Perhaps even better would be not to wean them off of the Windows computer. After all, there is probably going to come a point when they need to use a Windows only program for some school project and you're going to want them to know how to use it, themselves, without having to go through the rigamarole of teaching them. Develop their experience with both operating systems. It is never a disservice to teach your children more.
They need to understand that modern consumers, many of whom are now college students, are less and less frequently buying music by artist or genre. It is becoming far more common for consumers to acquire merely the songs that they like. Since the music industry refuses to accept this mentality, filesharing is the most effective way for consumers to acquire only the music they want. Until the music industry realizes that there is a lot of profit to be had in giving consumers exactly what they want, they're going to continue to suffer whatever losses they suffer now. Music distributors must have the authority and means to give consumers exactly the songs they want. If consumers can cheaply rip-mix-burn, there is nothing preventing music producers from doing so even more cheaply. If they do not make these changes now, when the university students become adult consumers, the music industry is really going to feel the pain they've been complaining about all this time. There's no reason why they should not take steps to prevent such discomfort, especially since doing so would probably increase their profit margin, since it would draw in people who currently avoid commercial music, for the inability to avoid the 6 bad songs that come with the 3 you like.
Redundancy is an excellent failsafe. The PDA "key" would be the quick, convenient way to unlock the door. In the case of the PDA being lost or damaged, so that it cannot get you into the house, you get the real key out from under the flowerbox and unlock the door (the slow, inconvenient way). Just because technology has evolved and real, metal keys are no longer strictly necessary does not mean that keeping them around for failures of technology is a bad thing. Just like it's not a bad idea to keep a bit of spare cash around the house, in case you lose your ATM card.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Unless the kids have to bring in their high score from a certain "Math Mission" in order to demonstrate that they understand the material, the teacher is left without an indication that the student is having difficulty until the student does poorly on a test. Homework is supposed to help the teacher identify problem areas before they seriously affect the student's progress. My neighbour's son has Reader Rabbit on his computer and if there were some real penalty to getting wrong answers, I'd think it was a great way to teach Math and English. But getting wrong answers only reduces your score. So the little boy picks up as many wrong answers as he wants. He doesn't really care what his score is. He just wants to get to the end of the level. Hopefully the software this school is using puts a little more pressure on the student to improve, or else the game is not demanding that the students learn. It is using learning as an incidental occurence to the fun the students are having.
To the first poster: You are describing weak atheism. It was an error of omission on my part that the matter of disbelief by fact of disinterest is also weak atheism. I say this because I assume that if you are rational and were given proof of God's existence or His nonexistence, you would be persuaded (whether you cared or not is insubstantial). A strong atheist asserts that there is no possible proof that God exists because it is a fact that He does not exist, just as a theist, such as myself, asserts that there is no possible proof that God does not exist because it is a fact that He does.
To the second poster: There is evidence that the invisible purple elf does not exist. I can't see it, but I can reach up and feel that it is not there. Furthermore, the concept of deity serves a purpose. It is not unreasonable to say that if the Universe exists, it may have a creator. Questioning the possibility of this creator's existence is natural. I claim that there is no reason to suspect that invisible, untouchable purple elves are sitting on our heads.
Also, I am not questioning anybody's right believe or disbelieve as they wish. I am not saying that if you wish not to believe in God, you must prove that He does not exist. What I assume you are saying to me is: 'If you want me to believe in your God, prove to me that He exists.' This is another example weak atheism. In light of lack of evidence, which I admit I cannot provide, you opt not to believe. You said the key words yourself: I have failed to convince you and so you do not belief. If you are insisting that I show proof to justify my belief, then this conversation cannot continue. I am not beholden to you and I won't discuss the matter with you further.
That you do not believe in a deity is, in itself a confession of faith. At the very least, it requires quantification. There are two sorts of atheism, one of which requires a leap of faith. That is:
Strong Atheism: Firm belief that there is no deity. This requires faith because there is no solid evidence one way or the other. Belief or strict disbelief are both matters of faith.
Weak Atheism: Choice to disbelieve in the light of no evidence. This admits the inability to prove a negative (There is no God), but exercises that belief in the absence of proof that there is a God.
And just for kicks: Classical Agnosticism. The word Agnosticism has its roots in the Greek word for 'ignorance' and, in the literal sense of the word, it is just that. Classical agnostics claim no belief whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deity. All they know is that they do not know.
Therefore, if you are professing strong atheism, you have a faith and you may wish to indicate it. Asking about your religion is not analogous to asking about which dragon you believe in. Whether God exists or not, there are religions/faiths, of which atheism is one.
I think the muscles that clench the hand into a fist are typically much stronger and more endurant than those that unclench the fist. Using upward strokes would cause one's hands to get tired much faster than a typing device that uses only downward strokes.
As the article said, they've developed the tools and are now working on manufacturing materials using these tools. The next step is to build more advanced systems using nanotechnology. I was impressed by the description of the nano-scale lithium-ion film that they are proposing. They didn't mention how many slices of the film you can pile into a single source, but the prospect of a higher-efficiency, longer-discharge battery should appeal to any/. user. Not to mention the initial use they're considering as a power source for implants. Any step that advances a technology that makes such possibilities as safe and effective artificial hearts more feasible is a good thing!
I've recently begun to wear a pair of wrist braces to help me at work. I don't have problems at home, because I an comfortably set up the way I want - Keyboard well below the level of my shoulders, Monitor lower than eyes and turned upward. I can't do that at work, and my posture suffers as a result.
There actually were sequels to Earthbound. The SNES sequel was called "Mother II" but was never released in the United States. There was also a sequel planned for the N64, but it go the axe. So I don't think you're going to get a sequel. Although I agree with you, it'd be a wonderful thing. Earthbound is a definitive RPG, in my eyes. It combines great gameplay with a plot that does NOT take itself seriously. I mean, how can you not like a bad guy that taunts you with 'spankety spankety spankety'?
Exactly. Much harder! Stealing somebody's wallet or purse is not terribly difficult. It's easy enough that the person might not even notice. Stealing the wallet/purse while simultaneously severing their thumb and popping out their eyeball, so you can use their ID card may just make them take notice. Sure, maybe ID theft will be a more violent crime, but the fact that it is no longer EASY will make it a much rarer violent crime.
I think this is nitpicking. However, the loss to the store is NOT zero. Supposing the quality of the mp3 is equal to that of the CD, which is not particularly farfetched, then the store will lose money from all the customers who would have purchased the CD, but instead did not, because they got a free copy of the mp3. Supposing there was only one seller of music (to simplify the example), you have effectively stolen their product from and illegally reproduced and distributed it, causing their business to suffer. It is all well and good for you to say that they don't deserve as much money as they're getting, but the correct solution is NOT to take the product, reproduce it yourself, and distribute it.
Not that I agree with the ability of content holders to increase prices unchecked, but I still don't think it's inherrently wrong for them to seek to prevent theft of their content by technological means. To continue the vending machine analogy, if vending machine companies found it more cost effective to reinforce the glass and to strengthen the locks and hinges of the machine, to prevent people from stealing their six-dollar candy bars, would they be doing something wrong? Not at all! They are rightful to charge whatever they wish for their product and the market should adjust accordingly. In this manner, a vending machine relies on the honour system. The seller asks that you will kindly not break open his machine and steal the candy. Granted, part of the opportunity cost of stealing a candy bar is incurring the risk of punishment; if people are willing to face charges for doing so, they are also, economically speaking, within their rights. However, if the seller finds it economically feasible to protect his product from theft by reinforcing the vending machine, he may be wise to sell it at $6 per bar. After all, the seller's profit is maximized at the point where his willingness to produce at a certain price matches the market's willingness to purchase at a certain price. We can debate all day whether it is right for the company to sell at this price, but speaking from the standpoint of business ethics, so long as it is legal, a business must, ethically, seek the greatest possible benefit for its shareholders.
You're right that it would take a massive, coordinated effort. In fact, when used for distribution of any sort of information, be it a news article or an illegal copy of a piece of music, that's exactly what the internet is. Suppose I copy that piece of music to one other computer every minute. But also assume that half of the people I spawn also copy the music to one other computer every minute, and that half of each . In two minutes, there are two people distributing music. In four minutes, there are four. In six, eight. It grows exponentially. No, it's not finite, but it grows very fast. Supposing the model I just described, that song will be in distribution by more than 4 billion people (and will be in the hands of twice that many people) in a little more than an hour (32 iterations, 2 minutes per iteration).
Your comparrison of entertainment media to a washing machine or to a Porsche is erroneous. Allow me to explain. If you purchase a washing machine, you may rightfully allow anybody to use it, that you wish, as often as you wish. There is a finite limit to the number of people who can use your washing machine. The same goes for a Porsche. If you buy a CD, and immediately rip an mp3 of it, which you then make available on the net, the "finite limit" to the number of people who can use that mp3 is the number of computer users with access to the internet. And furthermore, because the mp3 is readily reproducable, it may be used by many of them all at once.
In my eyes, it's easy to sympathize with both sides of the conflict. On one hand, I agree that obtaining music without paying for it just because the technology to do so is available is theft. Is it right to use a cable descrambler or coin-sized slugs to buy things from vending machines? And if the providers of cable television or of vending machines design technologies to prevent you from doing so, are they violating your rights?
On the other hand, Hollywood wishes not only to control possible theft of content, but also the precise form in which we receive the content. I don't think that they are not within their rights to do this, but obviously, as a consumer myself, I don't appreciate content holders failing to provide content in the form I prefer (mp3, for example) because they are ignorant and paranoid. If every song currently on my playlist were available for download at a fair price, I would gladly bust out my credit card and pay for the music (assuming I didn't already own a tape or CD with the song on it). However, content providers are so mistrustful (perhaps with good reason; I really don't know) of consumers, they're unwilling, to a large extent, to do this. Perhaps the solution to this quandry is, in addition to informing our congress-critters of our opinion in these matters, so that we aren't shafted, legally, we should also consider informing content-holders, by mail or by petition, of how we feel about this matter. I suspect if Disney were to have tangible evidence of how many people there are who would be willing to pay a fair price for a professionally-designed digital copy of one of their movies, they might soften toward the idea of not giving their customers (who are not pirates) the shaft.
I wasn't particularly bothered by the Christian themes presented in Evangelion. I considered it as an alegory of the Garden of Eden.
And the Lord said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. KJV Gen 3: 22-24
I always supposed that tampering with Adam was part of humanity's effort to acchieve instrumentality, which I understood to be an immortal group mind. The Angels, of which Adam was only one, were the Cherubims, set to protect the garden of Eden, "lest he [mankind] put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"
The only objectionable theme I found was that humanity defeated the angels. However, the symbolism of this is not clear. I have considered three interpretations and cannot decide which, if any, is correct. 1. Man is more powerful than the servants of God. It is his destiny to suceed at achieving eternal life by his own power. 2. God, having been created by man, may also be destroyed by man. Thus, his servants are ineffectual. 3. Man thinks that he is greater than God, an so names his enemies 'angels' so that he can affirm his own superiority. He is deluded and ireverent.
The first two, obviously, are critical of Christianity, the third is critical of man. Which of these, if any, was intended, I don't know.
I think that the reviewer may have been grasping for a word that would convey the uniqueness of the people qualified to pilot the Eva's. While it's never explicity stated what about the children of 2'nd Impact is so special, supposing that it's a mental/pshycic effect is as plausible as any other speculation.
Good question. I guess I can't avoid the alternate universe theory. Since for this to be possible, Universe A (sprung from time A) would be energetically richer to the tune of 'n' additional balls while Universe B (sprung from time B > A) would be energetically poorer to the tune of the energy necessary to end 'n' balls to a different time period.
The gain is the resulting action upon the ball. You have consumed energy and the ball has, presumably, travelled backward in time. You have sent the energy back (and lost some to entropy) in the form of a time-travelling ball. Eventually, all of the energy is in the form of balls and is in the past instead of in the form of gasoline in the future. Mind, the time machine in the past will still have gasoline and it will be able to send a finite number of balls through when the last minute arrives. But because you can't continue the process ad infinitum, you arrive upon a situation where you're sending back exactly as many balls as you can and a steady-state is acchieved between the two time periods.
As far as energy goes, it is possible that a closed system would not be able to provide sufficient energy to power at time machine. If the sucker draws a lot of power, you're going to consume your fuel quickly. So any energy that appears to be created will not be. The only result will be that energy once stored in the bonds of gasoline (supposing a gas-generator solely for the purpose of making an example) will be present in a larger number of balls in the room that you can't send through the time machine anymore, because it's out of fuel.
I like the Hitchhiker explanation of time travel. Assuming that it eventually comes to be, every moment must be lived as though time travel already exists. JFK's assassination? Done. Prevented. Redone. As far as we need to concern ourselves, all effects of time travel on our past have already worked themsevles out. The past was the way it was in part because of the action of time travellers trying to change things. I actually think this is a pretty good way of explaining away paradoxes and alternate universes.
This is a good analogy, but I think that as far as it applies to the situation with the CD's, trying to play the CD in a Mac or PC is the same as going over to the chained up dog and pissing it off. You are intentionally doing what has clearly been warned is a bad thing to do. I don't think that anybody's going to be successfully suing anybody over computer problems related to these marked CD's.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps even better would be not to wean them off of the Windows computer. After all, there is probably going to come a point when they need to use a Windows only program for some school project and you're going to want them to know how to use it, themselves, without having to go through the rigamarole of teaching them. Develop their experience with both operating systems. It is never a disservice to teach your children more.
Eddy's a big wuss. It isn't hard at all to push him around.
They need to understand that modern consumers, many of whom are now college students, are less and less frequently buying music by artist or genre. It is becoming far more common for consumers to acquire merely the songs that they like. Since the music industry refuses to accept this mentality, filesharing is the most effective way for consumers to acquire only the music they want. Until the music industry realizes that there is a lot of profit to be had in giving consumers exactly what they want, they're going to continue to suffer whatever losses they suffer now. Music distributors must have the authority and means to give consumers exactly the songs they want. If consumers can cheaply rip-mix-burn, there is nothing preventing music producers from doing so even more cheaply. If they do not make these changes now, when the university students become adult consumers, the music industry is really going to feel the pain they've been complaining about all this time. There's no reason why they should not take steps to prevent such discomfort, especially since doing so would probably increase their profit margin, since it would draw in people who currently avoid commercial music, for the inability to avoid the 6 bad songs that come with the 3 you like.
A mosquito cried out in pain
A chemist has poisoned my brain
The cause of his sorrow
was para-dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane
Redundancy is an excellent failsafe. The PDA "key" would be the quick, convenient way to unlock the door. In the case of the PDA being lost or damaged, so that it cannot get you into the house, you get the real key out from under the flowerbox and unlock the door (the slow, inconvenient way). Just because technology has evolved and real, metal keys are no longer strictly necessary does not mean that keeping them around for failures of technology is a bad thing. Just like it's not a bad idea to keep a bit of spare cash around the house, in case you lose your ATM card.
...that somebody heard a cellphone ringing and thought "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those."
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Unless the kids have to bring in their high score from a certain "Math Mission" in order to demonstrate that they understand the material, the teacher is left without an indication that the student is having difficulty until the student does poorly on a test. Homework is supposed to help the teacher identify problem areas before they seriously affect the student's progress. My neighbour's son has Reader Rabbit on his computer and if there were some real penalty to getting wrong answers, I'd think it was a great way to teach Math and English. But getting wrong answers only reduces your score. So the little boy picks up as many wrong answers as he wants. He doesn't really care what his score is. He just wants to get to the end of the level. Hopefully the software this school is using puts a little more pressure on the student to improve, or else the game is not demanding that the students learn. It is using learning as an incidental occurence to the fun the students are having.
To the first poster:
You are describing weak atheism. It was an error of omission on my part that the matter of disbelief by fact of disinterest is also weak atheism. I say this because I assume that if you are rational and were given proof of God's existence or His nonexistence, you would be persuaded (whether you cared or not is insubstantial). A strong atheist asserts that there is no possible proof that God exists because it is a fact that He does not exist, just as a theist, such as myself, asserts that there is no possible proof that God does not exist because it is a fact that He does.
To the second poster:
There is evidence that the invisible purple elf does not exist. I can't see it, but I can reach up and feel that it is not there. Furthermore, the concept of deity serves a purpose. It is not unreasonable to say that if the Universe exists, it may have a creator. Questioning the possibility of this creator's existence is natural. I claim that there is no reason to suspect that invisible, untouchable purple elves are sitting on our heads.
Also, I am not questioning anybody's right believe or disbelieve as they wish. I am not saying that if you wish not to believe in God, you must prove that He does not exist. What I assume you are saying to me is: 'If you want me to believe in your God, prove to me that He exists.' This is another example weak atheism. In light of lack of evidence, which I admit I cannot provide, you opt not to believe. You said the key words yourself: I have failed to convince you and so you do not belief. If you are insisting that I show proof to justify my belief, then this conversation cannot continue. I am not beholden to you and I won't discuss the matter with you further.
That you do not believe in a deity is, in itself a confession of faith. At the very least, it requires quantification. There are two sorts of atheism, one of which requires a leap of faith. That is:
Strong Atheism: Firm belief that there is no deity. This requires faith because there is no solid evidence one way or the other. Belief or strict disbelief are both matters of faith.
Weak Atheism: Choice to disbelieve in the light of no evidence. This admits the inability to prove a negative (There is no God), but exercises that belief in the absence of proof that there is a God.
And just for kicks: Classical Agnosticism. The word Agnosticism has its roots in the Greek word for 'ignorance' and, in the literal sense of the word, it is just that. Classical agnostics claim no belief whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deity. All they know is that they do not know.
Therefore, if you are professing strong atheism, you have a faith and you may wish to indicate it. Asking about your religion is not analogous to asking about which dragon you believe in. Whether God exists or not, there are religions/faiths, of which atheism is one.
I think the muscles that clench the hand into a fist are typically much stronger and more endurant than those that unclench the fist. Using upward strokes would cause one's hands to get tired much faster than a typing device that uses only downward strokes.
As the article said, they've developed the tools and are now working on manufacturing materials using these tools. The next step is to build more advanced systems using nanotechnology. I was impressed by the description of the nano-scale lithium-ion film that they are proposing. They didn't mention how many slices of the film you can pile into a single source, but the prospect of a higher-efficiency, longer-discharge battery should appeal to any /. user. Not to mention the initial use they're considering as a power source for implants. Any step that advances a technology that makes such possibilities as safe and effective artificial hearts more feasible is a good thing!
I've recently begun to wear a pair of wrist braces to help me at work. I don't have problems at home, because I an comfortably set up the way I want - Keyboard well below the level of my shoulders, Monitor lower than eyes and turned upward. I can't do that at work, and my posture suffers as a result.
There actually were sequels to Earthbound. The SNES sequel was called "Mother II" but was never released in the United States. There was also a sequel planned for the N64, but it go the axe. So I don't think you're going to get a sequel. Although I agree with you, it'd be a wonderful thing. Earthbound is a definitive RPG, in my eyes. It combines great gameplay with a plot that does NOT take itself seriously. I mean, how can you not like a bad guy that taunts you with 'spankety spankety spankety'?
Exactly. Much harder! Stealing somebody's wallet or purse is not terribly difficult. It's easy enough that the person might not even notice. Stealing the wallet/purse while simultaneously severing their thumb and popping out their eyeball, so you can use their ID card may just make them take notice. Sure, maybe ID theft will be a more violent crime, but the fact that it is no longer EASY will make it a much rarer violent crime.
I think this is nitpicking. However, the loss to the store is NOT zero. Supposing the quality of the mp3 is equal to that of the CD, which is not particularly farfetched, then the store will lose money from all the customers who would have purchased the CD, but instead did not, because they got a free copy of the mp3. Supposing there was only one seller of music (to simplify the example), you have effectively stolen their product from and illegally reproduced and distributed it, causing their business to suffer. It is all well and good for you to say that they don't deserve as much money as they're getting, but the correct solution is NOT to take the product, reproduce it yourself, and distribute it.
Not that I agree with the ability of content holders to increase prices unchecked, but I still don't think it's inherrently wrong for them to seek to prevent theft of their content by technological means. To continue the vending machine analogy, if vending machine companies found it more cost effective to reinforce the glass and to strengthen the locks and hinges of the machine, to prevent people from stealing their six-dollar candy bars, would they be doing something wrong? Not at all! They are rightful to charge whatever they wish for their product and the market should adjust accordingly. In this manner, a vending machine relies on the honour system. The seller asks that you will kindly not break open his machine and steal the candy. Granted, part of the opportunity cost of stealing a candy bar is incurring the risk of punishment; if people are willing to face charges for doing so, they are also, economically speaking, within their rights. However, if the seller finds it economically feasible to protect his product from theft by reinforcing the vending machine, he may be wise to sell it at $6 per bar. After all, the seller's profit is maximized at the point where his willingness to produce at a certain price matches the market's willingness to purchase at a certain price. We can debate all day whether it is right for the company to sell at this price, but speaking from the standpoint of business ethics, so long as it is legal, a business must, ethically, seek the greatest possible benefit for its shareholders.
You're right that it would take a massive, coordinated effort. In fact, when used for distribution of any sort of information, be it a news article or an illegal copy of a piece of music, that's exactly what the internet is. Suppose I copy that piece of music to one other computer every minute. But also assume that half of the people I spawn also copy the music to one other computer every minute, and that half of each . In two minutes, there are two people distributing music. In four minutes, there are four. In six, eight. It grows exponentially. No, it's not finite, but it grows very fast. Supposing the model I just described, that song will be in distribution by more than 4 billion people (and will be in the hands of twice that many people) in a little more than an hour (32 iterations, 2 minutes per iteration).
Your comparrison of entertainment media to a washing machine or to a Porsche is erroneous. Allow me to explain. If you purchase a washing machine, you may rightfully allow anybody to use it, that you wish, as often as you wish. There is a finite limit to the number of people who can use your washing machine. The same goes for a Porsche. If you buy a CD, and immediately rip an mp3 of it, which you then make available on the net, the "finite limit" to the number of people who can use that mp3 is the number of computer users with access to the internet. And furthermore, because the mp3 is readily reproducable, it may be used by many of them all at once.
In my eyes, it's easy to sympathize with both sides of the conflict. On one hand, I agree that obtaining music without paying for it just because the technology to do so is available is theft. Is it right to use a cable descrambler or coin-sized slugs to buy things from vending machines? And if the providers of cable television or of vending machines design technologies to prevent you from doing so, are they violating your rights?
On the other hand, Hollywood wishes not only to control possible theft of content, but also the precise form in which we receive the content. I don't think that they are not within their rights to do this, but obviously, as a consumer myself, I don't appreciate content holders failing to provide content in the form I prefer (mp3, for example) because they are ignorant and paranoid. If every song currently on my playlist were available for download at a fair price, I would gladly bust out my credit card and pay for the music (assuming I didn't already own a tape or CD with the song on it). However, content providers are so mistrustful (perhaps with good reason; I really don't know) of consumers, they're unwilling, to a large extent, to do this. Perhaps the solution to this quandry is, in addition to informing our congress-critters of our opinion in these matters, so that we aren't shafted, legally, we should also consider informing content-holders, by mail or by petition, of how we feel about this matter. I suspect if Disney were to have tangible evidence of how many people there are who would be willing to pay a fair price for a professionally-designed digital copy of one of their movies, they might soften toward the idea of not giving their customers (who are not pirates) the shaft.
I wasn't particularly bothered by the Christian themes presented in Evangelion. I considered it as an alegory of the Garden of Eden.
And the Lord said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. KJV Gen 3: 22-24
I always supposed that tampering with Adam was part of humanity's effort to acchieve instrumentality, which I understood to be an immortal group mind. The Angels, of which Adam was only one, were the Cherubims, set to protect the garden of Eden, "lest he [mankind] put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"
The only objectionable theme I found was that humanity defeated the angels. However, the symbolism of this is not clear. I have considered three interpretations and cannot decide which, if any, is correct.
1. Man is more powerful than the servants of God. It is his destiny to suceed at achieving eternal life by his own power.
2. God, having been created by man, may also be destroyed by man. Thus, his servants are ineffectual.
3. Man thinks that he is greater than God, an so names his enemies 'angels' so that he can affirm his own superiority. He is deluded and ireverent.
The first two, obviously, are critical of Christianity, the third is critical of man. Which of these, if any, was intended, I don't know.
I think that the reviewer may have been grasping for a word that would convey the uniqueness of the people qualified to pilot the Eva's. While it's never explicity stated what about the children of 2'nd Impact is so special, supposing that it's a mental/pshycic effect is as plausible as any other speculation.
Good question. I guess I can't avoid the alternate universe theory. Since for this to be possible, Universe A (sprung from time A) would be energetically richer to the tune of 'n' additional balls while Universe B (sprung from time B > A) would be energetically poorer to the tune of the energy necessary to end 'n' balls to a different time period.
The gain is the resulting action upon the ball. You have consumed energy and the ball has, presumably, travelled backward in time. You have sent the energy back (and lost some to entropy) in the form of a time-travelling ball. Eventually, all of the energy is in the form of balls and is in the past instead of in the form of gasoline in the future. Mind, the time machine in the past will still have gasoline and it will be able to send a finite number of balls through when the last minute arrives. But because you can't continue the process ad infinitum, you arrive upon a situation where you're sending back exactly as many balls as you can and a steady-state is acchieved between the two time periods.
As far as energy goes, it is possible that a closed system would not be able to provide sufficient energy to power at time machine. If the sucker draws a lot of power, you're going to consume your fuel quickly. So any energy that appears to be created will not be. The only result will be that energy once stored in the bonds of gasoline (supposing a gas-generator solely for the purpose of making an example) will be present in a larger number of balls in the room that you can't send through the time machine anymore, because it's out of fuel.
I like the Hitchhiker explanation of time travel. Assuming that it eventually comes to be, every moment must be lived as though time travel already exists. JFK's assassination? Done. Prevented. Redone. As far as we need to concern ourselves, all effects of time travel on our past have already worked themsevles out. The past was the way it was in part because of the action of time travellers trying to change things. I actually think this is a pretty good way of explaining away paradoxes and alternate universes.
This is a good analogy, but I think that as far as it applies to the situation with the CD's, trying to play the CD in a Mac or PC is the same as going over to the chained up dog and pissing it off. You are intentionally doing what has clearly been warned is a bad thing to do. I don't think that anybody's going to be successfully suing anybody over computer problems related to these marked CD's.