One argument against evolution that I have is you don't see all these half developed fossils being dug up. For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff. As far as I know, this isn't the case.
Someone needs to hang out at the farm more: Animals born with unusual numbers of limbs are not that rare.
The fact that creationist use their own ignorance as proof of their inane drivel is why people don't buy into their crap.
Re:And Leonardo, while we're mentioning dead geniu
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
On similar lines there was a show that build one of his tanks.
Yeah, I saw that too, I think they're the same people.
They made a tank, and then a diving suit, which turned out to work only if you knew which line to move in the drawing... that clever Leo drew his plans with failure-inducing design deviations so his inventions would fall into the wrong hands.
Re:And Leonardo, while we're mentioning dead geniu
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
You were watching PBS... just giving credit where credit is due. It was excellent. I had to double check that I still didn't have cable or satellite.
Really? Could be, they're next to each other on my TV... You wouldn't happen to know the name of the show by any chance?
They also built a working glider from Leonardo's drawings... I'd pay to see that thing fly again!
Re:No 'ancient historians' reported this, anyway
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Mythbusters did use a pretty large array of mirrors, perhaps 10 meters across the wooden frame, which was quite unhandy:) They managed to melt the tar, but never got a temperature anywhere close to setting the ship on fire. On a sunny day, ship lying still in the water, and the crew handling the mirror well within an arrow's range.
I'd say that myth is *BUSTED*:)
Yeah, they also busted the myth that you can set fire to wood by dousing it in gasoline and touching an open flame to that for several seconds.
Nor is hiding in a wooden horse in the hopes that the enemy will bring it in and then proceed to get drunk, but, that didn't stop 'em either.
It's not a pratical weapon in the reusability sense, but in the sense of "Hmmm... those ships anchored in front of my city are full of soldiers... hey, let's set them on fire!", it's great.
Did the boats that Archimedes tried to destroy sit perfectly still on a cloud-less day waiting to be burnt to a crisp ?
No, they totally saw it coming and used evasive maneuvre Omega-3: "Mad scientist with death ray; Run around like a headless chicken, screw his aim!";- )
Siege: Boat anchored. Greece: Sunny and warm. Archimedes: Smarter than the average bear.
They show fuck ups and dialog that any self-respecting director would yell "cut" and redo.
The point is to show them try to recreate the myths. The process is part of the show as much as the explosions and (eventually) the cute redhead.
And Leonardo, while we're mentioning dead geniuses
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Really, really, really smart people 2000 years ago were probibally really, really smarter than most people now. Additionally Archimedes was very familiar with the materials available. It is very possible that the best and brightest of today would fail because they couldn't believe that a technology of the day would have been able to make sufficiently reflective mirrors etc.
I saw a show on TLC last week (I have no idea what it was called... caught it channel surfing while it was already started) where they were building devices by following the drawings of Leonardo daVinci. That was one of the most fascinating hour of TV I've ever seen.
Anyway, I caught it when they were about to try the giant crossbow, and they had strayed from the design to use modern techniques which they were reffering to as much more efficient and superior to what Leonardo had access to. And they could barely move the projectile. Then someone on the team forced them to do it right, and the thing flew out.
I could tell that the modern way was weaker than the original just by looking at it. The only thing that the modern way had going for it was that it was easier to do. The lesson is: Newer != Better.
Just because a lot was invented since doesn't mean that they couldn't do anything with what they had.
Re:Maybe a combination of the 2
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I remember a Mythbuster episode where Adam & Jamie try to reproduce this myth/story. They were not able to set a boat hull on fire (they built a replica
I remember that episode, they couldn't set their replica on fire even when they poured gasoline on it and set that on fire!
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....
sounds like all Americans (except you illegal alien and H1-B dudes) are subject to equal protection.
If you are concerned about health care, why support socialization? Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors. Ostensibly this is the control "quality"; realistically it is to drive the cost of healthcare up.
Nationalizing the healthcare (like in Canda) isn't going to fix the problem: that a pressure group has gotten special powers from the government and is using them to benefit it's supporters at the expense of the public. If we take away the special power, the problem would largely resolve itself.
So, if you allow more doctors, then people will suddenly become rich enough to afford the insurance?
I missed in the series (like the setting being one big solar system, not interstellar).
You didn't miss it, they just didn't mention it. It was the subject of much debate amongst fans before the movie, in fact. I thought they had more than one solar system, since it was implied in the way they talked about systems and whatnot, but, seems not.
If he was B&Eing into a biker hangout to see if they had his stolen TV, he'd be prosecuted in the exact same manor.
You're telling me that the U.K. police beat him, killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave? Just for trying to hack in some charity site a couple of times?
Man, I though they were harsh on people who run in the subway!
Sorry, I forgot to bookend my post with tags. I can't believe it. I was selfishly mentioning the saving of U.S. lives and only because we are talking about a U.S. Defense competition. Jesus, what was I thinking.
You were replying to:
The question is...Will this technology be used primarily for unmanned military weapons? Or, will it be used in a more gentile fashion to explore hostile environments such as the Moon, Mars and the other planets?
With an attempt to pass off this military technology as a lifesaver. Well, by your awesome logic, the A-Bomb saves lives, think of all the hazards you'd be exposing soldiers to if you sent them in to kill thousands of people the old fashion way! Sheesh.
Well, at least you're following in a long line of insane delusions about weapons systems saving lives, Mr. Gatling was convinced that his machine gun would save lives too: You need fewer guns to fire the same amount of bullets, so they'll send smaller armies to war, so less deaths! Gattling was a good engineer, but he was WAY off about machine guns saving lives. Just like you'll be when the robot convoys start rolling, you'll see.
Not only did we invent and build it -- we paid for it. That doesn't entitle us to something? The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT.
Yes, and all other nations shake in fear of the power that control of time itself grants the British Empire.
"Sunshine" has little to do with memory erasing technology. That's just a plot device to push the characters through the emotions of losing something special. The movie's theme is that you don't know what you have until you lose it. It could have worked just as well if they got into an argument and walked away from each other, only then realizing they needed each other. That's what I meant by a drama with edgy technology. IMO, not every movie or book with futuristic technology is sci-fi. I think sci-fi has to have that technology as central to the plot.
I disagree on all parts of that : )
"Sunshine" was about the implications of the memory wipe, both personnal and social. There were questions of rape, love, fraud, identity theft, etc. The sci-fi element WAS central to the story. It just didn't get into the technicalities. Hell, by your standards, Gattaca wouldn't be sci-fi either.
You know, instead of arbitrarily excluding all sorts of things from sci-fi, you'd better define the sub-category of sci-fi that you prefer. Because sci-fi is simple: It's science-fiction. Fiction with fictional science in it. You seem to prefer the ratio of science-to-human to lean on the inhuman side, which is a matter of tastes that I fully respect, but when you go around claiming that things which aren't your cup of tea aren't tea at all, then you create confusion, which is a problem. Just call a spade a spade.
You make a blanket assertion about members of a religion making blanket assumptions.
No, I make a blanket assertion about members of a group making negative comments about members of a competing group.
Someone said Orson dislikes Muslims only because he's a mormon. Someone else said that he has geopolitical reasons to dislike muslims, and that therefore his religion has -nothing- to do with it. I say: It may not be the only factor, but it obviously has more than nothing to do with it.
Why you infer that by "something" I meant "everything" is your own problem though.
His comments about extreme Islam has to do with his interpretation of geopolitics--it has nothing to do with his religion.
It may have little to do with it. But when a religious person discusses another, competing religion, it's fair to say that his religion has something to do with his views.
Slashdot Mirror
One argument against evolution that I have is you don't see all these half developed fossils being dug up. For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff. As far as I know, this isn't the case.
Someone needs to hang out at the farm more: Animals born with unusual numbers of limbs are not that rare.
The fact that creationist use their own ignorance as proof of their inane drivel is why people don't buy into their crap.
On similar lines there was a show that build one of his tanks.
Yeah, I saw that too, I think they're the same people.
They made a tank, and then a diving suit, which turned out to work only if you knew which line to move in the drawing... that clever Leo drew his plans with failure-inducing design deviations so his inventions would fall into the wrong hands.
You were watching PBS... just giving credit where credit is due. It was excellent. I had to double check that I still didn't have cable or satellite.
Really? Could be, they're next to each other on my TV...
You wouldn't happen to know the name of the show by any chance?
They also built a working glider from Leonardo's drawings... I'd pay to see that thing fly again!
Mythbusters did use a pretty large array of mirrors, perhaps 10 meters across the wooden frame, which was quite unhandy :) They managed to melt the tar, but never got a temperature anywhere close to setting the ship on fire. On a sunny day, ship lying still in the water, and the crew handling the mirror well within an arrow's range.
:)
I'd say that myth is *BUSTED*
Yeah, they also busted the myth that you can set fire to wood by dousing it in gasoline and touching an open flame to that for several seconds.
Not very practical I am afraid.
Nor is hiding in a wooden horse in the hopes that the enemy will bring it in and then proceed to get drunk, but, that didn't stop 'em either.
It's not a pratical weapon in the reusability sense, but in the sense of "Hmmm... those ships anchored in front of my city are full of soldiers... hey, let's set them on fire!", it's great.
Wait - how can someone who sets things on fire and blows things up and drops things from high places have his credibilty "busted"?
By failing to set something on fire, duh! : )
A lot of VERY brilliant ppl lived long before modern civilization . .
Da Vinci, Archimedes, and Tesla
Dude, Tesla died during WWII.
Did the boats that Archimedes tried to destroy sit perfectly still on a cloud-less day waiting to be burnt to a crisp ?
;- )
No, they totally saw it coming and used evasive maneuvre Omega-3: "Mad scientist with death ray; Run around like a headless chicken, screw his aim!"
Siege: Boat anchored.
Greece: Sunny and warm.
Archimedes: Smarter than the average bear.
This sort of demonstration has been done before. I remember [...] charring in a simulated boat target.
Yes, people have had "proof-of-concept" success before by charring a target, but this time they got flames!
They show fuck ups and dialog that any self-respecting director would yell "cut" and redo.
The point is to show them try to recreate the myths. The process is part of the show as much as the explosions and (eventually) the cute redhead.
Really, really, really smart people 2000 years ago were probibally really, really smarter than most people now. Additionally Archimedes was very familiar with the materials available. It is very possible that the best and brightest of today would fail because they couldn't believe that a technology of the day would have been able to make sufficiently reflective mirrors etc.
I saw a show on TLC last week (I have no idea what it was called... caught it channel surfing while it was already started) where they were building devices by following the drawings of Leonardo daVinci.
That was one of the most fascinating hour of TV I've ever seen.
Anyway, I caught it when they were about to try the giant crossbow, and they had strayed from the design to use modern techniques which they were reffering to as much more efficient and superior to what Leonardo had access to. And they could barely move the projectile.
Then someone on the team forced them to do it right, and the thing flew out.
I could tell that the modern way was weaker than the original just by looking at it. The only thing that the modern way had going for it was that it was easier to do.
The lesson is: Newer != Better.
Just because a lot was invented since doesn't mean that they couldn't do anything with what they had.
I remember a Mythbuster episode where Adam & Jamie try to reproduce this myth/story. They were not able to set a boat hull on fire (they built a replica
I remember that episode, they couldn't set their replica on fire even when they poured gasoline on it and set that on fire!
Adam's credibility was busted, not Archimedes'.
Interresting.
If you are concerned about health care, why support socialization? Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors. Ostensibly this is the control "quality"; realistically it is to drive the cost of healthcare up.
Nationalizing the healthcare (like in Canda) isn't going to fix the problem: that a pressure group has gotten special powers from the government and is using them to benefit it's supporters at the expense of the public. If we take away the special power, the problem would largely resolve itself.
So, if you allow more doctors, then people will suddenly become rich enough to afford the insurance?
I missed in the series (like the setting being one big solar system, not interstellar).
You didn't miss it, they just didn't mention it.
It was the subject of much debate amongst fans before the movie, in fact. I thought they had more than one solar system, since it was implied in the way they talked about systems and whatnot, but, seems not.
by "conquering" the web, does he mean "filling it with useful applications and tools for public use"?
Probably, that's what the Romans did when they conquered.
People still use their roads and aqueducts two thousand years later! I'd call that usefull.
If he was B&Eing into a biker hangout to see if they had his stolen TV, he'd be prosecuted in the exact same manor.
You're telling me that the U.K. police beat him, killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave? Just for trying to hack in some charity site a couple of times?
Man, I though they were harsh on people who run in the subway!
Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police
Fer christ sake, STFU and ask for a lawyer!
Don't lie to the police, that pisses them off.
You were replying to:
With an attempt to pass off this military technology as a lifesaver. Well, by your awesome logic, the A-Bomb saves lives, think of all the hazards you'd be exposing soldiers to if you sent them in to kill thousands of people the old fashion way!
Sheesh.
Well, at least you're following in a long line of insane delusions about weapons systems saving lives, Mr. Gatling was convinced that his machine gun would save lives too: You need fewer guns to fire the same amount of bullets, so they'll send smaller armies to war, so less deaths! Gattling was a good engineer, but he was WAY off about machine guns saving lives. Just like you'll be when the robot convoys start rolling, you'll see.
technology that would save lives. This is even more appropriate now that a majority of deaths over in Iraq are due to road side bombs.
No.
A majority of U.S. casualties are due to road side bombs.
The majority of deaths in Iraq is no that of U.S. forces, however.
Maybe the technology will save soldier's lives, but it will mostly free up soldier's time to go shoot at those people you don't even count as "lives".
I'm finding the nationalistic cries of outrage posted here difficult to stomach.
Jingo! J-j-j-jingo!
You take a post from the bottom and you mod it on top.
You take a post from the middle and you mod it on top...
Not only did we invent and build it -- we paid for it. That doesn't entitle us to something?
The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT.
Yes, and all other nations shake in fear of the power that control of time itself grants the British Empire.
"Sunshine" has little to do with memory erasing technology. That's just a plot device to push the characters through the emotions of losing something special. The movie's theme is that you don't know what you have until you lose it. It could have worked just as well if they got into an argument and walked away from each other, only then realizing they needed each other.
That's what I meant by a drama with edgy technology. IMO, not every movie or book with futuristic technology is sci-fi. I think sci-fi has to have that technology as central to the plot.
I disagree on all parts of that : )
"Sunshine" was about the implications of the memory wipe, both personnal and social. There were questions of rape, love, fraud, identity theft, etc. The sci-fi element WAS central to the story. It just didn't get into the technicalities. Hell, by your standards, Gattaca wouldn't be sci-fi either.
You know, instead of arbitrarily excluding all sorts of things from sci-fi, you'd better define the sub-category of sci-fi that you prefer. Because sci-fi is simple: It's science-fiction. Fiction with fictional science in it. You seem to prefer the ratio of science-to-human to lean on the inhuman side, which is a matter of tastes that I fully respect, but when you go around claiming that things which aren't your cup of tea aren't tea at all, then you create confusion, which is a problem. Just call a spade a spade.
You make a blanket assertion about members of a religion making blanket assumptions.
No, I make a blanket assertion about members of a group making negative comments about members of a competing group.
Someone said Orson dislikes Muslims only because he's a mormon.
Someone else said that he has geopolitical reasons to dislike muslims, and that therefore his religion has -nothing- to do with it.
I say: It may not be the only factor, but it obviously has more than nothing to do with it.
Why you infer that by "something" I meant "everything" is your own problem though.
His comments about extreme Islam has to do with his interpretation of geopolitics--it has nothing to do with his religion.
It may have little to do with it.
But when a religious person discusses another, competing religion, it's fair to say that his religion has something to do with his views.