I won't get into an arguement about religion with you. It would be a pointless exercise.
But you are wrong about what a theory is.
A hypothesis _becomes_ a theory when all the available evidence supports it.
A hypothesys is an idea that has been put forward but has not yet been tested. A theory is an idea that has some supporting evidence but has not been proven or disproven, and a scientific Law has been proven. You are confusing Law with Theory.
It's a good idea to know what you are talking about before you start accusing others of ignorance.
What I am defining in my post are the limits of the scientific method, not religion.
Lack of evidence for the existence of God(s) through the advancement of science does speak to religion.
I know of no place in the scientific method where lack of evidence equals dispoven. Do you have any other examples?
As far as the scientific method is concerned, God is undefined. Many of the trapings and ideas that come out of the sides of religion are knowable and disprovable, but the core is not.
Too many people are not willing to just let it go. They just have to know, they just have to put a label on it whether that label comes from science or from their own internal logic and idealogy. I am trying to separate the two. Science has the limits I defined. Human belief does not. If you believe that God does not exist, you should at least recognize that this belief comes from your own internal logic, not from the scientific method.
The "God of the gaps" argument comes from mistakes on both sides of the arguement. The people on the religous side are attempting to support religious ideas even though various sideline issues are disproven by science. They attempt to redefine the bounderies and reshape religion on the fly to protect the core. The people on the science side mistakenly believe that if they shoot down enough side issues that this will somehow deal a crippling blow to the core of religion, God, where they really can't go themselves. Both are defensive rationalizations, derived from the human drive to push an idea beyond their ability to support it.
My post is simply that the Scientific method itself has no grounds to discuss the core of religion, and that the core of religion can only be discussed in a different context. If you choose to apply that different context from your own internal logic or ideals, good for you. But it's not the scientific method that is doing it.
And for the record, trying to equate religion with irrationality is a weak and pointless generalization. The application of "irrationality" and "delusional" descriptions come from your own idealogy, and not from any scientifically provable state.
Well, as I said, I'd rather not try to use any scientific term to describe it. And there actually are unprovable theories in science, Superstring for one.
Science is a very good way to describe and categorize everything that you can see or experience. It just doesn't have the right vocabulary for what you can't. It is a mistake to attempt to apply scientific vocabulary to something that is not in the scientific relm. We just don't have the framework or vocabulary for it. When we try, we invariably leave holes, make mistakes, or otherwise mess up.
As for anything else, if you can observe it, then it should fit into science.
I wonder if you would have the same sort of comments about my belief in magical flying gnomes living in the trees in my backyard. Would you say that scientific terms should not be used to characterize such beliefs?
What you believe it up to you. I would only get involved if you could bring evidence suitable to science. Otherwise, I don't care.
And "I don't care" is really more important than it sounds at first pass. You really should not care. Not "I don't believe", not "I don't like it", not "You shouldn't believe it", just simple old "I don't care". More than that and you are just asking for conflict. Any positive assertion is already outside the bounds of science, and into the relm of your own baseless beliefs, your own "religion".
This is why religious beliefs cannot be true per se. Anything that is not just unproven but unprovable cannot be regarded as a fact.
Well, sort of. My point is that it is neither true nor false. No fact either way. It simply does not fit in anywhere. If you really wanted to use scientific vocabulary to pigeonhole it, you would have to call it a theory, not proven, yet not disproven.
One of the points of confusion for both sides is the desire to describe the other side in our own vocabulary. And neither side is really suited for that. Religion likes "Right and Wrong" without room for proof and proven and states of discussion. Science likes hypothesis,theory and law, and the chain of proof.
My attempt here is not just to get science people out of the habit of trying to prove or disprove religion, but to get them away from even trying to discuss it in scientific terminology.
The question of religion and the need to believe in something supernatural is arguably a topic for sociologists and psychologists.
I just sort of stepped into that here, but I'll extend my explanation to address your issue too.
If your basic question is "Why do people belive in/need religion", then sociology and psychology may be able to answer it. But if the question is "Does god actually exist", then those sciences are no more able to answer than physics. If you ask a question that your science is not capable of addressing, then it is no longer a scientific issue. A lot of religious issues are outside of the relm of what science can answer, either physics or psychology.
One would think that humans getting such a handle on the science of life and physics would have obliterated religion, but it keeps on truckin' all the same.
I don't find it surprising at all. First, I also support and accept science and all it includes.
But if you truely understand science, then you must also understand it's limits. Science does not trump religion.
The domain of science is:
1. What can be observed.
2. What can be experimented with.
3. What can be calculated.
Religion for the most part, and God in particular, does not fall into any of those categories. Thus science is not in a position to speak to religion, either positively or negatively.
The clashes mostly are really around when religion tries to impose ideas into areas that science covers. When some particular religious belief conflicts with a scientific concept, then you have conflict. But Scientist should only attempt to address the particular belief. It would be a mistake for scientist to attempt to go all they way into religious territory and address concepts such as God where there is no observation, experimentation or calculation possible. Science has no traction there.
You have to know where your ground lies, and defend that ground. But don't go where you don't belong. The central tennat of the scientific method is proof. Where there is something to prove, do it. There is little in the core of most religion that can be scientifically proved or disproved, so just ignore it. When you jump into the relm of religion where science doesn't cover, then you are just using your own brand of religion.
I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, or the veracity of the link you provide. But there is still a little room for discussion on exactly what MGM did.
From your link, the view frame can be cut different ways from the original film, getting different maximum frame for an aspect ratio.
But what if the view cut is made at the proper ratio but not at the maximum size within the original film (open mask aside)? I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content.
The question seems not to be what ratio was used, but how much was cropped off of all sides to get to that ratio. If more was cropped off of some sides than was really necessary to make a proper "widescreen" image, then the viewer is still losing image.
And (stupid lawyer jokes aside) I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.
Plate technonics tends to make subduction zones along arcs, not in straight lines. Volcanism outside of subduction zones tend to be in hot spots, not lines. So neither is likely to be the cause of this.
I'd guess that the cause is core colapse. The crust got strong enough (relative to the size of the moon) to resist techtonics. The core shrunk through cooling or volcanism or both. Then the crust colapsed along the weekest line to take in the size. The weakest line was the equator. The poles were thicker either through more cooling, or less inner turbulance in the mantle.
My only second guess, though I don't give it much credit myself, would be a hotspot that is moving in a straight line around the equator and leaving a line of volcanos behind it. It does not appear very volcanic in the picture, and it is too even.
The Death Star had other features that this moon presently lacks.
Oh come on. Give it a break. It was built a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It has a lot of miles and a lot of years on it. I think it looks good for its age.
When 4 billion years you become, look as good you will not.
The director said "We've tried to hold the authors intents as close as possible, including...."
And the author comes back with "Excuse me, but those were not my intents."
Understand now? She's not complaining about the movie, she's complaining that the director is trying to put words in her mouth. Do you give up that too when you sign away movie rights? Enumerating the differences and reasons for those differences is part of her clearification, not the direct complaint.
Wiki needs an update. The children thing seems a bit confused.
Alfred's first wife had no children. His second wife, Theodora, had two children by previous marriage: Clifton and Ted. Alfred and Theodora together had two children: Karl and Ursula. Alfred adopted Cliff and Ted as part of his marriage.
Also, as the other response mentions, Paul is the son of Karl.
OK, You asked for it. Captain pedantic strikes again.
Columbus didn't discover America, and it wasn't because there were people already here.
Columbus discovered some islands. He never found the mainland. It was later that Amerigo Vespucci discovered mainland (South America, probably near Columbia or Venezuela) that "America" was discovered, thus the name "America" for Amerigo rather than "Columbia". Though the name of the country that exists at that point now is somewhat ironic.
College is a great place to get dirt on people as well. That's where kids are most likely to "experiment" with unusual social, political, chemical, biological or otherwise dangerous substances. If you want to be able to witchhunt someone out of existance 20 years from now, get the dirt on them in college.
When I was in school, I went to a couple of Socialist meetings because some friends went. It was just a bunch of clods who complained and argued. I never went back. But being there twice is probably enough to prevent me from getting anywhere in the political witchhunt atmosphere that the conservatives are using now.
I first heard about it from by GF also. We were in college in '86-'87 and were getting Watchmen right off the shelf month by month as it was originally published.
We're married now and we still have our two original sets of twelve(?) issues, comic book style in individual slip cases. I wonder what those sets are worth now?
I also have the original "V for Vendetta" issues set. That set is almost as good as Watchmen. Some Miracle Man, a few series of "Swamp Thing", a Batman book. Go find them if you haven't already. It's all great stuff.
OK, I've been bouncing this idea around in my head for a while now, and this looks like the right place to publish it.
One of the aspects of the Presidential election in particular is the winner take all aspect of it. Different issues drive different people in different directions. Side issues like education, energy and environment take a back seat to economy and security. But rarely is there one candidate that is aligned with a particular voter's wishes over all areas.
On top of that, the President often holds much greater popular power than Congress simply due to the singular nature of the office. A single person gets press when no particular member of Congress gets the same coverage, and when many different members do, their messages are often crossed or lost due to the unrecognized status of the member. They are too often relegated to background noise in the press.
So, my solution is to break up the executive branch in terms of election.
1. Cabinet positions are each elected to office by some method of election (Many methods are presented elsewhere in this thread. Pick one).
2. They each have terms and reelections, similar to presidential terms. They do not all necessarily get elected on the same year, like Senators.
3. After each election, the total cabinet can get together and choose a "spokesman", somewhat like the senate majority leader or house majority leader. This spokesman is called the President. The responsibility of the President is similar to current responsibilities, with limitations with respect to particular cabinet powers.
4. Each cabinet seat is solely responsibility for activity within their cabinet position.
5. Cross cabinet activities are settled in committees, possibly with the assistance of the the President.
6. Single entity actions, like signing laws or appointing judges, should eiher be cabinet specific if the law is cabinet specific, or should be aggreed to by a vote among the affected cabinet departments or the entire cabinet. Again, this is most likely a committee function.
PROs:
No more winner take all elections. Citizens can zero in on their favorite candidate for each issue and major area of responsibility.
Less public power to single individual due to greater exposure. Personal presentation takes less of an overall effect, leaving more specific issues to take importance in each election.
CONs:
Cross cabinet conflicts. Committees deal with it, similar to the ways commities deal with conflicts between House and Senate.
Less consolidated executive presentation. There is not quite so much power of personal presentation for any individual person. Many people often like having a single person they can point to and say "That's the leader".
My own responses to the CONs.
Cross cabinet conflicts. There is actually much less of this than you might imagine. Something like 90% of responsibility in the executive branch is cabinet verticle; that is, it lies entirely within a single cabinet department. Most of this goes on mostly invisibly behind the scenes. When it does occur, it can be handled through committees, similar to the way Congress handles conflicts in committees. Committees have a bad wrap due to the slowness and conflict involved. Many people want "decisiveness" and committees just don't feel decisive.
Less consolidated presence, no single person. I personally don't mind this. Personal power due to presence does not necessarily benefit the country. It is more of a "feel good" thing for people to have a name and face they can look to and say "That's the leader". The actual execution of office responsibilities does not depend at all on such recognition or presence or fame.
This is not designed to address other problems or replace other solutiions in the election system. Party politics and winner take all electoral processes should still be addressed through other means.
I still have WinAmp 2 on my machine, and I faithfully copy it around whenever I move or upgrade. It will stay with me long after NullSoft is gone. Long Live WinAmp.
When they start using words like "properties" there is no longer any creativity left in the pipeline. The dream is gone. It's all about exploitation now.
The spacecraft must reach a minimum velocity sufficient to complete two (2) full orbits at altitude before returning to Earth; It doesn't say that it actually has to orbit twice though, just reach the velocity necessary to do so.
I suppose there could be reasons that you would not actually want to perform the orbits even though you've reached the appropriate speed.
Orbits take time. If you just pop up to altitude and speed, then immediately fall back down then the total trip is probably an hour or so. In order to orbit, you have to have to support several hours in space, maybe a day:
1. Air supply and air tightness of cabin to maintain the crew for the duration of the orbits.
2. Depending on length of time you spend in orbit, you might need other "human" facilities on board, food, water, restrooms.
3. Radiation and debris shielding. There's less debris in the upper atmosphere, but lots in orbit.
There may be fuel considerations to actually entering and exiting orbit rather than just passing through and falling back down.
MarsQuest includes lots of rover coverage. They have lots of Rover coverage and panorama pictures with zoom and pan and drivable rover simulations. They also have 3D drivable flyovers of several famous Mars locations.
So if we follow the map (assuming sea level has risen since Middle Earth days), mountain chain, south to Rohan, East, that would put Mordor right... about... Here.
I thought Rohan/Gondor west of Ithilien river looked a lot like Australia. Now we know.
Slashdot Mirror
A hypothesis _becomes_ a theory when all the available evidence supports it.
A hypothesys is an idea that has been put forward but has not yet been tested. A theory is an idea that has some supporting evidence but has not been proven or disproven, and a scientific Law has been proven. You are confusing Law with Theory.
It's a good idea to know what you are talking about before you start accusing others of ignorance.
Lack of evidence for the existence of God(s) through the advancement of science does speak to religion.
I know of no place in the scientific method where lack of evidence equals dispoven. Do you have any other examples?
As far as the scientific method is concerned, God is undefined. Many of the trapings and ideas that come out of the sides of religion are knowable and disprovable, but the core is not.
Too many people are not willing to just let it go. They just have to know, they just have to put a label on it whether that label comes from science or from their own internal logic and idealogy. I am trying to separate the two. Science has the limits I defined. Human belief does not. If you believe that God does not exist, you should at least recognize that this belief comes from your own internal logic, not from the scientific method.
The "God of the gaps" argument comes from mistakes on both sides of the arguement. The people on the religous side are attempting to support religious ideas even though various sideline issues are disproven by science. They attempt to redefine the bounderies and reshape religion on the fly to protect the core. The people on the science side mistakenly believe that if they shoot down enough side issues that this will somehow deal a crippling blow to the core of religion, God, where they really can't go themselves. Both are defensive rationalizations, derived from the human drive to push an idea beyond their ability to support it.
My post is simply that the Scientific method itself has no grounds to discuss the core of religion, and that the core of religion can only be discussed in a different context. If you choose to apply that different context from your own internal logic or ideals, good for you. But it's not the scientific method that is doing it.
And for the record, trying to equate religion with irrationality is a weak and pointless generalization. The application of "irrationality" and "delusional" descriptions come from your own idealogy, and not from any scientifically provable state.
Well, as I said, I'd rather not try to use any scientific term to describe it. And there actually are unprovable theories in science, Superstring for one.
Science is a very good way to describe and categorize everything that you can see or experience. It just doesn't have the right vocabulary for what you can't. It is a mistake to attempt to apply scientific vocabulary to something that is not in the scientific relm. We just don't have the framework or vocabulary for it. When we try, we invariably leave holes, make mistakes, or otherwise mess up.
As for anything else, if you can observe it, then it should fit into science.
I wonder if you would have the same sort of comments about my belief in magical flying gnomes living in the trees in my backyard. Would you say that scientific terms should not be used to characterize such beliefs?
What you believe it up to you. I would only get involved if you could bring evidence suitable to science. Otherwise, I don't care.
And "I don't care" is really more important than it sounds at first pass. You really should not care. Not "I don't believe", not "I don't like it", not "You shouldn't believe it", just simple old "I don't care". More than that and you are just asking for conflict. Any positive assertion is already outside the bounds of science, and into the relm of your own baseless beliefs, your own "religion".
Well, sort of. My point is that it is neither true nor false. No fact either way. It simply does not fit in anywhere. If you really wanted to use scientific vocabulary to pigeonhole it, you would have to call it a theory, not proven, yet not disproven.
One of the points of confusion for both sides is the desire to describe the other side in our own vocabulary. And neither side is really suited for that. Religion likes "Right and Wrong" without room for proof and proven and states of discussion. Science likes hypothesis,theory and law, and the chain of proof.
My attempt here is not just to get science people out of the habit of trying to prove or disprove religion, but to get them away from even trying to discuss it in scientific terminology.
I just sort of stepped into that here, but I'll extend my explanation to address your issue too.
If your basic question is "Why do people belive in/need religion", then sociology and psychology may be able to answer it. But if the question is "Does god actually exist", then those sciences are no more able to answer than physics. If you ask a question that your science is not capable of addressing, then it is no longer a scientific issue. A lot of religious issues are outside of the relm of what science can answer, either physics or psychology.
I don't find it surprising at all. First, I also support and accept science and all it includes.
But if you truely understand science, then you must also understand it's limits. Science does not trump religion.
The domain of science is:
1. What can be observed.
2. What can be experimented with.
3. What can be calculated.
Religion for the most part, and God in particular, does not fall into any of those categories. Thus science is not in a position to speak to religion, either positively or negatively.
The clashes mostly are really around when religion tries to impose ideas into areas that science covers. When some particular religious belief conflicts with a scientific concept, then you have conflict. But Scientist should only attempt to address the particular belief. It would be a mistake for scientist to attempt to go all they way into religious territory and address concepts such as God where there is no observation, experimentation or calculation possible. Science has no traction there.
You have to know where your ground lies, and defend that ground. But don't go where you don't belong. The central tennat of the scientific method is proof. Where there is something to prove, do it. There is little in the core of most religion that can be scientifically proved or disproved, so just ignore it. When you jump into the relm of religion where science doesn't cover, then you are just using your own brand of religion.
My wife found my ring once when I wasn't wearing it, and hid it from me for six months to teach me a lesson.
The lesson I learned was that I don't need to wear a ring, and I haven't for the last two years.
From your link, the view frame can be cut different ways from the original film, getting different maximum frame for an aspect ratio.
But what if the view cut is made at the proper ratio but not at the maximum size within the original film (open mask aside)? I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content. The question seems not to be what ratio was used, but how much was cropped off of all sides to get to that ratio. If more was cropped off of some sides than was really necessary to make a proper "widescreen" image, then the viewer is still losing image.
And (stupid lawyer jokes aside) I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.
Plate technonics tends to make subduction zones along arcs, not in straight lines. Volcanism outside of subduction zones tend to be in hot spots, not lines. So neither is likely to be the cause of this.
I'd guess that the cause is core colapse. The crust got strong enough (relative to the size of the moon) to resist techtonics. The core shrunk through cooling or volcanism or both. Then the crust colapsed along the weekest line to take in the size. The weakest line was the equator. The poles were thicker either through more cooling, or less inner turbulance in the mantle.
My only second guess, though I don't give it much credit myself, would be a hotspot that is moving in a straight line around the equator and leaving a line of volcanos behind it. It does not appear very volcanic in the picture, and it is too even.
Midnight at the Well of Souls.
Oh come on. Give it a break. It was built a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It has a lot of miles and a lot of years on it. I think it looks good for its age.
When 4 billion years you become, look as good you will not.
The director said "We've tried to hold the authors intents as close as possible, including ...."
And the author comes back with "Excuse me, but those were not my intents."
Understand now? She's not complaining about the movie, she's complaining that the director is trying to put words in her mouth. Do you give up that too when you sign away movie rights? Enumerating the differences and reasons for those differences is part of her clearification, not the direct complaint.
Alfred's first wife had no children. His second wife, Theodora, had two children by previous marriage: Clifton and Ted. Alfred and Theodora together had two children: Karl and Ursula. Alfred adopted Cliff and Ted as part of his marriage.
Also, as the other response mentions, Paul is the son of Karl.
I wonder which companies are helping the facist in 2004?
Columbus didn't discover America, and it wasn't because there were people already here. Columbus discovered some islands. He never found the mainland. It was later that Amerigo Vespucci discovered mainland (South America, probably near Columbia or Venezuela) that "America" was discovered, thus the name "America" for Amerigo rather than "Columbia". Though the name of the country that exists at that point now is somewhat ironic.
When I was in school, I went to a couple of Socialist meetings because some friends went. It was just a bunch of clods who complained and argued. I never went back. But being there twice is probably enough to prevent me from getting anywhere in the political witchhunt atmosphere that the conservatives are using now.
Watch what you do. Everyone else is.
We're married now and we still have our two original sets of twelve(?) issues, comic book style in individual slip cases. I wonder what those sets are worth now?
I also have the original "V for Vendetta" issues set. That set is almost as good as Watchmen. Some Miracle Man, a few series of "Swamp Thing", a Batman book. Go find them if you haven't already. It's all great stuff.
One of the aspects of the Presidential election in particular is the winner take all aspect of it. Different issues drive different people in different directions. Side issues like education, energy and environment take a back seat to economy and security. But rarely is there one candidate that is aligned with a particular voter's wishes over all areas.
On top of that, the President often holds much greater popular power than Congress simply due to the singular nature of the office. A single person gets press when no particular member of Congress gets the same coverage, and when many different members do, their messages are often crossed or lost due to the unrecognized status of the member. They are too often relegated to background noise in the press.
So, my solution is to break up the executive branch in terms of election.
1. Cabinet positions are each elected to office by some method of election (Many methods are presented elsewhere in this thread. Pick one).
2. They each have terms and reelections, similar to presidential terms. They do not all necessarily get elected on the same year, like Senators.
3. After each election, the total cabinet can get together and choose a "spokesman", somewhat like the senate majority leader or house majority leader. This spokesman is called the President. The responsibility of the President is similar to current responsibilities, with limitations with respect to particular cabinet powers.
4. Each cabinet seat is solely responsibility for activity within their cabinet position.
5. Cross cabinet activities are settled in committees, possibly with the assistance of the the President.
6. Single entity actions, like signing laws or appointing judges, should eiher be cabinet specific if the law is cabinet specific, or should be aggreed to by a vote among the affected cabinet departments or the entire cabinet. Again, this is most likely a committee function.
PROs:
No more winner take all elections. Citizens can zero in on their favorite candidate for each issue and major area of responsibility.
Less public power to single individual due to greater exposure. Personal presentation takes less of an overall effect, leaving more specific issues to take importance in each election.
CONs:
Cross cabinet conflicts. Committees deal with it, similar to the ways commities deal with conflicts between House and Senate.
Less consolidated executive presentation. There is not quite so much power of personal presentation for any individual person. Many people often like having a single person they can point to and say "That's the leader".
My own responses to the CONs.
Cross cabinet conflicts. There is actually much less of this than you might imagine. Something like 90% of responsibility in the executive branch is cabinet verticle; that is, it lies entirely within a single cabinet department. Most of this goes on mostly invisibly behind the scenes. When it does occur, it can be handled through committees, similar to the way Congress handles conflicts in committees. Committees have a bad wrap due to the slowness and conflict involved. Many people want "decisiveness" and committees just don't feel decisive.
Less consolidated presence, no single person. I personally don't mind this. Personal power due to presence does not necessarily benefit the country. It is more of a "feel good" thing for people to have a name and face they can look to and say "That's the leader". The actual execution of office responsibilities does not depend at all on such recognition or presence or fame.
This is not designed to address other problems or replace other solutiions in the election system. Party politics and winner take all electoral processes should still be addressed through other means.
I still have WinAmp 2 on my machine, and I faithfully copy it around whenever I move or upgrade. It will stay with me long after NullSoft is gone. Long Live WinAmp.
When they start using words like "properties" there is no longer any creativity left in the pipeline. The dream is gone. It's all about exploitation now.
The DMCA makes it criminal, or at least anything associated with it.
So how much time do you think Copyright violators should get?
I suppose there could be reasons that you would not actually want to perform the orbits even though you've reached the appropriate speed.
Orbits take time. If you just pop up to altitude and speed, then immediately fall back down then the total trip is probably an hour or so. In order to orbit, you have to have to support several hours in space, maybe a day:
1. Air supply and air tightness of cabin to maintain the crew for the duration of the orbits.
2. Depending on length of time you spend in orbit, you might need other "human" facilities on board, food, water, restrooms.
3. Radiation and debris shielding. There's less debris in the upper atmosphere, but lots in orbit.
There may be fuel considerations to actually entering and exiting orbit rather than just passing through and falling back down.
MarsQuest includes lots of rover coverage. They have lots of Rover coverage and panorama pictures with zoom and pan and drivable rover simulations. They also have 3D drivable flyovers of several famous Mars locations.
So if we follow the map (assuming sea level has risen since Middle Earth days), mountain chain, south to Rohan, East, that would put Mordor right ... about ... Here.
I thought Rohan/Gondor west of Ithilien river looked a lot like Australia. Now we know.