...which still doesn't say where the stuff came from.
I'm happy to (tentatively, like a good scientist) believe in an infinitely old universe, big-bangs going back forever, but I don't see how people think this is very different from believing in an infinitely old Creator.
Sounds like 10th grade biology, to me: We memorized a limited amount of classification nomenclature. Raised maggots (which, incidentally, left fruit flies all over the school for a while). We collected flowers. We developed no hypotheses, nor did we test anyone else's.
And yet, virtually anyone would still classify the class as a "science class."
Then again, maybe the instructor tried to get us to hypothesize and test, but we were as self absorbed as most other people and didn't notice.
"...then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal"
Or a fast car Or a modified car Or facial hair Or fancy clothing Or a lot of alcohol (or other drugs) Or an expensive television Or an expensive computer Or large muscles Or defined muscles Or a sharp tongue Or a low/. ID Or high political position Or prestegious profession Or someone that lets you abuse them Or an "extreme" hobby Or a gun...
"morons that choose not to have kids, but still has a firm grip on how to deal with a child?"
As the 4th of 9 children, with several nephews and nieces before I got married, and with very good examples of how to take care of children, I would say:
Most people who have never had children of their own, but think that they know how to deal with them, are mistaken (though not necessarily morons).
One of the common mistakes that childless people make is that babysitting for 2 hours, 3 days, or 2 months, is not the same as having full responsibility for a child for years.
It is a very common mistake for people to believe that they know how to do a job better than someone who actually has experience doing it. For another good example observe a few serious sports fans telling the coach (via TV) how to better run the team.
Disclaimer: I know that there are people that are good at taking care of children full time (as in 24/7/365) that never had any of their own.
There wasn't a lot of character CHANGE, but there was a lot of character in the characters.
Case in point, just one of many details: The first time Aragorn fights the Nine, at Weathertop. The original (book) Aragorn doesn't use a sword (maybe because the one that he carries is the Sword that was Broken), and that is an important, yet not obvious, part of his character. The movie Aragorn is a weaker character and needs a sword for that fight.
Whether Aragorn was given the sword in that fight expressly for the purpose of weakening his character, I don't know. But I don't believe that Jackson isn't a good enough director to know what the extra sword did to Aragorn's character.
My perception is that all of the characters were stripped (to some extent) of what made them great, in order to make more "actionish" movies (perhaps because that makes more money, in the short run anyway), instead of the more heroic story that is in the books. Frodo and Sam were left the most intact. Maybe because they weren't in the battles as much.
There is the possibility that a decision was made to "dumb down" the characters for the movie because movie makers don't trust (or don't want?) movie goers to use any brains while watching movies.
"But I think the movie is better than the book, actually."
I'll agree with that. The book was mediocre sci-fi, not really well written. The movie was VERY well made, even though It'll never be one of my favorites.
"I only hope the movie is as good a quality as the books and are of LotR quality adaption and not a HP quality adaption "
The last thing I want to see is a LotR-quality movie adaptation of a good book.
The Lord of the Rings movies are very good movies. The camera work, the special effects, the acting, the directing, are all very very good. The trouble is that they aren't good adaptations of the books. It is understandable that plot shortcuts need to be taken when adapting a book to a movie. It is also obvious that a movie can't contain all the dialog that a book can. The time restrictions of a 2 (or 4) hour movie simply don't allow it to contain all that is in a well-written 300 page book.
What the movie format does allow, and is very good at, is developing characters. The tragedy of the Lord of the Rings movies is that the characters were largely mangled beyond recognition. Many of them, if it weren't for the coincidences of name, race and costumes, would have been unrecognizable as the characters in the books. (IMO the hobbit characters were handled the best.)
I understand that, but I read both the Chicago Tribune and the National Geographic article, and I didn't get the impression from either one that they were really reading a narrative, but mostly intrepeting the pictures. I just re-read the NG article, and got the same impression, but can't read the Chicago article anymore. I guess I still need to find another source that will tell me just how much of what they are reading into this is speculation.
It is easier to keep components grounded if the computer is in a metal box/cage. Also, if the computer is in a cage, or locked room, or building with controlled access (e.g. store) it is less likely that it will dissappear.
"If we don't have to kill all of our food to survive"
So, what food do you eat that doesn't have to be killed?
I suppose that annuals (plants that only live one year/season, like wheat) could be considered dead before we start the processes of turning them into food, but, as a rule, we kill swaths of other life to have room to grow those particular crops.
You claim: "There's a lot of evidence that how ever much people may try to teach babies to speak, babies ignore them."
I won't try to claim that that evidence doesn't exist, or that is was unscientifically gathered, or misinterpreted. I don't need to.
To counter a general claim that children don't learn from being "taught" language all I need is one counterexample.
I have seen (multiple times) my 4-year-old explain to my toddler new words and how to say others words and seen the toddler immediately listen, imitate and use with understanding, and not forget later.
I realize that you may have to conduct your own observations in order to know for yourself.
Just because my toddler ignores ME when I try to teach, doesn't mean she can't be taught.
I am surprised at how certain they seem about the interpretations of the mural. I was imagining the painting as they described the interpretation and the painting that my imagination came up with had multiple intreptations.
Maybe they're right, but how do they get so sure?
Maybe they even have good reason to be sure, but it wasn't in the article. If anyone can tell me where to look to see if they really know, or if the intrepetation is just speculation, I'd appreciate it.
Ironically it seems that you came to this erroneous conclusion by having "faith" in the false assumtion that faith must be in something that is not true, and that is unprovable.
If I have faith in something that is true, it will not lead me to erroneous conclusions.
For example: I have faith that electrons exist. It is faith, because I have never seen any direct evidence of electrons (what makes lightbulbs light up could be something else, as far as any proof I've personally seen). If electrons do, in fact, exist, then my faith in them will not lead to erroneous conclusions.
Faith is not all. If I do some experiments and prove to myself that electrons do exist, then I will no longer have faith in them, but will KNOW.
Perhaps you didn't mean for "Faith only leads you to erroneous conclusions." to be taken so literally, but I thought that enough people would take it as truth to justify a response.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you don't think that a box of pre-formatted floppies would increase in price by $2.50?
"I haven't seen quads"
Wasn't some of the Voodoo series quad capable, about 10 years ago?
I don't remember clearly since I generally run on hand-me-down video cards.
YES!
Human volunteers would get much more useful information.
Maybe if you used your head more often, you'd miss it when it's gone.
BTW, have you been reading Baum or something?
...which still doesn't say where the stuff came from.
I'm happy to (tentatively, like a good scientist) believe in an infinitely old universe, big-bangs going back forever, but I don't see how people think this is very different from believing in an infinitely old Creator.
"There is no hypothesis and no testing going on."
Sounds like 10th grade biology, to me:
We memorized a limited amount of classification nomenclature.
Raised maggots (which, incidentally, left fruit flies all over the school for a while).
We collected flowers.
We developed no hypotheses, nor did we test anyone else's.
And yet, virtually anyone would still classify the class as a "science class."
Then again, maybe the instructor tried to get us to hypothesize and test, but we were as self absorbed as most other people and didn't notice.
"We only have the binary stars that nature provided us"
Don't give up so easily. Make some more binary stars, instead of making excuses.
SHEESH, IDIOTS!
"I'll gladly pay $0.43 a day to NOT have to listen to radio commercials."
It doesn't cost me nearly that much to buy and listen to my tapes/cds/mp3s.
(And it costs me even less if I just turn the thing off.)
"...then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal"
/. ID ...
Or a fast car
Or a modified car
Or facial hair
Or fancy clothing
Or a lot of alcohol (or other drugs)
Or an expensive television
Or an expensive computer
Or large muscles
Or defined muscles
Or a sharp tongue
Or a low
Or high political position
Or prestegious profession
Or someone that lets you abuse them
Or an "extreme" hobby
Or a gun
The etymology is not the definition.
The hoop snake is very good at rolling.
"morons that choose not to have kids, but still has a firm grip on how to deal with a child?"
As the 4th of 9 children, with several nephews and nieces before I got married, and with very good examples of how to take care of children, I would say:
Most people who have never had children of their own, but think that they know how to deal with them, are mistaken (though not necessarily morons).
One of the common mistakes that childless people make is that babysitting for 2 hours, 3 days, or 2 months, is not the same as having full responsibility for a child for years.
It is a very common mistake for people to believe that they know how to do a job better than someone who actually has experience doing it. For another good example observe a few serious sports fans telling the coach (via TV) how to better run the team.
Disclaimer: I know that there are people that are good at taking care of children full time (as in 24/7/365) that never had any of their own.
I remember when I was in Chile I would often see signs in vacant lots saying, "No Botar Basura." (basically, "No Dumping Trash.")
Then, one day, I saw a sign in a vacant lot that said, "No Votar Basura," (basically, "No Voting Trash.")
I thought, "Good Idea."
[I hope I didn't inadvertently start off a polical flamefest.]
There wasn't a lot of character CHANGE, but there was a lot of character in the characters.
Case in point, just one of many details: The first time Aragorn fights the Nine, at Weathertop.
The original (book) Aragorn doesn't use a sword (maybe because the one that he carries is the Sword that was Broken), and that is an important, yet not obvious, part of his character. The movie Aragorn is a weaker character and needs a sword for that fight.
Whether Aragorn was given the sword in that fight expressly for the purpose of weakening his character, I don't know. But I don't believe that Jackson isn't a good enough director to know what the extra sword did to Aragorn's character.
My perception is that all of the characters were stripped (to some extent) of what made them great, in order to make more "actionish" movies (perhaps because that makes more money, in the short run anyway), instead of the more heroic story that is in the books. Frodo and Sam were left the most intact. Maybe because they weren't in the battles as much.
There is the possibility that a decision was made to "dumb down" the characters for the movie because movie makers don't trust (or don't want?) movie goers to use any brains while watching movies.
"But I think the movie is better than the book, actually."
I'll agree with that.
The book was mediocre sci-fi, not really well written.
The movie was VERY well made, even though It'll never be one of my favorites.
"I only hope the movie is as good a quality as the books and are of LotR quality adaption and not a HP quality adaption "
The last thing I want to see is a LotR-quality movie adaptation of a good book.
The Lord of the Rings movies are very good movies. The camera work, the special effects, the acting, the directing, are all very very good. The trouble is that they aren't good adaptations of the books. It is understandable that plot shortcuts need to be taken when adapting a book to a movie. It is also obvious that a movie can't contain all the dialog that a book can. The time restrictions of a 2 (or 4) hour movie simply don't allow it to contain all that is in a well-written 300 page book.
What the movie format does allow, and is very good at, is developing characters. The tragedy of the Lord of the Rings movies is that the characters were largely mangled beyond recognition. Many of them, if it weren't for the coincidences of name, race and costumes, would have been unrecognizable as the characters in the books. (IMO the hobbit characters were handled the best.)
I understand that, but I read both the Chicago Tribune and the National Geographic article, and I didn't get the impression from either one that they were really reading a narrative, but mostly intrepeting the pictures.
I just re-read the NG article, and got the same impression, but can't read the Chicago article anymore.
I guess I still need to find another source that will tell me just how much of what they are reading into this is speculation.
"Why would we keep computers in cages?"
It is easier to keep components grounded if the computer is in a metal box/cage.
Also, if the computer is in a cage, or locked room, or building with controlled access (e.g. store) it is less likely that it will dissappear.
"If we don't have to kill all of our food to survive"
So, what food do you eat that doesn't have to be killed?
I suppose that annuals (plants that only live one year/season, like wheat) could be considered dead before we start the processes of turning them into food, but, as a rule, we kill swaths of other life to have room to grow those particular crops.
You claim: "There's a lot of evidence that how ever much people may try to teach babies to speak, babies ignore them."
I won't try to claim that that evidence doesn't exist, or that is was unscientifically gathered, or misinterpreted. I don't need to.
To counter a general claim that children don't learn from being "taught" language all I need is one counterexample.
I have seen (multiple times) my 4-year-old explain to my toddler new words and how to say others words and seen the toddler immediately listen, imitate and use with understanding, and not forget later.
I realize that you may have to conduct your own observations in order to know for yourself.
Just because my toddler ignores ME when I try to teach, doesn't mean she can't be taught.
Somehow I had never thought to see "critical" and "Buffy fan" applied to the same person.
I am surprised at how certain they seem about the interpretations of the mural. I was imagining the painting as they described the interpretation and the painting that my imagination came up with had multiple intreptations.
Maybe they're right, but how do they get so sure?
Maybe they even have good reason to be sure, but it wasn't in the article. If anyone can tell me where to look to see if they really know, or if the intrepetation is just speculation, I'd appreciate it.
"It seems everybody wants to be called an engineer these days."
And most of them have never driven a train in their life.
"Faith only leads you to erroneous conclusions."
Ironically it seems that you came to this erroneous conclusion by having "faith" in the false assumtion that faith must be in something that is not true, and that is unprovable.
If I have faith in something that is true, it will not lead me to erroneous conclusions.
For example: I have faith that electrons exist. It is faith, because I have never seen any direct evidence of electrons (what makes lightbulbs light up could be something else, as far as any proof I've personally seen). If electrons do, in fact, exist, then my faith in them will not lead to erroneous conclusions.
Faith is not all. If I do some experiments and prove to myself that electrons do exist, then I will no longer have faith in them, but will KNOW.
Perhaps you didn't mean for "Faith only leads you to erroneous conclusions." to be taken so literally, but I thought that enough people would take it as truth to justify a response.
Everyone gets colds, but does everyone SUFFER?
What if you're a masochist?
--
A masochist is someone who likes pain, so he avoids it. -Unknown