I doubt that it would cause a lot of problems for the faithful, and I don't think that it would destroy religion as some have suggested, no more so than Darwinism has destroyed religion. If anything, it might strengthen the faith of the devout.

Oh, he's drunk. How would he know where we're going?

I, Robot: If they hadn't tried to tie this to the Isaac Asimov classic, this might actually have been considered a decent movie. I personally liked it, once I was able to separate the book and the movie in my mind.

No, studios want profit. Star Wars proved that sci fi could be very, very profitable. I think there's plenty of "serious" SF still being made- it's just being eclipsed by the glut of annual blockbusters. In the post-Star Wars era, for instance, we can look to:

This is also a chart of what each Marvel character would look like as a bowling ball...

True, I was just thinking of pre-2001:-A-Space-Odyssey films with giant atomic bugs attacking the city or tin plate flying saucers, that sort of thing. Still, I don't subscribe to the idea that Star Wars killed "serious" sci fi films.

So what else is new?

Were they doing "serious" SF films before that? I mean, besides 2001?

Well, I don't know the ins and outs of galactic formation, but it seems logical that in order to form a galaxy, you first need a shitload of stars. This was apparently one of the first in the neighborhood. Or, as waltfeld suggested, the Milky Way captured it when it merged or collided with another galaxy. Or, and…

Yes, and Harrison Ford is on record saying he'd never do another Indiana Jones movie and Spielberg is on record saying he'd never make a movie about hostile aliens, and yet...

Yeah, but they didn't leave academia because of the tedium. They were fired.

Gee, why make CEOs the villains? Maybe we ought to ask Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Bernie Madoff, Andrew Fastow, Bernard Ebbers or John Rigas and see if they can shed some light on the subject.

Gee, why make CEOs the villains? Maybe we ought to ask Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Bernie Madoff, Andrew Fastow, Bernard Ebbers or John Rigas and see if they can shed some light on the subject.

It's because they weren't in a lifeboat, right?

I didn't see where the study indicated that there was no semantic confusion. Did it actually say that the people polled were aware that they were talking about astrology and not astronomy? Granted, I only skimmed it, but it looked as though the issue wasn't even considered. Am I wrong?

Wow. Younger people and less educated people are more likely to think astrology is an actual science. I'm glad to see that we are making such important breakthroughs in the glaringly obvious.

That was my first reaction as well. This may just be a semantic misunderstanding, rather than an acceptance of a pseudoscience as real science.

His name is Bucky. Need I say more?

Does it turn into an audio cassette?

True, but I think you are taking the Earth's stability for granted. The solar year and solar cycles that you mention are regular celestial events that can be accurately measured and predicted. If Westeros has an eccentric orbit or wobbly tilt as the article suggests, then that regularity wouldn't exist, and using…