Uzzy's page

As I believe I explained earlier, public money is needed for the big fundamental breakthroughs in science, while private enterprise is needed for those breakthroughs to have real world applications. Both depend on each other.

Private enterprise would not be willing to give over the predicted $6.4 Billion needed for the LHC, given that they would be unlikely to see a return for that investment. Yet, when the LHC finds the Higgs Boson and potentially leads the way for scientists to develop a Grand Unified Theory, that will lead to enormous benefit to humanity as a whole, not just in terms of knowledge but in applied products in the marketplace. So the public sector steps in to fund these big scientific projects.

Before WW2, scientific discoveries were actually doable by a single person. They could afford to engage in a life of science. Edison never had a problem like finding a Grand Unified Theory though. I doubt he could have fronted $6.4 Billion, for instance. As science has descended into the genome, the atomic and sub atomic level, it's become too expensive for those great pioneers of the past to grasp alone. So public money is needed (and hey, I'd far rather my tax money go on scientific pursuits then anything else)

Papal infallibility only occurs when the Pope deliberately invokes it. Further, it can only be on matters of faith or morals.

It's pretty rarely invoked too.

According to everything I've read (which isn't much I'll admit, I'm trying to stay "spoiler-free" as it were),

** spoiler omitted **

But that might be old info.

So, yeah. Mass Effect 2. Sequel to the best RPG for this current generation of consoles.. and not that I really have to say much, but anyone who's played Mass Effect knows how much this game is going to rock.

Anyway, there was a new teaser trailer released today for the game, showing off some of the new alien species, planets, combat and

The teaser can be found here.

Evolution is both a Fact and a Theory. It's similar to gravity, where you have the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity, which is constantly refined. Einstein's theories of relativity replacing Newton's theories, for instance, is a very good example of it.

Let me explain another way. Fruit Flies changing from generation to generation is proof of evolution. This is an observable event, and a fact. However, there have been many different explanations for how evolution happens, starting with Lamarckism, then being replaced by Darwin's theories, which over the past two hundred years have been refined into the modern theory of how evolution works.

Also, the arthropods can dispute my claim as soon as they can talk!

And yeah, I mixed up Galileo and Bruno. :D Still, Galileo's house arrest wasn't the best experience, I'd have thought.

thefishcometh wrote:

Uzzy wrote:

As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?

The mammalian eye is a horribly designed thing. The lens is on the wrong side! WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN THE BACK!

And don't get me started on appendices...

Been awhile since I last chimed in with anything to say but your statment opens a question I may have asked before.

If we evolved then why did we evolve into such weak creatures ill suited for survival? Our vital organs are exposed to attack from predators, we have no natural weapons, our young are helpless for years, and we cannot deal with temprature extremes. I know the most common answer to this is our minds/technology make up for this, and yes they do... now. But how about thousands of years ago? I would call our current forms a de-evolution from basic primates, at least physicly. I would be interested to hear from anyone with an education in this area so I could better understand the evolution theory.

Our presence as the dominant species on the planet rather defeats your argument. We emerged triumphant because we descended from the trees, stopped using just pure physical strength and started to use tools. We may have become weaker then your average primate, but we became more adapted to our surroundings. We walked upright, for instance.

So then what does evolution say about this? How or why did this design come to the forefront? I mean this is the design that has made it through millions of years. Why didn't we evolve better eyes? (Or better digestive tracts, etc.)

Because evolution isn't finished. And it's not perfect either.

That said, our eyes and other parts of our body have adapted to become more suited to our environments over time. There's a good article on the Evolution of the Eye here.

Galileo lived in a world where not being a believer in god ment social pariahdom, fines, damnation to hell and potentially death. His parents where theists, his friends and extended family and his daughter a nun.

Do you think he had any choice but to state that he believed in god?

Claimin that his belief in god lead to him proving the helio centric model, your saddly mistaken. Faith provably retarded his work on the subject.

'Faith probably retarded his work on the subject'

That made me laugh. I mean, faith did get him burnt at the stake, after all. That's a pretty big impediment to his work.

Well, to be fair, religion generally obfuscates, then just gives up and says 'God/Allah/Higher Being X did it'. And if you disagree with those answers, you're a heretic.

As for the 'perfect' design argument, ectopic pregnancies anyone?

Zombieneighbours wrote:

We do not know the details the formation of life, we are in the process of gathering data to form a testable hyposis. Once we have formed one that stands up to those tests and is supported by evidence, there will be nothing 'magical' about the formation of life at all.

Just out of curiousity -- When does all this break down and "magic" becomes the only possible answer?

And the "argument" is simply that the "evidence" is with the beholder. You say that science and your "evidence" points to a lack of a divine being. I say that things are so perfect in creation and how things work, that even science has rules that work so nicely that there must be a creator.

Is that a "non argument"? Maybe so. I guess that my point is that this line of thinking really won't yield much.

I'd argue that while science does not have all the answers yet, we continue to advance in the scientific fields, and find new logical and scientific solutions to many of the fundamental problems in the universe. Meanwhile religion has continually retreated from those answers.

Science answers questions. Religion doesn't, ever.

If the universe is infinite and any possibility, regardless of how infinitesimal, is multiplied by infinity, it yields a positive result. That we have a concept of god must mean god is possible. Therefore, there is a god.

Somewhere.

Only if logically possible. God isn't.

Also, Kant pointed out that concept doesn't imply existence. Your version of the ontological argument isn't that good, I'm afraid.

Black Isle did not make Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. Bioware did.

Either way, this looks awesome. I'm looking forward to it a lot. The editing tools make me rather interested in getting this for PC rather then Xb360, though I'll have to wait and see how much user generated content gets made.

Is this even a question?

The movie was puerile rubbish with very little to say about anything, and utterly died on it's feet as any sort of dramatic piece once Donald Sutherland died.

The TV show was a moving drama with allegories everywhere, which dealt which issues in a sensitive and considerate way, had great acting, a great cast and some amazing action scenes.

The movie was sub-subpar Hollywood rubbish, while the TV show was one of the finest shows of this generation.

Finally, TV Buffy annihilates the Movie Buffy so hard it's not even funny. It's like comparing Shakespeare done by Ian McKellen to the acting in Family Guy.

Actually, saying a state is illegitimate would seem to be fine under free speech. It's only when you call for the destruction of that state does your speech cross the line.

So, I've been reading both the Star Wars Legacy comics, and the Knights of the Old Republic ones. I'm up to Claws of the Dragon for Legacy, and Knights of Suffering for KoTOR, but I know what happens after in both, so don't worry about spoiling me (though others might!)

I am really enjoying those two series. They feel very 'Star Wars' to me, much more then the Clone Wars series. Now, what I want to know is if it's worth getting any of the other comics. The set I've been looking at are some of the Omnibus ones, namely the Tales of the Jedi set and the X-Wing sets. Tales of the Jedi looks quite epic, and how can you go wrong with X-Wing's? :D

So, what I'm asking is has anyone here read any other Star Wars comics that are worth recommending. Or maybe we could just talk about Legacy and the KoTOR comics?

CourtFool wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

But there seem to be a number of people that put "science" up on a rather high pedestal.

Is it that they put it on a high pedestal or just a higher pedestal than faith?

Yes. If they claim that they don't have faith, then it would be on a higher pedestal.

There are people that feel that "science" disproves "God". I missed that proof.

'God' is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and thus in the realm of Metaphysics. However, the burden of proof for God's existence is upon the theist, rather then the atheist.

Regardless, I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god then you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours. ;)

Uzzy wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Uzzy wrote:

The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.

Sticks and stones my ass. Harm goes beyond the physical. Words can kill.

How?

Over the past few years, Holocaust denial has been used as a justification for terrorist attacks against Israel. The logic is that the Holocaust never happened and therefore Israel is an illegitimate state that deserves to be destroyed.

The line of logic that leads from the holocaust not happening to that meaning that Israel is an illegitimate state is a bit odd.

Either way, there is a difference between 'The Holocaust never happened' and 'The Holocaust never happened, and therefore Israel is an illegitimate state that deserves to be destroyed'. One incites violence, the other doesn't. One should be protected under free speech, the other isn't (and shouldn't be)

Well, it'd be nice if fans could do something, but really, they can do nothing except vote with their wallet. Which is pretty irrelevant in this case, given that WoTC are only going to publish two books for the Realms.

Yes, the owners of the IP can do whatever they want with it, but they can't take the older edition products away from us (except on PDF. >.>)

Which is, of course, illegal, under the Civil Rights Act for the US, and under the Protection from Harrassment Act for us Brits. Mainly because that can lead to physical harm and emotional harm towards the person.

This is slightly different to generalised speech. For instance, if I said that 'Mr John Smith is an idiotic fool', that'd be harassment, and wrong as it's directed against an individual person. Speaking about generalised groups, however, is different. Saying 'British people are idiots' may be offensive, but as it's not directed towards an individual, no harm can be done. Saying 'British people need to be killed' is incitement to commit physical harm, and is illegal.

I agree Samnell. My main point was that it is only possible to have Moral Absolutes if there was some metaphysical construct, be it a god or other higher being, who could guarantee that those moral codes he passes down are moral absolutes. Someone/thing who existed outside the human experience.

You are further correct that human morality does not require these moral absolutes, as we've been making our own morality forever really.

Uzzy wrote:

The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.

Sticks and stones my ass. Harm goes beyond the physical. Words can kill.

How?

The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.

So, saying 'The Holocaust is a Lie' isn't inciting violence. It may an utterly moronic thing to say, but the statement by itself doesn't incite violence. Therefore, it should be allowed. It should also be noted that Facebook in this case has removed groups that incite violence.

Uzzy wrote:

I'm a moral relativist

So then, if it becomes socially acceptable to murder (and even becomes the law of the land that you must commit a murder once per week), then you will just go with the [new] social norm? That would be relative to your situation and the relative cultural circumstance...

Extreme example I know, but you make it sound like you're all over the map when it comes to what is right and what is wrong...

Because you said: "Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs"...

That statement alone sounds like Moral Nihilism to me...

Moral Nihilism is the view that there are no moral absolutes, in an objective sense. This I agree with. However, I further stated that I think there can be moral truths, in relation to the current society. So if I say that murder is wrong, all I am saying is that murder is wrong under the current societal norms (namely, our liberal democratic state).

As for your example, I'd emigrate.

Yes, most humans do hold to moral truths, but these are relative to their situation. I'm a moral relativist, rather then a moral nihilist (scary folks them)

I do however think that the closest thing to a moral absolute we have is the Ethic of reciprocity given it's constant recurrence in moral values throughout history, and the biological research into it.

Well, unfortunately, that is the world we live in, unless you want to prove a higher beings existence from which we can derive our morality from, and who has directly imparted those morals unto us in a form we can comprehend. Which hasn't happened.

As such, all our morals are created by humans. 'Holy' texts contain no more moral truths then the latest Harry Potter book. There are no moral absolutes. Infact, I'd say that the latest Harry Potter book has more moral truth in it for us in the western world as it is a product of our time and culture.

That does not mean that murder, rape or other things are alright though. One can choose, as a logical and pragmatic necessity, to consider those things as wrong, by living under a simple moral code, such as the Ethic of reciprocity. One simply has to realise that it is not a moral truth, but rather a logical and pragmatic necessity which prevents society from breaking down.

Edited. Clarified my position a little.

You are aware of course, you are just stating your own opinion right?

Exactly. Morality is always just a matter of opinion. One man's moral act is another man's sin. There are no absolute rights or wrongs.

The reason the Ethic of Reciprocity is, in my opinion, a good basis for forming a morality is that it's popped up all across the world, in a variety of human cultures separated by time and distance.

What makes Ancient Greece any less moral then a nation run under 'biblical' principles? Or any more moral, for that matter?

Anyway, the ethic of reciprocity can be found in Ancient Greece, most major world religions and cultures. That makes it pretty important and universal, I'd say, and a good basis for forming a morality.

Which part of the bible, hmm? Leviticus? Jesus's teachings? There's some pretty disgusting things in those too, like Jesus saying in Mark 7:9-10 that people who dishonour their parents should be put to death. Or later in the Bible, 2 Peter, 2:7-8, which describes Lot as a 'Righteous Man', despite having kids with his kids.

Only one thing is really needed for a morality, which is the Ethic of reciprocity. That can be found in ancient Greek philosophy, by the way.

For all the calls for 'balanced budgets' and 'governments should stop burning through the money like it has no end', you seem to be forgetting something. Namely, the recession we are all currently in? You know, the one caused by de-regulation and letting the free market have it's way? Greenspan made the mistake of expecting the banks to behave in a rational manner. Surprise, they didn't. They pursued profit to no end. (By the way, I've noticed that the private sector can be just as inefficient as the public one.) Given this market failure, the governments had to step in and kickstart the economy, and yes, this costs money. Sure, there will be waste and inefficiency and pork and all that, but the main thrust of all that money going into the economy should hopefully ensure its recovery.

Now, here's the thing. Pure science advances humanity. This is of a much greater importance then creating wealth. Governments, as they focus on things OTHER then creating wealth, can do things that private business do not. They can sponsor pure science. I mean, do you think many businesses would put down the 6.4 Billion Euros for the Large Hadron Collider? No, and why not? Because there would be no immediate money spinning benefit. Governments can provide the initial investment, not only in science but in infrastructure and essential services, that allow private enterprise to function. It's a symbiotic relationship, in which both parties are essential. In that sense, Governments do create wealth, by creating the conditions in which wealth can be created.

We Europeans simply think that the government should be strong, and have a big say in how the economy is run. Oh, and by the way, we European Socialists who think that money comes out of thin air enjoy a GDP greater then the United States. ($18.85 trillion compared to $14.33 trillion. Source) Not bad for a bunch of socialists, right? Maybe we know a thing or two about business? I mean, who's Fiat buying now?

Pure science isn't profitable. Finding real-world applications is what makes the findings profitable. That takes private sector companies to accomplish. Though I feel that funding scientific inquiry is one of the things government SHOULD be doing (and bloody more of it IMHO). Some research requires the massive resources a government can bring to bear.

Quite so. Pure science, however, as Zombieneighbours mentioned, can open up huge new fields of study for later development and applications. Atomic Theory was once pure science, and yet we now have many practical applications from that. Same with genetics. If the LHC does find the Higgs Boson, and allows physicists to resolve their standard model, and maybe work on a Unified Field Theory, who knows what new developments might lead on from that? Heck, Electricity was once pure science. It took Edison to come along and make a profit out of it, but if it wasn't for the original pure research into that, Edison couldn't have patented the lightbulb, as there wouldn't be easy access to electricity.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider the most important thing?

The betterment of humanity as a whole. So, I'd say that the eradication of smallpox from Earth was one of the greatest (and least talked about) achievements of the 20th century, and that damn well needed governments to do it.

Sure, wealth creation is important. But pure wealth creation doesn't always help humanity.

Wealth creation eh? Well, I think some of the NASA technologies that were developed with government money certainly created a lot of wealth. If that doesn't satisfy you, the vast amount of university research surely should. Key among them things like the World Wide Web and the discovery of DNA. Those have certainly generated wealth.

Besides, wealth creation is far from the most important thing.

So, I need to find a shrink wrapped copy of the book. I mean, when the errata hits 12 pages, you know somethings up!

And yes, I think the party is going to just sit out the storm. No sense getting constantly zapped now. ;) Besides, we can sit and tell stories!

They went to the Moon?
They eradicated smallpox?

Pretty impressive achievements that.

So yeah, I was just listening to the Order 66 podcast, and they got to the episode where they talked about the Errata (I'm listening to them in order). And it appears that the Acrobatic Strike feat no longer gives a +5, but a +2 bonus. While this makes Aruuna a sad Jedi, I can live with it. Should I just take a force point off to make up for my earlier mistake?

Further, are we using all the latest Errata?

I would say damn you both for beating me. But as a Dragon Age RPG just got announced, I don't care!

Yippie! *dances, sends credit card to Green Ronin*

I'm hoping it's something Bioware related.

Dragon Age would be a lot of fun. But Mass Effect (Knights can be SPECTRE's, right?) would cause me to loose all bodily functions for a while. Then I'd just send my credit card to Green Ronin and ask for as many products as humanly possible.

You've already got mine, Knight. :D

I wish I could draw like that. :P That's just a recolour.

Behold, ye mighty, and despair.. at my photoshop skills!

New picture of Aruuna. She looks exactly like this (except for the commlink on her left wrist. But that can easily be hidden under the sleeve)

Yeah, that's fair. I've been posting a lot and poor HK hasn't even gotten to do anything!

Aruuna's on the bridge, just playing around.

Yeah, that was Aruuna's last act before the black out. (And yes, it had to be said. :D)

So, how many people have actually sent in their character sheets and are all ready for this one? I'm looking forward to starting! :D

The two stereotypes I have heard about Germans is that they are authoritarian and anti-democracy.

From what I have heard the democracy thing comes from Hitler having been democratically elected.

Hitler was not democratically elected. (As he never won more then 50% of the vote). He got a majority in the Reichstag, then was helped into power by the machinations and intrigues of the German Elite, especially Baron von Papen, who felt that by giving Hitler the chancellor ship, they could reverse many of the Weimar socialist tendencies through Hitler's popular support.

That didn't quite work out.

Uzzy wrote:

Both those protesters, and the US servicemen, volunteered to have that done to them. In one case to prove a point, in the other case because they want to serve their country. Not the same as the real thing, my friend, where you are taken from your country (or in some cases US soil), flown half way round the world, stuck in hole and tortured.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the act itself is not torture, but the way it is carried out is. Is that a correct analysis?

No. Waterboarding is torture, under both the definition from the UN Convention on Torture, and under Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Part I, chapter 113C, section 2340).

Spoiler:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Spoiler:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

The act of volunteering for it means it's not a crime, however.

And don't worry Houston, I saw your post the first time. I'll get to it in my own time.

Uzzy wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Uzzy wrote:

Moorluck wrote:

Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)

Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.

When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.

Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.

Which, even Obama admits, is what is going to happen regardless of what we do.

Yes they will. So you going to lower yourself to their level? (I also note you didn't answer the question. Would it be torture or not?)

I beg your indulgence while I answer your question with a question. If waterboarding is torture, should we prosocute the protesters that waterboarded one of their own outside the Capital building?

Edit: Also by admitting that the enemy will engage in those behaviors regardless of what we do, you have removed the most common argument used by those who oppose such techniques, which is that doing so puts our servicemen in harm's way. You have just admitted that we are no less safe for having used such techniques.

Both those protesters, and the US servicemen, volunteered to have that done to them. In one case to prove a point, in the other case because they want to serve their country. Not the same as the real thing, my friend, where you are taken from your country (or in some cases US soil), flown half way round the world, stuck in hole and tortured.

Now, yes. The 'bad guys' will always torture. What you've lost is your moral authority when it happens. What you've lost is your moral authority when another country kidnaps a US citizen, sticks them in a hole and tortures them.

As for the 'less safe' argument, by doing this, you've created more anger towards the US from the Muslim world (and left Europe far less willing to help out). Yes, a hardcore of people will always hate the Americans, but what that torture did was give people more reasons to move closer to the position of hating America, and give more people reasons to not want to help out. Even worse, it's prejudiced the chances of ever getting any of those prisoners in Gitmo convicted for their crimes.

Uzzy please understand that I hold no animosity towards you at all but here are a couple of questions for you. What would you be willing to do to protect the people you love? Have you ever been deployed?

and lastly Why is it so freakin important to the rest of the world how the U.S. conducts it's bussiness?

I'd fight for them, within the rules of war, set down in the Geneva Convention. That means no torturing. Something that gets drilled into every real soldier.

And how the US conducts its business is seriously important. You're the worlds only Superpower. You go stomping around, and everyone suffers. You act with restraint and humility, and everyone wins.

A spreadsheet that you guys can find here.

Excel SAGA Edition Sheet

Uzzy wrote:

Moorluck wrote:

Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)

Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.

When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.

Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.

It's what they do now and yes it is torture and there are no "good guys" in war.Somtimes even when you dont really care to you just do what you hafta do to protect the people you were sworn to protect even if cost you a little of your humanity.I don't like it but it's the hard truth.

Well at least you answered the question! :)

I disagree in two respects. Firstly, torture isn't that effective. People say anything to stop the pain, so you'll get just that. Anything. Could be good information, could just as easily be bad information. Or a false confession.

Secondly, it's something that causes the US to lose some of it's moral superiority. You can't win an ideological struggle by showing yourself to be just as bad as the other guys. You can bet that Gitmo and the torturing of suspects in there and other CIA Blacksites has acted as a recruiting agent for Al-queda and other terrorist groups out there.