I think we all assume that the download is maxed or we don't care.
It's the limited upload speeds that people want to get around. Now I know that the uploads are sometimes limited to reduce 'network collisions'... but low upload speeds are screwing real users.
You don't need to be hosting pr0n or warez. What if you want to put up a password protected mp3 server so you can listen at work, etc.
Remote desktops in XP - X11/VNC for linux users... there are real reasons.
Browse over to freshmeat and check out all the cool ass servers.
My local cable co has given me a Toshiba PCX1100U for access. The thing is a great and nice, it can even connect to the USB ports if you own a Windows machine, making the need for a NIC.. well un-needed.
So I got an idea one day. I plugged my USB cable into the modem and a second PC (I use the NIC on #1) since I don't have a router/hub. It worked great. Both computers worked at full speeds. While they could send data directly through the modem to each other I thought things would be fast (like having a hub) - of course not. [a trace showed that the traffic went to the hub only]
The upload speed of 40K was still the max.;-(
My point is though that once my ISP noticed I was doing this (gnutella on one, misc servers on the other) and getting the max they turned it off (i guess - it won't work for shit now.)
I fully realize I'm using making the download even slower for everyone else by using Getright to have 4 independent connections.. Some people are just more equal than others, dammit!
The optimal use would be to find mirrors.
I often download my linux iso's in Windows because I like Getright so much. It can usually find mirrors around the world and I can get an iso in about 45 mins - something almost impossible when new iso's are released.
I won't bother on most points but I don't want to "soak" the rich...
You just are missing why we have money. It's a joke, cash is used by this country to hold down others [IMF, and WTO loans...].
Our system of "free trade" means we feed the desire of the rest of the world to be like us. We loan them money, contract our workers to rebuild their country and then own them.
M$ is an example of how a comany does that. They become so huge and have so much power that they in fact can tell the government how to govern - and how to shift national resources.
The reason people are hungry is not unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism and freedom. Lack of food and money is a symptom, not a root cause.
Sure, capitalism is a cure all! Tell that to the people who live directly below me that can't feed themselves if the kids eat.
Your idea is so American-centric (i'm an American too) that it makes me laugh. Next thing you'll say is that Christianity is also an answer, the reason why people go hungry is because they are Gay, drug users, and lead other 'sinful' lifestyles.
My question is that when one company has more cash on hand than Fort Knox - doesn't that make our money worthless (or more since they don't spread it around).
You could feed the hungry, it doesn't take money at all. Only slimy, right-winged capitalists think that. It just takes food and the foundation to make/grow more food.
Capitalism in fact builds on the ideas of starving a few to get your share. Capitalists don't care about the rest - it's "me-first".
I'd suggest to you to look into Hank Wesselman's books. ( http://www.sharedwisdom.com/ ) Although they go somewhat into the reality of fiction they could be true. The reason I point this out is that there are many points that you may agree on.
The books do contain plenty of fact, and some that could support your idea.
I personally believe in God, but in a different way than many do. If you look into the bible (actually the torah-damn christians!) you learn that God was known before Abraham, but not followed until he choose to speak up. I think that God is all knowing and everywhere. No matter what happens to us God will still exist, and if the Universe collapses then God will still be there playing around. Maybe if we break out of our cycles and become enlightened then we can stop the cyclic idea. Maybe God will stop it? (hey, it's just a thought)
You must remember that the people you mentioned like Jesus (yuck), Mohammad, Buddha, and Abraham were prophets. They likely got their information from that source we know as God.
Occam's a fag so don't bother responding with that crap slashdotters. (if the simple answer is what you want why bother with advanced quantum theory etc?)
I've got a friend who also "came up" with this idea on his own - that time was circular, not cyclic.
We were smoking pot (he is in med school now, go figure) and he was thinking of the theory of the expanding and collapsing universe. He still believes that time is circular and because of this the universe will never "die" but rather become reborn.
There are many levels of reality to shamanistic people which could suggest that the universe has no end or begining. They say that everything, not just life, has a soul and is connected to each other through a spiritual net. No matter what, when the universe 'dies' nothing will be lost.
If you want to read into these types of things I suggest Hank Wesselman's books, the Spiritwalker trilogy. I kind of take them as fiction mixed with facts, so take what you will from them...
"Recent changes to quantum theory and current discoveries in neurobiology reveal that the brain organizes information holographically and functions like a massively parallel quantum computer, with the microtubules in the neurons of the brain being the likely quantum hologram receptors. It has been suggested that the quantum hologram is the wave portion of the wave-particle duality for macroscale objects. It has also been proposed that the quantum hologram may tie the phenomenal universe of quantum, micro, macro, and cosmic-sized phenomena together, and that the quantum hologram may be the mechanism through which nature learns"
This comes from a Hank Wesselman [ph.d.] book - yet it's about the thing you try to repudate.
The above statement comes however from the man who founded this organization - an Apollo 14 astronaut and theoretical physicist.
Theory? Maybe. But I want the proof either way, that is what science is about right?
No - you are wrong. The "bible" is a bastardized version of verbal (transcribed later) stories. Those stories were likely written down by someone (likely a woman says the experts) years after the stories happened. Christians came along, fucked the whole thing up, changed the stories to fit their own idea (to gain political control), and further bastardize religion today.
Of course there are things which YOU may not believe but may have actually happened. The "seven day theory" isn't in scientific terms seven days at all. If you look at the age of the universe - a guess at this point - and look at everytime it expands to double it's size that would be one day. Of course we think one day around the Sun, but to a God that would be all knowing or powerful one day wouldn't mean anything to him/her/it. Maybe it's just easier to explain these things to idiot humans in simple terms.
Simply - Occam is a fag. It's quite parsimonious for you to say that there is no evidence. It's easy for the human mind to say there is no evidence and move on. The idea of God is one that says there is a being, a spirit or intelligence that we can not see. The idea of God is one that says we couldn't comprehend the idea of it.
We can't even explain the universe we do see. We can't imagine the size of it. There are so many theories in Quantum Phyics alone that suggest an idea of God because of interactions on the sub-partical level.
Shit... you can give me reasons that God doesn't exist but you can't even support some of the science that claims it doesn't.
If you don't believe why bother trying to convince people that it doesn't exist? Put your effort towards science only. The claims made about science from the "Church" (you know who I mean) were all made because they were afraid that they would loose control. This is why you have a problem with people who believe - you want them in your camp. Why bother?
Correct. The current theory contradicts the dumbed down - King James version of what happened. (?)
There is a book by a Rabbi which lays out the age of the universe, and it's expansion, compared with the seven day theory. His theory concludes that we are still in the 6th day and approaching the 7th.
I guess that we could say that the 7th day will be when the whole thing implodes and he gets to rest.
In all reality the idea that God could have worked through the big bang isn't a bad one. Where things get sticky is when we start talking "life". ( Actually evolutionary timelines fit the same scale - the rise of humans is an example. Even the age of the Earth and the times which the skies cleared so that light could be visible from that early primordial Earth fit )
I think where we have all gotten into trouble isn't when we fight over IF God exists - the problems start when we try to measure why's and how's. We start to make crazy claims that we are alone, but I haven't found the backing for this at all. There is a whole list of topics that we try to say this or that about but we have no clue.
If (a) God exists we shouldn't try to fit our narrow view into his/her dimension of reality. For all we know he/she/it sits down and writes our DNA with an old feather plume, selecting which genes go and which stay. Of course this is in the lines of "Design" theories of life and I don't personally believe that....
The point is that we can only know what science tells us and our religions suggest. If we try to combine the two we walk on shady ground.
...I skipped this story last time because I didn't read that part of Keller's statement.
He claims that VOD isn't on the side of the betamax case, but what is the point? I enjoy VOD right now from Time Warner/AOL [the people who pay Keller]. I also enjoy it with no advertising what so ever.
Why is it that I get no ads with VOD? Because I fucking pay a monthly fee. HBO on demand, iControl - both are funded directly by me, the consumer. (iControl is a pay-per-view based model)
These technologies are a step forward because it gives us what we all want. We want media, free of ads. Subscription based viewing is nice because you get what you want for a price you can swallow. It's similar to the pay-per-single music idea. No ads, it's on when you want, you can fast forward and rewind - and his parent company is selling it to me.
How can he complain? Especially since I'm watching "Contact" on a Turner station and the volume for commercials is about 20% higher....
If they start recording information on what we watch and what we skip they will soon be telling their advertisers that we don't care about their commercials and we don't like our shows interrupted.
Seriously, I've been thinking about this one for a while. There is only a chance that a viewer will stick around for the commercials. If they start showing customers (ie: Pepsi, McDonalds, yatta) that we flip or "skip" then the advertising customers will not want to pay up.
Advertising is a crap shoot. Anything from banner ads to newspaper ads to tv ads. Even if they (us) see them it doesn't mean they care.
I'm 110% for Nielson style ratings. I want the network to know I like Futurama before it's too late, I don't want Night Court to go out of syndication again...... just seems that the more information they gather the less likely it will be that they will sell advertising (for the prices they do).
But who knows. Most companies spend their advertising budget on "conceptual" ads that don't even tell the customer where to get the product. When was the last time you saw a Pepsi commercial which said: "Go to your local Rite-Aid for Pepsi this week!" ? Of course that is a bad example. Simply tell us where to get the product, how much and why it's better. Save Mrs. Spears for the porno (that we are waiting for).
I think you've stumbled upon an interesting point here.
If I can't record music or videa without clearing it through a media company and getting that "watermark" then my First Amendment rights have been trampled.
Forget consumers, copy protected CD's and even Fair Use [it is copyright] - forget all of those Simpsons episodes you recorded from TV.
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit. If it's a grass roots campaign or a song your band is working on - you can't do it!
What I am saying is that to many an idea of multiple universes is nuts. To some (including me) it not only seems possible, but is taken as fact.
I don't know much about ESP if that is what you are getting to. I'm also not well read when it comes to neurosciences - but what I do know is there is much to still be learned.
If you can give me proof or denials about ESP et. al. then I can be happy. From what I understand the subject of psychic powers in general is either mystery or proven fake.
Hell, tell me about clinical depression I'll be happy. A "cure" for bi-polar disorder would make me even happier.
I simply don't believe that the human mind is as plain as you would like to paint it. I believe a well trained mind can do things that you wouldn't imagine. I ignore the attention seekers, the ones looking for fame doing tricks, but I do pay attention to the science of the real world and what people do experience.
This debate comes down to an almost eastern-western fight over who's science is right. But in the end, the results are almost the same.
You must understand that the weirdest theories today don't come from people who believe in UFO's [and such]... the strange ones come from Quantum Physics.
Have you ever read into that material? Many of it is pure theory, and some could never be studied in our own lifetime [if anyone's].
The idea of what is real science compared to what is fake is a very thin line.
Now that I have thought about it - this poll makes me think there are people out there that do still dream. Not everyone is a scientist, but maybe one of the people who believe in UFO's will come up with a new idea for interstellar travel.
But of course there is a side of me that refuses this hope and realizes we stopped building schools ten years ago and have since mainly built prisons.
Personally I don't believe in ESP [fakes] psychic powers [some maybe] or UFO's [duh]. But it won't be science that will save us in the end [imho].
Hell, many people don't believe in Global Warming because their president said to ignore it...
Of course I'm talking to people who worship LoTR. No where in the books or the movie did I see a nuclear reactor. [I love LoTR, don't hit me with sharp sticks]
Fox, the station that brings you "COPS" and tries to prove that you have no rights!
If I could only count the amount of illegal searches, the profiling, the high-speed chases that could take more lives than the few rocks they nabbed on the guy, the beatings and general sloppy police work.
I was being anti-Catholic Church. My reason for that is as posted above and more! I'm very pro-religion, but I've had too many people tell me that "my people" will be killed by "his people".
Catholics - IMHO! - are facist by nature. They are the self proclaimed cream of the crop.
Next to the Co$ it's one thing I just loathe.
Remember - pro religion, just a little worried about a few.
While they are rebuffed by scientists - does that make these things "fake" or non-science?
Part of the Great Witch Hunt was physicians, along side of their Church counterparts, who killed off any "medicine men" or faith healers. Kind of ironic considering they [hunters] were advocates of prayer for healing and both sides treated illness with their limited knowledge of the human body.
We look back and assume that the medicine men were crazy shamans - but they were in fact scientists in every sense of the word. Be very careful not to get on either side of this debate because in the past the debate was based on politics and not based on science what so ever. [look into the real history of the American Medical Association]
"Science" is a mystery. We can only study what is before us.
I don't believe in these things - most of all the UFO portion. But look here for more. I do, however, think that there is too much that we don't know or don't understand about our own minds to say these ideas are all "fake".
Slashdot Mirror
Download speeds aren't the problem.
I think we all assume that the download is maxed or we don't care.
It's the limited upload speeds that people want to get around. Now I know that the uploads are sometimes limited to reduce 'network collisions'... but low upload speeds are screwing real users.
You don't need to be hosting pr0n or warez. What if you want to put up a password protected mp3 server so you can listen at work, etc.
Remote desktops in XP - X11/VNC for linux users... there are real reasons.
Browse over to freshmeat and check out all the cool ass servers.
My local cable co has given me a Toshiba PCX1100U for access. The thing is a great and nice, it can even connect to the USB ports if you own a Windows machine, making the need for a NIC.. well un-needed.
;-(
So I got an idea one day. I plugged my USB cable into the modem and a second PC (I use the NIC on #1) since I don't have a router/hub. It worked great. Both computers worked at full speeds. While they could send data directly through the modem to each other I thought things would be fast (like having a hub) - of course not. [a trace showed that the traffic went to the hub only]
The upload speed of 40K was still the max.
My point is though that once my ISP noticed I was doing this (gnutella on one, misc servers on the other) and getting the max they turned it off (i guess - it won't work for shit now.)
I fully realize I'm using making the download even slower for everyone else by using Getright to have 4 independent connections.. Some people are just more equal than others, dammit!
The optimal use would be to find mirrors.
I often download my linux iso's in Windows because I like Getright so much. It can usually find mirrors around the world and I can get an iso in about 45 mins - something almost impossible when new iso's are released.
Sure, sure.
I won't bother on most points but I don't want to "soak" the rich...
You just are missing why we have money. It's a joke, cash is used by this country to hold down others [IMF, and WTO loans...].
Our system of "free trade" means we feed the desire of the rest of the world to be like us. We loan them money, contract our workers to rebuild their country and then own them.
M$ is an example of how a comany does that. They become so huge and have so much power that they in fact can tell the government how to govern - and how to shift national resources.
The reason people are hungry is not unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism and freedom. Lack of food and money is a symptom, not a root cause.
Sure, capitalism is a cure all! Tell that to the people who live directly below me that can't feed themselves if the kids eat.
Your idea is so American-centric (i'm an American too) that it makes me laugh. Next thing you'll say is that Christianity is also an answer, the reason why people go hungry is because they are Gay, drug users, and lead other 'sinful' lifestyles.
My question is that when one company has more cash on hand than Fort Knox - doesn't that make our money worthless (or more since they don't spread it around).
You could feed the hungry, it doesn't take money at all. Only slimy, right-winged capitalists think that. It just takes food and the foundation to make/grow more food.
Capitalism in fact builds on the ideas of starving a few to get your share. Capitalists don't care about the rest - it's "me-first".
On the same note I saw a [fired] NASA scientist guy on TV once speaking about their Mars program.
He lost his job because of budget cuts, but claimed that those same cuts are what kept us off of Mars.
He says the technology was always there, but needed to be tweaked and said we could have had a man there in 1985.
I guess eating is almost as cool, but damn I would have liked to see men (no women allowed, Venus trip only) on Mars by now.
Men are from Mars, Women are Scientologists
born that way... they are leftovers from the Hitler Youth Program
I'd suggest to you to look into Hank Wesselman's books. ( http://www.sharedwisdom.com/ ) Although they go somewhat into the reality of fiction they could be true. The reason I point this out is that there are many points that you may agree on.
The books do contain plenty of fact, and some that could support your idea.
I personally believe in God, but in a different way than many do. If you look into the bible (actually the torah-damn christians!) you learn that God was known before Abraham, but not followed until he choose to speak up. I think that God is all knowing and everywhere. No matter what happens to us God will still exist, and if the Universe collapses then God will still be there playing around. Maybe if we break out of our cycles and become enlightened then we can stop the cyclic idea. Maybe God will stop it? (hey, it's just a thought)
You must remember that the people you mentioned like Jesus (yuck), Mohammad, Buddha, and Abraham were prophets. They likely got their information from that source we know as God.
Occam's a fag so don't bother responding with that crap slashdotters. (if the simple answer is what you want why bother with advanced quantum theory etc?)
I've got a friend who also "came up" with this idea on his own - that time was circular, not cyclic.
We were smoking pot (he is in med school now, go figure) and he was thinking of the theory of the expanding and collapsing universe. He still believes that time is circular and because of this the universe will never "die" but rather become reborn.
There are many levels of reality to shamanistic people which could suggest that the universe has no end or begining. They say that everything, not just life, has a soul and is connected to each other through a spiritual net. No matter what, when the universe 'dies' nothing will be lost.
If you want to read into these types of things I suggest Hank Wesselman's books, the Spiritwalker trilogy. I kind of take them as fiction mixed with facts, so take what you will from them...
Here is his site I just found
"Recent changes to quantum theory and current discoveries in neurobiology reveal that the brain organizes information holographically and functions like a massively parallel quantum computer, with the microtubules in the neurons of the brain being the likely quantum hologram receptors. It has been suggested that the quantum hologram is the wave portion of the wave-particle duality for macroscale objects. It has also been proposed that the quantum hologram may tie the phenomenal universe of quantum, micro, macro, and cosmic-sized phenomena together, and that the quantum hologram may be the mechanism through which nature learns"
This comes from a Hank Wesselman [ph.d.] book - yet it's about the thing you try to repudate.
The above statement comes however from the man who founded this organization - an Apollo 14 astronaut and theoretical physicist.
Theory? Maybe. But I want the proof either way, that is what science is about right?
No - you are wrong. The "bible" is a bastardized version of verbal (transcribed later) stories. Those stories were likely written down by someone (likely a woman says the experts) years after the stories happened. Christians came along, fucked the whole thing up, changed the stories to fit their own idea (to gain political control), and further bastardize religion today.
Of course there are things which YOU may not believe but may have actually happened. The "seven day theory" isn't in scientific terms seven days at all. If you look at the age of the universe - a guess at this point - and look at everytime it expands to double it's size that would be one day. Of course we think one day around the Sun, but to a God that would be all knowing or powerful one day wouldn't mean anything to him/her/it. Maybe it's just easier to explain these things to idiot humans in simple terms.
Simply - Occam is a fag. It's quite parsimonious for you to say that there is no evidence. It's easy for the human mind to say there is no evidence and move on. The idea of God is one that says there is a being, a spirit or intelligence that we can not see. The idea of God is one that says we couldn't comprehend the idea of it.
We can't even explain the universe we do see. We can't imagine the size of it. There are so many theories in Quantum Phyics alone that suggest an idea of God because of interactions on the sub-partical level.
Shit... you can give me reasons that God doesn't exist but you can't even support some of the science that claims it doesn't.
If you don't believe why bother trying to convince people that it doesn't exist? Put your effort towards science only. The claims made about science from the "Church" (you know who I mean) were all made because they were afraid that they would loose control. This is why you have a problem with people who believe - you want them in your camp. Why bother?
Correct. The current theory contradicts the dumbed down - King James version of what happened. (?)
There is a book by a Rabbi which lays out the age of the universe, and it's expansion, compared with the seven day theory. His theory concludes that we are still in the 6th day and approaching the 7th.
I guess that we could say that the 7th day will be when the whole thing implodes and he gets to rest.
In all reality the idea that God could have worked through the big bang isn't a bad one. Where things get sticky is when we start talking "life". ( Actually evolutionary timelines fit the same scale - the rise of humans is an example. Even the age of the Earth and the times which the skies cleared so that light could be visible from that early primordial Earth fit )
I think where we have all gotten into trouble isn't when we fight over IF God exists - the problems start when we try to measure why's and how's. We start to make crazy claims that we are alone, but I haven't found the backing for this at all. There is a whole list of topics that we try to say this or that about but we have no clue.
If (a) God exists we shouldn't try to fit our narrow view into his/her dimension of reality. For all we know he/she/it sits down and writes our DNA with an old feather plume, selecting which genes go and which stay. Of course this is in the lines of "Design" theories of life and I don't personally believe that....
The point is that we can only know what science tells us and our religions suggest. If we try to combine the two we walk on shady ground.
...I skipped this story last time because I didn't read that part of Keller's statement.
He claims that VOD isn't on the side of the betamax case, but what is the point? I enjoy VOD right now from Time Warner/AOL [the people who pay Keller]. I also enjoy it with no advertising what so ever.
Why is it that I get no ads with VOD? Because I fucking pay a monthly fee. HBO on demand, iControl - both are funded directly by me, the consumer. (iControl is a pay-per-view based model)
These technologies are a step forward because it gives us what we all want. We want media, free of ads. Subscription based viewing is nice because you get what you want for a price you can swallow. It's similar to the pay-per-single music idea. No ads, it's on when you want, you can fast forward and rewind - and his parent company is selling it to me.
How can he complain? Especially since I'm watching "Contact" on a Turner station and the volume for commercials is about 20% higher....
The funny thing is that millions of parking tickets can stack up and no one has to pay for them - yet if you break a US law in Russia you get nabbed.
So foreign nationals can still break the DMCA or what?
If they start recording information on what we watch and what we skip they will soon be telling their advertisers that we don't care about their commercials and we don't like our shows interrupted.
... just seems that the more information they gather the less likely it will be that they will sell advertising (for the prices they do).
Seriously, I've been thinking about this one for a while. There is only a chance that a viewer will stick around for the commercials. If they start showing customers (ie: Pepsi, McDonalds, yatta) that we flip or "skip" then the advertising customers will not want to pay up.
Advertising is a crap shoot. Anything from banner ads to newspaper ads to tv ads. Even if they (us) see them it doesn't mean they care.
I'm 110% for Nielson style ratings. I want the network to know I like Futurama before it's too late, I don't want Night Court to go out of syndication again...
But who knows. Most companies spend their advertising budget on "conceptual" ads that don't even tell the customer where to get the product. When was the last time you saw a Pepsi commercial which said: "Go to your local Rite-Aid for Pepsi this week!" ? Of course that is a bad example. Simply tell us where to get the product, how much and why it's better. Save Mrs. Spears for the porno (that we are waiting for).
quantum holography....
can you explain how that enters into the brain?
You are correct.
If you are paying monthly fees to get commercial funded channels then you are "paying twice".
Networks such as TNT, TNN, Comedy Central, National Geographic, et. al. are funded by commercials - yet Turner charges us on "tier" plans.
They own my cable company anyways...
I think you've stumbled upon an interesting point here.
If I can't record music or videa without clearing it through a media company and getting that "watermark" then my First Amendment rights have been trampled.
Forget consumers, copy protected CD's and even Fair Use [it is copyright ] - forget all of those Simpsons episodes you recorded from TV.
These systems are un-Constitutional because they limit your ability to express yourself where you see fit. If it's a grass roots campaign or a song your band is working on - you can't do it!
Just reminds me of this Simpsons song that is on mp3 here.
It will take an Amendment! And like Heston, they will get my DVD/VCD/MP3 player from my cold dead hands.
Thankfully we will start to see "Mom and Pop" places again.
Maybe if someone can come up with a sane DRM scheme then artists will be able to distribute their music for profit under a smaller label.
The problem is that we would have to destroy Clear Channel since they basically control the radio waves (and promotions).
At least we will be able to filter out those artists who are simply out for cash, the ones who are played on your local KISS FM for example.
What I am saying is that to many an idea of multiple universes is nuts. To some (including me) it not only seems possible, but is taken as fact.
I don't know much about ESP if that is what you are getting to. I'm also not well read when it comes to neurosciences - but what I do know is there is much to still be learned.
If you can give me proof or denials about ESP et. al. then I can be happy. From what I understand the subject of psychic powers in general is either mystery or proven fake.
Hell, tell me about clinical depression I'll be happy. A "cure" for bi-polar disorder would make me even happier.
I simply don't believe that the human mind is as plain as you would like to paint it. I believe a well trained mind can do things that you wouldn't imagine. I ignore the attention seekers, the ones looking for fame doing tricks, but I do pay attention to the science of the real world and what people do experience.
This debate comes down to an almost eastern-western fight over who's science is right. But in the end, the results are almost the same.
You must understand that the weirdest theories today don't come from people who believe in UFO's [and such]... the strange ones come from Quantum Physics.
Have you ever read into that material? Many of it is pure theory, and some could never be studied in our own lifetime [if anyone's].
The idea of what is real science compared to what is fake is a very thin line.
Now that I have thought about it - this poll makes me think there are people out there that do still dream. Not everyone is a scientist, but maybe one of the people who believe in UFO's will come up with a new idea for interstellar travel.
But of course there is a side of me that refuses this hope and realizes we stopped building schools ten years ago and have since mainly built prisons.
Personally I don't believe in ESP [fakes] psychic powers [some maybe] or UFO's [duh]. But it won't be science that will save us in the end [imho].
Hell, many people don't believe in Global Warming because their president said to ignore it...
Of course I'm talking to people who worship LoTR. No where in the books or the movie did I see a nuclear reactor. [I love LoTR, don't hit me with sharp sticks]
Fox, the station that brings you "COPS" and tries to prove that you have no rights!
If I could only count the amount of illegal searches, the profiling, the high-speed chases that could take more lives than the few rocks they nabbed on the guy, the beatings and general sloppy police work.
FOX - "It Stinks", "Where #3 is Okay!"
Anti-religion?
I was being anti-Catholic Church. My reason for that is as posted above and more! I'm very pro-religion, but I've had too many people tell me that "my people" will be killed by "his people".
Catholics - IMHO! - are facist by nature. They are the self proclaimed cream of the crop.
Next to the Co$ it's one thing I just loathe.
Remember - pro religion, just a little worried about a few.
[[only my opinion is stated]]
Let's look at these things.
While they are rebuffed by scientists - does that make these things "fake" or non-science?
Part of the Great Witch Hunt was physicians, along side of their Church counterparts, who killed off any "medicine men" or faith healers. Kind of ironic considering they [hunters] were advocates of prayer for healing and both sides treated illness with their limited knowledge of the human body.
We look back and assume that the medicine men were crazy shamans - but they were in fact scientists in every sense of the word. Be very careful not to get on either side of this debate because in the past the debate was based on politics and not based on science what so ever. [look into the real history of the American Medical Association]
"Science" is a mystery. We can only study what is before us.
I don't believe in these things - most of all the UFO portion. But look here for more. I do, however, think that there is too much that we don't know or don't understand about our own minds to say these ideas are all "fake".