Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score 1) 714

by firefly4f4 (#32423876) Attached to: Australian Schools To Teach Intelligent Design

The giraffe's neck is obviously a benefit to its species, but none of the steps needed to "evolve" that neck would be beneficial. The veins in their neck need to be able to restrict blood flow when the giraffe bends down to take a drink while at the same time, the heart needs to be strong enough to pump blood all the way to the brain. Without either of these features, a giraffe with its long neck would never survive, yet none of these features are beneficial without the long neck. The giraffe's neck is not just a neck, but an entire system of organs and features that are all worthless or even fatal without all of the required components being in place.

This is just a way your way of saying that, "I can't think of how this could have happened via the theory, therefore the theory is wrong." In this particular case it's easy to show it can occur.

Start with a creature with a short neck that eats leaves. One gets a slightly longer neck, allowing it to eat from branches that are slightly higher on the tree/bush. This may or may not be beneficial, but nor is it a detriment. Repeat over many, many generations, while similarly selecting in the other traits as necessary since, by necessity, the creature still needs to drink water.

Macroevolution is even accepted on most ID/creationist fronts -- as proof, the Creation Museum even has a display on it/i>, even if they don't call it that because that would, well, make them look even more foolish.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 295

by firefly4f4 (#31657060) Attached to: <em>Battlefield Earth</em> Screenwriter Accepts Razzie

This is entirely true -- they do call it a half-life for a reason, so there would be some question about if there's enough material for the bombs to actually detonate.

That aside, I can still at least accept that a nuke has a partial chance of working, since the half-life of U-235 is still well over 1 million years (or plutonium about 24,000 years).

A harrier still being able to fly after sitting around without maintenance, not so much. I imagine at least some parts of it would be prone to corrosion.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 3, Interesting) 295

by firefly4f4 (#31653536) Attached to: <em>Battlefield Earth</em> Screenwriter Accepts Razzie

The novel's OK -- far from the best sci-fi, but it's certainly not as bad as the movie. Gets kinda stupid after Psychlo blows up, IMO, but before then it's really a basic sci-fi action novel.

And at least it makes some sense within the guidelines set out, unlike the movie. For instance, these three plot points in particular irked me about the movie:

1) The Psychlos are gold hungry -- do you REALLY think they'd have not found as large a deposit as the bars Fort Knox (or any other large bank, for that matter)? Fort Knox (or some other large bank, I can't recall exactly) is in the book, but it was cleaned out. The humans happened to find a few gold bars gold in an abandoned Brinks van, but that's it.

2) The events takes place 1000 years after the Psychlos invaded. How likely is it that Harrier jets would still be fueled and in working order after all that time? The humans use a few of the Phychlo's own transport pads against them in the book.

3) They also KNOW their planet would be susceptible to nuclear attack, due to the composition of the atmosphere. The movie would have you believe they're so dumb that they had no protection against accidentally/intentionally transported nuclear weapons and that a single nuke would work to blow up the planet. In the book, due to the shielding in place, it actually took 7, with the shielding around the transport area actually forcing the combined explosions down into the mined out core of the planet. Granted, by the same logic as #2, it's hard to believe a nuke would work after 1000 years, but at least a nuke isn't as mechanically complicated (to my knowledge) as a harrier.

I'm not trying to defend the book -- if you haven't read it, you're not missing much -- but it actually did have the basis for a half-decent, if quite typical, sci-fi movie, instead of the atrocity that came about.

Mind you, the name of the characters sucked.

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?