I'm in my mid-twenties, and I am finding that I merely find more and more irrationality as I age. Pointless bickering and scapegoating and power struggles... needless suffering and death... and yes, I do believe that the vast majority of it could be solved if people could set aside their emotions for a moment and work rationally towards a solution. It becomes a little more complex once you leave high school, but the game itself never changes.
Example: one of my clients is 60 years old and though she was previously very high functional (only slight retardation), she is for lack of a better term, losing her mind. As near as I can figure, this is at least partially due to her ongoing mini-strokes. Even after medication, her cholesterol is 420--no, that's not a typo. All she eats is pudding and donuts and the occasional bowl of mashed potatoes. This, as it turns out, is at least partially due to her dentures not fitting her (though she's always had a killer sweet tooth.) Now this woman's life AND her mind are in very severe danger. She's already had one bad fall in which she's broken bones--probably a combination of malnutrition and her mini-strokes. A year ago she was a bright, vibrant, independant woman--yet within a month, she will be committed against her will to a nursing home because she just isn't safe at our group home. They will undoubtably forbid her from eating junk food while her numbers are so high, she will quit eating entirely, they will shove a tube up her nose in order to keep her alive, they will not be nearly as tolerant of her other... quirks as we will, and she will gradually wither away, eventually losing her will to live entirely.
What a horrible horrible horrible horrible horrible way to go. Indeed, how horrific it is because it is what WILL happen, even though it could easily prevented. We could stop giving her the junk food NOW, give her THC or another appetite enhancer along with other healthier, cholesterol-reducing and muscle-building foods, and in another year or two she could be back to normal (possibly at 90-95%, if the mini-strokes did permanent damage.) But we can't do that because we're not allowed to take food away from her without approval from her guardian (...though the nursing home will probably be allowed to do that) and her guardian has her own very distorted view of reality and oh yeah her case manager is utterly clueless and medicaid likely won't approve the prescription of an appetite enhancer. Kick and scream all you want--believe me, I've tried it in the past--and you'll just wind up making enemies. I was nearly fired from my last job for raising a fuss over how a client was being treated (of course, that wasn't the official reason...) She is doomed, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it because the people in charge are not rational, and the channels through which they work were not designed with rationality in mind. I have half a dozen similar stories, though this one is turning out to have the most tragic ending. It's not in ANYONE'S best interest to move her to that nursing home (except, of course, the nursing home's) and yet because of everyone's irrational policies, beliefs, and actions, that is where she will wind up. Preventable, yet inevitable.
And if you look closely enough, the same thing happens everywhere else in the real world. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's blatant, but almost everywhere you turn irrationality has a way of beating out rationality simply because irrationality offers a sort of chaotic freedom, a drunken boxing sort of power that all too often renders rationality completely powerless.
Actually I work with the developmentally disabled, and know several people with austism/Asperger's. Being analytical has nothing to do with disregarding the people around you--those diseases are much more than "being too analytical." Perhaps it is prone to people who are genetically analytical in the first place, but that does not mean that autism is directly caused by someone being too analytical.
I think that people without analytical genes lack the ability to communicate and socialize effectively or even sanely--I mean hell, just look at the world around you. The only reason why we analytical types have a problem with these things is because we are in the minority.
If the majority of the population were like us, it would be the nonanalytical, impulsive, controled-by-their-emotions people that would be viewed as antisocial.
Wikipedia needs moderation. Perhaps Slashdot-like moderation. I am all for having a freely edited encyclopedia; I am even all for contributions being shown immediately without editorial oversight, but it's just downright ridiculous that their Anonymous Cowards have just as much power as their excelent-karma'ed, long-time contributors/editors.
Do leaks of upcoming products really hurt sales of those products?
How could this possibly hurt sales? This is called "hype" people, and you should be thanking your fans for giving it to you for free (many companies have to pay for their own guerilla marketing), not suing them into oblivion. The only exception I can think of would be a new and innovative product that is in danger of being ripped off--but that's hardly relevant for a creative product such as this.
At some point it seems as though the creative content producers/distributors got it into their head that absolute control over their product>everything else (see also the music and movie industry) Who the hell is responsible for this ridiculus concept? I can't believe that it's even remotely good for profits.
Of course, WotC is the one who forbid people from talking about their novels in their very own forums (apparently some people were making--gasp!--negative comments about some of the books. So they sensibly decided to ban all discussion, even though the overwhelming majority of the discussion was positive), so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
Whatever happened to any publicity=good publicity?
Could you imagine the crew of a freight ship today acting like this?
In *any* medium I think it's customary to skip over the truly humdrum stuff. Would you rather they all sat around and read books 90% of the time? That would be more realistic, after all. That aside, I think it's realistic to expect a certain level of humor and outbursts in an attempt to liven up the place. But no, they're not supposed be normal, humdrum people. Very few stories are. If you hated the slick talk that's fine (and it certainly explains why you didn't like the series as a whole), but don't call it shallow. I don't see how clever dialog equates to shallow (and it was a hell of a lot more than "Boo ya!")
Again, I take issue with the one-dimensional characters comment. Considering that there were NINE characters and only 14 episodes, I think that they were fleshed out fairly well. Mal was by far the most complex, dealing with various demons and pet peeves and goals and fears. There were several episodes in which we learned more about him than we learned about Picard or Kirk in the entire Star Trek franchise.
Zoe and Wash weren't incredibly interesting as *individuals*, but it was interesting to see how they got together and the marital troubles they went through. In particular, there was one very nice episode about Wash's jealousy of Mal...
Kaylee was your typical out-of-place character, oh look a cutesy grease monkey, but she definitely was running from something (or towards something.) It was quite shocking to see how she got her job as ship engineer, and I'm sure her past would've held a few more interesting surprises if the show hadn't been cancelled.
Inarah herself didn't pique my interest much, but her relationship with Mal and her role in society (as a sacred prostitute, a role found in many cultures throughout history yet rarely, if ever, explored) were intriguing enough.
Shepherd Book was a bit of a whiskey priest, but we only got a few hints about his shady past. There was still plenty of character development in store for him...
Simon was a pretty boy trying to get used to getting his hands dirty. To be honest, I thought he was miscast--the actor who played him had a chiseled jaw and large muscles, so playing the pretty boy wuss was a bit of a stretch. If nothing else, it was amusing to watch him be abused by the rest of the crew, and watch him react to said abuse. He had at least a few surprises up his sleeve, especially when his sister's life was on the line.
River, Simon's sister, was... eh, tolerable. I'll give ya that on; I was not fond of her at all. To me the archetype of the poor boy/girl with incredible powers experimented on by the government has been run into the ground (Firestarter, Minority Report, the comic Exploitation Now, etc.) and River just didn't bring anything new to the table. But she did have some funny scenes, and at the end of the movie she shows signs of turning into an actual three-dimensional human being (now that her demons are apparently exorcised, at least mostly.)
Jayne is *the man*! He is the thuggish outlaw experimenting with the concept of morality. Time and time again we saw him walking a fine line, not fully understanding this whole friendship and trust thing, not understanding why he risks his neck so often. Jaynestown and Ariel were my favorite episodes because it concentrated on him, the antihero. His inner conflicts were both dramatic and funny as hell. Mal is an antihero as well, but he is the fallen hero, whereas Jayne is the uplifted villain. The tension between them rivaled even Mal and Inara's.
So, does the show deserve to be mentioned alongside such profound character studies like Citizen Kane, Memento, and Fight Club? Absolutely not. But does it beat out Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/Voyagerand even ER? Absolutely.
How was the dialog shallow? I can't think of *any* TV show that had better written or more clever dialog. Having a tinge of humor in the background does not make the dialog shallow--on the contrary, it actually adds emotional depth to the characters. "Tacky"... fine, that's an opinion I can't argue with, but SHALLOW? Have you *seen* the drivel that's on American TV these days? In comparison to virtually every sitcom out there, Firefly looks like Shakespere.
For me, the characters, the dialog, and the humor made the show awesome. Some of the sci-fi elements were cool and interesting, some I didn't care so much for, but it had a fairly believable universe (as far as TV sci-fi goes... certainly a hell of a lot more believable than Star Trek) and really that's all it needed. The characters and dialog made the show, plain and simple, and it's sad to say but I'm very inclined to think that most Americans were just too dense to even notice the depth.
Or rather, if it does pass it will still never become compulsory.
Disregarding the issue of different countries and differing standards of pornography, I'm sure some bright fellow will point out that several passages in the bible are explicit enough to qualify for the xxx classification.
Aslan is tied down and sacrificed for someone else's sins. In The Last Battle, Tash the anti-Aslan is introduced. So yes, I would say that Aslan is definitely Christ.
I seem to recall reading that NASA had sent up a bunch of satellites bearing very sensative equipment that were supposed to detect gravitational waves, though I don't think they were using this method of detection. Does anyone know what happened with that experiment? Do they have the results yet?
At any rate, I think I read about it on slashdot, so I suppose I could just wait a few months for a dupe.
Gasoline can and does explode, and this include its fumes. How else do you think it could move the pistons in your car's engine?
Granted, it doesn't happen nearly as often as it is does in the movies, and you have to be pretty unlucky to ignite the vapors at a distance, but don't pretend it doesn't happen.
So wait a minute, let me get this straight... Microsoft is launching a free internet version of Office that will be compatible with Firefox, and thus compatible with Linux. Oh yeah, and MS Office is supposed to get OpenDocument support, too.
Wow. Ok. I'm waiting to Balmer to announce that he's going to light his balls on fire. You know, for the finishing touch.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that internet-based apps have a very bright future, and I'm thrilled that MS is doing this, but either this is the stupidest decision they've ever made or they've suddenly grown morals or they've got a trick or ten up their sleeve. Personally, I'm betting on the latter. No matter how much they hate Google, they can't be willing to sacrifice their second-largest cash cow just to get a little ad revenue.
We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
I admit that the rest of your post is useful and clarifying, but this section alone is reason to mod you flamebait.
We have uncovered many fossils that appear to form a chain (or rather, a forking tree) of evolution. Yes, there are "holes." There will always be holes. Whenever someone finds a species to plug a hole, two new, smaller holes appear. The fossil record will never be complete enough for us to view the entire metamorphisis in its entirity.
But it is most certainly possible, and in this case just being possible is good enough. Anyone who understands how computers work should recognize the cumulative power of many trillions of small changes. Given the proved existence of microevolution and the millions or billions of years that the earth has been around, it is not conjecture to say, then, that macroevolution occured. We don't understand exactly what happened when, but look at it this way: not knowing how or why there is a universal attraction of all matter does not immediately render Newton's and Einstein's ideas flawed. Macroevolution is not flawed because it is the ONLY plausible explanation for the existence of highly developed organisms unless, of course, we were all put here by another, even more highly developed being. But that is not science at all. It is not falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor in the worst possible way--it replaces a complex problem with an even more complex, perhaps unsolvable problem. Science generally is not in the business of making the universe less explicable.
We have evidence that inter-species mutations occured. This evidence is, quite simply, our existence. Given that there is no evidence that highly evolved species were present on earth hundreds of millions of years ago, given that we see many similar species in the fossil record apparently representing a macroevolutionary transformation, given that there's no way (magical beings/aliens excepted) that complex life could have been present immediately after the earth was formed, macroevolution is the ONLY explanation. You can whine and cry all you want about how you aren't impressed with the evidence, but when there is only one possible SCIENTIFIC explanation, then that explanation is presumed to be correct until someone comes up with something better.
There is much more evidence than you claim. The evidence is in information technology; it's in Dawkin's bug evolution simulation. The fact that there isn't enough to impress you is of absolutely no importance. You don't like it? Ok then. Falsify it, or prove that it violates Occam's Razor by offering a simpler, more elegant explanation... one that does not create more problems than it solves. (And one that hasn't been thoroughly debunked, like so many of the examples of so-called irreducable complexity.)
Until then, your argument remains nothing more than one steaming pile of horseshit. You did a good job of polishing it, but it's still horseshit, and it is still NOT science. Science is not about asshats sitting around complaining about how they wish there was more evidence.
Mod parent down. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for not calling his bluff much earlier.
Have you ever considered that this 44% of the US population simply doesn't care very much about the science of evolution, that they have never pondered it deeply?
Why don't you go read the article summary again--this is EXACTLY the problem we're talking about here, a lack of interest in (or aversion to) science. If 50% of Americans "just don't care to ponder science" to the extent that they are fucking unable to realize that one year = one revolution around the sun (your statistic, not mine, and I sincerely hope it isn't accurate), then I think it's safe to say that the USA is very anti-science indeed, and this is an extremely serious problem.
I can't believe you missed the point of the article (and the OP) so completely. It's not that Americans are STUPID, it's not that we're unable to understand science, it's that we're unwilling to even bother, and we actively discourage and even ostracize many who try. "Oh, I just don't have the time, I'm too busy raising kids" is no fucking excuse to not know what a "year" is, and it damn sure isn't an excuse to put rubbish like ID in our science classes, ignore the vast majority of environmental scientists because of a small minority telling us what we want to hear, cut funding for pure (non-goal oriented) science research because we don't understand it or its ultimate benefits, etc.
Being too lazy to bother reading any scientific literature at all does not give you an excuse to proclaim that the Earth is 5000 years old. This "fact" is falsified on in incredible number levels, in many many many different fields of science (radiophysics, archeology, geology, cosmology, biology, just to name a few.) Yet you call the OP arrogant for denouncing this sad, pathetic, stupid, blatantly false belief. This belief should not be humored or respected. No one who is taught science and believes in the scientific method would ever consider it. And yes, anyone who believes in a young earth is implying that god has given us mountains upon mountains of fake evidence to convince us otherwise.
But I guess that means I'm arrogant too, for daring to point out such an obvious implication. Forgiven me, I did not mean to use this wonderful brain god gave me. It won't happen again.
How do you figure? Are you for some reason assuming that the speaker is a cat, sack, kitten, or wife? As I mentioned in my reponse, I think that's a pretty unreasonable assumption.
Well, if you allow off-topic answers then the entire riddle falls apart. Ask the truthful guy anything and he could very well reply "I don't care." Ask the liar anything and he could reply "I don't know." In this situation my solution doesn't work, but then again yours doesn't either.
In order for this riddle to be solveable, we must assume that the truthteller will be helpful, and the liar will actively mislead. We must assume that a question related to the two directions will be addressed and not avoided. Otherwise, the riddle is pointless and unsolvable.
Thus, I maintain that if there is any solution at all to this puzzle (or any others like it), mine is the quickest and most elegant.
Ok, *I* misread the problem. But you still need only one question to make this work.
Let's say that the truthful answer is "left." If you asked the liar "which way should I go?" he will say "right." However, if you ask him "What would you say if I asked you which way I should go?", then you force him to lie about lying. He WOULD SAY "right", but he can't admit that, so instead he says "left", which is the truthful answer. The truthful guy also gives you the same answer.
In the real world "what would you say" is an idiom that doesn't change the meaning of a question. But in a fantasy world where a being is compelled to always lie, it is, in effect, a question within the main question and the lies will cancel each other out.
both you and the other dude replying completely missed the ONE QUESTION requirement. Almost every single one of these liar puzzles can be solved with a single question, and that question is "What would YOU say if I asked you...". The liar's double negative yields a truthful answer, while the truthteller's double positive also yields a truthful answer.
Playing the truthteller off of the liar is only useful in more complex puzzles involving more than two individuals (sometimes involving entities that have the option to tell the truth OR lie.) If there are only two entities, a truthteller and a liar, this single question will ALWAYS work.
for a second there, I thought you were saying "I reprogrammed my genetic code in order to temporarily boost my brainpower" and I was like whoa, that's hardcore.
My answer is that they do weigh the same, and if you try to claim "oh no, I really meant TROY pounds" I will sue the crap out of you for false advertisement:-p
Am I the only one who doesn't understand or accept the "one" answer? Ok, I get that we're supposed to assume that the man and his wives (and cargo) were going in the opposite direction because this is the only explantion for meeting a fellow traveler. Pretty weak, but it's halfway logical so I'll let this one pass.
HOWEVER, you guys need to pay attention to the final question: "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, how many were going to St. Ives?" This cannot be answered "one" unless we also assume that the speaker is a wife. Or a talking cat. Or a sack given life by a mad wizard.
Is it really reasonable to assume any of these things? I suppose the traveler *could* be a wife, but there's nothing in the riddle that would hint at such a thing. The narrator didn't ask how many PEOPLE or BEINGS were going to St. Ives; we're only concerned with the "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives"; ostensibly the wives mentioned in the previous line and not referring to the speaker at all. If he meant wives and cats in general as opposed to these specific wives, I suspect that the answer would be unknowable unless you could somehow account for every wife and cat and kitten and sack traveling/being taken towards St. Ives from all directions. And if "How many were going to St. Ives?" was meant to refer to all travellers in the vicinity, then "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives," has no business being attached to that sentence. Riddles that lie aren't really riddles at all; they're what I like to call "pointless drivel."
So yeah, it's a pretty dumb riddle, but the commonly accepted answer is supendously retarded. I can only surmise that readers are too distracted by the rhyming to notice. An equivalent mathematical puzzle would go something like this:
"What's "i" squared?"
"Um. Negative one..."
"HAH! Wrong! You thought I meant the imaginary number didn't you?! In this equasion the variable i=5, so the real answer is 25! Haha, you fell for it."
Could there be any possibility of finding any preserved DNA after 12,000 years (not very long, geologically speaking)? I wish this had happened in a colder climate, where there was some possibility of preservation by ice. I think it would be a singularly awesome occurance, perhaps a turning point for modern society, if a scientist took a cell from an extinct but SENTIENT primate species and cloned it, either with a gorilla or human mother.
Call me cruel or evil if you must, but if I was a scientist presented with that opportunity, I would do it in a heartbeat. The moral, religious, and political rammifications would be tremendous... another creature besides ourselves capable of lucid communication, capable of abstract thought and rational logic. Likely less intelligent (on average) than Homo Sapiens and possibly possessing other differing desires and abilities, but unquestionably emotional and intelligent. How the hell would mainstream Christianity react? I would think that "mainstream" would have to be redefined, as many people would cling to old notions of humanity being special, unique, and alone while just as many would be unable to treat another intelligent being as a mere animal.
Of course, the exact level of intelligence would be very important. Just how intelligent are they, as compared to us? As compared to chimps? What if they possess roughly same communication skills and intelligence as a chimp or gorilla, yet they look like us, have the same facial expressions as us, and possess the vocal cords necessary to form words? Gorillas and chimps are quite intelligent, and capable of significant levels of communication via sign language. I'm willing to bet that the major reason why they haven't been granted any legal rights is because they seem so unhuman. Give them a human looking body and the power of speech, and suddenly the situation for many people will not seem so cut and dry. Lord knows where our morality would go from there--maybe given a hundred years, those "freaks" over at PETA will get their wish and the entire animal kingdom will have rights, perhaps based on intelligence. I'm not saying I necessarily support such an idea, but it's mind-blowing to consider.
Perhaps it's fascinating for me specifically because for the last 4 years I've worked extensively with the (moderately) mentally handicapped. It's very interesting to watch how they're treated by parents, doctors, coworkers, and fellow clients. In many respects they are given a high degree of self-determination, yet there are always more subtle attempts to change them into what we want them to be. The aspect I have the most problem with is prescribing medication for the sole purpose of surpressing libido. Ok, if the client is attacking women and fondling them that's one thing, but if wacking off too much and getting caught staring at women's chests and cutting out pictures of underwear models or even, heaven forbid, having consentual sexual relations with one another is a disease, I suspect that many of us here at/. have been "infected" at one time or another. But for these people, anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are prescribed for the SOLE purpose of supressing sexual desire. Oh sure, that's not what it's officially for, but staff openly talk about the real goal of putting a client on that med. The "depression" doesn't really exist until the client gets too horny for our director's taste, and the doctor mysteriously does NOT prescribe one of the many antidepressants out that have a lower impact on sexual function. And of course, no one is ever prescribed the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which has been shown to increase sexual desire and pleasure (as I can personally attest to) and would be otherwise appropriate for many of our more lethargic clients.
I guess what I'm saying is that if we were forced to deal with a less intelligent and more primal version of ourselves, we would be forced to confront our more animalistic urges in a saner and more consistan
I hate to nitpick, but Einstein was the one who explained the photoelectric effect in terms of particles called photons or quanta. Particle wave duality was, as I recall, a discovery of early Quantum Mechanics, a theoretical field that Einstein strongy disagreed with at first ("God does not play dice," though this quote tends to make him sound much more religious than he actually was.) Ironic considering his paper on the photoelectric effect was one of the cornerstones of QM... he did eventually acknowledge it though, once the proof began to accumulate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in my mid-twenties, and I am finding that I merely find more and more irrationality as I age. Pointless bickering and scapegoating and power struggles... needless suffering and death... and yes, I do believe that the vast majority of it could be solved if people could set aside their emotions for a moment and work rationally towards a solution. It becomes a little more complex once you leave high school, but the game itself never changes.
Example: one of my clients is 60 years old and though she was previously very high functional (only slight retardation), she is for lack of a better term, losing her mind. As near as I can figure, this is at least partially due to her ongoing mini-strokes. Even after medication, her cholesterol is 420--no, that's not a typo. All she eats is pudding and donuts and the occasional bowl of mashed potatoes. This, as it turns out, is at least partially due to her dentures not fitting her (though she's always had a killer sweet tooth.) Now this woman's life AND her mind are in very severe danger. She's already had one bad fall in which she's broken bones--probably a combination of malnutrition and her mini-strokes. A year ago she was a bright, vibrant, independant woman--yet within a month, she will be committed against her will to a nursing home because she just isn't safe at our group home. They will undoubtably forbid her from eating junk food while her numbers are so high, she will quit eating entirely, they will shove a tube up her nose in order to keep her alive, they will not be nearly as tolerant of her other... quirks as we will, and she will gradually wither away, eventually losing her will to live entirely.
What a horrible horrible horrible horrible horrible way to go. Indeed, how horrific it is because it is what WILL happen, even though it could easily prevented. We could stop giving her the junk food NOW, give her THC or another appetite enhancer along with other healthier, cholesterol-reducing and muscle-building foods, and in another year or two she could be back to normal (possibly at 90-95%, if the mini-strokes did permanent damage.) But we can't do that because we're not allowed to take food away from her without approval from her guardian (...though the nursing home will probably be allowed to do that) and her guardian has her own very distorted view of reality and oh yeah her case manager is utterly clueless and medicaid likely won't approve the prescription of an appetite enhancer. Kick and scream all you want--believe me, I've tried it in the past--and you'll just wind up making enemies. I was nearly fired from my last job for raising a fuss over how a client was being treated (of course, that wasn't the official reason...) She is doomed, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it because the people in charge are not rational, and the channels through which they work were not designed with rationality in mind. I have half a dozen similar stories, though this one is turning out to have the most tragic ending. It's not in ANYONE'S best interest to move her to that nursing home (except, of course, the nursing home's) and yet because of everyone's irrational policies, beliefs, and actions, that is where she will wind up. Preventable, yet inevitable.
And if you look closely enough, the same thing happens everywhere else in the real world. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's blatant, but almost everywhere you turn irrationality has a way of beating out rationality simply because irrationality offers a sort of chaotic freedom, a drunken boxing sort of power that all too often renders rationality completely powerless.
Actually I work with the developmentally disabled, and know several people with austism/Asperger's. Being analytical has nothing to do with disregarding the people around you--those diseases are much more than "being too analytical." Perhaps it is prone to people who are genetically analytical in the first place, but that does not mean that autism is directly caused by someone being too analytical.
Haha look, I'm modded troll!
Case in point.
I think that people without analytical genes lack the ability to communicate and socialize effectively or even sanely--I mean hell, just look at the world around you. The only reason why we analytical types have a problem with these things is because we are in the minority.
If the majority of the population were like us, it would be the nonanalytical, impulsive, controled-by-their-emotions people that would be viewed as antisocial.
Wikipedia needs moderation. Perhaps Slashdot-like moderation. I am all for having a freely edited encyclopedia; I am even all for contributions being shown immediately without editorial oversight, but it's just downright ridiculous that their Anonymous Cowards have just as much power as their excelent-karma'ed, long-time contributors/editors.
Do leaks of upcoming products really hurt sales of those products?
How could this possibly hurt sales? This is called "hype" people, and you should be thanking your fans for giving it to you for free (many companies have to pay for their own guerilla marketing), not suing them into oblivion. The only exception I can think of would be a new and innovative product that is in danger of being ripped off--but that's hardly relevant for a creative product such as this.
At some point it seems as though the creative content producers/distributors got it into their head that absolute control over their product>everything else (see also the music and movie industry) Who the hell is responsible for this ridiculus concept? I can't believe that it's even remotely good for profits.
Of course, WotC is the one who forbid people from talking about their novels in their very own forums (apparently some people were making--gasp!--negative comments about some of the books. So they sensibly decided to ban all discussion, even though the overwhelming majority of the discussion was positive), so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
Whatever happened to any publicity=good publicity?
Could you imagine the crew of a freight ship today acting like this?
In *any* medium I think it's customary to skip over the truly humdrum stuff. Would you rather they all sat around and read books 90% of the time? That would be more realistic, after all. That aside, I think it's realistic to expect a certain level of humor and outbursts in an attempt to liven up the place. But no, they're not supposed be normal, humdrum people. Very few stories are. If you hated the slick talk that's fine (and it certainly explains why you didn't like the series as a whole), but don't call it shallow. I don't see how clever dialog equates to shallow (and it was a hell of a lot more than "Boo ya!")
Again, I take issue with the one-dimensional characters comment. Considering that there were NINE characters and only 14 episodes, I think that they were fleshed out fairly well. Mal was by far the most complex, dealing with various demons and pet peeves and goals and fears. There were several episodes in which we learned more about him than we learned about Picard or Kirk in the entire Star Trek franchise.
Zoe and Wash weren't incredibly interesting as *individuals*, but it was interesting to see how they got together and the marital troubles they went through. In particular, there was one very nice episode about Wash's jealousy of Mal...
Kaylee was your typical out-of-place character, oh look a cutesy grease monkey, but she definitely was running from something (or towards something.) It was quite shocking to see how she got her job as ship engineer, and I'm sure her past would've held a few more interesting surprises if the show hadn't been cancelled.
Inarah herself didn't pique my interest much, but her relationship with Mal and her role in society (as a sacred prostitute, a role found in many cultures throughout history yet rarely, if ever, explored) were intriguing enough.
Shepherd Book was a bit of a whiskey priest, but we only got a few hints about his shady past. There was still plenty of character development in store for him...
Simon was a pretty boy trying to get used to getting his hands dirty. To be honest, I thought he was miscast--the actor who played him had a chiseled jaw and large muscles, so playing the pretty boy wuss was a bit of a stretch. If nothing else, it was amusing to watch him be abused by the rest of the crew, and watch him react to said abuse. He had at least a few surprises up his sleeve, especially when his sister's life was on the line.
River, Simon's sister, was... eh, tolerable. I'll give ya that on; I was not fond of her at all. To me the archetype of the poor boy/girl with incredible powers experimented on by the government has been run into the ground (Firestarter, Minority Report, the comic Exploitation Now, etc.) and River just didn't bring anything new to the table. But she did have some funny scenes, and at the end of the movie she shows signs of turning into an actual three-dimensional human being (now that her demons are apparently exorcised, at least mostly.)
Jayne is *the man*! He is the thuggish outlaw experimenting with the concept of morality. Time and time again we saw him walking a fine line, not fully understanding this whole friendship and trust thing, not understanding why he risks his neck so often. Jaynestown and Ariel were my favorite episodes because it concentrated on him, the antihero. His inner conflicts were both dramatic and funny as hell. Mal is an antihero as well, but he is the fallen hero, whereas Jayne is the uplifted villain. The tension between them rivaled even Mal and Inara's.
So, does the show deserve to be mentioned alongside such profound character studies like Citizen Kane, Memento, and Fight Club? Absolutely not. But does it beat out Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/Voyagerand even ER? Absolutely.
How was the dialog shallow? I can't think of *any* TV show that had better written or more clever dialog. Having a tinge of humor in the background does not make the dialog shallow--on the contrary, it actually adds emotional depth to the characters. "Tacky"... fine, that's an opinion I can't argue with, but SHALLOW? Have you *seen* the drivel that's on American TV these days? In comparison to virtually every sitcom out there, Firefly looks like Shakespere.
For me, the characters, the dialog, and the humor made the show awesome. Some of the sci-fi elements were cool and interesting, some I didn't care so much for, but it had a fairly believable universe (as far as TV sci-fi goes... certainly a hell of a lot more believable than Star Trek) and really that's all it needed. The characters and dialog made the show, plain and simple, and it's sad to say but I'm very inclined to think that most Americans were just too dense to even notice the depth.
Or rather, if it does pass it will still never become compulsory.
Disregarding the issue of different countries and differing standards of pornography, I'm sure some bright fellow will point out that several passages in the bible are explicit enough to qualify for the xxx classification.
Aslan is tied down and sacrificed for someone else's sins. In The Last Battle, Tash the anti-Aslan is introduced. So yes, I would say that Aslan is definitely Christ.
I seem to recall reading that NASA had sent up a bunch of satellites bearing very sensative equipment that were supposed to detect gravitational waves, though I don't think they were using this method of detection. Does anyone know what happened with that experiment? Do they have the results yet?
At any rate, I think I read about it on slashdot, so I suppose I could just wait a few months for a dupe.
Gasoline can and does explode, and this include its fumes. How else do you think it could move the pistons in your car's engine?
Granted, it doesn't happen nearly as often as it is does in the movies, and you have to be pretty unlucky to ignite the vapors at a distance, but don't pretend it doesn't happen.
So wait a minute, let me get this straight... Microsoft is launching a free internet version of Office that will be compatible with Firefox, and thus compatible with Linux. Oh yeah, and MS Office is supposed to get OpenDocument support, too.
Wow. Ok. I'm waiting to Balmer to announce that he's going to light his balls on fire. You know, for the finishing touch.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that internet-based apps have a very bright future, and I'm thrilled that MS is doing this, but either this is the stupidest decision they've ever made or they've suddenly grown morals or they've got a trick or ten up their sleeve. Personally, I'm betting on the latter. No matter how much they hate Google, they can't be willing to sacrifice their second-largest cash cow just to get a little ad revenue.
We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
I admit that the rest of your post is useful and clarifying, but this section alone is reason to mod you flamebait.
We have uncovered many fossils that appear to form a chain (or rather, a forking tree) of evolution. Yes, there are "holes." There will always be holes. Whenever someone finds a species to plug a hole, two new, smaller holes appear. The fossil record will never be complete enough for us to view the entire metamorphisis in its entirity.
But it is most certainly possible, and in this case just being possible is good enough. Anyone who understands how computers work should recognize the cumulative power of many trillions of small changes. Given the proved existence of microevolution and the millions or billions of years that the earth has been around, it is not conjecture to say, then, that macroevolution occured. We don't understand exactly what happened when, but look at it this way: not knowing how or why there is a universal attraction of all matter does not immediately render Newton's and Einstein's ideas flawed. Macroevolution is not flawed because it is the ONLY plausible explanation for the existence of highly developed organisms unless, of course, we were all put here by another, even more highly developed being. But that is not science at all. It is not falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor in the worst possible way--it replaces a complex problem with an even more complex, perhaps unsolvable problem. Science generally is not in the business of making the universe less explicable.
We have evidence that inter-species mutations occured. This evidence is, quite simply, our existence. Given that there is no evidence that highly evolved species were present on earth hundreds of millions of years ago, given that we see many similar species in the fossil record apparently representing a macroevolutionary transformation, given that there's no way (magical beings/aliens excepted) that complex life could have been present immediately after the earth was formed, macroevolution is the ONLY explanation. You can whine and cry all you want about how you aren't impressed with the evidence, but when there is only one possible SCIENTIFIC explanation, then that explanation is presumed to be correct until someone comes up with something better.
There is much more evidence than you claim. The evidence is in information technology; it's in Dawkin's bug evolution simulation. The fact that there isn't enough to impress you is of absolutely no importance. You don't like it? Ok then. Falsify it, or prove that it violates Occam's Razor by offering a simpler, more elegant explanation... one that does not create more problems than it solves. (And one that hasn't been thoroughly debunked, like so many of the examples of so-called irreducable complexity.)
Until then, your argument remains nothing more than one steaming pile of horseshit. You did a good job of polishing it, but it's still horseshit, and it is still NOT science. Science is not about asshats sitting around complaining about how they wish there was more evidence.
Mod parent down. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for not calling his bluff much earlier.
Have you ever considered that this 44% of the US population simply doesn't care very much about the science of evolution, that they have never pondered it deeply?
Why don't you go read the article summary again--this is EXACTLY the problem we're talking about here, a lack of interest in (or aversion to) science. If 50% of Americans "just don't care to ponder science" to the extent that they are fucking unable to realize that one year = one revolution around the sun (your statistic, not mine, and I sincerely hope it isn't accurate), then I think it's safe to say that the USA is very anti-science indeed, and this is an extremely serious problem.
I can't believe you missed the point of the article (and the OP) so completely. It's not that Americans are STUPID, it's not that we're unable to understand science, it's that we're unwilling to even bother, and we actively discourage and even ostracize many who try. "Oh, I just don't have the time, I'm too busy raising kids" is no fucking excuse to not know what a "year" is, and it damn sure isn't an excuse to put rubbish like ID in our science classes, ignore the vast majority of environmental scientists because of a small minority telling us what we want to hear, cut funding for pure (non-goal oriented) science research because we don't understand it or its ultimate benefits, etc.
Being too lazy to bother reading any scientific literature at all does not give you an excuse to proclaim that the Earth is 5000 years old. This "fact" is falsified on in incredible number levels, in many many many different fields of science (radiophysics, archeology, geology, cosmology, biology, just to name a few.) Yet you call the OP arrogant for denouncing this sad, pathetic, stupid, blatantly false belief. This belief should not be humored or respected. No one who is taught science and believes in the scientific method would ever consider it. And yes, anyone who believes in a young earth is implying that god has given us mountains upon mountains of fake evidence to convince us otherwise.
But I guess that means I'm arrogant too, for daring to point out such an obvious implication. Forgiven me, I did not mean to use this wonderful brain god gave me. It won't happen again.
How do you figure? Are you for some reason assuming that the speaker is a cat, sack, kitten, or wife? As I mentioned in my reponse, I think that's a pretty unreasonable assumption.
Well, if you allow off-topic answers then the entire riddle falls apart. Ask the truthful guy anything and he could very well reply "I don't care." Ask the liar anything and he could reply "I don't know." In this situation my solution doesn't work, but then again yours doesn't either.
In order for this riddle to be solveable, we must assume that the truthteller will be helpful, and the liar will actively mislead. We must assume that a question related to the two directions will be addressed and not avoided. Otherwise, the riddle is pointless and unsolvable.
Thus, I maintain that if there is any solution at all to this puzzle (or any others like it), mine is the quickest and most elegant.
Ok, *I* misread the problem. But you still need only one question to make this work.
Let's say that the truthful answer is "left." If you asked the liar "which way should I go?" he will say "right." However, if you ask him "What would you say if I asked you which way I should go?", then you force him to lie about lying. He WOULD SAY "right", but he can't admit that, so instead he says "left", which is the truthful answer. The truthful guy also gives you the same answer.
In the real world "what would you say" is an idiom that doesn't change the meaning of a question. But in a fantasy world where a being is compelled to always lie, it is, in effect, a question within the main question and the lies will cancel each other out.
This is what encryption is for. There's even a handy Firefox extension that does it for you, in the case of Gmail.
both you and the other dude replying completely missed the ONE QUESTION requirement. Almost every single one of these liar puzzles can be solved with a single question, and that question is "What would YOU say if I asked you...". The liar's double negative yields a truthful answer, while the truthteller's double positive also yields a truthful answer.
Playing the truthteller off of the liar is only useful in more complex puzzles involving more than two individuals (sometimes involving entities that have the option to tell the truth OR lie.) If there are only two entities, a truthteller and a liar, this single question will ALWAYS work.
for a second there, I thought you were saying "I reprogrammed my genetic code in order to temporarily boost my brainpower" and I was like whoa, that's hardcore.
My answer is that they do weigh the same, and if you try to claim "oh no, I really meant TROY pounds" I will sue the crap out of you for false advertisement :-p
Am I the only one who doesn't understand or accept the "one" answer? Ok, I get that we're supposed to assume that the man and his wives (and cargo) were going in the opposite direction because this is the only explantion for meeting a fellow traveler. Pretty weak, but it's halfway logical so I'll let this one pass.
HOWEVER, you guys need to pay attention to the final question: "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, how many were going to St. Ives?" This cannot be answered "one" unless we also assume that the speaker is a wife. Or a talking cat. Or a sack given life by a mad wizard.
Is it really reasonable to assume any of these things? I suppose the traveler *could* be a wife, but there's nothing in the riddle that would hint at such a thing. The narrator didn't ask how many PEOPLE or BEINGS were going to St. Ives; we're only concerned with the "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives"; ostensibly the wives mentioned in the previous line and not referring to the speaker at all. If he meant wives and cats in general as opposed to these specific wives, I suspect that the answer would be unknowable unless you could somehow account for every wife and cat and kitten and sack traveling/being taken towards St. Ives from all directions. And if "How many were going to St. Ives?" was meant to refer to all travellers in the vicinity, then "Kits, cats, sacks, and wives," has no business being attached to that sentence. Riddles that lie aren't really riddles at all; they're what I like to call "pointless drivel."
So yeah, it's a pretty dumb riddle, but the commonly accepted answer is supendously retarded. I can only surmise that readers are too distracted by the rhyming to notice. An equivalent mathematical puzzle would go something like this:
"What's "i" squared?"
"Um. Negative one..."
"HAH! Wrong! You thought I meant the imaginary number didn't you?! In this equasion the variable i=5, so the real answer is 25! Haha, you fell for it."
Yeah, real fucking hilarious...
Could there be any possibility of finding any preserved DNA after 12,000 years (not very long, geologically speaking)? I wish this had happened in a colder climate, where there was some possibility of preservation by ice. I think it would be a singularly awesome occurance, perhaps a turning point for modern society, if a scientist took a cell from an extinct but SENTIENT primate species and cloned it, either with a gorilla or human mother.
/. have been "infected" at one time or another. But for these people, anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are prescribed for the SOLE purpose of supressing sexual desire. Oh sure, that's not what it's officially for, but staff openly talk about the real goal of putting a client on that med. The "depression" doesn't really exist until the client gets too horny for our director's taste, and the doctor mysteriously does NOT prescribe one of the many antidepressants out that have a lower impact on sexual function. And of course, no one is ever prescribed the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which has been shown to increase sexual desire and pleasure (as I can personally attest to) and would be otherwise appropriate for many of our more lethargic clients.
Call me cruel or evil if you must, but if I was a scientist presented with that opportunity, I would do it in a heartbeat. The moral, religious, and political rammifications would be tremendous... another creature besides ourselves capable of lucid communication, capable of abstract thought and rational logic. Likely less intelligent (on average) than Homo Sapiens and possibly possessing other differing desires and abilities, but unquestionably emotional and intelligent. How the hell would mainstream Christianity react? I would think that "mainstream" would have to be redefined, as many people would cling to old notions of humanity being special, unique, and alone while just as many would be unable to treat another intelligent being as a mere animal.
Of course, the exact level of intelligence would be very important. Just how intelligent are they, as compared to us? As compared to chimps? What if they possess roughly same communication skills and intelligence as a chimp or gorilla, yet they look like us, have the same facial expressions as us, and possess the vocal cords necessary to form words? Gorillas and chimps are quite intelligent, and capable of significant levels of communication via sign language. I'm willing to bet that the major reason why they haven't been granted any legal rights is because they seem so unhuman. Give them a human looking body and the power of speech, and suddenly the situation for many people will not seem so cut and dry. Lord knows where our morality would go from there--maybe given a hundred years, those "freaks" over at PETA will get their wish and the entire animal kingdom will have rights, perhaps based on intelligence. I'm not saying I necessarily support such an idea, but it's mind-blowing to consider.
Perhaps it's fascinating for me specifically because for the last 4 years I've worked extensively with the (moderately) mentally handicapped. It's very interesting to watch how they're treated by parents, doctors, coworkers, and fellow clients. In many respects they are given a high degree of self-determination, yet there are always more subtle attempts to change them into what we want them to be. The aspect I have the most problem with is prescribing medication for the sole purpose of surpressing libido. Ok, if the client is attacking women and fondling them that's one thing, but if wacking off too much and getting caught staring at women's chests and cutting out pictures of underwear models or even, heaven forbid, having consentual sexual relations with one another is a disease, I suspect that many of us here at
I guess what I'm saying is that if we were forced to deal with a less intelligent and more primal version of ourselves, we would be forced to confront our more animalistic urges in a saner and more consistan
I hate to nitpick, but Einstein was the one who explained the photoelectric effect in terms of particles called photons or quanta. Particle wave duality was, as I recall, a discovery of early Quantum Mechanics, a theoretical field that Einstein strongy disagreed with at first ("God does not play dice," though this quote tends to make him sound much more religious than he actually was.) Ironic considering his paper on the photoelectric effect was one of the cornerstones of QM... he did eventually acknowledge it though, once the proof began to accumulate.