Slashdot Mirror

The LoTR planting fake skeletons for gullible scientists to "discover" is the best movie marketing ploy since Mr. Arthur C. Clarke staging of a moon landing to sell his book "2001 a Space Oddyssey." But, I guess all of the people wanting a "scientific" explanation of this 6000 year old creation will fall for any marketing ploy planted by the Godless Left.

PS: Hobbits are fantasy. Trolls, however are real. we post on /. regularly.

You know what bombom, I just don't see this post as being Flamebait and I'm sorry to see you got modded that way. Now personally I'm a godless heathen but I don't see how in the world anyone could possible take that the wrong way.

I'd have gone for Funny if that was my mod point. If I believed in ol' "JC" then I'd probably leaned towards Insightful.

hopefully big biz will realize that this is the final straw and tell groups like the Parents Television Council to go fuck themselves (in those words). i can understand to an extent being wary of broadcast television being "indecent", but i think things have gone waaay out of hand. and besides, cable and satellite are private networks.

attempting to limit the content on paid television will hopefully backfire on them. it is parents responsibility to monitor children's exposure to "indecency and immorality". i hate to sound like a broken record, but if you don't like it, turn the channel or turn it off. a tv isn't a replacement for a babysitter.

some parents seem to have this idea in there head that if their kid sees a naked body then that kid will somehow become a perverted child molestor when they grow up. i think these folks are so scared that things like queer eye are going to lead to a nation of well dressed lisping eccentrics that want to redress their children and make them join some sort of godless cult...

the reality is that these same people are the ones that are so sexually repressed that they spout in public about how bad pornography and idecency is and yet they are some of the major customers of the stuff. it has always been a wink and a nod between congress, the lobbies that are pushing for decency limits and the lobbies that have a vested interest in the proliferation of adult entertainment from sex and the city on hbo to hardcore porn. when it comes down to it, the entertainment industry and hotels are NOT going to want to lose that revenue. this isn't about being politically correct or indecent, it is about making profits and taking care of shareholders. i think this is likely to be the last nail in this issues coffin...

in other, unrelated news:

Convicted Movie Pirate Found Dead

Russell Sprague, the Chicago man who pleaded guilty to charges of receiving Academy Award screeners from Academy member Carmine Caridi and posting them on the Internet, was found dead in his jail cell Monday, according to the U.S. Marshals Service. Sprague had been awaiting sentencing. A spokesman for the Marshals office said that, while an investigation was being conducted, all indications pointed to "a normal passing."

Only Democrats, who are nothing more than godless gay-loving atheists, want free speech.

Yeah, right. Remember the CDA? Both parties will happily demagogue any issue "for the children" if it will get them votes.

Ah, but you're living in the Moral States of America now. Free speech is going going gone. Only Democrats, who are nothing more than godless gay-loving atheists, want free speech. Children must be protected from seeing T&A, or even hearing it mentioned. They must not know what sex is until they're married, or until they're sixteen, piss-ignorant and discover that Peg A fits in Slot B, and then abortion will be banned so that kids lives can be further destroyed.

Folk wisdom time. Might makes right and birds of a feather flock together.

It's not surprising that the rich countries would tend to look askance at the Godless and unwashed communists, as well as trade heavily with each other. The upshot - classify by economic status or by political ideals if you want but you still end up with the same classes. What makes me wonder is whether countries with potentially self destablizing governments can really prosper.

So what now? Do we forget about the thinking of the Cold War and use the terminology Nth World to refer to economics? Or better yet, do we remember not to trust commies? There is a semblance of war in the world, but now along the lines of terrorism. Now what are the members of Nth World?

A Holy War in the Middle East meets with better public approval than your godless moonbase idea. 51% of Americans think they're going to be raptured Real Soon Now and a Holy War is only going to improve their chances, or so they think!

Centrist to right? Chirac? Blair?

suggest you come to america for a year or so. Midwest, not the pseudoEurope of New York or California. Just to let you know, those you consider right, we consider majorly LEFT.

This is why even the moderate right in Europe considers the United States as Hard Right to Right Extremist. Don't fool yourself, you don't have a left wing in the US anymore. Hence anything left of right-of-centre is perceived as godless communism by you.

And yes, doing steps 1 and 2 save major amounts of money. Increases in efficiency tend to happen when privatisation is done right.

I'll leave aside the truth about saving money or achieving an increase in efficiency, that's another discussion. What does seem to happen is that things that used to benefit the lower half of the population are now gone, and that those on a median income or below are paying ever more for ever less service, while a tiny minority of fat cats has gotten rich on lucrative deals taking over the state services on a dime, and giving themselves enormous bonuses out of the resulting profits.

As I said, the reality is that the voters have voted for their new overlords, and they seem to think that this is the natural order of things. I do not however see any libertarians protest that the improved efficiencies have not led to lower prices and/or better service for the same price. This is what economic theory predicts after all. Instead I see 'libertarians' defend the state of affairs where a rapacious few cream off the profits and keep them for themselves, and even use them to buy government influence to keep this scam going (for plenty examples go read some of the community Wi-Fi threads of the past week, or today's drug patent story).

Libertarians? Don't make me laugh. All I ever see them do is defend PRIVILEGE over LIBERTY. That makes the lot neo-feudalists in my book.

I want to ban gay marriage because it says so in the bible

I've never been to the USA, but all this hysteria over more than a year has me wondering - is it illegal for women to breast feed in public in the USA? That would explain a few things, weird stuff like it's OK to see strippers but only if they have little stickers named after Cornish miners pies on their nipples.

Remember, evolution only pertains to the body. Darwin's theory is correct, but it only applies to the physical form our body takes. And we are not this body. The real ignorance lies in this "ism" and that "ism", and the failed attempts in cultivating a peaceful society which is godless. Religion without philosophy is temporary sentiment, and sometimes fanatasicm, whereas philosophy without religion is useless speculation. So, to an intellegent observer, the "scientific viability" of Darwin's theory has nothing to do with God realization.

'Ah, yes. The "War of Northern Aggression." An "illegal" war. When the godless Yankee hordes did rape and pillage the fair, gentile, Southern Way of Life (tm). The natural-born right of our accepted ranks to claim domain, replaced with the chaotic squalor of democracy. Were it not for Jim Crow, we would have lost everything...'

This, of course, would imply the Republican Party has been waging illegal war nearly since its inception, and for much the same reasons.

The worst part is, parent's line of bullshit was modded up. :/

Bleh.

That's a religious argument and has no place in science. Specifically, it allows no new understanding or predictions. Save your ID stuff for philosophy.

Goodness, that's an awfully narrow understanding of science.

Science is the pursuit of truth about the physical world. Yet that truth will be very different for a world that has developed solely via physical evolution versus one resulting from the intervention of an intelligent being. Philosophical or not, this is a question that cannot be ignored by science. The conclusions of science (and for that matter, the methodology of science) can be radically different depending upon the answer.

If science intends to honestly pursue authoritative answers about the physical world, it must not discard viable solutions prematurely; nor can it discard relevant questions simply because they are philosophical in nature. (This type of compartmental thinking is wreaking havoc in the realms of medical research, where the ethical ramifications of such research are dismissed as irrelevant and distracting to the purity of the science.)

If we are the least bit honest with ourselves, we must admit that the possibility of God has not been disproven. In fact, in many cases, it offers a much more robust solution than any offered by science alone.

Are there unanswered questions about God? Of course! But there are just as many questions raised by the possibility of a godless universe as there are by one in which a divine being presides over life. You are correct that many of these questions--regarding morality, beauty, evil, and the like--are philosophical ones, but if philosophy has not yet come to a conclusion about God, then neither should science.

Finally, you suggest that the presence of religious arguments "allows no new understanding or predictions". Do you not understand that this is precisely what evolutionary dogma has done to research on the origin of life? This is why ID advocates are up in arms--because the academic mainstream has jumped to a premature conclusion about the origin of life that eliminates God from the equation. If we want science to be pure and accurate, we must seek to remove the intellectual arrogance, financial gain, personal agenda, and (to get theological for a moment) human pride that taints so much research.

It is only through a multi-disciplinary open-mindedness that science can remain pure and truth may be discovered. Now how often do you hear a Christian say that? ;-)

"but thats his call."

Are you trying to be punny again?

P.S. Take a sedative and relax. Your little, godless world will end soon enough.

So as far as I can tell, you pay a monthly fee to "rent" your music. I understand DRM is evil but at least I own the digital files I download off of iTunes.

Even more importantly, "Napster's service uses Microsoft's Janus technology to enable DRM protected music files." If iPod was going to use Janus, would it have to change its name to iAnus? I think this Napster campaign is just FUD. There are more important problems with Apple to be concerned about than this. For example, did you know that "Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism"? You can read the entire article by Dr. Richard Paley (a teacher of Divinity and Theobiology at Fellowship University) here. A true eye opener. The real important question is, should such subliminal propaganda be legal? (Disclaimer: iANAL)

That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

Russians have made some good stuff. Perhaps their productions have not been as "high tech", but they did launch the first satellite (Sputnik) and did get the first human into orbit, did put together Mir... wow. They're pretty good for a Bunch of Godless Communist Bastards (tm).

The religion in question is Atheism.
Atheism is not a religion. From your very own cited source:

Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Religion:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Given that 44% of the US population do not accept evolution....
Argument from numbers fallacy. If 44% of the US population jumped off a cliff, would you follow them? How many people in America today believe in psychics, mediums and alien abductions?
There was a time when an opinion poll would've shown that the vast majority of people believe the earth is flat and the sun goes round it (both views, incidentally, which Christianity still argued for long after science showed them to be false)

I'm not sure where you read this 'dismal record' but as a french[man], I don't know about it

And as for separation from church and state in the US, given that your president swear on the bible, I'd say that it is pretty shallow.

And saying that atheism is a religion is a way religious people have to slander atheist, but atheists have no priest, no prayer, no mythology about the beginning or the end of the universe, no mythology about the 'after-life', something common to nearly all the religion.

• priests: Richard Dawkins and his ilk
• prayer: I've personally heard a number of Atheists pray to a "Holy Shit!"
• creation mythology: "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded, eventually forming hydrogen, stars, planets, slime, monkeys and philosophers."
• armageddon mythology: "In the end of time, we're all gunna freeze in the dark." Fimbulwinter, anyone?
• afterlife: "There is definitely no afterlife. WYSIWYG."

• Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
• The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
• Godlessness; immorality.

This applies whether you personally want to be considered as "religious" or not.

Perhaps you have religion confused with sacerdotalism, which is where all of the priests, ornamentation and other hocus pocus (itself a corruption of hoc est curpos meum, the Catholic forgiveness formula in Latin) comes from. If this is the case, then you can proudly state with a clear conscience that "I am not sacerdotal!"

Terrorism? I thought it would be supporting communism this week and it would support the godless gay, pagan agenda next week.

Where the Hell do they get off competeing with our glorius corporations!!!!! Don't you godless heathen democrats realize we live to serve the fortune 500!!! God will smite you!!

After all we have cities providing FREE ACCESS TO BOOKS (libraries) and Internet. People should have to PAY FOR EVERTHING THEY READ!!!!!!!! They should have to pay an ISP for every second on the net. How can we expect companies to compete when cities offer these services for free. And summer and after school programs for the poor.. Those little moochers should have to pay for that too, and don't get me started on the school lunch program, instead of offering meals for a buck or two we should have private corporations in there charging $5 or $6 bucks a meal, thats the going rate, after all the corporate masters need thier million dollar bonuses.

While we're at it why do states provide services for the elderly, I mean come on if they are too poor and old to be able to pay the going rate to XYZ retirement community then shoot them in the head and use them for land fill.

What do you people think the constitution says "We the People"....... or something.

Get over it. Every Corp. in america has the right to charge whatever they want, when ever and where ever it is. If you don't like it move somewhere else. Legal rights you say, crap those were too expensive, we can't being sueing companies because thier products hurt people and we sure don't have the money or the time to be concerened about whether corp profits actully hurts people. After all they contributed to the presidents re-election campaign did You, you commie pig.