.
It's pretty dumb.
That's one his key points. Separation between species is a continuum and in some cases no division can be made, but in other cases, the division is quite clear. By the end of the book, species is a lot mushier concept than what people thought at the time, but still a useful one that reflects what's going on.
Is there a bunch of people running around saying a some digital pictures are the true and perfect images of Mars?
We use a little faith to believe that gravity will hold our shoes to the floor, and we walk to the bathroom without thinking about it and without taking any precautions that we might fly off the face of the earth.
Not really. Gravity seems to work just fine even during periods when I don't believe in it.
We don't feel the need to do Newtonian experiments every time we stand up.
Standing up *is* a Newtonian experiment. If you hit the ceiling, you might conclude that the physics had changed or that your house had flipped over.
Inheritance is not trait acquisition at all in Darwin's theory, it's the method of successful trait propagation. If he'd assumed horizontal transfer of traits instead, he might have called his book "The Illusion of Species". All though if it were the dominant form of transfer for the sorts of critters he was talking about, I dare say there wouldn't be much of an illusion.
Demand curves probably look like this:
Demand for a medical balance board @ $18000, maybe 1000
Demand for a wii fit @ $18,000 maybe 100
Demand for a medical balance board @ $100, maybe 10,000
Demand for a wii fit @ $100, maybe 10,000,000
Engineering cost for both, probably $1,000,000
Oooh you got me, I totally forgot that I hadn't seen the movie when I wrote that I hadn't seen the movie.
What's more, I regret that I did not explicitly inform you that my doubts are based on the well known plot of Avatar, not on how much the movie sucks in my imagination, but feel free to always assume the stupidest interpretation anytime anyone writes something.
Straight out of Ice Pirates.
You can't use a crime we were an accomplice to 20 years ago to justify another crime we committed 8 years ago, especially when said Kurds had already gained their independence.
Which is why Rush runs from 9-Noon. Can you see my eyes rolling?
Hey, thanks for making a great movie, and for being some kind of Slashdot founder, too.
I've got to say that marketing may have been insufficient. I first heard about the movie only last week through the previews extra of the new Wallace and Grommit.
I haven't seen Avatar yet, but battle for Terra was really good in a way that I doubt Avatar was:
***** SPOILER ALERT for Battle of Terra and Saving Private Ryan (??)*****
The Terrans (aliens) actually have advanced technology, but the Humans still wipe the floor with them after an initial hard fought battle. The swinging trees don't beat the storm troopers on Terra.
The stakes are extinction for both sides, so when characters you've grown to like have to kill each other, you believe their motives. Lots of movies have made me sense the evils of war by showing me its affects on those who fought and those just caught up in it. Battle for Terra is the first I've seen where the evilness hits home during the thrill ride that is on screen sci-fi combat.
There's a scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where a wall collapses. An American squad and a German squad find themselves suddenly face to face with each other. As an action scene, it's as tense as anything on film. But imagine the emotional impact if Spielberg had spent the previous hour getting you to know and like both squads. This is what Battle for Terra achieves and then some.
For what seemed like a kids movie at first, Battle for Terra didn't pull many punches.
*********** end spoiler *************
This nation was deliberately designed by lawyers for lawyers.
They found Mary's grave, and Dan Brown was right, she had a kid by Jesus, only they'd stayed in Jerusalem and both Jesus and their son are buried with her. The son was named Judas.
http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2007/02/23/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt/
"how should one approach life?"
Think galactically, act locally.
There are other possibilities, but even if you are right, history is not destiny.
"to life,universe, and everything"
That's not even a question.
Do you realize that 90% of the world, plus most American patriots view the invasion of Iraq as an illegal unprovoked act of aggression that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, that as a crime it's on par with China's invasion of Tibet or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
When you characterize the pro-Iraq war side of an online griefer fight as "Pro-US", it makes you look like your viewpoint is so distorted as to be completely unreliable.
That's question-begging. You're assuming that it's known that the speech will cause violence. I assert that you can't know any such thing and treating people like children who shouldn't have to hear something they don't like is the first excuse of those who trammel on free speech.
Somebody's opinion that something said could lead to a riot, just because someone else disagrees, is not even a justification for the government to look at you funny, much less censor you.
That's not how we'll take it down.
By definition whatever they were censoring had been on the internet and didn't cause riots, so what's their excuse again?
That's funny, the Western Country I live in, the USA, purposefully let it's manufacturing advantage wither on the vine so that the investor class could get richer.
"You're completely missing the point that as long as economic scarcity is a reality, without military spending to protect your economy you have no economy. "
Yes, hence the "necessary" part of "necessary evil". If bad guys didn't exist, and if accounts kept themselves, we could get rid of soldiers and accountants and be better off for it.
And yes, some people leave the military better trained, and there's military research. These are both economic benefits from military spending. Yet they could be had through direct spending that would be orders of magnitude more efficient.
Hence the "largely" part of "largely economic dead weight".
"As for your comment on "trained killers," it's a rather poor attempt to mischaracterize the military as a whole. "
Everyone I know who's been in any military has been trained as a killer, even if their ultimate job in the military ended up being lest direct. If necessary, it's still unfortunate.