i'm not a student of science, and i heard about light cones for the first time in this post, and then followed the wikipedia link to read about it. from what i understood, it seems to me that once the light reaches us, the event will then be considered to be in our past light cone (and therefore in our past, according to parent). and since the light of the preliminary signs have already reached us, those signs are definitely already in our past light cone. so are we saying that what came before the signs that preceded the supernova are already in our past, but the supernova itself is not? hmmm, physics is hard.
- t.
--
cogito, ergo es.
visit my page at http://inconsistent-journal.blogspot.com/
and maybe we'll now have computers that can get schizophrenic, paranoid and manic depressive.
i wonder if they'll call it HAL:-)
- t.
--
cogito, ergo es.
i hope they can control the current very precisely; a few milliamps more or less, and the implantee might turn into a grinning idiot. i also wonder what kind of social life they're going to have, even if the implant works perfectly. i know i would have difficulties talking normally to someone whose responses were being controlled electrically.
In fact, someone reading the CoN without a Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the Christian elements in it without having them pointed out
not true. i am hindu, and it became very clear to me about two books into the series that it was about christianity. you underestimate the extent to which european imperialism made the basics of christianity well known all over the world. many, many more non-christians know the elements of christianity than, say, non-hindus about hinduism or non-muslims about islam. english literature (or at least the language) is taught in all erstwhile british colonies, and one can't avoid reading up on the bible and st.augustine and calvin etc., if one has to make any sense of the material. i'm yet to find out a place where they are equally well up on hindu scriptures.
what's more, it seems to me that the reviewer in question dislikes scientific materialism because it isn't aesthetically appealing. it is true that some scientific theories are often preferred to others for their 'elegance' and 'beauty', but is ugliness adequate basis for trashing a world-view?
Slashdot Mirror
i'm not a student of science, and i heard about light cones for the first time in this post, and then followed the wikipedia link to read about it. from what i understood, it seems to me that once the light reaches us, the event will then be considered to be in our past light cone (and therefore in our past, according to parent). and since the light of the preliminary signs have already reached us, those signs are definitely already in our past light cone. so are we saying that what came before the signs that preceded the supernova are already in our past, but the supernova itself is not? hmmm, physics is hard. - t. -- cogito, ergo es. visit my page at http://inconsistent-journal.blogspot.com/
and maybe we'll now have computers that can get schizophrenic, paranoid and manic depressive. i wonder if they'll call it HAL :-)
- t.
--
cogito, ergo es.
i hope they can control the current very precisely; a few milliamps more or less, and the implantee might turn into a grinning idiot. i also wonder what kind of social life they're going to have, even if the implant works perfectly. i know i would have difficulties talking normally to someone whose responses were being controlled electrically.
In fact, someone reading the CoN without a
Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the
Christian elements in it without having them
pointed out
not true. i am hindu, and it became very clear to me about two books into the series that it was about christianity. you underestimate the extent to which european imperialism made the basics of christianity well known all over the world. many, many more non-christians know the elements of christianity than, say, non-hindus about hinduism or non-muslims about islam. english literature (or at least the language) is taught in all erstwhile british colonies, and one can't avoid reading up on the bible and st.augustine and calvin etc., if one has to make any sense of the material. i'm yet to find out a place where they are equally well up on hindu scriptures.
what's more, it seems to me that the reviewer in question dislikes scientific materialism because it isn't aesthetically appealing. it is true that some scientific theories are often preferred to others for their 'elegance' and 'beauty', but is ugliness adequate basis for trashing a world-view?