Physical property X can vary from Y to Z but it doesn't. Slightest variation in X would preclude life.
Whoa, hold on there. When has it even been observed that any of the fundamental constants of nature can vary? The boiling point of water (at a given pressure) has always been constant, and there's no indication it ever has or ever will change. Or any of the other things. Where are you getting this "observation"? We need to be sure it's a valid observation before you can start making predictions about it.
The only part that many ID proponents (well, not the hardcore evangelicals who believe the bible as the literal truth) really disagree with is the "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids and evolved into what it is today."
The "life sprang from a random soup of amino acids" bit is not part of evolutionary theory. It's a different topic called abiogenesis, literally "life from nonlife." Evolution talks about how lifeforms change into other lifeforms; abiogenesis is about how life arose from nonlife.
So while I could be wrong, I just don't think that "Cooking the books" is possible with the new rules in place.
...unless enough people are working together to conspire to commit accounting fraud, taking the new rules into account. I really doubt it's even possible to invent an accounting system that can't be cheated, or that any amount of laws could prevent it. Humanity invented accounting six thousand years ago. Sarbanes-Oxley isn't going to put an end to accounting fraud, even if it (hopefully) helps.
In other words, if they want to be treated as a real encyclopaedia then they need to act like one.
This is probably a true statement. But it's irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not asking to be treated as a "real encyclopedia." It's something entirely different, that we don't really have a name for. They only call it an "encyclopedia" because there isn't a better word that's more useful.
Idiots deserve no quarter. If they are stupid enough to believe that 'low orbit has gravity' or in 'gravity generators' then I'm all for mocking/teasing them.
So if someone is born with low intelligence (which is obviously no fault of theirs), then it's okay to mock them and tease them. How about Down's Syndrome kids? How about autistic kids? How about people with birth defects who have no arms or legs, or can't build bone mass properly and so have brittle bones that break frequently? How about [insert birth defect here]?
but when you put it in the body of a Great White Shark,
"Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It's a shark riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see." - Jack Handey
Good idea! I'll refuse to subscribe to Slashdot until they fix this. Then I'll go back to what I was doing before: not subscribing to Slashdot. That will, somehow, show them!
Wait, I have a better idea. Block ScuttleMonkey's articles if you don't want to see them, or just skip over * *Beatles-Beatles's submissions when you come across them. And spare the rest of us your whining.
A review is not _just_ an opinion...but a good review actually dissects a movie and tells you why it's good or bad
Well, are we talking about "a review" or "a good review"? I said in my original post, "It's not a very well-written review, but that doesn't mean it's not a review." Which is still true. The original article is definitely a review. But it's not a good review.
Yes, yes, I know this is linguistic nitpicking, but since you proceeded to disagree with me and then say things which exactly proved what I was saying...
I thought the whole point of technology was that it made things easier?
Advances in technology typically do one of two things: Allow us to do things we couldn't do before, or to make things we already do easier.
HD is something we couldn't do before, and unfortunately we have this huge old infrastructure of TV equipment and technologies and terms, and HD has to integrate smoothly into that. It's not going so smoothly, mostly because the technology is being driven by laws and industry consortiums, not by the demands of the market.
What you're going to end up with is a bunch of lowest common denominator, mainstream channels that are as driven by the cable equivalent of "ratings" as the major TV networks are now (in cable's case, those "ratings" would be represented by subscriptions). Is that really a good thing? Not to me, it isn't.
It's a lucky thing you aren't in charge of our economic policies, then, because you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. If your argument made any sense, then there wouldn't be anything except the most popular -- books, movies, food, soft drinks, clothes, whatever. And yet we have an enormous amount of choice of any of those things (less so for some things than others; say, soft drinks, since the possible number of distinct soft drinks is a lot smaller than, say, the possible number of distinct books).
Producing television programs does have a higher bar to entry than writing and printing a book, but it's not THAT high, and it's getting lower all the time, and with essentially infinite indexing and storage capacity, who cares? There'll still be niche television channels. They'll charge more, maybe, than the big guys, or they'll cut costs; but that's exactly how boutique/niche retail markets work now, and there's no lack of choice there.
Now, you can argue that it's the free market, blah blah blah, and that's true, but I'd like to point out that it's the free market that made Titanic the #1 movie of all time and Britney Spears the #1 selling music artist of the past few years. Do you really want to be relying on your fellow customers to support the channels you want well enough to keep them afloat on their own?
What you're saying here is that because you don't like Titanic or Britney Spears, and since you clearly know better than everyone else, the market is made up of tasteless schmucks and therefore shouldn't be allowed to regulate itself.
This is, for lack of a better word, a retarded idea.
Furthermore, did Titanic's success somehow prevent other movies from being made? No. I can get thousands of independent films from Netflix, and a dozen new ones appear in theatres weekly. Does Brit-Brit's popularity mean there are fewer niche music acts around? Nope. There's hundreds of thousands of bands on the Internet I can download music from -- legally, and in many cases, for free, hoping I'll like the music and buy their CD.
The main part of the problem isn't so much merely with sex and/or nudity being shown; the problem is with the portrayal of casual sex as acceptable behavior.
You might have a point, if we lived in a society where people were provided with the tools they need to make decisions about what to do with their bodies, and not denied basic reproductive education because of ridiculous (and provably false) claims that teaching kids how their bodies work will cause them to have sex more often, or be less responsible about it.
No one ever gets AIDS in the movies, unless it's a movie about AIDS. No one ever experiences the heartbreak of an unwanted baby, unless it's a movie specifically about that situation.
No one (at least, not the heroes) ever deals with the aftermath of the families of the miscellaneous goons who got killed in a violent action movie. No one ever deals with the lawsuits and criminal charges and whatnot from all the reckless endangerment, destruction of property, and general mayhem they commit while chasing the bad guys. No one deals with the PTSD or emotional fallout from having been shot at or nearly killed. You have no point here.
people who don't want to be tempted with those urges at every turn simply don't want to be constantly exposed to things that have that effect.
Then they can turn off the TV. (Or, under the new plan, pick only channels they like.) What's the problem?
But violence is often necessary in real life.
...where do you live, exactly? I can count on zero fingers the number of times I've had to resort to violence in the last ten years. The whole point of civilized society is to minimize violence and disorder. Yes, there are a lot of places in the world (even in this city) where violence is a lot more necessary than it is where I spend my time, but that's no justification for glorifying it.
Seeing nudity is likely to arouse people; seeing violence is not nearly as likely to arouse irresistable violent urges.
That's because the worst that can usually come of arousal is a baby, and the worst that can come of violence is death. You can go to jail for committing violence, but not (usually) for having sex. They're vastly different; whether one is more likely to arouse "urges" than the other is utterly irrelevant. I'd much rather have people following their sexual urges than their violent urges. Wouldn't you?
Being more opposed to sexuality than to violence is not such an irrational position as many people here like to make it.
Alas, it is both irrational and harmful to society.
Most lectures are also passive and single-speed, yet nobody is saying they are worthless.
During a college lecture (for example), you can usually interrupt the professor to ask for clarification, or ask a question. This is impossible with TV. So this analogy falls right apart. (And as a matter of fact, some people do think lectures are worthless, or at least less effective than some alternatives. The only advantage college lectures offered me over reading the same material in a book was the interactivity, the questions I could ask when I didn't understand something; and if necessary, I was always able to go to my professor's office hours, or email him/her with questions.)
Nova, Nature, etc., all do a much better of educating you on a subject than reading an article would be able to.
Visual media like television and written media like books present information in different and complementary ways. To say that one is better than the other at educating is utter nonsense.
Consider this... In perhaps 2 hours, I can watch a Shakespeare play in it's entirety, and get the very same thing out of it, as you can by spending several days READING that same play in print.
Shakespeare's plays are almost always abridged when they're performed, so they're longer than you think. Further, plays are written with the intent of being performed, not read. Reading the play is explicitly a substitute for watching it, when there's no one around to perform the play. So this argument... also makes no sense.
Plus, it's much easier for most people, while the long and drawn-out process of reading it would be deathly boring to most people.
People who find reading a "deathly boring," "long and drawn-out process" typically have no interest in watching Shakespeare, either.
Slashdot Mirror
It's useful to keep in mind that everyone is born an atheist.
Great idea! Uh, do you have $1,000 I can borrow?
Maybe ten $10 bills would be a more practical idea for those of us who aren't rich.
IT'S NOT A CUPHOLDER!!
Wait, I have a better idea. Block ScuttleMonkey's articles if you don't want to see them, or just skip over * *Beatles-Beatles's submissions when you come across them. And spare the rest of us your whining.
Yes, yes, I know this is linguistic nitpicking, but since you proceeded to disagree with me and then say things which exactly proved what I was saying...
HD is something we couldn't do before, and unfortunately we have this huge old infrastructure of TV equipment and technologies and terms, and HD has to integrate smoothly into that. It's not going so smoothly, mostly because the technology is being driven by laws and industry consortiums, not by the demands of the market.
Producing television programs does have a higher bar to entry than writing and printing a book, but it's not THAT high, and it's getting lower all the time, and with essentially infinite indexing and storage capacity, who cares? There'll still be niche television channels. They'll charge more, maybe, than the big guys, or they'll cut costs; but that's exactly how boutique/niche retail markets work now, and there's no lack of choice there.
What you're saying here is that because you don't like Titanic or Britney Spears, and since you clearly know better than everyone else, the market is made up of tasteless schmucks and therefore shouldn't be allowed to regulate itself.This is, for lack of a better word, a retarded idea.
Furthermore, did Titanic's success somehow prevent other movies from being made? No. I can get thousands of independent films from Netflix, and a dozen new ones appear in theatres weekly. Does Brit-Brit's popularity mean there are fewer niche music acts around? Nope. There's hundreds of thousands of bands on the Internet I can download music from -- legally, and in many cases, for free, hoping I'll like the music and buy their CD.
Alas, it is both irrational and harmful to society.