FWIW, on the Swedish 16mm, the original Greedo subs are there in English, with the Swedish subs overlaid on top of them.
Yes, also for me the levels of the various sound tracks are comparable - and that's both on my television and on my computer.
darth_ender said:
God must have helped you out ;)
No - he is still punishing me for doing it :)
darth_ender said:
And honestly I think the ability to simultaneously hold ideas in your mind that you don't necessarily believe is a valuable trait.
It won me a scholarship one time back when I was in high school. I was in the BofA scholarship regional finals, which is (or at least was, back then) a debate-style panel with the other dozen or so contestants. We were given a question to debate, and when I saw it, I knew right away that most of the others would be arguing for a particular point that I happened also to believe in. I made a conscious decision to argue the other side, even though I didn't believe in what I was arguing for. The debate ended up being everyone versus me, and since I held my own, I stood out and thus emerged the winner. That's the only time in my life that I have done that... it felt really risky, but I'm guessing that's what politicians do all the time.
darth_ender said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
God isn't a Jets fan. Although that might change. He wasn't a 49ers fan for a while, but now he seems to be.
He was a HUGE fan of the 49ers till Steve Young retired. He is a little biased towards the Mormons, you know? ;)
I'm still trying to figure out what He's up to with Alex Smith. If I were Alex, I'd be like - dude, can you make up your mind?
God isn't a Jets fan. Although that might change. He wasn't a 49ers fan for a while, but now he seems to be.
Seriously, I've never understood athletes thanking God when they win. Does Serena Williams really believe that God wants her to win over Sharapova? Does God love her more than her opponents? Maybe along the way she beat someone who could have used that prize money to help a dying family member?
And what's with God needing to be praised all the time? Is He that insecure?
Although I'm not religious, thanks for the Easter wishes. We hosted a big family gathering at our house, and had a wonderful time surrounded by loved ones.
Regarding warb's singing - I wasn't trying to deflate him. He said it was "proof", and I didn't say it wasn't true. I think I was actually more conciliatory than most religious people would allow for, since the existence of Jesus and God are considered "truth", and anything that contradicts that would be discounted. Yes I did say that I thought it was improbable, but didn't discount the possibility.
To be more specific, I actually think it is a bit odd that people think that God intervenes on their behalf over relatively minor things like winning a tennis game, or doing well at a singing recital. Because you know there are probably hundreds or thousands of less fortunate Christians praying for considerably more important things, like rent money, or relief from an illness, or to not get beaten this time by her drunk husband, etc., whose prayers go unanswered.
I think today's older Carrie Fisher as Leia could make an awesome villain.
Improbable, but possible.
I was a bit late on this one:
My guru, Marty Reisman.
Jar Jar would make for an interesting Sith lord.
Could be.
thejediknighthusezni said:
Our biosphere contains trillions of different biochemical mechanisms of the most unimaginable complexity. More and more cellular biologists and biochemists and such are coming to the conclusion that their development within the apparent lifetime of the universe is incalculably unlikely. If just one of these machines within just one cell could not have formed without the assistance of an intelligent and purposeful agency, it's pretty much game over for the atheists.
It is also possible that the big bang has cycled so many trillions and trillions of times (or maybe even more times than we could fathom), that even if what you say turns out to be true, there could still have been many occurrances throughout all those cycles. All such a conclusion would prove is that it would be unlikely that we would co-exist with other complex life forms in the present universe. It in no way proves the existance of God, much less a single God.
In fact, maybe its complexity is support for the idea that there would have to be more than one God... that it would require a team effort. :)
darth_ender said:
There is a large gap between the chimp and the human, much like the large gap between the human and God. But the chimp is incapable of reason. The chimp is not fully self-aware. The chimp is not technically sentient, as intelligent as it may be. It's behaviors are motivated entirely by what it instinctively aims for in self preservation. No matter how much more effort we put into teaching chimps, their brains have pretty much hit a ceiling as far as they are able to mentally grow, and without some substantial evolutionary leap, they will never learn true language (in the sense that they can form an infinite number of combinations to express ideas). They will never learn to write their names. They will never learn to even construct anything like a model airplane.
Interestingly enough, that reasoning is the basis for my point. I believe that all those wonderful things you ascribe to us humans would be pretty unimpressive to whatever species is just one step up from us. They would be saying things like... humans aren't xxx, humans aren't yyy, they are incapable of zzz, etc. etc. Our self-awareness, reasoning skills, language skills, etc. would probably seem about as impressive to the next species up, as we are impressed with the chimp's ability to express anger by throwing it's poo-poo.
The gap between human and God is far larger, but at the same time we were created in his image, capable of knowing right from wrong. As our creator, he obviously has some vested interest in us and our wellbeing. And having given us some capacity to understand, as well as the capacity to act in faith, he grants us the opportunity to exercise both virtues.
Those are assumptions, not conclusions. They presuppose that we were created by him in his image. I think it is far more likely that we evolved so as to adapt to our environment.
From a more scientific standpoint, if this superior being who exercises authority over us were merely toying, it seems he'd have destroyed us long ago, rather than continue to allow us to better ourselves, extend our longevity, and grow to doubt his existence more and more.
Possibly, although he/she may have no reason to destroy us. Or, it is possible that the timeframe is simply much smaller than it seems to us. A few million years is pretty small compared to the lifespan of this cycle of our universe.
About 2 1/2 years ago, the great scientist Stephen Hawking came out of the closet, so to speak, as an atheist. For years he had advanced our understanding of physics while still giving God the credit. What was his amazing reasoning? Was it that evidence pointed against the existence of God? Was it that there simply was not enough evidence to substantiate him? No. It was because God is redundant, because these laws just exist, and because of these laws, the universe will form itself. Nevermind the confusion of existence, where do matter, energy, and pre-existing laws come from.
I can't say that I agree with Hawking any more than I agree with you. Again, I think it is more likely that an even slightly more sophisticated being would think that these are obviously irrelevant questions, and that we only ask them because we are unaware of some very important things that we are incapable of noticing or understanding.
Dang, I still haven't seen People vs George, and now I learn that I'm in it?
darth_ender said:
The primary difference is where I ultimately come to my conclusions. Obviously, if I believe in God, I believe him to be several rungs above us. I do believe we are incapable of understanding him or his reasoning. However, if I believe him to be such a superior being and I trust that his reasoning to be far above my own, I can still trust that he is capable of teaching me on my level. Going back to the primate analogy, though a chimp cannot comprehend our motives, our reasoning, our "ultimate questions," we may teach the chimp something. We can teach a chimp some art, some more advanced communication (primitive levels of sign language), and can give very limited insight into our way of thinking. God, though far above us, is infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely capable. Sure he would know the exact ways to teach his children how to understand on some basic level what his motives are, what our greatest questions can and should be. Chimps can be taught, and we are far more capable than chimps. I believe God has a lot to teach us.
Very good - Yes, this is one possible scenario and a logical follow-up to my post, from the point of view of someone with a religious foundation.
Indeed, from a scientific viewpoint, I would list your description as one hypothesis among many, and to some degree in place of the one I offered. At that point, in the absence of any sort of "test" that could potentially advance one of them (or another) to the level of "theory" (to which I think any scientist would agree none exists), I find myself considering which is the more likely scenario amongst possibilities. To wit, here are two such possibilities, the two brought up so far (later I will bring up others):
While I would agree that #2 is certainly possible, if I am even going to consider it, then I need to explore it. When I do, I find that there are other equally compelling interpretations not on the above list. My reasoning therein goes back again to the chimp:
From the chimp's perspective, if a human teaches it how to paint, or do sign language, that person might as well be God. The chimp, if it is capable of such thoughts (and it might be) considers the possibility that indeed we are Gods, it has no way of knowing there is anything higher, and so concludes it to be true. And lo and behold, YES, we DO tell it to do things that don't make any sense to it - like staying out of the cupboard, or not running out the door into traffic - things that it can't understand why it isn't allowed to do, but are definitely important that it do (or not do)... just like our God is supposedly doing for us.
Thus, if some seemingly omnipotent being really came down from the sky and performed miracles and told us to do certain things, wouldn't it be much more likely that it was simply a slightly higher species, such as we were doing with the chimp? We spend a LOT more time communicating with dogs, cats, rats, chimps, etc., than we do trying to communicate with earthworms. I would think that the entity most likely to try and communicate with us (or help us, or experiment on us, or heaven forbid tease us) would be one not so much higher than us. To us it would seem infinitely above us, because it can do things we cannot even fathom.
Further, opening that possibility contradicts the supposition that what we think is "God" must be good and must be followed. It could just as well be some race that is breeding us. Maybe that's why we're not supposed to be homosexuals. Or it could be a little kid toying with us. Or it could indeed be good, and we should follow its rules even though it isn't a God. There are many possibilities.
Some possibilities are scary, especially since most interactions between humans and lower animals are decidedly to the animal's detriment, and in many of those cases the animals are made completely unaware of their impending doom.
One of the biggest differences between science and religion, is the notion of "sacred". Science holds nothing sacred. So the biblical interpretation of things is certainly possible, to a scientist even. But when I think about what is the most likely interpretation - even supposing the observations described in the Bible really happened - in the absence of a supportable theory I think that there are more likely interpretations than what religions conclude.
And I haven't even yet discussed what I consider to be far more likely still - that the observations in the Bible didn't really happen at all. How many people saw Luke miss with the grappling hook? How many alien abductions have been reported? What about all the wacky stuff on late night radio? Why is it that only those wild stories in the Bible (Koran, etc.) are the "miracles", and the others aren't? From a scientific viewpoint, indeed, the Bible stories really could have beeen miracles, just like indeed maybe there really were prints out there where Luke missed with the grappling hook. But I think it is far more likely that those "miracles" simply didn't happen, for the same reason that it is far more likely - and there is more evidence supporting - that Luke didn't ever miss with the grappling hook, and that we really DID land on the moon. (note that I say this despite the fact that my mind tells me I saw Luke miss the grappling hook!)
Which therefore brings me back full circle, to hypothesis #1, above, and why I remain an atheist.
I think mine is unchanged.
chyron8472 said:
Sounds like a delicate subject to broach. Not sure how I would word that. But I wonder if he could be made to understand what a benefit it would be to the Star Wars fan community...
Moreso, what it would mean to film history.
Harmy said:
And I guess that the fact that the print isn't faded doesn't necessarily mean that it is a perfect representation of what the official 35mm and 70mm prints would have looked like, does it?
Sure, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that the GOUT is a perfect representation of the original colors either. If every non-GOUT source is more blue, maybe the original colors actually were a bit more blue.
I can still see her as Sith Empress Leia, lured by the dark side, screeching maniacally as she force-lightnings everyone in sight. Darker than the Emperor. Episode VIII can then set up her redemption.
Regarding the correctness of the colors in PSB... there are two relevant issues. First, there is the issue of whether the print has faded. I believe that it wasn't faded. Second, there is the issue of whether the color timing on the capture is correct. For that I am less certain. There is no such thing as just grabbing the colors with a camera, you always have to make judgement calls with respect to white balance. Cameras just don't work like our eyes do - even top photo houses prefer to make prints off of negatives if they also have a positive print to use as reference. This is also why I think using the colors in a video shot at a showing in a theater as the basis for color timing a restoration is inherently unreliable.
The bottom line, I think that the colors of the elements in PSB are correct relative to each other - that is, for example, if something is a certain blue in two spots, I would be confident that they really are the same color. (as opposed to PG, where a number of different colors have faded to the same pink).
I know you are concerned about the blues. I would say that if there is something that is a certain blue and you are confident it is correct, then seeing that same blue somewhere else, it is probably correct too. But whether or not everything is too blue, that I don't know. I do know that as I watched it, it did look a little bit more blue than I was expecting. My capture was certainly overly purple, which Adywan corrected nicely.
CP3S said:
It took me a few more years to accept the word "atheist", as I found it generally distasteful.
I was that way too. What made it easier was when I suddenly noticed that the word breaks down into "a"-"theist", or "without theism". Duh! Funny how I thought it was some special nasty word for heathen, when actually it's just a simple description.
Awesome!
You could add an "utini!", although that might be overkill.
darth_ender said:
It's just when their purpose of disagreeing is not to educate, understand, promote discussion, or even challenge ideas, but rather to simply show just how ignorant the poor believer is that I become annoyed.
My first post in this thread was a very lengthy discourse that took me years to assemble in my mind - one that I've discussed with dozens of people, and thought might initiate some interesting discussion. I posted solely with the intent of sharing, and hearing some feedback from people with more religious leaning than me. The complete lack of response led me to believe that people would rather deal in sound bites.
TV's Frink said:
Yeah, there's very little debate about pre-resurrection Jesus.
That is true, but only in the sense that most people assume that his existence has been established as a historical fact. I suspect that more atheists would question if he actually existed, if they knew that that such a debate exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory