The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

What is your favorite line? Take in to account the delivery, if it be a movie or game.

"Khaaaaaaaaan!" not

This one I heard recently, and it made me crack up... but it's not my all-time favorite (need to think more)

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, English dub: "Man should not live by carbohydrates alone, complex or otherwise."

"Keep firing, A**holes!" - Lord Helmet

Evil will allways win because good is dumb. -Darth Helmet.

Oooh! Firefly has oodles of good lines.

"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here." - Jayne

"Shepherd, doesn't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing people?"
"Very specific. It is, however, rather fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps." - Mal and Shepherd Book

"If you take sexual advantage of her, you're going to burn in a very special level of Hell, a level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater." - Shepherd Book

"Dear diary: Today I was pompous and my sister was crazy... Today we were kidnapped by hill folk, never to be seen again. It was the best day ever." - Jayne reading Simon's diary

"People like a man of god."
"No, they don't. Men of god make people feel guilty and judged." - Book and Mal

The next one is probably my favourite. I guess it needs some background: Strangely enough Jayne had ended up as a revered hero in a town on a backwater planet to the extent that someone took a bullet for him.

"You think there's someone just gonna drop money on you? Money they can use? Well, there ain't people like that! There's just people like me." - Jayne

....actually that was Zoe and Shepherd Book--that was the episode where they were going to rescue Mal.

And yeah, Firefly is packed to the brim with awesome quotes
:)

"I beamed them into the Klingon engine room, where there
won't be a tribble at all."
-- Scotty from "The Trouble with Tribbles"

Another of my favourites is from the end of Journeyman Project 3:

"It's all in the past, Michelle. And we both know you can't change the past."

Okay, it doesn't work as well when taken out of the context, but a couple of pointers: the main character who says that is portrayed as a bit boring by-the-book kinda guy who never jokes, and the whole game revolves around time travel.

Heh. The most ironic part was that a few hours before, he was saving priceless mythical relics from destruction. Not to mention Michelles' antics in the second game...

Who's michelle? I guess they started using characters in the later ones.

I have a number of favorite quotes.


"I find your lack of faith disturbing." (Cruuunch)


(Covenant forces enter the compound, flood spores wafting through the air)

Arbiter: "That stinch. . .I've smelled it before."
Grunt: "Oow, what yummy taste."


"Well done, mighty Protoss! I'm glad to see that you all are as violent as ever." --Kerrigan (Infested)


"How do you get so big, eating food of this kind?" --Yoda


All time favorite:

"Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic-electronic BALL breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharpsticks. . ." --Private Hudson

I like this one because of how badly delivered it was:
"I've been from one side of galaxy to the other.  I've seen a lot of strange things.  But I've not seen anything that'd make me believe there's one all-powerful... Force controlling.... everything." —Han Solo

Ah, Han Solo quotes...
"Jedi Knight!  I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets dillusions of grandeur..."

"Hey!  Point that thing someplace else!"

(Bounty Hunter: I've been looking forward to this for a long time...)
"Yes... I'll bet you have!" *Shoots him*

"Snakes... why did it have to be snakes?"

...now wait a minute...

From the movie "Dark Star". :)  Best... Movie.. Ever!!

"Bomb, this is Lt. Dolittle.  You are not to detonate in the bomb bay.  Disarm yourself.  This is an order!"

--Lt. Dolittle talking to Bomb #20.  It's not a smart bomb.  It's a sentient, self-aware bomb.  And it's stuck deep in the throes of Phenomenology when he orders it to disarm.

While watching Empire Strikes Back again
the other night (blast from the past) I
was struck by this quote from Yoda:

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

Really profound, I think. What greater thing
stands in the way of learning a new thing but
old knowledge. People of the past refused to believe
the world is round because they _knew_ it
was flat. People who _know_ gays are evil refuse
to accept the idea that society won't crumble or
be super-naturally destroyed. Some scientists
claim they _know_ nothing travels faster than
light....but of course they're wrong....

Well, most scientists would love to see evidence of something travelling faster than light... but despite all efforts, they have been able to produce such a thing. So, provisionally, they suppose nothing can.

Why do you think they are wrong?

Or are you just saying that taking SC2/SW/ST/B5 as canon?

John Criton: "Yea Yoda, little green guy, trains warriors."

O'NEILL: Jaffa jokes? Let's hear one of them.
TEAL'C: I shall attempt to translate one O'Neill. A serpent guard, a Horus guard and a Setesh guard meet on a neutral planet. It is a tense moment. The serpent guard's eyes glow. The Horus guard's beak glistens. The Setesh guard 's nose drips.

Urgo: He's gonna scoop your brains out with this big scoopy thingy...

CARTER: P4X 884 looks like an untouched paradise, sir.
TEAL'C: Appearances may be deceiving.
O'NEILL: One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
DANIEL: A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
O'NEILL: Never run with scissors?
HAMMOND: Were you trying to make a point, Major?

and my favorite quote, though not scifi its related in a round about way

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- L. Ron Hubbard

I think they're wrong because whenever science/religion declares
something as absolute, it eventually falls apart. For example,
- It's impoosbile to travel faster than sound.
- It's impossible to run a mile in four minutes.
- The world is flat.

To name a few. I also would like to point out that
scientists get kinda dodgy when you point out the
speed of light is varible, not constent. Light, like sound,
travels at different speeds through different mediums.
This is why light bend when passing through water or glass.

So, if the speed of light is varible, laying claim that nothing
travels faster than light a bit silly. Faster than light under
what conditions? One might assume faster than
light in space (no medium). However, light has been shown
to bend and change speeds due to gravity.

Really, the only reason no one has found a way to out-run
light is because no one has found a way to travel fast
enough or slow light down enough.

I think you're 100% right. We're a civilization with amazing theories, and yet no amazing technology or proof to back them up. To put it bluntly:

Religionists invent "Intelligent Design", because they cannot come up with a good explanation for life and are too dumb and lazy to try and prove/disprove anything.

Scientists invent "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter", because they cannot come up with a good explanation for the data their probes collect and are too dumb and lazy to try and prove/disprove anything.

Note that both philosophies have a taste for mysterious, invisible forces that have very little evidence to support any belief in their existance. I understand that some invisible, hard to define things exist, but if you want to say that your invisible thing is more real than somebody elses, you'll need to convince some of us using facts.

In the past half century, we've made some advances in various fossil fuel engines and computers. Scientists have every right to claim credit for, and produce theories on these two areas. For the rest, let's see the rubber meet the road.

Plato and pals had some very good theories, to their credit. But some of them were so good, that people didn't bother to test them for many centuries. When they did, they realized many of those theories were dead wrong.

Yes and no. On the macroscopic scale, light appears to slow down. However, if you look more closely at things, you will find that light is moving at a constant speed until it hits something. According to the Wikipedia article on the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Interaction_with_transparent_materials), the apparent lower speed of light in transparent materials is due to continuous absorption and re-emission. To avoid confusion, some physicists refer to the "speed of light in a vacuum" (or c for short).

A constant speed of light is a fundamental part of relativity, which provides good explanations for a wide range of macroscopic phenomena such as in the Michelson-Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment) or the Global Positioning System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS).

Relativity says that matter (as we know it) can't reach the speed of light. However, there may be some oddities related to quantum physics (e.g. tunnelling) that allow particles to move faster than c (although these phenomena seem to become more unlikely the bigger the effect is, which means that the universe seems to us to behave consistently with relativity).

The relativistic interpretation is that space and time are bent and the speed of light is constant. This sounds like nonsense, but the results check out pretty well in cases like gravitational lensing.

Actually, light has been slowed down (in the macroscopic sense) to zero speed. Experiments in the "travelling faster" bit seem to support relativity, but it may be possible to circumvent relativity in creative ways or find subtle differences between reality and relativity. See the Wikipedia article on FTL travel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light).

Basically, the difference between science and religion is that science is about finding explanations for observed facts that can be used to predict other stuff, while religion accepts explanations that essentially allow anything to happen; the problem with explaining e.g. the creation of the Universe by saying "God did it" is that He can then go on to do anything He likes; this is not a falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable) theory.

Many far-out ideas in science have real-life applications and implications (much of relativity and quantum mechanics) even though they aren't perfect (in some cases, relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other; figuring out how to combine them to a proper explanation for all cases is something a lot of physicists are working on). Some, on the other hand, are definitely work in progress. Cosmological theories are hard to test in a laboratory environment, you see, so evidence for this type of theory is likely to be somewhat shoddy. Dark matter is one possible explanation for what we see in the Universe, although other theories (mostly involving gravity behaving differently than we thought) exist.

Basically, science is all about admitting that you were wrong and changing your theory to match the facts. However, that doesn't stop some scientists from being really stubborn oafs.

"Basically, the difference between science and religion is that science is about finding explanations for observed facts that can be used to predict other stuff, while religion accepts explanations that essentially allow anything to happen,"

But my point is science seems to have a lot of concepts that are mostly based on bizzare mathematical theories, with little visible proof. Also, religions usually do have rules. In Christianity and Islam, normal dudes can't become gods. In Judaism, you can by intensively studying certain texts (D'ni maybe? :) ), or eating fruit off of the tree of life (if it is still standing, it probably got MOABed by accident over in Iraq).

Think about it, if only "brilliant" theorists can understand their theories, and we just have to take their word for it, they have become something of a priest caste.


"Cosmological theories are hard to test in a laboratory environment, you see, so evidence for this type of theory is likely to be somewhat shoddy."

Yea, and religious theories are somewhat hard to test too. So let's see some tech. I'd settle for a space-time warper from science, or an arc of the covenant to run green cars off of, from religion (hey, fuel cells or god power, I don't care just as long as I don't have to pay three bucks a gallon.)


"Basically, science is all about admitting that you were wrong and changing your theory to match the facts. However, that doesn't stop some scientists from being really stubborn oafs."

Yea, but if you come up with wild theories that most cannot understand fully or test, you won't have to worry about getting shot down and having to take it all back.

The problems are that they're unverifiable. A theory which doesn't predict anything you can verify is useless, whether it's religious or scientific.

You may not be able to directly verify their theories, but you can see the products of their theories in your daily life.

And that pretty much sums up what I'm trying to get at: science allows development of technology (and vice versa). The thing I'm typing this message on demonstrates the immense predictive utility of several scientific theories; the engineers designing these things (from tiny components up) have had scientific theories telling them what to expect, design a horribly complicated device and it works.

OK, most religions have some sort of rules stating what it possible. The problem, however, is that most of these rules have little predictive value, if any. And the "God did it" explanation, which doesn't tell you anything about anything else, is overused.


Sort of. However, this priest caste:

• Can and will explain everything they know and believe to anyone who wants to know (and a lot of people who don't); it's not really a caste.
• Produces miracles daily and consistently.

Are you proposing to test the utility of methodologies by seeing which one allows you to do the most impossible stuff? Or the most apparently impossible stuff? The former doesn't make any sense by definition, so I'm going to assume the latter. Science seems to have the edge in this department; common knowledge and religious organisations have often said that something is impossible (or just plain wrong) when science has demonstrated it is possible. Getting any non-scientist to accept radio a few hundred years back would have been useless (getting the scientists to accept it required a lot of careful explaining and demonstrating), but now almost everyone has a TV. Science has allowed technology to be developed that almost anyone would have considered impossible earlier.

You want better energy sources? There are a lot of better choices available than fossil fuels (ranging from solar power to biological substitutes for fossil fuels). The problem is mostly rebuilding the infrastructure to distribute the fuel to support yet another type of fuel. Space-time warper? If it's possible, you may even live to see it. If not, asking for it is kind of ridiculous.

Actually, if none of the other scientists in your field understand your theory, you'll be shot down for those exact reasons. If your theory can't be tested, it is useless at best and probably wrong. If nobody understands your theory, they can't test it.

However, whether the general public understands your theory is another matter. People generally perceive the universe as working according to a bunch of rules that are oversimplifications of the real behaviour of the universe. For example, Newton's laws of motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_dynamics) form the basis of a theory of how the universe works. For 200 years, Newton's laws were found to explain a lot of phenomena with very little effort. Unfortunately, when things get really small or fast, Newton's laws start diverging from reality. So, why are people still taught Newton's laws when they have been shown to be wrong? The answer is that when applied to a very large set of cases (including much of everyday life), Newton's laws are so close to correct that you can't tell the difference! Also, Newton's laws make more sense to most people than quantum mechanics (which I'd have a hard time accepting if it didn't predict a lot of stuff that would be hard to explain otherwise). However, quantum mechanics can be taught to almost anyone willing to spend a lot of time thinking about it and, once you understand it, you can test it in a lot of (often expensive) ways. Religion often requires faith or divine inspiration to achieve understanding or evidence; science merely requires hard work.

Now, it would be really nice if we could find a simple explanation for everything. However, the universe may be a complicated place that requires a complicated theory to explain it.

"You may not be able to directly verify their theories, but you can see the products of their theories in your daily life."

You are right, I can. As I said earlier, the last 50 years have mostly brought advances in various propulsion systems (most fueled by dino power) and computer technology.


"The thing I'm typing this message on demonstrates the immense predictive utility of several scientific theories,"

The computer keyboard you're describing falls under the computer technology category. Seeing as how I too have one of these nifty things, I am very much aware of the genius of the engineers who made this all possible.

But for most of the rest of those theories (in other areas besides computers and engines), let's see some cool new machines (or biological advances). Seeing is believing.


"Produces miracles daily and consistently."

Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say one step forwards, two steps backwards. I'm not sure if my neat car and computer will do much to save my ass when I start to feel the long-term down sides of having an environment with all this extra UV, exhaust, Pthalates (and other Estrogenoids or whatever), GMOs, heavy metals, etc.

Churches spew nonsense, but at least they don't have black smoke billowing out their steeples. In the race to see who can do the least damage, I used to think science was winning. I'm not really sure anymore.


P.S. I don't mean to be such a grouch about all this, I'm sure technology could accomplish some amazing things if people used it correctly, conservatively and didn't get too cocky about it.

You have a point there. However, Man has managed to do great ecological damage even without advanced technology. Fire is enough to destroy large amounts of forests, for instance. See e.g. this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#History_and_Historical_causes).

Both religion and science can be used for good, evil and just plain indifferent. Much of industry comes in the last category. And the guys who invented the atomic bomb certainly weren't doing humanity much of a favour. On the other hand, I haven't seen Darwinist suicide bombers yet.

This part I agree on, as long as "conservatively" doesn't mean that you can't introduce anything new to solve the old problems.

In this race the ones who stay in bed all day and neither do any science or religious activity are going to win.
But between science and religion, science is the one that gives you control over nature. That control can be used to create things as well as to do damage. Religion doesn't give control (though it can give people the illusion of control), so it can't do any damage on its own. So I'd say religion is definitely winning the race to do the least damage.
Even where religion does the most damage (suicide bombers, holy wars) they'll be using the products of science (explosives and other weapons) to do that damage. Science enables. Both ways.

"And the guys who invented the atomic bomb certainly weren't doing humanity much of a favour."

Yes and No. If you are purely the kind of humanitarian who is only concerned with saving as many lives as possible on a strictly numerical basis (IOW, regardless of any notion of quality of life people must endure or the kind of individuals they are), the A and H bombs have probably saved easily many millions more lives than they have claimed through combat and testing usage. After all, without M.A.D., it might not have been called the Cold War, but World War 3.

Nukes might be scary things for people living in the major cities of the developed world, but their dark shadow has probably stopped armies of millions from invading and clashing around the globe.

Nukes on I.C.B.M.s cannot really be shot down right now or in the past with much success. Thus, having a larger population (and therefore a larger army) and/or having more advanced technology, does not give you the ability to invade a weaker nation successfully, if it possesses a nuclear arsenal (think about how little sleep you'd get if you glowed in the dark, consequently, you nation's flash and night light industries would collapse, furthering you economic damage). :)

However, someday, somewhere, some nation (probably not the US at this point) is going to develope and deploy an effective missile defense system (you know, like the one on the earthling cruiser :) ). When this happens, that power will have a window, in which it will be able to destroy whoever it pleases without much/any retaliation. Nukes, missiles, and the technology with which to shoot them down, could turn into a very dangerous game, if and when it is in the hands of one nation (a serious imbalance).

I know, this has been covered, but I feel like replying anyway...


Funny that you name things that were never scientific predictions! By the time science had even been invented, the roundness of the earth was well established.

The so-called 'impossibility' of travelling faster than sound was never scientifically accepted, and for good reasons: we see things travelling faster than sound, so obviously it can be done. Certain people said that we couldn't do it with the approaches then being tried. This was right for some approaches and wrong for others; but at any rate it is very far from an absolute statement about the universe.

As for people not running a mile in four minutes, this is again not a statement of a scientific absolute in the same style as the speed limit C. It's someone waxing hyperbolic on the subject of sports. Like that's never happened...

Actually, each of those were scientific predictions. If you do a little
research into the histroy of the times, you'll find papers and
comments from the scientific community stating the
impossibility of the four minute mile. Prior to Columbus and CO
showing up the European world, many scientists fell into
line with the Church and claimed the world was flat and
the  centre of the universe. Heck, a little over a hundred years
ago, it was believed airplanes would never work and no one
would be able to travel faster than sound.

Yes, the threat of being burned for heresy will make people say the darndest things. Seriously though, this very much depends on your definition of a scientist. If you just go by the definition "people who were considered wise by their peers", then you could probably make a case for neanderthal scientists telling everyone that "Fire aint nevah gonna work!". Perhaps it would be wiser to define a scientist by wether he uses the correct methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) or not?  This way, you are actually lookign at scientists that attempted to prove/disprove things, rtaher than people who went along with "what everyone knows".


Gosh yes, people will believe the darndest things. Still, while some people didn't believe in airplanes, other people believed in satellites long before they were a reality. Only they were proven right.  That's the thing with science. You get to have any number of theories. Only then you need to prove them somehow. In most cases, sooner ort later one theory is proven in practice thus disproving opposing ones. In religion otoh, you have only one theory, and it's never disproven, because it is true.

My favorite quotes:

"Commander! Did you threaten to grab hold of this man by the collar and throw him out an airlock?"
"Yes I did."
"I'm shocked. Shocked and dismayed. I'd remind you that we are short on supplies here. We can't afford to take perfectly good clothing and throw it out into space. Always take the jacket off first, I've told you that before. Sorry, she meant to say: 'Stripped naked and thrown out an airlock.' I apologize for any confusion this may have caused."
   -- Sheridan and Ivanova to a  reporter who refused to allow an inspection of his  luggage, in Babylon 5 Season 4:"The Illusion of Truth"

"I don't watch TV. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite."
   -- Guard to Garibaldi in Babylon 5 Season 4: "Between the Darkness and the Light"


About the argument about absolutes:

Math in general is based on absolutes. With absolute certainty I can say 2 + 2 = 4.
Without absolutes math would not exist which is why I can understand the desire for there to be no absolutes, because I have yet to meet a person who likes taking math.

Since math is based on absolutes and computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer)s need math to run, the very fact that you can see this post is proof that there are absolutes.

Just wait 'til we get quantum computers...

On the subjects of absolutes. Man made Math. Man made computers.
Computers use Math. I'm not sure that's proof of absolutes. It seems
more like creating a tool and then creating another tool from the first.
I will agree Math usually uses absolutes. However, I think it
gets a little fuzzy when you get into inference and imaginary numbers.

On the subjects of absolutes:
If they are used at all they must exist in the first place to be used.

Unless we are making a faulty assumprion. We might think they are absolutes, and they might even act like absolutes so far, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are.

Imaginary numbers aren't fuzzy at all.

Statistics? Bayesian Inference? Now that's fuzzy.

Imaginary numbers, being numbers which represent numbers
which don't really exist.....that sounds a little fuzzy to me.
It appears some math gurus were sitting around and
trading math problems when they discovered,
"Oops, when I try to compute that, there isn't
a valid answer."

Well shucks. This Math thing was working out pretty well until
we ran into that little oopsy. Let's keep the system but add
sometthing to it to handle these occasinal cases. Yes, since
it doesn't work with the numbers we already have, we'll make
up something...imaginary numbers.

I can only assume they were very brillent and more than a little
stoned.

And you can't divide by zero. (You don't even get lazy eight, some say.)

"Not Defined" does not make a very good argument, in my opinion. It sounds a little like the "God works in mysterious ways" cop-out.

Zeep, considering how useful imaginary numbers are, I'd hesitate to criticise.
On the absolutely most practical level, imaginary numbers are no less real than irrational numbers -- if you draw a right triangle, there's no way it came out exact down to even the 100th decimal point (that would be smaller than the planck length), let alone all the rest of the way.

So, irrational numbers are a place marker which allow arbitrary precision. Imaginary numbers are a place marker which allow freer thinking about functions: First, you can express ANY polynomial in terms of its solutions; second, many integrals can only be calculated through 'analytic continuation', in which we devise a complex function which has the same values on the real axis as the real function did, and then integrate that.

Aside from that, imaginary numbers are mainly used as a compact way of representing a two-dimensional vector space in which rotations about the origin are of prime importance. There are many such spaces in physics and engineering.

As for 'undefined' when speaking of zero, well, take 1/0. Is it  infinity (as we get approaching from above)? or... negative infinity (as we get approaching from below)? On a more pragmatic level, division by zero typically indicates the question is wrong.
"how many boxes of apples would be needed to store 100 apples if you can put zero apples in each box?"
*smack* "Shut up!"

"Is it  infinity (as we get approaching from above)? or... negative infinity (as we get approaching from below)?"

Dunno, let's just give it a cool little symbol and base theories on it that predict extra dimensions.


By the way, how do you type the damn infinity symbol on a keyboard?

☺☻♥♦♣♠•◘○♀♂▬!♪§"-,▐M╝+Ü○xτ§╚{eƒ█ÄA▄◙▲(<∙»º§

Easy:

• Buy a real computer (http://www.apple.com/)
  
• Hit Option+5

:P

Type the number 8 and leave instructions to "turn head sideways".

 I don’t know I just use the "insert symbol" feature in word then copy and paste.
∞

"Easy: Buy a real computer"

Yea, but fake computers can run more than a couple programs.

Ah, the age old dilemma of quantity versus quality.

There's the third option: Linux.

Or the fourth option: Rock.

Rock is a 100% stable system when placed on a level surface.

Rock has a stellar 5 Billion year track record of reliable service.

Rock's fashionable, smooth and futuristic appearance will make you the talk of your tech circle.

And, if you don't like your Rock, you can beat us to death with it (for details, see fight club thread.)

SPECIAL OFFER: Buy your Rock in the next ten minutes and you could win a FREE Space Rock. Want to impress your Treky friends? Want to release a deadly plague of glowing crystal microbes that eat most anything, including pure energy and human flesh? Want to make superman blow lunch? Want to create a mass extiction? Space Rock brings you all this in one cosmos-styled, metal-stuffed package. Comes in three valuerific sizes -- Meteorite, Asteriod, and Kiss-Your-Sorry-Ass-Good-Bye!

There is actually quite a heated debate over the actual age of the universe. I just wanted to warn you because you might get sued for false advertising.

Our liability is limited in your terran courts, as we are a Mars based company, though our award winning technical support center is based in India.

That's an OS, not a computer system.
What did you interpret as first option then? PC/Linux would have been mine, if OxDECODE had separated PC's and OS's.
(I know that even an apple uses an OS, but the OS is not chooseable.)

Enjoy!
  Krulle

I was replying to this comment:
"Ah, the age old dilemma of quantity versus quality."
I feel Linux embodies both quantity and quanlity.

Apple uses a form of BSD for their current OS, but it is possible
to choose a non-Apple OS (such as Linux) to install on a Mac.

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

And yes, Linux combine quality with quantity.

MacOS a form of BSD? Hmm, new to me. Must be because of me showing a one-sided interest for apple, apple like in cox, braeburn, golden delicious, gravensteiner, Granny Smith, gala, Jona Gold, Pink Lady, Idared and james Grieve.

Enjoy,
 Krulle

Actually, if you've ever played any game that uses 3-dimensional art or objects in the past decade or so, you've experienced first-hand a product of the development of imaginary numbers.  The most common (and arguably most effective) way to handle the task of controlling a "camera" in a simulated world like a 3-D game universe uses something called Quaternions, which are sets of imaginary numbers organized in a matrix.

Despite the bizarre nature and somewhat unfortunate naming of imaginary numbers, they turn out to have quite real applications.


Icemage

Enough about math. I've always hated math. This one is more my cup of tea:


Hmm, OK, let's talk biology, then. A few hundred years ago, there was widespread belief that life somehow just sort of... appeared. Lots of contemporary scientists, as well as religious scholars, were really keen on this idea. They called it Spontaneous Generation, and there were only a few people who thought the "something from nothing" concept it endorsed was false.

Fast forward a bit, and we have the total collapse of the theory of Spontaneous Generation, as Pasteur and others proceeded to disprove its existence even amongst microorganisms that are invisible to the naked eye. On a bit of a tangent, how's this for a scientific advance: The microscope, which allows us to see objects that are so miniscule in size, they seem invisible under normal conditions.

Fast forward again, to only a (relatively) short while ago. People have become intensely interested in Genetics (despite having unwittingly manipulated it for centuries among their crops, their livestock and pets, and even their children), and the molecule behind it, known as DNA. Since the molecule is beyond the reach of even the most sensitive microscopes, people have to figure out other ways to try and figure out what it looks like, and how it's constructed. Watson and Crick did just that, using X-Ray Crystallography; the discovery of the double helix structure (confirmed visibly years later, using extremely sensitive Scanning Electron Microscopes, yet another amazing scientific breakthrough) opened up all new possibilites for the manipulation of the molecule, since once we know how it's put together, we can start making a concious effort to change it.

Fast forward one last time, to today. I'm actually typing this post on a PC in a lab at work (I know, I know, shame on me). Behind me is an instrument about 3 cubic feet in size, that uses some fairly basic organic chemistry to assemble synthetic DNA, one base at a time. I work with this machine nearly every day, so this is commonplace for me. The DNA we make ends up in diagnostic kits for diseases, and makes fast and accurate testing for a variety of diseases possible and commonplace.

How's THAT for an advancement in the biological sciences? ;)

Wait, you want a scifi quote, too? Come on, I'm sure we've all memorized the UQM script by now. Just pick nearly anything the Spathi say. ;D

"Hmm, OK, let's talk biology, then."

I should clarify that I meant bio-engineering. Basically, carbon-based organic technology. Theories that don't produce tech don't count in this round.


"The DNA we make ends up in diagnostic kits for diseases, and makes fast and accurate testing for a variety of diseases possible and commonplace."

Honestly, I don't find that very impressive. We've all (at least in the US) been hit with an onslaught of presciption drug commercials talking about how they can fight (but not win against) all these relatively newly classified "diseases." And after you have been tested and diagnosed for "Acid Reflux Disease" or "Attention Deficit Disorder," you take some over priced pills, until they destroy one of you vital organs.


Stop using plastics for food containers, don't eat GMOs (Europe is dead on with this one,) lose the extra fat, live more like your species evolved to live (more excercise, less donuts,) try not to get stressed for extended periods of time, and stay close to those that you love. No offense, but these actions kick the ass off of your medical advances. Granted, it is much easier to take a pill, but it is easier still to do nothing, which is often less destructive in the long run, than drugs.


"Wait, you want a scifi quote, too? Come on, I'm sure we've all memorized the UQM script by now. Just pick nearly anything the Spathi say. "

On that, I concur. The spathi dialog is well done (voice acting helps a lot, too.)

I think bioengineering is pretty well beyond our capabilities for now, and probably will be for some time. Probably because nobody's working on it.

As for those "diseases" you mentioned, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about real, life-threatening illnesses, like HIV or Hepatitis, just to name a few random examples. Besides, I don't make any drugs at all, just diagnostics. I like to think it's important work, and helps make the world a better place, even if I'm not directly helping to cure the sick.

"Basically, the difference between science and religion is that science is about finding explanations for observed facts that can be used to predict other stuff, while religion accepts explanations that essentially allow anything to happen,"

  I disagree.
  Science is about what things are made of and how they work...religon is about how we treat each other and why we are here.
 "Any signifiicantly advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic"- Arthur C. Clark

Simple, two answers to this, one book.

Ok, one.

I can't receite the Vogon Poetry, it'll kill a few people, so...

It's onto the next one.

*This answer was recieved 100000s of years ahead from when it was first asked to a mega computer.*

"The meaning of Life, the Universe, Everything."

"Your not going to like it."

"The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything, is Fourty-Two."

Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy got me ready for Star Control :).