At this point, almost every DVD-A capable player outputs analog only. Unless you consider a down-converted 44.1/48kHz 16-bit stereo PCM bitstream to be DVD-Audio. There are a couple of decks that output a proprietary bitstream that can only be decoded in a receiver from the same company. Fortunately, a standard has been finalized by the DVD Forum. It uses Firewire (aka IEEE 1394) to transmit full-resolution and sample rate data to the decoder of your choice.
Here is a decent write-up on the new standard. My advice? Hold off on any new purchases until we start to see a good selection of products that support the new standard. And for the love of god, don't buy one of the proprietary products.
All DVD-Audio discs must contain an uncompressed or MLP-compressed LPCM version of the DVD-Audio portion of the program. For further flexibility and added compatibility with existing DVD-Video players, DVD-Audio discs may also include video programs with Dolby Digital, DTS, and/or LPCM tracks. -- Pohlmann, Principles of Digital Audio, Fourth Edition
LPCM (Linear Pulse Code Modulation)and MLP compressed LPCM allow for a variety of word sizes and sample rates. But AC3 != DVD-Audio. As the root said, there may be AC3 (or DTS, et cetera) tracks included on a DVD-A disc, but those are not 'DVD-Audio tracks'. They are included for "added compatibility with existing DVD-Video players".
I for one am a little troubled by the attitude displayed in all the available "reviews." Their major concern seems to be frame rates in SS and Q3A, two games built on old technology. What I'm concerned about is high-resolution performance with AA enabled. I have no intention of ever again running a game below 1024x768 with AA enabled. Why would you, when the Parhelia can do it without breaking a sweat?
I wonder what The Carmack has to say about this card. I'd like to see some benchmarks of the Parhelia running DooM3 at 1024x768 w/ 16xAA. Now that the NDA's are lifted, I hope he'll wake these people up to the fact that there is life after Q3A.
Re:I'd like to poop on this movie
on
Review: Insomnia
·
· Score: 1
Well, a good psycological thriller gets in your head and makes you think... like momento did. I really did not have to think that much for this film. It was soooo predictable.
I suppose I should have defined my terminology. You seem to think that "psychological thriller" is just a synonym for "crime thriller." The heart of a psychological thriller is not its unpredictability. The heart is its character's mental state, and personal (or interpersonal) conflicts.
This movie could have made you think. You just tried to think about the wrong thing. How do you define a good person? Do the consequences of his actions determine his value as a moral agent (as Dormer says, do "the ends justify the means")? Or is it the actions themselves? Can Dormer be redeemed? Does he need to be? Did Dormer mean to kill Hap? Is Dormer any better than Finch? Would you have done any differently (in responding to Finch's offer)?
I'm not suggesting that any of these questions produce serious discussion or insight into the film. I'm just saying that these are the types of questions that are interesting in a film like this, not "Is he going to catch the bad guy."
Dear God, I'll tell you what I'm afraid of: Katz's review of "Sum of All Fears." Can you even imagine the number of "post 9/11" references he'll be able to work into that? It's not going to be a review, it's going to be an orgy of politically correct terminology.
Re:I'd like to poop on this movie
on
Review: Insomnia
·
· Score: 1
You missed the point. Insomnia wasn't meant to be as "cool as [...] Memento." Predictable? Once again, not the point. Insomnia is not a mystery. It is a psychological thriller. In other words, what's going on in Pacino's (and Williams') head is what drives the film. Even more importantly: This is not a "good cop gone bad" movie you fool. Pacino is not a bad cop. He is a decent human being with a moral dilemma. That is the point of the film. All that being said, I'd recommend checking out the original (available on Criterion DVD). I preferred it (only by a small margin) to Nolan's version. This is probably because it was more subtle (it didn't need a big gun battle at the end), and possessed a morally ambiguous ending.
Canada is run by an anti-American socialist who insults the Bush administration and brushes it off at every opportunity.
I'm not seeing the problem here...
Canadian culture is that of negative identity with a subtle anti-American xenophobia - so rather than saying "we're X Y Z" they say "at least we're not racist, fat, arrogant, and retarded, like those Americans, EH".
You may be too ignorant to know what Canadian culture is, but you likely know American "culture": Bruckheimer films, McDonald's, and Jerry Springer. So to put it succinctly: crap.
What truly matters is, how much money have you got and how many attack planes can you put in the air?
Is that really what matters? If you actually believe that, then I pity you.
All those "fundamental" semiconductor equations are empirical.
Of course they are. You say this as though I wouldn't know that. I admit that materials are not my forte, but this does not mean that I know nothing about them (I did get an A- in materials, and a B in the semiconductor physics course). In fact, what you've said supports my argument: I saw no proofs, no derivations. All the fundamental results are empirical. They simply take equation after equation and combine them to produce newer, and more complicated equations. I find it really sad how little you understand of the courses you are taking and why they are relevant.
I find it really sad how little you understand of how modern university works, and how a student must approach it. I know that I don't have a good understanding of semiconductor physics. I have a passable understanding.
I am required to take six courses per term. SIX. You think that I have time to learn everything they try to teach me? You think they have time to teach me everything they should? We get a shallow treatment of almost every topic. At best. So you'll have to pardon me if my understanding of semiconductor physics isn't up to your standards.
"There's no way I would take engineering now. It's too hard" -- The Dean of Engineering.
And yes, I've taken a course that deals with dynamic fields (ELEC 216 Electricity and Magnetism). Of course, it was barely a cursory look at the topic.
Transistors without math? I just finished a semiconductor physics course (third year computer engineering). There were more equations in that course than I care to think about. Math though? None. It was all voodoo magic. Minimal derivation. Maximal proof by intimidation. I have never seen larger, or nastier equations in my life. Ridiculous is the only word I can think of to describe that course.
I wouldn't dare deny the importance or relevance of the material we covered. To compare the material to math would be meaningless. I've taken Math 100 (single var. calc), 101 (more calc), 133 (linear), 200 (multi var calc), and 201 (diff. equations), plus more applied math courses than I'd care to admit. My material physics courses had nothing to do with mathematics. Just because something includes a lot of equations doesn't mean it is mathematics.
If the numbers you've provided are correct, then 1080i requires the highest bit-rate by a large margin. 1080i requires exactly 6 times the bandwidth of NTSC. 720p requires only 2.667 times the bandwidth of NTSC. Whatever the case may be, HDTV clearly requires many times the bandwidth of an "equivalent" NTSC signal. None of this changes my original assertion: a red laser (9GB/side) DVD cannot possibly provide enough storage for full-length HD movie. Unless of course you destroy the image fidelity with excessive compression or filtering. So basically the DVD Forum has destroyed any promise HD-DVD might have had. This makes me very unhappy.
It seems to me that the only people that want blue laser technology are the people developing it and videophiles. I fall into the latter category, and that's why I'm angry about this decision.
The studios don't want it for two reasons:
The cost of manufacturing discs will go through the roof. The studios will have to eat a good chunk of that cost if they want the consumer to accept the new format.
The new format will mean they'll have enough room to store HD content at current compression levels. In their minds, this is a bad thing.
The hardware manufacturers don't mind because they're going to be selling new equipment in either case. I'm sure they'd rather be selling new equipment that uses the blue laser tech they've spent so much money on.
I'm angry because HD-DVD is basically the holy grail of home theater, and they're gonna blow it. This whole "improved" MPEG-2 sounds like crap. Filtering before compression?!? ARGH! What the hell is that? Apparently they have no regard for fidelity.
In my mind it's a very simple issue: uncompressed HD content can occupy as much as 3 times the space compared to non-HD content (720p signal versus 480i gives (720*2)/480 = 3 or 1080i vs 480i gives 1080/480 = 2.25).
If they keep red lasers, they're going to have to compress the data three times as much for 720p and 2.25 times for 1080i data (as compared to 480i). I don't care how good MPEG4 is, it isn't good enough to achieve that without throwing out some data. I don't even want to start on what MPEG2 would have to do to the data to fit it in the same space.
So while technically we're getting a lot more resolution, what does it matter when we're throwing away so much data?
If you can track down the February edition of Scientific American, you'll find a fantastic article on optical switching technologies. After reading the article, using "little tiny very fast mirrors" AKA MEMs won't seem so stupid. I am at work so I can't remember exactly which month the article was, but it was Jan-March anyway.
Teasing in school has always existed.
Depression has always existed.
So why are kids turning in to "mass murderers"? The Misanthropic bitch has a very interesting theory: "Sergeant Pepper's Loner Band"
I was clinically depressed through high school. I continue to suffer from depression, even in the absence of the teasing and bullying I endured in public school.
So why didn't I snap? Why didn't I take the semi-automatic hand-guns and kevlar vest I had easy access to and go on a killing rampage? God knows I wanted to, many times... TMB once again has some ideas on that:
"But, Mom, All Of The Other Kids Are Committing Mass Murder..."
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...
on
15 Minutes
·
· Score: 1
I see two questions that arise from this: Can art exist alongside commercial success? Can the media use satire as an effective weapon against itself?
First, I refuse to accept that money and art are mutually exclusive. I want to believe that art can be created regardless of the financial circumstances. Movies cost money. And if your art is intended to attack popular culture you can't make an indie movie because you'll simply be "preaching to the converted." Movies cost a lot of money, so let's move on folks! You can still say something important even if you're backed by a major studio (so long as you're Stone, or someone else with a lot of pull in Holly Wood).
Second, I do believe you can use media as a weapon against itself. What Stone did with Natural Born Killers is a perfect example. He took a brainless, violent script from Tarantino (exactly the type of director he despises), and twisted it. He used this script to create the largest piece of performance art ever attempted. He used graphic violence, and sensationalism to draw huge crowds into theatres. He then proceeded to attack the very thing the audience was there to see. They were the perfect example of what is wrong with our culture today. And they ate it up. But the people Stone wanted to speak to didn't get it. They couldn't see past the violence. Most people were incapable of stepping back from the situation and seeing what Stone had achieved. It was a brilliant satire, but one so deeply buried below the violence and spectacle, most couldn't be bothered to dig deeper.
Ultimately Stone's experiment failed. Not because it wasn't what he had envisioned, but because most critics and 'thinkers' have so little faith in our commercial artists that they refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. In their eyes Stone was guilty of the same sin he was chastising other directors for. The important distinction is that instead of simply creating a violent movie, he had held a mirror up to Holly Wood, and our culture in general. It was a reflection that most didn't care to see.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You've said it better than I could. I feel your frustration and anger. I'd like to recommend a book, especially to those of you who don't agree with White Roses. It's written by Wendy Kaminer, and it's called "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Peity". I loved it because it opened my eyes to the influence of religion on the state (and why there shouldn't be any).
1) Fundamentalist Christians believe the universe was created in 7 days.
2) Science proves it is more like 10 billion years.
3) Therefore, God doesn't exist.
I have yet to see any scientist make a claim such as this. The vast majority of scientists know that science has nothing to say about the existence of god.
Your statement that sharing "90% of the DNA of all other living beings... proves that we share 90% of the DNA of other living beings, NOTHING else!" is ridiculous. Of course it "proves" nothing, because clearly, the proof you're talking about is absolute proof (as in mathematical proof). That level of certainty is unachievable in anything but mathematics. In matters such as these, the best we can ask for is reasonable certainty. And 90% is about as close as you're going to get.
Your final statement is what troubles me the most:
These "findings" certainly don't disprove Creation, because creation is about the "why", not the "how".
This statement is grossly misleading. You're appealing to our sense of religious freedom: "Well... why not let them have Creationism? After all, it's about why not how." This is a lie. The How is exactly what Creationism is about. Religion is supposed to answer the Why. Creationism has never purported to answer the Why of our existence, only the How.
Don't defend Creationism by treating it as some sacred cow. It can and will be attacked. Why? Because it makes claims directly related to the field of scientific inquiry. It must therefore stand up to scientific standards.
You are right about one thing though: Religion should stick to the Why and stay away from the How.
I've yet to see any mention of the above two films. "Dancer in the Dark," the most recent film released under the Dogma95 banner, was directed by Lars Von Trier (Breaking the Waves, The Idiots). In my mind, one of the only "must see" movies of 2000. But then, in my mind Bjork can do no wrong, so take my opinion with a teensie weensie grain of salt. "Requiem for a Dream," directed by Darren Aronofsky, is a crushingly depressing film about drug abuse. Aronofsky's last effort, "Pi" was enjoyable, but not brilliant. Requiem is. Without question the best film I've seen all year. I urge you, if you love films, you owe it to yourself to see these two masterpieces. They're not without their flaws, but I can't think of one movie release this year that compares.
I find it quite amusing that this fellow is agonizing over which degree to pursue because "computer science is more difficult by a factor of 10." At my school the CS students are the butt of almost every joke. The students in ECE (Electrical and Computer Engineering) have no respect for the CS students. Why? Because compared to the ECE program, the CS program is a cake-walk. Less science, less math (we take multi-var, they don't), lower course load (we take 6 courses per term, 5 for them), more electives (we don't get any, they get two or three a term), and less labs (we have between 3-5 per term). CS is where failed ECE students go.
Okay, assuming that this actually happens, which company will get to control the hardware division?
It simply would not work to give it to the applications company (for obvious reasons), and giving it to the OS company would be complicated. Let us assume that the OS company gets the hardware, then what if they develop a handheld? Does this mean they can't develop any applications for it?
Or has all of this been thought out in advance by the Justice Department?
A better counter example occured to me on the way to work - the Atomic Theory. As we all know, there is no "solid proof" for the existence of atoms. That is to say that there couldn't be otherwise it wouldn't be called a theory, right?
No, there is no solid proof yet for String Theory (hence the word "Theory" associated with these little stringy things, and not the word "Law" - isn't it cool how the English language allows you to make these distinctions?).
Sadly physics doesn't. It is a common misconception that if the word "theory" is used to describe something then it has no experimental support and is not very well established. An obvious counter example would be Special Relativity, which is frequently referred to as "The Theory of Relativity." What typically distinguishes theories from laws is time rather than evidence and support. It simply takes time for a well established theory to be referred to as a law.
Black holes do in fact lose mass to Hawking radiation, but the amount of energy/mass lost to this effect is so fantastically small that any infalling objects/energy more than makes up for it. The "evaporation" of black holes through Hawking radiation doesn't become a significant effect until the hole approaches microscopic sizes, simply because evaporation time is proportional to the mass of the hole cubed. For a black hole of roughly 30 solar masses that has no infalling matter it would take 10^61 times the age of the universe to evaporate. Black holes with mass less than 10^11 kg can evaporate in less than the age of the universe. [Ref] Hawking radiation isn't really energy escaping the black hole as that is not allowed for by their very definition. The event horizon is defined as the point at which the curvature of space-time becomes so great that not even photons can escape its pull (not a strict definition I know, but a functional one at least). HR is actually something which occurs on the "surface" of the black hole, at the event horizon. It involves Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and particle/anti-particle pairs as I undertand it, but would not venture an explanation as I am sure it would be sorely inadequate. As far as photons travelling at a velocity greater than c, I don't know what to say. I'm under the impression that our current understanding of physics indicates that superluminous velocities under any circumstance breaks a lot of what we think we know about the universe (especially special relativity and I think parts of general relativity). What effect that would have on black holes (their very existence in particular) I wouldn't want to guess.
Darwin's Universal Acid
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
Daniel C. Dennett has called Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection a "universal acid." Natural selection is an "algorithmic process," a blind, formal procedure whose operation is guaranteed to return a certain kind of result. A defining property of an algorithmic process is its "substrate neutrality": An algorithm does a job and returns a result whatever the input. Natural selection, as an algorithm, is substrate neutral. One can select between genes on chromosomes, codes in a computer, or ideas in a culture. As long as mutation, replication, and differential survival occur, any substrate can be selected. For instance, ideas can change (mutate), they can spread (replicate), and some can die out while others persist (differential survival), so we would seem to have a substrate suited for selection. It is not clear to me where the problem is.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, almost every DVD-A capable player outputs analog only. Unless you consider a down-converted 44.1/48kHz 16-bit stereo PCM bitstream to be DVD-Audio. There are a couple of decks that output a proprietary bitstream that can only be decoded in a receiver from the same company.
Fortunately, a standard has been finalized by the DVD Forum. It uses Firewire (aka IEEE 1394) to transmit full-resolution and sample rate data to the decoder of your choice. Here is a decent write-up on the new standard.
My advice? Hold off on any new purchases until we start to see a good selection of products that support the new standard. And for the love of god, don't buy one of the proprietary products.
I for one am a little troubled by the attitude displayed in all the available "reviews." Their major concern seems to be frame rates in SS and Q3A, two games built on old technology. What I'm concerned about is high-resolution performance with AA enabled. I have no intention of ever again running a game below 1024x768 with AA enabled. Why would you, when the Parhelia can do it without breaking a sweat?
I wonder what The Carmack has to say about this card. I'd like to see some benchmarks of the Parhelia running DooM3 at 1024x768 w/ 16xAA. Now that the NDA's are lifted, I hope he'll wake these people up to the fact that there is life after Q3A.
This movie could have made you think. You just tried to think about the wrong thing.
How do you define a good person? Do the consequences of his actions determine his value as a moral agent (as Dormer says, do "the ends justify the means")? Or is it the actions themselves? Can Dormer be redeemed? Does he need to be? Did Dormer mean to kill Hap? Is Dormer any better than Finch? Would you have done any differently (in responding to Finch's offer)?
I'm not suggesting that any of these questions produce serious discussion or insight into the film. I'm just saying that these are the types of questions that are interesting in a film like this, not "Is he going to catch the bad guy."
Dear God, I'll tell you what I'm afraid of: Katz's review of "Sum of All Fears." Can you even imagine the number of "post 9/11" references he'll be able to work into that?
It's not going to be a review, it's going to be an orgy of politically correct terminology.
You missed the point. Insomnia wasn't meant to be as "cool as [...] Memento." Predictable? Once again, not the point. Insomnia is not a mystery. It is a psychological thriller. In other words, what's going on in Pacino's (and Williams') head is what drives the film. Even more importantly: This is not a "good cop gone bad" movie you fool. Pacino is not a bad cop. He is a decent human being with a moral dilemma. That is the point of the film.
All that being said, I'd recommend checking out the original (available on Criterion DVD). I preferred it (only by a small margin) to Nolan's version. This is probably because it was more subtle (it didn't need a big gun battle at the end), and possessed a morally ambiguous ending.
You may be too ignorant to know what Canadian culture is, but you likely know American "culture": Bruckheimer films, McDonald's, and Jerry Springer. So to put it succinctly: crap.
Is that really what matters? If you actually believe that, then I pity you.
All those "fundamental" semiconductor equations are empirical.
Of course they are. You say this as though I wouldn't know that. I admit that materials are not my forte, but this does not mean that I know nothing about them (I did get an A- in materials, and a B in the semiconductor physics course). In fact, what you've said supports my argument: I saw no proofs, no derivations. All the fundamental results are empirical. They simply take equation after equation and combine them to produce newer, and more complicated equations.
I find it really sad how little you understand of the courses you are taking and why they are relevant.
I find it really sad how little you understand of how modern university works, and how a student must approach it. I know that I don't have a good understanding of semiconductor physics. I have a passable understanding. I am required to take six courses per term. SIX. You think that I have time to learn everything they try to teach me? You think they have time to teach me everything they should? We get a shallow treatment of almost every topic. At best. So you'll have to pardon me if my understanding of semiconductor physics isn't up to your standards.
"There's no way I would take engineering now. It's too hard" -- The Dean of Engineering.
And yes, I've taken a course that deals with dynamic fields (ELEC 216 Electricity and Magnetism). Of course, it was barely a cursory look at the topic.
Transistors without math? I just finished a semiconductor physics course (third year computer engineering). There were more equations in that course than I care to think about. Math though? None. It was all voodoo magic. Minimal derivation. Maximal proof by intimidation. I have never seen larger, or nastier equations in my life. Ridiculous is the only word I can think of to describe that course.
I wouldn't dare deny the importance or relevance of the material we covered. To compare the material to math would be meaningless. I've taken Math 100 (single var. calc), 101 (more calc), 133 (linear), 200 (multi var calc), and 201 (diff. equations), plus more applied math courses than I'd care to admit. My material physics courses had nothing to do with mathematics. Just because something includes a lot of equations doesn't mean it is mathematics.
If the numbers you've provided are correct, then 1080i requires the highest bit-rate by a large margin. 1080i requires exactly 6 times the bandwidth of NTSC. 720p requires only 2.667 times the bandwidth of NTSC. Whatever the case may be, HDTV clearly requires many times the bandwidth of an "equivalent" NTSC signal. None of this changes my original assertion: a red laser (9GB/side) DVD cannot possibly provide enough storage for full-length HD movie. Unless of course you destroy the image fidelity with excessive compression or filtering. So basically the DVD Forum has destroyed any promise HD-DVD might have had. This makes me very unhappy.
- NTSC -
((480/2)*720) = 172800 pixels/field
172800 pixels/field * 60 fields/sec = 10.368e6 pixels/sec
- HDTV 1080i -
((1080/2)*1920) = 1036800 pixels/field
1036800 pixels/field * 60 fields/sec = 62.208e6 pixels/sec (= 6 * 10.368e6)
- HDTV 720p -
(720*1280) = 921600 pixels/frame
921600 pixels/frame * 30 frames/sec = 27.648e6 pixels/sec (= 2.666667 * 10.368e6)
The studios don't want it for two reasons:
- The cost of manufacturing discs will go through the roof. The studios will have to eat a good chunk of that cost if they want the consumer to accept the new format.
- The new format will mean they'll have enough room to store HD content at current compression levels. In their minds, this is a bad thing.
The hardware manufacturers don't mind because they're going to be selling new equipment in either case. I'm sure they'd rather be selling new equipment that uses the blue laser tech they've spent so much money on.I'm angry because HD-DVD is basically the holy grail of home theater, and they're gonna blow it. This whole "improved" MPEG-2 sounds like crap. Filtering before compression?!? ARGH! What the hell is that? Apparently they have no regard for fidelity. In my mind it's a very simple issue: uncompressed HD content can occupy as much as 3 times the space compared to non-HD content (720p signal versus 480i gives (720*2)/480 = 3 or 1080i vs 480i gives 1080/480 = 2.25).
If they keep red lasers, they're going to have to compress the data three times as much for 720p and 2.25 times for 1080i data (as compared to 480i). I don't care how good MPEG4 is, it isn't good enough to achieve that without throwing out some data. I don't even want to start on what MPEG2 would have to do to the data to fit it in the same space.
So while technically we're getting a lot more resolution, what does it matter when we're throwing away so much data?
If you can track down the February edition of Scientific American, you'll find a fantastic article on optical switching technologies. After reading the article, using "little tiny very fast mirrors" AKA MEMs won't seem so stupid. I am at work so I can't remember exactly which month the article was, but it was Jan-March anyway.
Teasing in school has always existed.
..."
Depression has always existed.
So why are kids turning in to "mass murderers"? The Misanthropic bitch has a very interesting theory:
"Sergeant Pepper's Loner Band"
I was clinically depressed through high school. I continue to suffer from depression, even in the absence of the teasing and bullying I endured in public school.
So why didn't I snap? Why didn't I take the semi-automatic hand-guns and kevlar vest I had easy access to and go on a killing rampage? God knows I wanted to, many times...
TMB once again has some ideas on that:
"But, Mom, All Of The Other Kids Are Committing Mass Murder
I see two questions that arise from this:
Can art exist alongside commercial success?
Can the media use satire as an effective weapon against itself?
First, I refuse to accept that money and art are mutually exclusive. I want to believe that art can be created regardless of the financial circumstances. Movies cost money. And if your art is intended to attack popular culture you can't make an indie movie because you'll simply be "preaching to the converted." Movies cost a lot of money, so let's move on folks! You can still say something important even if you're backed by a major studio (so long as you're Stone, or someone else with a lot of pull in Holly Wood).
Second, I do believe you can use media as a weapon against itself. What Stone did with Natural Born Killers is a perfect example. He took a brainless, violent script from Tarantino (exactly the type of director he despises), and twisted it. He used this script to create the largest piece of performance art ever attempted. He used graphic violence, and sensationalism to draw huge crowds into theatres. He then proceeded to attack the very thing the audience was there to see. They were the perfect example of what is wrong with our culture today. And they ate it up. But the people Stone wanted to speak to didn't get it. They couldn't see past the violence. Most people were incapable of stepping back from the situation and seeing what Stone had achieved. It was a brilliant satire, but one so deeply buried below the violence and spectacle, most couldn't be bothered to dig deeper.
Ultimately Stone's experiment failed. Not because it wasn't what he had envisioned, but because most critics and 'thinkers' have so little faith in our commercial artists that they refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. In their eyes Stone was guilty of the same sin he was chastising other directors for. The important distinction is that instead of simply creating a violent movie, he had held a mirror up to Holly Wood, and our culture in general. It was a reflection that most didn't care to see.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You've said it better than I could. I feel your frustration and anger. I'd like to recommend a book, especially to those of you who don't agree with White Roses. It's written by Wendy Kaminer, and it's called "Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Peity". I loved it because it opened my eyes to the influence of religion on the state (and why there shouldn't be any).
Your statement that sharing "90% of the DNA of all other living beings... proves that we share 90% of the DNA of other living beings, NOTHING else!" is ridiculous. Of course it "proves" nothing, because clearly, the proof you're talking about is absolute proof (as in mathematical proof). That level of certainty is unachievable in anything but mathematics. In matters such as these, the best we can ask for is reasonable certainty. And 90% is about as close as you're going to get.
Your final statement is what troubles me the most:
This statement is grossly misleading. You're appealing to our sense of religious freedom: "Well... why not let them have Creationism? After all, it's about why not how." This is a lie. The How is exactly what Creationism is about. Religion is supposed to answer the Why. Creationism has never purported to answer the Why of our existence, only the How.
Don't defend Creationism by treating it as some sacred cow. It can and will be attacked. Why? Because it makes claims directly related to the field of scientific inquiry. It must therefore stand up to scientific standards.
You are right about one thing though: Religion should stick to the Why and stay away from the How.
I've yet to see any mention of the above two films.
"Dancer in the Dark," the most recent film released under the Dogma95 banner, was directed by Lars Von Trier (Breaking the Waves, The Idiots). In my mind, one of the only "must see" movies of 2000. But then, in my mind Bjork can do no wrong, so take my opinion with a teensie weensie grain of salt.
"Requiem for a Dream," directed by Darren Aronofsky, is a crushingly depressing film about drug abuse. Aronofsky's last effort, "Pi" was enjoyable, but not brilliant. Requiem is. Without question the best film I've seen all year.
I urge you, if you love films, you owe it to yourself to see these two masterpieces. They're not without their flaws, but I can't think of one movie release this year that compares.
I find it quite amusing that this fellow is agonizing over which degree to pursue because "computer science is more difficult by a factor of 10." At my school the CS students are the butt of almost every joke. The students in ECE (Electrical and Computer Engineering) have no respect for the CS students. Why? Because compared to the ECE program, the CS program is a cake-walk. Less science, less math (we take multi-var, they don't), lower course load (we take 6 courses per term, 5 for them), more electives (we don't get any, they get two or three a term), and less labs (we have between 3-5 per term). CS is where failed ECE students go.
Okay, assuming that this actually happens, which company will get to control the hardware division?
It simply would not work to give it to the applications company (for obvious reasons), and giving it to the OS company would be complicated. Let us assume that the OS company gets the hardware, then what if they develop a handheld? Does this mean they can't develop any applications for it?
Or has all of this been thought out in advance by the Justice Department?
A better counter example occured to me on the way to work - the Atomic Theory. As we all know, there is no "solid proof" for the existence of atoms. That is to say that there couldn't be otherwise it wouldn't be called a theory, right?
No, there is no solid proof yet for String Theory (hence the word "Theory" associated with these little stringy things, and not the word "Law" - isn't it cool how the English language allows you to make these distinctions?).
Sadly physics doesn't. It is a common misconception that if the word "theory" is used to describe something then it has no experimental support and is not very well established.
An obvious counter example would be Special Relativity, which is frequently referred to as "The Theory of Relativity."
What typically distinguishes theories from laws is time rather than evidence and support. It simply takes time for a well established theory to be referred to as a law.
Black holes do in fact lose mass to Hawking radiation, but the amount of energy/mass lost to this effect is so fantastically small that any infalling objects/energy more than makes up for it. The "evaporation" of black holes through Hawking radiation doesn't become a significant effect until the hole approaches microscopic sizes, simply because evaporation time is proportional to the mass of the hole cubed. For a black hole of roughly 30 solar masses that has no infalling matter it would take 10^61 times the age of the universe to evaporate. Black holes with mass less than 10^11 kg can evaporate in less than the age of the universe. [Ref]
Hawking radiation isn't really energy escaping the black hole as that is not allowed for by their very definition. The event horizon is defined as the point at which the curvature of space-time becomes so great that not even photons can escape its pull (not a strict definition I know, but a functional one at least).
HR is actually something which occurs on the "surface" of the black hole, at the event horizon. It involves Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and particle/anti-particle pairs as I undertand it, but would not venture an explanation as I am sure it would be sorely inadequate.
As far as photons travelling at a velocity greater than c, I don't know what to say. I'm under the impression that our current understanding of physics indicates that superluminous velocities under any circumstance breaks a lot of what we think we know about the universe (especially special relativity and I think parts of general relativity). What effect that would have on black holes (their very existence in particular) I wouldn't want to guess.
Daniel C. Dennett has called Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection a "universal acid." Natural selection is an "algorithmic process," a blind, formal procedure whose operation is guaranteed to return a certain kind of result. A defining property of an algorithmic process is its "substrate neutrality": An algorithm does a job and returns a result whatever the input. Natural selection, as an algorithm, is substrate neutral. One can select between genes on chromosomes, codes in a computer, or ideas in a culture. As long as mutation, replication, and differential survival occur, any substrate can be selected. For instance, ideas can change (mutate), they can spread (replicate), and some can die out while others persist (differential survival), so we would seem to have a substrate suited for selection. It is not clear to me where the problem is.