Normally you'd expect companies and the people who run them to have enough of a moral backbone that they don't need external input on things like this.
But where did Americans learn such a distorted premise from originally?
From their childhood.
As children we are told, over and over, that there are "bad people" and "good people". Bad people do bad things, and good people do good things. If you're good you can't do bad things, and if you're bad you can't do good things. It's all very simple. It's also quite obviously completely wrong.
The trouble is, secretly in their heads, a lot of people never, ever, get over this viewpoint. Ever.
Criminals are bad. Terrorists are bad. Therefore they cannot do good things and deserve to be punished. By contrast, "we" are good. We don't do bad things. Therefore, this law will not affect us. We have nothing "bad" to hide because we are "good". I assure you that many, many, people of quite advanced years and experience think like this.
There's also an element of Schadenfreude to it all. Secretly a lot of people really enjoy seeing others punished and/or humiliated. I don't mean from a sense of justice. I mean they actually enjoy watching/hearing about "bad" humans getting "punished", ostracized, or especially maltreated by "good" people, i.e. authority figures. A lot of people support waterboarding because it is torture, and for no other reason. The same element that sells celebrity gossip magazines is behind it too. I suspect many people support these laws in the hope neighbors they dislike will have embarrassing private details discovered and published.
We are told that we live in an "advanced", "civilized" society, where people have abandoned brutal, cruel, petty and bigoted ways of life. That's a crock. The only thing that has happened is that it has become taboo to support such things in public life.
I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science.
Perhaps in the Politics and YRO sections, which to be fair is one of the few places which even airs such stories anymore. But over the rest of the site, (I exclude "Games" here) the signal to noise ratio remains high. In any tech related story, this site is still lucky to have multiple knowledgeable users, armed with urls, who can help shed light on any topic, and usually from more than one standpoint. Most stories around here are still an educational experience, if you take the time to actually look through the comments.
When a company gets to a certain size, particularly relative to the industry it is in, it begins to associate more and more with various branches of government. Lobbying begins, favors are asked and given, and in the end government branches get their very own wiretap rooms in the offices of the naturally "private company".
GoDaddy is the largest registrar and webhost. Do you think, even for one second, that they would dare sully their good relations with government by allow a "seditious" site like ratemycop.com to exist on their servers? Of course, we can talk about the rights of "private companies" and "free association", but lets face it; that's mostly a crock of shit.
Western governments no longer officially nationalize companies. They now get the companies to come into the fold all by themselves.
That works very well. The problem is when you have a single CPU-intensive task, and you want to split that over multiple processors. That, in general, is a difficult problem.
It is in general, an impossible problem.
Most existing code is imperative. Most programmers write in imperative programming languages. Object orientation does not change this. Imperative code is not suited for multiple CPU implementation. Stapling things together with threads and messaging does not change this.
You could say that we should move to other programming "paradigms". However in my opinion, the reason we use imperative programs so such is because most of the tasks we want accomplished are inherently imperative in nature. Outside of intensive numerical work, most tasks people want done on a computer are done sequentially. The availability of multiple cores is not going to change the need for these tasks to be done in that way.
However, what multiple cores might do is enable previously impractical tasks to be done on modest PCs. Things like NP problems, optimizations, simulations. Of course these things are already being done, but not on the same scale as things like, say, spreadsheets, video/sound/picture editing, gaming, blogging, etc. I'm talking about relatively ordinary people being able to do things that now require supercomputers, experimenting and creating on their own laptops. Multi core programs can be written to make this feasible.
Considering I'm beginning to sound like an evangelist, I'll stop now. Safe money says PCs stay at 8 CPUs or below for the next 15 years.
So, combine "think of the children" and "terrorists", and the Constitution becomes irrelevant.
I think the public is already cynical and jaded from overuse of these two expressions. What is needed now is an immediate putdown for them. Something snappy and to the point. Something like "The kids are alright." or "...and their 72 virgins." Once these reach meme status, the healing of western civilization (what's left of it) can begin.
You're implying that even though a religious scientist may write good papers and conduct reliable experiments, their output is somehow unexplainably and unquestionably inferior to the output of real scientists.
I made no such implication. My argument did not concern the output or results that people obtain. My argument was that spirituality in a scientist casts doubt on their commitment to the scientific method. I even mentioned that:"A scientist is not defined by the experiments they run or the papers they write, but by the way they observe and explain their world."
People who are not scientists can make breakthroughs and produce valuable results. However, it's a lot easier for a scientist, with a critical mind, to make those same breakthroughs. But data is data. I never said otherwise.
People seem to think that being a scientist is like working a day job, 9 to 5, then leaving it at the office. It'[s not. Science is a 27/7 way of life. You think it would be OK for your local pastor to go home and give up offerings to Zeus? Then why should it be OK for an astronomer to go home and read horoscopes.
Spirituality, outside of very general and non specific "feel good" pastimes, has no place in the life of a scientist. Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking, and suggests a poor understanding of the scientific method. Anyone applying for a scientific position who put something like homeopathy, astrology, UFO or werewolf hunting, or new age paganism on their list of hobbies would make me seriously reconsider their application. And yes boys and girls, saying you go to church every Sunday would have the same effect.
A lot of people will probably think I'm a bigot. There's not a lot I can do about that. I feel justified in my views here, and I don't hold anyone to any standard I would not keep myself. I don't think it's a lot to ask. A scientist is not defined by the experiments they run or the papers they write, but by the way they observe and explain their world. Any scientist who has a "spiritual experience" will not ascribe it to some transcendental force or mythical being. They will instead ask why they felt that way and look for the underlying, falsifiable causes and effects which explained what happened to them.
If you're not willing to do this, not willing to live your own life to the same standard as your professional logic, you're not a scientist. You're a Cargo Cult Scientist. You walk the walk, talk the talks, run the experiments and write the papers. But you only have the form and lack true understanding and willingness to espouse the scientific method.
But anyone can change, at anytime, and anyone can be a scientist. The first step, is a healthy dose of skepticism.
It takes a lot of work to get a 3D model to look as good as a 2D sprite. You gain more freedom and, as the amount of actions increase, can create new animations with as lot less hassle. But it remains very difficult to get a really good "animated" feel with 3D models which need to look good from all angles, and nowadays under all lighting conditions. 2D sprites, while laborious to create, invariably display precisely as the animator intended.
Games like Ratchet and Clank or Jak and Daxter pull this off well. It's not just down to character design allowing a certoony look. Apparently the games use a Naughty Dog technique whereby the models "bones", i.e. canonically fixed points, are themselves allowed warp and distort, meaning that the models do not simply consist of fixed points rotating on joints. Jax and Daxter exemplifies this best, with characters undergoing highly exaggerated warping and distortion both in game and in scripted scenes. Think of a Looney Toons double take. A game like Viewtiful Joe, which while cell shaded, did not look as good, simply because it did not use this effect. I believe Sly Cooper used a combination of the two styles.
Design is a far, far more important factor than graphics capability in improving a games overall look. Call of Duty 4, while technically impressive, looks fairly dry. This simply cannot be helped as you are playing as "realistic" soldiers in what are ordinary locals. Something like Unreal Tournament 3, which is actively using often exaggerated artistic designs, and where you fight in alien locals, is much more aesthetic.
Ray tracing "can" make games look better, but only slightly. If you want better looking games, you need better artistic design. I don't see how ray tracing delivers this in a measurably better way over other, less intensive techniques. Unless it's for something like weird water effects, I just can't see the advantage when you could be putting cycles to work on other things like movement in the background, more animated sprites or things like dust and spray.
I'm only an amateur student of history, but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.
A numerical model is little more than a highly specific and round off error prone implementation of existing analytical results. All these guys have done, at most, is shown the correctness of Hawking's analysis. If that.
In the old testament there are numerous prophecy's to the messiah, and Jesus filled EACH one, not 1 of them, not a few of them, not even most of them, 100% of them.
Trouble is the only observation that could have saved his ass was a star paralax beyond the reach of his days observations technics. So he dismissed it, made up a "proof" based on tidal waves that stated that there was one tide per day (while everyone already knew there was two), at 12 (while everyone knew the hour is moving). Talk about "objective scientific observation" !
Provably false. The Heliocentric model was supported by data which had been gathered by Brahe as far back as 1580's. More to the point, Galielo's main arguments for Heliocentrism were the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, both clearly objective observations. Star parallaxes only serve to distinguish Heliocentrism from the Tychonic model, and since the measurement could not be performed, there was no scientific reason to prefer one over the other, unless we use Occam's razor to support Galileo's position.
The tidal argument is a straw man, as it is neither central to the Heliocentric argument and also ignores the fact that, prior to Newtonian mechanics, there was no concrete understanding of the mechanics of either water, centrifugal forces or the tides, and so the matter was, and remained for some time, an open question.
Not exactly. What was considered heretical was to write it was the truth without proving it, as Bellarmine's writings of the time clearly show it. Had he brought a solid poof forward, the Church was ready to change the scriptures' interpretation.
He did bring quite solid proof forward. His observations were not ambiguous. It also seems incongruous for a scientist to have to "prove" his theory, using considerable data, to persons who accepted, demonstrably incorrect, dogmas without any proof whatsoever. The very fact that it was heresy to take a position contrary to church teachings at all is proof that the regime under which Galileo lived was an oppressive and theocratic one.
True, and he did so because he had no -none- scientific proof on which to stand, as he was requested to give. So it was a public humiliation, much like the "water memory" story has been a worldwide humiliation for its proponents. No proof : you make a fool of yourself.
Again he had objective proof; the moons of jupiter and the phases of Venus among them. These were quite enough for supporting arguments of a Heliocentric viewpoint, and the fact that the Tychonic System was accepted should not have made opposing viewpoints punishable by death.
Galileo might not have had a lot of proof, lacking most of the tools and methods we have today. But he certainly had a wealth more proof than those who threatened him. Their main arguments consisted of quotes from the bible and Aristotle. In the face of this, accusations of "sarcasm" and "ridiculing opponents" can obviously be mitigated.
The essential facts remain. Galileo was prosecuted for expressing an opinion, and moreover a defensible, scientific opinion for which he had evidence. He was prosecuted by persons who accepted dogma and scripture without evidence, and who refused to examine or consider in any serious way the validity of opposing viewpoints. He was imprisoned, his books were banned, and his theories were withdrawn.
These are the facts. Trivialities like parallax measurements and personality clashes are entirely, entirely, beside the point.
Galileo was an asshole who refused to subject his work to peer review.
Science does not require politeness. In fact it is sometimes necessary to be considered rude, particularly when dealing with those whose positions or faiths are threatened by your work.
As to peer review, since the very concept was in its infancy, or had not yet emerged, it's hard to justify the accusation that Galileo did not subject himself to it. In fact, by publishing at all, I'd argue that he was indeed subjecting his work to public scrutiny and criticism.
Could not prove his theory at the time but was so egotistical that he claimed it as fact.
That is if you don't consider his published observations and data proof, or indeed facts. And no doubt as distinct from his detractors who could prove their geocentric theories by citing biblical passages and Aristotle.
The Catholic Church censured Galileo. This resulted in a house arrest, in a very nice house with catered food and all his needs met. Or in other words, a back-handed censure that actually included a patronage enabling Galileo to continue his work.
They threatened to burn him alive. To set him on fire, still an offical punishment for heresy at the time. They banned his books. They locked him in a prison, which while pretty and comfortable, was still a prison. If this is "back-handed censure", I'm glad people aren't subjected to it nowadays.
Sadly, most of this is lost in the popular sensationalism of Galileo.
The essential facts are preserved. Namely that a) Galileo made objective scientific observations b) Galileo published these observations and his theories on their meaning c) The Catholic church considered his views to be heeretical d) The church used its political influence to force Galileo, under threat, to publically retract his theories. e) Galileo publicly retracted his theories.
A lot of people pass over that final fact. A scientist, and Galileo certainly was one, had to give up his theories, because he was threated with punishment if he did not do so. I'm sure a lot of people think that Galileo "didn't really" change his opinions. Well tough. What you think is irrelevant. He publicly retracted them. Something that would not have happened if he had lived in a freer society. Lets all hope that we live in such a society, and will continue to do so.
I'm sure in todays age of religious revivalism that there are many church apologists in the case of Galileo, and others like it. I'm sure that they will poke and prod at inconsistencies and minor points to cast doubt on the case and to paint organised religion in a better light. It's all in some way part of the modern tirade against science by religious interests. Wiser people should stick to the essentials of the case.
I love it when women aren't interesting enough, men are blamed.
Sir! I challenge you sir, I challenge you to come up one with any woman, no; one single human being, who is as interesting, in depth, challenging and beautiful as the General Theory of Relativity.
Anyone who played Phantasy Star Online back in the day will recognise this. 1000 beats in a day. 0000 beats is I believe 00:00 in Switzerland, the home of Swatch. The game measured time in beats, so that no matter where anyone was in the world, it was the same time in "beats" in the games.
It was useful in that you could say, "I'll meet you at 740 beats" to anyone in the world, and that set a clear time, with no conversions. It was also useless in that the game provided no realistic way to convert beats to local time and vice versa.
Nevertheless, I want to get a beats clock in my house someday.
When the doors open, there is a unorganzied hoard pushing madly to get into the plane.... And yet, my china flights always board much faster than my US flights.
My guess is, such a crowd would be unlikely to show any patience for someone who was holding up the show by figiting with luggage or personal items, etc. It sounds like anyone idling about in the isle, jamming up traffic, is likely going to be told exactly where to shove it.
The biggest reason for boarding holdups is politeness and people taking advantage of it.
The Chinese want to protect their culture (and, they would argue, their social stability) while the West wants more open access to what they perceive as nothing more than a huge consumer market.
It also has to do with the fact that western workers are essentially competing with serfs and other bonded laborers. People in China are not free, and their working conditions and standards reflect that. How is someone in a democracy supposed to compete with a factory owner in China who can literally own slaves?
Do we have to give up own freedoms? No. I say put the Chinese government under pressure to give the Chinese people theirs. We'll all benefit.
Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.
Which makes me question the legality of such confidentiality agreements.
If I remain silent because of a confidentiality agreement, then am I an accomplice in the crime I have discovered? Under these circumstances, can I be legally be bound to remain silent? If I am forced to testify in court, does this still violate the agreement and make me liable? If police question me, outside of a court, must I remain silent? Is this legal?
I suspect confidentiality agreements are of dubious legal standing. I also suspect that if ever they are challenged, the courts will side with big companies.
I think the important part is that people forget that when you join the military (ex Air Force here) you give up a lot of your rights. You do so willingly.
Slashdot Mirror
As children we are told, over and over, that there are "bad people" and "good people". Bad people do bad things, and good people do good things. If you're good you can't do bad things, and if you're bad you can't do good things. It's all very simple. It's also quite obviously completely wrong.
The trouble is, secretly in their heads, a lot of people never, ever, get over this viewpoint. Ever.
Criminals are bad. Terrorists are bad. Therefore they cannot do good things and deserve to be punished. By contrast, "we" are good. We don't do bad things. Therefore, this law will not affect us. We have nothing "bad" to hide because we are "good". I assure you that many, many, people of quite advanced years and experience think like this.
There's also an element of Schadenfreude to it all. Secretly a lot of people really enjoy seeing others punished and/or humiliated. I don't mean from a sense of justice. I mean they actually enjoy watching/hearing about "bad" humans getting "punished", ostracized, or especially maltreated by "good" people, i.e. authority figures. A lot of people support waterboarding because it is torture, and for no other reason. The same element that sells celebrity gossip magazines is behind it too. I suspect many people support these laws in the hope neighbors they dislike will have embarrassing private details discovered and published.
We are told that we live in an "advanced", "civilized" society, where people have abandoned brutal, cruel, petty and bigoted ways of life. That's a crock. The only thing that has happened is that it has become taboo to support such things in public life.
Actually, I believe they taste like beef, which brings us around full circle to the original topic.
When a company gets to a certain size, particularly relative to the industry it is in, it begins to associate more and more with various branches of government. Lobbying begins, favors are asked and given, and in the end government branches get their very own wiretap rooms in the offices of the naturally "private company".
GoDaddy is the largest registrar and webhost. Do you think, even for one second, that they would dare sully their good relations with government by allow a "seditious" site like ratemycop.com to exist on their servers? Of course, we can talk about the rights of "private companies" and "free association", but lets face it; that's mostly a crock of shit.
Western governments no longer officially nationalize companies. They now get the companies to come into the fold all by themselves.
WARNING: Attempting to hack Groundhogs may result in an infinite loop.
Except if you're a journalist.
It is in general, an impossible problem.
Most existing code is imperative. Most programmers write in imperative programming languages. Object orientation does not change this. Imperative code is not suited for multiple CPU implementation. Stapling things together with threads and messaging does not change this.
You could say that we should move to other programming "paradigms". However in my opinion, the reason we use imperative programs so such is because most of the tasks we want accomplished are inherently imperative in nature. Outside of intensive numerical work, most tasks people want done on a computer are done sequentially. The availability of multiple cores is not going to change the need for these tasks to be done in that way.
However, what multiple cores might do is enable previously impractical tasks to be done on modest PCs. Things like NP problems, optimizations, simulations. Of course these things are already being done, but not on the same scale as things like, say, spreadsheets, video/sound/picture editing, gaming, blogging, etc. I'm talking about relatively ordinary people being able to do things that now require supercomputers, experimenting and creating on their own laptops. Multi core programs can be written to make this feasible.
Considering I'm beginning to sound like an evangelist, I'll stop now. Safe money says PCs stay at 8 CPUs or below for the next 15 years.
I think the public is already cynical and jaded from overuse of these two expressions. What is needed now is an immediate putdown for them. Something snappy and to the point. Something like "The kids are alright." or "...and their 72 virgins." Once these reach meme status, the healing of western civilization (what's left of it) can begin.
I,... I don't understand. Why do you put those two words so close together?
I made no such implication. My argument did not concern the output or results that people obtain. My argument was that spirituality in a scientist casts doubt on their commitment to the scientific method. I even mentioned that
People who are not scientists can make breakthroughs and produce valuable results. However, it's a lot easier for a scientist, with a critical mind, to make those same breakthroughs. But data is data. I never said otherwise.
Wrong, quite frankly.
People seem to think that being a scientist is like working a day job, 9 to 5, then leaving it at the office. It'[s not. Science is a 27/7 way of life. You think it would be OK for your local pastor to go home and give up offerings to Zeus? Then why should it be OK for an astronomer to go home and read horoscopes.
Spirituality, outside of very general and non specific "feel good" pastimes, has no place in the life of a scientist. Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking, and suggests a poor understanding of the scientific method. Anyone applying for a scientific position who put something like homeopathy, astrology, UFO or werewolf hunting, or new age paganism on their list of hobbies would make me seriously reconsider their application. And yes boys and girls, saying you go to church every Sunday would have the same effect.
A lot of people will probably think I'm a bigot. There's not a lot I can do about that. I feel justified in my views here, and I don't hold anyone to any standard I would not keep myself. I don't think it's a lot to ask. A scientist is not defined by the experiments they run or the papers they write, but by the way they observe and explain their world. Any scientist who has a "spiritual experience" will not ascribe it to some transcendental force or mythical being. They will instead ask why they felt that way and look for the underlying, falsifiable causes and effects which explained what happened to them.
If you're not willing to do this, not willing to live your own life to the same standard as your professional logic, you're not a scientist. You're a Cargo Cult Scientist. You walk the walk, talk the talks, run the experiments and write the papers. But you only have the form and lack true understanding and willingness to espouse the scientific method.
But anyone can change, at anytime, and anyone can be a scientist. The first step, is a healthy dose of skepticism.
It takes a lot of work to get a 3D model to look as good as a 2D sprite. You gain more freedom and, as the amount of actions increase, can create new animations with as lot less hassle. But it remains very difficult to get a really good "animated" feel with 3D models which need to look good from all angles, and nowadays under all lighting conditions. 2D sprites, while laborious to create, invariably display precisely as the animator intended.
Games like Ratchet and Clank or Jak and Daxter pull this off well. It's not just down to character design allowing a certoony look. Apparently the games use a Naughty Dog technique whereby the models "bones", i.e. canonically fixed points, are themselves allowed warp and distort, meaning that the models do not simply consist of fixed points rotating on joints. Jax and Daxter exemplifies this best, with characters undergoing highly exaggerated warping and distortion both in game and in scripted scenes. Think of a Looney Toons double take. A game like Viewtiful Joe, which while cell shaded, did not look as good, simply because it did not use this effect. I believe Sly Cooper used a combination of the two styles.
Design is a far, far more important factor than graphics capability in improving a games overall look. Call of Duty 4, while technically impressive, looks fairly dry. This simply cannot be helped as you are playing as "realistic" soldiers in what are ordinary locals. Something like Unreal Tournament 3, which is actively using often exaggerated artistic designs, and where you fight in alien locals, is much more aesthetic.
Ray tracing "can" make games look better, but only slightly. If you want better looking games, you need better artistic design. I don't see how ray tracing delivers this in a measurably better way over other, less intensive techniques. Unless it's for something like weird water effects, I just can't see the advantage when you could be putting cycles to work on other things like movement in the background, more animated sprites or things like dust and spray.
A numerical model is little more than a highly specific and round off error prone implementation of existing analytical results. All these guys have done, at most, is shown the correctness of Hawking's analysis. If that.
Hmmmmmmmm......
Let's take a look at some of those prophecies from the Book of Isaiah.Not fulfilled. In fact, it looks like people are still trying on this one....nnnope. Not fulfilled by a long shot.Nope. Oh wait, let me guess; death, hunger and illness in a metaphorical sense, right?To be honest, I have prepared for this event. However, we're looking at another no-show.Well, it's an Ezekiel one, but this has got to be the single biggest no-show of the whole lot.
You know, I think I'm starting to see why most Jewish people didn't, and don't, buy into Jesus as the Messiah.
The tidal argument is a straw man, as it is neither central to the Heliocentric argument and also ignores the fact that, prior to Newtonian mechanics, there was no concrete understanding of the mechanics of either water, centrifugal forces or the tides, and so the matter was, and remained for some time, an open question.He did bring quite solid proof forward. His observations were not ambiguous. It also seems incongruous for a scientist to have to "prove" his theory, using considerable data, to persons who accepted, demonstrably incorrect, dogmas without any proof whatsoever. The very fact that it was heresy to take a position contrary to church teachings at all is proof that the regime under which Galileo lived was an oppressive and theocratic one.Again he had objective proof; the moons of jupiter and the phases of Venus among them. These were quite enough for supporting arguments of a Heliocentric viewpoint, and the fact that the Tychonic System was accepted should not have made opposing viewpoints punishable by death.
Galileo might not have had a lot of proof, lacking most of the tools and methods we have today. But he certainly had a wealth more proof than those who threatened him. Their main arguments consisted of quotes from the bible and Aristotle. In the face of this, accusations of "sarcasm" and "ridiculing opponents" can obviously be mitigated.
The essential facts remain. Galileo was prosecuted for expressing an opinion, and moreover a defensible, scientific opinion for which he had evidence. He was prosecuted by persons who accepted dogma and scripture without evidence, and who refused to examine or consider in any serious way the validity of opposing viewpoints. He was imprisoned, his books were banned, and his theories were withdrawn.
These are the facts. Trivialities like parallax measurements and personality clashes are entirely, entirely, beside the point.
As to peer review, since the very concept was in its infancy, or had not yet emerged, it's hard to justify the accusation that Galileo did not subject himself to it. In fact, by publishing at all, I'd argue that he was indeed subjecting his work to public scrutiny and criticism.
That is if you don't consider his published observations and data proof, or indeed facts. And no doubt as distinct from his detractors who could prove their geocentric theories by citing biblical passages and Aristotle.
They threatened to burn him alive. To set him on fire, still an offical punishment for heresy at the time. They banned his books. They locked him in a prison, which while pretty and comfortable, was still a prison. If this is "back-handed censure", I'm glad people aren't subjected to it nowadays.
The essential facts are preserved. Namely that
a) Galileo made objective scientific observations
b) Galileo published these observations and his theories on their meaning
c) The Catholic church considered his views to be heeretical
d) The church used its political influence to force Galileo, under threat, to publically retract his theories.
e) Galileo publicly retracted his theories.
A lot of people pass over that final fact. A scientist, and Galileo certainly was one, had to give up his theories, because he was threated with punishment if he did not do so. I'm sure a lot of people think that Galileo "didn't really" change his opinions. Well tough. What you think is irrelevant. He publicly retracted them. Something that would not have happened if he had lived in a freer society. Lets all hope that we live in such a society, and will continue to do so.
I'm sure in todays age of religious revivalism that there are many church apologists in the case of Galileo, and others like it. I'm sure that they will poke and prod at inconsistencies and minor points to cast doubt on the case and to paint organised religion in a better light. It's all in some way part of the modern tirade against science by religious interests. Wiser people should stick to the essentials of the case.
Sir! I challenge you sir, I challenge you to come up one with any woman, no; one single human being, who is as interesting, in depth, challenging and beautiful as the General Theory of Relativity.
Already been done.
Anyone who played Phantasy Star Online back in the day will recognise this. 1000 beats in a day. 0000 beats is I believe 00:00 in Switzerland, the home of Swatch. The game measured time in beats, so that no matter where anyone was in the world, it was the same time in "beats" in the games.
It was useful in that you could say, "I'll meet you at 740 beats" to anyone in the world, and that set a clear time, with no conversions. It was also useless in that the game provided no realistic way to convert beats to local time and vice versa.
Nevertheless, I want to get a beats clock in my house someday.
My guess is, such a crowd would be unlikely to show any patience for someone who was holding up the show by figiting with luggage or personal items, etc. It sounds like anyone idling about in the isle, jamming up traffic, is likely going to be told exactly where to shove it.
The biggest reason for boarding holdups is politeness and people taking advantage of it.
It also has to do with the fact that western workers are essentially competing with serfs and other bonded laborers. People in China are not free, and their working conditions and standards reflect that. How is someone in a democracy supposed to compete with a factory owner in China who can literally own slaves?
Do we have to give up own freedoms? No. I say put the Chinese government under pressure to give the Chinese people theirs. We'll all benefit.
Which makes me question the legality of such confidentiality agreements.
If I remain silent because of a confidentiality agreement, then am I an accomplice in the crime I have discovered? Under these circumstances, can I be legally be bound to remain silent? If I am forced to testify in court, does this still violate the agreement and make me liable? If police question me, outside of a court, must I remain silent? Is this legal?
I suspect confidentiality agreements are of dubious legal standing. I also suspect that if ever they are challenged, the courts will side with big companies.
Except when you're drafted.