Depends on which books you read. Folk of the Fringe seemed very sf to me. So do the Shadow books (about Bean).
The Alvin Maker books I wouldn't call sf, though some people would fit them in because it's an alternate history.
I wouldn't call Lost Boys sf or fantasy, but it was one of the most disturbing books I've ever read. Right up there with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. (The book isn't about the stupid Lost Boys vampire movie.)
You've convined me that proof is not what you want, nor would you accept it if you had it. I may be mistaken, but I tend to go with the available evidence.
You pretend to know what "proof" I have You ignore the meanings of "verifiable" and "objective." You distort the evidence that you already have.
You've convince me to be stop feeding the troll for now. Bye.
The largest change in my life is increased understanding of how the world works. I'm talking about relationships here, not science, though it hasn't kept me from understanding physical sciences.
This perspective has helped me have a better relationship with my wife, be a better father to my children, and be a better friend to my friends. It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the happier I am.
Lack of reading comprehension on/. never ceases to amaze me.
I didn't say I'd seen God.
I thought that my example of physicans that smoke amply explained why I don't expect proof to convince anyone. Since you seem to missed that explanation, consider politics and other marketing. If proof is so effective in convincing people, why don't those two areas use proof instead of emotional arguments to try to convince people?
If I were that afraid of ridicule I wouldn't have fed Lew Paine's troll in the first place. However, upon rereading the New Testament you may realize that Jesus generally taught people what they were ready to hear. He often saved "deeper" and "plainer" discussions for just his closest disciples.
I hope I wasn't too sarcastic for you, AC. I get impatient when people complain about a post that they haven't read carefully.
"There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)... only an imaginary one, am I correct?"
Yes, and no. There is a physical Osama Bin Laden, but I don't expect you to be able to convince him to let you physically present him to me without some (to him) very good reason. There is a physical God that is more than willing to give you all the proof that you can stand, if you can convince him that you're serious, and that the proof would do you any good. This isn't easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
I said that I've had plenty of proof. I should have said that I've had pleny of verifiable, objective proof.
I'm not foolish enough to believe that proof convinces anyone. (e.g. I've seen plenty of health professionals smoking.) However, I'm willing to give you all the proof you need, if you can convince me that you're serious.
By the way, do you know anyone that is willing to build a supercollider for any random/.er that just happens to want to see proof of certain actions/reactions of subatomic particles?
You have different sf traditions that I do. The sf that is most traditional to me (1940 to 1960) seems to pay more attention to (then current) scientific knowledge than newer sf.
The genre of movie science fiction bears very little resemblance to the genre of printed science fiction, especially short stories, the heart of true sf.
The sci-fi channel is even less a part of the same genre. There is a little overlap, but not very much.
Sf purists (e.g. Asimov, when he was around) hate the term sci-fi. They consider it a Hollywood term that has very little to do with sf.
Then again. Suppose I take a picture and send it to Wal-Mart (or wherever) to get it developed. A few days later I walk in and they have the picture there, but won't give it to me. That seems like a HUGE vulnerability to lawsuit there. They have MY picture there, and won't give it to me? There's got to be some greedy lawyer that could make a bundle from that kind of situation.
Even suppose that they say that it isn't mine, 'cause they won't sell it to me. Then they've made an unauthorized copy of my photo, since I didn't authorize them to make any copies that weren't for me.
I think that you have a valid point. Did his "pre-deafness" change help make his music what it is?
My other question then is perhaps only tangentially related. Did Beethoven's deafness have it roots in genetic defect? There are many other reasons for deafness. Disease, infection, loud noises, brain injury, sharp stick in the ear, etc. I had a roommate that was deaf from birth, but his deafness came from birth trauma, not genetic defect (he was also blind in one eye).
I'm thinking that you meant, W. A. Mozart, but he wan't deaf. Then I think, maybe you mean L. van Beethoven, but his deafness was late onset, not a birth defect, plus it's arguable (because it's subjective) that his very best music came after his hearing loss.
IMO: If you have $50K - $100K of debt to get through college you did it wrong. I have a graduate degree (M.S.) and my total debt upon graduation was approximately $8K. I had no financial assistance from my parents. I paid off a car loan while attending school. And I also was supporting my wife and 2 children by the time that I finished.
"Also, the wobble can be caused by assymetrical mass distribution within the star itself. "
I've never heard of that kind of thing before. Does our sun have assymetrical mass distribution? Wouldn't the same principle that makes the star roundish keep the mass symetrically distributed? Aren't stars fluid enough that their mass would self-distribute to symetry of shape?
Anyway, possible or not, it's still interesting to think about a star with asymetric mass. (Of course the mass of the star would be symetric around it's center of mass, by definition.)
Master of Orion 2 is the only game that I've played every month that I've owned it. (1997 or so) Better than Civ, better than SC2K, better than Scorch, better than Nethack, better than Starcraft, better than any first person shooter (at least for solo play).
I have Master of Orion (original) is good too. Master of Orion 3 is very bad. It is literally, purposely unplayable.
Slashdot Mirror
Not "The only down side"
There is also legal liability, especially if you do house calls.
Depends on which books you read. Folk of the Fringe seemed very sf to me. So do the Shadow books (about Bean).
The Alvin Maker books I wouldn't call sf, though some people would fit them in because it's an alternate history.
I wouldn't call Lost Boys sf or fantasy, but it was one of the most disturbing books I've ever read. Right up there with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. (The book isn't about the stupid Lost Boys vampire movie.)
You've convined me that proof is not what you want, nor would you accept it if you had it. I may be mistaken, but I tend to go with the available evidence.
You pretend to know what "proof" I have
You ignore the meanings of "verifiable" and "objective."
You distort the evidence that you already have.
You've convince me to be stop feeding the troll for now. Bye.
The largest change in my life is increased understanding of how the world works. I'm talking about relationships here, not science, though it hasn't kept me from understanding physical sciences.
This perspective has helped me have a better relationship with my wife, be a better father to my children, and be a better friend to my friends.
It isn't that I was bad, but the more I know the happier I am.
I can't say how it would affect you.
Lack of reading comprehension on /. never ceases to amaze me.
I didn't say I'd seen God.
I thought that my example of physicans that smoke amply explained why I don't expect proof to convince anyone.
Since you seem to missed that explanation, consider politics and other marketing. If proof is so effective in convincing people, why don't those two areas use proof instead of emotional arguments to try to convince people?
If I were that afraid of ridicule I wouldn't have fed Lew Paine's troll in the first place. However, upon rereading the New Testament you may realize that Jesus generally taught people what they were ready to hear. He often saved "deeper" and "plainer" discussions for just his closest disciples.
I hope I wasn't too sarcastic for you, AC. I get impatient when people complain about a post that they haven't read carefully.
"There is no physical God you can present to me (or anyone else)...
/.er that just happens to want to see proof of certain actions/reactions of subatomic particles?
only an imaginary one, am I correct?"
Yes, and no.
There is a physical Osama Bin Laden, but I don't expect you to be able to convince him to let you physically present him to me without some (to him) very good reason.
There is a physical God that is more than willing to give you all the proof that you can stand, if you can convince him that you're serious, and that the proof would do you any good. This isn't easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is.
I said that I've had plenty of proof.
I should have said that I've had pleny of verifiable, objective proof.
I'm not foolish enough to believe that proof convinces anyone. (e.g. I've seen plenty of health professionals smoking.) However, I'm willing to give you all the proof you need, if you can convince me that you're serious.
By the way, do you know anyone that is willing to build a supercollider for any random
I eagerly await evidence of your sincerity.
You have different sf traditions that I do.
The sf that is most traditional to me (1940 to 1960) seems to pay more attention to (then current) scientific knowledge than newer sf.
Orson Scott Card did just fine without FTL travel in a few of those Ender books.
"In short, the belief in God is very similar and parallel to the belief in science-fiction. Both
rely on an imaginary friend (or thing)"
Except that God isn't imaginary.
I've had plenty of proof of his existence.
I've had an imaginary friend, and it's not at all the same thing.
The genre of movie science fiction bears very little resemblance to the genre of printed science fiction, especially short stories, the heart of true sf.
The sci-fi channel is even less a part of the same genre. There is a little overlap, but not very much.
Sf purists (e.g. Asimov, when he was around) hate the term sci-fi. They consider it a Hollywood term that has very little to do with sf.
They aren't suing Wal-Mart to protect their copyright, they're suing Wal-Mart because it has deep pockets.
Then again.
Suppose I take a picture and send it to Wal-Mart (or wherever) to get it developed.
A few days later I walk in and they have the picture there, but won't give it to me.
That seems like a HUGE vulnerability to lawsuit there.
They have MY picture there, and won't give it to me?
There's got to be some greedy lawyer that could make a bundle from that kind of situation.
Even suppose that they say that it isn't mine, 'cause they won't sell it to me.
Then they've made an unauthorized copy of my photo, since I didn't authorize them to make any copies that weren't for me.
You have a point, but it's still a hasty inaccurate generalization of a point.
The only thing I've use bt for, so far, is getting Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/) stuff.
Or steal one.
Has Google driven anyone out of the market?
(I really don't know)
If yes, did they actually have a truly better product/service?
I think that you have a valid point. Did his "pre-deafness" change help make his music what it is?
My other question then is perhaps only tangentially related.
Did Beethoven's deafness have it roots in genetic defect?
There are many other reasons for deafness. Disease, infection, loud noises, brain injury, sharp stick in the ear, etc. I had a roommate that was deaf from birth, but his deafness came from birth trauma, not genetic defect (he was also blind in one eye).
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I'm thinking that you meant, W. A. Mozart, but he wan't deaf.
Then I think, maybe you mean L. van Beethoven, but his deafness was late onset, not a birth defect, plus it's arguable (because it's subjective) that his very best music came after his hearing loss.
So, the question remains, Mozard????
IMO:
If you have $50K - $100K of debt to get through college you did it wrong.
I have a graduate degree (M.S.) and my total debt upon graduation was approximately $8K. I had no financial assistance from my parents. I paid off a car loan while attending school. And I also was supporting my wife and 2 children by the time that I finished.
"Besides, what are you going to do when you can't rent Kentucky Fried Movie on VHS anymore?"
By then DVDs will either be so cheap that todays prices will seem expensive, or they'll already have been replaced with something else.
Disclaimer: I personally don't have a TV or VCR, but I watch DVDs on my computer.
Even though (pre-recorded) cassettes are much more expensive to manufacture they are cheaper than CDs to buy.
The same kind of price fixing exists with DVDs.
"Also, the wobble can be caused by assymetrical mass distribution within the star itself. "
I've never heard of that kind of thing before.
Does our sun have assymetrical mass distribution?
Wouldn't the same principle that makes the star roundish keep the mass symetrically distributed?
Aren't stars fluid enough that their mass would self-distribute to symetry of shape?
Anyway, possible or not, it's still interesting to think about a star with asymetric mass.
(Of course the mass of the star would be symetric around it's center of mass, by definition.)
Kind of like observing three other objects that move exactly as if a mass about 7.5 times Earth's were orbiting about 2 million miles from the sun.
i.e. fairly direct interaction with three other bodies
How many fathoms in a vast?
Or was it vasts per sennight?
Master of Orion 2 is the only game that I've played every month that I've owned it. (1997 or so)
Better than Civ, better than SC2K, better than Scorch, better than Nethack, better than Starcraft, better than any first person shooter (at least for solo play).
I have Master of Orion (original) is good too.
Master of Orion 3 is very bad. It is literally, purposely unplayable.