I think I see why you're confused. The curse was an effective way to kick off the revolt, yes. Not any way to start an earthquake, though. Reality doesn't work that way.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
OK, let's squash some of this nonsense right now.
I never believed the 2010 Haiti Erthquake was caused by a voodoo curse, and I'm astonished that anyone interpreted that post in that way. What I found anthropologically interesting is that something like Robertson's "satanic" invocation seems actually to have taken place. Not actually "satanic", but within Robertson's impoverished terms of reference that's about the only way he could describe an invocation of the loa.
I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade. I think most scientists are honestly trying to do right, but have been overly credulous about data and models that have been (and continue to be) fraudulently manipulated by a tiny minority of them. Those of you who think this makes me some sort of nut are going to have some explaining to do when measured GAT drops out of the bottom of the IPCC's 95% confidence band, which looks set to happen before the end of 2014.
I might reply to some of these other questions at more length, but these two deserved to be dispatched immediately
Yes, Kuhn was full of horse puckey. Not only doesn't his book describe science outside of physics at all well, it doesn't even correctly describe 20th-century physics, its ostensible paradigm (using the word correctly now) case.
Years ago I wrote a more detailed takedown in Brother, can you Paradigm?
The only amplification I'd write today is that the shifts between large theoretical models generally (and contrary to Kuhn's claims) go smoothly in physics because test by correct prediction of experimental results is so difficult to argue with. The soft sciences have more trouble setting up repeatable experiments, so it's easier for people to hold on to broken theoretical models.
Since he quoted me, I have replied to the report on Spadaro's article at Imprimatur me!
As someone who has worked in the fan based science-fiction convention scene now for many years, I see the written word on the decline. No, I don't think books will die, but it simply reflects out society. Most of the people I see attending reading panels (where the author reads their own works), or writing panels, or anything else to do with actual written science/fantasy fiction, are an older crowd. This simply correlates to the rest of society. We are a media oriented society now. X-boxes, mindless movies, flashy cartoons on television that move at warp speed and don't even give a chance for the audience to revel in a good laugh (think Bugs Bunny and compare to Power Puff Girls), and MTV. Oh lords of Hollywood, let us not forget MTV, which has completed it's de-evolution into the "Shiny Things Network." Hey kids, try some books. Go slow at first, your brain needs to come up to speed. On yet another side note, as my post is full of them, I love Harry Potter stories. It's gotten so many teens and young adults to actually read and not even be phased at the thought of 500 pages or more.
It's a safe bet that the majority of Slashdot readers are going to be fans of Science Fiction. I myself enjoy the Stargates on Sci-Fi channel. I watch them because there's not a lot else to watch and it's a fun, affordable, relaxing and safe way to spend a Friday evening. I also watch them because they preceed Battlestar Galactica and like any good headliner band, your are going to sit through the opening act to watch what you really came to see. (More on this in a moment.) This Atlantis scene that captured the "emotion and emergency" I just don't get. I find the Stargates to be a franchise that Sci-Fi channel is milking and the writing to be lacking. I find the characters to be exceptionally two dimensional with zero depth and development in the last many seasons. Yes, I realize that Atlantis isn't that old. I stand by my statement. I think the writers are too comfortable in their characters. Perhaps they think we wish to see David Hewitt become the most supreme smart ass of all times. I'm just watching Rachel Luttrel's curves anyway, so who cares, right? Claudia Black on SG1? Hey, let's pull a "Seven of Nine" tactic and add some eye candy. Works for me as long as we are being honest about it. She needs some character development that's plausible. I'm not seeing it. But again, she's hot in black "pleather" so who cares? Like I said, it's a headliner for the real show, and that is Battlestar Galactica.
Sci-Fi channel has hit pay dirt with Battlestar Galactica and thankfully I think they know it. This show is indeed (as the quote whores deemed it) the best show on television. It's smart, it's dirty and dark, it's got fantastic writing. I love characters that I hate to love and love to hate. I hate Baltar, yet every so often he's show a spine, or do something spontaneously out of character and I'd just smile because I see real writing in action there. The show has great drama, believable politics, a sexy cast that actually is required to act and isn't getting the luxury of settling into typecast roles (unlike Stargates.)
On another note, check out the new summer show, Eureka, on Sci-Fi channel. It's pretty good. Most of the characters are refreshingly unique. The premise of the show is certainly unique. It's no rare gem that was Firefly, but it's something fun to watch none the less. Also, is anyone else as sick of "monster movie of the week" shows on Sci-Fi?
Question to the audience here: Why does Hollywood assume that those that watch Sci-Fi channel love horror? Or perhaps it's Sci-Fi channel itself? I can't recall the number of times last Friday night I saw trailers for Pulse, Descent (with lot's of BLOOD), and their own monster movie of the week. Ninety percent of everyone I know that is a fan of sci-fi is not a fan of horror. Again, someone is paying money to support this crap.
Lastly, I saw a post where someone suggested trying Anime out because you never know what you are going to get. I find this to be true to a certain degree. Steer clear of the typical "romantic comedy" genres where a boy with no spine that happens to be surrounded by gorgeous girls constantly that kick his ass when he sees them nearly naked as they prance around. Especially the one girl that really likes him but won't admit it. It's far to easy to simply drop kick him (literally) out of the room as a sign of her true feelings. (Love Hina comes to mind.) Stick with something more sci-fi oriented. Yeah, the Japanese come up with some really wacked out shit. Most of it's pretty good.
Long post, I know. Bounces around, yeah. I just have a lot on my mind when it comes to the crap that hollywood puts out both on the big screen and what's on TV. The subject of the decline in reading and the rise in media junkies has been a hot one in my own back yard with how to ensure that a long standing Science Fiction convention continues to thrive and doesn't wither up. In my book though, the bottom line is simple. If you think it's crap, don't settle for it. Send a message by not buying it. And speak up when you do see something good (like BSG.)