UFO means unidentified flying object. The article makes no reference to aliens.

You'd think a slashdot summary would recognize such a distinction. This is not the National Inquirer.

If there were bogeys, they were almost certainly terrestrial.

As a non-physicist, I am trying to wrap my head around the article. Glad it was short!

With the presupposition that verything is caused, meaning everything is an effect, does this further mean that the LHR can sub-atomically trace back the chain of causality to the prime efficient cause (taking the Big Bang to be a causa sui)?

This is no troll - I am not trying to smuggle in any cosmological proofs for God. What I want to know is whether this provisional result is possibly a trace of the big bang itself, or a recreation of the conditions. Or, perhaps, if recreating the conditions is identical to witnessing it.

Hope my post is not nonsensical.

I thought so to, but since I see E. Michael Jones's name on the poster, I am sure it's not.

This is precisely his kind of topic.

Dude, you posted that 40 minutes after my comment. I guess time-travel should be part of my skill set?

Moreover, your revised point is the same as the article: MS is changing its tune (even if merely opportunistically), and yet you claim that the article gets its history wrong ...

Like it or not, Schopenhauer's point is that art permits you to observe the will without being overwhelmed by it, which, in essence, we are when not looking at art.

There are much older definitions of art, like Schopenhauer's. He argues that artistic judgment is the disinterested contemplation of beauty or the sublime. That is a technical definition, but it basically means that art is free from your will, or desire.

If Schopenhauer is right and art is free from the will, then Ebert's idea is not so stupid, and has some intellectual pedigree. For, a game is the embodiment of the will, in that you want to triumph.