"Most of the people speaking of serenity/firefly are die-hard fans of whedons work. those outside of the fan community for the most part dont know what the hell this is or why they should care."
It's strange you should say this. 90% of the Firefly fans that I personally know (quite a large number) have never watched or been fans of Wheedon's other series.
Most discerning viewers that I know have steered clear of shows about "hot undead-on-teenager action."
Firefly is of an entirely different calibre. It is a show that appeals to adult viewers who want intelligent dialogue and subtle character interaction.
Wheedon may have cut his chops on Buffy and Angel, but this was his first truly grown-up series.
Two possible answers: 1) The ratings system doesn't use illegal downloads for its measurments.
The ratings are determined by a system most often referred to as the 'Nelson System' (sp?). This sampling system gives a rough estimate of the number of people watching a show at any given time.
Battlestar Galactica has consistently had over 3 million viewers for each episode.
2) Stargate (and spinoffs) aren't SciFi original series since Stargate was a Showtime series first.
This series was dead to me from the get-go. They broke too much of the trek history that I came to enjoy.
If they plan to draw in a Trek audience with the promise of a glimpse into the Trek Universe's exciting past - they could have at least shown us the past that had been established by Trek.
Ugh. Vulcans and Klingons and Clones? Oh my...
Give me "Final Reflection: The Movie", or just let the frahchise die.
Okay, first off you suggest using Wikipedia as a reliable source?
I looked up the history of the battle of Thermopolae last month and there was some nice writing there about how some guy loves boobies. Very nice. Good way to establish credability in your following arguments.
You quote another user who states "Evolution is a fact in that we know it occurs and it has been seen occuring."
You refute that this is a fact, but then say how Gravity is a fact because we see it?
1) You didn't refute that we can see evolution occuring
2) You state that we can see Gravity, thus it's a fact.
There's a bit of contradiction in your argumentation.
Also, you can't see gravity. Nobody can. You can see objects moving towards each other, but you are only observing the objects - not gravity.
Then you state:
"A law is something that is proven to happen once, and always happen no matter what."
But that is just the problem. You can't ever know that something will "always happen no matter what". All you can do is test something again. As long as the test gives you the same results then your theory holds "so far".
I love how you then state that we need to understand DNA 110%. Very scientific.
And finally you tell us that the earth revolving around the sun is a theory and not a law. Well, it's certainly not a law. I don't think I've ever seen a law that states this.
However, we can observe the earth revolving around the sun. It is a fact. You even say as much (observation = fact) in one of your several points-of-view.
Conclusion:
If someone wants to perface a scientific textbook with a definition of theory, hypothesis, fact, and observation - I have no problems. In fact most science textbooks DO have these explained in detail.
But when someone wants to put a sticker on a book that addresses a SINGLE theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs...
You are being intellectually dishonest in your replies during much of this debate.
You use your itallicized quotes as a platform for response. This has allowed you to repeatedly ignore arguments that, I must assume, you can not refute.
This has kept me from jumping into this argument for fear that you will slice up my text and ignore the points that show flaws in your tack.
The irreducable fact is that dieism is also completely based on personal choice and cultural preference in that one must arbitrarily choose one of the many gods presented. Only then is the moral compass of that particular god available.
And only after making a choice to... 1) believe in a dieistic universe 2) choose a diety...does one finally arrive in this claim of an external moral framework for the universe.
You can shout all you want that Atheism implies 'might makes right'. But the athiests here have told you that isn't the case. You then say that all their refutations are merely rationalizations - not explanations. All the while you ignore the fact that the dieistic view of morality is a rationalization in exactly the same way.
In trying to have it both ways, you have undermined your own intellectual credibility.
Im not sure how many slashdotters have recently taken a drive down I-35 from Dallas to San Antonio (the path this highway will parallel) , but it is a perfectly normal highway, only congested at 5:00pm in San Antonio and Dallas. 'Urban Gridlock' is not the reason to build 350 miles of new highway across Texas. (build bypass highways that 'bypass' the urban areas (all two of them)).
This is patently untrue. I live in Austin, which is directly on I-35. The congestion downtown on this strech of highway is terrible during most of the day (7 AM to 9 PM) and the number of traffic fatalities on I-35 is rising with the increased flow.
There is also a great deal of gridlock on the interstate just south of Hillsboro before the interstate splits into E and W corridors.
Urban gridlock is a perfectly good reason to build a new highway. The amount of votes and tax funds that come from the four affected urban areas (Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio) are non-trivial.
Sometimes megacorps make money while doing something useful. This could be one of them
This theory has been largely debunked since its release in 1998.
While it makes for a good story, the evidence simply doesn't back up the claim.
From the conclusions of the ocenographers, Dr. Abrajano and Dr. Aksu:
For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect."
Evidence was found of sustained, non catastrophic interaction between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for the past 10,000 years.
However the flooding of the Persian Gulf is still a compelling theory as to the Great Flood stories.
The wonderful thing about buying another company is that you get a great deal of your money back.
I was involved in a large buyout recently and got to see what a boondogle it really is.
You see, Oracle gives all this money to PeopleSoft - and then it owns PeopleSoft and all the money that it just got paid.
The only real loss of money is the cash-outs for the major stockholders. Generally the deal is done as part cash and part stock. The ratio of cash-to-stock is part of the buyout deal. Any monies that go into the PeopleSoft treasury becomes the property of Oracle once the merger is complete.
In the buyout I got to observe first hand, our company was purchased for around $50 million. $35 million of this went right back into the purchasing company, so the real cost was only $15 million....who said math isn't fun?
I never claimed anything about your outsourced job.
I was answering your question in the parent post: "How does a high school or the average university do this?"
Thus I explained the system I observed while attending my college. This system was the rule, not the exception.
I did (along with a group of like-minded students) take this issue first to the university ombudsman and then to the office of the president of the university. We spoke with the vice-president of the university and a representative of the NCAA (who was wearing a Texas alumni pin on his lapel).
They politely told us to go to hell.
The problem pointed out by demachina was that our education system demonstrates very confusing and conflicting priorities. When the 'elite' in an academic institution are determined by their athletic abilities rather than their intellectual potential - it indicates an underlying sickness with the system.
I realize that football brings millions of dollars into the university. That is another problem. The school slowly "corporatizes" and begins to pursue policies for their fiscal efficacy rather than academic prudence. This is a public school. It should not be a profit-driven entity.
The whole concept of erudition as a heroic trait has faded from our society. The warrior-poet has been replaced with the warrior-playboy. In high schools (most particularly) it is the sports stars that are viewed in awe by the other students while the academic achievers are often 2nd class social citizens.
However the kids aren't to blame for this. They are raised in a society where everything from soft drinks to underwear are sold to them by sports superstars. The same superstars that are involved in an avalanche of paternity suits and scandals.
Where are the Pepsi advertisements featuring Frank Wilczek, Linda Buck, or Elfriede Jelinek (Nobel prize winners in 2004)?
demachina's point was that our education system suffers because it is part of a society that does not hold education as a high priority. This is a self destructive trait that could ultimately erode America's prospects for the future.
I disagree with the bottom-posting convention that you support.
I recieve scores of email each day. When I get a message I want to scan the top few lines to get the gist of the email.
Having to scroll down to the bottom of a message (somewhere in between the last quote and the signature of the sender) is simply a frustrating waste of time.
I believe top-posting to be a sign of courtesy, showing the recipient that you want to save them time and effort.
If, after reading a top-post, I need to find more follow-up information; I can scroll down to find it.
Or do you mean freeing countries from dictatorial overlords like Germany or Japan?
Did you know that we suffered terrorist attacks and assasinations for a long time after liberating Germany? (Check the history of the "Werewolves".) Surely it was a good thing that we stuck through that chaos and helped rebuild the country.
Being entirely cynical is easy and even "cool" these days. But it isn't very constructive.
We are in a sticky situation in Iraq - to be sure. Maybe we should have gone there and maybe we shouldn't. But the responsible thing to do NOW is to try to make it a bettter place.
If widespread deaths engender a middle class then why didn't the USSR (27+ million dead) generate a huge middle class?
Obviously it was culture.
There are many factors that affect the standard of living of a nation at large - to dismiss one in favor of war deaths (?!?) is lazy and irresponsible reasoning.
When the time comes for the government to round up the intelligencia and troublemakers - this database will be a veritable "Who's Who".
No reason or justification should be sufficient to hand the tools of tyrrany over to our government. Power that is given is seldom relinquished - can we be sure that every administration from this point on can be trusted?
I am often amazed at the high standards expected of teachers by the general public...while at the same time the voting body fights tooth-and-nail to deny them a dignified salary.
How much misery can someone be expected to endure for 20k a year?
We have people being paid 50-70k a year to do nothing more than administer LANs and babysit a database. Which job is truly more important?
Slashdot Mirror
"Most of the people speaking of serenity/firefly are die-hard fans of whedons work. those outside of the fan community for the most part dont know what the hell this is or why they should care."
It's strange you should say this. 90% of the Firefly fans that I personally know (quite a large number) have never watched or been fans of Wheedon's other series.
Most discerning viewers that I know have steered clear of shows about "hot undead-on-teenager action."
Firefly is of an entirely different calibre. It is a show that appeals to adult viewers who want intelligent dialogue and subtle character interaction.
Wheedon may have cut his chops on Buffy and Angel, but this was his first truly grown-up series.
And it was great.
Exactly!
I still remember the tag line in the original trailers.
"A movie a million years in the making!"
According to Homer's drivers license, Springfield is in a fictional state called "North Takoma".
"Some people think it's worth more than Time Warner."
Isn't that the very definition of worth?
Value only exists as an expression of people's faith.
So has "Rocky Horror", but that doesn't make it great film.
Two possible answers:
1)
The ratings system doesn't use illegal downloads for its measurments.
The ratings are determined by a system most often referred to as the 'Nelson System' (sp?). This sampling system gives a rough estimate of the number of people watching a show at any given time.
Battlestar Galactica has consistently had over 3 million viewers for each episode.
2)
Stargate (and spinoffs) aren't SciFi original series since Stargate was a Showtime series first.
1) Not filmed in America (US). It was filmed in Canada.
2) SkyOne (a station in the UK) put up a huge chunk of money to co-fund the series. Looks like part of the deal was first airing rights.
Dude. Three words.
Zero...gee...sex!
Greyhound?
Southwest Airlines?
Yellow Cab?
Why should I give the show a chance? If a series can't make an impression in it's first season why should I continue to give it my viewing time?
We know that putting out incredible first seasons is possible.
'Firefly' showed us this.
'24' showed us this.
Do you think that 'West Wing' would still be running if its first season was crap?
So why should I give ratings and advertising revenue to producers who don't have that kind of focus from the start?
If someone just rides on a popular franchise and takes a few years to start putting out quality - that's just lazy!
Be good or be gone!
This series was dead to me from the get-go. They broke too much of the trek history that I came to enjoy.
If they plan to draw in a Trek audience with the promise of a glimpse into the Trek Universe's exciting past - they could have at least shown us the past that had been established by Trek.
Ugh. Vulcans and Klingons and Clones? Oh my...
Give me "Final Reflection: The Movie", or just let the frahchise die.
I looked up the history of the battle of Thermopolae last month and there was some nice writing there about how some guy loves boobies. Very nice. Good way to establish credability in your following arguments.
You quote another user who states "Evolution is a fact in that we know it occurs and it has been seen occuring."
You refute that this is a fact, but then say how Gravity is a fact because we see it?
1) You didn't refute that we can see evolution occuring
2) You state that we can see Gravity, thus it's a fact.
There's a bit of contradiction in your argumentation.
Also, you can't see gravity. Nobody can. You can see objects moving towards each other, but you are only observing the objects - not gravity.
Then you state:
But that is just the problem. You can't ever know that something will "always happen no matter what". All you can do is test something again. As long as the test gives you the same results then your theory holds "so far".
I love how you then state that we need to understand DNA 110%. Very scientific.
And finally you tell us that the earth revolving around the sun is a theory and not a law. Well, it's certainly not a law. I don't think I've ever seen a law that states this.
However, we can observe the earth revolving around the sun. It is a fact. You even say as much (observation = fact) in one of your several points-of-view.
Conclusion:
If someone wants to perface a scientific textbook with a definition of theory, hypothesis, fact, and observation - I have no problems. In fact most science textbooks DO have these explained in detail.
But when someone wants to put a sticker on a book that addresses a SINGLE theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs...
The judge did the right thing.
You are being intellectually dishonest in your replies during much of this debate.
... ...does one finally arrive in this claim of an external moral framework for the universe.
You use your itallicized quotes as a platform for response. This has allowed you to repeatedly ignore arguments that, I must assume, you can not refute.
This has kept me from jumping into this argument for fear that you will slice up my text and ignore the points that show flaws in your tack.
The irreducable fact is that dieism is also completely based on personal choice and cultural preference in that one must arbitrarily choose one of the many gods presented. Only then is the moral compass of that particular god available.
And only after making a choice to
1) believe in a dieistic universe
2) choose a diety
You can shout all you want that Atheism implies 'might makes right'. But the athiests here have told you that isn't the case. You then say that all their refutations are merely rationalizations - not explanations. All the while you ignore the fact that the dieistic view of morality is a rationalization in exactly the same way.
In trying to have it both ways, you have undermined your own intellectual credibility.
Is anything more self-absorbed than blogging?
That anyone would think their life is important enough for the world to read is the height of hubris!
--
Check me out on http://www.livejournal.com
This is patently untrue. I live in Austin, which is directly on I-35. The congestion downtown on this strech of highway is terrible during most of the day (7 AM to 9 PM) and the number of traffic fatalities on I-35 is rising with the increased flow.
There is also a great deal of gridlock on the interstate just south of Hillsboro before the interstate splits into E and W corridors.
Urban gridlock is a perfectly good reason to build a new highway. The amount of votes and tax funds that come from the four affected urban areas (Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio) are non-trivial.
Sometimes megacorps make money while doing something useful. This could be one of them
This theory has been largely debunked since its release in 1998.
While it makes for a good story, the evidence simply doesn't back up the claim.
From the conclusions of the ocenographers, Dr. Abrajano and Dr. Aksu:
For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge. We have found this to be incorrect."
Evidence was found of sustained, non catastrophic interaction between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for the past 10,000 years.
However the flooding of the Persian Gulf is still a compelling theory as to the Great Flood stories.
That's not exactly how it works.
...who said math isn't fun?
The wonderful thing about buying another company is that you get a great deal of your money back.
I was involved in a large buyout recently and got to see what a boondogle it really is.
You see, Oracle gives all this money to PeopleSoft - and then it owns PeopleSoft and all the money that it just got paid.
The only real loss of money is the cash-outs for the major stockholders. Generally the deal is done as part cash and part stock. The ratio of cash-to-stock is part of the buyout deal. Any monies that go into the PeopleSoft treasury becomes the property of Oracle once the merger is complete.
In the buyout I got to observe first hand, our company was purchased for around $50 million. $35 million of this went right back into the purchasing company, so the real cost was only $15 million.
I never claimed anything about your outsourced job.
I was answering your question in the parent post: "How does a high school or the average university do this?"
Thus I explained the system I observed while attending my college. This system was the rule, not the exception.
I did (along with a group of like-minded students) take this issue first to the university ombudsman and then to the office of the president of the university. We spoke with the vice-president of the university and a representative of the NCAA (who was wearing a Texas alumni pin on his lapel).
They politely told us to go to hell.
The problem pointed out by demachina was that our education system demonstrates very confusing and conflicting priorities. When the 'elite' in an academic institution are determined by their athletic abilities rather than their intellectual potential - it indicates an underlying sickness with the system.
I realize that football brings millions of dollars into the university. That is another problem. The school slowly "corporatizes" and begins to pursue policies for their fiscal efficacy rather than academic prudence. This is a public school. It should not be a profit-driven entity.
The whole concept of erudition as a heroic trait has faded from our society. The warrior-poet has been replaced with the warrior-playboy. In high schools (most particularly) it is the sports stars that are viewed in awe by the other students while the academic achievers are often 2nd class social citizens.
However the kids aren't to blame for this. They are raised in a society where everything from soft drinks to underwear are sold to them by sports superstars. The same superstars that are involved in an avalanche of paternity suits and scandals.
Where are the Pepsi advertisements featuring Frank Wilczek, Linda Buck, or Elfriede Jelinek (Nobel prize winners in 2004)?
demachina's point was that our education system suffers because it is part of a society that does not hold education as a high priority. This is a self destructive trait that could ultimately erode America's prospects for the future.
I disagree with the bottom-posting convention that you support.
I recieve scores of email each day. When I get a message I want to scan the top few lines to get the gist of the email.
Having to scroll down to the bottom of a message (somewhere in between the last quote and the signature of the sender) is simply a frustrating waste of time.
I believe top-posting to be a sign of courtesy, showing the recipient that you want to save them time and effort.
If, after reading a top-post, I need to find more follow-up information; I can scroll down to find it.
Communisim is, indeed, a fine idea.
But the countries you listed are not Communist. They are oligarchies at best and dictatorships at worst.
There are no truly communistic nation in our history.
No. That would be Brita competing with Coca Cola.
Both companies use water from a municipality. Coke filters theirs in a processing plant. Brita filters theirs in your house.
Liberations like France? Belgium? Holland?
Or do you mean freeing countries from dictatorial overlords like Germany or Japan?
Did you know that we suffered terrorist attacks and assasinations for a long time after liberating Germany? (Check the history of the "Werewolves".) Surely it was a good thing that we stuck through that chaos and helped rebuild the country.
Being entirely cynical is easy and even "cool" these days. But it isn't very constructive.
We are in a sticky situation in Iraq - to be sure. Maybe we should have gone there and maybe we shouldn't. But the responsible thing to do NOW is to try to make it a bettter place.
If widespread deaths engender a middle class then why didn't the USSR (27+ million dead) generate a huge middle class?
Obviously it was culture.
There are many factors that affect the standard of living of a nation at large - to dismiss one in favor of war deaths (?!?) is lazy and irresponsible reasoning.
When the time comes for the government to round up the intelligencia and troublemakers - this database will be a veritable "Who's Who".
No reason or justification should be sufficient to hand the tools of tyrrany over to our government. Power that is given is seldom relinquished - can we be sure that every administration from this point on can be trusted?
Let history be our guide - and our warning.
I am often amazed at the high standards expected of teachers by the general public...while at the same time the voting body fights tooth-and-nail to deny them a dignified salary.
How much misery can someone be expected to endure for 20k a year?
We have people being paid 50-70k a year to do nothing more than administer LANs and babysit a database. Which job is truly more important?
America has made its choice.