Indeed they do. In the most general sense, magic is about movement of energy. So, at the most basic levels of magic you're learning to invoke and evoke energies to be used for various purposes via ritual movement, intonations, and breath. While these energies can be used to affect the physical world to some extent, the greater use of these energies and rituals is to help move the practitioner through greater levels of awareness.
Although it's not the best book, I'd suggest Donald Michael Kreig's Modern Magic. It's a well structured and accessible introduction to Hermetic Magic.
I'm sure information can also be found on the internet by searching for "magick" or "golden dawn" or "wicca" or whatever.
Magic is actually a quite complex system that's been studied for centuries. It has volumes of information that thousands of people have written about, and much of the knowledge contained in these books is quite a bit more complex than what passes for science. It would take anyone decades of their life to scratch the surface of this complex field.
Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.
And uninformed statements are usually used by those who can't be bothered to look beyond the tip of their nose.
First off, I think it should be clear that I'm not proposing that we wipe science off the map of something. For example, I really love my computer and no magic or supernatural force would have ever given me it. Also, I really love modern medicine and not dying when I was 12.
However, what I see as the fallacy is assuming that there is an ultimate experientially based explanation to everything in the universe. Science is based on the theory that through our five senses (and extensions thereof, e.g., microscopes) everything in the world can be explained. Whenever people look for a scientific explanation to something they are essentially looking for some way of pointing to it and saying "see here." For example, even our most cutting edge wacked out science (e.g., string theory) is looking for some way to say "look here, you can see the string. ain't that cool?"
Remember, our five senses are only windows in to the world. They allow us to experience the world on five levels: smell, touch, hearing, sight, and taste. It is not a large leap to see these five senses as limiting instruments allowing us only a certain view of the objective world. Since science relies on observation through those five windows it is inherently limited to the restrictions of those windows.
What supernaturalists ask us to do is to step through the door and try to find other ways of observing the world. Once you step through the door, you begin to gain knowledge that there is more than we see, smell, hear, taste and touch.
Again, science is great and has given us much. It is a wonderful way to explain the world as observed through the five senses. But it would be hubris to assume that the world presented to us by our five senses is the ultimate reality of the world. All the supernatural is doing is asking you to step beyond that.
And then, there is the possibility that it does have some sort of supernatural cause. I've long thought it was disturbing that in our culture we assume that everything can be explained by science. Quite simply, science can't explain everything and it is quite possible that there is some supernatural cause to these events.
The assumption that science either has or can find all the answers completely shuts down an aspect of the world which people have been studying for centuries longer than science. By doing so, it makes our world a lot more of a boring place.
I wonder if this stems from any concern at Palm that Apple might come out with an Apple-branded PDA.
On one hand, I think that is unlikely because, unlike the MP3 player, the PDA market is swamped and Apple can't make that much of a splash.
On the other hand, Apple has relentlessly marginalized 3rd-party developers in the past few years. That's not necessarily a bad thing (many of the iApps are great products), but I can see other 3rd-party developers getting scared.
However, all in all, I think Palm is just being stupid.
I am a recent football fan, and I strongly agree with everything in the parent to my post.
For a long time I was very anti-football. I saw it as a sport for idiot jocks that gets them billions of dollars a year. But then I was living with some rabid football fans for awhile, and I started watching.
Now, I'm hooked. Much like a turn based strategy game, if you don't know what's going on it's boring as hell (imagine watching a game of Civ with no clue whatsoever?). But once you know *why* there's pass interference, or false start, or the difference between an incidental face mask and one that's a personal foul, it becomes engrossing. Hell, I went out and bought the complete rules to football once I really started getting in to it. It's cool to be able to call out a penalty and then see the refs call it after you saw it.
Also, try to understand the different types of defense that are going on (e.g., zone (where you cover the ball / offensive players in an area) vs. man (where you cover a particular offensive player), and the blitz (where you send guys out of zone or man coverage to get the quarterback) ). Defensive stragety is *quite* interesting and fun, not to mention with a large element of psychology thrown in.
If you're going to be watching the super bowl anyway (for the ads) you might as well try to figure out what's going on. Instead of reading/. for a few minutes before the game, just check out the rules and try to get a general idea of what's happening.
In the end, I'm convinced that the reasons geeks hate football is because we got beat up by the football players in high school.
When it comes to price, comparing a car to a MP3 player is apples and oranges. If you have to chose between a Mercedes and a Toyota, price (upwards of $20,000) is a big factor. When you're buying an MP3 player, which is in many ways a "splurge" item, you're going to go for the best rather then a slightly less priced, more clunky alternative.
People want iPods. Hell, the name iRiver is proof people want iPods. I really think Apple has its roots down in this market and it will take a truly revolutionary product to unseat them. And it's more likely than not that that product will come from Apple itself.
First, the competitor must be selling a product which is superior in some way. Remember, with MP3 players, Apple hit the key strategy that Less Is More. With all these other companies adding "features" to their MP3 devices, they end up just confusing the user. Simplicity is the key in this market.
Second, the competitor will need to supplant the "cool factor" of the iPod in some way. Right now, it is simply uncool to have a non-iPod MP3 player. iPods are stylish, and I don't think the iRiver is (at least, though, the iRiver is a hell of a lot better looking than the hideously ugly Dell DJ).
I personally think the key to its style is the scroll wheel; it's just so perfect.
And it depends on what version of the film you consider authoritative. In the Extended Version (which I consider authoritative because it seems to be that's the way the director wanted the movie if it could be disgustingly long), there are Huorns. In the theater version of the film, there is not, however.
And in the film there are dead at Minas Tirith. And I think they'll still be there in the Extended Version, so I guess my above argument still will apply.
I think your analysis of infantry vs. calvary is entirely accurate, and very informative. If I had mod points, I'd give one to you.
However, I think what your analysis fails to take in to account is the fact that this is a fantasy world and there were "otherworldly" things going on. Looking at it from a standpoint of using the terrain against your enemy, both calvary charges in ROTK and TT were done at dawn against an army of orcs. Now, we know that orcs are sensitive to light, and particularly dawn (consider The Hobbit and how the dwarves got away from the Orcs once the sun rose, and FOTR when Aragorn said (if I remember correctly) "by nightfall these hills with be swarming with Orcs.")
So what Gandalf and Theoden did correctly was to charge with the sunrise to their backs, which helps break the Orcs morale and scatter their ranks. A good move by both of them.
Also, let's not forget that Gandalf's charge had the benefit of having a Maia at the head of the charge. Gandalf is hardcore with that sword of his against Orcs.
In both TT and ROTK the Calvary charges didn't break the army; it was the Hurons in TT and the Dead in ROTK. If it wasn't for them, I don't think The Side o' Good would have won either of those battles.
On this subject, today, All Things Consitered on NPR reported that the FCC requires 99.99+% reliability on land lines. In cell phones, however, reliability was not required in order to promote competition, which is why we have so many problems with cell phone service.
It's an interesting story, and they did a good job on the subject. Scroll down in the link above to read it.
That's very interesting. I didn't know about the different TV rules in the UK. I think in many ways it might be preferable to have stricter rules; I often find myself quite annoyed with the lies on TV and radio here. However, I have no doubt that any attempts to require facts in advertising would be quickly struck down in the USA, unfortunately.
I find this somewhat terrifying. While I agree that there should be some truth in advertising, I find it disturbing that eight people are able to file a complaint to an oversight board and have a commercial such as this pulled.
Perhaps if Apple had clearly stated a falsehood I would agree that this commercial should be pulled. However, it seems to me that this issue is open to debate. What kind of evidence did this board want? What kind of tests would need to be done to prove Apple's assertion?
I personally think that the advertiser should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the advertiser is promoting a falsehood. But I am an American, and I my cultural baggage informs my opinion, so who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed they do. In the most general sense, magic is about movement of energy. So, at the most basic levels of magic you're learning to invoke and evoke energies to be used for various purposes via ritual movement, intonations, and breath. While these energies can be used to affect the physical world to some extent, the greater use of these energies and rituals is to help move the practitioner through greater levels of awareness.
Although it's not the best book, I'd suggest Donald Michael Kreig's Modern Magic. It's a well structured and accessible introduction to Hermetic Magic.
I'm sure information can also be found on the internet by searching for "magick" or "golden dawn" or "wicca" or whatever.
Wow. What a limiting way of looking at the world.
Magic is actually a quite complex system that's been studied for centuries. It has volumes of information that thousands of people have written about, and much of the knowledge contained in these books is quite a bit more complex than what passes for science. It would take anyone decades of their life to scratch the surface of this complex field.
Magic/Myth/Religion are all ways to explain the world to those who can't bother to be interested in the actual truth.
And uninformed statements are usually used by those who can't be bothered to look beyond the tip of their nose.
First off, I think it should be clear that I'm not proposing that we wipe science off the map of something. For example, I really love my computer and no magic or supernatural force would have ever given me it. Also, I really love modern medicine and not dying when I was 12.
However, what I see as the fallacy is assuming that there is an ultimate experientially based explanation to everything in the universe. Science is based on the theory that through our five senses (and extensions thereof, e.g., microscopes) everything in the world can be explained. Whenever people look for a scientific explanation to something they are essentially looking for some way of pointing to it and saying "see here." For example, even our most cutting edge wacked out science (e.g., string theory) is looking for some way to say "look here, you can see the string. ain't that cool?"
Remember, our five senses are only windows in to the world. They allow us to experience the world on five levels: smell, touch, hearing, sight, and taste. It is not a large leap to see these five senses as limiting instruments allowing us only a certain view of the objective world. Since science relies on observation through those five windows it is inherently limited to the restrictions of those windows.
What supernaturalists ask us to do is to step through the door and try to find other ways of observing the world. Once you step through the door, you begin to gain knowledge that there is more than we see, smell, hear, taste and touch.
Again, science is great and has given us much. It is a wonderful way to explain the world as observed through the five senses. But it would be hubris to assume that the world presented to us by our five senses is the ultimate reality of the world. All the supernatural is doing is asking you to step beyond that.
And then, there is the possibility that it does have some sort of supernatural cause. I've long thought it was disturbing that in our culture we assume that everything can be explained by science. Quite simply, science can't explain everything and it is quite possible that there is some supernatural cause to these events.
The assumption that science either has or can find all the answers completely shuts down an aspect of the world which people have been studying for centuries longer than science. By doing so, it makes our world a lot more of a boring place.
I wonder if this stems from any concern at Palm that Apple might come out with an Apple-branded PDA.
On one hand, I think that is unlikely because, unlike the MP3 player, the PDA market is swamped and Apple can't make that much of a splash.
On the other hand, Apple has relentlessly marginalized 3rd-party developers in the past few years. That's not necessarily a bad thing (many of the iApps are great products), but I can see other 3rd-party developers getting scared.
However, all in all, I think Palm is just being stupid.
I am a recent football fan, and I strongly agree with everything in the parent to my post.
/. for a few minutes before the game, just check out the rules and try to get a general idea of what's happening.
For a long time I was very anti-football. I saw it as a sport for idiot jocks that gets them billions of dollars a year. But then I was living with some rabid football fans for awhile, and I started watching.
Now, I'm hooked. Much like a turn based strategy game, if you don't know what's going on it's boring as hell (imagine watching a game of Civ with no clue whatsoever?). But once you know *why* there's pass interference, or false start, or the difference between an incidental face mask and one that's a personal foul, it becomes engrossing. Hell, I went out and bought the complete rules to football once I really started getting in to it. It's cool to be able to call out a penalty and then see the refs call it after you saw it.
Also, try to understand the different types of defense that are going on (e.g., zone (where you cover the ball / offensive players in an area) vs. man (where you cover a particular offensive player), and the blitz (where you send guys out of zone or man coverage to get the quarterback) ). Defensive stragety is *quite* interesting and fun, not to mention with a large element of psychology thrown in.
If you're going to be watching the super bowl anyway (for the ads) you might as well try to figure out what's going on. Instead of reading
In the end, I'm convinced that the reasons geeks hate football is because we got beat up by the football players in high school.
When it comes to price, comparing a car to a MP3 player is apples and oranges. If you have to chose between a Mercedes and a Toyota, price (upwards of $20,000) is a big factor. When you're buying an MP3 player, which is in many ways a "splurge" item, you're going to go for the best rather then a slightly less priced, more clunky alternative.
People want iPods. Hell, the name iRiver is proof people want iPods. I really think Apple has its roots down in this market and it will take a truly revolutionary product to unseat them. And it's more likely than not that that product will come from Apple itself.
First, the competitor must be selling a product which is superior in some way. Remember, with MP3 players, Apple hit the key strategy that Less Is More. With all these other companies adding "features" to their MP3 devices, they end up just confusing the user. Simplicity is the key in this market. Second, the competitor will need to supplant the "cool factor" of the iPod in some way. Right now, it is simply uncool to have a non-iPod MP3 player. iPods are stylish, and I don't think the iRiver is (at least, though, the iRiver is a hell of a lot better looking than the hideously ugly Dell DJ). I personally think the key to its style is the scroll wheel; it's just so perfect.
Well, I'm talking about the film.
And it depends on what version of the film you consider authoritative. In the Extended Version (which I consider authoritative because it seems to be that's the way the director wanted the movie if it could be disgustingly long), there are Huorns. In the theater version of the film, there is not, however.
And in the film there are dead at Minas Tirith. And I think they'll still be there in the Extended Version, so I guess my above argument still will apply.
I think your analysis of infantry vs. calvary is entirely accurate, and very informative. If I had mod points, I'd give one to you.
However, I think what your analysis fails to take in to account is the fact that this is a fantasy world and there were "otherworldly" things going on. Looking at it from a standpoint of using the terrain against your enemy, both calvary charges in ROTK and TT were done at dawn against an army of orcs. Now, we know that orcs are sensitive to light, and particularly dawn (consider The Hobbit and how the dwarves got away from the Orcs once the sun rose, and FOTR when Aragorn said (if I remember correctly) "by nightfall these hills with be swarming with Orcs.")
So what Gandalf and Theoden did correctly was to charge with the sunrise to their backs, which helps break the Orcs morale and scatter their ranks. A good move by both of them.
Also, let's not forget that Gandalf's charge had the benefit of having a Maia at the head of the charge. Gandalf is hardcore with that sword of his against Orcs.
In both TT and ROTK the Calvary charges didn't break the army; it was the Hurons in TT and the Dead in ROTK. If it wasn't for them, I don't think The Side o' Good would have won either of those battles.
Well, you know, you have to keep all those pot users in lock up for five-to-ten. Imagine what *they* would do if they got out!
Whoever developed this played Sim Ant a bit too much about ten years ago.
A good resource if you had no clue what was going on, like me.
On this subject, today, All Things Consitered on NPR reported that the FCC requires 99.99+% reliability on land lines. In cell phones, however, reliability was not required in order to promote competition, which is why we have so many problems with cell phone service.
It's an interesting story, and they did a good job on the subject. Scroll down in the link above to read it.
That's very interesting. I didn't know about the different TV rules in the UK. I think in many ways it might be preferable to have stricter rules; I often find myself quite annoyed with the lies on TV and radio here. However, I have no doubt that any attempts to require facts in advertising would be quickly struck down in the USA, unfortunately.
I find this somewhat terrifying. While I agree that there should be some truth in advertising, I find it disturbing that eight people are able to file a complaint to an oversight board and have a commercial such as this pulled. Perhaps if Apple had clearly stated a falsehood I would agree that this commercial should be pulled. However, it seems to me that this issue is open to debate. What kind of evidence did this board want? What kind of tests would need to be done to prove Apple's assertion? I personally think that the advertiser should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the advertiser is promoting a falsehood. But I am an American, and I my cultural baggage informs my opinion, so who knows.