So I started reading this last night. Only 40 pages in so far, but I can kinda see why so many religious folk are shitting themselves over this book, Hawking certainly does spend a LOT of time talking about God, much more so than in any of his previous books.
Finished this book last night. Book was kind of short, and the attempts at 'humor' were abysmal, but otherwise it was pretty good; some pretty fascinating concepts are presented, I just kind of wish they went into a bit more depth. Being less than 200 pages long, with a font you can see from outer space, it's probably one of the shortest such book I've ever read. And yeah, even though Hawking does not directly assert that God did not create the universe, he does imply it heavily at every opportunity, including on the acknowledgments page
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7TP8yZHUg"]YouTube - Canon 7D lente Canon 24-70mm .mp4[/ame] cute girl i'd hit that.
Yeah I'm getting one next week! color correction would have made that video more pretentious and douchey.
Fuck, I'm jealous. Technically I have enough money to get one right now but it would be irresponsible because I'm between jobs. But the second I figure out my employment situation I'll probably break down and buy one.
i'm getting it mainly for video, but I'll probably end up falling in love with its photo capabilities. it's cheaper and often better than most camcorders in terms of picture quality, except for aliasing.
That's why I'd be getting it too. Is there any other/better way to get video that good, with the ability to use interchangeable 35mm lenses for an authentic film look, for under $2000? Not that I know of.
holy fuck i wanna kill everything I guess I should be glad that they've made their own peace with the universe, I am just annoyed that they've deluded themselves in the process.
yeah it's to bad that people like that have access to create high quality videos advertising complete shit. Did you know House M.D. is now being shot on canon 5d mk II?
But that's the beauty of these cameras in a way, how they make this professional looking video accessible to everyone. It's the democratization of filmmaking. It leads to crap but the upside is it also makes it easier for people with actual talent to make their vision a reality. I didn't know that about HOUSE, but I've heard of other high profile shows using the 5d and 7d.
Make sure you order an external audio recorder and some sort of shoe mount for it. I hot the h4n and now it will serve double purpose as an audio recroder for my bands and my music, and for dialogue in film. I'm getting a 50mm f1.4 prime lens. What will you get in terms of lenses?
Haven't really thought that far ahead yet - I was being a bit hyperbolic about how quickly I'd get the camera, I don't have much DSLR experience so I'd have to do some research first. Any recommendations? I've heard good things about the H4N for audio
Yeah. I've done lots of research and it's probably the best for my budget as I'm only a kid and have been saving up for a while. You want an editing program like Premiere Pro CS5 or Final Cut because those are the best with plugins that deal with working around hdslrs potential problems, though Vegas 9 is supposed to be good. if you're a student you can buy software at journeyed.com Plugins you'll need are something like PluralEyes which syncs camera audio with external audio. magic bullet colorista is good color correction plugin, a lot more advanced than the included ones. For steadicam shots you can get a glidecam hd 2000. For dolly shots you could get a glidetrack. I'm getting the glidecam because I bet you could simulate dolly shots with that, plus I can't afford both. I'm getting a Canon 50mm F1.4 for natural eye shots, and a sigma 10-20mm wide possibly.
Which is silly because physicists define those laws based on their ability to explain that spontaneous generation. One thing the religious anti-science contingent has right is the idea that modern science proceeds from an atheistic assumption, so of course it's going to produce results that support atheism.
Actually, having finished reading the book recently, that's not quite what he says My appologies for making a false characterization of Hawking's argument.
I get what you're saying, but an atheistic viewpoint is really the only unbiased and appropriate approach you can take when producing a theory. Atheism means a lack of assumption or predilection.
Not really. Science carries with it a whole host of assumptions and biases. They're just more useful assumptions than a theistic approach. Science is more flexible in what it can do when God isn't a part of the equation. It's better simply to say that God is irrelevant to science. This becomes more apparent once you start thinking of science as providing useful descriptions of the world rather than representing the way the world really is (which is what creationists uniformly think, I'd imagine). It's not like there's a universal, fixed endpoint that one day science will reach. The idea that science can solve every problem and provide the one true picture of the world is simply untenable. Not because there's too much to know, but because the very idea of single true description of the world is utter nonsense. itt: I channel the dude in my avatar
Guys, stop derailing this thread about the Canon 7d DSLR camera and it's awesome video capabilities with that silly science vs. religion talk. Check out these videos: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACT2e8vQMk"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6EU4seVOrA"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQC3H_mVYs"]YouTube - Canon 7D[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnrtsxVK2Jg"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7Alo-yp6Y"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgFULJ5GGLk"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame] http://vimeo.com/7886413 http://vimeo.com/13689126 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZzYLtSUTBM"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
assumptions such as ... ? i was under the impression that science (at least in theory) consists of nothing more than observing, gathering facts, evidence and data, postulating various models that could help to explain observed phenomena, and subsequently trying to disprove said models.
That's the logical positivist/Popperian view of science, but it doesn't work. There are a whole host of epistemic values that science presupposes, such as coherence, simplicity, plausibility, and the like. None of these can be proven non-circularly. The way that different models (paradigms) are chosen between doesn't have anything to do with how closely they "resemble reality" (Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a mindfuck of a book about just this). When data challenges our established theories, we have a lot of latitude over how we change them, and we usually change them according to what least disrupts our existing models. And obviously science presupposes materialism.
