But not all fiction is sci-fi. Which was part of my argument. Isn't all fiction speculative, by its very nature? I agree reality is too constricting, but sci-fi isn't the only way out of the box.
I don't think they are really that different. Money, Power, Sex are all as alluring today as they were with cavemen. The expressions of those may change over time, but not the underlying urges.
Gattaca's topics can most definitely be covered with out science fiction trappings. You can recast the same story in an alternate present where the Natzi's won WW2 and eugenics are practiced upon birth. This one doesn't have blond hair kill him. This one's skin is too dark, kill him. Its a story about discrimination, determination, and the human spirit.
The terminator is a story about the hubris of man kind, and the failure of mans ability to control their environment. Its a modern retelling of the tower of Babel, or the bubonic plague.
Never really liked Blade Runner or Alien, so I don't know the story well enough to comment on them.
Back to the future, is essentially Charles Dickens "a Christmas Carol" told form a third party perspective. Or at least it could be told with ghosts in 19th century Brittan, rather than flux capacitors,skate boards and Pepsi frees.
The Matrix draws form so many religious and philosophical stories, its pretty easy. Man must sacrifice himself to save others, while realizing that he has powers beyond that of other humans.
2001 is a creation story set in space. Mankind discovers that there is a creative force in the universe, and tries to understand what it is. Combine that with the story again the babel tower.
Basically for me again, its how the story relates itself to the human condition. What it says about us as humans, our capacity for intelligence, love, evil, darkness, humor,sadness,failure, success, community and isolation.
They are devoid of taste. Completely. I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't understand genre fanship. Good characters are good characters, good plot is good plot. You can take a western put it in space and its the same story. Its intrinsic value ( to me anyways) doesn't really have anything to do with the surroundings. I guess though, like good music, good stories are only appreciated by a few. That's why we're stuck with MTV & ilk.
As has been said multiple times, the true genius writes self documenting code that everyone can understand. documenting only the non obvious stuff like
int function calcDoomFunc() {
/* see Dr Farnsworth's paper on Talor series expansion of Non linear Globtrotter functions of the third kind applied towards doomsday device design*/
Yet, the quality versus cost graph surely is not linear. Its probably a Gaussian bell , meaning the cheapest isn't the best, nor is the most expensive. There is probably a sweet spot above which any additional dollars spent result in less and less quality. So no, you usually don't get what you pay for. You end up paying for your ignorance.
Of coarse the $7.00 latte was a poetic expression for my coffee obsession. My current coffee is from costa rica, I've actually visited the plantation where the beans come from, seen the roaster at work, grind them myself with a burr grinder, prepare in a french press and drink black.
The small niche of people that actually need the protection of a $100-$200 bag is a small percentage of the slashdot population. But we also have groups of people that spend ridiculous amounts of money on video games/ video cards/ mice/keyboards/ TV's/moniters/ Phones/ Media players. Very few of them really need any of those devices. If you ask me, I think you're all dumb, But equally so.
Now, please excuse me while I finish my $7.00 latte.
Yes, this is why F-secure is the only anti virus program I really trust. Its Mom proof! They haven't had a virus on their computer in over two years that I've had F-secure on. Sure it resource usage is a bit bad, but I just upgraded their computer to handle it. (they are unwilling to upgrade to Linux),
Its only really fun if they've burned you. If they've served you faithfully, what kind of treatment is that? I say take them out viking style : take a toy ship to carry them into the afterworld, set it ablaze with a flaming arrow while chanting some nordic verse.
Valhalla awaits: ,
Platter sure, heads swift
glorious memory
failed us not.
You cannot disprove the existence of God, anymore than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That, is what I'm referring to. While we might have some vagaries of a physical understanding of the symptoms of Love, its really a subset of free will. You have no idea what will happen in Love between two people. That uncertainty about it, shouldn't prevent it from being experienced.
Aside to self: Wow, trying to explain an analogy using Love.... on Slashdot... maybe use cars or section
I've responded to everyone who made a similar claim so you can look at those as well. And I mean them all. But also, I find it interesting that everyone has paid attention to that part of the statement rather than the other.
Religion becoming science makes just as much sense or nonsense as science becoming religion. Obviously no one can run experiments on the Bible, use it as a manual to build an engine. It can't actually replace science. The opposite is also true in a strict understanding of the word religion. You can't take a logical system and turn it into one that does not run on pure logic ( which is what all of you geniuses have said). The phrase is talking about an overeaching of each, not a complete overtaking.
PS: I do know what Dawkins arguments are, and that's the whole point: they are arguments... not science. I don't know why everyone is freaking out about that simple statement. Such virulent responses must mean that I've hit a nerve of some kind that I didn't know was there. Care to explain in a calm, rational manner? Or at least explain the scientific value of "the God Delusion"?
I would argue that he does go beyond what science can prove. He tries to disprove the unprovable. The rational approach to such a situation is not to try and disprove the unprovable statement, but to simply stand back and say its not provable.
you cannot argue... against his arguments.
Bingo! That's what they are arguments. Not theories or even hypotheses : arguments. Arguments occasionally presented as hypotheses. And that's why I don't have much respect for him. There is no scientific theory called "the God Delusion", its an argument. He might be right, he might be wrong. Hes wrong for the same freaking reason why intelligent design is wrong. Which is just about the most ironic thing imaginable.
Actually, I think its a just a really good CAPTCHA. Its like the Waking life of its time. A book version of Pulp fiction that wasn't glitzed up with violence.
Well, of those to criticize my usage of that phrase, you come the closest to discussing it in a rational manner. I would say that there are some people, Dawkins included, whose defense of scientific theories goes beyond what science actually says. And when you do that, go beyond the tested and verified theories, you are in the same grey area as religions.
That's a long rant, that I won't dissect completely. The English language has these funny things called metaphors, similes, as well as Irony, sarcasm and poetry. Every/any combination of words can make sense. Ever read Finnegan's wake?
But basically when I say "science has become someone's religion". It means that they are going beyond the limits of science to try and argue for science. Some have said that Religion is an unprovable hypothesis. Which, I would agree to. That also means that it can not be disproved. Those that try to disprove an unprovable hypothesis are just as silly as those that do.
Above all, regardless of profession we are humans. Our career should not be the only thing to define us. So when I mean "Scientists should explore faith" I did not mean to imply that they should or needed to bring their scientific arsenal to bear on the problem of religion, but that they as humans should be open to all of the experiences humans can experience. Just as they are open to falling in love, despite a lack of concrete exacting scientific understanding of emotion.
Ok. I understand. I wouldn't consider that Preaching. But I could see how you could. Although, I'd say he's doing more than just preaching to the choir. In some respect, he's defining himself or his characters to be the gold standard as opposed to pointing to something outside of himself (as a good preacher preaching to the choir should). I suddenly like it a lot less now. Still not a Dilbert fan. I think I'll have to stick to Garfield minus Garfield.
This is how it ideally should be in society. Scientists shouldn't be afraid of exploring faith, Theologians shouldn't be afraid of science. Banning Dawkins is horrible, but I understand why people don't like him.
His science has become his religion, which ticks off people who's religion has become their science.
Uhm,the volt doesn't need huge acid lead batteries either. It needs huge lithium ion batteries. Hydrogen is more of a pipe dream then electric, due to the distribution,storage, and manufacture of hydrogen not being very easy or cheap. Cars like the volt are a good start. Its all electric motors driving the wheels, the gas engine just powers an electric generator that recharges the batteries. So its a small step away from replacing the gas engine as the electric generator with a fuel cell. Most of the engineering that goes into this effort will be useful in creating a hydrogen car as well.
Slashdot Mirror
But not all fiction is sci-fi. Which was part of my argument. Isn't all fiction speculative, by its very nature? I agree reality is too constricting, but sci-fi isn't the only way out of the box.
I don't think they are really that different. Money, Power, Sex are all as alluring today as they were with cavemen. The expressions of those may change over time, but not the underlying urges.
Gattaca's topics can most definitely be covered with out science fiction trappings. You can recast the same story in an alternate present where the Natzi's won WW2 and eugenics are practiced upon birth. This one doesn't have blond hair kill him. This one's skin is too dark, kill him. Its a story about discrimination, determination, and the human spirit.
The terminator is a story about the hubris of man kind, and the failure of mans ability to control their environment. Its a modern retelling of the tower of Babel, or the bubonic plague.
Never really liked Blade Runner or Alien, so I don't know the story well enough to comment on them.
Back to the future, is essentially Charles Dickens "a Christmas Carol" told form a third party perspective. Or at least it could be told with ghosts in 19th century Brittan, rather than flux capacitors,skate boards and Pepsi frees.
The Matrix draws form so many religious and philosophical stories, its pretty easy. Man must sacrifice himself to save others, while realizing that he has powers beyond that of other humans.
2001 is a creation story set in space. Mankind discovers that there is a creative force in the universe, and tries to understand what it is. Combine that with the story again the babel tower.
Basically for me again, its how the story relates itself to the human condition. What it says about us as humans, our capacity for intelligence, love, evil, darkness, humor,sadness,failure, success, community and isolation.
They are devoid of taste. Completely. I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't understand genre fanship. Good characters are good characters, good plot is good plot. You can take a western put it in space and its the same story. Its intrinsic value ( to me anyways) doesn't really have anything to do with the surroundings. I guess though, like good music, good stories are only appreciated by a few. That's why we're stuck with MTV & ilk.
As has been said multiple times, the true genius writes self documenting code that everyone can understand. documenting only the non obvious stuff like
/* see Dr Farnsworth's paper on Talor series expansion of Non linear Globtrotter functions of the third kind applied towards doomsday device design*/
int function calcDoomFunc() {
return 2;
}
Yet, the quality versus cost graph surely is not linear. Its probably a Gaussian bell , meaning the cheapest isn't the best, nor is the most expensive. There is probably a sweet spot above which any additional dollars spent result in less and less quality. So no, you usually don't get what you pay for. You end up paying for your ignorance.
Of coarse the $7.00 latte was a poetic expression for my coffee obsession. My current coffee is from costa rica, I've actually visited the plantation where the beans come from, seen the roaster at work, grind them myself with a burr grinder, prepare in a french press and drink black.
I've always wondered where the sweet spot is, provided your problem is sufficiently parallelizable.
The small niche of people that actually need the protection of a $100-$200 bag is a small percentage of the slashdot population. But we also have groups of people that spend ridiculous amounts of money on video games/ video cards/ mice/keyboards/ TV's/moniters/ Phones/ Media players. Very few of them really need any of those devices. If you ask me, I think you're all dumb, But equally so.
Now, please excuse me while I finish my $7.00 latte.
Yes, this is why F-secure is the only anti virus program I really trust. Its Mom proof! They haven't had a virus on their computer in over two years that I've had F-secure on. Sure it resource usage is a bit bad, but I just upgraded their computer to handle it. (they are unwilling to upgrade to Linux),
Mod up! I can wait a few hours for the awesomeness.
Its only really fun if they've burned you. If they've served you faithfully, what kind of treatment is that? I say take them out viking style : take a toy ship to carry them into the afterworld, set it ablaze with a flaming arrow while chanting some nordic verse.
Valhalla awaits:
, Platter sure, heads swift
glorious memory
failed us not.
You cannot disprove the existence of God, anymore than the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That, is what I'm referring to. While we might have some vagaries of a physical understanding of the symptoms of Love, its really a subset of free will. You have no idea what will happen in Love between two people. That uncertainty about it, shouldn't prevent it from being experienced.
.... on Slashdot ... maybe use cars or section
Aside to self: Wow, trying to explain an analogy using Love
I've responded to everyone who made a similar claim so you can look at those as well. And I mean them all. But also, I find it interesting that everyone has paid attention to that part of the statement rather than the other.
... not science. I don't know why everyone is freaking out about that simple statement. Such virulent responses must mean that I've hit a nerve of some kind that I didn't know was there. Care to explain in a calm, rational manner? Or at least explain the scientific value of "the God Delusion"?
Religion becoming science makes just as much sense or nonsense as science becoming religion. Obviously no one can run experiments on the Bible, use it as a manual to build an engine. It can't actually replace science. The opposite is also true in a strict understanding of the word religion. You can't take a logical system and turn it into one that does not run on pure logic ( which is what all of you geniuses have said). The phrase is talking about an overeaching of each, not a complete overtaking.
PS: I do know what Dawkins arguments are, and that's the whole point: they are arguments
Yes, exactly! Dawkins treats Science as an Authority! That is part of what I meant any ways.
Bingo! That's what they are arguments. Not theories or even hypotheses : arguments. Arguments occasionally presented as hypotheses. And that's why I don't have much respect for him. There is no scientific theory called "the God Delusion", its an argument. He might be right, he might be wrong. Hes wrong for the same freaking reason why intelligent design is wrong. Which is just about the most ironic thing imaginable.
Actually, I think its a just a really good CAPTCHA. Its like the Waking life of its time. A book version of Pulp fiction that wasn't glitzed up with violence.
Well, of those to criticize my usage of that phrase, you come the closest to discussing it in a rational manner. I would say that there are some people, Dawkins included, whose defense of scientific theories goes beyond what science actually says. And when you do that, go beyond the tested and verified theories, you are in the same grey area as religions.
That's a long rant, that I won't dissect completely. The English language has these funny things called metaphors, similes, as well as Irony, sarcasm and poetry. Every/any combination of words can make sense. Ever read Finnegan's wake?
But basically when I say "science has become someone's religion". It means that they are going beyond the limits of science to try and argue for science. Some have said that Religion is an unprovable hypothesis. Which, I would agree to. That also means that it can not be disproved. Those that try to disprove an unprovable hypothesis are just as silly as those that do.
Above all, regardless of profession we are humans. Our career should not be the only thing to define us. So when I mean "Scientists should explore faith" I did not mean to imply that they should or needed to bring their scientific arsenal to bear on the problem of religion, but that they as humans should be open to all of the experiences humans can experience. Just as they are open to falling in love, despite a lack of concrete exacting scientific understanding of emotion.
Ok. I understand. I wouldn't consider that Preaching. But I could see how you could. Although, I'd say he's doing more than just preaching to the choir. In some respect, he's defining himself or his characters to be the gold standard as opposed to pointing to something outside of himself (as a good preacher preaching to the choir should). I suddenly like it a lot less now. Still not a Dilbert fan. I think I'll have to stick to Garfield minus Garfield.
This is how it ideally should be in society. Scientists shouldn't be afraid of exploring faith, Theologians shouldn't be afraid of science. Banning Dawkins is horrible, but I understand why people don't like him.
His science has become his religion, which ticks off people who's religion has become their science.
Well, that's clear as mud. Thank you for taking the time our of your busy schedule to clear that up.
Uhm,the volt doesn't need huge acid lead batteries either. It needs huge lithium ion batteries. Hydrogen is more of a pipe dream then electric, due to the distribution,storage, and manufacture of hydrogen not being very easy or cheap. Cars like the volt are a good start. Its all electric motors driving the wheels, the gas engine just powers an electric generator that recharges the batteries. So its a small step away from replacing the gas engine as the electric generator with a fuel cell. Most of the engineering that goes into this effort will be useful in creating a hydrogen car as well.
Preachy? really? Haven't seen that side. What is he preaching for? Nerdosity? Sexuality? Malevolent behavior? Maybe Idiocy.
I disagree completely Lynx performs the best with javascript, by not running it at all.
You may be thinking of links2 which does have some javascript support, but not mine.