Really, you think that's the reason? Doesn't someone important die in every book?

Actually, Spectacular Spider-Man had Harry as a villain before Norman. It's rare though, to be sure (I think that's the only example).

It's not completely pointless, no. If successful the experiment could show that living in a simulation is a definite possibility. But it doesn't prove anything, as you say.

I'm not really disputing that. Science is definitely the most effective method of evaluating truth out there. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't provide absolute positives as answers.

"If science cannot *prove* anything it's only because nothing can prove anything. "

True enough. But absolute facts don't really exist (outside of pure mathematics anyway). All facts are presumptions, although the most valuable facts are generally so well-tested (be it through science or everyday experience) and are so essential to our basic understanding of the world around us that we generally just…

All the article seems to be saying is that if we can make a simulation of the real world than it seems as though we could be living in a simulation and not the real world. But it doesn't prove anything for sure.

So the problem of deduction isn't relevant anymore? When did humans become objective? Did I miss the memo?

Probabilities aren't "proof" though, at least not in the way most people understand it.

But science can never actually prove anything. It can only disprove a theory (or inversely show that a theory is very difficult to disprove).

That last sentence clarifies things a bit for me. When I first saw the image I couldn't figure out how there'd been enough change in Earth's position relative to the nebula for such an image to be compiled. But now that I know most of the frames are artificial I get it.

Not really. Homeworld was as much an RTS as Age of Empires or Starcraft. But instead of bases you had mobile shipyards and instead of two dimensions you moved in three.

I mean the ability to move up, down, forward, backwards, left, or right at will. I've played Sins a bit so I know that it doesn't have it. Which isn't surprising - almost no space RTS besides Homeworld does. But it's still a bit disappointing.

"This study demonstrates that on the contrary, altruism is adaptive both for individuals and society."

As others have said, that wouldn't be anything particularly new. They've had quite a few scenes in the show so far that weren't in the books (as well as some scenes that were referred to but never explicitly shown) in addition to any other number of changes they've made.

I'm honestly not sure how this actually disproves Objectivism (disclaimer: I'm a liberal Democrat) at all. All it shows is that in paleolithic societies selfishness is punished and altruism rewarded. Have Objectivists ever claimed otherwise?

While I'm sure this research is important and all that, I'm not sure how this actually disproves anything about Ayn Rand's philosophy. AFAIK she never claimed that primitive societies are predominantly Objectivist in nature or that Objectivism came easily to humans. In fact, I'm pretty sure (though not 100% since I've…

Eh, Fontaine wasn't really an Objectivist.

A fair point.

Unfortunately, I just can't get over the lack of a truly 3D interface. Sorry, Sins fans: I know it's a perfectly respectable 4x game... it's just that Homeworld spoiled me.