"they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals" - I'd have to say outright killing +90% of the animals they take in for "adoption" is affecting those animals, wouldn't you? They're scum.
Kinda left out that word "just" there, didn't ya? If you can't see the inside of his machine, every statement you've made is based on the desire that "it be so", just like with perpetual motion machines (which was an example of fraud, not a synonym for his machine, other than the fraud). This is how the gullible get taken. You should invest.
Nothing of the sort happened. The telegraph and light bulb were both simple devices that could be easily and completely examined. Neither was used to make outlandish and unexaminable claims. They were demonstrated to work and were easily figured out as to why. Your statement is bullshit.
And many things that are scientifically impossible remain just that. Just examining the input and output is meaningless. Unless they can examine the machine, and I mean taking it apart, the presumption should always be that something is hidden inside. Perpetual machine hoaxes are notorious for this.
If you don't want to alter, just go out into the deep country. The effect is much the same. I've done both. Most people haven't seen the ribbons of change in the Milky Way with their own eyes. It inspires awe regardless.
I think you're avoid the "that". "That" being the putting of the images on a wall *by themselves*, not being shown what to do and simply mimicking. How I interpreted his first sentence anyway.
I'm amazed that all the archeologists make presumptions that things were slow to spread. It only takes a few years, decades at most to walk from Europe to Asia. Humans are intelligent. Once shown a new and nifty idea I'm sure they thought "Pfft! I can do that!"
No it hasn't. You've endangered your entire post with your first sentence. Maybe where you live it's crippled, but it most certainly isn't dead and even more certainly not everywhere.
Advertizing controls people
Wow, another gross overstatement. Most everyone I know and many here on/. finds ads annoying and tune them out, ignore them or develop antipathy.
Sorry you view things this way but I feel you're incorrect.
Helluva reach that "vast majority" and frankly I think you're fabricating. I've only seen one show about Tourette syndrome and it was a documentary. How about some cites?
"But that is the point, you don't have to make a movie about a supercomputer." was what I was responding to and if you read up the subthread you'd realize that was the context.
Explain how your comment addresses that.
Stories are all about exploring the unknown without actually having to experience it.
That holds true even for the evil machine movies as evil machines don't actually exist.
I'd even say violence is a common thread... people are certainly hostile toward it.
Point given. I'll narrow my focus. Slasher films that place the audience in the killer's POV. People watch many of those (they outnumber evil machine movies) and yet the emulation of that behavior is extremely rare.
Slashdot Mirror
As it's a painting of an Egyptian wedding, yes it does.
"they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals" - I'd have to say outright killing +90% of the animals they take in for "adoption" is affecting those animals, wouldn't you? They're scum.
"Build one of these things for small-scale production." Can't. He won't tell you how. I'd rather see your personal money involved.
"find out what the next step is" We already know. He's said it himself. "Give me money."
Kinda left out that word "just" there, didn't ya?
If you can't see the inside of his machine, every statement you've made is based on the desire that "it be so", just like with perpetual motion machines (which was an example of fraud, not a synonym for his machine, other than the fraud).
This is how the gullible get taken. You should invest.
Nothing of the sort happened. The telegraph and light bulb were both simple devices that could be easily and completely examined. Neither was used to make outlandish and unexaminable claims. They were demonstrated to work and were easily figured out as to why. Your statement is bullshit.
"Packing dollars into wallets" is a practiced skill. You need to examine the tutu to understand what happened.
And many things that are scientifically impossible remain just that. Just examining the input and output is meaningless. Unless they can examine the machine, and I mean taking it apart, the presumption should always be that something is hidden inside. Perpetual machine hoaxes are notorious for this.
Perhaps some cited stats would help your argument.
How good of you to decide for everyone.
More needed tags on actual contributions than real references, giving credence to the feeling that the man's reputation is mythical.
He didn't address perspective. Two people can perceive the same thing and due to differing perspectives come away with different views.
If you don't want to alter, just go out into the deep country. The effect is much the same. I've done both.
Most people haven't seen the ribbons of change in the Milky Way with their own eyes. It inspires awe regardless.
I think you're avoid the "that". "That" being the putting of the images on a wall *by themselves*, not being shown what to do and simply mimicking. How I interpreted his first sentence anyway.
The "dye" is ochre, dirt. The other two I'll concede readily.
No it wasn't. Otherwise you'd know about rock glazing and other age detecting techniques.
I'm amazed that all the archeologists make presumptions that things were slow to spread. It only takes a few years, decades at most to walk from Europe to Asia. Humans are intelligent. Once shown a new and nifty idea I'm sure they thought "Pfft! I can do that!"
Then let's find this Whose guy and make him stop. He's the one who's keeping them alive.
No it hasn't. You've endangered your entire post with your first sentence. Maybe where you live it's crippled, but it most certainly isn't dead and even more certainly not everywhere.
Wow, another gross overstatement. Most everyone I know and many here on /. finds ads annoying and tune them out, ignore them or develop antipathy.
Sorry you view things this way but I feel you're incorrect.
Helluva reach that "vast majority" and frankly I think you're fabricating. I've only seen one show about Tourette syndrome and it was a documentary. How about some cites?
"But that is the point, you don't have to make a movie about a supercomputer." was what I was responding to and if you read up the subthread you'd realize that was the context. Explain how your comment addresses that.
No, I do not live in a fictional town. Why?
You do realize that way over 90% of movies aren't about supercomputers at all, right?
Perhaps it's the technologists you hang out with. Those I know don't feel that way. I also think you're conflating charlatan's with everyday people.
That holds true even for the evil machine movies as evil machines don't actually exist.
Point given. I'll narrow my focus. Slasher films that place the audience in the killer's POV. People watch many of those (they outnumber evil machine movies) and yet the emulation of that behavior is extremely rare.
It wasn't his technology, it was his religious speech.