I didn't miss the joke. It wasn't even slightly funny. You trying to defend it makes it even less funny. Not everyone can be Henny Youngman, and those that can't should probably hold their tongue--or at least expect to get heckled for their unfunniness. This is a perfect example of plain, unabashed, unfunny.
There exist important classes of systems where close enough is *not* good enough to make reasonable predictions. At best, you can predict various possible families of outcomes and then wait to see which one pertains. For example, chaotic systems are not deterministic in the way that classical systems are considered to be. The weather is essentially unpredictable except for gross patterns because even a minute variation of starting conditions will lead to completely different model outcomes. Considering that complete certainty over every possible starting point measurement (there an infinite number of them, but even just considering a few "important" ones) is quite impossible, even if there was a complete model we would still not be able to use it to make completely accurate predictions. There is a good reason that statistics underpins modern science. The only accurate simulator for the universe is the universe itself.
What do you think this guy is, Robin Hood? On the one hand he threatens people who use the word stealth (god forbid!) and on the other, it is just a big misunderstanding regarding the way he appropriated charitable funds? Don't waste your good natured ability to forgive on those miscreants who really do need correcting. This man does not deserve the protections that civilisized society affords him. Save your comments for someone who deserves an advocate.
I guess it is an art project and not a science project but still...the bot seems to be completely superfluous as the cockroach is not even given the slightest indication that its actions are controlling the bot. The cockroach either changes direction when facing a light or not. Wooo. The idea that actions affect outcome is a much different proposition than using goal directed actions to pertain a particular outcome.
So I'm forced to disagree with Hertz -- this system is far less interesting than a computer.
Can you clarify what you mean be "anymore"? Was there ever a time that people knew what the real planets "looked" like? Or even the unreal planets for that matter....most of everything we know is heresay and much of that is colorful heresay, to say the least.
Best of all, if you really want to know what the planets look like, these "false colored" images are the best thing after all because they pick out features that single sources of original data are obscuring or not picking up at all. It shouldn't be forgotten that this is data imaging, not a family picnic slideshow; the instruments being used to generate the data are not limited to the familiar visible-spectrum light camera that we are used to for our snapshots.
Still, I'm anxiously awaiting those holographic images you suggested. Now thats a nice enhancement!
Re:Probably this is just a trick by Merrill Lynch.
on
A $251 Million Typo
·
· Score: 1
So? That neither proves fraud nor that most of the participants in the market are committing fraud nor that most of the people writing about the markets are writing fraudulant stories.
If we look hard enough, are we likely to find issues with the way business is conducted? I have no doubt. Does that imply a systemic behaviour of fraud and conspiracy? On its own, not at all. If such a thing is occurring, surely we can find better facts to justify that claim than one-off observations of fax spams.
Innocent until proven guilty means that it is not true that one apple spoils the bunch. One must present specific facts that incriminate specific individuals and entities rather than the oh-so-lazy single-brush-painting of the entire industry and all of its participants.
Re:Probably this is just a trick by Merrill Lynch.
on
A $251 Million Typo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Finally someone who is reading with a critical eye. A $251 million dollar typo? I think not. A $12 million dollar paper loss? Considering that they don't plan on selling the stock, their unrealized profit or loss is rather speculative.
Not knowing all the facts of the case, I'm not willing to jump into the premise that there is a larger multi-corporation conspiracy involving Merrill Lynch but it is almost certain that the Taiwanese trading firm is not telling the truth and that this is a cover story.
Just goes to show how guilable people are. Tell them any old story--no matter how ridiculous--and not only will they believe it, but they will also defend it.
Now, as for the claim that "most of what is written about the financial markets is fraudulent in some way" -- you care to back that up? Because thats a statement with almost no content other than a manipulative intent to induce the reader to distrust what is written about the markets. Even if the fraud tally is "billions of dollars", that is a small fraction of the overall market size and furthermore, your claim wasn't about fraudulent market activity but rather fraudulent writings concerning market activity. Which is all very confusing.
I think caution should be taken when extrapolating from a single instance of what _appears_ to be a non-truth. The fact that a given firm is making dubious claims does not necessarily imply or play into larger conspiracy themes.
Talk about a shill. Does anyone really take that blowhard seriously? He is a complete moron and why anyone would quote him -- or even listen to him, is beyond me.
Don't drink his kool-aid, he only has his own interests in mind.
Give it a rest. We aren't posting our messages here on Slashdot for the ages, after-all. These are one-offs, spur-of-the-moment things, not computer programs. If people were less anal and actually considered the reasons instead of trying to show how perfectly smart they are, it would be much more obvious to them.
If you judge a person's intelligence based on a random post at slashdot or some other forum/blog, you are severely underestimating them.
The moral of the story: don't take yourself too seriously.
If by "typical person" you somehow mean "completely ignorant and self-justifying" then you are probably right. You say 'scientist' like it is an insult, but it is the 'scientists' who are responsible for providing you with your electronics, computers, energy, medicine, advanced materials and pretty much everything that you rely on day-to-day and moment-to-moment. If you pick and choose who to believe based on wacko opinions like the one you express then not only are you living in a fantasy world, but you severely misunderstand the role that scientists play.
Don't confuse the mass-media's predilcition to peddle gloom-and-doom with hard science. The problems being discussed are well observed and no one with a clue denies that they exist, that they are directly correlated to fossil fuel usage and that the problem is escalating out of control. You have no reasonable justification to not believe these people on these matters.
Feel free to ignore those who know more than you but be honest about it: don't try to discredit people just because you are too unwilling to do any research on your own.
If you feel the need to pick on spelling rather than argument and wave your supposed penis in my face, you are in need of serious help. Or perhaps just serious correction.
You misunderstand the purpose of A Modest Proposal entirely. Its intent is to show that an idea, though presented as reasonable is in fact completely abhorant and unreasonable (its called irony). It does in itself imply a second argument. You invented that part and that is why your thesis fails on two counts; you don't understand the meaning of A Modest Proposal and your misuse of it causes your second error, namely to state that it implies a discussion on an independant matter.
I earnestly disagree that there remains serious contention on these points. Yet my opinion hardly matters. On the other hand, the same conclusions were reached by the UN panel of scientists (comprising several hundred researchers who are experts in the field) in their 2000 report on global warming and its effects. So did the 2002 and 2004 panels who examined the massive asian smog clouds. So did countless of other academic reports and studies. The sheer quantity of the studies and the number of serious, honest researchers standing behind them is staggering. You can dissent, but when you do you stand against the consensus opinion of those who are are actively involved in understanding the issues and reaching conclusions on them. Sure, in science there is always room for error. Yet that is no reason not to accept the established opinion. To do so is to negate the activity of science and its researchers.
The truth is no longer clouded behind supposition and hypothesis. There are actual measurable effects and they are right in front of our eyes. To continue to say "we don't know" is, to put it inelegantly, dishonest.
I agree that the possible solutions all pose significant issues that require further study. Yet I disagree that we should wait to study them to the end before applying them. Much study has already been done and besides, we didn't wait for studies on fossil fuels before adopting them as we have.
Personally I see solar and nuclear as most promising, though I include the latter only as an intermediate expedient because it obviously creates worrisome problems of its own. I would argue, though, that nearly any option is better than maintaining the status quo. I should state that I'm not maintaining that we should just outright ban fossil fuel usage -- but we need to switch off as soon as possible.
On the contrary, it means that I think your use of the "modest proposal" is a non-sequitur.
I do apologize for confusing you with the parent I originally replied to -- many of my points were in relation to the original argument of parent and not specifically your argument. My bad.
That said, everything said still applies. You are being disingengenious. You are saying that "A" is a Modest Proposal designed to produce "B". This is essentially what the parent was saying and I feel I refuted that well enough by showing that "B" is an argument that needs to be (and is being) persued quite independantly of "A". Indeed, it is just as reasonable to see "A" as being proposed for the sole intent of attempting to confound "B". Whether it is a Modest Proposal or not has absolutely no bearing. I would think that a nitve english speaker would understand that well enough.
Sorry, I won't do your homework for you. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives, just look at the literature; expecting people to spoon feed-you "the solution" probably wouldn't work anyhow: I doubt you would believe them. The main problem with the alternatives is that they all imply short-term pain to switch over and adopt them. That's where all the friction in these debates really occur.
Your assertion that the environmental models are inconclusive is plain wrong. Its not even worth trying to rehash the facts; it is well accepted that the scientific debate on the cause and effect of air-borne pollutants is over. We are in a crisis and it is the result of our own short-sighted use of fossil fuels for energy production. To say otherwise is to misrepresent the case and one can only wonder why someone would do such a thing.
You propose a workable plan, and I'll get on board.
I read that as: "I'm not chaning my behaviour no matter the consequences." The onus of this problem does not fall on me alone. In my view, we all have to be somewhat more constructive than you are suggesting. Complacency is not an option.
Finally, an argument is made by proposing an idea (which you did) to which someone else responds (which I did). Not that I came here for an argument.
I find that rather disengenious on your part. It is more effective to stop or seriously limit the introduction fossil fuel pollutants for reasons completely unrelated to the proposal in TFA. If anything, the proposal is aimed at trying to move the argument away from the obvious, much as you are accusing the grandparent. Your argument rests on the notion that introducing these by-products in our quest for energy is a neutral activity when in fact that is plainly false. If you truly want a sane debate, you have to first admit that continued reliance on fossil fuels can not be a long-term strategy.
I agree, though, that the idea proposed in the article is absurd.
I don't understand your argument. Are you for or against reducing pollution caused by fossil fuels? After all, INSANE reliance on fossil fuels got us into this mess, not? Nevermind that it is a non-renewable resource. There has been an attempt to engage people for the last 25 years in a reasonable debate on what to do about the pollution problem it causes (the evidence is overwhelming and the consensus in the scientific community quite plainly asserts this based on countless studies) yet the typical retaliation is to claim that it is too expensive to change anything. It is the class freeloader scenario where external costs aren't included in the price of the good itself which lead people to say such things. Is it worse that people should change the way they do things or that we blithely destroy the planet for all time?
I don't think it wise to use Slashdot as an example. Rob (nor slashdot) provide content -- they provide access and service. Minimal amounts of content are aggregated/linked from other sources but the majority is provided by the very people who must view the ads.
So what if a some sites can't face the ad-blocked model and will wither and die? No ought be gauranteed existence based on my eyeballs being available. It is reasonable to assume that some content will therefore become locked up but there is absolutely no reason to assume that all of it will be or that there will not be any free content available. We should also talk about the side-effect of this: without easy dollars to be made, there is much reason to assume that quality will increase.
Yes, our opinions differ and my interest in this thread has waned some time ago but since you took the time to talk about SW I will say that my argumentation on the Midichlorians is indeed based in the actual events of SW. Furthermore the supposition that sages are fallable is a long held tradition in fables, post-moden stories and the SW trilogies themselves. It is notable, for example, that in EP3 it is far too late that the sages themselves realize that they have been mislead and decieved -- they are indeed fallible and I am quite certrain that this is part of the message that Lucas is hoping to impart.
I fully understand why people hate the idea of midichlorians but typically anyone who says so mentions it as a reaction much like the one you have: you didn't expect it. Still, it helps harmonize the idea of the Force with the "force" like entities from eastern traditions such as prana and chi which are both related to breath and have a long history of mysterious powers. Furthermore, if you examine the wikipedia entry for midichlorians it says:
"The word "midi-clorian" appears to be a blend of "mitochondrion" and "chloroplast", two organelles found in real cells and thought to have evolved from bacteria that also came to live as endosymbionts inside other cells."
In otherwords, it is possible to read Lucas as having some fun here by postulating something that is currently unconfirmed but suspected. It is noteworthy that these two organelles are endosymbionts -- they are not derived from your DNA as amazing as that sounds since they actually reside as part of your cell structure. Even more amazingly, there would be no life without them as they are largely responsible for energy conversion within the cell.
What is a little bit unnerving, to me at least, is that those were merely examples I used to demonstrate that the original poster was content to bash Lucas based on very superficial reads of the story and moreso, suggest that he or others not only could do better but deserved the chance to prove it more than Lucas does. How absurd. Maybe this also explains some of the reason I was so willing to tell people to be quite -- it is exactly what they are telling Lucas to do.
I will also respond to one point that keeps coming up because I think it needs to be said: in regards to having a serious discussion here, we are both posting into a SW related thread on Slashdot that was spurned by a troll or at least flamebait material. I think it is somewhat folly to expect a good debate here. While I will typically take a very different stance in other threads and other forums here I see no reason to do so.
You, though, have proven yourself to be above reproach so I will tip my hat to you and say "good day"!
My question to you is, why are all of your posts towards me regarding the so-called decorum of posting here while none of them are discussing the actual content of the thread? I put my neck out on the line by responding to what, in my opinion, was an obvious troll. I didn't do it as an AC and I was quite sure to make it clear that if someone wants to trample on someone elses pet topics, they should expect some trampling in return. I knew the consequences and I didn't care -- sometimes you have to fight fire with fire no matter what anyone else thinks.
If your only point to comment is to say that I could have been more diplomatic, well, I just don't care. Slashdot is not the home of reasoned debate -- it is filled with trolls and as long as they are bashing things with inane comments that are (for whatever reason) important to me, I will freely deal with them and tell them any dumb thing that comes to my mind. Sorry if I offended you sensibilities but if all you have to offer is commentary regarding the STYLE of my posts, then what else can I say?
Re:Beginning of the End of Star Wars
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Takes one to know one. Of course, at least I have what it takes to defend a position while you only seem to know enough words to insult without reason. Go home little one.
"Important logical difference between your argument and his. He stated his opinion. You stated that he should keep his opinion to himself. Putting up your own opinion in contrast to someone else, is different to saying someone elses is invalid."
See this is the problem, people don't follow threads. The poster you are replying to did not state an opinion, he told me that the grandparent had the right the state his opinion. I didn't say the grandparent didn't have the right to say something, I asked if anyone cared for his whining and then I pointed out that he doesn't get to trash SW. I should have said *without rebuke* but that was obviously implied.
As for the poster you replied to, because he was (and remains) someone who buds in without an opinion on the discussion, I told him to sit down. Now I tell you the same.
"What did Luke do? Vader made the choice, Luke was just a pawn."
It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but without Luke's intervention--which is based directly on his insight and his rejection of the dark side--there would have been no end of Palpatine. Indeed, without Luke, the dark side would have triumphed. The fact that Anakin was redeemed and did the right thing does not in itself imply that he was the catalyst for that action. It is Luke who leads the galaxy back to light and Darth's transendence is a direct result of Luke's intervention. Therefore, it is Luke who is the chosen one -- the one who restores balance to the force.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't miss the joke. It wasn't even slightly funny. You trying to defend it makes it even less funny. Not everyone can be Henny Youngman, and those that can't should probably hold their tongue--or at least expect to get heckled for their unfunniness. This is a perfect example of plain, unabashed, unfunny.
"Good news is that in space, it will weigh nothing!"
The bad news is that you got to get it into space. Of course, if that was some misguided attempt at humour, then...nothing is forgiven.
There exist important classes of systems where close enough is *not* good enough to make reasonable predictions. At best, you can predict various possible families of outcomes and then wait to see which one pertains. For example, chaotic systems are not deterministic in the way that classical systems are considered to be. The weather is essentially unpredictable except for gross patterns because even a minute variation of starting conditions will lead to completely different model outcomes. Considering that complete certainty over every possible starting point measurement (there an infinite number of them, but even just considering a few "important" ones) is quite impossible, even if there was a complete model we would still not be able to use it to make completely accurate predictions. There is a good reason that statistics underpins modern science. The only accurate simulator for the universe is the universe itself.
What do you think this guy is, Robin Hood? On the one hand he threatens people who use the word stealth (god forbid!) and on the other, it is just a big misunderstanding regarding the way he appropriated charitable funds? Don't waste your good natured ability to forgive on those miscreants who really do need correcting. This man does not deserve the protections that civilisized society affords him. Save your comments for someone who deserves an advocate.
I guess it is an art project and not a science project but still...the bot seems to be completely superfluous as the cockroach is not even given the slightest indication that its actions are controlling the bot. The cockroach either changes direction when facing a light or not. Wooo. The idea that actions affect outcome is a much different proposition than using goal directed actions to pertain a particular outcome.
So I'm forced to disagree with Hertz -- this system is far less interesting than a computer.
Can you clarify what you mean be "anymore"? Was there ever a time that people knew what the real planets "looked" like? Or even the unreal planets for that matter....most of everything we know is heresay and much of that is colorful heresay, to say the least.
Best of all, if you really want to know what the planets look like, these "false colored" images are the best thing after all because they pick out features that single sources of original data are obscuring or not picking up at all. It shouldn't be forgotten that this is data imaging, not a family picnic slideshow; the instruments being used to generate the data are not limited to the familiar visible-spectrum light camera that we are used to for our snapshots.
Still, I'm anxiously awaiting those holographic images you suggested. Now thats a nice enhancement!
So? That neither proves fraud nor that most of the participants in the market are committing fraud nor that most of the people writing about the markets are writing fraudulant stories.
If we look hard enough, are we likely to find issues with the way business is conducted? I have no doubt. Does that imply a systemic behaviour of fraud and conspiracy? On its own, not at all. If such a thing is occurring, surely we can find better facts to justify that claim than one-off observations of fax spams.
Innocent until proven guilty means that it is not true that one apple spoils the bunch. One must present specific facts that incriminate specific individuals and entities rather than the oh-so-lazy single-brush-painting of the entire industry and all of its participants.
Finally someone who is reading with a critical eye. A $251 million dollar typo? I think not. A $12 million dollar paper loss? Considering that they don't plan on selling the stock, their unrealized profit or loss is rather speculative.
Not knowing all the facts of the case, I'm not willing to jump into the premise that there is a larger multi-corporation conspiracy involving Merrill Lynch but it is almost certain that the Taiwanese trading firm is not telling the truth and that this is a cover story.
Just goes to show how guilable people are. Tell them any old story--no matter how ridiculous--and not only will they believe it, but they will also defend it.
Now, as for the claim that "most of what is written about the financial markets is fraudulent in some way" -- you care to back that up? Because thats a statement with almost no content other than a manipulative intent to induce the reader to distrust what is written about the markets. Even if the fraud tally is "billions of dollars", that is a small fraction of the overall market size and furthermore, your claim wasn't about fraudulent market activity but rather fraudulent writings concerning market activity. Which is all very confusing.
I think caution should be taken when extrapolating from a single instance of what _appears_ to be a non-truth. The fact that a given firm is making dubious claims does not necessarily imply or play into larger conspiracy themes.
Talk about a shill. Does anyone really take that blowhard seriously? He is a complete moron and why anyone would quote him -- or even listen to him, is beyond me.
Don't drink his kool-aid, he only has his own interests in mind.
Give it a rest. We aren't posting our messages here on Slashdot for the ages, after-all. These are one-offs, spur-of-the-moment things, not computer programs. If people were less anal and actually considered the reasons instead of trying to show how perfectly smart they are, it would be much more obvious to them.
If you judge a person's intelligence based on a random post at slashdot or some other forum/blog, you are severely underestimating them.
The moral of the story: don't take yourself too seriously.
If by "typical person" you somehow mean "completely ignorant and self-justifying" then you are probably right. You say 'scientist' like it is an insult, but it is the 'scientists' who are responsible for providing you with your electronics, computers, energy, medicine, advanced materials and pretty much everything that you rely on day-to-day and moment-to-moment. If you pick and choose who to believe based on wacko opinions like the one you express then not only are you living in a fantasy world, but you severely misunderstand the role that scientists play.
Don't confuse the mass-media's predilcition to peddle gloom-and-doom with hard science. The problems being discussed are well observed and no one with a clue denies that they exist, that they are directly correlated to fossil fuel usage and that the problem is escalating out of control. You have no reasonable justification to not believe these people on these matters.
Feel free to ignore those who know more than you but be honest about it: don't try to discredit people just because you are too unwilling to do any research on your own.
If you feel the need to pick on spelling rather than argument and wave your supposed penis in my face, you are in need of serious help. Or perhaps just serious correction.
You misunderstand the purpose of A Modest Proposal entirely. Its intent is to show that an idea, though presented as reasonable is in fact completely abhorant and unreasonable (its called irony). It does in itself imply a second argument. You invented that part and that is why your thesis fails on two counts; you don't understand the meaning of A Modest Proposal and your misuse of it causes your second error, namely to state that it implies a discussion on an independant matter.
Please, grown-ups are talking.
I earnestly disagree that there remains serious contention on these points. Yet my opinion hardly matters. On the other hand, the same conclusions were reached by the UN panel of scientists (comprising several hundred researchers who are experts in the field) in their 2000 report on global warming and its effects. So did the 2002 and 2004 panels who examined the massive asian smog clouds. So did countless of other academic reports and studies. The sheer quantity of the studies and the number of serious, honest researchers standing behind them is staggering. You can dissent, but when you do you stand against the consensus opinion of those who are are actively involved in understanding the issues and reaching conclusions on them. Sure, in science there is always room for error. Yet that is no reason not to accept the established opinion. To do so is to negate the activity of science and its researchers.
The truth is no longer clouded behind supposition and hypothesis. There are actual measurable effects and they are right in front of our eyes. To continue to say "we don't know" is, to put it inelegantly, dishonest.
I agree that the possible solutions all pose significant issues that require further study. Yet I disagree that we should wait to study them to the end before applying them. Much study has already been done and besides, we didn't wait for studies on fossil fuels before adopting them as we have.
Personally I see solar and nuclear as most promising, though I include the latter only as an intermediate expedient because it obviously creates worrisome problems of its own. I would argue, though, that nearly any option is better than maintaining the status quo. I should state that I'm not maintaining that we should just outright ban fossil fuel usage -- but we need to switch off as soon as possible.
On the contrary, it means that I think your use of the "modest proposal" is a non-sequitur.
I do apologize for confusing you with the parent I originally replied to -- many of my points were in relation to the original argument of parent and not specifically your argument. My bad.
That said, everything said still applies. You are being disingengenious. You are saying that "A" is a Modest Proposal designed to produce "B". This is essentially what the parent was saying and I feel I refuted that well enough by showing that "B" is an argument that needs to be (and is being) persued quite independantly of "A". Indeed, it is just as reasonable to see "A" as being proposed for the sole intent of attempting to confound "B". Whether it is a Modest Proposal or not has absolutely no bearing. I would think that a nitve english speaker would understand that well enough.
Sorry, I won't do your homework for you. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives, just look at the literature; expecting people to spoon feed-you "the solution" probably wouldn't work anyhow: I doubt you would believe them. The main problem with the alternatives is that they all imply short-term pain to switch over and adopt them. That's where all the friction in these debates really occur.
Your assertion that the environmental models are inconclusive is plain wrong. Its not even worth trying to rehash the facts; it is well accepted that the scientific debate on the cause and effect of air-borne pollutants is over. We are in a crisis and it is the result of our own short-sighted use of fossil fuels for energy production. To say otherwise is to misrepresent the case and one can only wonder why someone would do such a thing.
You propose a workable plan, and I'll get on board.
I read that as: "I'm not chaning my behaviour no matter the consequences." The onus of this problem does not fall on me alone. In my view, we all have to be somewhat more constructive than you are suggesting. Complacency is not an option.
Finally, an argument is made by proposing an idea (which you did) to which someone else responds (which I did). Not that I came here for an argument.
I find that rather disengenious on your part. It is more effective to stop or seriously limit the introduction fossil fuel pollutants for reasons completely unrelated to the proposal in TFA. If anything, the proposal is aimed at trying to move the argument away from the obvious, much as you are accusing the grandparent. Your argument rests on the notion that introducing these by-products in our quest for energy is a neutral activity when in fact that is plainly false. If you truly want a sane debate, you have to first admit that continued reliance on fossil fuels can not be a long-term strategy.
I agree, though, that the idea proposed in the article is absurd.
I don't understand your argument. Are you for or against reducing pollution caused by fossil fuels? After all, INSANE reliance on fossil fuels got us into this mess, not? Nevermind that it is a non-renewable resource. There has been an attempt to engage people for the last 25 years in a reasonable debate on what to do about the pollution problem it causes (the evidence is overwhelming and the consensus in the scientific community quite plainly asserts this based on countless studies) yet the typical retaliation is to claim that it is too expensive to change anything. It is the class freeloader scenario where external costs aren't included in the price of the good itself which lead people to say such things. Is it worse that people should change the way they do things or that we blithely destroy the planet for all time?
I don't think it wise to use Slashdot as an example. Rob (nor slashdot) provide content -- they provide access and service. Minimal amounts of content are aggregated/linked from other sources but the majority is provided by the very people who must view the ads.
So what if a some sites can't face the ad-blocked model and will wither and die? No ought be gauranteed existence based on my eyeballs being available. It is reasonable to assume that some content will therefore become locked up but there is absolutely no reason to assume that all of it will be or that there will not be any free content available. We should also talk about the side-effect of this: without easy dollars to be made, there is much reason to assume that quality will increase.
Yes, our opinions differ and my interest in this thread has waned some time ago but since you took the time to talk about SW I will say that my argumentation on the Midichlorians is indeed based in the actual events of SW. Furthermore the supposition that sages are fallable is a long held tradition in fables, post-moden stories and the SW trilogies themselves. It is notable, for example, that in EP3 it is far too late that the sages themselves realize that they have been mislead and decieved -- they are indeed fallible and I am quite certrain that this is part of the message that Lucas is hoping to impart.
I fully understand why people hate the idea of midichlorians but typically anyone who says so mentions it as a reaction much like the one you have: you didn't expect it. Still, it helps harmonize the idea of the Force with the "force" like entities from eastern traditions such as prana and chi which are both related to breath and have a long history of mysterious powers. Furthermore, if you examine the wikipedia entry for midichlorians it says:
"The word "midi-clorian" appears to be a blend of "mitochondrion" and "chloroplast", two organelles found in real cells and thought to have evolved from bacteria that also came to live as endosymbionts inside other cells."
In otherwords, it is possible to read Lucas as having some fun here by postulating something that is currently unconfirmed but suspected. It is noteworthy that these two organelles are endosymbionts -- they are not derived from your DNA as amazing as that sounds since they actually reside as part of your cell structure. Even more amazingly, there would be no life without them as they are largely responsible for energy conversion within the cell.
What is a little bit unnerving, to me at least, is that those were merely examples I used to demonstrate that the original poster was content to bash Lucas based on very superficial reads of the story and moreso, suggest that he or others not only could do better but deserved the chance to prove it more than Lucas does. How absurd. Maybe this also explains some of the reason I was so willing to tell people to be quite -- it is exactly what they are telling Lucas to do.
I will also respond to one point that keeps coming up because I think it needs to be said: in regards to having a serious discussion here, we are both posting into a SW related thread on Slashdot that was spurned by a troll or at least flamebait material. I think it is somewhat folly to expect a good debate here. While I will typically take a very different stance in other threads and other forums here I see no reason to do so.
You, though, have proven yourself to be above reproach so I will tip my hat to you and say "good day"!
My question to you is, why are all of your posts towards me regarding the so-called decorum of posting here while none of them are discussing the actual content of the thread? I put my neck out on the line by responding to what, in my opinion, was an obvious troll. I didn't do it as an AC and I was quite sure to make it clear that if someone wants to trample on someone elses pet topics, they should expect some trampling in return. I knew the consequences and I didn't care -- sometimes you have to fight fire with fire no matter what anyone else thinks.
If your only point to comment is to say that I could have been more diplomatic, well, I just don't care. Slashdot is not the home of reasoned debate -- it is filled with trolls and as long as they are bashing things with inane comments that are (for whatever reason) important to me, I will freely deal with them and tell them any dumb thing that comes to my mind. Sorry if I offended you sensibilities but if all you have to offer is commentary regarding the STYLE of my posts, then what else can I say?
Takes one to know one. Of course, at least I have what it takes to defend a position while you only seem to know enough words to insult without reason. Go home little one.
"Important logical difference between your argument and his. He stated his opinion. You stated that he should keep his opinion to himself. Putting up your own opinion in contrast to someone else, is different to saying someone elses is invalid."
See this is the problem, people don't follow threads. The poster you are replying to did not state an opinion, he told me that the grandparent had the right the state his opinion. I didn't say the grandparent didn't have the right to say something, I asked if anyone cared for his whining and then I pointed out that he doesn't get to trash SW. I should have said *without rebuke* but that was obviously implied.
As for the poster you replied to, because he was (and remains) someone who buds in without an opinion on the discussion, I told him to sit down. Now I tell you the same.
If I had your diginity--which I wish I did--I would have said it the way you have instead of the way I did. Thank-you!
"What did Luke do? Vader made the choice, Luke was just a pawn."
It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but without Luke's intervention--which is based directly on his insight and his rejection of the dark side--there would have been no end of Palpatine. Indeed, without Luke, the dark side would have triumphed. The fact that Anakin was redeemed and did the right thing does not in itself imply that he was the catalyst for that action. It is Luke who leads the galaxy back to light and Darth's transendence is a direct result of Luke's intervention. Therefore, it is Luke who is the chosen one -- the one who restores balance to the force.
Greets.