Comments Posted By Dwight
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 24 Comments
BRANSON SHOOTS FOR 2011 COMMERCIAL LAUNCH OF SPACESHIP II
OSHA in space? I imagine that regulation would be even more difficult than it is in ocean going vessels, and that can be very dicey.
Comment Posted By dwight On 14.12.2009 @ 09:57
IS THE GOP ANTI-SCIENCE? OR JUST ANTI-RATIONALIST?
@busboy33
No, you aren't reading me correctly. :p
@funny man
My point is you can continue to test the hypothesis. Even if you (or any of humanity for that matter) weren't present for the start point.
Trying to figure out the exact path is difficult, and horizontal transfers certainly complicate that and brings in new wrinkles. But horizontal transfers actually help support the theory of evolution itself.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 13.05.2009 @ 11:09
@funny man
The difficulty occurs when you model tour projections into the past or future. For example, you can test evolution in action in a mere two weeks (let’s say bacterial evolution in response to antibiotic). So there can be no doubt evolution is happening. However, it is much trickier to remodel life’s history which will give opponent fodder claiming that evolution really is not real (which of course is nonsense).
You are passing judgement about others not understanding yet you fail miserably here? You can, and there has been a lot of work, looking back into the past with evolution. What you hypothesis is something like "if this evolved from that, you should see a certain type of structure or mechanism within the organism itself". Over and over when this expected result is looked for, boom, the predicted finding has been found.
By itself each piece of this evidence is not proof. But the effect of accumulated pieces of evidence has moved us past reasonable doubt about the role of evolution over roughly 1 billion years, going back to a [more or less] single point.
Those that argue otherwise are relying on ideas that were dubious decades ago and have over recent years have become entirely laughable.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 11.05.2009 @ 21:33
As with a number of things, a huge part of the anti-science image problem has to do with the guy that occupied the head job at the Whitehouse from 2001-2008. He clearly catered to, and I think it's pretty clear he relied on, that "smaller subset" that does stuff like push Creationism in sciences classes. If it was an act by him then he deserves an Oscar nomination nod because he played the "ignorant hick populous" so convincingly well.
When such factions of the GOP so clearly have the ear of the President it is hardly surprising that the President's party as a whole gets painted, regardless of the actual head count they represent. *shrug* Weighting by influence makes perfect sense.
P.S. On the matter of future drilling oil offshore in North America, Obama has probably advanced that further than any President in some time. Using the more traditional tools of politicians. How? By tossing a bone to Cuba, laying the foundation for the day with the ol' Beard-o finally kicks the bucket and Cuba finally has someone running the place [without being undercut by Castro] that can be dealt with. His brother Raul tries to ratchet down the traditional bile and what does Castro do? Stomp in out of "retirement" and toss gas on the fire again. :/
Comment Posted By Dwight On 11.05.2009 @ 14:36
THE ENDURING POPULARITY OF STAR TREK
Oh, and the Marquee was in the mix, too. The criminal element that Rick talked about largely missing. These former Fed troops that, with what I'd call a somewhat libertarian bent, decided (or had decided for them in some cases) that they'd rather eat cold gruel on some forsaken rock than live within the Federation structure.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 14:39
Deepspace 9 purposely didn't move on. It was very much a show about consequences. Unlike the other S
Also it was the closest to the teeming masses that constituted the non-Federation. That got it into the icky details down the social ladder from the military elite, which is what most of ST focused on, to the everyday reality of people.
As such it undercut some of that escapism that I think Rick is talking about. The cowboyish, "screw the green alien, shoot the blue one, and get out of town at Warp 6" that ST, especially the original series, had going on.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 14:35
Ack, missed finishing a thought.
Of course, ST as an entertainment business has ultimately given a good deal of priority to playing to the audience. It wouldn't have endured if it didn't.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 11:24
Keep in mind that in the shows and movies:
1) we see the universe largely through the lens of a certain slice of humanity that has been highly selected. They are the ones that have shown the drive and desire to get off their ass and make it through the academy. 2) the setting in which we see them is usually at arms length from the teeming masses at home.
3) there were episodes (TNG I think?) that did touch on the psychological draw of pursuing the sensual, the one instance that comes to mind is the holodeck
4) Holodeck time is a limited resource, even outside of VoyagerScience fiction, at it's heart, is the exploration of "what if we had technology that could do this, what would society look like?" In that way Star Trek, while certainly not the most stringent and uneven effort spent in continuity in details, has over time attempted to follow out logical conclusions. Both technical and social.
Of course, ST as an entertainment business has ultimately given . As with a variety of fiction, trying to argue philosophy, strength of whatever governing approach, and such based on what is or is not in the fantastical world is quite perilous. Ultimately ST has, from the beginning, been a mirror held up to the writer's own beliefs at that point in time. I don't expect anything different from this edition of ST (though it could be a little weird given that chronological order of our world and the ST world are different).
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 11:22
TENTH AMENDMENT MOVEMENT SURGES FORWARD
Sorry, you are right. I should have followed through to the link. You're [even more than I suspected] bullshit statement through me off.
But I don't find the navigable waters argument surprising in the least:
1) You can indeed navigate wetlands.
2) Water tends to flow downhill...a long ways.This isn't some super special alien logic. The US isn't the only federation that has come to the same conclusion. It's quite natural to come to this conclusion given the physical realities of how shit works.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 11:02
Got it? Migratory birds conduct interstate commerce.
Either you are being very disingenuous with that statement or you really haven't given this much thought. Birds hunting [tourism] is a business that relies on these birds. What happens to these bird populations in other states impacts how many are available, and therefore has direct impact on the local bird hunting.
Little wonder they didn't need to go to the Supreme Court to get that straight, as it's pretty straightforward.
Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 09:52
