Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70296 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300 |
| Last post | 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-02-28 06:30 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-27 17:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-04 08:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:59 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 10:54 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-06 02:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 11:00 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-05 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-05 16:15 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-05 19:21 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-27 13:24 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-02-27 11:32 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-02-27 20:14 -0800
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2015-02-28 09:58 -0600
Re: ... Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-28 19:54 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-02 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-03 08:48 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-02 23:00 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 19:02 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:58 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:39 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-04 15:31 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 04:05 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-05 03:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 21:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:57 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:41 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy android <here@there.was> - 2015-03-05 20:11 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-03 00:57 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 09:26 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-04 16:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-03-05 01:27 +0100
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 02:27 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 16:32 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-04 20:55 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-05 18:58 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 09:50 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:54 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 08:02 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 09:53 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 17:23 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-06 16:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:38 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-06 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:02 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-06 16:10 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-06 13:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 23:01 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-07 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-07 07:08 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 12:20 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 15:21 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-06 18:34 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-07 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:37 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:36 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:49 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 08:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-09 13:47 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 13:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 00:38 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 00:17 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 23:29 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 11:37 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-10 14:44 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 14:59 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-10 14:51 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-10 18:46 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 15:08 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-10 23:56 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 20:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 01:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 22:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 02:42 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-12 00:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:01 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-11 13:06 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-11 09:57 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 08:50 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-03-12 17:43 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-12 23:45 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-10 08:15 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 15:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:17 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-07 16:07 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-07 20:34 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 11:47 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 13:31 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 14:51 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 15:23 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 16:12 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:06 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 14:33 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-09 14:56 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-10 09:42 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-10 15:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:32 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:25 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-11 09:02 -0400
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:15 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 07:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-11 05:52 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-11 19:52 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:57 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-08 19:46 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 23:18 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-09 09:05 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-08 10:47 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-03-07 20:55 -0800
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-08 00:00 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-08 10:16 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-03-09 04:18 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-08 10:25 +1300
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-15 14:56 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-03-18 01:37 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 09:07 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-03-05 12:01 -0500
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:45 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:43 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-05 21:35 -0700
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-06 09:30 +0000
Re: OT: Farewell Leonard Nimoy Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:50 +0000
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 14:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <54ff3b97$0$20037$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70806 |
On 15-03-10 14:37, Alan Baker wrote: > Quarks? Quarks are fundamental? Umm... ...we thought so, but now... Quark's was (will be) just a bar on space station Deep Space Nine. Run by some seedy guy with funky ears. Since Spock was still alive in the TNG/DS9 era, it is possible he has been to DS9, although not in any of the documentaries that show the history of that era.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 14:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <54ff3f05$0$1663$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70806 |
In article <mdndlv$vuh$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > You, OTOH, are so cock-sure that you (personally) understand reality > well enough to declare it a practical impossibility no matter what else > might be discovered. Ha ha. Chuck Palahniuk has a story about how astronauts discovered Heaven, and all the people who'd ever died were there, Kurt Cobain and passenger pigeons and so forth, so they sent home a video about their discovery, and then crashed their ship and died and went there and then all the people on earth started committing suicide so that they'd go there too and then the government ordered the mass suicide of everyone, and they called it "emigration" and Walmart sold "Go Away Kits." Of course there were holdouts, and hence a plot. Story's called Obsolete, and appears in Haunted. "Death is the New Life." Maybe one day the Mozlems will discover that paradise with all the virgins. I doubt it, but, hey ... -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdnp04$r9r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70810 |
On 3/10/15 PDT, 11:59 AM, Warren Oates wrote: > Maybe one day the Mozlems will discover that paradise with all the > virgins. I doubt it, but, hey ... That's always troubled me. Hey one or two virgins here or there, O.K., but a sorority full?? One would want women of some experience and confidence. Maybe that's why I never converted.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_sGdnQbWhZSr6WLJnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #70830 |
In article <mdnp04$r9r$1@dont-email.me>,
John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/10/15 PDT, 11:59 AM, Warren Oates wrote:
>
> > Maybe one day the Mozlems will discover that paradise with all the
> > virgins. I doubt it, but, hey ...
>
>
> That's always troubled me. Hey one or two virgins here or there, O.K.,
> but a sorority full?? One would want women of some experience and
> confidence. Maybe that's why I never converted.....
Especially since they are not to be.. shall we say/... "touched". Seems
like a waste of resources. I have long contended that paradise would be
72 $5,000 a night Vegas hookers....
--
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.”
— Aaron Levenstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 15:08 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m14kbk.i4qmg7wr8krhN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70806 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-10 10:29:52 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > > [snip] > >> No, no, _no_, NO, _NO_! I _will_ have my Star Trek transporter! NO!!!!!!! > >> *screams at top of lungs* You just don't get it! I will magically have it! > >> NOOOOO!!! Everything _will_ magically fall into place, no matter how many > >> grand improbabilities all have to occur within my time frame! NOOOOOOOOO! > >> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're wrong! NOOOOOOOOOO! Science > >> _will_ behave like magic if I hold my breath and flail about!!!!!! *starts > >> to turn blue* > > > > That's what I hear, dude. Honestly, sometimes I don't know who is worse > > - religious nutters, or Trekkies... > > If that's what you think you hear, you're not listening. > > I have no opinion either way about whether or not transporters will one > day be possible. None. At all. Period. > > Why? Because I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I have the > slightest clue what will be discovered about the nature of reality over > the next 1000 years. What I DO know is that every time science has > thought they had it down, they've been wrong. > > Atoms and that's it? Nope. > > Nucleus plus electrons? Uh-uh. > > Quarks? Quarks are fundamental? Umm... ...we thought so, but now... > ...let us get back to you. > > > You, OTOH, are so cock-sure that you (personally) understand reality > well enough to declare it a practical impossibility no matter what else > might be discovered. > > You... > > ...just... > > ...don't... > > ...get it. > > YOU are exactly the guy that Arther C. Clarke was talking about in his 1st > law. How can that be when I never said it was impossible? I merely make a rational point about the cold hard reality of what kind of advances would be required and how far away they practically are, given how ultra-radical they are, and how many such ultra-radical advances are all required, along with some good old-fashioned luck that it all works out in the end. I think you're hearing something quite different from what I'm saying. Possibly because your bizarre fanaticism on this issue is colouring your perceptions. I suggest having a glass of cold milk, sitting down, and just relaxing for a while. Try to think rational thoughts, and then re-read what I wrote. Or you really do believe science is magic. I don't know. There is a staggering level of scientific ignorance with the public, so perhaps it's just normal that you'd believe a Star Trek-style transporter is possible in any kind of Trek time frame, if scientists just work _really_ hard at it :-D -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 23:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdoouo$sd$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70847 |
On 2015-03-11 02:08:07 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-10 10:29:52 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>>> No, no, _no_, NO, _NO_! I _will_ have my Star Trek transporter! NO!!!!!!! >>>> *screams at top of lungs* You just don't get it! I will magically have it! >>>> NOOOOO!!! Everything _will_ magically fall into place, no matter how many >>>> grand improbabilities all have to occur within my time frame! NOOOOOOOOO! >>>> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're wrong! NOOOOOOOOOO! Science >>>> _will_ behave like magic if I hold my breath and flail about!!!!!! *starts >>>> to turn blue* >>> >>> That's what I hear, dude. Honestly, sometimes I don't know who is worse >>> - religious nutters, or Trekkies... >> >> If that's what you think you hear, you're not listening. >> >> I have no opinion either way about whether or not transporters will one >> day be possible. None. At all. Period. >> >> Why? Because I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I have the >> slightest clue what will be discovered about the nature of reality over >> the next 1000 years. What I DO know is that every time science has >> thought they had it down, they've been wrong. >> >> Atoms and that's it? Nope. >> >> Nucleus plus electrons? Uh-uh. >> >> Quarks? Quarks are fundamental? Umm... ...we thought so, but now... >> ...let us get back to you. >> >> >> You, OTOH, are so cock-sure that you (personally) understand reality >> well enough to declare it a practical impossibility no matter what else >> might be discovered. >> >> You... >> >> ...just... >> >> ...don't... >> >> ...get it. >> >> YOU are exactly the guy that Arther C. Clarke was talking about in his 1st >> law. > > How can that be when I never said it was impossible? You avoided the word... > > I merely make a rational point about the cold hard reality of what kind > of advances would be required and how far away they practically are, > given how ultra-radical they are, and how many such ultra-radical > advances are all required, along with some good old-fashioned luck that > it all works out in the end. ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing from arrogance and ignorance. > > I think you're hearing something quite different from what I'm saying. > Possibly because your bizarre fanaticism on this issue is colouring your > perceptions. I suggest having a glass of cold milk, sitting down, and > just relaxing for a while. Try to think rational thoughts, and then > re-read what I wrote. LOL > > Or you really do believe science is magic. I don't know. There is a > staggering level of scientific ignorance with the public, so perhaps > it's just normal that you'd believe a Star Trek-style transporter is > possible in any kind of Trek time frame, if scientists just work > _really_ hard at it :-D You talk about ME not reading! LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 20:05 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m14y4o.gvw4jn122poeqN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70864 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing > from arrogance and ignorance. Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack the self awareness to realise this... Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 01:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdovap$b7p$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70865 |
On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing >> from arrogance and ignorance. > > Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific > ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously > - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New > Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make > less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack > the self awareness to realise this... > > Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like > 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and > you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working > Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D Again: did you read what I wrote. I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or otherwise. What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really are) is ASININE. It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. And neither do you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 22:25 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m154dx.4o7lud14i8lv7N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70869 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > >> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing > >> from arrogance and ignorance. > > > > Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific > > ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously > > - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New > > Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make > > less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack > > the self awareness to realise this... > > > > Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like > > 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and > > you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working > > Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D > > Again: did you read what I wrote. > > I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or otherwise. > > What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done > (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really > are) is ASININE. > > It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that > we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. > > Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. > > And neither do you. You're right, I don't know for sure (and I never said I did). But I can make extremely well educated guesses after a lifetime of interest and reading, interspersed with education in the sciences. Actual scientists can make even more educated guesses - which I can then read, and have. If I planned on living a lifetime measured in millennia, instead of years, I'd happily bet my life on it. But after millennia listening to you cry that no one can make any educated guesses based on reality, I'd probably wish I'd killed myself back in the 2010's... Again (boy is repeating myself getting old) you need to educate yourself. Visit a library. Google. Head down to your local tertiary institute of learning. Do _something_ other than what you're doing now - mindlessly saying no one can possibly make educated guesses based on reason, logic, reality. I don't know why or when this became a religion for you, but man - you need to take some personal responsibility and get some help. Or not, because it's not like fanatics are know for taking responsibility... -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 02:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdp2mk$h5l$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70870 |
On 2015-03-11 09:25:44 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing >>>> from arrogance and ignorance. >>> >>> Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific >>> ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously >>> - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New >>> Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make >>> less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack >>> the self awareness to realise this... >>> >>> Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like >>> 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and >>> you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working >>> Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D >> >> Again: did you read what I wrote. >> >> I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or otherwise. >> >> What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done >> (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really >> are) is ASININE. >> >> It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that >> we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. >> >> Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. >> >> And neither do you. > > You're right, I don't know for sure (and I never said I did). But I can > make extremely well educated guesses after a lifetime of interest and > reading, interspersed with education in the sciences. Actual scientists > can make even more educated guesses - which I can then read, and have. > If I planned on living a lifetime measured in millennia, instead of > years, I'd happily bet my life on it. But after millennia listening to > you cry that no one can make any educated guesses based on reality, I'd > probably wish I'd killed myself back in the 2010's... No. That is the point. A man of science in the year 1015 would have said he could make "well educated guesses"... ...and they would have been all wrong about almost everything. > > Again (boy is repeating myself getting old) you need to educate > yourself. Visit a library. Google. Head down to your local tertiary > institute of learning. Do _something_ other than what you're doing now - > mindlessly saying no one can possibly make educated guesses based on > reason, logic, reality. > > I don't know why or when this became a religion for you, but man - you > need to take some personal responsibility and get some help. Or not, > because it's not like fanatics are know for taking responsibility... When did assuming you are well-educated and no one else can possibly be become your religion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 00:18 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1m159ny.q33bohdm8f6eN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #70871 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-11 09:25:44 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > >> On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > >> > >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing > >>>> from arrogance and ignorance. > >>> > >>> Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific > >>> ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously > >>> - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New > >>> Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make > >>> less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack > >>> the self awareness to realise this... > >>> > >>> Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like > >>> 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and > >>> you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working > >>> Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D > >> > >> Again: did you read what I wrote. > >> > >> I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or > >> otherwise. > >> > >> What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done > >> (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really > >> are) is ASININE. > >> > >> It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that > >> we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. > >> > >> Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. > >> > >> And neither do you. > > > > You're right, I don't know for sure (and I never said I did). But I can > > make extremely well educated guesses after a lifetime of interest and > > reading, interspersed with education in the sciences. Actual scientists > > can make even more educated guesses - which I can then read, and have. > > If I planned on living a lifetime measured in millennia, instead of > > years, I'd happily bet my life on it. But after millennia listening to > > you cry that no one can make any educated guesses based on reality, I'd > > probably wish I'd killed myself back in the 2010's... > > No. That is the point. > > A man of science in the year 1015 would have said he could make "well > educated guesses"... > > ...and they would have been all wrong about almost everything. I love how you use the year 1015. Or _any_ year prior to the 20th century, when our knowledge of relevant science ran the gamut from nothing to virtually nothing. Yet, continuing to display your stunning lack of self awareness, you believe people who knew nothing are somehow comparable in terms of making educated guesses on scientific progress, to people of today who know quite a lot (compared to nothing, anyway :-D ). Do you see how easy I mock your stupidity and tear down your pathetic arguments? I know that must be frustrating, and your lack of self awareness prevents you from knowing why this keeps happening. So I'll just tell you: it is because I use reason, logic, reality. Not blind belief in science as magic, as you do. > > Again (boy is repeating myself getting old) you need to educate > > yourself. Visit a library. Google. Head down to your local tertiary > > institute of learning. Do _something_ other than what you're doing now - > > mindlessly saying no one can possibly make educated guesses based on > > reason, logic, reality. > > > > I don't know why or when this became a religion for you, but man - you > > need to take some personal responsibility and get some help. Or not, > > because it's not like fanatics are know for taking responsibility... > > When did assuming you are well-educated and no one else can possibly be > become your religion? Reading Star Trek novels and watching serials isn't "well-educated" or even slightly educated in the relevant sciences. But thanks for playing. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 09:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55003c8f$0$1629$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70873 |
In article <1m159ny.q33bohdm8f6eN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > Reading Star Trek novels and watching serials isn't "well-educated" or > even slightly educated in the relevant sciences. But thanks for playing. You mean Alan Turing didn't single-handedly Win The War with a machine named Chrissie at 221B Bletchley Park? -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmg0ffh.1vjl.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #70873 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> was all, like: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2015-03-11 09:25:44 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >> >> >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing >> >>>> from arrogance and ignorance. >> >>> >> >>> Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific >> >>> ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously >> >>> - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New >> >>> Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make >> >>> less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack >> >>> the self awareness to realise this... >> >>> >> >>> Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like >> >>> 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and >> >>> you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working >> >>> Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D >> >> >> >> Again: did you read what I wrote. >> >> >> >> I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or >> >> otherwise. >> >> >> >> What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done >> >> (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really >> >> are) is ASININE. >> >> >> >> It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that >> >> we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. >> >> >> >> Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. >> >> >> >> And neither do you. >> > >> > You're right, I don't know for sure (and I never said I did). But I can >> > make extremely well educated guesses after a lifetime of interest and >> > reading, interspersed with education in the sciences. Actual scientists >> > can make even more educated guesses - which I can then read, and have. >> > If I planned on living a lifetime measured in millennia, instead of >> > years, I'd happily bet my life on it. But after millennia listening to >> > you cry that no one can make any educated guesses based on reality, I'd >> > probably wish I'd killed myself back in the 2010's... >> >> No. That is the point. >> >> A man of science in the year 1015 would have said he could make "well >> educated guesses"... >> >> ...and they would have been all wrong about almost everything. > I love how you use the year 1015. Or _any_ year prior to the 20th > century, when our knowledge of relevant science ran the gamut from > nothing to virtually nothing. Yet, continuing to display your stunning > lack of self awareness, you believe people who knew nothing are somehow > comparable in terms of making educated guesses on scientific progress, > to people of today who know quite a lot (compared to nothing, anyway :-D > ). Let's look at the math. A normal 70kg human has 7x10^27 molecules. You would need to be able to position every single one of those molecules precisely to re-assemble a human. For that, you need precise locations for every molecule. No, you can cheat and create a chain of loci, but you need to follow that chain 7 10^27 times. That takes time and it takes energy. Let's say that you can locate the molecules in space very efficiently, and that you are able to reassemble actual molecules (how? Handwavium!). Now, we are mostly water, and an H2O molecule is very small (under 3 Angstroms so less than 3x10^-10 meters). At the very least, you will have to position 7x 10^27 items within 2^10^-10 (that is, smaller than a water molecule). This is going to be enough to transfer something that mostly looks human on the other end, we've done nothing about preserving life at this point but lets ignore that since we have no explanation of what is different about a living human and a dead human. So, we need at least 2.1 x 10^38 bits of information. At least. How much energy does it take just to change the state of 10^38 bits? Well, now that is interesting ebcause someone has already done the math. 10^38 is about 2^128, which is the size of the ZFS address pool. <https://blogs.oracle.com/dcb/entry/zfs_boils_the_ocean_consumes> So, simply to STORE the most basic location information for one human body would take a storage array of at least 275 trillion kg, assuming you could power it and had a perfect storage medium. > Do you see how easy I mock your stupidity and tear down your pathetic > arguments? I know that must be frustrating, and your lack of self > awareness prevents you from knowing why this keeps happening. So I'll > just tell you: it is because I use reason, logic, reality. Not blind > belief in science as magic, as you do. Most people who argue about science know nothing about science. Actually, more broadly, most people who argue about a topic known nothing about the topic. -- http://2blog.kreme.com On nights such as this, evil deeds are done. And good deeds, of course. But mostly evil deeds. --Wyrd Sisters
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdps5r$i7m$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70873 |
On 2015-03-11 11:18:20 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2015-03-11 09:25:44 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >> >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-11 07:05:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: >>>> >>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing >>>>>> from arrogance and ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific >>>>> ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously >>>>> - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New >>>>> Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make >>>>> less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack >>>>> the self awareness to realise this... >>>>> >>>>> Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like >>>>> 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and >>>>> you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working >>>>> Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D >>>> >>>> Again: did you read what I wrote. >>>> >>>> I don't care one way or another about transporters; Trek-style or >>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> What I'm pointing out is that you claiming they can't reasonably done >>>> (yes, yes: you keep claiming you're not saying that, but you really >>>> are) is ASININE. >>>> >>>> It is based solely on what we know TODAY and leaves out the fact that >>>> we CANNOT know what we will know in a 1000 years. >>>> >>>> Does that mean they will happen? I have no idea. >>>> >>>> And neither do you. >>> >>> You're right, I don't know for sure (and I never said I did). But I can >>> make extremely well educated guesses after a lifetime of interest and >>> reading, interspersed with education in the sciences. Actual scientists >>> can make even more educated guesses - which I can then read, and have. >>> If I planned on living a lifetime measured in millennia, instead of >>> years, I'd happily bet my life on it. But after millennia listening to >>> you cry that no one can make any educated guesses based on reality, I'd >>> probably wish I'd killed myself back in the 2010's... >> >> No. That is the point. >> >> A man of science in the year 1015 would have said he could make "well >> educated guesses"... >> >> ...and they would have been all wrong about almost everything. > > I love how you use the year 1015. Or _any_ year prior to the 20th > century, when our knowledge of relevant science ran the gamut from > nothing to virtually nothing. Yet, continuing to display your stunning > lack of self awareness, you believe people who knew nothing are somehow > comparable in terms of making educated guesses on scientific progress, > to people of today who know quite a lot (compared to nothing, anyway :-D > ). I love how you continue to miss the point. > > Do you see how easy I mock your stupidity and tear down your pathetic > arguments? I know that must be frustrating, and your lack of self > awareness prevents you from knowing why this keeps happening. So I'll > just tell you: it is because I use reason, logic, reality. Not blind > belief in science as magic, as you do. LOL > >>> Again (boy is repeating myself getting old) you need to educate >>> yourself. Visit a library. Google. Head down to your local tertiary >>> institute of learning. Do _something_ other than what you're doing now - >>> mindlessly saying no one can possibly make educated guesses based on >>> reason, logic, reality. >>> >>> I don't know why or when this became a religion for you, but man - you >>> need to take some personal responsibility and get some help. Or not, >>> because it's not like fanatics are know for taking responsibility... >> >> When did assuming you are well-educated and no one else can possibly be >> become your religion? > > Reading Star Trek novels and watching serials isn't "well-educated" or > even slightly educated in the relevant sciences. But thanks for playing. LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-11 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55003a2d$0$39563$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70871 |
In article <mdp2mk$h5l$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > A man of science in the year 1015 would have said he could make "well > educated guesses"... ... and he would have been executed for most of them. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awoolmeyer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cba5a5de-4d3a-4a21-984b-569750e37dfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70865 |
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 3:05:23 AM UTC-4, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing > > from arrogance and ignorance. > > Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific > ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously > - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New > Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make > less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack > the self awareness to realise this... > > Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like > 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and > you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working > Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D He' running true to form. He finds it impossible to speak in a civil manner. That is why he got his face bashed in requiring stitches last year in real life. He is shunned on all the other groups he once infested because of what a huge horses ass he is. He can't get along with anyone. He thinks he has a superior intellect, but he is just a class A dumb shit. And now he comes to your group and tries to break balls. What a pathetic POS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-12 23:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdu12h$onv$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #70940 |
On 2015-03-13 00:43:41 +0000, awoolmeyer@gmail.com said: > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 3:05:23 AM UTC-4, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: >> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> >>> ...you don't know how far away such as advances are. That is arguing >>> from arrogance and ignorance. >> >> Then ironically you speak from a position of profound scientific >> ignorance and illiteracy, and are treating science like magic. Seriously >> - educate yourself (google, read some books, science mags - I like New >> Scientist, talk to some scientists in relevant fields, etc). You'll make >> less of a fool of yourself, as you're doing now. Though you seem to lack >> the self awareness to realise this... >> >> Seriously Alan - you're behaving as if your faith in a magic-like >> 'science' that can do anything no matter the reality, is a religion, and >> you're a fanatic. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. A working >> Trek-style transporter by sheer force of tantrum-fueled will? :-D > > He' running true to form. He finds it impossible to speak in a civil > manner. That is why he got his face bashed in requiring stitches last > year in real life. By which you mean, a stick hit me in the face on the follow-through of a shot I was trying to defend. > He is shunned on all the other groups he once infested because of what > a huge horses ass he is. He can't get along with anyone. He thinks he > has a superior intellect, but he is just a class A dumb shit. LOL > > And now he comes to your group and tries to break balls. > > What a pathetic POS. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-10 08:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <54fee072$0$23515$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70776 |
In article <mdm5pb$6jp$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2015-03-10 00:23:10 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > >> On 2015-03-09 19:52:54 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > >> > >>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: > >>>>> Science, reality is not magic. > >>>> > >>>> (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!) > >>>> > >>>> Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is > >>>> indistinguishable from magic. > >>>> <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws> > >>> > >>> Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I > >>> miss Clarke. > >>> > >>>> Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate: > >>>> > >>>> Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states > >>>> that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states > >>>> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite > >>>> expert. > >>> > >>> Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm > >>> neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet > >>> commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of > >>> the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would > >>> require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic, > >>> if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline. > >>> To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the > >>> science involved. > >> > >> So you didn't explicitly state it was impossible... > >> > >> ...you just implied that we know enough to know that it is practically > >> impossible. > >> > >> The very soul of what Clarke was trying to tell you. > >> > >>> This reality apparently angers some people. I've noticed in my years > >>> that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to > >>> believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is > >>> indifferent to hope and belief. > >>> > >>> Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a > >>> good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be > >>> realistic about the above. > >> > >> Whereby "realistic", you mean "assume your knowledge of the universe is > >> complete enough to say". > >> > >> :-) > > > > To have a Star Trek style transporter, you would need to solve not just > > one problem. Not have just one major breakthrough. You would need dozens > > of major breakthroughs more advanced than any yet made. > > > > Off the top of my head: > > > > Energy<->matter conversion. > > > > Be able to scan at a quantum level where taking a measurement changes > > the results. > > > > Be able to instantly scan the approximately 7*1027 (seven billion > > billion billion) atoms in the average human body, down to the quantum > > level or even sub-quantum if that turns out to be necessary for a > > perfect enough duplicate (which, BTW, is why a human is more difficult > > than a coffee cup ;-) ). The scan would have to be instant, or you'd > > have a mishmash of results, leading to a transported human with all > > their atoms and systems out of sync. Scrambling a human being in this > > way would Not Be A Good Ideaâ≥¢ > > > > Be able to either instantly rematerialize the human, or have a > > combination of stasis, anti-gravity or some kind of micro-forcefielding > > to hold the parts in place as they're re-created. Human cells are all > > filed with liquid at pressure, and likewise blood, other fluids, lose > > tissue are going to just spurt out and fall apart, if re-materialisation > > isn't instant. Plus imagine what will happen to the delicate human > > systems, especially the brain if reformed over time. Never mind the > > cells and fluids spilling everywhere. The shock will kill you anyway, > > unless worked around by stopping the passage of time, or doing this > > instantly. > > > > Be able to process and transmit so much data to represent the human down > > to the quantum level, at least, to accurately describe the human. Right > > now not enough storage exists on the entirety of the earth, plus every > > historical storage medium that has ever existed, all added together. > > > > Have enough energy to do all the above. > > > > And if you really want Star Trek style, figure out how to do all that > > remotely via 'transporter beam'. > > > > Plus I'm sure there are a bunch of other problems I'm not thinking of or > > am not expert enough to have thought of. The above is just me dashing > > off the first thoughts I have in a couple minutes. Regardless, the point > > is that to believe a large number of ultra-radical advances (which will > > be necessary for just one of the above to be realised) will all just > > fall into place any time that might match the Trek timeline, or even > > soon enough that any record of this conversation will still exist, is > > just plain silly. > > > > I get it: you're optimistic about science and technology. Good for you > > guys. But it's not magic. I'm sorry, but you're just not being > > realistic. But don't take my word for it (you clearly do not). Talk to > > any reputable scientist in the appropriate fields. > > No. > > You absolutely DO NOT get it. > > You think that you know (we as a species know) enough to say that > something is very difficult. > > But what you don't get is that you don't know what you DON'T KNOW. Wow man. Love the one you're with. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-15 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0h7bga170f378v6fhvhtaa0jufmnq93uvs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #70734 |
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:52:54 +1300, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:
>Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/15 7:31 p, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> > Science, reality is not magic.
>>
>> (Thank you, Jamie. I just _knew_ someone would give me this entreé!)
>>
>> Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
>> indistinguishable from magic.
That is a quip not a law of physics. It is *jesting* not science.
>> <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_Clarke.27s_Laws>
>
>Yup, aware of it :-) It's a great 'law' that makes a useful point. I
>miss Clarke.
>
>> Clarke's First and Fourth Laws are also appropriate:
>>
>> Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
>> that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
>> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
That is a quip not a law of physics. It is *jesting* not science.
>>
>> Clarke's Fourth Law: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
That is a quip not a law of physics. It is *jesting* not science. It
is also often wrong.
>
>Except I never stated a Trek-style transporter was impossible (plus I'm
But it *IS*.
One point: consider the frequency of the scanning beam. It must scan
ten to the twentieth power of atoms and other particles within a few
pico-seconds, before they can move. It must be able to store at least
a kilobyte about their kind, position, former state of motion, state
of charge and other stuff. It must be able to read every single atom,
even those in small cancerous growths and memory-forming neurons. It
must be able to see and record the charge state of *proteins*. It must
be ...
But I've made the picture clear enough. Now think about the
*frequency* of a beam of energy which can do this. Now consider that
with great frequency comes great power.
The poor bugger on the pad is standing in a hard gamma-ray laser with
the wattage of much of the starship's warp drive. It's no wonder he
disintegrates. He's *annihilated* by the scanning beam.
No, that is not a good thing.
You can not measure anything about a football if you fire it out of a
cannon at lightspeed.
The scanning beam is not a scanning beam, it is a disrupter and
nothing else.
So lower the frequency? But if we do that the information would take
*centuries* to transmit and the atoms and juices and other bits would
all swarm around and get all smeary.
One simple flaw in the idea. There are ever so many more.
Some things are just Hard Problems and can never be done.
"Yer kannay change the lorrs owe fizzix, Captin."
>neither elderly, nor distinguished... except maybe at internet
>commenting *grins*). But as I said, it would require an understanding of
>the universe so much more complete, and such resources, that it would
>require supernatural intervention (or alien tech that looks like magic,
>if you like ;-) ) to complete in anything close to a Star Trek timeline.
>To believe otherwise is a charming, if rather harmless, ignorance of the
>science involved.
>This reality apparently angers some people.
It certainly angers my sister when I use numbers and simple physical
equations to reduce her unicorns to dust.
So I don't bother any more.
There is no way to teach some people. YourName may be one.
> I've noticed in my years
>that reality often has that result with certain people who seem to
>believe the universe owes them something. But the universe is
>indifferent to hope and belief.
The cosmos does not care because there is no mechanism in it *to*
care. It could be said, metaphorically, that humans are the cosmos's
way of caring but that is really rubbish. The universe would get along
just fine without humans.
In about five or six centuries this will be amply illustrated though
there will be no one around to confirm it.
No one but me and the roaches but they aren't great
conversationalists so "I told you so" won't impress them much.
>
>Now people OTOH - they need hope in one another, and it's generally a
>good thing to have. But watch people freak out when you try to be
>realistic about the above.
Or the magic of fusion coming to save us, or the unicorn fantasy of
solar power, geothermal or wave energy. Or any of a hundred other
pipe-dreams.
That magical, peasant, ignorant thinking will kill this civilisation
and will ensure that no other will ever rise so high.
We've used the oil and coal.
Once this civilisation falls there is no coming back.
All our songs are lost forever.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-08 10:17 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <080320151017311674%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70602 |
In article <1m0xjfu.6t69zy56sy6aN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > On 2015-03-07 02:21:19 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > >> In article <mdd532$43j$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> > > >> wrote: > > >>> On 3/5/15 5:23 p, Kurt Ullman wrote: > > >>>> In article <1m0uwkk.auf6x418i6j47N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, > > >>>> jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> My takeaways from his speech are > > >>>>>> 1. There is undoubtedly intelligent life "out there". > > >>>>>> 2. We will never be visited by them, nor will we ever visit them, > > >>>>>> because of the lightspeed limitation. He did not believe that there > > >>>>>> will ever be FTL transportation, nor shortcuts through wormholes, > > >>>>>> etc. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yep, Star Trek style warp seems most unlikely, nowadays :-( > > >>>> > > >>>> Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy." > > >>>> Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, > > >>>> force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or > > >>>> workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all > > >>>> you like. > > >>> > > >>> This book is worth a read if you want to know just what's possible and > > >>> what isn't based on today's knowledge: > > >>> > > >>> The Physics of Star Trek Paperback by Lawrence M. Krauss > > >>> > > >>> <http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048/r > > >>> ef=sr_ 1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425675923> > > >> > > >> But by "today's knowledge" 1000 years ago, a computer was impossible, > > >> flying between countries in a couple of days was impossible, let alone > > >> flying to the Moon, etc. People alive today can't even start to > > >> understand what may or may not be possible in another 1000 years and > > >> more. :-) > > > > > > That said, we can still safely say matter to energy to matter > > > transporters are mere fantasy. Some things are just too scientifically > > > improbable. 1000 (or even 100) years ago we didn't know enough to have > > > enough of a clue about such things. Today we do. > > > > Ummmm.... ...no. > > > > We THINK we know enough to have a clue about such things; just as a > > thousand years ago, THEY thought they knew enough. > > > > That's the point. > > It's so _not_ the point I've started writing this three times, and > rewritten, as I had to think how to explain something too obvious to > have previously been put into words by myself. > > 1000 years ago we knew nothing of atomic structure, let alone quantum > physics. Thus the people of that era had no way to know matter<->energy > transmission that perfectly replicates the transmitted object down to > the quantum state, is highly unlikely. So unlikely it is effectively > fantasy. Today we do. We've gone from knowing virtually nothing, to > knowing a lot. We may still have a long way to go, but we can make > considerably better educated guesses on the basis of a lot of knowledge, > vs none at all. We still do not even remotely know everything, and some of what we think we do know is likely to be completely wrong. Yes, it may be impossible *now* with *current understandings*, but saying something is always going to be impossible is an idiot's game since we have absolutely no idea what revelations and discoveries the future may hold.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web