I disagree. In fact, there are very few things I think you can prove about a deity, but one of them is the opposite of what you say. In order to be able to deceive you it must exist. But if the deity exists, it can't deceive you into thinking it exists because believing the deity exists wouldn't be deceit, it would be correct. Therefore a deity cannot possibly deceive you into thinking it exists.
Unless you mean by "able to be deceived" you mean "deceived by a person not a deity" or simply "mistaken".
One great thing about the Internet is how distributed it is. It was designed to be this way from the beginning so as to make it robust against (physical) attack. And it seemed pretty obvious, that by its very nature, the Internet had to be distributed. But now we find that the whole damn Internet actually fits inside one company and ultimately we're all going to be surfing just one web site - Google's. Amazing!
And scary too. There will come a point when we are dependent on Google and then the terrorists will know where to strike. As I mentioned, the distributedness was all about defense.
esp.[sic] US and Australia
deal with [sic] possibility
put off by [sic] possibility
how would [sic] Slashdot community
It's great that someone whose first language isn't English feels confident to submit a story to Slashdot. Obviously the poster uses a language that lacks definite articles. But couldn't the editors tidy the submission up a bit. They do a disservice to us by presenting us with stories in pidgin English, they do a disservice to the poster whose errors are displayed, uncorrected, for all to see, and they do a disservice to themselves by revealing they are lazy illiterate bastards.
Damn! I must have blinked. Where were the good effects in I and II? It was mostly garishly painted matte paintings one after another. I had to wear shades so the supersaturated colors didn't wear out my retina.
But I agree on detail. He excels at creating a complete world that feels lived in. At least he did for IV, V and VI.
I'm coming to the end of the Firefly DVD set. Seems little different to Star Trek to me. Yes, it's a bit grittier, but that's just the simple transformation you get from applying dirt to the set and throwing a few expletives into the dialog. It has exactly the same format as Star Trek: The Morality Play. Each episode some of the characters lectures some of the others on how their ethics need improving.
Harlan Ellison and Ursula LeGuin, Robert Silverberg and Larry Niven, Brian W. Aldiss and Michael Moorcock, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov, and Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke
I grew up on these authors. (Well, only a little Ellison and Aldiss but lots of the others.) I still watch and enjoy Star Trek from time to time. The fact is, Orson Scott Card simply doesn't like Star Trek. There's not need for him to extrapolate some big theory about it.
Star Trek, at least the newer series, isn't (usually) about big SF ideas. It's about the interplay of various types of characters in interesting scenarios that simply can't exist outside of science fiction. In particular, the most interesting interactions are between the human and the not-quite-human. That's why he admits to finding Spock 'charismatic'. That's why Data, 7 of 9 and T'Pol have been such important characters over the years. Look at the structure of a Trek episode: usually you rapidly figure out that this is a Data episode, or a 7-of-9 and Doctor episode, or a Spock and McCoy episode. They are structured around personality combinations, not the latest idea out of Nature. However poor you might think these characterizations actually are, they are actually a lot better than anything penned by Asimov, Clarke or Niven, who between them knew how to build a fun story out of a few interesting SF ideas, but are/were literarily inept.
I argue that it's not. The so called Many-Worlds, probably better called the (Everett) Relative State formulation, is not a philosophical interpretation.
In particular the Relative State formulation says that the Schrodinger equation applies at all times. The Copenhagen 'interpretation' (which is a loose umbrella that includes quite a few 'interpretations' including the canonical one taught new physicists) says that the Schrodinger equation applies until an observation is made and then a wavefunction collapse occurs. After the collapse, the Schrodinger equation applies again. So these approaches differ in a way that's quite different to a philosophical difference, The equations of motion of the two approaches differ significantly.
In practice the difference is hard to observe...but it's not so far removed from reality that it can be dismissed as philosophy. The difference will probably become more apparent as more 'mesoscopic' experiments are carried out by ever more ingenious physicists.
...because it's sensational and bound to score many hits. More hits means more revenue from advertising. The only difference between LBW/LBN and/. is that the former has a deliberate policy of twisting the facts to up its rating whereas the latter has the policy of choosing sensational headlines without having editors to check them.
Are your suggestions backed up by any kind of research about the behavior of criminals or are you just fantasizing about the pleasures you would indulge yourself in if you were dictator. I've a horrible feeling it's the latter.
I drank plenty as a student but I don't ever remember calling it "being served alcohol".
Sorry about your son though. I guess I'm lucky. I was once caught doing the same thing but the cops just let me off with a friendly "why don't you just fuck off and pee on private property instead". (I was peeing on public property in the UK.)
Right of justice? I've not come across that one before. Is it in the Constitution?
The whole point of the justice system is to eliminate the victim from sentencing, not to give them the right to carry it out. The reason is pretty straightforward - in political systems where the victims (or the family of the victim) determines the sentencing we end up with a society rife with feuding. As a result, most modern societies have no 'right to justice' in the sense you may be suggesting (and I may be misreading you).
That's right. They shouldn't even get lawyers. Let's just throw out due process while we're at it. Christ knows how the US got a Constitution in the first place given the scant regard most people have for human rights around here.
Actually, you're wrong. People who have sex with children are humans. It's pretty easy to demonstrate. Of course it may be convenient for you to twist the meaning of the word 'human' to help you deal better with various emotional issues you may have. Let's hope you never get into a position of political power where those issues may affect the rest of us.
It's scary when people are confused between literal and metaphorical usages of words. We describe sex offenders metaphorically as beasts, but anyone with half a brain cell can still see that literally speaking they are still humans. No matter how unspeakable their acts may be, a human is a human and deserves human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you mean by "able to be deceived" you mean "deceived by a person not a deity" or simply "mistaken".
And scary too. There will come a point when we are dependent on Google and then the terrorists will know where to strike. As I mentioned, the distributedness was all about defense.
Not only will you be able to waste time more efficiently, it comes with a little clock that shows how much more efficient your time wasting was.
But I agree on detail. He excels at creating a complete world that feels lived in. At least he did for IV, V and VI.
Not all...
I'm coming to the end of the Firefly DVD set. Seems little different to Star Trek to me. Yes, it's a bit grittier, but that's just the simple transformation you get from applying dirt to the set and throwing a few expletives into the dialog. It has exactly the same format as Star Trek: The Morality Play. Each episode some of the characters lectures some of the others on how their ethics need improving.
Though I hesitate to call Ender's Game art.
...you insensitive clod!
Star Trek, at least the newer series, isn't (usually) about big SF ideas. It's about the interplay of various types of characters in interesting scenarios that simply can't exist outside of science fiction. In particular, the most interesting interactions are between the human and the not-quite-human. That's why he admits to finding Spock 'charismatic'. That's why Data, 7 of 9 and T'Pol have been such important characters over the years. Look at the structure of a Trek episode: usually you rapidly figure out that this is a Data episode, or a 7-of-9 and Doctor episode, or a Spock and McCoy episode. They are structured around personality combinations, not the latest idea out of Nature. However poor you might think these characterizations actually are, they are actually a lot better than anything penned by Asimov, Clarke or Niven, who between them knew how to build a fun story out of a few interesting SF ideas, but are/were literarily inept.
Don't like it? Don't pay.
In particular the Relative State formulation says that the Schrodinger equation applies at all times. The Copenhagen 'interpretation' (which is a loose umbrella that includes quite a few 'interpretations' including the canonical one taught new physicists) says that the Schrodinger equation applies until an observation is made and then a wavefunction collapse occurs. After the collapse, the Schrodinger equation applies again. So these approaches differ in a way that's quite different to a philosophical difference, The equations of motion of the two approaches differ significantly.
In practice the difference is hard to observe...but it's not so far removed from reality that it can be dismissed as philosophy. The difference will probably become more apparent as more 'mesoscopic' experiments are carried out by ever more ingenious physicists.
...because it's sensational and bound to score many hits. More hits means more revenue from advertising. The only difference between LBW/LBN and /. is that the former has a deliberate policy of twisting the facts to up its rating whereas the latter has the policy of choosing sensational headlines without having editors to check them.
Aha! Now I remember trying it out a few years back myself and having to reinstall OSX again from scratch. I had repressed the incident from my memory.
Correction: God knows how we have the Constitution we have today...
Are your suggestions backed up by any kind of research about the behavior of criminals or are you just fantasizing about the pleasures you would indulge yourself in if you were dictator. I've a horrible feeling it's the latter.
Sorry about your son though. I guess I'm lucky. I was once caught doing the same thing but the cops just let me off with a friendly "why don't you just fuck off and pee on private property instead". (I was peeing on public property in the UK.)
Are they competing? Are they interoperable? Is one better than the other?
The whole point of the justice system is to eliminate the victim from sentencing, not to give them the right to carry it out. The reason is pretty straightforward - in political systems where the victims (or the family of the victim) determines the sentencing we end up with a society rife with feuding. As a result, most modern societies have no 'right to justice' in the sense you may be suggesting (and I may be misreading you).
That's right. They shouldn't even get lawyers. Let's just throw out due process while we're at it. Christ knows how the US got a Constitution in the first place given the scant regard most people have for human rights around here.
Actually, you're wrong. People who have sex with children are humans. It's pretty easy to demonstrate. Of course it may be convenient for you to twist the meaning of the word 'human' to help you deal better with various emotional issues you may have. Let's hope you never get into a position of political power where those issues may affect the rest of us.
It's scary when people are confused between literal and metaphorical usages of words. We describe sex offenders metaphorically as beasts, but anyone with half a brain cell can still see that literally speaking they are still humans. No matter how unspeakable their acts may be, a human is a human and deserves human rights.
I guess Catholic priests don't go to Catholic schools then.
Well, newbies to modding do.