The issue here is more than what people being offended by movie content, it is about what a person can do with a product that they have purchased. Should I be able go to the store and by a pair of pants and then cut them off at the knees to make a pair of shorts? Or since that isn't the way the fasion designer intended them to be do I have to keep them as pants? The issue here isn't if it is right to wear shorts or not but it is about what I do with my own property. I agree that if people don't want to see something then they shouldn't watch it and that the directors did put forth a lot of time and a lot of creative energy into making their masterpiece but I don't think that the government should be able to sensor what I do with any product that I purchase. If I want a scene edited out of one of my movies I should be able to do it, or have my friend down the street do it, or have some professional with the equiptment do it for me.
Sure Einstein had some faults, but don't we all? Instead of reading these correspondences with criticizem for his faults lets just be greatful that we have so much information on him so we can learn from his genius as well as his blunders. Here's to the memory of a great man!!!!
Now all we need is an earpiece that cancels out the noise that starts when peoples jaws start vibrating. That would be something really useful for the concert or theater.
It seems to me, after reading the article, that there are just too many influential factors to be able to conclude anything by such a test. From the article
If gravity is leaking into extra dimensions, the slight change in its force should cause the planet's oval-shaped orbit to rotate, or precess, slowly... the orbit would precess by 1/3600 per year - "a reasonable quantity to try and measure," they say.
I wonder how they could conclude that a change of this magnitude would come from gravity leaking into other dimension and not from any of the other myriad of possible effects. It is a good idea, I just don't see how it could work.
Just because Superman can fly doesn't mean he has to be some other type of life form. All he has to do is eat a large amount of beans and he can release hot gasses at a high rate of speed. Not much different from the standard jet engine.
The why really is a big deal. There are so many 'buzzwords' that people use in normal conversation that are just annoying to have to listen too. Now that they are in the dictionary those so inclined to use them can do so without reservation. I will admit that some of the words did need to be added, especially the new words that develop to describe new technologies. But there are some words that are used frequently that just shouldn't be added to the dictionary. I have a brother-in-law who loves to say aint and we would always correct him because "aint aint a word". But then they just had to go and add it to the dictionary...
You can get quite a bit of scientific knowledge by just looking at the movies that Hollywood is making and by showing what is wrong (or right on the rare occasion that Hollywood did something right) with them. If you want kids to pay better attention in their science classes why not show them clips of movies then discuss the science behind it. You can fill an entire semester just by explaining all the things wrong in Mission to Mars.
I am a Christian and a Scientist. I too believe that matters of faith should be kept out of schools. But, where do we draw the line. There are a lot of people that believe in 'creation'. I think that it would be wrong to keep it out of schools just so those who do not grow up in 'creationist homes' can get an idea of what the debate is really about and what is going on. For this I can use the same argument that so many people use for the teaching about alternative lifestyles in schools. If we can teach about homosexuatliy in schools just so kids can get a better grasp of the world around us I think that Intelligent Design should also be able to be taught.
From a post a while back on slashdot
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 17/1331207&tid=196
If LCD manufacures continue with this kind of technology we may not need the bulky glasses or other 'personal accessories' to be able to see in 3D. The images coming from the 3D cameras will just be encoded on multiple layers and each screen will project its own layer giving a 3D effect. This will also allow for viewing of the 'old' 2D movies and programming.
With only a 10% possibility of dying from cancer I think I may move to Mars. My odds of dying from cancer here on Earth are every bit as good and on Mars I won't have to put up with all of the boneheads here on Earth that I have to deal with.
The most obvious development birthed by this platform will be the absorption of routine. The Machine will take on anything we do more than twice. It will be the Anticipation Machine.
There are already programs that attempt to absorb routine by anticipating commands, MS Word is a good example. But just because I do something twice doesn't mean that I want to do it every time. How many times does the machine think that it knows better than you and keeps trying to revert back to its 'anticipated' course of action and won't let you continue with what you really want to be doing?
I can just see trying to get some work done and not being able to because the program is determined that you really want to be doing something else
Slashdot Mirror
to describe most people that I know
The issue here is more than what people being offended by movie content, it is about what a person can do with a product that they have purchased. Should I be able go to the store and by a pair of pants and then cut them off at the knees to make a pair of shorts? Or since that isn't the way the fasion designer intended them to be do I have to keep them as pants? The issue here isn't if it is right to wear shorts or not but it is about what I do with my own property. I agree that if people don't want to see something then they shouldn't watch it and that the directors did put forth a lot of time and a lot of creative energy into making their masterpiece but I don't think that the government should be able to sensor what I do with any product that I purchase. If I want a scene edited out of one of my movies I should be able to do it, or have my friend down the street do it, or have some professional with the equiptment do it for me.
Sure Einstein had some faults, but don't we all? Instead of reading these correspondences with criticizem for his faults lets just be greatful that we have so much information on him so we can learn from his genius as well as his blunders. Here's to the memory of a great man!!!!
Now all we need is an earpiece that cancels out the noise that starts when peoples jaws start vibrating. That would be something really useful for the concert or theater.
It seems to me, after reading the article, that there are just too many influential factors to be able to conclude anything by such a test. From the article If gravity is leaking into extra dimensions, the slight change in its force should cause the planet's oval-shaped orbit to rotate, or precess, slowly... the orbit would precess by 1/3600 per year - "a reasonable quantity to try and measure," they say.
I wonder how they could conclude that a change of this magnitude would come from gravity leaking into other dimension and not from any of the other myriad of possible effects. It is a good idea, I just don't see how it could work.
Just because Superman can fly doesn't mean he has to be some other type of life form. All he has to do is eat a large amount of beans and he can release hot gasses at a high rate of speed. Not much different from the standard jet engine.
The why really is a big deal. There are so many 'buzzwords' that people use in normal conversation that are just annoying to have to listen too. Now that they are in the dictionary those so inclined to use them can do so without reservation. I will admit that some of the words did need to be added, especially the new words that develop to describe new technologies. But there are some words that are used frequently that just shouldn't be added to the dictionary. I have a brother-in-law who loves to say aint and we would always correct him because "aint aint a word". But then they just had to go and add it to the dictionary...
You can get quite a bit of scientific knowledge by just looking at the movies that Hollywood is making and by showing what is wrong (or right on the rare occasion that Hollywood did something right) with them. If you want kids to pay better attention in their science classes why not show them clips of movies then discuss the science behind it. You can fill an entire semester just by explaining all the things wrong in Mission to Mars.
I am a Christian and a Scientist. I too believe that matters of faith should be kept out of schools. But, where do we draw the line. There are a lot of people that believe in 'creation'. I think that it would be wrong to keep it out of schools just so those who do not grow up in 'creationist homes' can get an idea of what the debate is really about and what is going on. For this I can use the same argument that so many people use for the teaching about alternative lifestyles in schools. If we can teach about homosexuatliy in schools just so kids can get a better grasp of the world around us I think that Intelligent Design should also be able to be taught.
From a post a while back on slashdot http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 17/1331207&tid=196
If LCD manufacures continue with this kind of technology we may not need the bulky glasses or other 'personal accessories' to be able to see in 3D. The images coming from the 3D cameras will just be encoded on multiple layers and each screen will project its own layer giving a 3D effect. This will also allow for viewing of the 'old' 2D movies and programming.
With only a 10% possibility of dying from cancer I think I may move to Mars. My odds of dying from cancer here on Earth are every bit as good and on Mars I won't have to put up with all of the boneheads here on Earth that I have to deal with.
The most obvious development birthed by this platform will be the absorption of routine. The Machine will take on anything we do more than twice. It will be the Anticipation Machine.
There are already programs that attempt to absorb routine by anticipating commands, MS Word is a good example. But just because I do something twice doesn't mean that I want to do it every time. How many times does the machine think that it knows better than you and keeps trying to revert back to its 'anticipated' course of action and won't let you continue with what you really want to be doing?
I can just see trying to get some work done and not being able to because the program is determined that you really want to be doing something else