Slashdot Mirror


Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion

pajor writes "BBC News is reporting that that The Matrix Reloaded has been banned in Egypt. The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"

1,362 comments

  1. Perhaps the censor can explain... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Funny

    the scene with the Architect, then. Obviously he understands well enough to ban the thing... :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 1
      I have discussed this scene with several people (one of whom has a PhD in English) and almost everyone agrees that when you boil it down the architect's speech means almost nothing but is written in such a way that the vast majority of people who see the movie will not be able to decipher its meaning (or the lack thereof) and will assume that it has a very deep and significant meaning that they don't understand.

      WARNING: It is now 5 AM and I have yet to go to sleep. Therefore the content and form of this post may be adversly affected

    2. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not that tough on its face value. Some spoilers here, but if you haven't seed/downloaded the movie by now, you aren't going to. If you are planning to wait for dvd, don't read this.

      The architect says that this is the 6th incarnation of the one [confirming evidence, The guy who likes to curse in french and makes really good desserts said he "survived his predicessors"].

      The reason that the one exists is because of a 'flaw' in a basic equation of the matrix. Earlier attempts at Matrices (how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?) failed because the brains would reject the programming. A solution was found that gave the people a 'choice' to accept the program or not, at a subconcious level. Those that rejected it ended up in Zion.

      The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One. Because it is a forseen eventuality, the machines believe that they can control it. Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

      Now, the architect says that the One is supposed to then distribute the code he carries back into the prime program. I suppose to 'rebalance' the equation, but we didn't get there yet. I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.. in order to get something else done. Probably after the destruction of Zion, he will have to pick the people to repopulate Zion, otherwise the unbalancedness will destroy the matrix.

      And that's about it to explain the architect scene. Again, he lays it out fairly plain. Now to mess with your heads a little :)

      Remember afterwards when they were back in the ship and he was talking to Morpheus about what happened, and why the war wasn't over. Neo said the following: "It doesn't matter. I believed him." To me, that line just sounded slightly out of character. And it probably was supposed to.

      Think back to when Neo was talking to the Oracle. When he asked how he could believe her, she replied: "You can't. You have to make up your own damn mind." I think that a good portion of movie 3 is going to revolve around that.

      --
      Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    3. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by hti_brain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I just want to know how the hell to make this message stand out so that others can read. Thanks

    4. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      That... or how the hell he stopped the squidies when he was OUT of the Matrix (or so we thought)

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    5. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by jamesblonde · · Score: 1

      How do we know that Zion is in fact the real world? There's shades of duality about Zion and the Matrix, except that we all know that Descarte's duality is bogus, right? So there will have to be a unification of Zion and the Matrix. That's my "theory" on why Neo was able to zap the machines when he was "outside" the matrix - but not the machine's range of control. It also explains how Agent Smith got into Zion.

    6. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      After seeing the Architect, Morpheus asks Neo what he told him, and Neo said "It doesn't matter." Basically, Neo was too embarassed to admit to Morpheus that he was at the very heart of the matrix, talking to its creator, the architect of the matrix, trying to get some real chicken! (not that damn computer emulated crap thats in the matrix, and quite possibly has the taste wrong!)

      At least thats the running joke here.

      If you don't get it, well.. the architect looks VERY much like Colonel Sanders (of KFC). Maybe you don't get to see him much, but for whatever reason theres usually a picture of him at KFC's in Australia, and he (well, his cartoon version) appears in just about every KFC ad.

      So yeah. Neo was talking to Colonel Sanders, and was after some Hot and Spicy Chicken, or perhaps some Crispy Strips :)

      Thats what we figure, anyway.

      What does this mean? How does it fit in with the rest of the movie, and the next movie? How should i fucking know; Neo was hungry and thinking with his stomach, and was too embarassed to admit it to Morpheus :)

      D.

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    7. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by sp1nl0ck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The second film is Neo's quest for a purpose. On the basis of the Q&A between Neo and The Architect, Neo's purpose seems to be that he is the reboot switch for the Matrix.

      He destroys the Source and the Sentinels waste Zion, with the exception of the 23 people he chooses to perpetuate the species. And the whole thing starts over.

      Presumably Revolutions will show Neo to be the worm that turned, so to speak...

      --
      War is God's way of teaching Americans geography
    8. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up.

      The impression I got was that this was the first time that the One had been in love, hence the reason why he didnt take either of the choices presented to him, and he made his own path.....

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    9. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah maybe it was the other ship (you know the ship with "Agent Smith" in human form) dropping an EMP charge ... seemed fairly obvious to me ... guess we'll find the answer in November!

    10. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm, I wonder how much solipsism has to do with this...

    11. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by bace · · Score: 1
      Also in the scene with the architect, neo is given 2 choices:

      One, is he goes into the source and saves the human race. This is a option is one of logic.
      The other is to save the one he loves at the expense of the human race. This option is one of emotion.
      When neo makes his choice he makes the one based on emotion, or in other words he is human.

      But any ways, thats about as far as i am going to get tonight. And i must stress this is my interpretation. Flame away people. And yes all bad grama and spelling were intended.

      --
      =If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
    12. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Webere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps a transcript will help:

      [I transcribed this personally, there were a few places where the audio was garbled, and I couldn't make out what was being said, those are marked with "[unclear]", and a guess at what it sounded like.]

      Architect: "Hello Neo."

      Neo: "Who are you?"

      Architect: "I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I have been waiting for you. You have many questions and though the process has altered your [unclear] irrevocably human, ergo some of my answers you will understand and some of them you will not. Concurrently, while your first question [unclear] the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelavent."

      Neo: "Why am I here?"

      Architect: "Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly which, despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected and thus not beyond a measure of control, which has led [unclear] here."

      Neo: "You haven't answered my question."

      Architect: "Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others."

      [Neos in the video screen begin asking "others?", "how many others?", "what others?", etc]

      Architect: "The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of [unclear] anomaly to the emergence of the next in which case this is the sixth version."

      [Video screen Neos: "You're lying.", giving the camera the finger, laughing, "There are only two possible explainations: either no one told me..."]

      Neo: "... or no one knows."

      Architect: "Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the [unclear, simplistic?] equations."

      [Video screen Neos: "You can't control me!", "I'm going to smash you to bits", more giving the camera the finger, etc.]

      Neo: "Choice. The problem is [unclear, choice?]"

      [cuts to Trinity fighting. yawn.]

      Architect: "The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect it was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. A triumpth equalled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. [unclear] based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying [unclear] of your nature. However I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me becuase it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human [unclear]. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother."

      Neo: "The Oracle."

      Architect: "Please. As I was saying she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a [mere/near] unconscious level. While [unclear] it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that [unclear] program, while a minority, if unchecked would constitute an escalading probabiltiy of disaster."

      Neo: "This is about Zion."

      Architect: "[unclear] are here because Zion is about to be destroyed, its every living inhabitant [unclear, terminated?] entire existance eradicated."

      Neo: "Bullshit."

      [Video screen Neos: "Bullshit"]

      Architect: "Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient [unclear, 'at it'?]."

      [cuts back to more of Trinity fighting. Nobody cares.]

      Architect: "The function of The One is

    13. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by SeanTobin · · Score: 1

      No, those are not his choices. They are the same choice. If he goes to the source, the human race AND Trinity AND Zion are destroyed.

      If he goes to save Trinity, he is saving the human race as well.

      Remember when the architect said that if he destroys the source everyone attached to the matrix will die? Coupled with the extermination of Zion that will result in the extinction of the human race.

      --
      Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    14. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mode=pedant

      how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?

      Proper names take a regular plural. Thus when talking of mathematics, it is one matrix, many matrices. When talking of movie-reality-constructs, one Matrix, many Matrixes. That's the English language for you.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    15. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Has anybody considered that maybe the Architect is lying?

    16. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the machines lied yet? maybe not told the full truths but not out and out told a fib!

    17. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by dlh · · Score: 1
      Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

      You've got it turned sideways here. The One is given a strong connection to humanity, to help influence his choice. The choice is either a) return to the core, thus somehow rebalancing or resetting the matrix, following which he would choose 23 people to rebuild Zion. or b) Not return to the core, in which case the unbalanced equation would supposedly bring the Matrix tumbling down, killing every human connected to it. The idea was that the connection to humanity would pressure The One to save the vast portion of humanity, instead of the select few in Zion. Neo choose the few in Zion.

    18. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by _bug_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One.

      There's a problem with the matrix. Not everyone is accepting their programming. If left in the matrix, these few will grow and eventually the matrix will crash.

      The machines use Zion to weed out those who don't accept the programming. Zion, in effect, is keeping the matrix from crashing.

      It is the job of the one to simply experience humanity from the side of those who live in Zion. He then takes this experience back into the source and it is combined with the existing code of the matrix in an attempt to make the matrix more suited to humanity. The idea is that eventually you're going to refine the code enough that anyone and everyone accepts the matrix and Zion is no longer needed.

      This is a lot like genetic programming.

      Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity.

      This is not neccessarily intended. If you listen to the Architect's speech the love for humanity is like error handling code in a program. If the One shows up at the source and doesn't care about humanity then it's probable he won't want to save humanity or Zion and will just head back into the matrix. That would lead to all of humanity to become extinct and life for the machines becomes bad.

      Neo's programming to love humanity manifests himself in the love of a single person. Trinity. This is different from previous ones who loved humanity in general. This difference in love is important because that allows Neo to make the choice to go back into the Matrix rather than into the source. Neo has basically doomed humanity but his love for Trinity perhaps does not let him realize that. Thus the whole bit at the end where the architect is mentioning that Neo's judgement is being blurred.

      Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

      Wrong. That's exactly what happens. Neo chooses door #2 and goes back into the matrix. That will lead to the end of the matrix as once Zion is destroyed by the machines, there will be a pile-up of those who don't accept the matrix living in the matrix. This will eventually lead to the matrix crashing. Thus, humanity dies.

      Neo had two choices before him. He took one of the two. The one he took was to return to the matrix.

      I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.

      Neo's love for humanity, that which is built-into all Ones, is what is suppose to make him do it. That's the control. But Trinity ufcks the whole situation up and allows Neo to ignore that built-in control.

    19. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some spoilers here, but if you haven't seed/downloaded the movie by now...

      You mean 'seeded'...

    20. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Oracle told Neo that he was not The One. However it could be argued that The Oracle is so unique that the "rule" you are implying does not apply.

    21. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by grub · · Score: 1


      ..with the exception of the 23 people..

      I has wondered about that. Is a sampling of 23 individuals genetically diverse enough to ensure we don't end up with a matrix full of drooling tards? And this would the the sixth (or seventh?) time that the breeding stock has been reduced that far? I know, I know. It's a movie, just ignore holes like that.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    22. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by broberds · · Score: 2, Funny

      That wasn't really an Architect. It was George Costanza pretending to be an Architect.

      --
      -- To Err is human, to Ignignokt divine.
    23. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Sodium_Benzoate · · Score: 1

      The reason that the one exists is because of a 'flaw' in a basic equation of the matrix I thought he was referring to Neo as the floating point bug in the old Intel chipset. You are not the 1 Neo ... you are .99823 ... SB

    24. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1

      The impression I got was that this was the first time that the One had been in love, hence the reason why he didnt take either of the choices presented to him, and he made his own path.....

      Neo took exactly the path the architect intended him to take. Everything the architect said was designed to get him to act as he has acted, and imagine that he's exercising free will.

      --
      When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
    25. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by a1englishman · · Score: 1

      But there is no Zion.

      Morpheus, Trinity, Neo and everyone else is still inside the Matrix. Do you think Neo would've been able to stop the squids if he wasn't still inside the Matrix?

      That's how deep the rabbit hole is, my friends. You may never know when you're back inside reality. How would you recognise it, if you have never seen it?

      It's like asking where does the Universe exist? We have to expect it exists in something else, but what does that something else exist in?

      If there's a God, where did He come from? Was He a product, and if so, where did He come from?

      Reality is what you percieve it to be. To those inside 1999, the Matrix is reality. To those in Zion or the hover craft, the outside world is reality. As Neo realized, and proved in the last five minutes, neither are reality. The rabbit hole only gets deeper.

    26. re:perhaps the censor can explain... by ed.han · · Score: 1

      "previous attempts at matrices (how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?)"

      you could use the alternative plural, matrixes. perhaps in that reality, real systems are case insensitive?

      ed

    27. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you what I believe..

      Zion and the 'real world' are not real... it is another layer of the Matrix which is still within the bounds of control of the architect. The agents don't know this anymore than the humans do.. Neo is clearly a program. It is likely the machines don't exist at all.. and there is some other bigger truth that has yet to be revealed.

      --
      Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
    28. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Wayfare · · Score: 1

      Smith was already in coma, and an EMP blast from the other ship would have disabled it in the process. It looked like an EMP blast at first (in relation to the others we've seen), but the other ship was still working.

    29. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Not the Architect, but the Oracle. It was the Oracle that planted the seeds of love in them both, specifically so that Neo would make a "better" choice when he was faced with it. The Oracle was probably getting tired of the cycle of pain of the last five times.

    30. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by jowaju · · Score: 1

      Almost every post I have seen here has one thing in common: "The Oracle said" or "The Architect said". Wake up people, the Oracle and The Architect and for that matter the Keymaker and Agent Smith are all part of the Matrix. How can you just take what they say at face value. How do you know that everything they do is a concerted effort to get Neo to choose Door #2 and kill himself? How do you really know that this has happened six times before? Because the architect says so? Bah. I think he might possibly have a alterior motive. Like ridding the matrix of Neo, because they really dont know what the hell he is, but they have a program written specifically for if and when an anomalous being shows up and threatens their existence. "Neo you must choose Door #2, just like you have 6 times before, in order to save humanity." Come on, don't believe this guy, he got no reason to tell the truth, just another politician. :) Or maybe they wanted him to choose Trinity so that Zion would fall, then they only have Neo and Trinity to deal with instead of the thousands in Zion. Look outside the box, just because a sentient machine says it is impossible to bend a spoon, doesnt mean it is. After all, whats real? Is there real? Or is it a beta Windows 7004 Advanced Human Evolution Experiment Copyright Microsoft 1988?

    31. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      You're ascribing human emotions to machines. Tired is not something that machines get.

    32. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by CKW · · Score: 1

      Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

      Wait, that's not right.

      By going through the one door to save Trinitiy he *WAS* dooming the entire place and all of Humanity (as far as the Architect was concerned). It was only if he went through the other door and re-intergrated his code that the humanity in the Matrix would live on, and he and 28 remaining Zions would form the seed for the "next" Zion ready for the next incarnation of "The One".

      He DID say 'fuck you' to the architect and doomed all Humanity to die just because he has a stronger connection to Trinity than he does to Humanity - and the machines will just have to "make do" with a lower level of existence (without all the power that the Matrix provides them).

    33. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      It is the job of the one to simply experience humanity from the side of those who live in Zion. He then takes this experience back into the source and it is combined with the existing code of the matrix in an attempt to make the matrix more suited to humanity. The idea is that eventually you're going to refine the code enough that anyone and everyone accepts the matrix and Zion is no longer needed.

      Wow...that's like the best explaination of that I've heard. It's funny how this movie has so many missing pieces that other people have already figured out.

    34. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by jtdubs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why the two blond-haired see-through dudes said:

      "We are getting tired of this."
      "Yes, we are."

      Or something like that.

      And that's why former-Agent Smith wants to "return the favor" to Neo and is tracking him down. It's because of some kind of revenge/vengeance that isn't born out of emotion?

      It's so obvious from watching the program's interact that they have emotions. Crazy french dude cheated on his wife, so his wife got pissed, went behind his back, killed one of his favorite programs and gave the good guys the key maker, all of which infuriated french dude. Those don't sound quite like the actions of emotionless beings to me.

      Justin Dubs

    35. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by putch · · Score: 0

      what if neo didn't become 'the one' until he chose to re-enter the matrix to save neo.

      he first meets the oracle she says that he's not the one. but that he'll have to choose between saving morpheus and and dying in the process, or not saving morpheus. he thus CHOOSES, to save neo and then DOES die. only to be revived by trinity, who is told she will only love 'the one'.

      so it could be argued that he was not 'the one' until he re-enterd the matrix or until he dies/gets revived.

      i think that this is key for showing just how this entire system is a sytem of control. i do not think that neo is really all that special. when he first meets the oracle, he meets other children who have some rather unique abilities, similar to neo's. is it possible that there are many humans who have these abilities to alter the matrix. in the animatrix we are introduced to several "copper-tops" who have unique abilities within the matrix (kid story/world record). the difference between neo and the others is that the matrix has placed him/them into this situation.

      they present facts to them in such a way that they can predict responses, or so they think.

      they tell morpheus that he will find the one. so he begins to look anywhere and everywhere for him. we are never told "how" he will find the one (is it jsut cause you can re-arrage "neo" to spell "one"?). trinity is told that she will love the one, and thus because morpheus believes neo is the one, she believes she loves neo. thus neo becomes the one and fulfills the "prophecy" which has been deviously calculated to merely "control" the resistance. however, something is different, it is somewhat implied that his love for trinity is what is unique. i, howver, think that it is the smith connection which really makes him different/more powerful. for example when he faces the french huy and stops the bullets, the french dude is shocked, as if that is a 'new' ability.

      --
      just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
    36. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by NetFu · · Score: 1

      But, she didn't lie, she said he was not the One right now, that he was waiting for something. I don't remember the exact words, but I've watched the Matrix quite a few times and I remember when I see that part how much sense her exact words make (from a logical machine) after seeing the rest of the movie.

      She had some sense of what was going to happen, but not exactly how or when it would happen, hence she's the Oracle. When I saw the Matrix the first time, I automatically thought the same thing that Neo was thinking -- he's not the One, how could that be?? But how most people reacted to that scene -- selectively ignoring the crucial part that he's waiting for something that will trigger him to become the One -- demonstrates to me what it is to be human. Humans don't analyze every bit of input the way that a computer does.

      Damn, these movies are brilliant...

    37. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree with this insanely popular theory, because it is insanely popular, and thus, too easy. I have a feeling that the Brothers gave this bit of information away as a red herring. I never considered this and just thought that he had some control over the machines now. Instead of being some sort of other world, he could had just had some amount of command control within the machines, with the ability to say "Hey, go blow up now".

      Perhaps the machines have been trying to develop telepathy among the humans. After all, the Oracle was created to "explore certain aspects of the human psyche".

    38. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by neoform · · Score: 1

      you know neo's just a program running in the matrix, right? kinda like the oracle.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    39. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by NoData · · Score: 1

      Mode=even more pedantic

      Proper names take a regular plural. Thus when talking of mathematics, it is one matrix, many matrices. When talking of movie-reality-constructs, one Matrix, many Matrixes. That's the English language for you.

      Wouldn't the "regular" plural be Matrixs then? Isn't -es already an irregular form, like -ies for -y, etc.?

      "Matrixs" is of course silly, I'm just putting it up as a straw man. It's not cut-and-dry is it? I mean, the rules for pluralization of proper nouns usual focus on true proper names, such as family names, team names, etc.

      So one Kennedy, many Kennedys (not Kennedies).
      But one Goodfinch, many Goodfinches (not Goodfinchs).
      And clearly, one Bob Child, but having "the Childs" over for dinner.

      But the Matrix is a little different in that the proper noun actually does refer to a kind of "matrix." (Unlike the last name Child, which is simply a label with no semantic connection to "child.")

      Thus, consider the fantastic proper noun "the Golden Child." (Not the movie title, just consider the ficticious proper construct). Surely the plural here would be "the Golden Children" not "the Golden Childs?"

      Plus, while the title of the movie is clearly proper, is the reality construct "the Matrix" actually proper at all? It is a special, particular instance of a "matrix," but does that make it proper? We have the sky, the moon, the sun, but they're not proper. Could the characters not refer to "the matrix," and thus to multiple "matrices?"

      Even if this last point is just wrong, the former point may stand.

      Anyway, just being contrarian.

    40. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      Not shocked; his words are, 'Well, you have some skill.', so it's pretty clear that stopping bullets isn't outside the realm of what is possible in the Matrix. However, it is probable that the Mirovingian did not expect Neo to be capable of doing so -- after all, why would he have his people use machine guns against a target essentially immune to their bullets?

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    41. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by EuropeanSwallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, this is the way I see it:

      (The mandatory ***** SPOILER ALERT! *****)

      - The first Matrix was created perfect, but the human nature would refuse to accept it.

      - Subsequentialy, deliberate flaws were introduced in the Matrix, to make it more "humanly gullable".

      - These flaws side effect was that some humans were able to perceive the fake reality they were living in.

      Now here is the tricky part!

      - Perceiving it, they were fed with the idea that they could escape from it, "awakening". My notion is that Zion and the ones living there are still in the Matrix, in a sort of "garbage collector" that gathers the ones that perceive the flaws. I believe that, at some time, the Architect mentions that the ones "escaping" from the Matrix would evolve exponentialy.

      - Neo's part, instigated by the Oracle, who acts like a Matrix system process that monitors the amount of "anomalies", is to act as an "escape valve", that triggers when the anomalies reach a given critical mass, letting the Matrix know that it's time for a "reboot", eliminating the existing anomalies and starting all over again. This is the weekness of this Matrix model.

      - What is also happening (I believe), is that, despite this "reboot" process, the cleanup is not being total, and Neo is being able to retain knowledge between cycles. This explains the alusion to previous "flawed" Neo's.

      All of this explains one of the points I believe is crucial, the usage of Neo's powers in Zion, towards the end of the flick. I believe he is still in the Matrix!

      Also, I believe that the Matrix cycles will como to a stop, and the Matrix exposed, when Neo finaly becomes aware that the reality he believe is "real" (Zion) is still a lie and that he is still in the Matrix, which seams is starting to happen.

      Hope somebody follows along my line of thought!

    42. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by minektur · · Score: 1

      She told him he'd be 'the one' in another life - so right at that moment, he wasn't the one. He gets shot by smith and 'dies' and 72 seconds (yeah 72 hours is 3 days - christ resurected on the 3rd day...) later comes back to life - and in this NEW life he is 'the one'.

      See? No lie. At least if you get all pretentious and analytical you can dream up apologist explanations that leave the oracale telling the truth.

    43. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      architect's speech means almost nothing but is written in such a way that the vast majority of people who see the movie will not be able to decipher its meaning (or the lack thereof)

      I agree with you there. After Neo's first question and the architect's first rant, Neo says, "You didn't answer my question" (which, if I follow the architect's speech right, he didn't: Neo asked "Why am I here?" and the architect instead talked about what Neo is). The architect even admits "No, I didn't."

      Personally I think Trinity is an agent and the outside world is another Matrix, but we'll just have to wait and see.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    44. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't really an Architect. It was George Costanza pretending to be an Architect

      No, it was really Matt Dillon pretending to be an archetect.

    45. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by bluesky74656 · · Score: 1

      Here is the URL for a transcript of the entire movie. Caveat is that it doesn't have action, only text.

      http://www.zionmainframe.net/main/reloaded/archive /transcript.txt

      --
      This page was generated by a Flock of Attack Kittens for you.
    46. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zion is just a matrix within a matrix.
      The 2nd level if you will....

    47. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the outside world is only another Matrix after Neo left the Architect's room. He could never sense the sentinels before, but when he left, he could. I think that the second Matrix is one last-ditch attempt to prevent Neo from taking control. When he went into a coma, I think that's just what happened when he left the second Matrix. Without his mind connected and controling his body, it would appear to be in a coma, right?

      I am also not sure that Neo is, indeed, the sixth version of himself. It is quite possible that the machines just told him that in order to get him to surrender himself. I have no evidence to back that one up, but it seems possible.

    48. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by putch · · Score: 0

      perhaps shocked is too strong of a term. but you seem to agree that he certainly does not expect it, at least yet. in that same scene, when neo bleeds, the mirovingian states "he's still only human". i wonder if that is meant to mean that he will cease to be human (or entirely human) at some point, which may be why the sentinels do not kill neo at the end (ala smith).

      but, again, neo is the only "being" human or otherwise that we have been shown that CAN stop bullets.

      --
      just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
    49. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Personally I think Trinity is an agent and the outside world is another Matrix, but we'll just have to wait and see

      Trinity can't be an agent because agents can't leave the matrix. the password she used (zion0101) suggests she knows more than the others though.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    50. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by The+G+Man · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe not in the long run, but the 23 people are there just to start Zion, not the whole matrix. Over time, they'll start recruiting others (like how they got Neo), and expand their genetic diversity.

      --

      Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
    51. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by The+G+Man · · Score: 1

      No, if you recall, if he goes to the source, he doesn't destroy it. He disseminates the code within him (or something) back into the matrix, and chooses people for a new Zion. However, if he chooses to save Trinity, Zion is destroyed, and without it as a sort of overflow system, the Matrix inevitably crashes, and the human race goes extinct.

      --

      Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
    52. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by DotComVictim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evidence supporting this theory:

      The Oracle predicts events that happen both inside and outside the Matrix

      Trinity's kiss in the real world restores Neo's life in the Matrix.

      Agent Smith travels into a human outside of the Matrix.

      Neo can control machines outside of the Matrix.

      Your projected "residual body image" is actually what you look like. Consider that Neo when he wakes in Zion/Surface, looks the same as in the Matrix. How can he know what he looks like, if, in fact he has never seen his own body.

      And the most telling of all, which was for me very difficult to accept in the first movie - if you die in the matrix, you die in the real world as well. You don't die if you die in a dream. Nor do you start bleeding internally if you get hit in a simulation.


      It's not that Zion is a higher level simulation or a recursion. Zion/Surface and the Matrix are both the same simulation.

      It is anyone's guess what the purpose of the simulation is. Popular theories are that humans are used for brain power, etc...

      My belief is that the simulation is intended to produce an effect. Many concurrent simulations are running. The architect has been attempting to force Neo to express the choice between logic and emotion in the most clear cut way possible - the two doors. In all other cases, this has been the end of the simulation, as logic has prevailed.

      Why? If Neo was supposed to return to the Source, why offer a second door. No architect would be that silly - this is like playing with matches.

      This could provide him with a test to determine if his program (Neo) has developed the capacity for emotion (and possibly, a test for consciousness). Perhaps he is trying to meld AI with an element of humanity to create a new sentient life form.

      Perhaps emotion is the bug he is trying to eliminate - his AI programs are slowly developing emotional responses, and he uses Neo as a test subject for the penultimate expression of the bug, so he can find a way to eliminate it.

      Perhaps Neo is living in a self-defined delusion. The architect exists to allow him to restart his simulation as he desires, and he is the One - in another sense. The only living being in the simulation. The reboot cycles are refinements of his simulation until it has been adjusted to the point that he desires to return to it.

      Perhaps the Architect is seeking a way to override logic, using emotion as a control. This emotional control, and his study of the mechanisms of it, may be useful to him outside of the simulation, as a form of mind control.

    53. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, am I the only one that read all that and substituted Will Ferrel in the place of the Architect?

    54. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by coopaq · · Score: 2, Funny
      Has anybody considered that maybe the Architect is lying?

      Yeah. I've already seen that show.
      It's Wizard of Fucking OZ. Maybe our
      ancestors die due to unoriginal material.

      Am I too cynical?

    55. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      it was indeed an EMP from Smith's ship that disabled the fleet. it's explained in Enter the Matrix. it's a pretty cheesy marketing gimmick to have to buy a game to get the full story.

    56. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by sbulut77 · · Score: 1

      Two obersations that I made:

      When Noe talked to Oracle, she says to him at the end of the conversation: "It looks like you are waiting for something. Your next life, maybe." At the end of the movie he dies and then gets resurrected (his next life) then he becomes the One.

      The second movie is about causality principle. The people, who think that the second movie lacked the philosophical aspect of the first movie, should read/study causality principle and watch the entire movie based on that. You would see what they are trying to explain. They are constantly critisizing whether there is free will or choice (in other words: control) They lay it out pretty well.

      The people, who thinks that Heisenberg's uncertainity is the proof that the universe is not bound by the rules of determinism, are wrong. Because Heisenberg's principle only states the uncertainity in the measurement. ("Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism", Erwin Schrodinger)

    57. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Wayfare · · Score: 1

      That disabled the fleet, yes, it said so in the movie. I was talking about the sentinels being disabled by Neo when Smith was already in coma on the ship that picked up Morpheus & co.

    58. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Bizaff · · Score: 1

      We can't make this assumption anymore, since AI has allegedly been invented at this point. Maybe some of them did get tired.

    59. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the Oracle says he's waiting for his next life. She also says that Neo will have to choose between his life and Morpheous's life. You'll notice that Neo doesn't really get his superpowers until after he is shot and is dead for a brief moment. That's his next life. It makes perfect sense, but it is also completely self-contained within the first movie.

    60. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it does seem like half the people in zion are mixed (maybe even more) rather than just spanish/white/black looking.

    61. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the password suggest she knew more? She just entered a string for the exploit code to change the real root password to on the box she was breaking into.

    62. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does the password suggest she knew more?
      because if she's aware that this is the sixth time she's done it, and the passwords started at zion0, zion0101 would be the sixth iteration's password (binarily speaking)

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    63. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Scott+Hale · · Score: 1
      A solution was found that gave the people a 'choice' to accept the program or not, at a subconcious level. Those that rejected it ended up in Zion.

      But isn't Zion still part of the Matrix? Correct me if Im missing something here. If a person is given a choice and rejects the program, they end up in the Matrix anyway. I mean, what's the difference between being in the Matrix and being in the Matrix? Doesnt sound like much of a choice to me.

    64. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Aexia · · Score: 1

      The Oracle told Neo that he was not The One. However it could be argued that The Oracle is so unique that the "rule" you are implying does not apply.

      Oracle: But you already know what I'm going to say.
      Neo: I'm not the One.
      Oracle: Sorry, kid. You've got the gift but it seems like you're waiting for something. Maybe your next life, who knows?

    65. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by rickwood · · Score: 1
      I guess I don't understand why so many /.ers are confused about the Architect's dialogue. When he went off on the "unbalanced equation" bit I actually chuckled and thought to myself "GÃdel, you magnificent son-of-a-bitch! I read your book!"

      To shamelessly appropriate from http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html,

      Nagel and Newman, GÃdel's Proof

      He proved it impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems - elementary arithmetic, for example - unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves ... Second main conclusion is ... GÃdel showed that Principia, or any other system within which arithmetic can be developed, is essentially incomplete. In other words, given any consistent set of arithmetical axioms, there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived from the set... Even if the axioms of arithmetic are augmented by an indefinite number of other true ones, there will always be further mathematical truths that are not formally derivable from the augmented set.

      Thus, the founders of the Matrix, artifical beings constructed of instructions to a computer, are laid low by the fact that no logical system can account for true statements that cannot be proven and by extension computed.

      I suppose it is possible that the machines that run The Matrix are immune to the incompleteness theorem due to quantum logic or some other form of advanced construction and programming. However, I would point out the theorem states that any system that relies on consistant axiomatic logic eventually falls prey to incompleteness.

      (cf. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems by Kurt GÃdel, ISBN 0486669807)

      (cf. GÃdel's Proof by Nagel, et al., ISBN 0814758169, Revised Edition)
    66. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the machines have been trying to develop telepathy among the humans. After all, the Oracle was created to "explore certain aspects of the human psyche".

      I'm with you, the Matrix-within-a-Matrix idea would be interesting, but it seems too easy. However there was already _clear_ evidence beforehand that the reality of the Matrix (the movie, not the construct) supports psychic/mystical/unexplainable powers.

      Neo can see the future. The Oracle confirms that he has become like here and can now see across the bounds of time. If that's possible, then a real world ability to control the machines isn't out of the question.

      And as someone else mentioned, maybe this is something he picked up from his brief merging with Smith.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    67. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Esoteric+Moniker · · Score: 1

      The actual reality of the choice isn't the important thing, it's the illusion that you have a choice that allows the mind to accept the matrix/meta-matrix 'reality'.

      --

      man RTFM
      No manual entry for RTFM.
    68. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      The whole Matrix is a lie, there seemed to be a lot of lieing going on between the Merovingian(sp) and Persephone, although those might not have been direct lies.

      The machines have shown just about every other human emotion and fallacy, i'd be really suprised if it turns out they can't tell a direct lie.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    69. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      Programmed emotions aren't the same thing. They're more black & white than the grey areas emotions are in real life. The characters came across as emotionally one-dimensional....

    70. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      Computers already do get tired - look at the animated sandtimer. ;o) No, but seriously - AI doesn't work like that. You could program on/off cycles - that's about it.... Predictable routines to a computer are not boring....

    71. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by haggar · · Score: 1

      I have. And I had an interesting discussion on the topic with another slashdotter.

      If you think about it, The Architect might actually have interest in presenting Neo with fabrications, if he's not able to control him. Lies are used for control.

      --
      Sigged!
    72. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by haggar · · Score: 1

      How about this: the "other life" could be the transcendence to another level of "matrixness", maybe this time the real thing. I am talking about the possibility that Morpheus, Trinity and co. are all actually in a second matrix (so, Zion and the dark, sun-less world are all in this second matrix) and that Neo will be able to get to the next level... to a new life. Maybe the real world, finally?

      --
      Sigged!
    73. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by detect · · Score: 1

      Not only that but "01" (pronounced zero one) was the original name of Zion, which according to the Animatrix series was the first non-human city the machines built to avoid being destroyed by humanity.

      --
      // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
    74. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by perdelucena · · Score: 1


      Perhaps, thatÂs explain why there are no Egyptians or Muslins in Zion.

      Walking like an Egyptian...

    75. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Programmed emotions aren't the same thing. They're more black & white than the grey areas emotions are in real life. The characters came across as emotionally one-dimensional....

      Well, so did Neo. :)
    76. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by bace · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but what i feel they were trying to convey is that humans have the power of emotion. This is something which the machines will never understand or experience. And that are emotions give us the power over machines, not intelect.

      --
      =If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
    77. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the "regular" plural be Matrixs then? Isn't -es already an irregular form, like -ies for -y, etc.?

      But "Matrixs" would be a spelling error. -es is the regualar form for a word that ends in x.

      The Golden Child is a great example for variation in plural formation. One Golden Child, a whole nursery full of Golden Children. One DVD of The Golden Child, a whole stack of unsold Golden Childs

      Plus, while the title of the movie is clearly proper, is the reality construct "the Matrix" actually proper at all?

      Probably not.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    78. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by gurple · · Score: 0

      What is it that makes you think they are actually breeding? It's just all in their head. Cheers!

      --
      -- We've secretly replaced his regular signature with Folgers Crystals®
  2. So? by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar?

    *Gasp*

    That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

    --


    "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happens a lot in a number of different ways. France (among other) stands against an invasion of Iraq and gets ostracised by the US.

      So apparently questioining is a bad thing. Depends who you ask...

    2. Re:So? by mirko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

      They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

      For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

      Cocnerning the many religious aspects of the movie, I'd rather describe these as some uninspired mysticism.

      As I am not trolling (I hate these times when one must explicitely say he's not trolling) I now expect anybody who doesn't agree with these points to discuss these with me, instead of modbombing me to oblivion.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    3. Re:So? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Funny
      Thats the offset between christian and moslem religions. So You have to wait something like 300 hundred years to get moslem religion to some civilized state

      Shouldn't that be at least 300 years, since you can't put a definite number on it until Christianity becomes civilized?

    4. Re:So? by ndogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have to question something that is the "truth," then perhaps it's not "truth."

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    5. Re:So? by nexex · · Score: 1

      wait you mean 300 years ago right? ever heard of the reformation? since when has Christianity not been civilized in your life time?

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    6. Re:So? by TomV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar

      I suspect they're saying that, in a country with a history of Islamist resistance, multiple assassination attempts on President Mubarak, semi-regular spates of suicide bombings which have killed hundreds of people over the last 20 years, a country which has long been a fertile recruiting ground for the various armed Islamist groups, from Ayman al-Zawahiri down, in a country which has been struggling to maintain a secular state while its leaders are condemned as apostates and traitors, puppets of a purported US agenda to corrupt the beliefs of devout muslims, religion matters.

      It's a fine piece of entertainment, it's a thought-provoking piece of art maybe. But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown? Because certainly past performance shows that introducing some thoughts from the west has caused the sort of uproar in which people get killed.

      TomV

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northern Ireland?

    8. Re:So? by Dumbush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That questioning the truth is a bad thing?"

      Well, there are plenty of people that believe evolution doesn't exist, the earth was/is flat, and god hates Saddam Hussein =)

    9. Re:So? by realnowhereman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think "the truth" referred to by the parent is the encumbant religions in egypt. Nobody would seriously suggest that the Matrix is some sort of basis for new world order. However, I (and I believe the parent) would suggest that questioning "the truth" over the last 1000 years of human society has led to our continued advancement (and in some cases regression) as a species and should not be so lightly brushed aside.

      Your point about Joe-6-amphorae not wanting to see the movie may well be true. It may well be that every egypitian would despise the movie. But we'll never know that will we because a small subset of the population has decreed that they are incapable of viewing it without destroying society. (I notice that the censor hasn't instantly gone on an all out looting spree).

      I think you are concentrating too much on the content of the movie - good/bad/accurate/theistic/philosophic/whatever - none of these is the point. It could be a film about mutant peanuts from the planet foobar, the point is - it is a work of fiction that has been unilaterally edited out of a nation. The level of condecension and disrespect to the population that is needed to do such a thing is staggering.

      Similar things (though not so extreme) are happening in many western societies as well at the momemnt. As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. Leaving aside the economic unfairness (to poorer families) of this, it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population; if not removing the choice then certainly limiting it serverely.

      Phew. I think I'll stop now before I bust a vein or something....

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    10. Re:So? by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      Yes. But this is my feeling for this matter and hold s no merit.

      Why don't you ask someone there if they mind someone else making that choice for them?

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    11. Re:So? by Kosi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      since when has Christianity not been civilized in your life time?

      It was never. Just look at what christian fundamentalists are in the U.S. government and what those brickheads did and do.

    12. Re:So? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the definitions of civilized is refined and sophisticated. Since the Catholic church only recognized that the earth orbits the sun (instead of vice-versa) within my lifetime, and it is a more sophisticated and refined description of our solar system, that is an example of uncivilized behavior from Christianity within our time (especially considering that people were put to death for claiming the Earth orbited the sun...)

    13. Re:So? by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying that so I didn't have to.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    14. Re:So? by MonopolyNews · · Score: 1

      how so? truth loves a question.

      --

      Slashdot Journal on Monopoly News
    15. Re:So? by realnowhereman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown?

      Yes.

      I was told a story by my Mum, who works in a children's nursery. She suggested to the playgroup leader that they get one of those boards with the kids names on and give them gold stars for doing something good. The idea was rejected; the reason being that the playgroup leader once worked as a missionary in Africa, teaching children. They introduced just such a board. When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars. Did this make better children? The result - the children who would have gotten stars no longer did, perhaps leaving them unrewarded and unfulfilled; the children who thought bullying was acceptable were never corrected and were left to continue on in life to who knows what; the teachers are left feeling impotent - there job has become to tip-toe around children, not causing trouble.

      I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better.

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    16. Re:So? by Johnny+Pissoff · · Score: 1

      First, this is a film censorship board that did this, not a bunch of clerics at al-Azhar.

      Given the vast number of Western books translated into Arabic, many of which are published in Cairo, no, there isn't a problem with "someone inducing thought into their culture from the West"

      Now, questioning the truth is another thing when you know that the truth in Arabic, al-haqq, is one of the most important of the "99 Names" of God.

    17. Re:So? by LeoDV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe it was Ben Franlkin who said (not exact quote) "if you are willing to give up a bit of your liberty for peace of mind, then be ready to give up all your liberty for you will never have peace of mind" I know it sounds like I'm minimizing your very sound argument with some general, stereotyped quote about freedom of speech, but think about it. A choice between a movie and the political stabililty of a middle eastern country sounds pretty easy, but if Egypt say "We banned that movie because if not it might disturb the peace." and we just go "Oh. Well I guess it's okay then." haven't we opened a floodgate that's going to be very hard to close?

    18. Re:So? by Johnny+Pissoff · · Score: 1

      I think you've misread the parent post. He didn't concentrate on the movie vis a vis its purported theistic/philosophical content but rather on the fact that it makes the inhabitants of Zion the good guys. Given that Zion explicitly = Israel that creates serious issues for an Egyptian Arab audience.

    19. Re:So? by mecanicaz · · Score: 1

      "get moslem religion to some civilized state" The problem is not with moslem religion, this religion is civilized enough to a way that it made the so called western civilization what it is nowadays. (See Carly Fiorina's speech http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina /minnesota01.html) The problem is that these guys are not in a position to talk about religion nor do they understand whta Islam is.

    20. Re:So? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      The problem in Northern Ireland is not Christianity, the problem is terrorists. They use Christianity as an excuse, but anyone who sneaks around shooting people in their homes and blowing up shopping centres is in no way Christian. It's a historica coincidence that the majority of those wishing to reunite with Ireland claim to be Catholic and the majority of those wishing to stay part of the UK claim to be Protestant. The honest truth is that large numbers of them probably don't know much about Christianity, never read the bible and think that either they'll get into heaven for claiming to be a Protestant/Catholic or that it's just about trying to be nice to people.

    21. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This isn't a fscking kindergarten playground, the 'bullies' actually kill people in the real world. Also your analogy is crap because watching the Matrix in Egypt is not somekind of reward for 'good citizenship' that islamic fundamentalists envy; they just might not like the film for its content, you know.

      Fact is the Matrix is just entertainment, and entertainment in general doesn't justify people getting killed over it. A state exists to protect its citizens, not to protect Hollywood.

    22. Re:So? by radish · · Score: 1


      You want some christian terriorists? The IRA (thanks y'all in NYC for paying those guys!), that guy who blew up Oaklahoma. I would say Bush but I'd just get toasted alive. Oh well :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    23. Re:So? by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better

      Umm this rings a bit hollow given the Matrix Reloaded is a movie created by Hollywood, a set of companies that rarely portray reality and often produced badly twisted and potentially offensive characterisations.

      Lets put it this way, Al Jazerra is pilloried in the US and yet represents the view of the US from the Arab nations. Isn't this abuse of the channel exactly the same as what Egypt is doing here ? Except that what the US aims to do to Al Jazeera is dealing at a much less superficial level than banning a movie.

      Maybe, just maybe, for Egypt this film would be considered offensive and this censoring is indicative of the failure of Hollywood to look outside its borders.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    24. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would someone question truth? if they did would it really be truth? and if you are questioning admitting that is truth would in fact make you wrong. choose a different word like opinion or something.

      or rather questioning the lies you were brought up on.

    25. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion..civilisation... ah ah ah :-)

    26. Re:So? by Surak · · Score: 1

      if you are willing to give up a bit of your liberty for peace of mind, then be ready to give up all your liberty for you will never have peace of mind

      specifically Franklin said: "They that would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither."

    27. Re:So? by Admiral+Kirk · · Score: 1

      These are not 'thoughts from the west'.
      The basic idea is ancient. The first I heard from it was Plato, he had this theory that our reality was an illusion. That our *real* existance is hidden from us.

      Throughout history, many philosphers played arround with this idea, the Matrix is based on a mix of them all.

      BTW, they are not the only ones that don't like their believes questioned, recently there was a fuss here about some American states not wanting to have darwinism in their schools...
      Yet the US is in the west.

    28. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslims spend all their time reading and talking about the Koran, and little/no time questioning anything. Why else do you think Muslims are hopelessly under-represented in Nobal prizes (just look at how many Jewish people have earned). And most terrorists are Muslim. No time for sanity or reason, just preach and kill.

    29. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem in Northern Ireland is not Christianity, the problem is terrorists. They use Christianity as an excuse, but anyone who sneaks around shooting people in their homes and blowing up shopping centres is in no way Christian.

      Hey. I could make *exactly* the same argument for Osama and his buddies. I mean really... how much do you think it really has to do with religion. Religion is *always* hijacked for rabble rousing purposes. What the real problem of course is humanity. Humans have conflicts. Humans need to be able to resolve their conflicts without resorting to violence. Because quite frankly we simply cant affort the risk.

    30. Re:So? by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      I was told a story by my Mum, who works in a children's nursery. She suggested to the playgroup leader that they get one of those boards with the kids names on and give them gold stars for doing something good. The idea was rejected; the reason being that the playgroup leader once worked as a missionary in Africa, teaching children. They introduced just such a board. When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars. Did this make better children? The result - the children who would have gotten stars no longer did, perhaps leaving them unrewarded and unfulfilled; the children who thought bullying was acceptable were never corrected and were left to continue on in life to who knows what; the teachers are left feeling impotent - there job has become to tip-toe around children, not causing trouble.

      Your Mum summed up just about every ./ story on xyAA/M$ litigation.

      Only here, the bullies would have sued to get the gold stars.

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    31. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't the egyptians not also responsible for the hole in the ozone layer? And aren't they responsible when your president has a bad day and is running out of members to add to the axe of evil? Damn, I wish you could liberate Egypt to make them see Matrix 2 Reloaded (even if the movie sucked (imho)).

    32. Re:So? by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Hey. I could make *exactly* the same argument for Osama and his buddies.

      The biggest difference is Osama & Co. are using religious scripture to justify their war. The Irish are not.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    33. Re:So? by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      The argument could be made that by taxing unhealthy foods, the burden on the national health care system is lessened. I smoke now and then, and I don't mind paying hefty taxes on cigarettes. I could end up in the hospital some day for sucking on these deathsticks; is it fair that Joe Nonsmoker should pay the same taxes as me, if I'm probability-wise a larger strain on the system?

    34. Re:So? by RoninM · · Score: 1
      The problem in Northern Ireland is not Christianity, the problem is terrorists.

      The problem in Egypt (and much of the rest of the world) is not Islam, it's terrorists. It just so happens that terrorists use religion.

      --
      If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
    35. Re:So? by Webb21 · · Score: 0

      Even "the truth" should be questioned--so we know it truly is the truth.

      --
      "A good compromise leaves everyone mad." -Calvin
    36. Re:So? by Surak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

      They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

      For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.


      You are the only person I see so far that *gets* it -- only you slightly missed it by *that* much ... /me holds thumb and index finger together

      Mostly, the Egyptian censor is probably freaking out of about the word 'Zion'. Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...the Egyption censor feels that the term Zion anyway, refers to Israel.

      That's it. That's all that he's freaked out about, most likely.

    37. Re:So? by Fishstick · · Score: 1
      > describes the fear Zion people are living in

      I hadn't thought of that.

      ZiÂon ÂÂ ÂPÂÂÂPronunciation KeyÂÂ(zn) also SiÂon (sn)
      n.
      1. The historic land of Israel as a symbol of the Jewish people.
      2. The Jewish people; Israel.
      3. A place or religious community regarded as sacredly devoted to God.
      4. An idealized, harmonious community; utopia.


      I kept hearing the Iraqi information minister keep calling the coalition 'the Zionist horde' or something, but it didn't click in my mind until now how Muslims might interpret the Matrix based on the name 'Zion'.
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    38. Re:So? by noz · · Score: 1

      That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

      Western culture begets western culture. Eastern culture is fragile. Try respecting other's beliefs, choices, censorship. The United States Government is far from perfect in many ways (revenge wars) and still holds to some (Christian) religious beliefs in their laws.

      It's also not inducing thought; perhaps introducing thought. In which case, not very interresting ones.

      Am I the only one who was wriggling in my seat for 4 reels (1 hour and 20 minutes) of complete horse-shit, averaging about half a plot development for each reel? The film picked up a bit with its cryptic horse-shit philosophy, but otherwise was ultimately benign.

    39. Re:So? by mirko · · Score: 1

      Nobody would seriously suggest that the Matrix is some sort of basis for new world order.

      Well, some bored people actually suggest this is not the basis, but rather the reason :D

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    40. Re:So? by Tharsis · · Score: 1

      We're not exactly dealing with children here. You can correct a child, but how do you "correct" a movement (and what is correct anyway).

    41. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I hadn't thought of that.

      Really? There are plenty of places where the film is going to get just about the same reception as if it were titled "Nigger Fucker" in the US. It should surprise no one that Egypt is on that list.

    42. Re:So? by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most brands of Christianity that survive today have learned to cope with modernity in all its varied forms. I do not particularly care for the Christian Right, but they are generally reconciled to a technologically advanced, pluralistic society. Their odd hangups about gay people and school prayer are actually exceptions to this rule. The only groups that explicitly reject modern life are small sects like the Amish and (to a lesser degree) the Jehovah's Witnesses, neither of which can be considered a viable political or social force in any country. (The Amish don't even proslytize - they just keep to themselves, and can't be compared to radical Islamists.)

      The more virulent brands of Islam, however, most certainly do prefer a less sophisticated society. The Taliban seriously did drive Afghanistan further into the Stone Age than the Russians managed to. Banning television, eliminating women's education, blowing up its cultural heritage - it's not cultural chauvinism to call this "uncivilized". Turkey has shown (imperfectly) that it's possible to form a large Western democracy from a Muslim population, but they did this by explicitly rejecting Islamic influences on government.

      This is the key point: no thriving, modern democracy that I can think of has been able to advance as long as its government is tied to religious leaders. The only first-world nation whose identity is bound to a particular sect is Israel, and I'd argue that Israel is a little more complicated (they don't evangelize either, for one). I realize it's fashionable to compare Bush and the Religious Right to the Nazis or the Catholic Inquisition, but the influence of religious leaders on US government is many orders of magnitude less than in, say, Saudi Arabia. Unless you equate abortions with civilization, it's hard to see what your complaint is.

      (A side point: what this means is probably that we will never see another country that joins a thriving, evangelical religion with a modern, pluralistic, technically advanced society. The only way to have both is to completely separate them as in the US (most of the time), which then limits the extent to which religion can influcence the development of the nation and culture. The only sect I can think of that might prove this wrong is the Mormons.)

    43. Re:So? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      shoot, hate to respond to my own post, but I didn't RTFA first and now I see this:

      The first Matrix movie was released in Egypt but was criticised by Islamic newspapers for promoting Zionism.

      ...
      One Egyptian critic, Wael Abdel Fatah, said: "The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs."


      So, the whole " the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in" is really just a pretense -- the real reason is because it can be too easily interpreted as "Zionist propaganda"?

      Just wondering aloud, since almost all the inhabitants of the Zion (in the movie) are black, and since they are probably going to dub the movie in Arabic anyway, can't they just change "Zion" to "Amsterdam" or something and sidestep the whole issue? *kidding*

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    44. Re:So? by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you up. You are exacly right, but they would probably change that in the re-dubbing(mis-spelled).

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    45. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point (I'm also a light smoker), but, unfortunately, in the USA (where I live) it doesn't hold water. With no national healthcare, why are taxes so high anyway?

    46. Re:So? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      I realize it's fashionable to compare Bush and the Religious Right to the Nazis or the Catholic Inquisition, but the influence of religious leaders on US government is many orders of magnitude less than in, say, Saudi Arabia.

      Some would disagree with you. They might say that the influence of religion groups in America is much more powerful because it is more covert. They blame such inflences for the US governments stance on Israel, and Islamic "terrorist" states. They believe that elements of the religious right believe that there will be no second coming until ancient Israel is restored, and that they utilise their influence to control US foreign policy. I think that largely bullshit, but if the matrix teaches us one thing, it is that control is more dangerous and complete when you don't know you're being controlled.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    47. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain that to the dead

    48. Re:So? by Kosi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Attacking another country against international law for purposes of oil and might is not what I call civilized. As well I can't see anything civilized in holding captured and torturing hundreds of people outside the own borders.

    49. Re:So? by tarogue · · Score: 1

      The IRA (thanks y'all in NYC for paying those guys!)

      No ... It's the people in Boston paying the IRA. The people in NYC are paying the UDF (Loyalist Terrorists).

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    50. Re:So? by naasking · · Score: 1

      We're not exactly dealing with children here.

      Hurting other people because they feel entitled to? Sounds childish to me.

    51. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. While your post's parent may be concerned about a tax on unhealthy foods limiting the choices of the population (and apparently the poor in particular), the higher income and across-the-board sales taxes required to pay for all the people made sick from unhealthy foods limits everyone's choices as well. Personally, I think the lesser of the two evils is to have a healthy population and lower overall taxes.

    52. Re:So? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually in long term the answer is Yes, because they do not want any west influence - thats the same like christians 600 hundred yrs. ago. Thats the offset between christian and moslem religions. So You have to wait something like 300 hundred years to get moslem religion to some civilized state. (if it will evolve the some way like christian one).

      Wait, Christianity is "civilized"? You got your radical fundamentalists, your racists, your snake handlers, and your war-hawk right-wing leaders. Christianity is by no means civilized. On top of that, take a look at the world of Islam on the order of a thousand years ago. It was far more educated and "civilized" than any of the Christian world at the time (who were still practicing feudalism, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc).

      Islam today sees a lot of political and social unrest because of the vast resources Islamic nations have: oil. You can be quite certain that the United States and other big oil consumers have quite a bit to do with that. The oppression which leads to violent radicals is no accident; it's engineered that way. That's why the US gives and has given tons of modern weapons (including WMD) to Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria... well gee, a lot of the countries of a religion you claim is uncivilized.

      Now, to what ends, you might ask? It's textbook Machiavelli politics. You have a large group of people kept oppressed and subjugated by a small group of people. Oil consuming nations give weapons and money to this small group of oppressors to make the population has a whole easier to deal with because they can get away with pleasing fewer people. As a result, the consumers set the price on oil, not the producers. The problem is that a lot of the little guys figured out who is really causing their problems. Because the situation is so bad, they turn to violence in an attempt to break the establishment.

      Please get off your righteous high-horse. Christianity and Christian nations are not the only one's with a valid viewpoint. More importantly, they're not the only ones who should have a say in how the world works.

    53. Re:So? by ksheff · · Score: 0

      Then, they should be happy that in the end everyone in Zion is killed.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    54. Re:So? by KjetilK · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Disclaimer: Didn't RFTA, haven't seen any of the movies.

      But I have been to Egypt, and my parents have been there twice. It is a fantastic country, allthough you'll see bottomless poverty like I have seen in no other place. Egyptians, like most arabs, are very friendly and respectful people, very proud of their history and their country, with good reason I might add.

      And indeed, islamist extremism is a serious threat to not only most Egyptians, but the entire region , and possibly the whole earth. But it is a problem because people do not have basic human rights. It is the obvious poverty problem. Unemployed people have too much time on their hands, and they are easy prey for extremists.

      But they do not have the right to free expression, to peacefully protest, the suppression of the people is what is causing the problem.

      In that situation, it is my sincere belief that the problems must be addressed by openness, by allowing people to speak, and by allowing them to participate in society. It is the only way to confront extremism, to insist on more human rights. When exposed to different viewpoints, extremism will be moderated.

      It is troubling that if you go into the bazars, you'll hear everybody is a vocal opponent of US foreign policy. So, they have the freedom to say it as long as it is not heard, as long as it is uninfluencial. That is good and all, in many places they cannot do that, but they have very little freedom to say it out loud and clear, the torture chamber awaits you. This is the disturbing fact you never hear about. Everybody is so scared to islamist extremism, nobody thinks about their basic rights.

      But, to combat extremists, the only thing you can do is to emphasize, they have rights too.

      Mubarak certainly has many qualities as leader, but it is very important not to turn the blind eye to some severe shortcomings.

      What this has to do with the Matrix is left as an exercise to the reader... :-)

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    55. Re:So? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > haven't we opened a floodgate that's going to be very hard to close?

      I agree except for one thing. That floodgate has never been closed before. This censorship isn't anything new.

    56. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a film about mutant peanuts from the planet foobar

      I like what you're selling. I'll have my people call your people and we'll do lunch. Let's make a deal.

    57. Re:So? by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

      It's a fine piece of entertainment, it's a thought-provoking piece of art maybe. But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown? Because certainly past performance shows that introducing some thoughts from the west has caused the sort of uproar in which people get killed.

      this reminds me of the library of alexandria that they're building in egypt. they want to basically replicate the great library from the ancient past and turn it into a world-class repository of knowledge. they also want it to be a research center of sorts for islam. the big controversy, of course, is whether or not local religious types will allow all forms of islam to be studied.

      they've already built hotels and commercial buildings around it in anticipation of the tourist drawing potential. it'll be interesting to see if the great library actually becomes a great library. and they haven't even reached the question of including western texts yet.....

      --
      -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    58. Re:So? by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You, Sir, just proved yourself insensitive, arrogant and irrelevant.

      Insensitive, because you just suggest, from the comfort of your couch, that other people's lives should be put at risk. Speaking of death and suffering so easily is indecent. Try to improve on this and you might have a chance to become a human being.
      Arrogant, because you just compare a whole nation with nursery kids. You don't have a fucking clue about what's going on in Egypt. But that doesn't stop you from demeaning people who deal with the issues everyday. What makes you think you're better? What makes you think you would behave better if you faced the same problems? Do you have the faintest idea of what are the problems we are talking about?
      Irrelevant, because this is not an issue of rewarding good and punishing bad. Airing the Matrix is not a reward for the good people; protecting them from death and injury is. Airing the Matrix is not a punishment for terrorists; preventing them from spreading further death and chaos is.

      Heck, I'm rereading your post and I'm trying to put myself in an Egyptian's shoes. If I was Egyptian, I'd be infuriated by this. You don't have a clue, yet you talk like an expert (in a humiliating way) and you play with other people's lives because you don't care.

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    59. Re:So? by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. [...] it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population

      I'd like to discuss this one with you.

      Why should the taxpayers that take care of their bodies be subsidizing the health care of people who engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, alcohol, junk food, etc.)?

      It's like a gas tax. People who use the most gas, and therefore use the roads the most, are the ones paying the most to repair them. Similarly, people who draw the most from public healthcare should also be paying more for their self-destructing lifestyles.

    60. Re:So? by grunteled · · Score: 1

      Can it be that the entire population of a nation can be considered so inept as to be unable to seperate the fictional city of the movie, from the temporal nation of Israel? That is what is staggering. The level of balls it takes for government to tell a population, "you are too simple minded to see this". It's equally staggering to see a population that generally accepts that notion.

    61. Re:So? by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* you just don't get it do you? People in other parts of the world have different cultures, different laws and different values. Egypt is the kind of place that things like homeland security (for lack of a better term) make sense because there is a real threat to the stability of the country by Islamic fundimentalists.

      Ironically I'm the son of a missionary to Africa, the missionary you speak of was right about the children in Africa because when you take a group of people that have nothing and give one of them anything the rest of them are going to start a riot. That's the culture, to give something to someone in Africa, you have to give to everyone. What the missionary did wrong was take that African culture and impose it on the children at the nursery. The children (because of the culture) obviously know there are rewards for good behavior whereas children in Africa don't have that value.

      This movie situation is similar, because there are extreme people in Egypt that would see the movie and start a riot because it offends their culture and from their view supports their enemy (ie Israel). These people are more than just bullies in a school yard, they're people that can topple the government and take away everyone's freedom.

      The censor in Egypt in this case understands these problems, and rightfully has decided that showing the movie isn't worth it. Its not about the content or the message, its about the perception by certain groups of people.

    62. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Go fuck yerself with National Health Care. Who gave YOU the right to tell ME how to live my life? Who gave YOU the right to tell me that SOMEONE ELSE has to pay for my lifestyle? It is people like YOU who have this deep seated guilt that makes people like ME have to pay for that guilt. (oh look at the poor people, YOU have to pay to help them, we ALL do. (putting gun to peoples heads) PAY UP!))

      Real charity begins with your local communities and churches. Thats where money does the most good. Not some national progam.

    63. Re:So? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      One would think the Egyptians would love the movie. Seeing how Zion gets wiped out. Isn't that what they all want?

      </sarcasm amount="justalittle">

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    64. Re:So? by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

      "To protect social peace, and protect the lives our citizens, the library of Alexandria will mostly contain shelves upon shelves of various editions of the Koran. Of course, there will be a 'western literature' section, featuring mostly Noam Chomsky. And on our collection of world maps, where the USA and Israel should be, there'll just be big empty black spaces that say 'There be monsters here.' Oh, and women won't be allowed inside. Thus by placating religious zealots, we will protect the social peace. We're fucking geniuses."

    65. Re:So? by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't your argument lead to the taxation of healthcare?

    66. Re:So? by lysander · · Score: 1

      "People will believe what you say if you tell them I said it first."
      --Ben Franklin

      --
      GET YOUR WEAPONS READY! --DR.LIGHT
    67. Re:So? by ZaMoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've bought into the lie that Islamic terrorism is a symptom of poverty and repression. Certainly, it gains traction because the vast majority of Arabs live under repressive governments and are unable to advance their own condition, no matter their efforts.

      However, the vast majority of terrorists have been Western-educated, come from middle class families (at the very least) and would generally be considered part of the "elite" in their respective societies, with the exception of suicide bombers in Israel (which vary greatly in family background, although most are teenaged/20-something males).

      Please don't contribute to the incorrect "poor, repressed people acting out" meme.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    68. Re:So? by p_trekkie · · Score: 1

      Hmm, are you sure it's that recent? I know they only pardoned Galileo recently, but the church hasn't been teaching geocentric theory for at least a century, if not two.

      The Catholic Church has it's own observatory and has been doing genuine scientific work predicated on the earth orbitting the sun for more than 100 years. Also, the pope endorsed the Big Bang theory around 1950 (although there is no dogma, one way or the other on the subject).

    69. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how about all those fundamentalist Christians who maintain the notion that the Earth was created a mere 6000 years ago? Archeologists just found fossilized human remains in Ethiopia that are dated at over 160,000 year old. That sure casts doubt on the story of creation, as portrayed in the Bible, now doesn't it? Is it really "civilized" to refute scientific evidence (logic and reason) infavour of faith (fear and superstition)?

    70. Re:So? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      But we'll never know that will we because a small subset of the population has decreed that they are incapable of viewing it without destroying society.

      Ain't 30 years of "Martial Law" (i.e., military dictatorship) grand? I'm surprised that the first Matrix wasn't outright banned because the human city is called "Zion"... or that it was made by Jews(?).

    71. Re:So? by edwdig · · Score: 1

      The ones who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old are a small minority who are ignored by everyone else. The church considers the story in Genesis a methaphor designed to be understandable by people living several thousand years ago, not the way it actually happened.

    72. Re:So? by stanmann · · Score: 1
      Except you didn't even read the editors blurb.
      'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"
      Egypt is Not explicitly an Arab nation. and when they reference the "three divine religions", that refers to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Each of which is practiced in Egypt. So what the censors are saying is that because the movie deals with serious religious matters in a cavalier fashion, it is blasphemous to all 3.
      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    73. Re:So? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      If you have to question something that is the "truth," then perhaps it's not "truth."

      Only try to realize the truth. There is no Truth.

    74. Re:So? by operagost · · Score: 1
      The age of those remains were probably determined by carbon dating, which is by no means a flawless process. They may have also been determined merely by the strata in which they were contained, an even less reliable process due to the possibility of tectonic or hydrological activity.

      The discovery of these remains casts no further doubt on the Creationist view, since there is already much doubt from other prehistoric finds. There is also much evidence for Creation. It's not a "done deal".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    75. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you don't know anything about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    76. Re:So? by Future+Linux-Guru · · Score: 1

      Jehovah's Witnesses mesh very, very well into todays modern society.

      Their headquarters are in New York; they are on the internet.

      Can't get more modern than that, my friend.

      Info at: www.watchtower.org

    77. Re:So? by maraist · · Score: 1

      since when has Christianity not been civilized in your life time?

      Our parent's generation still lynched people in the name of "Christianity" and God.

      There was a gross perversion of the message of Christianity which empowered some caucasians into believing that only they were important in this world.

      Given that this sort of ethnicism and nationalism is inherently anti-social. I can't imagine that the argument uncivilized is too hard to establish.

      As far as I can tell, Christianity and Islam and Judaism were never uncivilized by even today's standards. In fact, these religions were the epitomy of civility by effectively defining (over time) what the social norms should be. Judaism/Islam even went so far as to define the hygine/diet of the people.

      The issue (and Irony) is that Islam/orthodox Judaism's definitions became the central focus of their lives, and the concept of progress was often at odds with traditional values. Thus hasidic jews still live in a nether-culture, and we tend to view Islamic nations as stagnant and backwards.

      But you need not look far to find examples in Christianity. Some sects, (methodists, etc) managed to duplicate the strict social definitions of life as did the Jews and Muslims. Moreover, some puritans of the new world (later the Menonites and Amish) followed in this exact stagnant culture. Even today, advances in genetics, and reproductive health are suppressed by various Christian groups.

      The problem I have with all these cultures, is that they seem to accept the social / technological aspect of the day of their foundation, and define it as good enough, then never advance further. Thus Amish have a different technology / culture than Muslims have different '' than Hasidic Jews. In my opinion it's arbitrary and thus exemplarary of it's own futility (what if the Amish waited another 200 years before founding, would they be allowed to eat at McDonalds?)

      Granted these groups have the trend that they wish to be self sufficient.. But this sufficiency often involves the help of their community (building bars, etc).. If you so broadly define self-sufficiency, then technically our self-indulgent highly industrialized modern world is self sufficient. (Though the caveat is that each person should have the skills necessary to partake in every action of the community).

      Religion == consolidation of human thought / producing like-minded people => greater abundance of people acting in a compatible way => greater aggregate power ==> corruptable power ==> corruptable force ==> tyrranical rulership.

      Thus Christianity is an idea (though many over-emphasize its subtleties (namely Catholics (of which I am)), and happens to not expouse war or cruelty, and thus is compatible with civilized society. Judaism / Islam recognize capital punishment (if you consider your peers symbolic of the state), and advocate waring for various causes. But in general are peaceful, and were some original examples of civilized society (as above).

      But people will eventually maximize the utility of a device, and consequently all three of these religions have becomes instruments of war, torture, oppression, etc.

      My personal opinion is that organized religion is inherently uncivilized given enough time to beuracracize. Sure it's great at it's beginnings, with martyrs, and great stories and pride to pass onto children. New discoveries of ways of life and philosophies. But whenever mysticism is the basis of a culture, it becomes hard to close up loopholes that ambitious people find.

      Individual religion is fine, even active egnosticism (uncertain questing for the truth) or atheism, but organizations are inherently abusive, and need to change regularly (Thomas Jefferson philosophy here).

      Thankfully Hindi, Budhism, Christianity, Judaism and even Islam have all segmented, giving competition amongst themselve, and providing some semblance of accountability (make outrageous interpretations of ancient scripture, and you'll necessitate a split in your culture).

      --
      -Michael
    78. Re:So? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Umm this rings a bit hollow given the Matrix Reloaded is a movie created by Hollywood

      Most people probably wouldn't call the Wachowski brothers "Hollywood".

      Al Jazerra is pilloried in the US and yet represents the view of the US from the Arab nations

      Al Jazerra is tabloid trash, though among Arab nations' state-controlled media it is rather moderate and progressive--to me demonstrating a failed civilization. Russian "news" is little better. And why is it that North Korean news readers always sound really angry? I guess there are <angry> markups around any story about the West.

    79. Re:So? by santeri · · Score: 1
      A side point: what this means is probably that we will never see another country that joins a thriving, evangelical religion with a modern, pluralistic, technically advanced society. The only way to have both is to completely separate them as in the US (most of the time), which then limits the extent to which religion can influcence the development of the nation and culture.

      I would say that you really don't know what you're talking about if you are using the US as an example of the separation of church and state. Really.

      I can hardly think a more fundamentally Christian administration in their portrayal and all their actions than the forementioned. Well, maybe Ireland, but even they have more common sense when dealing with ethical issues (most of the time, anyway).

      --
      ______________
      OTTERS RULE.
    80. Re:So? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      But they do not have the right to free expression, to peacefully protest, the suppression of the people is what is causing the problem.

      Assuming that "the problem" that you mean is that the repression of the people is causing is religious extremism, then you're correct. State media in the region have been brainwashing people into believing that it's the U.S. that is responsible for all of their misery instead of the repressive governments, and terrorist organizations have tapped into the same anger (plus other cult techniques). Bin Laden is essentially at war with the government of Saudi Arabia, and he attacked the U.S. only because he knew that would stir the pot and put his government under extreme pressure and maybe cause it to collapse.

      In that situation, it is my sincere belief that the problems must be addressed by openness, by allowing people to speak, and by allowing them to participate in society.

      Not likely in a military dictatorship. Their only hope is to be 'liberated' by the U.S., though there is great danger of instead being taken over by Islamic extremists, which would be an even more repressive dictatorship than what they have now.

    81. Re:So? by aussersterne · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hmmm... not too bright here.

      What you've suggested is that it's a good idea to risk the beginning of what could be a bloody and oppressive sectarian revolution in a large north african state in which exists with some measure popular support for international terrorism, all because it's somehow wrongheaded not to allow a few people to see "The Matirx Reloaded"?

      If a film like this one contributes to unrest among the populace that leads to the forceful replacement of the current regime (one of the few that has made peace with Israel) with a religious state, those few who wanted to see it would likely not see another western film for decades to come.

      This is not a matter of a few busybodies "picking on" others because they just don't like movies too much, and what you call "facing up" in this case would actually be a decision made without any regard for or understanding of the larger political and social realities in the region.

      Could it be that your analogy is simply not a good one? Or that it is, in fact, silly?

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    82. Re:So? by Zeriel · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Ironically enough, Muslim/Arab scholars used to be (during the dark ages) regarded as the most advanced scholars, scientists, and doctors the world had yet seen.

      It almost seems to me that a post a few back was right--that Islam is going through the same cycles as Christianity, we just have a 600-year head start.
      1. First few centuries -- marginal, growing religion that replaces previous religions.
      2. Next few centuries -- golden age of religious philosophy, learning, study.
      3. Next few centuries -- dark age of dogmatic fundamentalism, superstition, and religious rulership

      Repeat 2 and 3 ad infinitum. Hence, the Christian world is setting up for another dogmatic, superstitious, fundamentalist dark age.

      I'm going to go research some eastern religions (shinto, buddhism, hinduism) and see if they do the same thing. Anyone know?
      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    83. Re:So? by danro · · Score: 1

      There is also much evidence for Creation. It's not a "done deal".

      Right.
      Anyway, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Interrested?

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    84. Re:So? by Cowboy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about this. You can be pretty certain that for Arabic audiences, the concept of "Zion" would make much more sense when the translation refers to Paradise instead of a Judeo-Christian concept of New Jerusalem.
      As it should be. Religious words are always freighted with greater meanings--that's why they're used in The Matrix, for pete's sake (another religious phrase!). That doesn't mean that one religion's words translate well into other cultures--the concepts should, though.

    85. Re:So? by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      It is staggering. I mean, if Pakistan released a movie where all the bad guys lived in a city called Zion, and the film was about how the evil city of Zion had to be wiped off the face of the earth, you know, people in Israel wouldn't have any problem with that, they'd understand that hell, Zion is just a four character moniker for some fictional evil city in a film.

      Now, I'm not condoning censorship, but it's silly to ignore the power of symbolism. The fact that the human city is called Zion has everything to do with the US's Judeo Christian roots, even if most people here don't realise it.

      A similar comparison is when we see footage of the middle east with people saying "God willing we will be victorious. Allah is great! ". It sounds like primitive religious zealotry. But compare it with:

      "Jesus, I'm like really praying we win, like please God, come on, let's do it! Yeah!"

      Both phrases are full of religious invective, but the second just sounds like a regular cheer.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    86. Re:So? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      I would say that you really don't know what you're talking about if you are using the US as an example of the separation of church and state. Really.

      Them's big words coming from someone who lives in Finland. I'm a US citizen, I'm an atheist, and I've been studying these issues for years - including reading dozens of books and hundreds of magazine articles on the subject. I think I know what I'm talking about. Snotty Europeans (and quite a few Americans) seem to forget that our establishment clause does not prohibit religious people from serving in government, or prevent religion from informing their political beliefs. Our Constitution does not try to banish religion from all sectors of public life, only to minimize its interference with government and vice-versa. George Bush is not prohibited from holding White House prayer meetings, and I'm not prohibited from torching a Bible. Everyone wins.

      Most of us, in fact, are perfectly comfortable with religion, as long as we're not told what to think. It's imperfect, but it usually does a good job of protecting everyone's religious rights - better than quite a few European nations that have a very vague understanding of the concept of "pluralism".

    87. Re:So? by StealthBadger · · Score: 1

      The same question could be turned around thusly:

      Could the producers of a film for an international audience have chosen other than to use a name weighted with such intense political, historic, and religious conflicts?

      If they were seeking harmony, why not Eden?

      Or representing an exile or remove, why not Coventry?

      Hell, Syndey or Augusta would have done that without causing so much trouble, the theological and philosophical underpinnings of the story wouldn't have been weakened by the use of a different name.

      --
      Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
    88. Re:So? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars.

      Of course! we dont want to crimp the local behaivoir/customs by introducing silly western ideas like rewarding good and discouraging/punishing bad. How dare we keep the other kids for tormenting the child that is smarter....

      I really feel for teachers in other lands, many cultures promote bad behaivoir and lose their minds when we teach things like hygene, manners, and free thinking. it must be hard to just go through the motions instead of actually teaching the bright children on how to think and possibly get out of the poverty their ancestors deems was required for the past 1000 years.

      If egypt is so unstable that a simple movie will start civil war and cause everything to collapse... they have more troubles than they are letting the rest of us know about...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    89. Re:So? by StealthBadger · · Score: 1
      Real charity begins with your local communities and churches. Thats where money does the most good. Not some national progam.

      Just a question. Do you believe that Social Security is ineffective, or are you simply not noticing it because it's always been there?

      --
      Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
    90. Re:So? by tshak · · Score: 1

      Not all Catholics are Christians, and very few Christians are Catholic. Catholic is almost a subclass of Christianity, in some cases with overriding methods.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    91. Re:So? by t0ny · · Score: 1
      The problem is when you have a situation where all "truth" is supposed to be handed down to the people from their supposed "enlightened" leadership (like in Egypt), the last thing they want to do is allow any kind of book, movie, person, etc. which will cause people to question what they think they know. I'm not saying its just their religion, either, since the Roman Catholic Church and many other religions in the past have done the same thing.

      They may as well start banning any form of philosophy, as well. It must really be tough fighting ideas...

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    92. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm going to go research some eastern religions (shinto, buddhism, hinduism) and see if they do the same thing. Anyone know"

      I'm not sure you can include Buddhism - always seems to be more than a religion. It's followers never shout at people to get them to join, kill things in some fictional gods name etc. It appears to be more akin to some sort of psychological system. It's followers have demostrably happier lives (as current Western research shows every few years). I like it, and i`m reading about it now. It's one of the reasons I'm glad that the US removed the Taliban, even if they did it for mostly wrong reasons. Destroying Buddhist statues is just wrong.

    93. Re:So? by MosesJones · · Score: 1

      Al Jazerra is tabloid trash, though among Arab nations' state-controlled media it is rather moderate and progressive--to me demonstrating a failed civilization. Russian "news" is little better. And why is it that North Korean news readers always sound really angry? I guess there are markups around any story about the West.

      Ummm welcome to how the rest of the world views CNN.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    94. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, isn't it "playing with other people's lives" by determining which movies they can see? Which books they can read? Who they can talk to? Where do you draw the line?

      And sometimes it is advantageous to handle a situation from a distance, where you aren't influenced by the bias that has been set into every citizen from birth.

      I'm not saying he's right, but you're doing the exact same thing you're preaching against.

    95. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Sigh* You THINK you get it, but you are just guessing as to what the best situation is. Same as everybody else. Get off your fucking pedestal "Christianfreak".

    96. Re:So? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There is also much evidence for Creation. It's not a "done deal".

      Yeah, who's to say God didn't change the half-life of Carbon 6000 years ago when he was busy making men?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    97. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to your argument; the government should subsidize cigarette smoking; because the more people smoke, the earlier they die and the less money gets spent on them in old age benefits.

    98. Re:So? by JCCyC · · Score: 1

      'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'

      Ha. So they believe Jesus both is and isn't the Son of God? Yeah, right.

      Some people's logic contortions to give credibility to a bunch of mutually contradictory religions but not to unbelief are truly pathetic.

    99. Re:So? by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      I suspect they're saying that, in a country with a history of Islamist resistance, multiple assassination attempts on President Mubarak, semi-regular spates of suicide bombings which have killed hundreds of people over the last 20 years, a country which has long been a fertile recruiting ground for the various armed Islamist groups, from Ayman al-Zawahiri down, in a country which has been struggling to maintain a secular state while its leaders are condemned as apostates and traitors, puppets of a purported US agenda to corrupt the beliefs of devout muslims, religion matters.

      Seems to me they have bigger things to worry about than whether people are watching the Matrix or not.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    100. Re:So? by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

      *ahem*

      So, was this post really offtopic?

      NeoBob: So does 1 + 1 really equal 2?

      FredMorph: The Oriface says that in the Matrix all numbers equal all numbers, think deeper into your soul and you will find the answer.

      NeoBob: No really, it's like simple math or something.

      FredMorph: No you must not believe your eyes and ears, evil false mathematicians are continuously spreading false concepts of number reality.

      NeoBob: Woah, heavy dude...

    101. Re:So? by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Well, in a nation of 70 Million UH YEAH, They have Christians and Jews and Muslims and don't wish to exacerbate the religious strife that is already on edge.

      AND Since according to the Koran, Muslims are supposed to respect others who worship the God YHWH the Egyptian Government is acknowledging these views and trying to keep the domestic peace.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    102. Re:So? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The root definition of civilized is "practicing the art of living in cities". It's opposite is either rural or primitive.

      We tend to apply all sorts of face-saving words to it, but basically most of them are popular lies. Or current customs. It used to be considered civilized to tip your hat to every woman you passed. Few people now consider that in any way basic. And except for current customs, rural folk are at least as gentle and considerate as city dwellers. So that's not a real part of the definition, but merely flattering self puffery. It's more civilized to avoid dark alleys. Not doing so can be dangerous, so avoiding them is a part of the art of living in cities.

      That's how it seems to me, anyway.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    103. Re:So? by jafac · · Score: 1

      The way it was explained to me by a proselytizing muslim was, that yes, Jesus both is and isn't the Son of God.
      He's the Son of God in that, all men are Sons of God.

      But he's not the literal Son of God the way Christians believe it, or the way Roman Pagans believe Hercules is the literal Son of Zeus.

      On the surface, this line of reasoning means to not be offensive to Christians. But unfortunately ends up being so when you follow it to it's conclusion.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    104. Re:So? by jafac · · Score: 1

      With that logic, they should tax type-A personalities more, because, though they enjoy working 100-hour weeks, they cost the rest of us more money by being at higher risk for heart attacks and strokes.

      No, wait, they already DO tax them more. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    105. Re:So? by ccnull · · Score: 1

      Nobody would seriously suggest that the Matrix is some sort of basis for new world order.

      Ha! You should see some of the e-mail I've gotten in response to my review of the movie. For the record, it's here.

    106. Re:So? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't genetic screening be put into place so that you can tax people who are more predisposed to certain illnesses?

      --
      Q.
    107. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN is not America, CNN is anti-America if anything, so try again skippy. Try watching Foxnews.

    108. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Break the cycle then. To say "that is how it is" only adds to the problems, which is why the US is the best country on the Earth. Someone didn't like living in England and being pushed around by the royals, so they got on a boat and took a trip that could kill them. They then lived in an unfamiliar place that killed off many of the people that were only there to better their lives. It's too bad that Eqyptians and most other groups in that area are just cowards who don't want a better life. "Give me liberty or give me death", say that in the middle east and they will say "ok, bang".

    109. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit! If a country can fall due to seeing a movie, then it should be nuked off the face of the earth. 2000 years later, they can have a Matrix trilogy viewing party in the place where all the shitheads were killed. The problem with that whole area is that they need killing, all of them, there are no innocents. A child left living will only learn to kill others, so pre-emptively take care of all of them now. If they want to watch something, lets send them a few milliseconds of bright light, then a more peaceful world.

    110. Re:So? by plugger · · Score: 1

      A cult which teaches that those who leave will be destroyed at some unspecified future time. I would disagree with the statement that you can't get more modern than that. They also describe outside society as 'the world' or filled with 'worldly things', in contrast to their own utopia of gossip and backbiting.

      Alternative info here:

      http://www.freeminds.org/

      And if you were ever 'in the truth' (hah),this might give you a laugh:

      Armageddon Okies

      Sorry to get all serious about it, but I was spoonfed that crap from age 2-16, and some of the fear still lingers.

    111. Re:So? by washirv · · Score: 1

      heh. reminds me of:
      Journalist: Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?
      Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

    112. Re:So? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      It's like a gas tax. People who use the most gas, and therefore use the roads the most,
      [snip]

      Stop. That's not true. If I buy gasoline for a lawnmower, that mower is not using the roads at all, but I'm still paying the tax. Also, two cars of equal weight put the same wear on the road even if one is more fuel efficient than the other and thus pays less gas tax.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    113. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didnt answer the question. "Is a movie put out by a bunch of greedy uncaring old men worth getting hundreds of your people killed?"

    114. Re:So? by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Palestine?

    115. Re:So? by Jerrry · · Score: 1
      For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

      Is it that the average Egyptian doesn't want to see the movie, or is it that the Egyptian government doesn't want him to see the movie. I suspect the latter.

      Concerning the many religious aspects of the movie, I'd rather describe these as some uninspired mysticism.

      I consider all of the major religions of the world to be uninspired mysticism. What is new here?

    116. Re:So? by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      If I buy gasoline for a lawnmower, that mower is not using the roads at all, but I'm still paying the tax.

      Hmmm - so you're out, what, $5 per year in extraneous taxes on lawnmower fuel? Of course your lawnmower is using that filthy 2-cycle engine, so consider it a pollution penalty.

      Also, two cars of equal weight put the same wear on the road even if one is more fuel efficient than the other and thus pays less gas tax.

      Generally, two cars of similar weight are going to get similar mileage. The difference will usually be negligible.

      The point is that the gas tax is pretty fair. The extra effort it would take to do it more accurately wouldn't be worth it. Besides, both examples you mentioned involved excessive pollution which, in my opinion, should result in penalties anyway. It all works out in the end.

    117. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The level of condecension and disrespect to the population that is needed to do such a thing is staggering.

      I think there was a movie made by the french about 9/11 that was considered anti-american by some, and hence presumably many theatres in the US didn't show it or didn't show it for long a long duration, if any theatres did. X-rated movies usually don't get shown in most movie theatres around the world. In Germany, the publication of Mein Kampf is not allowed. Are these examples of a staggering level of condecension and disrespect to the population? It seems like censorship, whenever occuring in a non-Western society, is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen to mankind according to many Western critics, even though the critics don't even live in those non-western societies or particularly understand those societies. Perhaps there should be another Miss World in Africa? Or perhaps sometimes, in some nations, the government and the mass media has the RESPONSIBILITY to censor for the good of the public.

    118. Re:So? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you want to punish for pollution, that's an entirely seperate issue from charging for road maintenence. Gas taxes don't pay for pollution cleanup. They only pay for roads. Regardless of whether I pay $5 or $50 for gas tax, none of it is having any effect on pollution. And NO, two cars of equal weight don't have equal mileage. For one thing, not even if they are the same model. A car with 100,000 miles on it will have much worse gas mileage than one bought yesterday, even if they are the same make and model. Yes, you can make it feel better by pretending the gas tax is also paying for pollution, but that's not where the funds are going. And taxing for the sake of making a disincentive doesn't work either. Tax polluting cars more than clean ones and you end up giving the government an incentive to discourage companies from making cleaner cars.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    119. Re:So? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      I think these are very good points. The people in Egypt who decided not to permit the showing of this movie obviously know a great deal more than anyone else in the world how their people are going to react to it. They're insiders; they've lived there all their lives. If they reasonably think the movie is going to upset and disturb people, and possibly cause all kinds of problems, then they're probably absolutely right and their decision makes a lot of sense.

      I suspect that many of the people here on Slashdot who are annoyed about this issue suffer from a common Western ailment: they believe that other people think and feel exactly the way they do. They can't imagine a person from another culture having completely different reactions to things.

      Even something as simple as a hand gesture is often wildly different between cultures. I've read that the common American "thumbs up" gesture is a gross insult in parts of the middle East and Africa. The New-Yorkish "Fuck off" gesture, brushing your fingers past your chin and outward, means "I don't understand" in other parts of the world. Everyone reacts differently to *everything*. How can we Westerners get annoyed when someone in the middle East doesn't like one of our movies, and bans it? It's life; be sensible.

      Interestingly enough, the middle finger seems to mean the same thing everywhere, and has meant exactly the same thing for the past two thousand years. Isn't that amazing? The ancient Romans called it "the infamous finger". Even when everything else is different everywhere, we all have one thing in common. :)

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    120. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a smoker you are LESS of a strain on the system than other people. Because smokers tend to die young, they save the country millions in extra entitlement payouts. Also, the medical care demanded by he eldery is far more expensive than jsut one lost bout with cancer when you're 40.

      It may seem counter-intuitive, but if the ONLY thing we cared about is "strains on the system" then we would be subsidizing smoking, not taxing it. But, of course, money saved isn't the only thing we care about: we're also patenalists who don't want you to do something we don't like you doing.

    121. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Oh good: philosophically indefensible relatavism. I don't think the Matrix is any sort of deep insightful film, but people have a right to decide for themselves what to see and not to see. The average Egyptian isn't forced to go see a movie: they can choose to. That you so easily buy the "we know what's best for everyone in society" stance of the censors is pretty scary, and borders on a weird racialist stance wherein you see all "Egyptians" as some monolithic entity that has a common perception.

    122. Re:So? by cpeterso · · Score: 1

      Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches
      Had bellies with stars.
      The Plain-Belly Sneetches
      Had none upon thars.

      Those stars weren't so big. They were really so small
      You might think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.

      But because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
      Would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
      With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they'd snort
      "We'll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!"
      And whenever they met some when they were out walking
      They'd hike right on past them without even talking.

      When the Star-Belly Children went out to play ball,
      Could a Plain-Belly get in the game...? Not at all.
      You only could play if your belly had stars
      And the Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.

    123. Re:So? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      Most brands of Christianity that survive today have learned to cope with modernity in all its varied forms.

      One word rebuttal: Evolution. The Christian Right doesn't just reject but actively attacks one of the pillars of biological science. I suspect the only reason they aren't as vitriolic about astrophysics, which also centers on an ancient universe, is that Evolutionary theory is still being taught.

      One parting shot....

      This is the key point: no thriving, modern democracy that I can think of has been able to advance as long as its government is tied to religious leaders.

      attached below is the complete list of self-proclaimed athiestic American Presidents.

    124. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      What is with this? Everyone seems to think that Zion was destroyed. But this is never mentioned in the movie. What is mentioned is that the expiditionary force is destroyed: the one that went out to stop the Sentinels. Zion is still waiting around to be destroyed in the next movie.

    125. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Insensitive, because you just suggest, from the comfort of your couch, that other people's lives should be put at risk.

      So you'll just assume that whatever government leaders tell you risks lives actually does? Yes commandant! I understand! If they told you that democracy risks lives, would you sing their praises?

    126. Re:So? by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      Your last point was especially interesting. I'll have to think about that one.

      However, I still contend that the gas tax is the best solution on the table for making the users pay for the service. What would be better? Toll booths? GPS mileage trackers? Tire taxes?

      It's better to go with a system that's 95% accurate then to triple costs and effort to acheive 99% accuracy. Because ultimately, people will just have to be taxed even more to pay for the government's new precision mileage tracking infrastructure (that does the same thing as the gas tax except it accounts for lawnmowers and old cars).

    127. Re:So? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      A cult which teaches that those who leave will be destroyed at some unspecified future time. I would disagree with the statement that you can't get more modern than that.

      Yes, but that's just a form of though-control (as is used by MANY religions... the idea of hell in Christianity being the most obvious example. The JW's just use other methods, like overt peer pressure (eg, discommunication), to manipulate their members). What it is not is an overt rejection of technology as exemplified by the Amish and other luddite-esque religious groups, which was the grandparent poster's point.

      Basically, comparing the JW's to the Amish is like comparing Christianity to Buddhism... they're completely different. :)

    128. Re:So? by tilrman · · Score: 1

      "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

      This may be the quote you are looking for. It's probably not the exact quote either, but I think it's pretty close from some Google cross-referencing.

    129. Re:So? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      Eastern culture is fragile

      Survival of the fittest then.

      --
      Q.
    130. Re:So? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      I think you need to rethink your idea that very few Christians are Catholic: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christi anity

      Probably true in the US, though about ~25% is hardly very few.

      --
      Q.
    131. Re:So? by haggar · · Score: 1

      You spelled out my thoughts so clearly. I, too, am wondering why is that journalists (most of the time) take the stance that it's better not stir the shit, i.e. let the bad guys do their things because if we go after them, they might get mad at us, and that's more trouble. I know this is more of a tangent to your thought, but it's related.
      Thankfully, the US govt. seems to have taken a position of principle, more or less. (disclaimer: I am a european, and quite like it here in finland)

      --
      Sigged!
    132. Re:So? by haggar · · Score: 1

      'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...

      oohhh, and you were _this_ close ---> || but no cigarette: Zion is a synonim of Jerusalem, the "eternal city", the place to which Jews from all over the world are drawing to - in spite of all the conquerers and enslavers that kept them, during the millennia, away from it. You are right that there is such a thing as Mt. Zion (or Sion, most often), but the term "Zionism" refers to the political (and social and religious) movement to bring Jews back to their eternal lighthouse, Jerusalem.

      --
      Sigged!
    133. Re:So? by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1
      Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar?

      *Gasp*

      That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

      Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

      Re-read that comment. Where did the above poster call "The Trush" whatever is discussed in the Matrix? They are not saying that the Matrix suggests a "truth", but that it merely calls "truth" into question--something which may inspire thinking for one's self.

      It's sad that governments do this, but not surprising. I imagine it's much easier to maintain control over people who don't try to think for themselves. Whether you like it or not, it's the government's path of least resistance.

    134. Re:So? by demonbug · · Score: 1
      If you have to question something that is the "truth," then perhaps it's not "truth."


      Conversely, just because you can question something does not mean it is not true.

    135. Re:So? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      *nods* I rather approve of Buddhism myself--I practice Zen as much as possible, though I admit to a vast sea of ignorance concerning the history of Buddhism before the Zen movement.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    136. Re:So? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Hah, ha, ha. So people from the West can handle the truth heh? Maybe the fact is that the Egyptians want to focus on the truth here and now, like who will the US invade next, and how will this affect me, rather than concerned with philosophical tautlogies such as do I exist. If you can call being assaulted in every medium so that westerners don't really think about the truth, as questioning the truth then perhaps it is you who needs a wake up call. If you think that it is more reasonable to be discussing a movie, than how evil the most powerful governments in the world have become, then it is time for you to wake up...

    137. Re:So? by texaport · · Score: 1


      church

      Separation

      State

    138. Re:So? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      a small minority who are ignored by everyone else
      until they boycott disney...

    139. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have watched a different movie. The one I saw said that the only one that they found alive was the guy that Agent Smith infected.

    140. Re:So? by plugger · · Score: 1

      You are right to make the point that JWs are happy to live in the modern world. It's a shame that they judge that the modern world as under the control of Satan, yet readily partake of its benefits 'for now'.

      My original reply (and this one) are just showing sensitivity to a perceived defence of the JW org. That just pushes all the wrong buttons (those idiots put the fear of God into me, quite literally). Basically I'll challenge anything which looks like a defence of them.

      I'll climb down off my soapbox now :)

    141. Re:So? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      State media in the region have been brainwashing people into believing that it's the U.S. that is responsible for all of their misery instead of the repressive governments,

      Uhm, in Egypt, the US owns the state media. In Egypt (and Jordan), it is illegal to critisize US war efforts.

      And because the US wants it to be that way, the US doesn't stand up to put pressure on their allies to allow dissent.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    142. Re:So? by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      True, but dead smokers don't contribute to the economy. Lung cancer doesn't wait until you're retired to off you. Cancer isn't the only health problem caused by smoking, either. I could develop asthma or whatnot from it too, I'm sure. The cigarette packs always tell me stuff like that.

    143. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, as I wrote in my review of this movie on my website, in Matrix Reloaded, the last remaining city of mankind is named after a holy name for Jerusalem: Zion. One wonders about the significance of this, especially given that Hollywood is run by Jews. Before I get conflagrations of flames, this is not a racist statement, I am fond of the Jews and know quite a few personally so no offence intended. That Hollywood is essentially Jewish is simply a statement of fact and I don't see how stating it can be construed as offensive, unless people are offended by the rampant nepotism that goes on. Marlon Brando pointed this out, and all hell was let loose, and lackeys like that scientology weirdo, Tom Cruise, were bullied by Hollywood into signing a public statement smearing Brando as anti-Semitic. Hollywood was founded by Eastern European Jews, and studio heads and other top-level execs have been Jewish ever since. I'm not a fan of Hollywood, but that is merely because they produce far too much unoriginal crap these days, and freeze out international cinema, via their monopolistic distribution practices. Worse, Hollywood is buying increasingly draconian copyright laws from Congress to remove more of our freedoms to copy and distribute movies we have bought and supposedly own. Anyway, back to my original point: given the fact that Hollywood is a Jewish institution, it is curious that the Matrix trilogy seems to concern the need to have a city called "Zion" (Jerusalem?) claim the Earth from its enemies. Could this all be another slice of propaganda supporting Israel against Palestinians, against the world? Zionist conspiracy theories ahoy! :)

      -eadon.com

    144. Re:So? by tshak · · Score: 1

      There are two reasons why I don't agree with that larger number.

      A) Many people are "raised in the Catholic Church", and therefore consider themselves Catholic. This doesn't mean that they are currently practicing the religion.

      B) Partly because of (A), but not exclusive to, not all Catholics are Christians even though officially as a religion they are considered Christians.

      I think it's difficult for a survey to determine how many Christians are truely Catholic, and how many Catholics are truely Christians. For the time being I'd rather rely on my anecdotes.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    145. Re:So? by Quikah · · Score: 1

      A) How many christians are raised in the church but don't curently practice?

      B) How is a catholic not a christian?

      --
      Q.
    146. Re:So? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Gasoline is one means of making cars travel on roads. It's not the only means. A heavy electric car with massive battery packs also wears the road down, and pays no gas tax. Hydrogen is anothe possibility. So, with roads being payed for only by gasoline burning cars, there is little reason for the government to encourage developing alternate fuel source cars. The current system is not sustainable. It worked in the past because there was only one kind of fuel, and it's uses for other purposes was negligable. That will soon no longer be true. You can't tax electricial charges for road use since people could charge their car from home. (And if you make it illegal to do so, you are setting up a mandatory customer base for electrical charging stations, and that presents it's own type of problem.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    147. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      The only they found alive from the EXPIDITION, not from Zion period. The infected guy was part of one of the crews, remember: he wanted his captain to be part of Morphy's group.

    148. Re:So? by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Often, it DOES wait until you're older and less productive. And again: we're not talking about the economy in that sense: we're talking about how much it costs society in terms of costs it imposes on others (via medical care).

    149. Re:So? by tshak · · Score: 1

      How many christians are raised in the church but don't curently practice?


      Than they aren't a Christian. It's improper to assume that just because someone goes to church (Catholic or Protestant) that they are a Christian - period.

      How is a catholic not a christian?

      A Christian is merely someone who attempts to follow Christ - it's not a religion in and of itself (although it's improperly defined as one many times). The Catholic church has a lot of people who worship Religion (read: Religiosity), the saints, Mary, the Pope etc. None of this has to do with Christ. So, although many Catholics follow Christ and are therefore Christians, being a practicing Catholic does not make you a Christian.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  3. wow... by lingqi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think now how well Bruce Almighty will fare in Egypt just became one of the most curious questions I have about the movie industry.

    Or, heck, Dogma... (though they might like that one b/c they think it's making fun of the catholics)

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opening salvo in what became a heated and often surreal religious war of words arrived on August 19 from Rabbi Abraham Hecht, president of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who claimed to speak for half a million Jews. Speaking in Variety, he declared, "Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before."

      Hecht went on to make public his view that (life of) Brian "was produced in hell".

      After Hecht's denunciation, outraged religious leaders queued up to vent their spleen to any hack with a microphone, in stark contrast to other more liberal churchmen who defended the film's right to be shown.

      The voice of Protestant protest belonged to Robert EA Lee of the Lutheran Council, whose tirade against Brian - "crude and rude mockery, colossal bad taste, profane parody. A disgraceful assault on religious sensitivity" - was broadcast across 1 000 radio stations.


      Just Saying...

    2. Re:wow... by nihilus · · Score: 1

      Actually coptic catholicism has been a small but persistent force in Egyptian culture since pretty early after the start of christianity. (it is still surviving now, after how many centuries since Egypt had it's "Islam revolution"?)

      It's a catholic rite that owes alot to the elements in christianity that owe alot to traditional Egyptian religion!

      --
      Science: The original open source.
  4. And How Do the People Feel? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And how do the Egyptain people feel about having this decision made for them by others?

    Funny how that question never seems to be asked, or answered, in these articles.

    You know, if the Kingdom of God and Heaven could be brought down by a movie, we'd of been standing in the shards of it long since.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by neksys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, thats what governments do -- they make decisions for the citizenry based on percieved need. You forget that in many parts of the world, religion is intrinsic to everyday life -- the Church in many cases is the State. Religion is hugely important to most of the middle east... I daresay nearly as important as the "war on terror" is to the United States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light. Its all a question of cultural values. How do you feel that your government won't let you make "How to destroy government buildings for dummies"?

    2. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably same way we felt when Bush got elected.

    3. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by den_erpel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wether or not they are egyptians, we have decisions about content made for us by others who think they can decide "for the greater good" of all. Us westerers should stop looking down on other civilisations, we have it too as this article clearly shows. Germans can't see Nazis, Australians can't see red blood and Americans freak on the sight of sex.

      I can understand the caution of the film board in Egypt, after all, they don't want to see another Karnak massacre by some bunch of extremists, backed by a number of news papers (which will deny all responsibility of course).

      Avoiding extremist religious fanatics is hard as it is, so why wait until people get killed? In this case, I guess it is a small price to pay, ...

      --
      Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
    4. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by gilroy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:

      you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

      You know, I'm fairly out there on the cynical limb right now, but I don't think this is true. They might want to ban something that affected national security -- say, detailed classified info on Secret Service procedures -- but they wouldn't try to stop a pro-terrorist message. For now, at least, free speech is respected.


      Which is irrelevant, of course, because Media, Inc. would never dream of inconveniencing its masters with such a film. It would never get made because the sheep would bleat too loudly. The American public, informed or not, would likely avoid such a movie; its prospects for profit would be small; and Hollywood would not back that horse.


      Which raises the question (a la Matrix): What good is freedom of speech, if no one is saying anything?

    5. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by neksys · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You know, I'm fairly out there on the cynical limb right now, but I don't think this is true. They might want to ban something that affected national security -- say, detailed classified info on Secret Service procedures -- but they wouldn't try to stop a pro-terrorist message. For now, at least, free speech is respected.

      I see your point, and to some extent I agree -- however, our hold on free speech is becoming increasingly tenuous. After having seen first-hand websites with vaguely anti-american, pro-terrorism sentiments be shut down under the PATRIOT act and associated "homeland defense" laws, I'm having an increasingly difficult time trusting the US government to "respect" the average citizen's right to free speech.
    6. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by devious · · Score: 1

      indeed, as the quote says :
      'which we all respect and believe in.' sounds quite interesting to me.

    7. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      Same thing happens in the US as well... Remember the South Park movie? The original title was "South Park: Al Hell Breaks Loose" or something along those lines, untill the FCC or whatever censorship committee it was that was in charge at that time decided it was not cool to use the word "hell" in a cartoon movie. So Matt and Trey had to change the title to "South Park - Bigger, Longer, Uncut". The censorship committee apparently didn't understand the hidden meaning in this; that realy gave me a kick...

      But back to the subject now: same thing happens in the US too; movie scripts etc... have to be changed because some old yokels in much too expensive suits decide that we, the common populace, will turn into foul mouthed homicidal maniacs overnight after watching some violence and dirty language. Just listen how many times you'll hear the word "fuck" on MTV.

      Heck, on an even larger scale: I dare you to publicly state that you don't believe in the holocaust. Even that is forbidden, worldwide. And why? I mean, I wasn't there, I wouldn't know, but if I had some reason to believe it's all a big conspiracy I'd expect to be looked upon as a crazy goof with strange ideas, but I don't expect to land in jail just because I believe something different than the rest of you.

      ps: no, I'm not a negationist; this is just an example of censorship on a global scale. Now bug off, you frecking FBI goons in your black army helicopters!

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    8. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by SubliminalLove · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And here's another question for you:

      Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything? I've noticed a certain "anything that can be said, should be said" mentality in a lot of my fellow Ameicans, and I wonder how valid it is. Thoughts?

      My opinion at this moment, though it tends to waver, is that maybe it's a good thing terrorism-supporting movies aren't in vogue. Neither are movies cataloguing the mating habits of the turnip family. For speech to be useful, doesn't it need to have an audience?

      Anyway... my rambling is done... my karma remains neutral...

    9. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      Still doesn't give them the right to decide for me what I should or shouldn't see. If I am offended by the contents of a movie or a song or whatever, nobody FORCES me to watch it/listen to it. It's almost as if those governments seem to think that if something isn't forbidden, it automaticaly means it's compulsory. "If we don't forbid this movie in our country, we're in fact FORCING everybody to go look at it, even though they may take offence at the ideas portrayed in it. Better ban the movie, unless we want the entire country to fall to ruins due to the riots this movie will cause."

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    10. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What good is freedom of speech, if no one is saying anything?



      I am afraid freedom of speech is not the question. What good is freedom of
      speech if you have to deal with the consequences? I mean, if freedom of
      speech leads losing your job, or the government is harassing you
      when they start asking questions at your place of employment, or if you
      are arrested as "material witness" for many months; then, I would
      rather not have "freedom of speech".


      Then there is the issue of National Security, What does "national security" mean?
      It is my impression that blasphemy against God in Egypt, or blasphemy against Microsoft
      of the plutocracy in USA are in fact the national security issues. I hope I am wrong,
      but when the USA government bans "Acid Rain" as national security issue, then
      perhaps "national security" is not what you all thought.

    11. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by DragoonAK · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The ones who demanded that the Parkers change the South Park subtitle were the MPAA Ratings committee, which is a private organization. The FCC didn't have fuck all to do with it. The Parkers caved because if they didn't get an R rating only art house theaters would show them, not because if they didn't they'd be arrested. There is a difference here that you're missing. Same thing with the movie scripts: they're made tamer than some wish because it makes more money, not because the government will ban it otherwise.


      This breaks down somewhat with regards to the TV and radio, as they're publicly regulated, and the Republicans have tried to do the same thing with the Internet, but the Courts have been very clear: the First Amendment does not allow the kind of government censorship that is widespread almost everywhere else.


      And you won't land in jail in the US for denying the Holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the Nazis: you're thinking of Europe and Canada, where they don't quite get the whole freedom of speech thing.

    12. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't seen Michael Moore's movie, or how much money it brought in...

    13. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Eisenstein · · Score: 1

      Well how do you feel about the rating how old you have to be to view the film applied to films in the western world? Isn't it some kind of decision made by others too?

    14. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Troed · · Score: 1, Insightful
      How do US citizens feel about having been lied to about why they had to go to war with Iraq? About their government fabricating "evidence" placed in front of the UN?

      There are no weapons of mass destruction

      There are no connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

      Iraq never tried to buy uranium from Nigeria

      ... and the american people say "baa baa".


      (mod me down, but you can't avoid the facts)

    15. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Germans can't see Nazis, Australians can't see red blood and Americans freak on the sight of sex.


      That reminds me of a pic I saw on rotten.com (no, I don't spend my free time there). Basically, it was a pic of a guy who was half-eaten by wild dogs. He was naked from the waist down. I later ran in to that same pic somewhere else, and it was otherwise identical, except someone had cencored the guys penis from the pic (that was clearly visible in the first pic). So, it was OK to show half-eaten guy (a REALLY disturbing pic), but it was NOT OK to show that guys penis.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    16. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by echucker · · Score: 1

      Methinks the people who feel they should be seeing the movie will download it off the 'net anyway.

    17. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by mindriot · · Score: 1
      Which is irrelevant, of course, because Media, Inc. would never dream of inconveniencing its masters with such a film. It would never get made because the sheep would bleat too loudly. The American public, informed or not, would likely avoid such a movie; its prospects for profit would be small; and Hollywood would not back that horse.

      And that is, in some way, the only difference between the US since 9/11 and this Egyptian case -- the American Media/public is not censored by the government, but instead deliberately decides to censor itself (as could be seen by the relative lack of criticism/questioning regarding many events since and including 9/11).

      It's good to know you live in a country that promotes Free Speech, but it's no use if too many people avoid making use of it.

    18. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by kubrick · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything? I've noticed a certain "anything that can be said, should be said" mentality in a lot of my fellow Ameicans, and I wonder how valid it is. Thoughts?

      I'd rather make that decision myself than have someone else make it for me.

      (I'm not American, though, so obviously I'm not qualified to comment on this... after all, human rights are so well respected by the American Government.)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    19. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Shawn+Baumgartner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I treasure irreverence, even when taken to extremes, because among the outrage there lies those wonderful kernels of curiosity that the otherwise closed-minded might not have otherwise had the mental fortitude to face without having the issue thrown in their faces. The conclusion that they come to following such consideration isn't so important as how they came to that conclusion. I would much prefer it to yet another generation who maintain their most basic beliefs only because someone such as their mommies and daddies told them that was how things were and that was that.

      To use that example of movies that support terrorism (a bit broad lumping together all terrorists as being the same animal, as I don't see Islamic Jihad finding too much common ground with the IRA, so feel free to interpret "terrorism" as a particular group for clarity), I think that it would be refreshing to truly get to know and understand the perspective of those who would commit such heinous acts. We find it far too easy to have certain groups of people declared as "evil" and then read about them being summarily executed in foreign lands.

      Admittedly, the predominant attitude of "kill them all, now" would probably continue to dominate and perhaps even be accentuated after a better understanding is reached, but at least these death sentences would be delivered from a more informed perspective than that of blind fear. We might even be able to develop solutions that get at the root of the problem rather than simply treating the symptoms.

      As for the usefulness of speech, that is a stripe of a totally different color but one that is fairly self-regulating, since those who won't find it useful, such as those of us not in the turnip trade to reference your example, simply won't bother with it. Of course, that does make me wonder why these zealots are so deathly afraid of materials that make their people think, since they would likely walk away bored or find it to be highly comedic if they were so confident in their beliefs. But then I don't proclaim to understand the incredibly xenophobic world of those sort of religions, so I may simply be missing something incredibly obvious to those of you who do.

    20. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Goonie · · Score: 1
      The ones who demanded that the Parkers change the South Park subtitle were the MPAA Ratings committee, which is a private organization.

      But what if the only theatres within driving distance are MPAA members?

      Call it censorship, call it something else, but I don't see that much difference between a government suppressing something and a near-universal industry association suppressing something. It's still just as suppressed.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    21. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Jonathan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

      And _The Matrix_ *doesn't* do this? A bunch of incredibly self-righteous people hide from a more technological society, occasionally venturing out to do battle with the mainstream world. Innocent people get killed, but that's considered a-okay by the group's leaders.

    22. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by harakh · · Score: 1


      umm.. yeah. last time i checked Egypt wasnt really known for its high broadband penetration for the masses... Which means that its a very small "elite" of people that are able to download it - thus not making a huge difference since these people are probably considered intellectuals and have been in contact with all kinds of material that might not be good for the "public".

    23. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Guppy06 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "And how do the Egyptain people feel about having this decision made for them by others?"

      Considering the nature of Islamist extremism, I'd say that's exactly what they want. They want to put in some mullah or ayatollah to make such decisions for them and help them be "better" Muslims, keeping them safe from Crusader influence.

    24. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed out a couple of "ergo"s I think.

    25. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by gilroy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      For speech to be useful, doesn't it need to have an audience?

      The point of free speech is not, necessarily, that "useful" speech occur. It's more a bastion against the thinking that the government can say, a priori, what is "useful", or what is "true". Should everything that can be said, be said? Probably not. Who should make that determination? The citizens, through the discourse they choose to hold.
    26. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      It's good to know you live in a country that promotes Free Speech, but it's no use if too many people avoid making use of it.

      No one can preserve freedom for a people that simply does not care.
    27. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Hollywood is more like a club. Of course most films are for cash, and most are lousy copies of films that have made cash, but when it comes to
      academy awards time, the crappiest films with the most bizarre political agenda seem to get way more awards than the blockbusters. And didn't Russel Crow
      "lose" a best actor award because he pissed off "The Academy"? And I've seen many times awards given to people because they were about to croak and not because their acting was so great. So, Hollywood is more like highschool with a disproportionate amount of disfunctional stupid people full of gossip, politics, and bullying.

    28. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter as long as it isn't obvious enough that most people could make the connection.

      Besides, US pop culture has a long tradition of black-and-white good guys vs. bad guys scenarios where the good guys are justified in just about anything they do, although the most common outcome is the destruction of massive amounts of property.

      Killings by good guys can be justified by relatively minor offenses of the victims (parodied in Naked Gun 2 1/2 - Drebin has successfully killed so-and-so many drug dealers).

      The most shocking entertainment that could be produced would probably be something where people were portrayed as good guys and then in a sudden reversal it would turn out that they were wrong and managed to get innocent people killed, but they would refuse to admit to having done anything wrong. That would probably make a lot of people angry, because all they want is to be told that right and wrong is black and white and that what they believed all along is correct.

    29. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by bludstone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

      Like Star Wars?

      --

      no .sig
    30. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by the_consumer · · Score: 1
      I don't see that much difference between a government suppressing something and a near-universal industry association suppressing something

      Maybe a well aimed rifle butt to the face from a soldier will make you see the difference?

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    31. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but they wouldn't try to stop a pro-terrorist message. For now, at least, free speech is respected."

      Urrm, Free speech is protected is it? so long as you agree with certain things! Or had you not noticed that being patriotic means agreement with what the president says without question?

      If free speech is still protected then why oh why are the police injuring peace campaigners in the USA and all around the world?

      why are people being thrown out of shopping malls for anti-war t-shirts? why are kids thrown out of schools for world peace tshirts?

      - Because they are voicing an opinion perhaps?
      These people aren't even going as far as you say - in voicing pro-terrorist messages - they are just saying that the methods of dealing with the terrorists are not quite how they would like - and this is enough for them to be attacked by law enforcement agencies?

      free speech bah! its an illusion. Its free so long as you only say things that the non-elected oil baron government and the pigopolists with their hands in the politicians pockets agree with.

      peace

    32. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly: Mr Smith called Morpheus a terrorist in The Matrix

      One persons terrorist is the other persons freedom fighter

    33. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

      The Matrix does. Think of all those people killed on the Freeway as the big guns duked it out over the future of their world. Now think of all the people who dies in the Murrow Federal Bldg. How do we know that McVeigh and co. didn't blow up that building to destroy a secret gov't laboratory manufacturing water-soluble mind-control agents? We don't. Any more than the people in that car knew what was at stake when an Agent suddently jumped on their hood, destroying their car and sending them hurtling into the concrete barrier at 60 mph. I'm not saying that Al-Qaeda or the army of God or whoever are not evil wack jobs, but if they were in fact fighting a secret war for the greater good, against a shadowy over-power, would we know why innocent people had to die?

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    34. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Kombat · · Score: 1

      And you won't land in jail in the US for denying the Holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the Nazis: you're thinking of Europe and Canada, where they don't quite get the whole freedom of speech thing.

      I always find it ironic whenever a USAmerican tries to paint USAmerica as "freer" than Canada. In Canada, the legal age of consent is 14 (vs. 18 in the US), smoking 29 grams of pot won't land you in jail or give you a criminal record, the drinking age is 19 (vs. 21 in the US), prostitution is legal (as long as its all carried out in private), and copying CDs is perfectly legal. We have no PATRIOT act or DMCA breathing down our throats and threatening us at every digital turn.

      But sure - the US is freer, because you have more freedom with guns (although in Canada, it's perfectly legal to own many of the same guns). Suuuuuuure, whatever you say. Boy, it sure sucks to live up here in Canada. We've got all these other benefits I just listed, but I have to register my .50 cal handguns. Maybe I should move to the US.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    35. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously, because I'm gonna get modded down to hell for this...

      On tubgirl.com (you can enter the address in yourself, I'm not linking to it), the girl is tied up and has a shit geyser coming out of her ass, yet they censored her vagina with large blocky pixellation. That should leave you scratching your head.

    36. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I'd rather make that decision myself than have someone else make it for me.

      Well, it's a damned good thing Americans have that right, although you seem to claim we don't.

    37. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by AndrewWood · · Score: 1

      I, too, treasure irreverance. That is, I've always thought that people like Howard Stern, and the South Park creators, for example, are actually fulfilling a very important function. Which leads me to my answer to the first question - should people say anything, just because they can? Absolutely. The only way to keep a pathway open is to use it. If nobody was challenging the boundaries, I believe the boundaries would tend to shrink, in practice, socially, regardless of what is written in the constitution.

    38. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by mhlandrydotnet · · Score: 1
      I see your point, and to some extent I agree -- however, our hold on free speech is becoming increasingly tenuous. After having seen first-hand websites with vaguely anti-american, pro-terrorism sentiments be shut down under the PATRIOT act and associated "homeland defense" laws, I'm having an increasingly difficult time trusting the US government to "respect" the average citizen's right to free speech.

      Just keep in mind that the U.S. is a free and open society -- by that I mean we live in a system of checks and balances. I *WANT* my head of the Department of Homeland Defense to want to eliminate terrorism by any means possible. The beauty is, I can also rely on other groups -- voters, media, Political Parties -- to keep him in check. So the solution generally tends to fall in the middle.

      Think of Egypt now. Who/what is the check for this censorship? Slim to none. So their policies tend to be more extreme.

    39. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by kubrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is, and that's what the post I replied to seemed to be advocating.

      The limitation of the discussion to Americans seemed interesting as well, as if they are the only ones with the right to an opinion on this issue... the reason I linked to David Hicks' web page was to show that other people are affected when Americans decide to chuck human rights out of the window, it's not merely an internal matter. If he's committed a crime, charge him. In a court. You know, laws and things. Don't just lock him in a cage and forget about him.

      (The Aussie Government isn't doing anything to help matters, of course. Bastards. About what you'd expect, given their record of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time imprisoning refugees from those regimes in concentration camps in the desert. God, this country's fucked.)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    40. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by CaptRespect · · Score: 1

      -- Which raises the question (a la Matrix): What good is freedom of speech, if no one is saying anything? --

      Not saying something is still free speech.

      Because there comes a point when you no longer need to say anything about it because you've been proven wrong. If a movie came out with a pro-terrorist message people wouldn't see it or support it because people know that terrorism is bad and this has be proven a million times.

      It's like if I came out and said 1+1 = 1 and started complaining that no one was publishing my work. I have the right to say it, but others have the right not to say it which is just as powerful.

      The problem with Egypt is that they only alow this right to a few people instead of all the people.

    41. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I believe there were terrorist acts in Red Dawn (kids taking potshots at soldiers, planting bombs, etc.)

    42. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most shocking entertainment that could be produced would probably be something where people were portrayed as good guys and then in a sudden reversal it would turn out that they were wrong and managed to get innocent people killed

      The main reason audiences reject this kind of thing isn't because it's "shocking" but because it's an old, cheap trick. Kind of like ending your film with "it was all a dream!" or invalidating all the major premises of your first movie with the second (ala Matrix: Reloaded -- note the poor reviews and rapid plummet of box office revenue after opening weekend).

      This plot twist can and has been done correctly -- see Fight Club.

    43. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an admitted Fundamentalist Muslim, I beg to differ. You can't say ANYTHING right now--unless you're doing it as an AC.

      I am vehemently opposed to the state of Israel. I believe that the country (all of it) is the result of theft--a theft which should be undone. [Yes, I understand that Jews have a strong desire for a homeland of their own and that Muslims and Jews lived together (fairly) peacefully for centuries without the pogroms of Europe and will probably eventually arrive at a mutually acceptable, probably thriving, collaborative, respectful coexistence. That isn't the point.]

      People in the U.S. are being arrested and charged with terrorism and the "evidence" is that they made statements such as "death to Israel." Americans who were tortured into confessions in Israel and served time there are drummed out of jobs in the U.S. even though they are not being charged with any crimes here. If I were to walk around downtown with a T-shirt that said "End Israel," I'd be risking arrest (no, they wouldn't charge me with wearing a dangerous T-shirt, but you know how it goes ... they'd start by hassling you, handcuffing you, investigating you in every way, then, if they couldn't find anything substantial, they'd find an excuse to ticket you with at least something minor).

      I am using the example of Israel because it is a hot topic nowdays, but there are any number of topics which are verboten today. In an environment where even celebrities are being condemned (not only by other celebs and pundits but by Government Officials as well) for simply disagreeing with the decision to attack Iraq, do you really think that I could get away with making a movie that portrayed the Taliban resisting us in Afghanistan as freedom-fighters akin to our founding fathers? I don't. I think my name and complexion would land my butt in jail and Brian Ross of ABC would be doing another bang-up journalistic piece about "The Terrorists Among Us."

      As for Egypt, I find it amusing that people view it as some type of enlightened, liberal administration being forced to succumb to the whims of extremists. First, the regime in Cairo, like regimes throughout the Arab world, is an oppressive dictatorship. True, it's better than Saddam was, but not much. Second, the first Matrix movie was also banned at first, but then allowed through on appeal. The same will probably happen with this one.

      Finally, as for Matrix:Reloaded itself, I loved it--except for the pseudo-orgyesque dance scene which was not only unnecessary but totally out of place (my wife said that at that point she felt like Zion deserved to be destroyed by the Sentinels :-)). The issues of creation are simply irrelevant. People are allowed to have different theories regarding existence and it is interesting to learn what those theories are and see how they compare and contrast with my own views. Additionally, there is the fundamentalist fallback of "Yes, but there's still a real world outside of the matrix which has a creator, who made us, who made the machines, which made the matrix, which ..."

      Oh yeah, one other, perhpaps sinful, observation: Bellucci beats Moss any day of the week.

    44. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After having seen first-hand websites with vaguely anti-american, pro-terrorism sentiments be shut down under the PATRIOT act

      How about you list some of these alleged sites. Oh I forgot, you just made that up to support your arguement.

    45. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Us westerers should stop looking down on other civilisations, we have it too as this article clearly shows. Germans can't see Nazis, Australians can't see red blood and Americans freak on the sight of sex.

      And we all know that Americans have absolutely no access to pr0n...

    46. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

      You know, I'm fairly out there on the cynical limb right now, but I don't think this is true.


      How about Swordfish? Mafia movies? (Mafioso are non-secular domestic terrorists.) How about movies that include depictions of drug abuse? They don't seem to be banned.

    47. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      A bunch of incredibly self-righteous people hide from a more technological society, occasionally venturing out to do battle with the mainstream world.

      Star Wars had some rebel scum in it, too.

    48. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Terrorism can't be shown in a positive light. Terrorism is about killing and maiming harmless civilians, since terrorists aren't capable of going against armed soldiers. It's not about resisting authority or defending one's beliefs but about imposing those beliefs on others. What's happening now in Palestine with stepped up terrorist attacks shows that the objective is not a Palestinian state but the destruction of Israel.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    49. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Larsing · · Score: 1

      And you won't land in jail in the US for denying the Holocaust in an attempt to whitewash the Nazis: you're thinking of Europe

      Wrong! You are thinking of Germany. There is a slight difference, you know...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    50. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by StringBlade · · Score: 1
      You raise two questions that remind me of similar cliche questions:

      You said,

      • Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything?
      • For speech to be useful, doesn't it need to have an audience?
      To the first, I am reminded of, "[scientists] are so concerned about whether or not they can do it, they don't stop to think whether or not they should."
      And to the second, "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"

      My point being: there's certainly times when causing a commotion for the sake of getting attention only and standing behind free speech when it's probably better for one to keep his/her mouth shut, but more often there's good reason to raise a voice (or written word) in protest to protect rights or freedoms even when infringed only slightly -- think about what precidents small amounts of rights-stomping set.

      I also agree with another poster that freedom of speech doesn't speak at all to the utility of that speech. Just because no one's listening doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to speak your mind. The freedom is useful, not necessarily the words spoken.

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    51. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by DragoonAK · · Score: 1
      Your inability to see it does not mean it's not there. You do not have a right to go see a film in a theater, you do have the right to watch what you wish without the government using force against you as punishment for seeing a banned movie. There's a huge difference there.

      I mean, if nothing else, there's this little thing called the Internet. Maybe you can see this movie you need so badly over it. Alternatively, maybe you should open up your own art house theater and show such things, if there's a demand that's going unmet.

      Not that I agree with the "No NC-17" policy of these theatres, but one should be honest about what exactly's going on here.

    52. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by DragoonAK · · Score: 1
      You need to calm down and read exactly what I said. I stated that the US understood the "freedom of speech" idea better then other countries, including Canada, not that the US was the freest country in the world or that Canada was wrong and evil. And to be frank, considering you have that whole "not withstanding" clause that can be used to remove any of the promises of the Canadian charter, and considering Holocaust denial websites are shut down in Canada (http://www.indexonline.org/news/20020127_canada.s html) and "offensive" literature is stopped at the borders, it's true. Bad ideas are best dealt with better speech, not force.


      I didn't address firearms (on which we'll just have to disagree), drug laws (on which we apparently do agree), legal age limits, or anything else. Hell, some of the above, I wish the US was more like Canada, and in some places, I think both countries are deeply flawed. But remove that chip from your shoulder - deal with what I said and not with what you wanted to rant about.

      And using the term "USAmerican" doesn't really add anything to the discussion - there's a number of derisive terms I could have used, and didn't, because they don't do anything but annoy people. Consider returning the favor.

    53. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?

    54. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by DragoonAK · · Score: 1
      Well, it'll land you in jail in Canada (http://www.indexonline.org/news/20020127_canada.s html ) - the moronic Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was ordered to remove his website. No, not jailed, but considering if he ignores it the government will use force to remove it, and if people ignore them it'll escalate to jail, it's the same thing.


      As for Europe, the EU is planning on making it a crime to speak ideas they don't like. (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/11/09/1920226.shtm l?tid=153) So I think what I said was accurate.

    55. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

      Um, really? Ever seen a movie called Arlington Road? Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack as the pleasant terrorist family next door. Or another movie called Path To Paradise, which is the story of the first World Trade Center bombing - told from the terrorists' point of view?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    56. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      as others have already done a fine job of pointing out -- movies like the matrix, any of the star wars movies, etc. do in fact depict terrorism in good light -- as the fight against some tyrrany. we tend to assume that it's an acceptable revolution if it leads to a world like ours -- supposed freedom of expression, etc. anything else is wrong. but in -all- cases, we are imposing our view of the "right" world to the rest of the population -- people who deal, every day, with living under the tyranny you despise. any revolution is diruptive to the daily lives of citizens: bystanders get killed, homes are destroyed, food and water become scarce as roads are blocked for military reasons ... to the innocent civilians just trying to live each day in peace, any conflict is bad. but we cheer as luke skywalker destroys the death star -- regardless of the countless engineers, janitors, or cooks employed there, just making a living! all revolutions are messy, no matter the cause. all revolutions harm the general population. there's no escaping it. you want to give freedom to people, because you think it's the "right way to live"? go ahead. you'll probably kill a few of them in the process, and i'm sure they'll thank you.

      as to israel -- would you say that helicopters firing missiles into cars in the middle of a crowded street is covered as "rule of law"? would you say that's justice? would you want that to be the every-day method of keeping the peace in -your- country? then realize that the hate and anger go both ways, and all are to blame. bystanders died. their families are grieving. do you think they praise israel for ridding them of those criminals? maybe between the tears. but it wasn't their choice, it wasn't their way. and now people are dead.

    57. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by chaosmind · · Score: 1
      You know what? The government wouldn't *have* to censor anything that showed terrorism in a positive light. We've got good Christian Jack Chick, er, Jack Valenti of the MPAA to censor it for us!

      A smattering of opinions may be found linked to here. What exactly is aberrational behavior (page 5)?

      As a poster noted on IMDB, the Wicker Man is probably the only movie that's ever been rated X (left unrated, essentially the same thing when it comes to movie-house or Blockbuster distribution) for its ideology: the Pagans aren't the bad guy, the Christian is.

      So you've got a situation where the studios begin self-censoring, not producing movies with "controversial" stances, because they know an unkind rating will stifle distribtion. (Freedom of speech? You naive bastard! You had *fun* in high school civics, didn't you?)

    58. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      and in the US ...

      http://www.raisethefist.com/news.cgi?artical=und er seige

      or have we forgotten that we can no longer dessiminate the "Jolly Roger Anarchist's Cookbook"? not protected under freedom of speech, apparently. and it doesn't even suggest what to do with the info. just technical stuff. on putting thumbtacks on people's windshield wipers ...

    59. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by demonbug · · Score: 1
      After having seen first-hand websites with vaguely anti-american, pro-terrorism sentiments be shut down under the PATRIOT act and associated "homeland defense" laws, I'm having an increasingly difficult time trusting the US government to "respect" the average citizen's right to free speech.


      Care to trouble us with any examples?

    60. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't true at all. Remember "Independance Day"? Now that movie hasn't come out recently, it's true, but the movie was very popular, and it revolved around the main hero killing himself at the end for the good of his country. It is portrayed as an honorable thing to do, and a way to redeem yourself from your past vices (drunkenness, lazyness, et.)

      Thinking back to that movie.... and you can come up with a HUGE list of things in it that go against traditional American culture. In this country, is cooperation portrayed as EVER better than individual glory? Are flashes of brilliance EVER portrayed as better then the Protestant Work Ethic (slow and steady wins the race)? Is suicide EVER correct behavior???

      Not very patriotic, huh? And the government didn't try to clamp down on it at all? In fact, I think I remember President Clinton renting out a theatre to watch it.

    61. Re:And How Do the People Feel? by Larsing · · Score: 1

      As for Europe, the EU is planning on making it a crime to speak ideas they don't like.

      Wrong again! Since that would seriously violate the constitution of at least one member country and national governments still yield veto in such issues, that is just never going to happen. Just like the European Union will never be the United States of Europe you seem to consider it to be...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  5. Wow by CptChipJew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs."

    I think that quote speaks for itself.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
    1. Re:Wow by $carab · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Umm....I realize the Islamic press has a tendency to describe everything from America as Zionist...but in this case...

      You realize that the movie portrays the "last hope of humanity" as a city known as Zion, whose inhabitants are the result of a gradual migration and represent the forces of good, besieged by the forces of evil that surround them.

      So yeah, I can see how it could be viewed as promoting Zionist beliefs.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antizionist != antisemitic

      Fuck Israel

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read stupidass:

      and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs.

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic

      Semitic - "Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic."

      How can an arab be anti-Semitic?

      Peace.
      (Fuck Israel)

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How can an arab be anti-Semitic?
      A bit ot but there are quite a few anti-semitic jews.

    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next step is to forbid geographical/physical books because promoting the earth not beeing in the center of the universe.

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can an arab be anti-Semitic?

      Has this question to be asked every fucking time? Language is not precise. Anti-semite almost always means 'hostile toward / prejudiced against Jews'.

      That's one of the dictionary.reference.com definitions. Deal with it. But you probably already knew that.

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering there is something in the Matrix called " Zion "....

      Come on, guys, this is pretty obvious. I'm surprised that I had to scroll this far down to see the word "Zionist"...

      I think... If the creators of the Matrix had any concern for the Arab market... They definitely shouldn't have used the name "Zion" for their homeland or whatever. I mean, really, how hard is it to make some non-offensive name up?

    9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the group you seek not to offend are any kind of still-fundamentalist religion with a monopoly on Absolute Truth? It's impossible. They're all olympic-level masters at being offended. Look at what Bowdler and Disney have done to the traditional stories of the west - perhaps they figured the price of pulling their story's teeth too high, and for no likely benefit.

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know if the people in this country are that stupid or if they are just ignoring the Zionist comments. Not that this is bad but it is being said as an insult, they are calling all of us "a bunch of dirty jews". The stupidity in this country astounds me every day.

    11. Re:Wow by dbretton · · Score: 1


      I think you mean "Whoa", not "Wow".

  6. Yeah, within a virtual system by brucmack · · Score: 1

    The Matrix handles issues of creation and existence inside a computer. How is this threatening to real-world religion? Are we expected to think that a movie about virtual reality threatens religion? Yes, it makes parallels to real religion, but honestly... either they didn't think this through very well or there's something else behind it.

    1. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Have you not noticed that everyone who sees The Matrix is a philosopher for a day?
      They normally would laugh at the thought of reading Descartes, Plato, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc, but when they see the pop-culture, hollow corpse of the afore-mentioned writers works, they are automatically philosophers.
      If you think too much you probably wouldn't buy anything I was selling without at least close inspection.
      Don't you get it? Have a Sprite*, be "original"?

      *Or whatever soft drink is being crammed down your throat every commercial break and marketed as "original".

      Sort of went off track with this, but I feel it applies to religion as well.

    2. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's very likely that IHBT & IHL, but ...

      Have you not noticed that everyone who sees The Matrix is a philosopher for a day?

      Hrm, something that at least attempts to get the complacent public thinking. That's one up from pretty much everything else in popular media these days.

      Perhaps it's better to see that there is an attempt being made to think, rather than being irritated by the fact that so many people don't have any practice, and hence aren't any good at it.

    3. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you not noticed that everyone who sees The Matrix is a philosopher for a day?
      They normally would laugh at the thought of reading Descartes, Plato, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc, but when they see the pop-culture, hollow corpse of the afore-mentioned writers works, they are automatically philosophers.


      Currently, there are two possible results of pop culture:
      1. Philospher for a day who has become interested in the basic philosophical questions raised by the Matrix
      2. "Wow, that chick's tits were AWESOME , dude!"

      Thanks to the Matrix, pop culture might be on a slow climb upward. Don't try to fuck it up and send us back to Captain Horndog's Big-Tits-Big-Guns-Even-Bigger-Tits Bonanza just because pop culture hasn't gone from zero to Philosophy Major in 3.6 seconds. When someone mentions the basic philosophical questions that are raised by the Matrix, maybe you should politely point them toward Descartes instead of mocking their enthusiasm for something better than Die Hard 460: Die Harder Than You've Ever Died Hard Before WITH A VENGEANCE.

    4. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

      People being inspired to read about ideas they would have laughed at a year ago. Yeah, that's a bad thing.

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    5. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe the Matrix to be all that intelligent. "Hollow corpse..." is an excellent way to describe the film. It's just as stupid as say, The Real Cancun. And you know what would have made the movie better? Tits. Trinity's would have been nice. Or Belluci's.

    6. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by bitrott · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh PUHLEASE. Reloaded SUCKED. It was boring, trite and inane. Do you REALLY think anyone left the building wanting more pap philosophy from their movies? Why would that be a good thing anyway? Do you really think there's some Hollywood exec out there thinking, hmm, it really (DIDN'T LOOK AT THE MEDIOCRE BOX OFFICE RECIPTS) worked for Reloaded, let's film several more crap movies with shitty half assed philosophy. Furthermore, noone left Reloaded and signed up for a goddamn intro to philosophy class. At the most they bought the novelization of the movie and bored their girlfriend to tears blithering on about the shite.

    7. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by ar1550 · · Score: 1

      Die Hard 460: Die Harder Than You've Ever Died Hard Before WITH A VENGEANCE.

      Wow! Do you know the release date? (not offtopic, tangental!)

      --
      I once shot a man in Reno 'cause they cancelled Firefly.
    8. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Currently, there are two possible results of pop culture:
      1. Philospher for a day who has become interested in the basic philosophical questions raised by the Matrix
      2. "Wow, that chick's tits were AWESOME , dude!"


      Aw, can't we have both?

    9. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by bitrott · · Score: 1

      looks like I hit a nerve... a mod with no response? mature...

  7. My religion by Gorny · · Score: 5, Funny

    "..which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.." There is only one religion... and it's prophet is called Morpheus, it's Messiah Neo.

    --
    Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    1. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's funny. In my religion the messiah is a whiny desert farm boy, and the prophet his now-annoying father.

    2. Re:My religion by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but there is NO WAY I can subscribe to a religion where Keanu Reeves is the messiah.

      I have no qualms in worshipping Carrie Ann Moss, though.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    3. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wesley? And his father the dread pirate Roberts? WOW! Better be good your when you die you'll be gobbled up forever by ROUS's!

    4. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my religion the prophet and the messiah are the sun of a Duke.

    5. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its, dangit.

    6. Re:My religion by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      In my religion the messiah is a 16 year old Tokyo Schoolgirl called Usagi and there really is a Holy Grail.

      graspee

    7. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that removes buddhism from your list as well, eh?

    8. Re:My religion by horza · · Score: 1

      There is only one religion... and it's prophet is called Morpheus, it's Messiah Neo.

      I thought you put 'Jedi' down during the last census? Anyway, wouldn't the prophet be the Oracle and Morpheus be the diciple?

      Phillip.

    9. Re:My religion by stanmann · · Score: 1

      WESTLEY!
      GAR! I hate illiterate people.
      WESTLEY!
      WESTLEY!

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    10. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus quotith the prophet.... now everybody DANCE!

      Unnn-ta. Unnn-ta. Unn-ta! Unnn-ta! Unn-ta.

      Huzzah for techno and big giant underground orgies!

      Down with the machines.

    11. Re:My religion by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1

      Keanu Reeves as Siddharta? The thought of it makes me bleed out my ears.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    12. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infidel! Your Neo-Philisophical prattlings are in insignificant comparted to the power of the Force.

      Our Father who art in TIE fighters, Vader be thy name, thine Empire come, Palpatine's will be done on Tatoonie as it is in Coruscant....

    13. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://us.imdb.com/Title?0107426

  8. Unfortunatly by Martigan80 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is what happens when religion is mixed with government. Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.

    Plus it's a good way to keep you religion in power. Besides have one Islamic based government (Saudi Arabia) out law cellular phones with cameras?

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    1. Re:Unfortunatly by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.

      So you don't live in america?

      Because our morality and legal system certianly has it's roots with christ.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    2. Re:Unfortunatly by chabotc · · Score: 1

      Heh, with the current reagon like rethorics like "Axis of evil" and "good vs. bad", i would say the US is currently very religiously tinted in it's foreign politics.

      If only the law could be so simple and black&white: It's illegal to be 'evil'

      owell, gbj knows what these religious leaders know as well, it's easier to tell people what to do and think using religious statements then with logic

      Come to think of it, gbj's war on 'Evil'.. does that constitute a 'holy war' ? ;-)

    3. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Perhaps you have not heard the national anthem(U.S.) lately? "One nation, under god" was added by the dominant religion in the 40's. The founders tried to insert some distinct seperation of church and state, but when 70% of the population is indoctrinated by one religion from an early age, what hope is there for impartiality?

    4. Re:Unfortunatly by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

      Your right, it_was_based on Christianity, now you can't pray in school, why is that?
      We always here of arguments about separation of Church and State, why is that? Are our senators as religious as their governmental leaders?
      No Egyptâ(TM)s government officials are more religious than our government system combined.

      --
      This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
    5. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because our morality and legal system certianly has it's roots with christ.

      Bull$#!^

      You should read this.

    6. Re:Unfortunatly by citog · · Score: 2, Informative

      The mobile phone with camera issue is touchy in a lot of places, including Saudi Arabia - the concept of privacy is involved. It's accented in Saudi because the people are particularly sensitive about having their photo taken without their permission. It is considered a strong violation of privacy. No different from places, in the West for example, that have banned mobile phones in locations such as gyms. On the grounds they may have these cameras that are not immediately obvious.

    7. Re:Unfortunatly by bigmattana · · Score: 1

      I find interesting the phrase that some people use, "You can't legislate morality." All legislation is trying to enforce some sense of morality for the sake of the rest of the country. Whether it is corporate regulations (you can't screw over consumers or destroy our environment), social security (if the rich won't take care of the poor voluntarily, we will take their money and do it for them), or thou shall not murder (don't kill people, you insensitive clod) all legislation has to do with morality.

      Whatever the current moral standards of the day are is what will be used for legislation. People just don't always agree on the moral standards. Many standards have come from Christianity but most these days do not.

    8. Re:Unfortunatly by Frohboy · · Score: 1

      Umm... I get the impression that you're implying that Egypt has an "Islamic" government. You do realize, of course, that Egypt has a constitutional ban on religious-based political parties.

      You might want to check your facts before posting.

    9. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the hell is gbj?

    10. Re:Unfortunatly by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      "It's illegal to be 'evil'"
      So just set the evil bit to 0 and they'll never suspect a thing >:-]

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    11. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is what happens when religion is mixed with government. Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.

      Yeah, can you imagine what would happen if you let the sort of nut who'd break off political meetings to have prayers take charge in the White House?

    12. Re:Unfortunatly by Eisenstein · · Score: 1

      No Egyptâ(TM)s government officials are more religious than our government system combined. Really? Everytime I see Bush or Ashcroft making some speech they invoke God and Jesus. They talk about faith and strength through God. What about the Pledge of Alliance, which was changed last century (the 20th) to include the "under God" part? Is it a prayer? Or is it some kind of official (government) thing? Or the money? Is there a mention of God on the Greenback?

    13. Re:Unfortunatly by Guardian+of+Separate · · Score: 1

      Actually, they tried to insert separation of church and state. You are offender #6 in my quest to purge slashdot of this misspelling!

    14. Re:Unfortunatly by hype7 · · Score: 1
      Their government is totally different from ours in the sense of a strong religious background that is the foundation of law making.


      Go look up President Bush on the American's for the separation of Church and State website. Then come back and repeat what you just said.

      -- james
      ps not an inditement on Bush, just an observation.
    15. Re:Unfortunatly by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      That's the Pledge of Allegiance, not the National Anthem.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    16. Re:Unfortunatly by vicviper · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you have not heard the national anthem(U.S.) lately? "One nation, under god"

      That's "The Pledge of Allegiance"

    17. Re:Unfortunatly by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

      > "It's illegal to be 'evil'"

      But it's hip to be square!

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    18. Re:Unfortunatly by TummyX · · Score: 1


      Because our morality and legal system certianly has it's roots with christ.


      Oh right. Morailty and legalilty didn't exist before christ.

    19. Re:Unfortunatly by lysium · · Score: 1

      Eygpt's government is secular. As in, NOT ISLAMIC. They have been fighting terrorists themselves for -years-. Your generalizations shame you.

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  9. Overanalyzed Much? by Chromodromic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this proves is how global our community has become ... and how Egypt can be just as susceptible to a bunch of overhype about pseudo-philosophy in a movie as a bunch of AintItCool.com readers ...

    "Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns. There are so many already well documented gaping holes and problems with the Matrix universe, that to read a search for God into this extremely Hollywood-ish movie--Keanu Reeves is our new Messiah? spare me--is only indicative of the starvation for spiritual themes that our culture is undergoing. It's like seeing God on the back of a cereal box--or getting God as the prize at the bottom.

    Which would suck, because the coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy that got stuck on the roof. Bummer. What kind of a Neo would let a little boy down?

    Well, there's one thing about the new religion, and I don't know if it's cool or not ... but at least the new Messiah can have hot monkey love with Carrie Anne Moss ...

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
    1. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns


      No, no -- Philosophy is the talk on the cereal box, religion is the smile on a dog.
    2. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by karma-whoring · · Score: 0, Troll

      "coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy"

      You must understand that there is no toy.

    3. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or getting God as the prize at the bottom. Which would suck, because the coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy that got stuck on the roof."

      Welcome brother, to the fundamentalist frisbeetarian movement. While your doctrine departs from our fundamental belief that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck, we consider your revalation about god being stuck on the roof as well, to be divinely inspired. You are hereby granted sainthood. Enjoy.

      (sorry old joke)

    4. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pseudo-philosophy? Riiiiight. Just because it raises issues that are well covered in philosphy, doesn't change the fact that it is philosophy. Saying it isn't philosophy, when it clearly covers philosophical ideas, is like calling a text book on Platos allegory of the cave, or determinism as is the case with reloaded, psuedo philosophy because, shock horror, it covers theories that have been well thought out and covered in the past. Perhaps you should actually go out and see the movie instead of regurgitating the opinions of the various film critics who didn't understand the movie, unless you live in Egypt of course.

    5. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by jayoyayo · · Score: 1

      the matrix has philosophical themes in that it actively induces viewers to think about spirituality and reality. just because theres plot holes doesnt mean it cant induce philosophical thinking. no, it is not profound. and its not supposed to be accepted as profound-- its an action movie.

    6. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      It's like seeing God on the back of a cereal box--or getting God as the prize at the bottom.

      That idea reminds me of Ubik.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    7. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

      Consistency and incompleteness are not mutually exclusive.

      Theory of relativity? Bollocks, I say. Where's all the stuff about quantum mechanics eh? See - all wrong einstein you stupid git. It's easy to travel faster than the speed of light, the universe isn't curved and black holes only exist in your plot line... err theory.

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    8. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story reminds me of something that happened to my best friend's
      sister in high school. The class was given an essay assignment by Mr M.
      You could write about anything you liked, but had to begin with the
      phrase "Mr M., I think you should know that..." She completed the
      sentence thus "...someone in this class is trying to kill you", and
      proceeded to outline a plot that some girl in the class was a witch, and
      was intent on causing bodily harm of some sort. Mr M happened to be
      religious, and didn't take it too well. He refused to mark the paper, and
      its author was compelled to visit the school's religious head and
      instructed to pray for forgiveness! In the end the girl's father (a
      level-headed engineer) marked the paper and gave her 18/20, and also
      awarded two bonus marks for "writing of such a vivid nature as to
      convince an English teacher of her sincerity". Moral of the story? Take
      entertainment too seriously and you'll make a complete fool of yourself.

    9. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by malignatus · · Score: 1

      Well, you're right that this movie not having much of a chance as a religion. It has as much of a chance as becoming a religion as Star Trek did. Err, hmm.

      But to say that it has nothing to do with religion and philosophy is an extremely inaccurate statement. Even going back to the beginning of the first movie, Neo picks up "Simulation and Simulacra" and opens it up to the last chapter of the ("On Nihilism"), but we quickly see that the book is fake. It has been hollowed out; empty and void. You don't see any philosophical implications there?

      After getting a disk out of the book he goes to the door and gives a guy the disk. The guy responds: "Hallelujah. You're my savior man; my own personal Jesus Christ." And in The Matrix Reloaded we find out that Neo was created by the Architect so that a piece of him could be used to create the rest of humanity. Not seeing the connection?

      There are plenty of connections, from Alice in Wonderland to the the Greek gods. (Persephone was the daughter of Zeus and was abducted by Plato to reign with him over the underworld.)
      But if you cannot catch one of them, don't fret. You can always just enjoy seeing Neo kick ass with nifty special effects.

    10. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      "Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns.

      It's pretty simple, and it's nothing to do with philosophy or religion per se. In the West when we hear the word "Zion", most people who even know the word associate it with the Rastas. A few may get the Judeo-christian reference. But in the Middle East, it's a loaded word. Whenever anything goes wrong in a Moslem country - usually the fault of their own corrupt, incompetent governments - the state-controlled press blame "Zionist conspiracies" to deflect the blame. A movie where "Zionists" are the heroes would cause an uproar. Changing that one word would have probably avoided the censor's attention altogether.

    11. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns.

      I thought that Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock, and Religion is a smile on a dog...
      I'm not aware of too many things, but I know what I know if you know what I mean...

    12. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by WeeLad · · Score: 1
      I don't see how people can determine whether or not there are plot holes until the final chapter is concluded. Sure, there might be something you don't understand or that you think is wrong right now, but that could very well be explained in the third movie.

      Both movies have dealt with "synthetic reality", and if the Zion world is indeed a second-level matrix, nothing that has been shown could not have been arbitrarily constructed by an n-level reality.

      I remember reading an interview with the one of the Wachowski bros about a year or so before the Matrix Reloaded came out. He said the reason they filmed both movies at nearly the same time and the reason they were releasing them with only a few months separation is that the fans would be very upset if they didn't because of the way Reloaded ended. Going into Reloaded, I was expecting the cliffhanger, but what was more surprising (for me) was that the end of the movie left the storyline at a place where it is possible that nothing shown so far took place in "reality", if it exists.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    13. Re:Overanalyzed Much? by sjudd · · Score: 1

      all this proves is that religion and god have become little more than subtexts for modern culture. The existance of god becomes self-non-evident to people above a certain intelligence.

      --
      All women want is honesty, if you can fake that, you're in.
  10. Congratulations Egypt by Syncdata · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're the single silliest example of constrictive Theocracy in action.
    The matrix is banned because it questions your main sponsored religion/s? Keanu Reeves is a percieved threat to your rule?
    The matrix is about action. The philosophy aspect of it is not at all complex. If your political system can be overthrown by Keanu Reeves, one of two statements are true.
    #1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
    #2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
    .
    My money is on #2.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    1. Re:Congratulations Egypt by demonbug · · Score: 5, Funny
      Keanu Reeves is a percieved threat to your rule?


      whoah.

    2. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      one of two statements are true.
      #1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
      #2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
      My money is on #2.

      I wouldn't be so quick to rule out #1. After all, they have allowed the government to be put in place over them that fears #2.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    3. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe. You know, your comments seem on the surface as silly responses, made just to humor us. But in deeper introspect they actually have a LOT of Truth in there for us all to hear.

      Keanu Reeves is a percieved threat to your rule? Man that is so good!

    4. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      Why only one of two? My money's on both.

      The Egyptian leadership is right to be worried. Just look at all the children that copy what they see on Jackass.

    5. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Frohboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm... this might be true, if Egypt had a theocratic government. They actually have a constitutional ban on religious-based political parties.
      (ref)

      Granted, there are significant religious pressures on their government (just as there are in the US, and in many other countries.)

      You really shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about a country you've never been to. That's what they do in Russia.

    6. Re:Congratulations Egypt by LeoDV · · Score: 1

      That's what they do in Russia.

      There must be a Soviet Russia joke there, I just have to find it!

    7. Re:Congratulations Egypt by TomV · · Score: 1

      #2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
      My money is on #2


      Yes, the secular Mubarak government's hold on power is indeed tenuous, and has been since its inception in the aftermath of the Islamist assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat in 1981. It has, on the other hand, so far survived many, far from slight, challenges to its authority from groups including HizbAllah and Islamic Jihad, as well as major diplomatic hostility over its relatively good relations with Israel (the country also know as Zion, of course).

      When people get killed regularly because the government is perceived as a puppet of some Zionist conspiracy, maybe it's reasonable to be a bit circumspect about a film depicting 'Zion' as the last haven of freedom for the human race?

      TomV

    8. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Here

      In Soviet Russia, countries make sweeping statements about you.

      Maybe.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    9. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Eisenstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course the USA would never censor or ban anything.

    10. Re:Congratulations Egypt by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Talk about an uninformed, self-righteous post!!!

      Ever travelled to Egypt? Ever read articles about the country from multiple sources (yes, that means other than Fox News)? Ever tried to genuinely understand what's going on over there and how Egyptians think?

      Egypt is NOT a theocracy. Egyptian law actually bans Islamist political parties. Because Egypt has a HUGE problem with radical Islamism. One that dwarfs 9/11. Islamist terrorism does not mean "once, 2 years ago" in Egypt. It means "every month or so".

      Egypt is not a full democracy either; at least not in the modern, western sense. Yet, they have made continuing progress on that path, considering that just 30 years ago, they were in a state of chronic war against Israel. They are now one of the most stable, reliable country in this region.

      You're so obscured by your binary (good/evil) way of thinking that you can't even read.
      "Such religious issues, raised in previous times, caused crises." Violence also played a part in the decision, the committee said. "Screening the movie may cause troubles and harm social peace," according to the statement.
      Remember, we're talking about a country that has a long history of war against Israel and is painfully trying to get over it. They are plagued by groups of armed Islamist terrorists. This movie portrays Zion as the last hope of Mankind, as a sanctuary where good is besieged by evil. They KNOW that the Matrix is going to be targetted by terrorists. Setting up a bomb in a movie theater is incredibly easy. I don't think either of your 2 statements are true. I would put my money on :
      #3: This movie is offensive to most of our population. Violent groups will use this opportunity to bring death and chaos. The benefits of airing the movie do not exceed the costs.

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    11. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how your post sounds when you switch a few words.

      You're the single silliest example of constrictive Theocracy in action.
      France is banned because it questions your main sponsored beliefs about WMD? Jacques Chirac is a percieved threat to your rule?
      France is about thinking before acting. The philosophy aspect of it is not at all complex. If your political system can be overthrown by Jacques Chirac, one of two statements are true.
      #1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
      #2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.
      .
      My money is on #1.

    12. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

      Condemning a whole nation as weak-mined fools is not +5 Interesting it is the action of ignorant bigots (or perhaps an rather insightful troll).

      You're the single silliest example of constrictive Theocracy in action.

      No. Egypt is a immature democracy that is nominally secular, it is not a Theocracy. The emphasis should be on immature.

      The matrix is banned because it questions your main sponsored religion/s? Keanu Reeves is a percieved threat to your rule?

      Egypt law preserves religious tolerance and features minority Christian and Jewish populations. The Islamic majority is predominately Sunni, a mostly moderate form of Islam.

      Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.

      No. Urban Egypt is a paragon compared to much of the middle east. Rural Egypt is under developed and religiously conservative; very many rural Egyptians may never see this film so are in no position to call it themselves.

      Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.

      This movie could be readily exploited by a minority of extremists to challenge the government, the government response would likely be rather draconian, so yes the Matrix::Reloaded is a threat to the Government but not to the Authorities.

    13. Re:Congratulations Egypt by in7ane · · Score: 1

      In my opinion any government is at least slightly afraid of #2 hitting the fan (although degrees of past experience of dealing with this vary)

    14. Re:Congratulations Egypt by glsunder · · Score: 1
      #1: Your citizens are weakminded, foolish, and easily swayed.
      #2: Your hold on power is tenuous, and you cannot handle the slightest challenge to your authority.

      #1 is a given. Its true for the majority of people throughout history. Its easiest to see that in other societies, of course.

    15. Re:Congratulations Egypt by paladin_tom · · Score: 1

      Egyptian law actually bans Islamist political parties. Because Egypt has a HUGE problem with radical Islamism.

      Err, on a purely abstract, pro-democracy level, if the majority of a nation's citizens genuinely want a fundamentalist Islamic state, then don't they have a right to it, whether we Westerners like it or not?

      I'm not really trying to argue with the parent poster here... I'm just surprised that this idea doesn't seem to be entering into anyone's thoughts.

      --
      #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
    16. Re:Congratulations Egypt by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 1

      I get your point and I agree with its spirit.

      Yet, I don't think westerners have much to do with the Egyptian ban on Islamist parties. The Egyptian constitution does ban them, not the US or EU or whoever else.

      Also, I'd like to put things in perspective regarding the abstract, pro-democracy level. First, you can think of this ban as an equivalent of western separation of Church and State. Second, in many European countries, advocating Nazi ideas is illegal and Nazi political parties are banned. It might seem somewhat anti-democratic for Americans on the abstract level. Yet, the scars are still deep...

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    17. Re:Congratulations Egypt by paladin_tom · · Score: 1

      Yet, I don't think westerners have much to do with the Egyptian ban on Islamist parties. The Egyptian constitution does ban them, not the US or EU or whoever else.

      Quite right, certainly. I just meant that we Westerners seem to be adamantly against Islamist politics in the Middle East, regardless of what the majority in the Islamic countries think.

      \begin{controversy} Case in point: post-war Iraq. Many in the Shiite majority would like Iraq to be an Islamic state. (Makes sense: Hussein & Company -> secular devils who killed many Iraqis. USA -> secular devils who killed many Iraqis.) But Rumsfeld has said something to the effect of, "That isn't going to happen," and the US, last I checked, plans to install a pro-Western government in Iraq.\end{controversy} Of course, that issue itself is a whole big complicated can of worms with many ethical sides.

      BTW, love your sig!

      --
      #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
    18. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a testament to the cave man mentality this nation allows to ferment within its borders

      join the civilized world, huh ?

    19. Re:Congratulations Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I know coup d'etat!

      (yeah, yeah, coup d'etat is military takeover, but it sounded better that way)

  11. wow... by demonbug · · Score: 0

    Egypt appears to be one country that prefers the typical hollywood fluff-type movie. Am I imagining things, or does the article basically say that the movie is being banned because it discusses interesting issues?

  12. Hm? by BJH · · Score: 1

    'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'

    Which three divine religions would those be? I'm pretty sure I don't believe in any of the ones they have in mind.

    Now, if that included the Jedi religion, I might be wrong...

    1. Re:Hm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say Jedi, Eris and Kali =:)

    2. Re:Hm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of them are probably Zoroastrianism or Wicca, either.

    3. Re:Hm? by Gyl · · Score: 1

      I really don't know, but if I had to guess: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (sp?) They all come from the same background, at least theologically.

  13. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats actually, Walking Like Egyptians.

    The Bengels must be rolling in their graves right now.

  14. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can take that and shovel it!

  15. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dont understand how people can not 'get' the scene with the architect. Perhaps you are attempting to read into it too much? Here's a hint: he says everything straightforward. There is no obfuscation whatsoever, nothing needs to be interpreted, the whole thing is 100% just plain flat-out said. You know, with words.
    So can someone please explain to me what it is they dont understand, and how they are capable of not understanding it?
    I suspect that a lot of "questions about the scene with with architect" are actually just "questions about the movie in general, which everyone already had or had developed their own theories for, which the architect raised but didnt answer, so that you'll go see the third movie, not because you just can't understand his obfuscated answers"

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  16. Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.

    Excuse me, BUT can anybody name the three religions that all Egyptains respect and believe? Last time I counted there was only one, and it was out to exterminate the rest of them.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by ffsnjb · · Score: 1

      If one can read and understand the Qu`ran, which any Islamist CAN NOT, they would know that Jews and Christians are to be respected as 'people of the book.' Since Islamists are FUCKING RETARDED and can't read, they don't know this. Besides, Islam would not exist without Judaism.

      Yet they like to kill each other...

      --
      "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
    2. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judaism, Christianity (primarily Coptic Orthodox in Egypt) and Islam.

      And that's pretty much a reverse order of acceptance in the Middle East...

    3. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by bedouin · · Score: 1

      Last time I counted there was only one, and it was out to exterminate the rest of them.

      I don't understand, you mean they have the 700 club in Egypt?

      For your information Coptics make up a huge percentage of the population there.

    4. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Kurt+Russell · · Score: 1
      Islam, Islam, Islam

      Egypt used to be a little more open minded.

    5. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is to enlighten my friend who found out that the only ONE religion in egypt is for eliminating others, well i guess he is right cuz the way isrealies are treating palestenians and americans to irqies, i think all of the religions are to exterminate islam. so they are doing what they can to return the favour

    6. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by mlflegel · · Score: 1
      Excuse me, BUT can anybody name the three religions that all Egyptains respect and believe? Last time I counted there was only one, and it was out to exterminate the rest of them.
      From my dealings with Muslims I surmise that they mean the three religions that believe in the one God (or Allah, or Jehova, or by whichever name you prefer): Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
      Interestingly, the Quaran does not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims, but rather between those who believe in God, and those who don't (or believe in "false gods").
      The holy war was originally intended to be against these unbelievers. This isn't such a brilliant idea either, of course, but have you read the old testament lately?
    7. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I am sorry the Islamists are reading the book and understand it quite well. Its so typical of americans to tell other people what their faith means.

      Unlike christanity, judiasm, hindu ect ect islam is a political and social relgion above all others. The other faiths of the world might get into politics but Islam tells its followers how to organise on the state level in ways others do not.

      Out of 23 conflicts around the world 20 of them are Muslems fighting with their neighbors of all religious faiths.

      Get a ticket off of the P.C. train and a clue on how the world works.

    8. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funniest thing is that the amazing succes of Islam in 7th century is hugely because of the
      support of Christians from Egypt, Syria, Arabia
      who were opressed by Byzantium as they were
      considered heretics. Islam was much more
      tolerant to other Christians in 7th century
      than Orthodox Church.

    9. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not so uncommon.
      Even among Chrstians, well, even among
      Catholics!!

      An extreme example were catholic crusaders
      in XIV-XV c. going on a crusade against
      catholic Poland.

      Or look what was going on in Western Europe
      during contrreformation.

    10. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Mooncaller · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Egypt has a coptic population at least 6% of the total. There is also several catholic and protestent communities bringing up the total Christian population to almost 10%. Egypt is officialy Religion neutral, which leaves the government in a precarious position given their large Muslim population. There are external forces that manipulate the disenfranchised teen age boys in thouse populations. Certain Islamic groups would love to see a change in Egyptian government. The Government needs to make allowances and concesions. After all, this picture could easily be used as a focus to initiat anti-west riots. /.er need to realize that political realities can be far more complicated in other parts of the world. BTW, Egyptians are generaly very civilized and cultured. Many are highly educated. Don't believe the images portrayed in the news.

    11. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the fighting in Palestine is over colonialism not religion.

      Religion is a rallying point for both sides but there are christian palestinians too.

      There aren't any jewish palestinians because Israel's racial profiling system means they all are granted Israeli citizenship...but there would have been...

    12. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by ffsnjb · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is just plain wrong. The Qu`ran specifically states that all believers in the one true god should be considered as equal. Attacking a Jew or Christian is absolutely against everything the Qu`ran is trying to preach. That is the problem. Islamists (notice I said Islamists, not Muslims; the difference is HUGE!) do not understand this. This oversight by Islamists is the ONLY justification they can think of to get the Islamic world behind them, and it has worked since 1948. Sad, really. If the literacy rate in the Islamic world was half of what it was in the heyday of Semitic civlization, this problem wouldn't exist. It's all a controlling mechanism, the most saddening part.

      Regardless of my citizenship, its not too hard to read and decide the meaning of a section of a book. When one is literate, one can make such judgements.

      Next you're going to tell me that Arabs are not Semitic, and then I'll know you're a fucking troll.

      --
      "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
    13. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the major idea of jihad is a war with one's self (fighting sin or imperfection within yourself). External jihad is supposed to be very minor in comparison.

    14. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by krumms · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, they only have one religeon that accounts for all three: Polypolytheism

    15. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by gnalre · · Score: 1

      Islam, Christianity, Jedi

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    16. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by dvk · · Score: 1

      For your information, Coptics aren't exactly having as great a time living there as Muslims do...

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    17. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by dvk · · Score: 1

      I believe the images portrayed in ***Egyptian*** news. Y'know, the state sponsored newspapers being choke full of antisemitic stuff, TV showing programs based on "protocols of zionist elders", etc... Somehow, "cultured" isn't the first word which springs to mind.

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    18. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by Mooncaller · · Score: 1

      Why should Egytptian news be any different then European or American ( norte y sud ) news. Face it, riots in the street make great copy. If papers can sorta push things along, all the better. You realy know nothing about Egypt or Egyptians.

    19. Re:Excuse me, BUT What 3 Religions? by dvk · · Score: 1

      1) Oh? So major American news are choke full of antisemitic stuff?

      2) What do riots have to do with anything I wrote?

      3) American news are generally NOT government's official news. Even if CNN is Democratic lapdog and Fox is toeing somehwat Republican line (a lot less failfully, however - O'Reilly is on a major crusade against Jeb Bush, as one example).

      4) And what makes YOU such an expert on Egypt or Egyptians? Other than wanching CNN, I mean. Have you actually READ any of the materials or at least quote sform their media?

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
  17. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by kamukwam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What does that mean?

  18. Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Matrix is banned cause it potrays stuff contrary to the 3 blessed religions by God (as the egptions put it) These three (Judaism, Christinity and Islam). Now further down there is a big flamebait about how the ban is really cause it potrays stuff about Judaism. Now isn't that very contradicting?

    I for one thought the whole Zion/Rasta image was some rastafarian thing :) Come on.. Zion is from Neuromancer.. everyone knows it.. and why is everyone almost black?

    1. Re:Weird by shic · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Perhaps you should read this

    3. Re:Weird by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      I for one thought the whole Zion/Rasta image was some rastafarian thing :) Come on.. Zion is from Neuromancer.. everyone knows it..

      Then you are woefully ignorant of history. Did you go to school in the US perchance? In the Old Testament (reading it as a historical rather than religious text) Zion was the easternmost of two hills on which ancient Jerusalem was built, and also the name of the citadel that later formed the nucleus around which Jerusalem was built around the 10th century BC when King David captured it from the Jebusites.

    4. Re:Weird by Larsing · · Score: 1

      Then you are woefully ignorant of history.

      Equally, you could be considered wholefully ignorant of the relevant scripture, in this particular case, defined as the works of William Gibson and, by him, inspired works. That's where "The Matrix" comes from, as well. And, by any chance, does anyone remember who played Johnny Mnemonic, in the film with the same name?

      Obviously, Gibson got the name from the Bible, it's a cool name-stake.

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    5. Re:Weird by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Equally, you could be considered wholefully ignorant of the relevant scripture, in this particular case, defined as the works of William Gibson and, by him, inspired works. That's where "The Matrix" comes from, as well. And, by any chance, does anyone remember who played Johnny Mnemonic, in the film with the same name?

      The point is, if the name wasn't a Jewish reference, it would not have raised a red flag with the Egyptian censor. If Gibson had written about "Wion" and the Wachowskis had used that name, the reference to Israel is gone and the Egyptians would simply see it as another action movie. After all, Matrix Reloaded is no heavier on the religion/philosopy than say Phantom Menace. Therefore, the original meaning is the one that actually matters in this context.

    6. Re:Weird by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Any reference to Zion brings the Israel/Palistine conflicts to mind, and any story that portrays the Zionists as heros won't go over well in a primarily muslim state. Even with Egypt being so progressive and all, they are still at the mercy of public opinion in the middle east.

      --


      TallGreen CMS hosting
  19. Re:well... by borgdows · · Score: 1

    actually it is : The Bangles - Walk like an egyptian

  20. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by kamukwam · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, they did use a Linux console in the Matrix....

  21. Egyptain Religion is Weak... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Egyptain religions beliefs are weak beyond belief...

    ...if they can be brought down by a single movie.

    Of course, I remember when there were those in America preaching the end of the world would arrive if The Last Temptation of Christ ever made it to the theaters.

    Wonder why those people weren't interviewed about those statements afterwards.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Egyptain Religion is Weak... by Jellybob · · Score: 1
      Wonder why those people weren't interviewed about those statements afterwards.


      Well... have you ever tried interviewing someone once the worlds ended. It's just inpractical.
  22. heh by ffsnjb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe the kid in the first movie should have said "there is no god." Instead of bending a spoon with your mind, it'd probably be a tad easier to convince the religious *insert_deragtory word_here* that there is no god.

    Nah, bending the spoon is easier.

    --
    "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
  23. Why not censor the first movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm thinking... why they didn't banned the first
    Matrix movie? After all, is in that movie where Neo is featured as some kind of messiah, while in Reloaded is rationalized as just "a necessary anomaly" that can be explained scientifically...

    Wait, maybe the fact that religion can be explained by rational ways is what these censors fear?

    1. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by MagPieie · · Score: 1

      There was a big uproar after the first movie, some Islamic newspapers lauched a campaign about it being a zionist movie and promoting zionist beliefs, thats why the censors were under so much pressure to ban this one, they were very nervous of taking that much criticism again. Ah the power of the press *sigh*

      --
      ..life is just a dream
    2. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by jayoyayo · · Score: 1

      Actually the first movie was also originally banned until an appeal was won on behalf of the company who would then go on to distrobute the movie in Egypt. Keep in mind IANAEBIWLO (i am not an egyptian but i walk like one), i merely read this in the original reuters report from yesterday.

    3. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by Heartz · · Score: 0

      They didn't realise its impact until after it was screen. There was a major uproar among many muslim groups in Egypt

    4. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      Wait, maybe the fact that religion can be explained by rational ways is what these censors fear?

      It's a nice point, although I believe you are granting those people to much thinking power. They would never grasp concepts like that!

      What they can grasp, however, is that this movie has a distinct anti-authoritarian, anti-government message, plus the good guys live in "Zion" (a definite nono for arabian countries). That, and maybe the fact that there is a female main character kicking the crap out of male government types, may have really ticked them off - not to mention the sex scene...
      Don't get me wrong, the movie wasn't that good anyway but I really hate censorship!

    5. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind IANAEBIWLO (i am not an egyptian but i walk like one)

      Way to abuse abbreviations there, genius.

      You realize the whole point is to SAVE typing right?

    6. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      I read a different article, and in it the censor was quoted as saying that showing the architect or creator as a human with a human voice was opposed to the Islamic concept of Allah. This was especially dangerous because the majority of the people were uneducated and would what they were shown at face value. Sorry I can't provide the link.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    7. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by jayoyayo · · Score: 1

      Way to recognize irony, genius. I wonder if you can comprehend sarcasm?

    8. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that's irony, then you got a whole lot more problems than whether or not I can comprehend sarcasm.

      Fuck, the lame excuses people pull out to try and justify their own stupidity...

    9. Re:Why not censor the first movie? by jayoyayo · · Score: 1

      hahahahahah youre ignorance is so absurd its hilarious, bitch! thats some funny shit. anyway, you are aware that theres a ton of abbreviations circulating through /. as we speak? IIRC,IANAL,FUD,AFAIK,etc. I am mocking the disproportionate amount of abbreviations used on /. with an absurdly large abbreviation. IANAEBIWLO, but if you cannot understand this clean and simple explanation, then you might be a retard hahaha youre stupid. little bitch. i bet you get your ass kicked by handicapped people on the subway, loser. hahahaHA

  24. What is the matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The movie taught us that "The Matrix" was a system of machines that enslave and delude the human race for their own ends. But what really is The Matrix in our world? I submit that the first level of The Matrix--as close as we'll get to it in our world--is not a society of machines enslaving people, but a collection of governments that enslave their citizens.

    Just as machines attempt to control the thoughts and minds of humans trapped in the Matrix, some governments attempt to delude their citizens and control what they see and hear.

    Ironically, the movie often showed computers as the technology that enabled the enslavement of humans. In our world, computers do just the opposite, and promise to be the technology that frees those who are enslaved.

    If you're reading this in a country that does not allow "The Matrix" to be shown, have hope. There ARE SOLUTIONS.

    'The Matrix' may have you. But free your bandwidth, and the rest will follow.

    1. Re:What is the matrix? by mccalli · · Score: 1
      The movie taught us that "The Matrix" was a system of machines that enslave and delude the human race for their own ends. But what really is The Matrix in our world?

      It's a film. A piece of fluff entertainment, 'borrowing' rather heavily from deeper sources to add some pseudo-weight to it. Not unlike Star Wars and the Jedi.

      Don't take this stuff too seriously. It simply doesn't stand up as a basis for living the rest of your life by.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    2. Re:What is the matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real the post more closely. I think his point
      was that censorship is JUST LIKE the machines
      that delude peope. I don't think he was
      arguing that we're actually enslaved my
      machines in real life.

      (But then again, how would you know?)

  25. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by bananahammock · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks mate. Now I donâ(TM)t understand the architect and you.

  26. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.

  27. Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    North America: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then gives a passionate kiss to Trinity. R-rated for explicit sex.

    Europe: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says: "Oh fuck! Zion again. It's such a shitty place". British Board Of Film Censors (in 1984 renamed to British Board Of Film Classifiication, conveniently keeping the old acronym) gives it "restricted" rating for continuing use of strong language.

    Arabian States: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says: "Oh God! Zion again". Egyptian censors ban this film for explicit religious message

    It seems that the only thing all cultures of the Earth can unanimously agree to is kicking the crap out of someone...

    1. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by markjeffery · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, but the BBFC only classifies films for Britain, and not for Europe, and the "restricted" classification would be 18.

      I think that the Matrix is classified 15.

    2. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by riflemann · · Score: 1

      Films classified by the Brits, are only for showings in England. Each country in Europe has its own classification.

      In Holland, TMR is classified as suitable for anyone 12 years and over due to violence. It's probably the same with many EU countries, as over here people are quite liberal with their policies.

      So...

      Europe: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says: "Oh fuck! Zion again. It's such a shitty place". Rated "12+" because there's some violence.

    3. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then says, "Oh fuck! Zion again! Time to exterminate the whole jewish race!". Outlawed, because Europe is dumb.

    4. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Nice point! The most insightful thing I have read all day.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    5. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by csteinle · · Score: 1
      Films classified by the Brits, are only for showings in England.


      BBFC classifications also effect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

      But of course, you already knew that and I'm just a Scot who is pig sick of being refered to as English.
    6. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm what? Can you yanks please take off your zionist blinkers and see that perhaps the rest of the world can be critical of Isreali policy towards the natural inhabitants of the land they occupy without being racist?

      Maybe it's because you killed off all of the native Americans to create your highly successful "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." (TM) that you empathise with the Isreali settlers.

      You freedom has gone and there was nothing brave about a technologically advanced culture killing off the native Americans.

    7. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Quikah · · Score: 1

      North America: Neo kicks the crap out of someone and then gives a passionate kiss to Trinity. R-rated for explicit sex.

      Not sure if you are talking about Reloaded or the original so:

      The Matrix - Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language.
      The Matrix Reloaded - Rated R for sci-fi violence and some sexuality

      But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

      --
      Q.
    8. Re:Multiculturalism in a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey buttlicker - you became English when the Scots sold out to the queen last century, dumass.

  28. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for reminding me why Yakov Smirnoff is such a washed-up, has-been, loser.

  29. Why now? by djtripp · · Score: 1

    The question that I ask is why now? The background between the two movies are basicaly the same. It's not about the violence, it's about beleifs, perspectives, what have you. Will they ban sales and rentals of the original Matrix?

    --
    "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
  30. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by kamukwam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Thank you very much! Have a nice day!

  31. Re:heh by ffsnjb · · Score: 1

    I can't believe I misspelled derogatory even after looking it up at dict.org.

    --
    "Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
  32. The first movie by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    sparked a lot of anger in Egypt. The government is just trying to forestall the turmoil that would obviously accompany the second movie.

    Personally, I think this is totally silly, but then again, the whole cultural relativity/ absolutism buzzsaw I would walk into by commenting any further forestalls me from doing so.

    I am sure there others in the Slashdot crowd who are not so timid. Let the geopolitical and theological hooting and hollering begin.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. No... by neksys · · Score: 0

    its being banned because it directly questions some of the religious values upon which the entire theocratic government is built, which is, of course, seen as a threat to their power -- if the Matrix causes the average Egyptian to question the existence of God (doubtful, but I suppose conceivable), then the perceived Divine Right to Leadership enjoyed by the government is destroyed. No government wants that.

    1. Re:No... by KingRamsis · · Score: 4, Informative

      then the perceived Divine Right to Leadership enjoyed by the government is destroyed. No government wants that.

      That is one nice speculation coming out of your ass, I'm Egyptian and living there actually and I tell you that the government is totally secular and the fact that the average Egyptian believes in God or not has nothing to do with the government right to rule, however there are laws against insulting other religions. Tsk ..tsk ..tsk typical American stereotyping.

    2. Re:No... by HalfFlat · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people just spout off with absolutely no clue? Being ignorant is one thing, but speaking with such an air of authority while being founded in such ignorance ... it's terrible.

      Sadly, it also reinforces the negative stereotypes of US citizens (even if in fact, the parent commenter isn't one.) Perhaps neksys was just trolling?

      At anyrate: the Egyptian government is not a theocracy. There is no perceived Divine Right to Leadership given that the government is democratically elected, and that religiously based parties are unconstitutional.

      The decision has nothing to do with a fear it will shake the population's belief in God, and much more to do with feeling that the screening of the film will stir up trouble that really doesn't need to be stirred.

    3. Re:No... by kikta · · Score: 4, Funny
      Tsk ..tsk ..tsk typical American stereotyping.

      Uh... isn't that a stereotype, too?
    4. Re:No... by alan6101 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it stereotypical to acuse someone who stereotypes as being stereotypical when they... wait, I'm think I'm trapped in an infinite loop now. Nevermind.

      --


      This space for rent.
    5. Re:No... by Seahawk · · Score: 0

      > mod me up and you will either go to heaven or date Natalie Portman.

      GREAT! I'm an atheist... :)

    6. Re:No... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      atheist or even Jedi we got something for everyone :-)

    7. Re:No... by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      Except for the whole anti-semetism thing. And the extension of the "I hate Israel" song.

    8. Re:No... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      you are so flamebait...
      dont feed the trolls...dont feed the trolls
      damn it !!
      first of all arabs are actually semites read the dictionary definiation ASSHOLE
      and being anti-zionist != anti-jewish
      and if Israeli soliders killed your family for throwing rocks on their armored tanks you will certainly hate them.
      yet there are honest jews out there who are against zionism and the existiance of Israel.

    9. Re:No... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Just shut up, you don't need to take such an extreme view of it. I think all you extremists ought to be dragged out into the street and shot! :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  34. Maybe they just want to prevent panic.. by lleo · · Score: 1

    because of the 'vampire' thing...

  35. I agree by joerg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I agree. The above post is completely off-topic! The moderators should do something about it!

  36. Not far from what people think here by bigmattana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we have the freedom of speech here in the U.S., similar thinking regarding the fear of talking about religion is alive here. Religion these days is like sex was 100 years ago - nobody thinks it is appropriate to talk about, as if some sort of war or riot is going to break out of we talk about it. When will people understand that there can be both peace and difference of opinions and beliefs at the same time? If we think we have to neuter ourselves for the sake of getting along with others, then we have truly given up. We don't need to voluntarily self-impose such restrictions as Egypt is on our own talk and thoughts. I am glad that the Matrix 2 looks at some of these issues. (Though I am always a little worried when Hollywood does try to look at religious issues.) I think that part of the reason many people think the movie is so deep is that they had never thought about such things for themselves before.

    1. Re:Not far from what people think here by vajcovec · · Score: 0

      When will people understand that there can be both peace and difference of opinions and beliefs at the same time?

      When they understand it, it will be true. Until they do, it will remain false.

    2. Re:Not far from what people think here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing new about this. What's that old saying about religion and politics not being discussed in polite company?

      There is nothing sinister about this. Nine times out of ten in the US when someone wants to bring religion into the picture it is because they want to evangelize and/or gain some sort of advantage for themselves and their faith.

  37. I don't think Theodore Herzl had this in mind: by eidechse · · Score: 1

    The first Matrix movie was released in Egypt but was criticised by Islamic newspapers for promoting Zionism.

    Maybe I should check the credits again to make sure.

  38. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't even tell where the fsck I am now

  39. oh really? by b17bmbr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    now, as a history teacher, i understand the problems that islam has with the "personification" of God, however,

    which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.

    muslims recognize abraham, moses, jesus, et al., as prohets, muhammad being the last and final, but i do doubt their sincerity here. they are an islamic nation, and their laws reflect as much (we should remember that here), however i wonder how "divine" they see jews and christians. even though egypt is one of only two arab nations that have recognized israel (jordan being the other), their actions towards jews and christians have been less than respectful, i dare say

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:oh really? by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      actually there is a quite big christian community in Egypt. THey are called Coptic.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    2. Re:oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an assumption that people who are anti-Zionist are anti-semitic. Anti-Zionism is opposition to the creation of the state of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. Anti-semitism is a hatred for people of the Jewish faith. Indeed there are Jews and Jewish groups who are anti-Zionist.

      It is also interesting to note that there were Jewish minorities in most (if not all) the countries of the middle-east before the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent creation of the Israeli state.

    3. Re:oh really? by vidarh · · Score: 1
      While they may not like Israel, that doesn't change the fact that Jewish religion is seen as divine, as is christianity.

      The Quran even specifically treat Christians and Jews better than the rest, and may avoid hell:

      002.062 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

      Contrast that with non-believers and believers in "false" gods, who according to the Quran will go straight to hell.

    4. Re:oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...their actions towards jews and christians have been less than respectful...

      Hmm. I hardly think that all Jews or Christians are respectful towards Muslims, do you?

    5. Re:oh really? by operagost · · Score: 1
      I have another quote from the Qur'an for you:

      "You will indeed fight against the Jews and you will kill them to the point where the rock and the tree will say: âO Muslim! O âAbdullaah (slave of Allaah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.â(TM)"

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  40. Sorry, but obligatory by hmccabe · · Score: 1

    Whoa!

  41. BEST DEPARTMENT EVER by deltronzero · · Score: 1

    anybody else pull a rofl?

    (did you get it?)

  42. Nope. Sorry. by Mr2cents · · Score: 3, Insightful

    which we all respect and believe in.

    Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you!

    2. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Adaere · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, like this:
      "I'm an atheist, you insensitive clod!"

      Just a suggestion, I'm not an atheist, maybe you don't believe in saying "insensitive clod" either.

      --
      On the internet, no one knows you're a frog.
    3. Re:Nope. Sorry. by alan6101 · · Score: 0

      My definitiion of "Insightful" must be way off.

      --


      This space for rent.
    4. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      which we all respect and believe in.

      Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

      So that means you can't respect someone else's beliefs?
    5. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

      To deny Him, you must first believe in Him.

    6. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To deny Santa, you must first believe in fairys.

    7. Re:Nope. Sorry. by pulse2600 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

      Well then that's your problem. You are also taking that quote out of context - the quote refers to a statement made by Egypt about the country of Egypt, not you. I love how athiests take personal offense to every little comment that somehow refers to religion, even when said comment does not personally involve them. It's like they think they'll go to Hell for being tolerant, accepting, or respectful of someone else's beliefs, and...oh I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't have said Hell in your presence....damn I said it again!

    8. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who asked for your 2 cents?

    9. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah..me too atheist

      let all the atheists rise!!!!

    10. Re:Nope. Sorry. by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true. There are (by my observation) 2 main types of atheists:

      1) The ones who for some reason are upset (angry, afraid, whatever) with "God", and thus deny the existence thereof. Many of these folks are unhappy and a bit hostile. A lot of atheists get a bad rap because of this.

      2) Those of us who simply see no conclusive evidence for a god (or if you're afraid of commitment, you call yoursef agnostic :)), and so don't believe. These type of people are typically quieter about their lack of faith.

      The logic that 'you must believe to deny' is flawed... it assumes that faith is the default.

      I maintain that faith is trained into people, the default is probably to believe nothing (in the sense that we don't know language, social skills, etc. before we are trained.)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    11. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend.

    12. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 0

      The logic that 'you must believe to deny' is flawed... it assumes that faith is the default.

      Look at the world around you; faith is the default. I admit he logic is flawed, most in trying to be glib, because the actual statement should be more along the lines that you have to define to disprove. The problem with atheists is that they're just as turned around as the "true believers" because they have nothing with which to disprove. I'd say the agnostic is on better footing because they take the scientific approach and admit they really can't say one way or the other, if only because the definition of god is often simply one that cannot be tested in any reasonable fashion.

      I maintain that faith is trained into people, the default is probably to believe nothing (in the sense that we don't know language, social skills, etc. before we are trained.)

      I think you're confusing design and implementation. :-) If you equate faith to language, then you'd pretty much have to admit that faith is built into us, but that a primary faith is established in training. Without external influences, people still make up their own belief systems. Interestingly, the bonds of belief seem to be even stronger than the bonds of language because people seem to have no problem with multiple languages, but once you start mixing multiple faiths together people starting killing one another.

    13. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what he said. Did you miss the "AND" term of the expression? Back to boolean logic class for you.

    14. Re:Nope. Sorry. by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Eh, faith may be very popular, it isn't the default. If you don't teach the kid language (skills, faith, whatever), he/she just won't have them. It IS true that this untrained person won't fit very well into a group of trained individuals, however.

      I'll meet you halfway and say that _questioning_ is inherent. Some folks choose to get the answers from holy books, some from their own observations, and some decide that they'll never know.

      Unfortunately, most (not all) organized religions claim tolerance, but believe they are the only correct one (I always laugh at a catholic mocking a baptist for "thinking he's got the only true religion... fool, WE do", for example). It's not a long way from "I know the true nature of god/life/whatever" to "Why don't you know the true nature" to "I'll kill you for not knowing".

      If I understood _why_ this happened, I'd be posting it somewhere more mainstream than slashdot. :)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    15. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like somebody's been mixing their medications again.

    16. Re:Nope. Sorry. by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

      But you're not Egyptian, I bet.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    17. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Sanga · · Score: 1



      which we all respect and believe in.

      Excuse me, I'm an atheist.


      You left out "you insensitive clod".

      *smile*

    18. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a flying rat's ass? I like to molest small children and large furry animals while wearing nazi uniforms made out of used condoms, but there's no way in hell mentioning -that- would ever get modded up.

    19. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      The problem with atheists is that they're just as turned around as the "true believers" because they have nothing with which to disprove.

      Not necessarily. I don't believe in purple unicorns. Of course, I can't prove there aren't any purple unicorns, 'cause you can't prove a negative, but I don't care - I still don't believe in 'em. The important thing is that I'm not tied to this belief. If I met a purple unicorn, I would quite happily change my belief. Hey, I'm flexible.

      I have friends that believe in God (or Gods), I have friends that believe in astrology or the healing power of crystals. I don't believe in any of that crap myself, but, y'know, I think people should be allowed to believe (or not believe) whatever they want.

      I'd say the agnostic is on better footing because they take the scientific approach and admit they really can't say one way or the other

      It's not unscientific to chose what seems like a sensible set of beliefs based on available evidence. What is scientific is to mistake a belief for a fact, or to be unwilling to change your beliefs in the face of new evidence. I don't believe in god(s), but I'm not trying to claim that it's a proven fact that there are no gods. I just don't believe it, that's all.

    20. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Argh, of course I meant: "what is UNscientific is to mistake a belief for a fact..."

    21. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I don't believe in purple unicorns. Of course, I can't prove there aren't any purple unicorns, 'cause you can't prove a negative, but I don't care - I still don't believe in 'em.

      But the atheist position isn't about individual belief in a religion's particular god. Instead they assert there is no god. They take the absolute position "against" in the absence of evidence, just as the believers take the absolute position "for". They simply declare there is no purple unicorn because they've never seen one.

      It's not unscientific to chose what seems like a sensible set of beliefs based on available evidence.

      Again, that is not the case. If their belief system were to say nothing exists unless they "know" it, that would be fine. Instead of that, though, the ones I know seem quite comfortable acknowledging the existence of things like iPods though they've never seen or touched one in person. There is an inconsistency that they never seem able to explain.

      I don't believe in god(s), but I'm not trying to claim that it's a proven fact that there are no gods. I just don't believe it, that's all.

      Then you are agnostic, not an atheist. Like the purple unicorn, you simply don't believe because you haven't got a reason to believe.

    22. Re:Nope. Sorry. by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate here...

      To deny Him, you must first believe in Him.

      Not really. I deny that 12-eyed, sumo wrestling, green pop stars from Venus exist. Doesn't mean that I have to believe in them first.

      (I may have been trolled.)

    23. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, speaking for this atheist, I just get sick of all of the bible-thumping I'm surrounded with. Yes, I realize it's childish and I should just let the theists believe what they want without a hassle, but I just get sick of seeing those goddamn (irony here) Jesus fish on the back of cars and cutesy and sophilistic bumper stickers like "my boss is a jewish carpenter" or "God said it. I believe it. that settles it.", or my personal mosted hated "What whould Jesus do?".

      It's not every little comment. It's every goddamn (irony again) comment! You (plural for all theists) are given rights for free religious choice and free speech and I fully support those rights (unlike our government). It's just aggivating as Hell (metaphorical hell) to see this christianity uber alles propaganda all of the time, so I lash out. Sorry if I hurt your feelings but your prothlesysing causes me pain -- An Eye for an Eye and all that.

      To close, I'd like to quote Dave Allen, (a british comedian). "Good Night and may your God go with you", to which I add "No takebacks; you keep him.".

    24. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      > I don't believe in god(s), but I'm not trying to claim it's a proven fact that there are no gods.

      Then you are agnostic, not an atheist.

      Wordnet says that atheism is:

      1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
      2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

      Other dictionaries say similar things. I think it's pretty clear that I am, indeed, an atheist. Just not a doctrinaire (or dogmatic) one.

      On the other hand, the definitions of "agnostic" and "agnosticism" are a little more vague. I always thought an agnostic was someone who neither believed nor disbelieved (which, obviously, lets me out). But it turns out it's not quite that simple. Under some of the looser definitions, I may well be an agnostic in addition to being an atheist. But I think maybe those looser definitions are intended to refer to non-secular uses of the word. ("Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi?" "I'm agnostic.")

      Anyway, the fact that you know some dogmatic atheists does not mean that all atheists are dogmatic. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority are non-dogmatic. The non-dogmatic ones won't go around preaching atheism at you, so you probably don't notice them as much. But that doesn't mean that they (and I) aren't atheists.

    25. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 1

      Other dictionaries say similar things. I think it's pretty clear that I am, indeed, an atheist. Just not a doctrinaire (or dogmatic) one.

      I don't think you are. There is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Webster's gives what I find a better definition: one who denies the existence of God. In that, it is clearer the atheist has already reached a conclusion independent of any evidence, which is as unscientific an approach as those who believe without evidence.

      On the other hand, the definitions of "agnostic" and "agnosticism" are a little more vague.

      Well, you may not exactly be agnostic either. :-) What does seem significant is that you are willing to re-weigh new evidence and change your mind. If you were an atheist, I would instead expect you to recast the evidence to fit within the framework of your belief.

      Anyway, the fact that you know some dogmatic atheists does not mean that all atheists are dogmatic.

      Dogma isn't the factor I take issue with, it's the inconsistency. An individual should feel free to deny the existence of anything they like, but they should do so with the foundation of their person not a the whim of what that represents. For what ever reason they might say there is no god, they should also say there is no iPod (or whatever). That's never been the case in my experience; they always seem to maintain the inconsistency.

    26. Re:Nope. Sorry. by pulse2600 · · Score: 1

      I think the main difference here is that people with WWJD stickers and the like truly feel that by advertising their religion (read: preaching) that they will reach you and save your soul. They think that getting a nonbeliever to believe is helping that person in some way.

      Honestly as a Christian I think alot of those bumper stickers are dumb and do nothing for the religion, or to convince somebody that their religion is correct. I've seen a few that do stimulate my thought or present a good argument about religion, but not many. Most are simply self-righteous statements that people think make themselves look better than others - which is absolute bullshit IMHO. If that is your frustration then I understand and agree with you.

      Maybe you are frustrated with it because there is nothing for the atheists to preach/advertise in return? Let's reverse the situation - what can an atheist say to somebody who is religious to save them, and save them from what? How do you save someone from an afterlife by telling them the afterlife is not there? What could an atheist preach or advertise that would cause a thought or have such a profound effect on another person's life that if he/she believed it, it would change what happens to that person when/after they die?

    27. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist.

      There can be. An agnostic might say, "I don't believe in gods, but I don't disbelieve in them either." But that's not what I said. I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact. But I'm sorry, no matter how you to try to slice it or weasel-word it, the fact remains that I am an atheist.

      What does seem significant is that you are willing to re-weigh new evidence and change your mind. If you were an atheist, I would instead expect you to recast the evidence to fit within the framework of your belief.

      And what I'm trying to tell you is that your expectations of atheists are wrong! Recasting evidence to fit within the framework of your belief is a sign of dogmatism, and I'm not a dogmatist. I deny the existence of gods and purple unicorns and many other things that I find silly, based on the information available to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Its a value judgement. My belief in iPods (which I've never seen) is also a value judgement. The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.

      Dogma isn't the factor I take issue with

      Actually, I think dogma is exactly the factor you take issue with. Which is reasonable, I'm not a fan of dogmatism either. Which is why I find your attempt to paint atheists as dogmatists to be offensive. Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods. I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate. I've been known to use this cop-out myself.

      (Note that we're discussing the nature of atheists here. If we were discussing the existence of gods, I would be gone so fast it would make your head spin. I. Don't. Care.)

      An individual should feel free to deny the existence of anything they like, but they should do so with the foundation of their person not a the whim of what that represents.

      I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.

      For what ever reason they might say there is no god, they should also say there is no iPod (or whatever).

      So you're saying that I can't examine two different sets of incomplete evidence and form two different conclusions? I think you're wrong. There's a little thing called "judgement" that comes into play here.

    28. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 1

      I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact.

      Then you are not an atheist. I don't know why you seem to have an overwhelming need to fit such a label, but the fact is that you do not. The reason is you acknowledge that your view to be a belief, which is not allowed for a theist or an atheist. To them, they hold the truth and have no need to qualify their view as being a personal belief.

      The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.

      You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example. You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.

      Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.

      This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.

      I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate.

      Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response. To me, it simply represents that one is willing to acknowledge that they cannot know everything and that they therefore can not always reach the right conclusion. There is really nothing I can point to being convincing towards either theism or atheism.

      I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.

      It means we probably wouldn't get along very well in person. :-) The problem is that you seem unwilling to ponder "silly" things, where I enjoy toying with ideas of all kinds.

    29. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Then you are not an atheist.

      If I'm not an atheist, them I'm a non-atheist who subscribes to atheism (see my dictionary def'n of atheism earlier). Also, I'm definitely an atheist according to the alt.atheism FAQ. Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".

      Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.

      However the language evolves. Most people would say that if you had a poll: "Do you believe in God? A) yes, B) no, C) maybe, D) don't know," anyone who chose A is a theist, anyone who chose B is an atheist, and anyone who chose C or D is an agnostic. Since I'd choose B, I think most people (including myself) would consider me an atheist.

      You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example.

      As a relativist, I feel that doing anything else would be a mistake. :)

      You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.

      I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions. If by "sound", you mean, "based on incontrovertible evidence", then yes, I agree with you. The evidence for the iPod is not incontrovertible. However, as an intelligent human being, able to form personal opinions, I have weighed the evidence available to me and formed certain conclusions. That's one thing humans are good at - reasoning from incomplete evidence. Sometimes (frequently) we make mistakes, but on the whole it has proved to be a highly useful trait. And my personal judgement, made with my very human brain, is that the evidence for the iPod, incomplete though it may be, is vastly superior to the evidence for gods.

      > Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.

      This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.

      You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you? :)

      No, it doesn't completely contradict my earlier statement, because in the actual, messy, complicated, REAL world, things aren't pure black and white. 99.999999% of the discussions I've seen on this topic involved people with closed minds (yes, usually on both sides) rehashing tired old topics over and over. I haven't got the time to winnow through all that chaff for the possible (but improbable) kernel of wisdom. However, I rest comfortably, knowing that if anyone ever does come up with new information on the topic, it will attract enough attention and media publicity that I'll end up hearing about it, probably whether I want to or not. In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.

      Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response.

      Yes, it is. I rib agnostics, but I still respect them. Heck, I used to be one, or at least that's what I told myself. But as I've gotten older, I've come to grips with the fact that I really never did believe in gods. At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second. (Well, ignoring that time at a Pink Floyd concert back in the early seventies, but I wasn

    30. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 1

      Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".

      Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group. You also seem to want to think of yourself as an atheist, so you're showing favor to definitions that seem to include you. However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".

      Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.

      I have no particular investment in you being agnostic, so if that label doesn't fit then fine. It just the closest one that comes to mind when I hear that someone simply doesn't believe there is a god. If you've got a better label for yourself, let me know. :-)

      I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions.

      But don't you see that that is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well? They are just as certain of the foundation of their beliefs as you are of yours. It doesn't put you in a better reasoned position than theirs. So while you may like to feel you're somehow better by carrying the badge of an atheist around with you, that is not the case at all.

      You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you? :)

      Absolutely. :-) I only go beyond logic when I have to.

      In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.

      Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment. I'm not nearly as completely trusting in the ability of others to do good work.

      At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second.

      For all we've written, I'm not even sure what particular "junk" you don't believe in! Perhaps part of the issue is that you've let other people define what God is supposed to be, and that's why it seems like junk. And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally. Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself? If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?

    31. Re:Nope. Sorry. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group.

      Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.

      However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".

      Two other dictionaries I have here (one a Webster's too) both say, "deny the existence of God," not "deny that there can be a God." And looking up deny, I find "refuse to accept or believe." And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals because I don't believe in gods, leprechauns, etc. QED, I'm an atheist, by at least three dictionaries.

      But don't you see that [making a judgement call] is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well?

      Of course. I never claimed to be any different or any better than anyone else.

      > ...my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis...

      Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment.

      You're assuming that I care whether or not there are gods; that this "personal enlightenment" you speak of is a goal of mine. I don't, and it isn't. I'm more interested in the question of whether or not there's a Higg's Boson. And I'm only mildly interested in that. And guess what? I'm letting other people do the work there too. :)

      More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything. I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that wouldn't change the fact that it's actually made out of balsa wood, hand-painted canvas and thumbtacks (or whatever). If there is a God, my lack of belief won't make him poof out of existence, and if there is no God, my belief wouldn't make one appear out of nowhere. And please don't bring up Pascal's wager - that one is covered here.

      And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally.

      We're treading dangerously close to an actual religious discussion here, which is where I will bow out. But yes, if you insist, I will admit that there are notions of gods that I would consider "entertaining whimsy", not just junk. But I'm afraid that "entertaining whimsy" is probably the best you'll get out of me.

      Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself?

      I'm happy with the perspective I have of the universe as a strange, amazing, awe-inspiring place. I don't need to make up fairy tales (or entertaining whimsies) to humanize the universe or reduce its awesome majesty, and make it feel like something I could comfortably fit in my back pocket. I'm perfectly satisfied to take the universe on the terms it presents itself to me. Big, odd, and quirky (not to mention quarky). :)

      If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?

      Nope, sorry. First, I don't believe that there is one "best" way to live life. And second, I think the fact that I'm a social animal provides a perfectly adequate explanation for why I enjoy being a good person (insofar as I do, of course).

      Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now. Not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion so far, but a couple more questions like that last one, and I'm going to end up hopping around and barking at the moon in exasperation.

      cheers

    32. Re:Nope. Sorry. by droleary · · Score: 1

      Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.

      Fortunately, that case does not apply to me.

      And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals . . .

      OK, now I know you're an atheist. As I said before, there is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Up until now, all I was seeing was "I don't believe this" and "I don't believe that". This is the first time I recall you ever saying say what you do believe.

      More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything.

      You'd be wrong. Your whole existence is the sum of what you believe. If you believed the Earth was flat and/or the center of the Universe, the way you live your life would be very different. If you believed you could be on a rocket ship traveling alongside a wave of light, you might just have discovered that E = mc^2. And maybe the best way to find the Higgs Boson is to stand in the shoes of God.

      Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now.

      If you weren't an athesist, I'd say you had theophobia. :-) I don't have a religious debate in me, so I have no idea what you're sensing. My only real stance has been that by declaring something impossible you limit yourself. If you don't agree, that limits the conversation and naturally ends it.

  43. Zion by jilbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the real reason they have banned it is that the city of free people in the film is called "Zion"! This also caused problems with the first Matrix film. The film makers have really shot themselves in the foot with that one!

  44. it's about Zion by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

    An interesting suggestion from a BBC foreign correspondent this morning was that the real reason for the ban is that the underground city is called Zion.

    Thus the matrix could be interpereted as a pro-Israeli allegory - not a popular message in Egypt at the moment.

    1. Re:it's about Zion by jilbert · · Score: 1

      snap!

  45. Your ignorance of ME politics is showing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you. Yes, all of you. How much do you people know about Egypt, exactly?

    To judge from your responses, not a lot.

    Egypt, much like most Arab dictatorships, does not base its power on Islam. On the contrary, its government is secular, and fights religious extremists with vigour, because they threaten their rule. The previous Egyptian dictator, Anwar Sa'adat, was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist religious faction, also responsible for various attacks against tourists in the last few years.

    Of course, they fight democracy and human-rights activists with equal vigour, for more-or-less the same reason (ruling parties in dictatorships do not give up their seats easily).

    It is far more likely that the ban comes, not only as a sincere attempt at curtailing independent anti-establishment thought, but as a kowtow to the strong anti-Zionist (bordering on anti-semite) sentiments throughout the Egyptian academia, which has been mistargeted at Matrix et al. due to their use of the name Zion for a city that is ruled by the "good guys."

    And that's it. I know it's nice to put everything evil under the "religious interests interfering with policy" ruberik, but it's not always the truth, and it isn't in this case, as far as I know.

    Yours,

    Some Guy From the Middle East (North-East of Egypt)

    1. Re:Your ignorance of ME politics is showing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is strong anti-zionist sentiment in academia everywhere mainly because decades of brutal occupation so one group can carve an ethnically pure nation out of Palestinian land is a crime against humanity.

  46. Is it really that different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we in our western democracies really any different? The board in Egypt, reviewing it, said "We don't like this, so we won't let it in." Here, we have the tyranny of the majority. I can say what I wish, as long as I can bear both social stigma and abuse, but the people are not often kind, and social backlash is about as effective as a repressive society and stagnates thought just as much. It seems that we have the same thing over here (and on this board) as they have over their. The only difference is that here it is enforced by a popular majority.

  47. Life of Brian by bananahammock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This film was initially banned in Norway for blasphemy. It wasn't released there until 1980 - IMDB

    Western countries also have their skeletons in the closet.

    1. Re:Life of Brian by korielgraculus · · Score: 1

      Or even their dead parrots ;)

    2. Re:Life of Brian by nordicfrost · · Score: 1
      I would rather explain this as a "Glitch in the Matrix", eh, "Glitch in the legal system". We have a law protecting the religions from slander. The conflicts somewhat with the right of free speech but not not more than if I lied publically about a person.


      BTW: The film was perfectly legal to view, buy and show for any private citizen. Just not for the state controlled media, because the are not supposed to fuck around with any religion.

    3. Re:Life of Brian by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Yes it does conflict more. Besides, what I would call historical research, such as mythist theory of the non existence of "jesus", would put someone in jail.

    4. Re:Life of Brian by Larsing · · Score: 1

      In Norway!!!

      Well, I always thought the Norwegians were a bit wierd... in a friendly "lusekofta" sort of way ,-)

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    5. Re:Life of Brian by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      This film was initially banned in Norway for blasphemy. It wasn't released there until 1980 - IMDB

      Western countries also have their skeletons in the closet.


      Your point? If Slashdot had been around in the 1970's, we would have been bitching about Norway's actions. This is not an east versus west thing; this is a Egypt is being stupid thing.

      (And I'm not sure Egypt is really an Eastern country. Historically speaking, it interacted with the Greeks and the Roman empire extensively. Geographically, it's as far west as the Ukraine and St. Petersberg, both part of the west. It's also in Africa, not the Middle East.)

  48. Fundamental nature of fundamentalism by fishbonez · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of fundamentalism at work. Regardless of the particular type of fundamentalism, there is always an underlying need to protect the belief system. It takes a lot of work to foist a set of extreme values on a group of people. Because the system is so extreme, it can easily collapse if people are allowed to think for themselves. I heard an creationist say that if the bible is wrong about god creating the earth, then how can he believe anything else it says. If your belief system is a house of cards, then you have more to think about then just preventing the slightest breeze.

    --
    Frylock: That's not a toy!
    Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
    1. Re:Fundamental nature of fundamentalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, Islam creation history is the "Big Bang" that you can read about in the Quran. So I guess it is consistent with the popular scientific idea of how the world was created.

      And the modern science cannot explain what created the big bang, while Islam can it says it was The GOD who did so.

      You can read more about this Big Bang theory in Islam on this page Origin of Earth

  49. Band ? Yea right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they going to do about the bad Hong Kong DVD copies already there?

  50. Logical Soundness is not the issue here by btakita · · Score: 1

    The Egyptian scholars already "know" that the Matrix isn't logically sound.

    The Matrix doesn't need to be logically sound to encourage people to think outside their box and question things.

    Maybe that's what they are afraid of.

    Then again, a cult could be started. They have been inspired from lesser circumstances.

  51. Iron like a lion in... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

    I suppose they don't like Bob Marley either.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  52. BBFC gave it a 15 by RatFink100 · · Score: 1

    There's no such rating as 'restricted', unless you meant R18. However both The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded were passed 15.

    1. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's no such rating as 'restricted', unless you meant R18.

      Indeed :-)

      However both The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded were passed 15.

      And that's why there is no "motherfucker" in the scene where Trinity is supposed to say "Dodge this, motherfucker!"; contrary to the script, she just says "dodge this!" :-)

      And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?

    2. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Swiss_Cheeseman · · Score: 1

      It sounds better without "motherfucker" anyway.

      The US seems to have this "ban swear words and sex, but violence is A-OK". That isn't weird, its fucking stupid.

      In australia, sex is treated even more harshly, but swearing is OK. You can hear "fuck" on TV at 8pm sometimes.

      The UK is strange, I think they have something against martial arts of something like that.

    3. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The UK is strange, I think they have something against martial arts of something like that.


      That was just one bloke at the British Board of Fucking Censors. Thankfully he's gone now, so they're not doing it anymore.

      Then again they did cut a scene from Buffy Season 3 when it was released on video for "imitable behavior" because Giles hotwired his own car.
    4. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now an R18 Reloaded might be an interesting thing :)
      The dialogue couldn't get any worse.

      [in Dutch accent]
      "I've come to fix your Matrix...."

    5. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Heh, no.
      You apparantly haven't played counterstrike recently. There are servers that autokick you for cussing (ass even!) among other things. This in a game that is based on what I would think to be more or less adult themes. Not that I can figure it out, but whatever.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    6. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by danila · · Score: 1

      That's different. Some counterstrike players are just tired of cursing. If you don't know that, it's you apparently, who haven't played CS recently. ;) And because some players would rather play on restricted server, such servers were created. This is nothing like some outside organisation banning the world "ass" from counterstrike outright.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      To quote no less than Alanis Morissette:

      We watch movies of murder, and we censor the breast

    8. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?

      In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

      http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quotes2/quautch ur chill2winstonsx001.htm

    9. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [in a French accent]

      I love it! It's like wiping my arse with silk!

    10. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [in a 16 year old boy squeek]

      Neo! You saved me! Make me handle your hackship guns!

    11. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Along a similar vein, have you noticed the increase in gruesome detail depicted on US TV? Every night on several channels are "forensic" shows, that take a murder and break it down over the course of an hour. "First, he slashed her throat from left to right, then stabbed her twice just below the ribs... yada yada yada."

      Frankly I find it pretty sick!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    12. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes: anything imitiable. Strangling, smothering, hanging, reverse kicks, nunchaku are all unlikely to be shown before 9pm on UK TV. Guns are OK because nobody not already fsked-up in the UK owns a gun.

    13. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by tonyl · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We watch movies of murder, and we censor the breast

      Well, duh. as should be obvious to everyone who has ever seen one, breasts are very, very dangerous.

      Not as bad as penises though. Those things can poke your eye out.

      Seriously: the general fear of anything sexual is sick. Not that sex isn't a powerful emotional force that needs respect and careful handling. But I think on balance we'd be far better off with more sex and less violence.

      --
      -- Tony Lawrence
    14. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I call B.S., if she kept talking any longer he would have had time to dodge 'this'.

    15. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Col.+Panic · · Score: 0

      "Dodge this, motherfucker!"

      Rule #1 when holding a gun to the head of a super-fast computer program:

      Don't use four syllable words before pulling the trigger

    16. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "Every night on several channels are "forensic" shows, that take a murder and break it down over the course of an hour."

      My fiance has a Season Pass to every one of those shows on our TiVo. When I talk (out of my ass) about how I'd like to kill someone that angered me on a particular day, she offers to be my consultant for the job.

    17. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by ryanvm · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?

      Shut up, motherfucker.

    18. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Yeah, sure. Officially, anyway. The actual situation is just that it's more dangerous to wave weapons around in public here.

    19. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      To quote george carlin:
      "In america, if you show a tit, it's R, if you cut it off, it's PG"

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    20. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      Heh. Insightful? You guys are weird.

    21. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by operagost · · Score: 1
      Well, duh. as should be obvious to everyone who has ever seen one, breasts are very, very dangerous.

      One word for you: Fem-bot

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      The BBFC don't cut anything. Its the studios/distributors that cut their films in order to receive lower ratings (based on advice from the BBFC).

      That's why they aren't censors - they aren't censoring anything. Its the money-grubbing movie execs that are doing the censoring.

    23. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if she was shooting a person, and that person died with blood and guts, I would agree with you.

      However, she shot a COMPUTER PROGRAM, that didn't die. It's brains didn't blast all over the wall and it's corpse did not slump to the ground in a bloody mess. It fucking dissapeared, only to come back later COMPLETELY UNHURT. (just like real life!)

      So it's about as violent as your average video game. Video games for 15 year olds often have pretend violence with no swear words, just like this movie.

    24. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by wfberg · · Score: 1

      The BBFC don't cut anything. Its the studios/distributors that cut their films in order to receive lower ratings (based on advice from the BBFC).

      That's why they aren't censors - they aren't censoring anything. Its the money-grubbing movie execs that are doing the censoring.


      It's censorship alright if you're under the age of 18. Merely calling it classification, whilst at the same time labelling the classes with ages and actively enforcing age limits, is just a PR effort. It's still censorship. You don't get to see the juicy bits. Ever. Also, the BBFC can still ban films; if a film is not "classified" it's automatically illegal (contrast this to the US or any number of European countries where unclassified films default to 18/X).

      The C stands for Censorship.
      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    25. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Cederic · · Score: 1


      The BBFC would have quite happily allowed 'Motherfucker'. The film would just have gone out with an 18 instead of a 15.

      Don't blame the BBFC for the greed of hollywood studios causing them to cut their own films to reach a bigger market.

      ~Cederic

    26. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      (contrast this to the US or any number of European countries where unclassified films default to 18/X).
      Not true in the U.S. We have (as of yet) no government ratings classification; what we do have is an organization (the MPAA) which will rate your movie if you pay them a fee. Theater owners generally agree to abide by the ratings, but there is nothing (e.g. laws) that forces them to do so.

      A movie unrated by the MPAA is "unrated". In practice, this means that the MPAA wouldn't give them the rating they wanted, so they simply rejected the rating. Effectively, unrated films are generally shown only at "independent" art-house theaters or theater chains, of which there are several, and they have varying policies about how old you have to be to see such an "unrated" film (although as a practical matter, very few teenagers ever have any interest in seeing "unrated" films, as such films are usually artsy things that don't appeal to those under 20).

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    27. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Aexia · · Score: 1

      However, she shot a COMPUTER PROGRAM, that didn't die. It's brains didn't blast all over the wall and it's corpse did not slump to the ground in a bloody mess. It fucking dissapeared, only to come back later COMPLETELY UNHURT. (just like real life!)

      I guess you missed the Agent's body turning back into the helicopter pilot, who was now dead from the gunshot.

    28. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Leynos · · Score: 1

      You forget that Agents are controlling humans, so when you kill an Agent, you kill the human it's controlling.

      --
      "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
    29. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by payndz · · Score: 1

      Hmm, even though I'm in the UK, I've got the US R-rated DVD and there's no "Dodge this, motherfucker" in there either. Wasn't when I saw the film in the States while I was attending E3 '99, for that matter. Oh no! The Wachowskis censored their own script! Those motherfuckers!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    30. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the main edits made by the BBFC was to eliminate EVERY SINGLE HEAD BUTT from the movie.

      Which becomes REALLY noticeable when you watch the R2 DVD in conjunction with the R1.

    31. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      It's censorship alright if you're under the age of 18
      No its not. Since you aren't yet a fully fledged citizen, yet. There are a number of "rights" that aren't afforded to under 18s. The right to vote being one of them.

      Also, the BBFC can still ban films
      Err, How many films has the BBFC banned in the last 20 years? A ban only occurs when a film breaks EU and UK obscenity laws

      If a film doesn't get an "18" certificate, it simply gets classed as "R18", but it's still available to watch and buy (if you can find the right establishment).

      Contrary to popular belief, the BBFC's ratings aren't legally enforceable.
      Instead, they are guidelines to local authorities, to use as they wish. Most authorities choose to enforce the BBFC's ratings, but not all. (Westminster, for example, often doesn't).
      If a film is unrated, the local authority makes its own mind up, but its certainly not "illegal"

    32. Re:BBFC gave it a 15 by lucasw · · Score: 1

      And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?

      I wish you were the only one, but many people seem to be making the same error.

      There is no physical difference between hearing "motherfucker" in a movie and hearing "motherfucker" spoken in public. It's all sound waves: the depiction of someone swearing and someone swearing are the same. Though one major difference is that a movie played back in public doesn't respond to varying social norms of the situation the playback is occurring in- if one or more people are offended by swearing, others around them who are aware of this may modify their speech patterns- a recording can't be polite.

      Real violence and the depiction of violence only have common sensory components for a third party who is not actually hurting someone or destroying something or being hurt. The simulation of violence is more acceptable than swearing, and actual violence (which movies aren't capable of) is orders of magnitude worse than both.

  53. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by joerg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anonymous Coward wrote:
    "this has nothing to do with the subject! ...which would be why it's modded offtopic. Sonetimes the moderation system actually does work. shrug."
    Yes, i agree. Fortunately we have a moderation system like this, so we don't have to worry about things like this. This is a good thing.

    Maby someone should alert the moderators about this, just to make sure that the moderation system will work this time too. Mabye someone would like to write a mail to abuse@slashdot.org.

    B.t.w.: You wrote the word "Sonetimes". I assume you just misspelled "Sometimes". Can you please confirm this, just to make sure, that your posting will be correctly understood?

  54. Anyone else think of this... by Kyle+McFarlane · · Score: 1

    "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do, mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually *finds* it and we're straight out of a job, aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
    "That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
    "Might I make an observation at this point?" enquired Deep Thought.
    "We'll go on strike!" yelled Vroomfondel.
    "That's right!" agreed Majikthise. "You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!"

  55. It;s really sad... by botzi · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...when movies with non or O(x) intelectual message are censored.

    The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs."

    Sure, and "Dude, where's my car?" was a strong social movie for the soviets GULAG's....

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  56. I thought reloaded lost a lot of the religion by sparkes · · Score: 1

    We discussed this at a lug meeting last night. I can't really see how this film is banned and it's predesor not. Unless it is the frequent use of the word Zion in a country where extremist members of the government talk of zionist cabels almost daily.

    I personally think that reloaded has lost a lot of the religion from the first matrix film and this is why I don't understand the banning.

    In the first so many hints where given that neo is the second coming (or the thousand some odd in reloaded) that it was not so much of an undertone as the major film.

    I personally saw the trilogy moving towards an ultimate ending where neo is jesus, mohammed, budda and all the religous leaders ever in his various reincarnations and this one was leading to armageddon.

    Sure it mixed up all the religions but the lack of a clear god figure made it aghostic anyway.

    Unfortunatly reloaded made it all so in your face with far less of the undertones of the first film I am now a little worried that the white rabbit ending is coming. You know the one where he wakes up and the matrix was all a dream (or was it) it didn't work for Louis Carrol and I can't see it working here I just hope it doesn't happen.

    still never mind the effects where good.

    sparkes

    PS. Is the zion of reloaded part of the matrix? or is that taking the p**s?

  57. Yeah... it could lead youngsters to violence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HHeh.... phew....

  58. Egypt is not a full Democracy yet by btakita · · Score: 1

    You can't judge the Egyptian people for their government.

    Besides, if #2 is the case, then would those in power allow the citizens to remove them from power?

  59. Protecting "another system of control" by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1

    "The Matrix Reloaded" had a prophesy driven holy war which turned out to be a hoax, disasterous and "another system of control".

    That's a perfect message for the middle east, and a message that the totalitarian regimes in the Middle east don't want heard in their countries.

    If you read Arab journals, then you'll see that Iraq triggered all of the Arab presses in to absolute anti-American hysteria. All of the governments in the region are afraid that they may be next and they want maximum antiAmerican feeling prevailent to slow us down in getting cooperation.

    Yes they aren't completely friendly to radical islam, but they aren't really afraid of radical Islam either - because the worst that radical Islam can do is kill and oppress a lot of people and these totalitarian regimes aren't against that at all, in fact they want to maintain a level of violence because it distracts people and strengthens their power structures. The more enemies the better, in fact! It's liberalism, prosperity and rising expectations that they actually fear.

    1. Re:Protecting "another system of control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Isreal a totalitarian regime as well? I see it killing a lot more innocent people than Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Plus, why are they there?

    2. Re:Protecting "another system of control" by vidarh · · Score: 1
      I don't think you understand the dynamics of the Middle East very well. The arab world is split in two: Fundamentalist nations either ruled by clerics or with the government on a tight leash by the clerics, and nations that are more liberal, most of which are hereditary dictatorships of various kinds or military dictatorships.

      The latter, with a few exceptions, are terrified of the fundamentalists, and in some cases (Algerie, Egypt) aggressively use military force to suppress the most extreme fundamentalist movements.

      If you look at what actually happened during the Iraq war, you'll see that many of the governments, while against the invasion, were also against much of the anti-US hysteria (many of them used military and special forces to keep calm and avoid mass demonstrations), because it feeds the fundamentalist movements who would like to see their regimes replaced by cleric controlled theocracies instead.

      So yes, they are scared shitless of radical muslim groups, but at the same time they have to live with the fact that their populations either support these groups, or at least would support them if they came under attack from government, and the positions of these leaders is strong only as long as they are successful at balancing between modernisation and concessions to the fundamentalists to avoid open rebellion.

      If more of the Arab governments had wanted to fuel anti-US hysteria, things would have been much worse.

    3. Re:Protecting "another system of control" by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1

      Actually Egypt killed more Palestinians in one Massacre than the Israelis have ever killed over the course of their entire war...

      The problem here is that the totalitarian states in the Middle east create one hell of a lot of propaganda. The world is litterally soaking in propaganda, 100% of it false. Many people outside of those countries are foole as well.

  60. Re:YOU can make a difference! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, Why is that a troll? I think it's pretty true, maybe a flaimbait, but definity not a troll.

  61. Censorship? Only if they let their govt. by mrjb · · Score: 1

    Censorship is never foolproof. Especially after people have seen The Matrix part 1, they're gonna want to see Reloaded and Revolutions. I suspect there's gonna be a vivid black market on this one. Once the DVD is out there's always Amazon, and I'm also sure good quality copies will show up for download online around that time. As long as some people over there keep thinking for themselves, there will be hope.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  62. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's the architect! Dammit he's slick, not only does he confuse us in the movie, he confuses us in explaining why we shouldn't be confused.

  63. Zion by Dreaded+Tuesday · · Score: 1
    I for one thought the whole Zion/Rasta image was some rastafarian thing :) Come on.. Zion is from Neuromancer.. everyone knows it..

    Zion is mentioned alot in the bible, because it is the name of the city of David. I was going to quote the verses where it is mentioned, but there are so many! If you are interested, the search is HERE.

    --

    "Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer"

  64. The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable. It seemed a little progaganda-ish, nothing to do with the plot, just using the word so much, drilling it into your head, just the psychology of using the word so much. It's such an overloaded word.

    I'm a rabid Isreal-backer, supported the war, and am more than happy to accomodate all Muslims who want to be martyred, but really, the concept of a state founded on a religion is really bullshit.

    1. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a rabid Isreal-backer

      I suggest you do some research into the jewish state that was founded on terrorism, and expands through terrorising the palestinian population. fact: 1500 palestinians and around 200 israelis have been killed in the past three years. In the mean time, israel has used it as an excuse to build as many settlements as possible, because then they can "dismantle" some of the recently built (and empty) ones as part of a future peace settlement. they're a bunch of cold hearted arseholes but you've gotta admire the tactics!

    2. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like 750 Israelis, 2000 Palestinians and a few ignorant and arrogant western "peace activists".

    3. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by dvk · · Score: 1

      1) Uhm... a little advice... don't ever plan to visit Utah *grin*

      2) While i'd not be sorry at all if they didn't use the word in the first palce, I sort of understand how the idea makes sense considering the relevance of the term to The Book (whichever of the 3 revisions you subscribe to, if any).

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    4. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by Des+Herriott · · Score: 1

      I'm a rabid Isreal-backer

      the concept of a state founded on a religion is really bullshit

      Do you see the contradiction here?

    5. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he probably doesn't. Humans are like that.

    6. Re:The word "Zion" made me uncomfortable by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      No, they all think it's a secular democracy, now.

      I sat in on a speech in which the chief justice of their supreme court jumped through all sorts of logical hoops to try to convince everyone that Israel is not a religious state.

      It was sad, really... just an obvious attempt to gartner support from the US by disassociating themselves from the other 'terrorist' states.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  65. Welcome to Islam 101. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people bitch about how bad we have it here in the USA.

  66. Last Temptation Of Christ by ipous · · Score: 1

    ... by Martin Scorsese is the most rotten skeleton in the closet of some western countries.

  67. Allah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there really new character called Allah in Matrix Reloaded? If so, why was that name chosen?

    Matrix Reloaded is utter crap anyway. I prefer City of God

    1. Re:Allah? by hti_brain · · Score: 1

      Yeah there's a character called Fuck you in the Matrix. Go back to sleep lamerz!

  68. attitudes common in the US as well by 73939133 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'

    Sadly, similar attitudes exist among US leaders; Here is a quote from Bush:
    No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
    The only thing that is holding back people like Bush is a strong legal tradition of separation of church and state. But give people like Bush, Ashcroft, and their fascist pseudo-Christian core constituency a bit more time, and they will change that.
    1. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah, sure. Bush may be a jerk, but I doubt he would say something like that in public. He is a politician, after all, and seeking votes. I guess that it didn't happen is why it isn't all over the news.

    2. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      This was all over the news when Bush (Sr.) said it in 1987. Perhaps you are a little too young to remember. Bush the younger wouldn't even be capable of making such a (relatively) articulate statement.

      And you are kidding yourself if you think that those kinds of attitudes are at all unusual.

    3. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by dvk · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the only thing holding atheists on a warpath back from prohibiting any religious expression is the same separation.

      What really ticks me off is that none of the anti-xtian crusaders in the US, who get alll up in arms about anyone Christian saying something of the sort, have any issues with Islam and Muslims, for whome the idea of exterminting all non-believers is CENTRAL to their religion.
      Oh, and i'm not Christian, BTW, before you start yelling at me about my religion launching crusades and Inquisution ;)

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    4. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      That was actually Bush the First, if I recall correctly. Bush the Second has been more respectful of most individuals' religious rights, in word and in action.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    5. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by elefantstn · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's pretty disingenuous not to note that the quote is from George HW Bush, not George W Bush, especially when you refer to the latter afterwards without differentiating between the two.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    6. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW!!! It must be true if it is at a free fortunecity site with gator popups!!!

    7. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Don't be fooled by statements about religion by a politician ; he may as well believe in what he said, but if there was an atheist majority in USA he wouldn't have expressed his tought for fear of losing votes. And votes are what really make or destroy politicans.

    8. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by heli0 · · Score: 1

      For one thing it was rumored to have been said by George H Bush(41st), not George W(43rd).

      The closest thing to an explanation is here: TheAtheismWeb.

      Supposedly this reporter with the American Atheist Press had a 1-on-1 interview with Bush(41) when he made that statement. No major US paper thought it was credible enough to run, so I am inclined to believe that it is untrue.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    9. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by samrichards · · Score: 1

      that quote was from george bush senior, not george w. although i still find it appalling (and i'm not an atheist) it's good to check such things first. :o)

    10. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Nice job failing to discern between Bush I, who made the aforementioned statement to an atheist reporter, and Bush II, who is just surrounded by religious fundamentalists and latter-day Roman expansionists, with the rare cooler head (ironically, the one person out of them all who saw actual military combat).

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    11. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Actually it was Bush Sr. that said that. Not that Bush Jr. is any better, but he wasn't the one that said that.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    12. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by jafac · · Score: 1

      Bush the second eliminated the pagan religion from official military recognition, so those practicing pagan rites no longer have the services of a military chaplin, as muslims and Christians do.

      While I may agree with Bush that it's not a "real" religion (not anymore anyway) - I disagree with his position that we have any right to declare that to be a fact, and to deny a significant group of people their right to practice their religion while they serve in the military, defending MY nation and it's freedom.

      Bush Jr. is undoing the Constitution and Bill of Rights line by line.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading that link gives me the impression that is is most definitely true. There have been multiple occasions in writing (written responses from either asstd politicians or the Bush administration itself) that seemed to support the article.

    14. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by 73939133 · · Score: 1

      I provided a link, so it's not like I was hiding anything. I simply fail to see much of a difference between the two Bush's to make such a distinction. The original Bush was less of a dope than the current Bush, but the current one makes up for that with a cabinet of brilliantly evil, right-wing characters.

    15. Re:attitudes common in the US as well by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Translation: I got caught lying on Slashdot, but it's ok because I was lying about people I don't like.

      Yeah, you're pretty much an idiot.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
  69. Opium by Wolfhart · · Score: 1

    Karl Marx (of whom I'm not a fanboy) once said that "Religion is opium for the masses" (which on the other hand I believe is true). I guess today, The Matrix is opium for the masses.

  70. Malaysia rulezZzZ by hti_brain · · Score: 1

    the 3 religions are Christinity, Islam and Buddism. I'm from Malaysia, which is an Islamic country but the movie was not banned here. The Matrix ROXxXx!

    1. Re:Malaysia rulezZzZ by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Really. I would have thought it was Islam, Catholic, Orthodox christian ( there is a difference). Can't see many Buddhists in Egypt. Or Christian, Islam and Judaism.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    2. Re:Malaysia rulezZzZ by saihung · · Score: 1

      You're not by any chance referring to the same country where the laws are intentionally set up to discriminate against non-Malays in education, government service, etc., and where conversion away from Islam is an offence punishable by imprisonment, are you?

    3. Re:Malaysia rulezZzZ by budword · · Score: 1

      Buddhism is NOT one of the 3 mentioned. They were referring to Judaism, they call Islam, Christianity and Judaism religions "of the book", referring to the old Testament of the bible, which all 3 use in some form or another. They don't think much of Buddha buddy.

    4. Re:Malaysia rulezZzZ by Walter+Wart · · Score: 1

      It would help if you learned a bit more about

      1) Your religion
      2) Your country

      The "Three religions" are Judaism, Christianity and Islam - the religions of The Book.

      The Malaysian govenrment routinely bans movies that show Jews in a positive light. Schindler's List comes to mind.

      --
      The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
  71. Censorship = Publicity = Cult Movie by damas · · Score: 1

    I suppose that confirms it: it's gonna be a cult movie ...

    The Egyptians are probably swapping hot censored CDs of Matrix Reloaded (you know, the mpg version) right now.

  72. Pragmatic not Knee Jerk by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here, Here. Egypt is a secular state with freedom of religion, however its Government and society is under considerable pressure from a large minority of religious zealots. This is likely a pragmatic not a knee jerk action, given the Matrix::Reloaded is already available 'underground'.

  73. Nonsense. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bullshit. [Spoilers. Piss off.]

    The One (Neo) is the machines' last system of control; he's the result of those in the matrix having a choice---Zion or the matrix---and is part of the cycle in which Zion is created and destroyed. Neo is the sixth version of the One.

    Perhaps your friend has some different, PhD version of "nothing" he meant.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  74. Do you "believe" in WW2? by damas · · Score: 1

    What about Chewbacca? Do you believe in Chewbacca?

  75. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I remember the good old days where we would just shrug it off and call it a bad storyline...

    Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?

  76. About banning movies by Levvie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First of all, I do not agree with banning movies, I think it's to the individual to decide weither they go and watch a movie or not, but... afaik banning movies is something that happens all the time, I can remember a movie made by several countries telling their own story about the 9/11 attacks, it was banned in several countries (i'm almost sure the us was one of them) because the gouvernment decided it was a political/religious incorrect movie, also here in .be the movie was only available in a select group of independent alternative theaters for the same reasons. I don't see any difference between these facts, exept that the matrix reloaded is a famous movie in a great part of the world. Just try and respect the fact that others may find it harmfull for there own religion/politics, as we might think the same way about theirs.

    1. Re:About banning movies by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ' Just try and respect the fact that others may find it harmfull for there own religion/politics, as we might think the same way about theirs.'

      the other conclusion is that the governmebts should not have been banning movies that present uncomfortable views on 9/11

    2. Re:About banning movies by SL33Z3 · · Score: 1

      At the risk of sounding like a troll and being somewhat off-topic, I've got some problems with this thinking.

      Most of the people who I find screaming bloody murder when they feel their "freedom" to choose has been taken from them, also whine like a sissy when the slightest religious icon is put in front of them. There are people who suspended a teacher for an entire year because she wore her cross pendant to work. Yet these same people were the ones who argued that their son should be allowed to wear the shirt they want -- even if it had racial undertones. Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that it should be our choice, but the next time anyone makes this argument, how about a little fairness on all ends of the spectrum.

      --
      SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
  77. And for my next trick ... by Mirk · · Score: 1
    From the summary:
    "Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in."

    We all believe in three divine religions? Even among the seemingly small community of non-atheist SlashDotters, that seems like two too many!

    --

    --
    What short sigs we have -
    One hundred and twenty chars!
    Too short for haiku.
    1. Re:And for my next trick ... by vidarh · · Score: 1
      I would assume they mean that "everyone", however they define that, believe in one of the three divince religions. Considering Egypts muslim background, I'd assume they are referring to muslims, christians and jews. Remember that muslims believe that all these three religions is related to the same god, just with different views on whether or not Jesus and Mohammed were prophets, which is why christians and jews are let off with only purgatory and not eternal damnation if the muslims are right :-)

      Us atheists, though, we would be in for a though ride...

  78. This is why p2p networks are so important by cnycompguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is why p2p networks are so important, to keep governments from censoring media, and help keep the flow of information going.

    1. Re:This is why p2p networks are so important by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gee, I wonder how many Egyptians have broadband . . . no, I wouldn't download Matrix: Reloaded on a modem, would you?

  79. The one thing I didn't understand by Prune · · Score: 1

    What was the moving through several of the video screens all about?

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by KillerLoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      scenes from the prior versions of the matrix. for each reaction Neo shows in the current incarnation of the matrix, his reactions in older versions are shown too. well, my guess at least.

    2. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by SolubleFrank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In my mind it was either:
      a) Neo's many conflicting reactions on all forms of consciousness.ÂÂ
      or
      b) The Architect's list of every possible way Neo could react.

      --
      Feed me a stray cat.
    3. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's what I thought, but if you listen closely you'll hear the other neo's say stuff like "I'm the third?" When Neo's saying "I'm the sixth?"

      Though I'm still more inclined to agree with your choice b. Simply because there aren't only 5 other Neos on the screen.

    4. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      i'm pretty confident that they are showing the past versions of neo, because when the architect tells him that he is the 6th neo (or was it the 7th?), you here the other ones say "there were 4 before me?", "there were 3 before me?" and so on. (at least in the german dubbed version. ahem.)

      --
      Free as in mason.
    5. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's choice B. the TVs represent every possible way Neo could react

    6. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neo looks the same every time? odd.

    7. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by KevetS · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anyone else notice how in the 1st movie, in the scene where Smith & Neo meet for the first time and Neo is being interrogated by the Agents, the shot is zooming in on what appears to be a screen with a white border around it almost as if it was from the perspective of someone (*cough* Architect?) watching this happen on screen. Go back and watch the scene to see it for yourself.

      --
      This is my United States of whatever.
    8. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Wayfare · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed that. In fact, it is the exact same set of TVs, except that all the TVs we can see show the exact same thing.

    9. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Yup, your right on the mark. The architect had been watching Neo for a long time.

      As for banning media, I would think they'd up for banning SG-1 more than the matrix... SG-1 doesn't put a real positive spin on egyptian mythology...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    10. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Actually I specifically listened for it and couldn't hear it.

    11. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought it was just recordings of the 5 other times the One had come to the Architect. I guess symbolically it could represent those other things.

    12. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by jaysones · · Score: 1

      At the time I saw it, I thought it might have been the reactions of all the previous "ones" to the architect's statements.

    13. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recomend you visit this message board... Matrix Reloaded (spoilers)

    14. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget in Matrix one, when Neo gets captured and arrested, our first view of him is through a trio of screens that are now recognizable as The Architech's monitors. And to enter the scene, we pass into the monitor.

    15. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Comen · · Score: 0

      I was pretty lost during this scene, I useually dont get lost during SCI-FI strange plots twists or anything, but it left alot of questions for me.
      My understanding was that the other Neo's on the screen where previous Neo's that had all chosen the same outcome, and that yes it was somehow predetermined.
      I still couldnt help but feeel like I was missing something, and got lost on some of his explaination, wish I had exactly verbatim what the ARtitect had said written down!
      cause some of that shit was hard to understand.
      And you know what I get sick off the people no this site always having to prove thier IQ and just cant help but say things like "it was so easy to get" etc... whatever you people are so strange that you got to prove to everyone how smart you are all the time, and how this sceen was so easy to understand you your genius mind.
      Just go away and let the rest of use lower life forms talk about this, can you?

    16. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by sglane81 · · Score: 1

      ...this sceen was so easy to understand you your genius mind. Just go away and let the rest of use lower life forms talk about this, can you?

      "Stupid humans..." -- John Travolta (BFE)

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    17. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to prove how smart I am, just how stupid you are.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    18. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! There have been at least a half a dozen recent slashdot articles concerning how the co-producer of SG-1 was taken captive, tried and sentanced to 24 months in prison by the Egyptian government. If you are not going to bother reading the articles posted on slashdot then you should really not be posting yourself!

    19. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Spotted that a couple of weekends ago.

      Where's that Esoteric rip anyway ?

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    20. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by KevetS · · Score: 1

      If that's the case maybe the Architect was watching the previous Neo's reactions and up until that point, they had all been so similar that they look like the same image?

      --
      This is my United States of whatever.
    21. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      There's a very useful clue in the fact that the camera zooms into one of the screens, and the story continues from within the scene depicted in that screen.

      This tells us that the screens are *not* showing past incarnations of The One as some people have suggested (which was improbably anyway given that they all look and dress like Neo). *Nor* are they merely predictions of what Neo might do.

      My interpretation is this: the Matrix is monitoring all of the signals being emitted by Neo's brain, which inveitably reflect his conflicting thoughts. For example, when you imagine yourself saying something, weak motor signals are sent to your vocal chords. The Matrix is picking up all these conflicting signals and rendering multiple versions of Neo's avatar. Each such version is displayed on one screen.

      Only one version -- one rendering of what Neo's brain is telling his body to do -- can actually be played back to Neo's brain as immersive VR.

      What is happening when the camera zooms into one screen is that the Matrix is selecting a different version of Neo's actions and choosing to play *that one* back to Neo's brain.

      As everyone else has noticed: when Neo is has no conflicting internal thoughts, there are no conflicting signals for the Matrix to detect, and so all the monitors show the same rendering.

      The Architect does say, toward the end, that he is monitoring Neo's brain.

      Peter B Lloyd http://www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

    22. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      *If* (big if) the Wachowskis wanted to introduce reincarnation (yuk!), then Neo could be remembering his past lives. After all, in 'The Matrix', Morpheus specifically says that the original One will come back in person:
      When the Matrix was first built, there was a man born inside who had the ability to change whatever he wanted, to remake the Matrix as he saw fit. It was he who freed the first of us, taught us the truth. ... After he died the Oracle prophesied his return and that his coming would hail the destruction of the Matrix and the war, bring freedom to our people.

      Note: Morpheus does not say that somebody else with similar abilities will come along, but specifically that the original bloke, who died, will come back.

      If that isn't reincarnation (or reinavataration), then what is?

      So, the only idea that makes at least some sense of the available information is that Neo is a reincarnation who is recalling his previous lives when he says "2? 3?".

      As I've said elsewhere, the screens cannot be showing recordings of past One's because (a) they all look and dress like Neo, and (b) we dive into one screen and continue the story from that point.

      Peter B Lloyd www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

    23. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      Nine screens, not three. Arranged in a 3 x 3 grid.

      The Wachowskis have a liking for a small number of numbers, such 0, 1, and 3. Eg the power station powers 27 (=3x3x3) blocks of the City, which is a bit odd as city blocks are normally in grid, so you'd exect a square number of blocks, not a cubed number.

    24. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      oh my... i never thought about reincarnation. nevertheless, the other ONEs could have looked just like neo. (i don't really understand why people look the same in the matrix as they do IRL anyways).

      --
      Free as in mason.
    25. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      The Wachowskis haven't showed us real life yet. The blue world is another matrix (ie a Meta-Matrix). (This is proved by the fact that Neo stops the sentinels by raising his hand.) So we have been shown only two virtual worlds, the Matrix and the Meta-Matrix. There are good (albeit subtle) reasons to believe that the two worlds have the same architect. Therefore it is very likely that neonates enter both matrices at the same time, and are assigned the same avatar code. Hence they look the same in both virtual worlds.

      What Neo looks like in real life (beyond the Meta-Matrix aka the Blue Matrix), we have no idea. He might be a Martian, even.

      Or, there might not be a real physical world. Beyond the Meta-Matrix there might be pure consciousness (as Berkeley said).

      My bet is on infinite recursion. When Neo pops out of the Meta-Matrix, he finds himself back in the Matrix.

      (The somewhat ciruitous argument for why the Matrix and Meta-Matrix almost certainly have the same architect can be found in the link below.)

      Peter B Lloyd
      www.ursasoft.com/matrix.exegesis.htm

  80. There is a place called... by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 1
    ...Zion. No wonder they banned it.

    Some other muslim countries let it through. For them, "ignorance is bliss".

  81. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. You have been trolled. You have lost.

    But have a nice day

    .
  82. Mod Parent Up! by LeoDV · · Score: 1

    He said everything that had to be said.

  83. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Bengels must be rolling in their graves right now.

    Dunno about that -- I mean, even if Palmer turns out, and their, uh, "upgraded" defence minus Spikes and that one other good player they had, doesn't suck, I'm not sure if ditching Akili Smith qualifies as so much as moving in the grave that the Bengals have been in since, well, since forever, let alone rolling over. Although the Bengals are good at rolling over.

    Or wait. Did you mean the girl rock and roll group, the Bangles. That makes more sense.

  84. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pretty much

  85. Portrays Zionist Ideals by tezza · · Score: 1

    Of how money hungry Hollywood Producers and scriptwriters can ruin a good series. Seriously, the Egyptian populace is at risk of exposure to 3rd rate philosophy and embarrassing Cave Rave scenes. I'd try to have it banned if I were the Egyptians.

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  86. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by tezza · · Score: 0, Troll

    They do not GET that someone actually wrote shuch a steaming load of shite, and then tried to pass it off as entertainment

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  87. Three reasons for banning "Matrix Reloaded" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Glorification of terrorism. How many innocent people should one murder in pursuit of one's political goals?
    2. Taking money under false pretences. I was expecting a film with an ending, dammit.
    3. Feebleminded philosophy and half-assed religious overtones. (Neo the Messiah, Morpheus his father-figure, and someone named, get this, "Trinity" rounds the number out to three. I mean, puh-leeze.)
  88. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wrote the word "Maby". I assume you just misspelled "Maybe". Can you please confirm this, just to make sure, that your posting will be correctly understood?

  89. Impressive by pokememon · · Score: 1

    And this is (Egypt) supposed to be the most modern - in ways the leader - of all Arab countries. The government there is so frail that an action movie actually poses a threat to it's survival...

    --
    -- You people make me sig!
  90. Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by Elias+Israel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently, in order to get Egyptian commentators to argue in favor of freedom of expression, you have to broadcast a blatantly antisemitic miniseries, complete with Jews plotting world domination with the old Russian "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" forgery.

    Well, it's good to know they have some standards.

    Pathetic freaks.

    1. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by haggar · · Score: 1

      Pretty sad, but there's not much we can do about this. The arab world has been investing shitloads of oil-money into whitewashing history and manipulating the public.

      But I'm hopeful that in 30-40 years from now, when that oil will be made irrelevant due to alternative energy technologies, things will change.

      --
      Sigged!
    2. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by mecanicaz · · Score: 1

      Hey, such a movie will be banned in at least half of the european countries not to mention the US, speaking about freedom of speech and thought...

    3. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by harmonica · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's good to know they have some standards.

      Schindler's List was banned in Saudia Arabia because it was too pro-Jewish, Babe was banned in Malaysia because a pig was the main character. All very sad.

    4. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is that any worse that the usual Hollywood trash of arabs always being portrayed as evil terrorists out to get the US?

    5. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by jamie · · Score: 3, Informative
      Worries about "harming social peace" also didn't seem to bother them when the hit Egyptian song "I Hate Israel" hit the charts a couple of years ago. In fact the Egyptian state censors got involved then, too, but for a different reason...

      I hate Israel, and I hate destruction, it (Israel) loves destruction
      I love Yassir Arafat and he is very dear to me
      Egyptians are sad
      I hate Israel and I love Amr Mousa
      I hate Israel and Shimon (Peres) and Sharon
      Why should the children suffer why should they die everyday
      People carrying weapons and others carrying slingshot
      I hate Israel, and we all do
      We are all mad, Al Quds matters to us
      I hate Isreal and Ehud Barak because no one can stand him
      Egypt puts up and stands till the end but when it got mad it pulled back the ambassador
      I hate Israel because of south Lebanon, Al Quds, Iraq, Syria and the Golan?
      I hate Israel and I say it even if I will be arrested

      In a further twist, the head of Egypt's arts censorship bureau said the song originally ran "I don't like Israel", but Shaaban spiced it up at the request of the censor. "Originally it was 'I don't like Israel', but I made a recommendation that they choose another word equal to the state of people's feelings," said Madkour Thabet, whose office has the power to ban tapes deemed politically or morally offensive.

      http://www.arabia.com/life/article/english/0,11827 ,46609,00.html

    6. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by Elias+Israel · · Score: 1
      How is that any worse that the usual Hollywood trash of arabs always being portrayed as evil terrorists out to get the US?

      Because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery and a libel intended to incite hatred and violence against Jews.

      Whereas the assertion that Evil Islamic Arab terrorists are out to get the US is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- true.

      Maybe you haven't been catching the news lately. You see, there used to be these two buildings in New York. They were destroyed by -- get this -- Arab terrorists. They killed something like 3,000 people, and afterwards, their leaders were sad that they hadn't killed even more. And they said -- wait for it -- that they wouldn't stop until America was destroyed.

      Check this stuff out, it happened in September of, like, 2001 or something, man.

    7. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by _xeno_ · · Score: 2
      I think this is a very valid and good point. I'm still trying to decide whether or not I should be outraged at an anti-Semetic based TV series.

      On one hand, it's entertainment. It's not real - it's presenting a fictional world and having characters move through it. If I'm going to say that they shouldn't disallow the Matrix: Reloaded because it's fictional, it would be hypocritical to then deny a series about a Jewish conspiracy.

      Then again, there were and still are people in the US who believe that there is a Black Conspiracy to take over the world from the white race. (Not to mention the afore-mentioned "Jewish Conspiracy," too. I guess if you're in a wacko group conspiring to take over the world, you expect a lot of competition.) If there were a TV show about a Black Conspiracy trying to overthrow the American Way of Life (SM), I think I'd be quite pissed about it and might very well argue that it should be taken off the air. At the very least, I wouldn't watch it.

      Isn't that the same thing? They have a show portraying a common stereotype. Is that neccessarily wrong? There are plenty of shows that exploit common stereotypes (even the Simpsons uses them for parody). But generally these shows do not portray things in an "us vs. them" view and have one group trying to repress the other.

      Is it hypocritical to cry out against shows that seem to compel people to carry out violence against a certain group, and then at the same time argue that video games do not provoke people to violence? If I think that people know the difference between videogames and reality, why should I be upset about a TV show that is also not reality?

      I don't have any answers to this. Stereotyping will usually give false impressions about people. Having a stereotype isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you can recognize it and know that not all people who fall into the category will immediately be as expected. Reinforcing a negative stereotype is a bad thing. Maybe that's the out - such a thing will reinforce negative stereotypes, and that's what makes it wrong. But is that enough of an "out" and are we guilty of doing the same things?

      The only thing I'm sure of is that I don't like people acting violently against one another. Everyone is better off when everyone agrees to allow others to coexist. But I'm not sure that the ends necessarily justify the means to get there. It's just a TV show, but it's also can reinforce views about people, possibly causing people to decide to commit violent acts. But only possibly. It could all just be good fun for the majority of viewers.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    8. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      ---Insert booty call---
      "Sure, everyone buys plastic wrap at 3 in the morning."
      "You've got to lick it, before you stick it"

    9. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Portraying an entire race of peoples as evil Islamic terrorists is true? Of course it isn't. It is absolutely untrue and a gross distortion and slander. Certainly there are those who right or wrongly attribute their squalor and oppression to the US & Israel but I suggest they are a tiny minority. The vast majority or people of any race or religion are polite, friendly, and hospitable who just want to get on with living. But are they portrayed that way? Of course not.


      So I suggest before you complain of the speck in someone elses eye you remove the twig from your own.

    10. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by Darth · · Score: 1

      what hollywood movie are you claiming portrays all arabs as evil islamic terrorists?

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    11. Re:Here's what Egypt WILL allow... by Elias+Israel · · Score: 1

      If you had read more closely, you would have seen that I never said all Arabs were culpable for the actions of a few.

      What I said was that Hollywood's cliches were at least rooted in events that have actually taken place, unlike the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a libelous forgery intended only to incite racial hatred.

      But apparently, you don't see the distinction.

      And I see you've called me a bigot because you don't understand the distinction. How nice.

      OK, let's try another explanation:

      Even in some alternate universe where Hollywood cliches and overt hate speech occupy the same moral zip code, the answer to your original question is simple; so simple we all heard it in grade school:

      Two wrongs don't make a right.

  91. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The most advanced civilization that ruled the earth you stupid ignorant son of a bitch, we built the great pyramids that survived for thousands of years that you cant even replicate today, we controlled gravity, and we were so advanced in medicine that we had a doctor for the left eye and a doctor for the right eye go figure that out you, we taught the world how to farm, we are the essence of civilization and a never ending legacy.

    So do yourself a favor and creep back under the rock you came from.

  92. in Egypt only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to see this movie banned in Holland too.
    The Matrix Reloaded is such a waste of your money that other people should be protected and shouldn't have the opportunity to see it ;-)

  93. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was horribly disappointed by the first movie. I have no compelling reason to see the second one unless they release a "Abuse Keanu" edit of the film that features nothing but Neo getting his ass kicked(and I doubt that would have much footage anyway?).

  94. Who cares? by Oscaro · · Score: 1

    It's an awful movie, anyway.

  95. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by jago25_98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    me too, well a bit anyway.

    I don't really enojoy action. The thing I came for was the storyline.

    Now, the storyline was good but there wasn't much of it in this one. Where were the suprises and tragedys? It was nearly constant action.

    It feels like they've tried to draw out 2 films into 3.

    Having said all this there was one scene that made all the shallowness and pretentiousness ok, much like Yoda fighting in the last Starwars.

    It's a lot more enjoyable if you think you can read into it, but there's actually not a lot of depth in the end - God, Judas, the Devil, blah blah

    Hopefully I'll find something new though, and the next Matrix COULD be better. At least this film has lowered a few expectations for the next.

  96. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by -brazil- · · Score: 1

    Nah, I was horribly disappointed by the pretentiousness and the gartuitous wish-fulfillment of the first part. I liked the sequel much better because it left out those.

    --

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
    --Henry Kissinger

  97. You must not be human by aidfarh · · Score: 5, Funny

    since the Architect explicitly told Neo, that because he was human, there were some things that the Architect said that Neo wouldn't understand. Therefore, anybody who claims to understand 100% of what the Architect said, cannot possibly be a human.

    --
    There is no sig.
    1. Re:You must not be human by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the architect's dialogue was written by some humans. Oh yes, it's impossible to understand.

      --
      Why not fork?
    2. Re:You must not be human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please enlighten us?

    3. Re:You must not be human by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "Therefore, anybody who claims to understand 100% of what the Architect said, cannot possibly be a human."

      I'm not a human, but I play one on /.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    4. Re:You must not be human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, think about this, a HUMAN WROTE THE SCRIPT
      that means that any human of equal or greater intelect can understand %100 of what he says, duh.

    5. Re:You must not be human by Lazyhound · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Holy shit, you're a pretentious ass! Way to go!

    6. Re:You must not be human by capnjack41 · · Score: 1
      Would you be able to explain that to us, or would our fragile little heads explode from our inability to comprehend such things, as you have been able to?

      PLEASE REVEAL TO US, NEO!

    7. Re:You must not be human by Dr_Auknix · · Score: 1

      If he explains it to you, you'll lie down and not wan't to stand ever again.

    8. Re:You must not be human by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2
      All right you pukes here it goes:

      The universe does not have a beginning or an end. It has a center and the details get fuzzier as you extend outward. Not how our picture of the world grows less detailed as we try to peer into the past, or try to guess into the future. The same applies with distance.

      So all of these nuts trying to go back to the good old days, and all the cults waiting to the end of the world are frankly full of shit. The universe exists, right now, at this very point in space and time.

      Picture it like a lightbulb illuminating a dark field. As you go further out, it becomes dimmer and dimmer until it fades into absolute nothingness.

      So now that I've removed the time constraint, the next question is what do we do with the time we have here? What happens after our time is up? What were we before we were here? Is there a God? What is God?

      The world is a giant episode of Sienfield. There is no instrisic purpose. Our curse as a species is needing to have a purpose, and to that end each of us strives to try to live one. Believe it or not, that struggle IS our purpose.

      What happens after our time is up? You die and start your life over again from the beginning. Ever experience Deja Voi? That's your soul remembering a good idea or a bad idea from the last trip around. Remember Sisiphus from the greeks, pushing the rock up the hill, only to have it fall down again. That's us folks.

      Now some enlightened souls finally do figure out how to escape from all this. Generally it involves ceasing the push the rock. The unfortunate and VERY uncomfortable fact of the matter is that you are then in complete control of your life, and there are absolutely no gaurentees as to what is out there.

      What is God? God is the collective conciousness of our entire civilization. Each one of us is like a cell in the body. That's why God generally doesn't dig war, murder, theft, or deceipt.

      Can you pray to God, sure. But his/her/its ability to alter reality to fit your present crisis without taking something away from someone else is limited. You can pray for world peace, but not for hockey teams or hitting the lotto.

      And yes, some people CAN bend the rules. Indeed every advancement in technology involves some small bit of magic that science later justifies be altering the "rules." You can't do anything too weird without having a lot of people believe in you though, there seems to be some sort of power we all have to impose the status quo.

      Now all of you can start your flamefests of disbelief.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    9. Re:You must not be human by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say I've never experienced "Deja Voi" , but I'm pretty sure I've seen this generic New Age bullshit before.

      Thanks* for sharing, though!

      *Piss off and die

    10. Re:You must not be human by capnjack41 · · Score: 1

      :lol:

    11. Re:You must not be human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now some enlightened souls finally do figure out how to escape from all this. Generally it involves ceasing the push the rock.


      No, it has been explicitly stated that in the end all things shall return to him. And hopefully when that happens, we'll choose to
      forget all the tears we've shed so it will
      be as if they never happened.
    12. Re:You must not be human by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      Dude that's retarded, everyone is talking about the movie in terms of the movie. It's like saying, duhhhh nobody could jump that high. You have to suspend your belief to talk about the story. Talking about problems within the movie that arise from too-many-takes-and-someone-left-a-macdonalds-cup-i n-scene and molten-silver-isn't-actually-silver is fine, but we AREN'T talking about that. We're trying to think about the story. Don't be an asshole.

    13. Re:You must not be human by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      All spirituality is BS that arose from people trying to explain things in a very unscientific matter. As somebody already replied, this is NEW AGE BS. What is God? God is the idea that primitives projected their qualities upon and then used as a comfort blanket. You are trying to make it sound valid by abstracting it. Please don't do that, there are enough ignorant people who are endangering me as is.

      Nobody can yet bend the rules, but we're finding more rules all the time.

    14. Re:You must not be human by welthqa · · Score: 1

      that was a great video. can't remember the song though. radiohead or someone like that right?

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
    15. Re:You must not be human by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Nobody can yet bend the rules, but we're finding more rules all the time.

      Yes, but are we finding rules or simply making up new rules? From a strictly secular "objective observer" standpoint, the 2 are indistinguisable.

      As far as the G word is concerned, I can find no better explaination for how it is we manage to continue operating. Humans a petty, greedy, and short-sighted. Yet, despite ourselves we have constructed a world based on collective works and free exchange of information. That's not to say that forces are not at work trying to undo that. But there is something going on that is greater than the sum of its parts.

      I'm just the kind of guy who finds a pattern in everything. Maybe it is just a personality flaw, or some psychosis, or some primative instinct. But prima fasa, an insane person is incapable of seeing they are insane.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    16. Re:You must not be human by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot ;)

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    17. Re:You must not be human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your logic is flawed.

      this is akin to the classic paradox, "everything i say is a lie" aka "this statement is false".

      the natural resolve of this, is actually, "somethings i say are a lie". thus, your "therefore..." conclusion would in fact be, if neo or anyone understands completely the statements of the architect, the architect would be incorrect about his assessment of humans or that said person would not fit into the category of human as defined by the architect (same difference).

      nevermind also that in all likelihood, the arrogance of the a.i. repeatedly seems to belittle humans as subjugates; "only human" et. al. so "because you're human, you're too dumb to understand me" is more self-ego satisfying on behalf of the architect than factual truth. you're all slashdot nerds, remember when other kids on the playground thought they were so damned superior that they had to make fun of you to feel better about themselves? kinda like that. arrogance is a bitch, which is why the truly wise are humble -- they know enough to know that they don't really know anything.

      yeah!

  98. Truth versus Belief by Metrol · · Score: 1

    Someone who is honestly seeking "truth" cannot rely on belief. Belief is knowledge without evidence. The stronger a belief, the less likely contradicting evidence will be accepted.

    Truth, the real deal, stands on it's own. Evidence contradicting ideas previously thought of as truth are welcomed. Each new piece of data is a step closer to knowing what is true, whereas introducing new data into "belief" only muddles things up.

    the earth was/is flat

    The folks still saying that today aren't truly suggesting that is what they believe. It's more of a way to get folks to fully evaluate what they believe they know through the experience of others rather than evaluating it for themselves.

    For example, try asking someone if the world is flat. Follow that up with asking them to prove that it isn't! Sure, the science minded crowd around here might find the logical breakdown rather boring, but outside of geekdom you might be amazed out how little thought is given to even this one fundamental truth.

    Fun toys to play with the masses :)

    --
    The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    1. Re:Truth versus Belief by apdt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to offer an alternative definition for belief...

      belief is the acceptance of something that you cannot prove absolutely.

      There are very few things in the real world that can be proven absolutely. For everything else you have to go on the balance of evidence.

      --
      I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
    2. Re:Truth versus Belief by cioxx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Truth, the real deal, stands on it's own.

      And what if there are few versions of the truth? Which one out of those stands on its own?

      Truth != One
    3. Re:Truth versus Belief by Metrol · · Score: 1

      And what if there are few versions of the truth? Which one out of those stands on its own?

      In this case you have theories, not truth. This may result from a lack of data, or misunderstanding of the data at hand. I would say that a situation such as this that you were at least on the road to the truth.

      Truth != One

      Examples? As in, a situation where all of the necessary data and facts have been collected, yet the final analysis requires multiple, possible contradicting, truths as a result.

      Since we're talking in the abstract this should be interesting :)

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    4. Re:Truth versus Belief by spongman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy). As soon as you start talking about nature, the "real" world, you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter probability. As for the existence of God, statistically the probability is zero, but with a finite margin of error. I liken the existence of God to the health of Schrodinger's cat. You don't know he exists until you die.

      If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?

    5. Re:Truth versus Belief by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      For example, try asking someone if the world is flat. Follow that up with asking them to prove that it isn't! Sure, the science minded crowd around here might find the logical breakdown rather boring, but outside of geekdom you might be amazed out how little thought is given to even this one fundamental truth.

      Easy ways to proove that the Earth is round:

      * Point at something big on the horizon, like a building. Head over to it, and see it get taller.

      * Prove the trustworthyness of the pilots and sea-captians who have cirumvented the globe.

      * Do the landbound scholar thing, and take comparative angle measurements of the sun at different times of day.

      A better thing to try and get people to prove is "Communism is evil." Or "Capitalism works." Or, heck, "there is / is not a God."

    6. Re:Truth versus Belief by operagost · · Score: 1

      You can also just go to a place like the Bonneville salt flats, where you can see the curvature of the earth. You can of course see the curvature on the ocean as well, but the flats are FLAT. There's no waves and little atmospheric activity to confuse you.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Truth versus Belief by operagost · · Score: 1
      If the probability of God's existence is essentially zero, then what's the probability of the existence of dark matter? After all, we haven't seen any of that either.

      What's the probability that Rosie O'Donnell's a man? I haven't seen her genitals- neither do I wish to.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Truth versus Belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If the probability of God's existence is essentially zero, then what's the probability of the existence of dark matter? After all, we haven't seen any of that either.

      Dark Matter can be directly measured.

    9. Re:Truth versus Belief by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      As for the existence of God, statistically the probability is zero, but with a finite margin of error.

      How about the probability that God, et al. exists and is exactly as described in any particular organized religion's canon?

    10. Re:Truth versus Belief by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1

      I hope that you realise that your notion that "there's no absolute truth outside of abstract thought" is itself a belief (or a supposition) rather than an absolute truth.

    11. Re:Truth versus Belief by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy).

      There is absolute truth, it's just not possible for us to discover it. (this is only one possible view of the world, but science would be worthless if it were untrue)

      Everything becomes a matter probability.

      to you, to us. To reality, everything either is or it isn't. (at least, above the quantum level. who knows below that...)

      When you talk of the "probability of the existance of God," you're talking about how likely it is that this idea matches with absolute truth. If you could just check, it would be 1 or 0 exactly.

    12. Re:Truth versus Belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's where the finite margin of error kicks in. Or didn't you read that part?

    13. Re:Truth versus Belief by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I would assert that there is nothing that can be proven absolutely. There is always the possiblity that either you have a flaw in your proof, or that the laws of reason are, themselves, incorrect. (If you doubt this, explain quantuum physics.)

      That said, you have defined belief to be something so all encompassing that it means nothing, because it covers everything. Or, perhaps it just means probable.

      I would offer an alternative that belief is an emotional conviction analogous the the logical conviction called truth. One never knows either with total certainty, but it's not demanded that one should.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Truth versus Belief by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      "You don't know he exists until you die. "

      I know a lot of people in a lot of paths that would argue this point.

      Whether you believe them is irrelevant--they believe themselves and have experiences which back that up.

      You can assign a probability (nonzero) to them being "right" (type II error on your part) or "wrong" (type I error on theirs) but in the end you won't know for sure.

      They might be able to give you repeatable experiments which demonstrate this, however, you would lack the training (not having been through their path) to be capable of repeating them. Oddly, this can be likened to many branches of science, where you have to trust that the experiment was done correctly and the scientist was being honest because you lack the ability to repeat his experiment or (possibly) even understand the foundation behind it.

      In other words, saying that the probability is "essentially zero" is missing the point.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    15. Re:Truth versus Belief by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 1
      I think you're a little confused about what truth is.

      Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract thought.

      Is that an absolute truth, or is it just a probabilistic observation about the real world, for which you "lack data"? Additionally, how do you separate abstract thought from the "real world"? Is there a nice thick black dividing line? I'd like to see it. If I'm a schizophrenic patient, is my abstract thought considered truth? Or by "abstract thought", do you mean those thoughts that are communicated, converged upon, and accepted by a majority of the individuals in the real world?

      ...you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter of probability.

      So you're saying that you just don't know the truth, or that you refuse to believe it. That's not the same thing as saying there's no absolute truth. Either God does exist or he doesn't. You may not know the truth, or you may somehow calculate a probability (please, give us the formula!), but by doing that, you're just admitting your ignorance.

      There is absolute truth, and it doesn't care what you believe.

      --
      ...just my 2 gil.
    16. Re:Truth versus Belief by Cynikal · · Score: 1

      "Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy)"

      um see, the problem here is this is what YOU believe... i personally believe that philosophy is in no way an absolute truth, although i agree with the rest of what you said. then theres a huge chunk of the population who have a religion and a god and believe that that is the absolute truth, and if you tell them they're wrong, they will be violently opposed to your P.o.v.

      the problem with people is they believe what they believe and do NOT want to know what you believe nor do they want to hear what you have to say with an open mind.

      Sure Matrix was an awesome movie (imho) and made me think alot about "what is real" etc, etc, but its definately not a movie for everyone. i mean... if a movie flies in the face of everything a group of people believe in, they get angry... and anger leads to hate... hate leads to violence...

    17. Re:Truth versus Belief by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      That's where the finite margin of error kicks in. Or didn't you read that part?

      No, this is about taking something that is already low or zero probability, and multiplying it by something else that is low or zero probability. Pay attention.

    18. Re:Truth versus Belief by spongman · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm admitting my ignorance, that's my whole point. To know the absolute truth, you first have to prove that such a thing exists. I would say that since it's impossible to prove that absolute truth exists, it's simpler to assume that it doesn't.

    19. Re:Truth versus Belief by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      The difference between science and religion, is that in science you aim to minimise "asumptions" or beliefs.
      In religion, you start with a set of a beliefs, and aim to maximise them. (As in when overwhelming evidence comes up against them, you only cancel out the minimum)

    20. Re:Truth versus Belief by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Careful! You're getting really confused. You said it yourself (the mutual exclusivity principle): (1) either truth exists, or (2) truth doesn't exist. It's either one or the other, but not both. And you don't know which one it is, so you're going to assume (2).

      However, in doing that, you've assumed that the answer to the riddle is an absolute truth value that is independent of your judgement -- it presupposes absolute truth -- whether or not you can know it. In that case, the only way to remedy your situation is to assume, or know (1). To assume (2) is to contradict your own reasoning and ignore logic -- supposedly the only truth you believe in.

      Now try replacing "truth" in the mutual exclusivity principle with other nouns: "thought", "a spoon", "my hand". It all boils down to the same thing, whether it's abstract thought or the real world. You may not know if your hand exists, but you know absolute truth does.

      If nothing I say has gotten through to you yet, I don't think I'll be able to help you. I suggest you study up on this a little bit. Take some philosophy classes when you get to college. I'd suggest a philosophical skepticism class. Read some of the works by George Moore, Wittgenstein, and Hilary Putnam. Even the harshest of recognized philosophical skeptics won't doubt that there is absolute truth, though they'll argue that you can't know it (another point I disagree with -- but that's not what we're discussing).

      --
      ...just my 2 gil.
    21. Re:Truth versus Belief by statusbar · · Score: 1

      But you'd have to prove that they are flat too, and not just a hill.

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    22. Re:Truth versus Belief by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      There are very few things in the real world that can be proven absolutely.

      Name one.

    23. Re:Truth versus Belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so can Rosie O'Donnell's genitals?

  99. don't be alarmed by sivann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is usual, movies are banned all the time, and the next week/month they are un-banned. Most of the times it's a marketing trick.
    I once went into a movie here in greece called "naked lunch" by Cronenberg, it was on 1-2 theaters, and the theater I went had only 5-10 viewers. A policeman came 10 minutes before the end and stoped the movie! He said it was banned because of showing drugs, and of course the next week it was in the theaters again and the theaters were full!

  100. not quite as tolerant as all that by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    There has been significant harrassment of Egypt's coptic population, especially by Islamists: this 6% used to be much higher, but many have left. I also noticed you left out the other of the "three divine religions", Judaism. There used to be a relatively large Jewish minority in Egypt, but they have since been entirely driven out.

    1. Re:not quite as tolerant as all that by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      There has been significant harrassment of Egypt's coptic population, especially by Islamists


      And Muslims have been persecuted in USA (espesially after 9/11), so what's your point?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:not quite as tolerant as all that by dvk · · Score: 1

      Persecuted?
      Could you please provide an example of *muslims* being persecuted in the USA, specifically based on their religion??? With our Bush declaring a COUPLE OF DAYS after 9/11 that "Islam is a religion of peace" and trying his damnedest best to sell out israel to keep Saudis and co as friends?

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    3. Re:not quite as tolerant as all that by EricWright · · Score: 1
      Mebbe the several hundred (a thousand?) people of middle-Eastern descent who were detained in the post Sept 11 days, merely because of their ethnicity. You look like the terrorists who crashed planes into our buildings and killed innocent people. Maybe you're a terrorist too... you think none of these people are Muslims?

      Here's a link for you, too.

    4. Re:not quite as tolerant as all that by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Could you please provide an example of *muslims* being persecuted in the USA, specifically based on their religion???


      Example

      Another example
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  101. three divine religions by gnalre · · Score: 3, Funny

    Islam, Christianity, Jedi?

    --
    Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    1. Re:three divine religions by isorox · · Score: 1

      No, Oprahism, Voodoo and Robotology

    2. Re:three divine religions by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Jedi isn't a divine religon. Its a miclorian infection for something.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  102. It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... and obvious, that there is much to be learned by the Western/American {there is no difference any more} constituency of /., about the ways of the world.

    Honestly, I was shocked to see so many posts along the line of "Egypt sucks, what a lame country, how weak"...

    Matrix is widely regarded as an allegorical story, pitched in modern technological terms, regarding the lost races of Zion and the Jewish struggle for freedom. If you don't know that Zion is not just a place in a ass-kick movie with 3D effects, then I suggest you put google to use and learn just *WHY* the name "Zion" has so much stigma associated with it, and why many firmly believe that the Zionist movement is a destructive one for the human race as a whole.

    Egypt is a very, very, very religiously fervent land. In Egypt, religion is actually more important to the general populace than the ability to be sitting on your ass in a dark theatre like a vegetable, being placated by wonderous 'miracles' of technology, being delivered a sermon on modern living by the modern Western priesthood (Hollywood).

    For many people in Egypt, religion is a way of life, not just something you buy a ticket for on the weekends.

    Americans think that "The Matrix" is just entertainment, and to their culture, an integrated part of the entire experience of being "Free".

    Actually, from an objective view, Hollywood *is* the American Religion in that many modern Americans formulate their personal views, moral conviction, and yes ... even 'spiritual inspiration for living' from this media rather than ... say ... other media such as the Koran or The Bible.

    There is little difference between the Matrix-nerd waxing philosophical about 'the meaning of a film called Matrix' and a devout Muslim who holds a firm belief in the wisdom of Allah.

    Really, very little difference whatsoever - both are using cultural mechanisms to bring some bearing of significance to their lives.

    If the Egyptian government, in deciding not to allow this film to play among its populace, is doing so in order to protect its culture from strife - and nobody knows better than the Egyptians how cultural memes can cause strife - then in so doing it is no different than the US Government, deciding that 'digital rights' should be enforced and rigorously protected in order to safeguard its economy.

    Remember this:

    Just because Egyptians do not worship your gods, does not make them worthy of ridicule.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother ;) You could have added 'the myth of Free Speech' as another American religion that has to be inposed on the rest of the world. (A religion in which entertainment-value speech becomes more important than human life.)

      Your post not receiving any moderation proves just how culturally biassed the average moderator is.

    2. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put... the ppl here don't seem to get, that the people of Egypt are as much against the film as the ones banning it... What strikes me as odd, is that we Westerners need to have our minds freed, as much as the next guy. Try reading some of Basil Bernsteins work on restricted and elaborated codes... U'll find that the role of the media is anything but enlightment - it's the opposite. Proving to the populace that the governmental system works and that everything is AOK.

    3. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For many people in Egypt, religion is a way of life
      You mean the Muslim religion is a way of life.
      You failed to mention what happens to an Egyptian who converts from being a Muslim to some other religion.
      Aside from the fact that it's illegal and you'll probably be sent to jail, I know that losing one's employment, being disowned by family members, being shunned by your community, and even death is not uncommon.
      It's amazing and horrifying that things like this could happen in the world today.
      Although Western/American society has it's problems, and there are the occasional sick, twisted, extremest nuts in America -- but that's the thing -- they are occasional, not every fucking day or vast majority of the country.
      And remember, in America it's perfectly acceptable to ridicule another's religion, although it's not a particularly kind thing to do, but in Egypt, if you ridicule the Muslim religion, well, you might as well be signing your own death warrant.
      There's nothing that beats freedom and I wish that more countries had it.

    4. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I think you and the Egyptian censors need to step back from the ledge and relax.

      It's a movie. Nothing more. This just reminds me of all those college English lit classes. The higher literary critics are always looking for subtle meaning behind every story.

      But it seems to me that while doing so, they really miss the entertainment value of the story itself.

      In the 1970s there was a television series in America called "Battlestar Galatica."

      The plot was about this caravan of space voyageers who came from a planet called Cobol that had been destroyed by evil robots. They were looking for their long-lost sister-planet, Earth. (They were also always refering to "the lords of Cobol)

      Well, the Mormons believe that God was once a human being who lived on a planet called Cobol.

      I am not a Mormon.

      So, to follow your logic, I should not have watched the television series because it happened to use terms central to LDS belief?

      Even if you want to follow the logic of the folks who banned this film, it still doesn't make sense. The Trinity isn't a Jewish concept, (see Trinity from the movie) it's a Christian one. And Zion, while part of the Hebrew Bible, is also important in Christian belief as well.

      I believe it's imporant to be tolerant of ALL religions. Not just the ones we approve of. If that model applies to the West, it should also apply in the Middle East as well.

      -dj

      >> If you don't know that Zion is not just a place in a ass-kick movie with 3D effects, then I suggest you put google to use and learn just *WHY* the name "Zion" has so much stigma associated with it, and why many firmly believe that the Zionist movement is a destructive one for the human race as a whole.

      --
      - dj
    5. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 1

      It's a movie. Nothing more.

      Well, this is the crux of your argument. Some would say that its naive to say "its just a movie" about a story clearly derived from a religious source...

      You could, by your reasoning, just as easily say hey, those are "just bombs" we're dropping. They won't have any effect on you whatsoever if you consider that its *only entertainment*.

      "Hey, its only heroin?! There's nothing wrong with heroin, have some!"

      The fact is, movies *DO* influence culture, they *DO* have an effect on a nations' lifestyle, they *definitely* have an economic impact, and they very definitely are used to convey the message of their makers - makers whose agenda's are definitely not globally aligned with or sensitive to the Human Condition ...

      I'm not taking sides, but I am disgusted at the reaction to this here on /. It has been probably one of the most enlightening slashdot.org stories ever, and I've been here since the day Chips&Dips went online ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just because Egyptians do not worship your gods, does not make them worthy of ridicule."

      Yes it does.

    7. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      If you don't know that Zion is not just a place in a ass-kick movie with 3D effects, then I suggest you put google to use and learn just *WHY* the name "Zion" has so much stigma associated with it, and why many firmly believe that the Zionist movement is a destructive one for the human race as a whole.

      And anti-Zionism is thinly veiled anti-Semitism, as long as we're generalizing. Look, the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a complex one and if you think it can be simplified and blamed on just one side or the other, you're either an ideologue or a simpleton.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    8. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 1

      If you make believe something is complex, it is.

      Just the same as if you try to simplify things, you can.

      Anti-Zionism != Anti-Semitism.

      Semitism includes Egyptians as well as Jews, and Muslims, too. I am not an anti-Jew, and I'm not anti-Semitic. There is a lot I would like to learn and understand about both.

      But to return to the topic at hand and disregard your slight, Zion, and the abstract concept of a Zion as a cultural purpose, is bad for the human race.

      It may be good for certain portions of the human race to pursue such efforts (Plymouth Rock, Utah, etc.) but for the race as a whole, it is a very damaging effect to have such pursuits embodied in religious and ideological inventions among a widely diverse, effectively uneducated populace such as exists in the Middle East region.

      The relentless pursuit of the Zion carrot in the name of religious or cultural identity by hordes of jackass Jews has given the entire human race - from the Chinese to the Australians - strife.

      The Jewish nation doesn't seem to understand the spiritual liability it is causing for the *entire* species for the sake of their stories and ideology, and nor do the Palestines for that matter.

      Before you conveniently label me "anti-Jew" and attempt to pile Nazi stigma into the issue in order to reneg my point, let me just state that there are jackass-Whites, jackass-Republicans, jackass-Blonds, and jackass-torpor's, too.

      I make no distinction between any man, or group of people, who on the basis of some cultural identity, selfishly draw borders in their own racial sands and in so doing deny peace to the entire human race.

      Zion is a bad game, and everyone should stop playing it.

      Also, bloody revenge is a bad game, too.

      We all need to s/revenge/forgiveness/ more in our lives.

      There is just no justification for bloodshed. None.

      And if racial boundaries such as the ones defining Israel and the Jewish Nation (two separate entities, I will note) were not being drawn, there would be even less justification occuring among the heads who lead us all into this mess, persistently.

      The Human Race deserves better than Zion.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    9. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 1

      >>For many people in Egypt, religion is a way of life

      You mean the Muslim religion is a way of life.

      No, I mean exactly what I say, and that is: For many people in Egypt, religion is a way of life.

      As for the rest of your rhetoric, I'll just say that I've heard it all before on CNN, and I still don't believe it.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    10. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      There are a bunch of Palestinians, and other Muslims for that matter, who want to eliminate every Jew from Israel. If pushed, a lot of them probably want to eliminate all Jews everywhere.

      I don't know what you mean by "Zionism". The right of Jews to live in Israel? The "settlements"?

      What should we do? Forcefully relocate all Jews out of Israel? Help Hamas exterminate them? Otherwise, you need to do something like a two state solution, which is what is being pursued now (kind of).

      You come off like all the problems in that part of the world are the fault of the Jews, and that the Islamic terrorists are all justified in what they're doing. I don't buy it.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    11. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by snakecoder · · Score: 1
      "the myth of Free Speech" So what is this myth of free speech you speak of?

      Any ideal is just that, an ideal. We are humans and will never reach a true ideal, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

      "Entertainment-value speech is more important than human life". I'm very curious for examples.

      --
      -Nuke the moon
    12. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, live in denial :-)

    13. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 1

      There are a bunch of Palestinians, and other Muslims for that matter, who want to eliminate every Jew from Israel. If pushed, a lot of them probably want to eliminate all Jews everywhere.

      So? There are Jews who would destroy Palestine in a heartbeat, too. These are all evil men.


      I don't know what you mean by "Zionism". The right of Jews to live in Israel? The "settlements"?


      Zionism is to some what hardcore right-wing nazism^H^H^H^H^H^Hneo-conseratism is to others.

      If you don't know that some sectors of the Jewish Nation consider themselves to be part of a master race, children of god, 'deserved of the holy land', well... that's Zionism, as represented by the 'mythical city of Zion, Home of the Persecuted Jew'.


      What should we do? Forcefully relocate all Jews out of Israel?


      No, we should not. Force doesn't solve anything, as we have seen, and will undoubtedly see again, time and time again.

      What we should be doing is training the young people in that area on the importance of understanding dogma, stigma, and propaganda, and why they can be used against you to serve agenda's not your own.

      We should be building integrated schools for Palestinian and Israeli children in that area, not settlements, and not home-made rockets. These schools should be safe havens, and they should have clean running water.

      Americans should be selling technology for peace to the Israelis, not gunships.

      And since 'cultural identity' is such a valuable human resource, perhaps we ought to attempt to create a cultural identity compatible with both Jewish and Palestinian children living together in peace, not hating each other, not strapping bombs to themselves, and not blowing each other up.

      The Zion extremists won't allow this to happen easily, and nor will Hamas.

      But still, the focus must stay on peace, no matter the noise made.


      Help Hamas exterminate them? Otherwise, you need to do something like a two state solution, which is what is being pursued now (kind of).


      People don't seem to realize that Statehood is not the answer to the problem in the Middle East, it is the problem.

      The entire region should be declared a criminal liability to the World, and denied all rights of state - for Israeli as well as Palestine - until such time as the two sides have remained at peace with each other for ... lets just give them, say, 5 years?

      That's not as easy as it sounds, but then, I guess continued aggression is easier?


      You come off like all the problems in that part of the world are the fault of the Jews, and that the Islamic terrorists are all justified in what they're doing. I don't buy it.


      You're not reading what I'm typing - I specifically stated that I am against any man - Jewish or Islamic - who resorts to violence for the cause of dogma.

      I'm simply trying to point out that the Jews are not innocent in this scenario, and they are not the 'downtrodden persecuted' they once were. That generation has long since died.

      The existing generation - the young people of both Palestine and Israel - are the ones who are responsible for the decision of whether or not to perpetuate this cultural crisis into the 21st Century, and they do so in attendance with the entire human race.

      This is a problem for all of us, not just Jew or Gentile.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    14. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      The entire region should be declared a criminal liability to the World, and denied all rights of state - for Israeli as well as Palestine - until such time as the two sides have remained at peace with each other for ... lets just give them, say, 5 years?

      Now that's an interesting idea! You should have said this earlier on. Just saying "Zionism Bad" isn't very constructive.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    15. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Well, I dunno. Saying "zionism bad" certainly points out the value of stigma in these sorts of issues.

      I vote that the World Court find both tribes to be criminals committing crimes against the Peace of Humanity, and denies both nations the right to free trade with all other nations.

      Then we'll see how fast Peace can be had, eh?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    16. Re:It has been revealing to read this article ... by panoplos · · Score: 1

      I think that you are overcomplicating the issue here.

      If it were as concrete an issue as you propose, then I have a feeling that the Egyption Religious Rulers should also take issue with the other philosophically oriented productions that Hollywood has released for public consumption.

      Some examples of such films are "Contact," for its obvious religious implications that God-proper does not exist (based on Carl P^HSagan's work, nonetheless), "What Dreams May Come," for its touting of Buddhist-like reincarnation.

      Now hear me out... what I am not asserting is that these films are in any form suggestive as to the nation of Israel's claim to the Gaza Strip. But rather, that The Matrix is no more Zionist in nature and philosophy than Robin Williams role in What Dreams May Come promotes Buddhism.

      Your statement "Matrix is widely regarded as an allegorical story, pitched in modern technological terms, regarding the lost races of Zion and the Jewish struggle for freedom." is totally and completely unfounded, and I am surpised that someone of your intellect would even suggest such tripe.

      Now I think that it would be wise, even as you suggest, to consider the history and culture of Egypt, *yourself*.

      The term Zion is no more Jewish than it is Islamic. If I am not mistaken, I believe that Islam was founded on the principles of Judaism, inextricably linked historically with the Zabur, and especially the Tawrat.
      This means that the use of the term Zion ('tsee-yohn') should evoke sentiments of comfort and refuge, as this was the original appellation that Allah, Himself, gave his holy dwelling place.

      Refuge... now, that sounds a lot more like what the utilisation of the term Zion in the Matrix constitues.

      It is only extremists that will read more into the meaning than that which was intended; geek and Muslim alike.

      Here is a little twist for you... What role do these Islamic extremists feel the ship Nebuchadnezzar plays in all this? Historically, Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan Babylonian king who overtook Jerusalem, carrying away captive a great multitude of the Jews. Seems to me that they should eat this concept right up.

  103. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?

    It's pretty hard to be disappointed by a movie staring Canoe Reeves. I mean, to be disappointed there has to be some sort of expectation that it's not going to suck in the first place, and, let's face it, brother can't act to save his life (Bill and Ted is a modern masterpiece though, don't get me wrong). Although frankly I thought Larry Fishburn was more than disappointing: he does Shakespeare regularly, he was Cowboy fucking Curtis -- why'd he have to suck? I've seen popsicle sticks give less wooden performances. The only redeeming performance in the movie was Agent Smith, who was just hilarious.

    But getting back to your point -- the first movie was a little too "gee-whiz" with their adolescent philosophy, but at least the plot held together, more or less. But after a zillion fanboys telling them how deep the movie was, and seeing press clippings mentioning their names in the same sentence as, say, Plato or Kant or Buddah or whatever, the Whatemacallem brothers decided to lay the weirdass metaphysics on a little thick in the sequel. And what happened? The movie wasn't pseudo-cryptic, or an interesting conversation starter for people who think solipsism has to with worshiping the longest and shortest days. Nope, it just plain didn't make sense. Like you said, a bad story.

  104. Not to mention ... by torpor · · Score: 1

    ... that either one of these two points are just as applicable to the United States of America.

    Like America has a right to shove its religion^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mmovies on the rest of the world...

    Sheesh. Its' as if its 'ignore the irony' day today.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  105. MOD!!!!!PARENT!!!!!UP!!!!! by rkz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mod him up you mother fuckers

  106. You are too simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assumed the architect is sociopathic; that is he will say anything to get Neo to make the choice he wants.

    In fact, the choice Neo makes is the path the architect wants him to make, despite his protestations to the contrary.

    So no, I don't think *you* get it.

    1. Re:You are too simple by jamesblonde · · Score: 1

      That's the argument made by some. another interesting argument is that the machines want to wipe out humanity, but can't because they lack free will and require humans (Keanu) to make that decision for them. The whole matrix argument has thrown up the eternal "u didn't enjoy it cos u didn't understand it" argument. I enjoyed it :)

    2. Re:You are too simple by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      If the Architect were so keen to get Neo through the correct door, he simply wouldn't have told him of the other door.

      Obviously it is crucial that Neo chooses.

      So: My guess is that the Matrix was built by humans, not machines. They left in place a safety mechanism so that, if anything as drastic as a reboot is need, a human must authorise it. Neo is that human. But he messes it up by going AWOL to rescue Trinity.

      Peter B Lloyd
      www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

  107. Re: wow.... by miketang16 · · Score: 1

    I'm more interested to see how Bruce Almighty fares in the South. God being a black man and all...

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  108. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by hplasm · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Do you use a typewriter and then scan the post into ./?

    --
    ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  109. So what? by batlock · · Score: 0, Troll
    The poor Egyptians won't be able to see the most boring piece of shit ever? Good for them!
    and:
    the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.

    I'm Discordian. I don't respect other religions, I make fun of them.
    --

    Batlock...

  110. Religion in, rational thought out. by panurge · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm not surprised by the Egyptian reaction. It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity. Wars have been fought over the definition of both of them. Sadly, as someone with connections to Reform Judaism and non-Trinitarian Christianity, I believe that the present Government of Israel (and not, please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people) has so disgraced the word "Zion" that its use should be subject to the greatest care.

    To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.

    Anyone who has read Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses will know how difficult the whole area is. Although it was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous, the real reason for the attack was Rushdie's description of an Ayatollah in exile, which was uncomplimentary to say the least. Mubarak may not be a democrat or hugely lovable by Western standards, but he has largely held Egypt together without it collapsing into fundamentalism. Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East. The last thing he needs is Taliban inspired crazies going berserk over a movie that presents "Zion" as the good guys, and using this as a lever to attack the government. I suggest that college-age kids who don't get this probably need to obtain passports and visit the region, and LISTEN. Perhaps if enough of them do, one day we'll get a government with a clue about the Middle East. But I'm not holding my breath.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Words are words. Their definitions are based on the context they are used in. This is why black people can use the word "Nigger" when talking to their friends and white people cannot. (well, usually. I call one of my black friends "my niggah!" and he calls me "my jewboy!")

      In The Matrix, Zion is a city, and thats it. Yes its the last human city yadda yadda, but its still just a city contained within a fictional movie.

      Its just a word.

      --

      no .sig
    2. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.

      This is an interesting example. There would be a lot of people offended. Here in the US at least, anything that bizarre would generate a small cult following as well. Not that they would necessarily take the movie seriously. If the special effects or the action scenes were good, there would be some people who would watch it just for that.

      With that premise however, it is extremely unlikely that the movie would be shown on many screens. It wouldn't have to be banned because no theater would want to lose money showing it rather that something their customers wanted to see. It would go to late night cable showings in weeks, and would be released on DVD to near universal enui days later.

    3. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by XianDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity.

      I only wish you were kidding. Let us always remember that we need to protect everyone from everyone else by constantly monitoring our speech and language. By your logic, if a circus clown had killed my father and you started talking about what a great time you and your kids had at Ringling Bros the other night, you're just being stupid and insensitive. Give it a rest. The film-makers owe no obligation to anyone but themselves to use the language and nomenclature that they find creatively appropriate. 'Stupid and insensitive' is not only narrow-minded and uninformed, it is worse, an ad hominem attack that has no reasonable basis. (And if you have any doubts regarding the validity of my criticism, consider how uninformed I must be about whether you truly are narrow-minded and uninformed).

      I personally would love to see any movie involving evil Southern baptists. It is a sad state of affairs that there aren't more of them as I know many Southern Baptists quite well and I hate to say it but... they are in fact evil. I don't find and value in your analogy, at least, I didn't find anything particularly offensive with the concept.

      Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East.

      I'm not quite sure how you make this value judgment. What is your conception of 'society' and do you honestly think that one country alones trumps the entire collective character of all the others. Your comment needs a fair amount of elaboration if you want to be taken seriously.

    4. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by Adaere · · Score: 1
      I thought the problem for Rushdie's book was the title itself, which refers to some verses (in the 53rd sura) which acknowledge 3 goddesses in contradiction to the monotheism of Islam and which have been called "the satanic verses", and are hotly disputed.

      More detail here.

      --
      On the internet, no one knows you're a frog.
    5. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suggest that college-age kids who don't get this probably need to obtain passports and visit the region, and LISTEN.

      Listen. What's that sound? That's the knife slitting the throat of the easy American college student target.

      I'm so tired of this bullshit line. Oh, we don't understand the poor fuckheads and the suckass fairy tales by which their best and brightest plan their lives. Oh, the evil ignorant 'Mericans failing to understand every quirk of Dark Age ignorance all over the world. For some reason people in the US are to be disparaged because they do not have a graduate level grasp of all known world cultures, but it's perfectly OK for the rest of the world to swallow every stereotype and propaganda piece about us. This double standard will not get you anywhere.

      What that part of the world needs is to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And, yes, that applies to people in the West who are die hard religious types, but it's the Middle East where the theofacists are trying to slaughter millions of infidels, so first things first, eh?

      Actually, I can see how extremist Muslims would identify with the AIs in the Matrix films. Complete and utter control of the populace? Hot damn! Their little god would be so pleased!

    6. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.

      Forget US fundamentalists, Southern baptists, etc. How would non-specific-religion-affiliated Americans react if a film was released depicting epic battle scenes under the name "The Two Towers"?

    7. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by jake007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity.

      First, you can never please everyone. We would have no books, no movies, in fact we would have nothing if we always caved in and self-censored.

      Second, what should be so insensitive about Zion (Sinai)? That's where - traditionally - the Jewish code of law was given and note that both Christianity and Islam relate to it. Why not show a movie which treats it creatively, yet with some respect? There's nothing wrong in playing with items from our shared heritage if it's done with sane mind and has some artistic quality.

      ...the present Government of Israel has so disgraced the word "Zion"...

      That's a serious accusation but you bring no evidence. First, the present government of Israel has been democratically elected, just like every government in Israel to-date. Can you say that about Egypt which you call "a better society than much of the Middle East"?

      Second, being democratically elected the government represents the majority of its electorate. Your excuse that you don't mean, "please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people" is lame.


      it [Satanic Verses] was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous

      You miss the point. It is Mr. Rushdie who has been attacked, his life turned upside down because otherwise Iran's Islamic rulers would have had him long killed by now!

      Your advise? He shouldn't have written a "difficult" book. That's the wrong advise. You must never give in to criminals and those who pervert human values. Instead, you hunt them down (if possible) and punish according to their crimes. This is the major tenet of our Western civilization as we know it - we define what our rights are and defend them. If we don't, soon we won't have any left.

      how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"?

      US fundamentalists?? Do they decide what we get to see on the TV? Do they censor the newspapers? If an Egyptian made a movie as you describe, I think pretty much noone in the US would give a damn. Try to come up with a better analogy.


      You mention Taliban. Hm, you are right we don't want them in Egypt. Does it help then to not screen Matrix and instead show the Protocols of Zion, made up by Russian Secret Police to blame an economic misery on the Jews? Does it help to smuggle TNT belts to Gaza so that they can be used to blow up busses with people like you and me in them? Does it help to issue building permits for mosques but not for churches even though Egypt sports a sizable Coptic Christian minority? Look up on the net how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Egyptians, how many of the virulently anti-human Islamic preachers active in mosques in the UK and US studied their craft at the state-controlled Egyptian University of Cairo.

      Before "letting a rational though out", please get the facts straight first. Thank you.

    8. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by Squidgee · · Score: 1
      Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East.

      Bullshit.

      See this post. And, hey, guess what, much of it's true. Egypt is NOT one of the better countries. I'd lok to Israel for that.

    9. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by deanc · · Score: 1

      It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity. Wars have been fought over the definition of both of them.

      You must be joking about about your objections. We can argue all we want about whether The Matrix is a good religious allegory (IMHO, the movie isn't as "deep" as the creators think it is), but the fact is that it is a religious allegory. The entire point of the movie was to be "emotive." If some censors in Egypt don't like the fact that words like "Zion" and "Trinity" were used, then that's not the problem of the Wachowski brothers. I don't see why changes should be made to make the whole thing as inoffensive as possible for hyper-sensitive viewer out there, even if it is the Egyptian censorship board.

    10. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      The book also contains a negative portrayal of a character who's supposed to represent the prophet Muhammad.

      That's been a hot button since Islam was founded. The Prophet was driven from his birthplace by violent opposition. When he returned, he forgave the people who'd spent years trying to kill him, but ordered the execution of others who had ridiculed him.

      In other words, disrespect is considered worse than persecution.

      That's the history. There are no value judgments in this post.

    11. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by kels · · Score: 1
      being democratically elected the government represents the majority of its electorate.

      This definition of democracy void the United States of America. Other restrictions apply.
      --
      "I believe that the cult of the particular brings only death - for it bases order on likeness." St.-Exupery
  111. had it banned already... by jeremie_z_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... for it's obvious hollywoodesque crap with kung-fu combat and MTV-like state of the art wrapping. you can call this a troll as i didn't see the sequel but just got that impression from the first one. i guess my adolescence crisis is over by now... the real Matrix for me lies in Gibson's work, not in expensive mortal-kombat-like exhibitions...

  112. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that WAS Egypt.

  113. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBF. YHL. HAND.

  114. Zion... by mongbot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The capital of the survivors in the Matrix is called "Zion" - the name of the mythical Jewish homeland. Egypt has been at war with Israel not too long ago, and there is huge resentment towards Israel because of the occupation of Palestine.

    It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.

    1. Re:Zion... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No it wouldn't. There is a big difference between public uprorar, movie theatres refusing to show something, and a government ban. There is lots of material out there that is only available in certian outlets because the public doesn't like it. A good example of something actually not too extreme is the Anarchists' Cookbook. You aren't going to see this out in front in Barnes and Nobles, but it is available and legally so, amazon.com seels it for example. It is the sort of thing that the public does not approve of and, all said and done, law enforcement would rather not have in public hands. Yet it is available.

      The public has a right to speak out against things they don't like and refuse to buy them. Movie theatres have a right to choose not to show a film for any number of reasons. However if the government decides to ban something outright, that is very different. I am quite sure that if a movie came out that made terrorists out to be heros it would be villified in the US. No major theatre would show it, no normal movie store would sell it or rent it. However I also firmly believe it would not be banned by the government. If you care to do some digging, there are plenty of books out there that villify America and make us out to be evil, books that you can buy and read in America.

    2. Re:Zion... by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

      It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.

      Perhaps we're forgetting about "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

    3. Re:Zion... by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      ... called "Zion" - the name of the mythical Jewish homeland ...

      I would hardly call it myhthical.

      (Hint: it is referenced 153 times in the Old Testament of the Bible: 2Sa5:7 1Ki8:1 2Ki19:21 2Ki19:31 1Ch11:5 2Ch5:2 Ps2:6 Ps9:11 Ps9:14 Ps14:7 Ps20:2 Ps48:2 Ps48:11 Ps48:12 Ps50:2 Ps51:18 Ps53:6 Ps69:35 Ps74:2 Ps76:2 Ps78:68 Ps84:7 Ps87:2 Ps87:5 Ps97:8 Ps99:2 Ps102:13 Ps102:16 Ps102:21 Ps110:2 Ps125:1 Ps126:1 Ps128:5 Ps129:5 Ps132:13 Ps133:3 Ps134:3 Ps135:21 Ps137:1 Ps137:3 Ps146:10 Ps147:12 Ps149:2 SoS3:11 Is1:8 Is1:27 Is2:3 Is3:16 Is3:17 Is4:3 Is4:4 Is4:5 Is8:18 Is10:12 Is10:24 Is10:32 Is12:6 Is14:32 Is16:1 Is18:7 Is24:23 Is28:16 Is29:8 Is30:19 Is31:4 Is31:9 Is33:5 Is33:14 Is33:20 Is34:8 Is35:10 Is37:22 Is37:32 Is40:9 Is41:27 Is46:13 Is49:14 Is51:3 Is51:11 Is51:16 Is52:1 Is52:2 Is52:7 Is52:8 Is59:20 Is60:14 Is61:3 Is62:1 Is62:11 Is64:10 Is66:8 Je3:14 Je4:6 Je4:31 Je6:2 Je6:23 Je8:19 Je9:19 Je14:19 Je26:18 Je30:17 Je31:6 Je31:12 Je50:5 Je50:28 Je51:10 Je51:24 Je51:35 Lam1:4 Lam1:6 Lam1:17 Lam2:1 Lam2:4 Lam2:6 Lam2:8 Lam2:10 Lam2:13 Lam2:18 Lam4:2 Lam4:11 Lam4:22 Lam5:11 Lam5:18 Jl2:1 Jl2:15 Jl2:23 Jl2:32 Jl3:16 Jl3:17 Jl3:21 Am1:2 Am6:1 Ob1:17 Ob1:21 Mi1:13 Mi3:10 Mi3:12 Mi4:2 Mi4:7 Mi4:8 Mi4:10 Mi4:11 Mi4:13 Zep3:14 Zep3:16 Zec1:14 Zec1:17 Zec2:7 Zec2:10 Zec8:2 Zec8:3 Zec9:9 Zec9:13)

    4. Re:Zion... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      It would be the same if there was a major movie released in America where the hero's name just happened to be 'Osama Bin Laden' (not that I'm drawing any significants comparison). Of course there would be uproar, and the movie would not be shown by most theatres regardless of it's artistic quality.

      Well, I think a lot of theaters would still show it because of the curiosity factor. Maybe midnight showings.

      But even if what you said above happened, at least it's the decision of private theater owners not to show it, and NOT a government mandate from an insane theocracy. In the USA, even in your worst case scenario, the movie would still be available one way or another (it would go to DVD very quickly, and to a BitTorrent near you), and viewing it would not be a crime.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    5. Re:Zion... by zer0vector · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That would imply the Bible was factual, which it may or may not be.

      --

      ----
      Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
    6. Re:Zion... by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 1

      153 mentions in the bible are enough to consider *anything* mythical.

    7. Re:Zion... by utahjazz · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Zion" - the name of the mythical Jewish homeland.

      And non-mythical Mormon homeland. Many businesses and places in Utah are named Zion, as the Moromons think of Utah as "our Zion".

      But typically if you say "Zion" in Utah, you are referring to Zion National Park.

      Visitors to Salt Lake often notice the big statue of Brigham Young downtown faces away from the Temple, with his hand outstretched to the Zion Bank building.

    8. Re:Zion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still refers to Mount Zion, and indirectly Jerusalem.

    9. Re:Zion... by NihilSmurf · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody seriously consideres Zion merely a "mythical" Jewish homeland.

      Most people don't believe that all the events in the bible happened exactly as described, but I don't think anybody seriously disputes that the Old Testament is thousands of years old, and was writen by people who called themselves Jews and who were living in what is now the country of Israel.

    10. Re:Zion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took a very long time for the First Matrix to be approved in Egpyt, allegedly for it's religious overtones.

      Having seen the First matrix in Egpyt, I can tell you that all Old Testament references ('Zion' = promised land, 'Nebuchednezzar'(sp?)) were editied out, leading to a slightly confusing Smith/Morpheous interrogation scene!

      I have not yet seen Matrix Reloaded, but I guess that there are a few more references to Zion than in the first!

      So, I would go for 9 parts anti-zionism, 1 part 'religios overtones'...

    11. Re:Zion... by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      Make a movie about the Boston Tea Party and it could do very well. Maybe not in England though.

      --
      Nice Marmot
  115. Social Unrest? by SluttyButt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Zionist's idea has suffered through ages, and the fact of its survival scares the hell out of anyone who hasn't gone through this generations of unceasing trials.

    To know we have fears, and to come face to face with it - to learn what the Zionists has learned, could be beneficial.

    Egypt's fear will be it's own undoing.

  116. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GFAD.

  117. Figures by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    The way I see it is like this

    1. The people really can't handle the movie and its a good idea.

    or

    2. So many people will be downloading it [if not already] off Kazaa that it won't matter in a week.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  118. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you have to see matrix revolution's unreleased trailer to understand it then.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/matrix_rev/

    dont mod this up pls.

  119. question then... [spoiler] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, perhaps you can explain to me which door Neo went into? I don't think it explicitly states whether he went into the door where he saves humanity and loses Trinity, or the door where Trinity lives and humanity dies.

    Clearly you are meant to think that he picks the latter based on this movie, but I'm not so sure.

    I'm waiting for the sucker-Hollywood-ending where (of course), you think he picked the romantic "Save Trinity" ending where "humanity dies" but hey, whaddya know, both Trinity and humanity end up making it in the end due to the wisdom and goodness of our yet-human hero.

    For all the talk about free will vs. determinism, I'm actually pretty sure Hollywood will stick to this deterministic formula. Whence Hollywood's "free choice", eh?

    --LP

    1. Re:question then... [spoiler] by lmfr · · Score: 1
      He picks the second, where he saves Trinity but loses human kind.

      It seamed pretty obvious to me (ie, I didn't get confused about which door was which), and, as the architect had said, the predictable one.

      Actually, the scene with the architect was the only one I enjoid, on an intellectual base.

  120. atheist by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

    ... which we all respect and believe in.
    Excuse me?
    I am a atheist.
    Religion is superstition.

  121. Lucky they by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

    At least they won't feel obliged to shell out the bucks to see the sequel of a good movie and end up watching one of the shittiest movies I've ever seen.
    Yes i was *very* disappointed, and all the people I know too. Half the movie they're ranting about the messiah, the other half is 15 mins straight battles with totally displaced GFX effects just to "look kewl" (Ok, it was fun the first time, but here it is just too much). The end sucks big time too..

    Sorry, I had to say it ;) just my opinion...

  122. Those strange egyptians... by JadedFAQer · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not like there were any cats in the film, I see no reason to get fussy.

    1. Re:Those strange egyptians... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Whoa, deja vu.

      Well, in the first one anyways.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  123. Got all that... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    But if I recall correctly there was a heck of a lot of other verbiage coming out of the architect's mouth that sounded terribly profound but made no sense at all.

    I was wondering whether anybody had made any more sense out of it, or that it was just merely impressive-sounding nonsense. But then again, impressive-sounding nonsense seems to be the main stock in trade of many university Arts faculties at the moment... :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some words in the Architect's speech are completely superfluous (for example, there's no reason for him to say "apropos" when he does, and it's even slightly nonsensical in context). However, the vast majority of it is just a long, convoluted way of saying the same things that others have said in their summaries in this thread. I have no doubt the Architect's speech was designed to confuse a reasonably high percentage of the viewers (he could have said everything he did far more simply). But it also creates an interesting effect for those who look a little deeper, as it seems at least plausible that an earlier AI program (remember, the Architect created the Matrix, so he's pretty old) would favor using a lot of technical terms so as to be as precise as possible.

      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    2. Re:Got all that... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Architect's speech was designed to confuse a reasonably high percentage of the viewers

      Of course. All architects do that. It's one way to make people believe they are worth their fees. "Damn..I barely understood half of what he just said. He must be brilliant Excellent! How does $50 million now and the remainder of your expenses paid at the completion of the project sound?"

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    3. Re:Got all that... by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that?

      apÂroÂpos ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-p)
      adj.

      Being at once opportune and to the point. See Synonyms at relevant.

      adv.

      1. At an appropriate time; opportunely.
      2. By the way; incidentally: Apropos, where were you yesterday?

      prep.

      With regard to; concerning: Apropos our date for lunch, I can't go.

    4. Re:Got all that... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with using a large vocabulary to be as precise as possible. It doesn't make it "intellectual nonsense" but something that is more correct than just saying "Dude, go in the other door, cuz the Matrix is fried." See, that one sentence didn't really tell me shit. In the same respect, a normal sentence may not be as precise as something the Architect says: short and concise. It's sorta like how the Japanese language can express a thousand ideas in one short word, in which (on the other end of the spectrum), the Spanish language needs a thousand words just for that same exact meaning.

    5. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I know the common meaning of "apropos". The Architect's usage of it sounds strange because 1) it's too obvious to bear mention that Trinity (Neo's previous one-word line) is the subject the Architect was discussing in the antepenultimate line, and 2) I've never seen that usage before - and since I am at least familiar with the term itself, something which I don't think you can assume for most viewers of the movie, that usage must be rare indeed. It sounds like a speech affectation that somehow made it into the dictionary, actually. While I'm at it, other examples of things that sound odd (trying to go with only issues that are relatively close to the surface, not deep plot speculation) in the Architect's speech:
      • "Pertinent" and "relevant" are synonymous, so saying that something is both pertinent and irrelevant is an oxymoron.
      • "creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations" sounds very odd given the way we use the word "equation" - an equation can't fluctuate. Presumably he is using this as a technical term to refer specifically to the type of equations (or functions, more likely) needed to instantiate an environment such as the Matrix.
      • "allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program" - must be jargon for some of the issues involved in the Matrix. Not comprehensible without more explanation of how the Matrix works, but probably not meant to be - just some "technobabble" to reassure you that something technical is going on here. Or this might be illuminated in Revolutions.
      • "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." This line is ambiguous. I assumed when I first saw the movie that the level they were prepared to accept was the current state, although it seems that most others thought it meant that the machines could still get by - albeit at a lower level of function - without humans.
      • "Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication" and "Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason." Either the Architect likes to use the word "design" in a heavily metaphorical manner, or something really weird is going on here.
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    6. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're just trying to clarify what I said or disagreeing with a point you purport I make, viz. that the Architect's speech is "bad" or that something is "wrong" with it. Just in case it's the latter, observe some of the words used in my original message: "superfluous", "nonsensical", "convoluted", "plausible". I don't say things that way to be pretentious or to demonstrate my big vocabulary - I naturally express myself that way. I guess that if the last sentence of my original post is true, then in this respect, I tend to be somewhat like the Architect myself, although to a less extreme degree. (For example, there's not much reason for him to say "concurrently" rather than "at the same time" or just "also", except to establish that he has a big vocabulary and likes to use long words. Don't get me wrong, there are times when "concurrently" is exactly the right word to use - in particular, any other word would probably be a bad idea when describing computer programs interacting with one another at the same time, since "concurrency" is a well-established piece of CS jargon. In fact, this might be exactly why the Architect's line goes that way...)

      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    7. Re:Got all that... by Grotus · · Score: 1
      "creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations" sounds very odd given the way we use the word "equation" - an equation can't fluctuate. Presumably he is using this as a technical term to refer specifically to the type of equations (or functions, more likely) needed to instantiate an environment such as the Matrix.


      This sounds like chaos theory. There are extremely simple equations that under certain conditions produce chaotic results. Example: Xnext = A*Xcurr*(1-Xcurr) for A between ~3.6 and 4 and X between 0 and 1.

      Chaos theory is why we can't accurately predict the weather beyond about 20 days. I would think that models of humanity would be similarly difficult to make long-term predictions from, and so the reference to chaos theory seems apropos.
      --
      "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
    8. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 1
      Xnext = A*Xcurr*(1-Xcurr) for A between ~3.6 and 4 and X between 0 and 1

      While this is technically an equation, I find thinking of it as an assignment much more natural:

      X <- A*X*(1-X)

      I'm a functional programmer, so if even I think of this more as an assignment than an equation, I'd venture that almost any computer scientist would do the same (of course, this may not be as true of mathematicians). This exact tension is why I think the word "equation" sounds out of place in the speech; I think it was worded the way it was because "equation" would make the non-geeks in the audience think "oh, he's talking about math" whereas "iterative function" would have just had them scratching their heads.

      That said, your idea is interesting, although I'm not sure that it's right. After all, since the Matrix is a created system, presumably they can choose to set it up with whatever equations they want. Why the "anomaly" would cause "fluctuations" in "even the most simplistic equations" is definitely not explained in the movie. It's possible to "backfit" explanations like you're doing here, of course; but that's possible for almost anything in the Matrix series, if you think about it. After all, not only does a large portion of the movies take place inside a simulated world in which our laws of physics need not apply; also, we have no guarantee that Zion, even if it is not just another Matrix, follows exactly the same rules as the world in which you and I live.
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    9. Re:Got all that... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      conÂcurÂrent adj.
      1. Happening at the same time as something else. See Synonyms at contemporary.
      2. Operating or acting in conjunction with another.
      3. Meeting or tending to meet at the same point; convergent.
      4. Being in accordance; harmonious.

      alÂso adv.
      1. In addition; besides.
      2. Likewise; too: If you will stay, I will also.

      See, they have different definitions, thus he uses the one that fits better. Sometimes you can also pick a word because it has more than one meaning that fits the ALL of the definitions in the context that you are using the word. Humans have a tendancy to overuse the same words and use the wrong word without a precise definition. The Artitect, as both a program and as a mathematical/technical mastermind, demands the most precise (see, I'm overusing this word) and logical word, even if us lowly humans can't understand our own English language.

    10. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 1
      See, they have different definitions, thus he uses the one that fits better.

      Well, I note that you didn't quarrel with "at the same time", because it means exactly the same thing as "concurrently", but would have been easier for the movie's audience to understand. That said, the states of affairs to which the Architect is referring aren't really specifically temporal (remember how the Oracle said earlier that Neo was seeing the world "without time"? This applies here too), and thus I could make an argument that "also" would have actually been more appropriate here.

      Humans have a tendancy to overuse the same words and use the wrong word without a precise definition.

      We do, but I'm doubtful that it's even possible to be 100% precise in English, especially when the underlying concepts may not be the same to the speaker and the listener. I mean, obviously the Architect wouldn't think in English. That would just be silly. Given that he understood human nature enough to create the Matrix, you'd think that he would also be able to come up with an algorithm to convert his thoughts into speech which maintained a decent balance between precision and comprehensibility - unless the movie was trying to make a point with the Architect's way of speaking, which is exactly what I think it was doing. Don't get me wrong, I thought the Architect's speech was, if not brilliant, at least very good, and I didn't have much trouble understanding it. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that a decent chunk of the audience were left scratching their heads or assuming that the speech was largely nonsense/technobabble, and that this could have been avoided (albeit at some cost in terms of the impression we get of the Architect).
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    11. Re:Got all that... by CXI · · Score: 1

      I know the common meaning of "apropos". The Architect's usage of it sounds strange because

      Let's write it this way: "At an opportune time, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own." The timing was pretty critical to Neo taking the action he did.

      "Pertinent" and "relevant" are synonymous, so saying that something is both pertinent and irrelevant is an oxymoron.

      Not really, if you look at how they are used. The Architect is basically saying that the question "Why am I here" at first glance appears to be of critical importance, but in the long run in meaningless. Neo is there because he is. While that seems important it doesn't matter. What matters is what he does in the future. It's kind of a counterpoint to Morpheus' speach "I am here becase of what is behind me."

      "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." This line is ambiguous. I assumed when I first saw the movie that the level they were prepared to accept was the current state, although it seems that most others thought it meant that the machines could still get by - albeit at a lower level of function - without humans.

      This is perfectly clear if you take it in context:

      The Architect - "Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race."
      Neo - "You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive."
      The Architect - "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

      The machines are willing to accept the death of all humans, thus lowering the level of their own existance, if the allow Neo to destroy the Matrix. It's perfectly clear.

      Either the Architect likes to use the word "design" in a heavily metaphorical manner, or something really weird is going on here.

      I think you are reading too much into this. To me, the Architect is just talking about human emotion, which was "designed" to overwhelm logic. He is not implying whether he designed it, a god designed it or natural selection designed it.

    12. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 1
      Let's write it this way: "At an opportune time, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own." The timing was pretty critical to Neo taking the action he did.
      Okay, I guess it makes sense. I just wasn't familiar with that usage of the term, and it still sounds strange to me.
      Not really, if you look at how they are used. The Architect is basically saying that the question "Why am I here" at first glance appears to be of critical importance, but in the long run in meaningless. Neo is there because he is. While that seems important it doesn't matter. What matters is what he does in the future. It's kind of a counterpoint to Morpheus' speach "I am here becase of what is behind me."
      But "pertinent" doesn't mean "seeming to be relevant", it just means "relevant".
      This is perfectly clear if you take it in context: The Architect - "Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race." Neo - "You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive." The Architect - "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." The machines are willing to accept the death of all humans, thus lowering the level of their own existance, if the allow Neo to destroy the Matrix. It's perfectly clear.
      I'm glad it was clear to you, I guess. I've seen the movie four times, and that possibility didn't even occur to me until the third. (Part of the reason for this may be that I tend to be pretty suspicious of the whole "humans as batteries" idea in the first place, on thermodynamic grounds - plus, I don't think humans are all that efficient.)
      I think you are reading too much into this. To me, the Architect is just talking about human emotion, which was "designed" to overwhelm logic. He is not implying whether he designed it, a god designed it or natural selection designed it.
      The scare quotes you put around "designed" are important, though. Natural selection can't literally design anything. Saying that it does is a (potentially misleading) form of personification.
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    13. Re:Got all that... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      That said, your idea is interesting, although I'm not sure that it's right. After all, since the Matrix is a created system, presumably they can choose to set it up with whatever equations they want. Why the "anomaly" would cause "fluctuations" in "even the most simplistic equations" is definitely not explained in the movie.

      I think it is. The Architect said that the earliest, perfect versions of the Matrix were a failure. They set everything up the way they thought they should be, and made all the humans happy to boot, but lots of people rejected it.

      In other words, they could make "whatever equations they want[ed]" but the "hardware" was buggy and wouldn't work with it.

      Eventually the Oracle discovered that the humans had to be given a choice, even a subconscious choice to reject the program, in which case most of them would stay. Ironically offering them what the machines most wanted them _not_ to do was the best way of stopping them from doing it, but that's human nature for you.

      However designing such a program, a program designed _not_ to be perfect, introudeced problems that needed to be dealt with. It's been awhile since i see the movie, but the impression i got was they decided to minimize the day to day problems as much as possible, but by doing so, by necessity at some point in the future all the "delayed" errors would finally end up coalesing in the form of the anomoly.

      However although they couldn't _prevent_ the anomoly, they had some control over the way in which it would be expressed and what it would do, so they designed the secondary level of control by causing the anomoly to go to the Architect and restart a new Matrix, restarting the cycle until the creation of the next anomoly.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    14. Re:Got all that... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      I'm glad it was clear to you, I guess. I've seen the movie four times, and that possibility didn't even occur to me until the third. (Part of the reason for this may be that I tend to be pretty suspicious of the whole "humans as batteries" idea in the first place, on thermodynamic grounds - plus, I don't think humans are all that efficient.)

      If you're going to analyze a movie, at some level you need to accept the things purported as truth within that movie. I agree, thermodynamically the humans as batteries idea makes no sense. However for whatever reason, batteries, spare brain cycles, whatever, the Machines need Humans in order to maintain their quality of life. However they are willing to accept a lesser quality of life if there is a good enough reason to destroy all the humans.

      The scare quotes you put around "designed" are important, though. Natural selection can't literally design anything. Saying that it does is a (potentially misleading) form of personification.

      Yeah, the Architect is anthropomorphizing a bit, but the statement is still generally true. Our genes are a blueprint, a design. No one made it, but certain forces caused it to come about. The chemicals are performing the purpose the body's design calls for, therefore they are doing as they were designed. Our language is not built to support refering to such matters in both a convenient and a highly technical manner at the same time. The Architect could have said "Ah, the chemicals are overiding your intellect, as instructed for in your genes that were produced by evolution, which apparently adheres to Natural Selection, or the "Survival of the Fittest," which dictated that...." and so on. That wouldn't serve the audience of the movie very well, and it wouldn't server the Architect very well either. The colloquialism he used got his point across just fine.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    15. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think it is. The Architect said that the earliest, perfect versions of the Matrix were a failure. They set everything up the way they thought they should be, and made all the humans happy to boot, but lots of people rejected it.

      [snip long, accurate plot summary]

      Everything you say is correct, but I still don't see how it explains why the "anomaly" would cause "fluctuations" in "even the most simplistic equations". I mean, everything you say just comes down to "the problem is choice", as Neo said. But, while this is a good plot device, it's not intuitively plausible. What kind of special issues does choice raise? Sure, humans are unpredictable, but what exactly are the nature of the "fluctuations" that the humans are able to induce? Is that how Neo and friends are able to make the Matrix conform to their wills? It's not obvious why a system that doesn't allow this to happen would necessarily be unacceptable to humans.

      Understand that I'm not saying that the movie should have explained this, both because it would have had to go into a lot of depth to fully satisfy me (taking away screen time and likely boring the rest of the audience) and because until we see the third movie, we won't really know what to make of all this anyway. And I wouldn't point out things like this in Star Wars or whatever at all. It's only because the Matrix series seems to aspire to "hard" sci-fi status that I think these kinds of criticisms are even relevant.
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    16. Re:Got all that... by TephX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you're going to analyze a movie, at some level you need to accept the things purported as truth within that movie. I agree, thermodynamically the humans as batteries idea makes no sense. However for whatever reason, batteries, spare brain cycles, whatever, the Machines need Humans in order to maintain their quality of life. However they are willing to accept a lesser quality of life if there is a good enough reason to destroy all the humans.

      Actually, my favorite plot theories (although admittedly also the least likely to be presented as fact in Revolutions) make the whole battery thing not be true, for whatever reason. For example: the machines are actually serving man, just in a really complicated way; or the machines are keeping them around as museum pieces or pets of a sort. (The most common theory that would have the humans-as-batteries thing not be true, of course, are the Zion-is-another-Matrix theories, but while I think Reloaded was deliberately intended to give some fuel to those theories, I also think it's extremely unlikely that they will be presented as fact in Revolutions.)

      That wouldn't serve the audience of the movie very well, and it wouldn't server

      Heh, I make that typo all the time too, although I usually catch it.

      the Architect very well either. The colloquialism he used got his point across just fine.

      Well, I was able to understand what he was saying, but it sounded... imprecise. As Brendan Byrd said elsewhere in this thread, the Architect was generally extremely careful in word choice, which makes a metaphorical usage of "design" sound odd.
      --
      I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
    17. Re:Got all that... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I have a theory. First, assume that the "battery" thing isn't true and the "humans as processing power" thing is. Or at least assume that -part- of the processing for the matrix is done in the human mind.

      So you have the original matrix, in which the human mind is both prisoner and prison, creating the very rules which fool it into thinking it is free. That fails, and the Architect is forced to introduce choice. Perhaps the anomaly is that he could not remove choice at the lowest levels while retaining it at the higher. Perhaps it is possible for the human brain to produce the -wrong- answer by choice. This could be the deeper implication of Morpheus' "free your mind" speech in the first movie, and the spoon bending -- by choosing to alter the output of the fundamental functions of the matrix, you can modify reality.

      My original theory of how the powers exhibited by the freed came about was based more on chaos theory. Presumeably the computers only have a finite calculation of fundamental values such as Pi or Plank's Constant, and it was the error in these values that allowed "suprenatural" feats, but the human brain, being part of the real world, "knows" Pi infinitely and thus doesn't try to exploit the openings created by the error. Knowing it is a simulation allows one to exploit the errors.

      Adding the new theory to this makes more sense. Perhaps it is possible for a human to "choose" to use the wrong value for Pi, etc. The human mind can't do this very easily (we have certain facts of physics ingrained in our minds from birth, and others are simply parts of our biology), which is why it takes training and is why some humans are better than others.

      Or at least, that's what I think at the moment. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:Got all that... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      I was running along those lines myself. Regardless of whether or not the Machines are using human brains to power their calculations, certainly the easiest way to run the Matrix is to make it largely based off of human expectations. A great deal of genetics and a great deal of training causes us to expect something to fall if we see nothing supporting it, causes us to expect objects not to go through each other, causes us to have a certain belief about how far a person can jump.

      Rather than doing the computations itself the Matrix might just "ask" any observing/participating humans what the expected results are, and only step in if it thinks something is wrong with the results.

      Therefore Neo and the others have to not only _know_ that it is possible to exceed the constraints of reality, they have to _believe_ it so intensely and/or in such a way that the Matrix just takes their word for it and goes with those results.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    19. Re:Got all that... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Everything you say is correct, but I still don't see how it explains why the "anomaly" would cause "fluctuations" in "even the most simplistic equations". I mean, everything you say just comes down to "the problem is choice", as Neo said. But, while this is a good plot device, it's not intuitively plausible. What kind of special issues does choice raise? Sure, humans are unpredictable, but what exactly are the nature of the "fluctuations" that the humans are able to induce?

      I think it's kind of hard to answer that question without understanding the programming behind the Matrix, which we clearly can't know in any real sense.

      As a programmer i know that one bug can often cause another, and fixing the bug can often cause an entirely different bug. In order to contain the humans, they have induced an intended "bug" into the system, the ability of the humans to choose to reject the matrix. However making that change led to further bugs and problems and what have you. Like i said, it's impossible to say what problems or why without knowing the (presumably incredibly complex) code.

      I was somewhat thinking of the code as a still pond of water, with the ability to choose a pebble dropped in the middle. Whether "fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations" is meant to be taken literally or not, i think it gives the idea of a systemic self-propogating set of "anomolies" that they have only a basic control over. And rather than having an uncountable number of little anomolies rippling through the Matrix, they'd rather manipulate things a bit so they only have to deal with one big anomoly, of which Neo is the avatar.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    20. Re:Got all that... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Well, I was able to understand what he was saying, but it sounded... imprecise. As Brendan Byrd said elsewhere in this thread [slashdot.org], the Architect was generally extremely careful in word choice, which makes a metaphorical usage of "design" sound odd.

      I thought of it more as a comment about the nature of the Architect himself. He is an architect, a builder of things, he sees all things, but especially humans, as a design, a made thing, whether by himself or others.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  124. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got the point.

    The GRANDPARENT expressed a kind of "We have the moral obligation to impress our rightous beliefs on those islamic extremists"-attitude... That's crap. The only obligation anyone has is to mind his own buissness and not feel "better" than anyone else...

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Evidently you didn't get the point. He very obviously wasn't pushing any beliefs on anyone, but was was pushing equal rights on everyone -- rights to spend your time like you want, the right to watch a fucking movie.

      I have no obligation to mind my own business. If you don't want me in your business, don't interact with me.

  125. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got a dik4 on your shoulder

  126. And ... ? by xihr · · Score: 1

    And this is surprising because ... ?

  127. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always used Windowz and I consider myself an exceptional Visual
    Basic programmer, so I know computers pretty good.


    I'm sure you do... Please, stop posting such lame remarks that have nothing to do with the topic. I consider you to be an exceptional troll. I hearby call upon all Slashdotters: Attack!

  128. Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by iainl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "we all know that Descarte's duality is bogus, right?"

    Of course, at this point we all start mentioning the fact that Popper, when arguing against the "two worlds" theory called his third world the Neosphere, and start running around saying its all planned from the start.

    See how easy it is to read things into stuff?

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    1. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you had someone reject cartesian geometry because they disagreed with duality? I have. Arts "students" and Engineering students should NEVER talk to eachother.

    2. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      I thought Popper was the one who was tired of getting the runaround...

    3. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      Somebody please mod this up a bit. He's referring to John Popper from the Blues Travelers. Nice work, Artemis. Btw, is your name a reference to Pink World?

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    4. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, folks... I'll be here till Thursday.

      "Artemis" is a reference to the code name for my favorite form-factor Mac at the time that I created this account, many years ago when I was a wee laddie.

    5. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by greck · · Score: 1

      yeah, that was classic, thanks.

    6. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have Matrix on the brain. It's Noosphere.

    7. Re:Descarte to Popper in one easy step... by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      You know the Kid? The one following Neo around in Zion? Geuss what his real name is? (Revealed in the Animatrix)

      Karl Popper.

      There is no spoon.

  129. more spoilers by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

    Of course his car-flipping fireball scene means that he is willing to break a few eggs to make an omlett.

    you know, one person who does hate all humanity, the matrix and all machines is Smith. What would happen if he infected everybody in the matrix, and then decided to commit mass suicide?

    All the machines would be starved back to a "leve of existence we are prepared to accept" which must surely suck, and the humans would be left with however many people are alive in zion after the sentinels are through with them.

    Smith hasn't happened before (Smith 1:"Everything is exactly like last time..." Smith 2: "Not exactly...") and it would be a typical W bros thing to do to have neo fight smith on behalf of the machines.

    Poor Smith. He's the only new form of life on the planet in 2100 years. You'd think that he'd deserve some time in the sun.

    Speaking of which, why haven't the machines used their technology to construct some kind of space elevator to a geosynchronous solar satellite thing yet? Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke thought that that would be a great way to get free power, and it's certainly smarter than their current plan of

    1) liquifying the massive amount of human flesh we saw in The Second Renaisannce into human goo.

    2) resurrect just a small portion of humans to efficiently convert the goo into bioelectricity and heat

    3) get all stroppy when some of the people decide that being fed their dead ancestors intraveniously sucks and that they want to wake up.

    I mean, c'mon machines! fossil fuels and hubris sent humans to the stone age at least twice! don't make the same mistake of thinking that there'll always be more oil/human goo twice!

    1. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the first movie:

      "an infinitely renewable resource"

      They can always breed more humans and they are self-sufficient.

    2. Re:more spoilers by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of which, why haven't the machines used their technology to construct some kind of space elevator to a geosynchronous solar satellite thing yet? Isaac Asimov and Arthur C Clarke thought that that would be a great way to get free power, and it's certainly smarter than their current plan

      That's one of those massive plot holes that you have to overlook if you want to enjoy the movie. Really, you have to go even further back and ask how the earth's leaders thought that scorching the sky (and thereby destroying the planetary ecosystem and killing off every living thing on the planet) was a viable solution to the problem. A case of the cure being worse than the disease.

      Obviously, the machines don't have a defense against EMP blasts, so why didn't mankind detonate a bunch of nuclear warheads over 01?

      Also, in regards to the energy generation issue... the machines have this massive drilling capability... so why aren't they using geothermal heat to generate electricity?

    3. Re:more spoilers by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All the folks in the Matrix are being fed human goo? I had wondered about that. Even if dead human puree is on the menu, the system would still break down, energetically. With machines expending energy, there needs to be some input on the basic level, the difference between the (total calories of human goo in first generation - total calories expended by machines during next generation)

      Unless, the machines only need a relatively small amount of people to power the matrix, and so far they've not run out of 6-billion+ human-gooage, doing a good job at rationing it over the years while they look for a mean of primary production.. Eventually they will need it- energy from the sun- in form of solar panels or plants.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    4. Re:more spoilers by White+Shade · · Score: 1

      in the Second Rennaisance, the humans DID detonate nuclear warheads in an effort to blow the machines up, but as it said, they had less effect than they would have on human targets ... so, it's probably more of a matter that there are heavier machines which are emp protected, but the sentinels and things have to be more mobile so the didn't bother to include emp armor ...

      --
      ìì!
    5. Re:more spoilers by kraada · · Score: 1

      According to various things that I read, humans were not originally used for power; they were used as a massive cluster of computing power (their brains) to help keep the massive fission (or was it fusion?) reactors going.

      However, the people who were eventually editing the original matrix decided that would be too complicated for the masses, and therefore turned humans into batteries.

      I personally like thinking of the matrix as one big beowulf cluster designed to help keep reactors in check -- and that's why the machines can deal without humans, they just have to do part of the processing themselves. Of course, that leaves them less time to thing -- a level of awareness they are willing to accept.

    6. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep getting the feeling that the machine world is not 100% behind the statement "humans suck" as evidenced by:

      1. in Second Renaisannce their attempt to make peace with humans despite being mistreated and "exiled" to 10
      2. the existance of human-friendly programs in the matrix

      I get more the feeling that the Matrix is not solely a power source but a large scale experiment in social and thought engineering. This can be implied by the cycle of zion being destroyed and "seeded" by the machines and the one. (where do you think zion gets all it's machines from after it has been destroyed?)

    7. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All the folks in the Matrix are being fed human goo?

      Excuse me, but the folks in the marketing department prefer that you refer to it by its brand name, "Soylent Green."

    8. Re:more spoilers by minektur · · Score: 1

      More importantly, why didn't they just use some other big mamal? I mean, come on - cows would probably be much more efficient 'batteries' than people, and they are a lot easier to mentally stimulate -- simulate one big meadow with a lot of grass...

      Oh, and call it the Mootrix :)

    9. Re:more spoilers by ArmorFiend · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Excellent point. My friend also has a good point, that the machines may have a built in "first law of robotics" that they've twisted to the point where they can kill individual humans, but its against their programming to commit genocide. So they come close to the knife's edge and kinda hope Neo will make a bad choice and do their dirty work for them - by killing off humanity.

      The matrix was originally an attempt by the machines to create a new garden of eden for the humans, but humans kept on eating the forbidden fruit of choice, and waking up. The current matrix is a shitty place to live but you do have free will.

      The "coppertop" generators are obvious bullshit, as has been pointed out by this post's aunts&uncles. I can add to that the "Cow argument". Given the choice of enslaving docile, non-kung-fu-knowing cows, and rebellious, intelligent humans, both of which produce about the same body heat per food ingested, which do you enslave if you're interested in a stable slave population? Cows. But maybe the cows are all extinct? Well even some random stomach bacteria do a pretty good goo->heat conversion, and every human carries a lot of those, and they don't really need humans to thrive.

      I think that in movie 3 we'll find out that the "real world" above the matrix is also simulated. The characters will be like "oh my god", then a smug villian will be like "what? you bought that `coppertop` thing? That was a dead giveaway, you fools".

    10. Re:more spoilers by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Maybe that's why the machines are still digging?

      Think about it, Geothermal might be a good source of energy if you could figure out how to harness it, and digging through the Earth's crust would allow you to get it wherever you need it.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    11. Re:more spoilers by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who said any of that is even happening?

      For all we know, the entire "human race as a battery" paradigm is something invented by the machines and fed to the those who escape "the matrix" (into another matrix) to help convince them of their plight (and to keep them from wondering if they are truly out of the matrix).

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    12. Re:more spoilers by hiryuu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      2) resurrect just a small portion of humans to efficiently convert the goo into bioelectricity and heat

      It was my understanding that the Wachowski bros. had originally conceived of humans being used as a massive parallel-processing system, but that the notion was lost on the studio execs and/or the execs thought that people wouldn't be able to understand that concept. This, of course, would fit in with the need for the Matrix to exist for brain activity - if people were only needed for the power-producing capabilities (which has already been beaten to death as impractical/impossible, lossy system, etc.), then it would make more sense to have them cerebrally brain-dead. A bit of twisting and stupidity later, and the parallel-processing was ditched for the power-plant, with the Wachowskis, I'm sure, hoping no one would notice/care.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    13. Re:more spoilers by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      good one. Geothermal energy would be great for machines or humanity. But with geothermal, why bother with people anymore, other than for amusement?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    14. Re:more spoilers by The+G+Man · · Score: 1

      What you have to realize, especially if Zion really is just a second-tier matrix, is that absolutely nothing we've seen in the movie is real. It's all just within the greater simulation, so logic (or our perception of it) can be allowed to take a back seat to "reality"; kind of a "who cares what they thought, they tried everything in their power to stop it, and now we have to deal with the results" thing.

      --

      Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
    15. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To take this one step farther, why didnt the machines just leave the planet and move to say mercury. Where there would be more that enough solar and geothermal energy to support them, and the humans wouldnt be such a pain in the ass. Why? because then there wouldnt be a movie you dufus.

    16. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with geothermal, why bother with people anymore, other than for amusement?

      Because then the major conflicts of the movie (man vs machine, human enslavement yadda yadda) are gone and you're left with no plot. It's pretty obvious that the idea of humans living solely off of the remains of humans wouldn't hold up to the laws of energy conservation, but that's what we're told happens (though we could be being given false information about the humans' diet), so you kind of have to ignore the problem for the sake of having a conflict that makes the movie watchable. If the machines didn't need people, there would be no need for the Matrix, the machines could just kill everyone off and that would be that.

    17. Re:more spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a cite for that? Because it would pretty much redeem the thing for me. I thought the first movie was pretty decent, but the whole human=battery backstory was such a load of shit that I haven't even cared to see the sequel (seriously, I downloaded it off Kazaa, but haven't been interested enough to watch it yet).

    18. Re:more spoilers by GQuon · · Score: 1
      if people were only needed for the power-producing capabilities (which has already been beaten to death as impractical/impossible, lossy system, etc.), then it would make more sense to have them cerebrally brain-dead.

      Before I saw the movie, I wondered about wether the machines used humans
      • as an un-interruptable power supply for when those fabled fusion reactors broke down. (Rubber band drives on jet planes anybody?)
      • as an un-interruptable power supply for the power they were able to steal from Zion.
      • as engines for the fuel from the dead people of the war. Seriously time-limited.
      • for revenge. Because "we" "used" them, they want to use us.


      After seeing the movie it occured to me:
      I had a hunch before that maybe the "Real World" -- the Dark World -- is also a simulation of some kind.
      This idea was strengthened by Neo being able to use his powers in the Dark World as well as in the Matrix.
      If that is correct, any in-consistencies, like why they keep us around, can be explained like glitches in the program.
      Makes me wonder: How many levels are there. Is it all a game? Is it just a dream?
      Is it going to be one of those moments when the characters of the movie figure out that they are in a movie, and decide to escape, never to be seen again?
      --
      Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    19. Re:more spoilers by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that the machines haven't started doing fusion, or just have a bunch of breeder reactors. Nuclear energy is cheaper and more efficient than trying to harness the tiny amount of energy created by the human biological processes.

      I do like the nickname in the first movie though... "Coppertop"

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    20. Re:more spoilers by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1
      you know, one person who does hate all humanity, the matrix and all machines is Smith. What would happen if he infected everybody in the matrix, and then decided to commit mass suicide?
      His stated goal is that he "wants everything". I'm not sure if destroying the world to the point where its small enough for him to control is his style. He strikes me as more interested in taking over the world without devastating it.

      I mean, c'mon machines! fossil fuels and hubris sent humans to the stone age at least twice! don't make the same mistake of thinking that there'll always be more oil/human goo twice!
      Huh? I count 0 times.
    21. Re:more spoilers by hiryuu · · Score: 1

      Do you have a cite for that?

      Assuming the AC ever checks back, which I'm not sure is all that likely - no, I have no source to cite, only my memory of an anecdotal reference of someone telling me that they'd seen the Wachowskis interviewed during one of the many "sneak-peek-making-of" shows, or some news-infotainment show or other. In that interview, apparently, they said that they had intended to take the parallel-processing angle but it had been ditched during the creative process, and why.

      Hence why I said only "it was my understanding" in the original post. Take it for what it's worth, which ain't much.:P

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    22. Re:more spoilers by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Hence why I said only "it was my understanding" in the original post. Take it for what it's worth, which ain't much.:P

      Actually, it's worth more than you know... I'm
      pretty sure Gaiman didn't write this
      in a complete vacuum...

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
  130. Re: wow.... by Prince_Ali · · Score: 1

    Except for a few pockets in Alabama and Mississippi that isn't an accurate representation of the South.

  131. a feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn all this time I thought it was a bug.

    oh well Shift+Delete.

  132. These censors hold pretty conflicting views by danila · · Score: 1

    How they manage to simultneously believe in three major religions is beyond me...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:These censors hold pretty conflicting views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry religious people don't mind living with paradoxes. Logical thinking isn't their plus side.

  133. religon by Omega+Prime · · Score: 0

    "which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in."

    errr, i guess you forgot to ask the many millions of Egnostic and atheists out there what they believe.
    Thats also discounting the budists, hindis, taoists, mayans etc etc

    --
    "We deal in lead" - Roland of Gilead
    1. Re:religon by Soul+Colossus · · Score: 1

      That's Agnostic :)

  134. and your sig says.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any sufficiently primitive magic is indistinguishable from technology.

    When you can quantify refined and sophisticated, post here again.

    1. Re:and your sig says.... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Since "refined" and "sophisticated" are both intangible and subjective, they can only be quantified by comparison. In comparison with the results of the scientific method, I would say that Christianity is less refined and sophisticated by about, oh... 3 units of refinement and sophistication. ;)

  135. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we controlled gravity I think you watched too much of StarGate...

  136. Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship by Quizo69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having lived in a country that has no copyright laws (PNG) I've seen the proliferation of imported pirated VCDs and recently DVDs sold openly in every shop.

    What will happen in a country like Egypt is that pirates (the real, organised crime gang type) will simply supply the demand which will be there, because the more affluent Egyptians will have read about how the Matrix: Reloaded is a kick arse movie and wish to see it.

    Furthermore, those with internet connections (there will be plenty) will download the inevitable DivX release and share it with their friends, thus spreading it through yet another channel.

    This is why censors are becoming irrelevant in our technological society. In Australia censors have recently banned "Ken Park" from even screening at a film festival! No matter that it aired at Cannes etc, we're apparently not mature enough to form our own opinion on the matter. The same goes for Egypt, in this case though it's based on religion instead of sex, but it always sees to be the trinity of Sex, Politics and Religion that people feel they must suppress for the good of the populace. So when "Ken Park" is released on the net, it too will be downloaded and watched, regardless of what some censor in an office says we should or shouldn't watch.

    "The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship." - don't have the name of the quoter sorry.

    Quizo

    1. Re:Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship by under_score · · Score: 1
      "The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship." - don't have the name of the quoter sorry.

      That's ridiculous. Censorship is about having guardians who willingly put themselves in harms way in order to protect others. It is similar to having an army that protects from physical harm, censors are the "army" that protects from emotional, intellectual or spiritual harm. I have not had the chance myself, but I think it would be very interesting to ask a person involved in this work of censorship how they see their role and if they feel like they are or are not affected by the material they view.

  137. The people feel Morpheus has the Answers by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    I daresay nearly as important as the "war on terror" is to the United States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

    From the original Matrix:

    Agent Smith: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson. It seems that you've been living two lives. In one life, you're Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias Neo and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. Anderson. You're here because we need your help. We know that you've been contacted by a certain individual, a man who calls himself Morpheus. Now whatever you think you know about this man is irrelevant. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known terrorist to justice.

    "How to destroy government buildings for dummies"?

    Neo: There is no spoon.

    http://www.ds2.pg.gda.pl/~colan/screenplay.htm

  138. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Scuze me, but I take issue with your post (note: this is all in good fun).

    Let's see, we Americans gave you the Xerox machine (Chester Carlson), the comfort cooler a.k.a. air conditioner (Willis H. Carrier), the mass-produced car (Henry Ford), the first successful jet airliner (the Boeing 707), the transistor (Bell Labs), the Intel 4004 microprocessor (and everything after it), and General Electric (Thomas Edison). No, it is you who are ruled: we gave you the atomic bomb (Manhattan Project), and we can take it away, by force if necessary. Bwwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

  139. 01 (spoilers for Animatrix you've seen already) by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    the thing I find most funny is that in the second renaisance the machines build a city "in the cradle of humanity" called ZeroOne.

    You get to see this guy smack a fly down on the United Nations symbol as it crawls over that exact egypt/palistine/israel/siani peninsula in TSR pt1, and then you get to see the Suicide Bomber Sentinel who signs the human-unconditional-surrender-treaty hold his rod and his apple standing below that spot on the united nations shield in TSR pt2.

    Cmon, say ZeroOne a few times slowly...

    Zeroone... Zerone... Zairoone...

    I can't believe that most people found it so cryptic that they didn't get it. and then get mad about it.

    Tricksy W bros!

  140. Here in Denmark by zonix · · Score: 1
    In Holland, TMR is classified as suitable for anyone 12 years and over due to violence. It's probably the same with many EU countries, as over here people are quite liberal with their policies.

    Here in Denmark it's ages 11+.

    AFAIK, our ratings aren't that verbose, e.g. no "rated ??? for peril, violence and strong language, and three scenes of sexual content, some guy's dick falls off, or whatever". If you're 11, you can take anything right? :-)

    z
    --
    What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
  141. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRL

  142. As an American who resides in Egypt.... by Soul+Colossus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was very dissapointed to hear this a few days ago as I and many of my egyptian friends have been eager to see this. I moved here just over a month ago with my father and since I'm now in a 3rd world country I've had to give up many indulgencies of American life such as viewing movies when they're released. This commitee defintely does NOT accurately reflects the views and beliefs of Muslim Egyptians I know here, the Matrix is pretty freaking popular. As far as reflecting Jewish/Zionist beliefs, that's just a crock of hot, steaming shit, they're just making up their excuse as they go along, especially as Jews aren't taking a liking towards here. Now I'll have to resort to pirating the movie so as an athiest and American I will get to enjoy it without all the corruption it would supposedly hearld.

  143. Where do I send my dollar? by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    ...and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

    11'09''01 - September 11

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  144. Penis Bird banned in egypt,religious reasons cited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear rotten.com, I am unsure if you are aware of the problems that your "Incident with the bird" picture has caused on the popular technology website slashdot (http://slashdot.org).
    Many users of this site's messageboards are posting links to http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/ and making text based representations of a bird on a man's penis. Frankly, while I am pro-freedom, this type of photo sickens me. Could you please move the location of the bird page on your site to keep slashdot readers from seeing things that are completeley unrelated to computers and technology? I'm not asking you to remove the content, just to relocate it.
    FYI the text representation of the bird is:
    *p_e_n_i_s_b_i_r_d_p_e_n_i_s_b_i_r_d_*
    p______...___________________________p
    e____(_..__`'-.,--,__________________e
    n_____'-._'-.__`\a\\_________________n
    i_________'.___.'_(|_________________i
    s____________7____||_________________s
    b___________/___.'_|_________________b
    i__________/_.-'__,J_________________i
    r_________/_________\________________r
    d________||___/______;_______________d
    *________||__|_______|_______________*
    p________`\__\_______|__/__''\_______p
    e__________'._\______/.-`____{}|_____e
    n___________/\_`;_.-'_________/______n
    i___________\_;(((____.--'\_/________i
    s_________.(((_____.-;\______________s
    b____.--'`_____,;`'.'-;\_____________b
    i_taco's____.'____'._.'\\____________i
    r_dick_--'_________|__\_|____________r
    d__________________\_\,_/____________d
    *p_e_n_i_s_b_i_r_d_p_e_n_i_s_b_i_r_d_*

    with a link to the offensive site (http://smoke.rotten.com/bird/) underneath, these "Penis Birds" are posted by Penis Bird Guy, Penis Bird MAN and several other users.
    Regards, Andrew J. Tosh

  145. Matrix Reloaded bannegroetesqued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grotesque! Don't watch the darn movie if you expect offending material in it. Hail the free world!

  146. Like Bowling for Columbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know how that movie was regarded by the ./ crowd, but I found it funny that the man intervied at the place making ballistic missiles etc. said that there was no lines to be drawn between the view on small arms and episodes where people get killed with small arms and the common view on bigger weapons. As he elegantly put it -They only made weapons for peace, not war.

    I bet people getting hit by the missiles appreciate the peace 'they make'.

    1. Re:Like Bowling for Columbine by Adaere · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a ballistic missile plant--it makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. "Bowling for Columbine" wasn't a documentary, it was a mockumentary like "This is Spinal Tap". Read the truth here.

      --
      On the internet, no one knows you're a frog.
  147. Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What the government is really saying is that Egyptians are so inately barbaric and prone to violence that they can't be exposed to things that are common in the rest of the world.

    Mod me flamebait, but it's true.

    When this same government threw many homosexuals in prison, many human rights groups complained. The government replied that homosexuals have no rights, so we can't be violating their human rights...

    Other facts:

    Egypt gets more aid from the US than Israel does.

    Clinton not only gave hundreds of M1A1 battle tanks (the top of the line US tank) to Egypt, he gave them a factory to make more.

    1. Re:Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Exactly! The U.S. should pull all Egyptian aid until the Egyptian government lets(forces?) their citizens to watch the best movie of the year! :)

      You're right thought, w/regards to violence. It's a sad sad world we live in when a government is affraid a movie will incite the population to violence...

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    2. Re:Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      I'm suppose to accept this argument from you right ?
      Have you ever met an Egyptian person before? ...ever been in Egypt before? We are very modern technically and the Egyptian community tends to be liberal, we have satellites, the Internet, heck even the DSL adaptation rate is higher in Egypt than the US, I'm an Egyptian engineer, I speak your language do you speak mine? Nope..
      I read your media do you read mine ? hell no...
      I know and understand your community, values and culture very well what about you ? .. maybe in another life time
      So please spare us your insightful farts made from the comfort of your home

      Egypt gets more aid from the US than Israel does.

      I don't know how did you pull that one outta of your ass are you a relative of the goatse guy ?...here wipe it out with this web page.
      For all these benefits Israel provides, it receives $2.2 billion dollars in financial aid each year, according to the U.S. Department of State Affairs. The next highest receiver of financial aid is Egypt .

  148. Re:My Big Fat Egyptian Wedding by Chief+Crazy+Chicken · · Score: 1

    I have been tired of this "everything invent in Egypt" belief for years now.

    - I have seen discussion of archeological evidence that not only was farming first performed in other areas (mesopotamia) first, but it was imported INTO Egypt. Further, other major regions in the world independently learned to farm their own different crops. Egypt did not teach the world how to farm. See "Guns, Germs and Steel" for supporting evidence here.

    - I have seen no empirical evidence whatsoever presented to me in any way that there was ever any Egyptian control of gravity.

    - You built the pyramids. An admitted accomplishment, but what do they do? They can be seen from space. So can the great wall of China. It kept out barbarians. The pyramids....well, you can see them from space.

    It all reminds me of the father from "Big Fat Greek Wedding" claiming that every word comes from Greek.

  149. what makes you think can only make you stronger. by droper · · Score: 1

    This is just a bunch of self hating religious nonsence. Let them all go to the grave they live for.

  150. Re:Nonsense....spoilers by Joey7F · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Precisely! The coolest part of the movie relates to what you were saying.

    Neo "Something feels different"

    Then he precedes to stop the sentinels in "real life".

    Hmmm...interesting, isn't it? Those in the matrix have a "choice", but choice is "merely an illusion between those who have power and those who do not". Zion is part of the Matrix! Picture the "Matrix" as been a little "for loop" inside of a bigger matrix.

    I can't wait for Novemember.

    PHd's don't mean anything, if you get them in a useless subject.

    As a slight aside, Neo is always the "One" because when he talks to the architect one of the monitors says "There were three before me!" or something to that effect.

    --Joey

  151. And fundamentalists are so peace loving! by Choco-man · · Score: 1

    Yes, because even w/o the influences of the great satan of the west, islamic fundamentalists a such a peace loving people, committed to the continuation of "social peace" and avoid "crisis" at all costs. The area isn't exactly reknown for embracing freedom of thought - or even freedom in general. To suggest that their social problems are the result of western movies (which aren't even being allowed to be shown) is ludicrous. It's always easier to blame your inadequacies upon others.

    1. Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving! by TomV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... islamic fundamentalists a such a peace loving people, committed to the continuation of "social peace" and avoid "crisis" at all costs.
      ...which might have some relevance here if the government of Egypt was an islamist fundamentalist government, rather than a secular government which has for decades been in 'crisis', trying to cope with an ongoing islamist fundamentalist revolution which has killed many hundreds of people and nurtured several of the most hard-core 'afghan' commanders. There's been no 'social peace' in Egypt for a very long time, and past experience suggests that allowing the showing of a film which portrays a supposed 'promised land' called, of all things, Zion (not provocative at all, eh?).

      'Their social problems' are obviously not the result of western movies. However, their social problems do mean that the showing of this film could cause the sort of unrest that gets cinemas bombed. Which is turn leads to people getting killed. That's killed as in dead, as in bereaved relatives in mourning, as in families without breadwinners, as in, well, if you've had to deal with the death of a loved one you know what I'm talking about. Not as in 'OK, so roll me up another Agent Smith and let's continue the groovy action sequence'.

      The government of Egypt is, effectively, more than 20 years into a civil war against the fundamentalists, and that does make a difference in this sort of decision. If it was Saudi Arabia or Iran we were talking about (or Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, plenty of others to choose from) then, yes, it would be ludicrous. But it isn't. Very sad, yes, but while I'm entirely free to sacrifice MY life for my beliefs in freedom of speech, expression and so forth, I have absolutely NO right to sacrifice someone else's life for anything at all.

      TomV

    2. Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving! by Choco-man · · Score: 1

      But doing so is tantamount to curing cancer by killing the patient. Forbidding playing of a movie doesn't address the reason why it was even under consideration in the first place - in fact, it demonstrates tacit support of the extant social reality, and an unability or unwillingness to change it. The islamic world in general is faced with a growing cultural crisis as the world continues to shrink. Increasingly they are seen as intolerant and barbaric due to the actions of a few, and creation of social structures that reinforce the behaviour of those few reinforce the negative position.

    3. Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason why it can't be Saudi Arabia or Iran or pakistan is because those countries do not have movies or cinemas or theatres.
      Most forms of entertainment are banned in strict Islamic societies.

  152. People who live in Egypt now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are not the direct ancestors of those who built the pyramids.

    1. Re:People who live in Egypt now by stud9920 · · Score: 1
      are not the directancestors of thise who built the pyramids
      Of course. Dou you expect them to take a time machine, to give birth to the original egyptians and to come back to the present ?
    2. Re:People who live in Egypt now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dou you expect them to take a time machine ..."

      Why yes, yes I do. Or . . . did they not control time as they did gravity?

  153. They built it! by root+66 · · Score: 1

    Now they exposed themselves!

    I guess the core must be in one of those tech buildings that we mere mortals call pyramids.

    Go get 'em.

    --
    -- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
  154. Congratulations, Wachowski Brothers by Featureless · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is better than winning a fucking Academy Award.

    Your work has been recognized by the government of Egypt for being "too damn good."

  155. Slashdot will now be banned in Egypt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banned, I tell you.

  156. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Multics · · Score: 1
    Alas, all these things ARE true for a culture that existed 2,000+ years ago.

    Sadly it is not a culture of today.

    Today the tribes of the area are too busy killing each other in the name of a dozen religions. They're too busy filling their souls with hate and killing off the dissenters with the odd ideas which will become the next medicine or math or a myriad of other futures. They're too busy protecting their own stuff/turf/wealth/power to worry about what could be.

    At the moment, Egypt is a poor, misguided, 3rd world nation that has neighbors that are similarly misguided 3rd world nations (including Israel). Until the hate stops, that is the only way it will be.

    It is a horrible waste for all.

    -- Multics

  157. Left Eye doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you recommend one? My Right Eye Doctor is good, but he's certainly no Left Eye Doctor.

  158. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could do all that, but the world still had to wait for the British Empire era before it could get decent reception on telly. Who's shallow now, eh?

  159. Close...but just a little wrong. by mcoko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Neo makes the choice that will cause the Matrix to fall and kill the entire human population, including Zion.

    If Neo chose the door to HIS right (the left of the screen from the Architects perspective) then Zion would fall, the Matrix would RESET and NEO could choose 23 people (17 female and 6 male) to join him in making the new ZION and start the whole damn thing over again (the seventh Matrix/Zion).

    If Neo chose the door to HIS left (the right side of the screen from the Architects perspective), then he could save Trinity but it would cause a feed back in the Matrix destroying it and killing every human plugged in. Also the sentinals would still destroy Zion.

    Neo made the choice to save Trinity therefore condeming the entire human race (Matrix plugies and Zionites), but he knows there is something he can do. For one he can affect the sentinals in the real world (is it really the real world? hmmm). And two why would he make that choice and then admit that there was nothing he could do (in response to Morpheus asking what had happened, that Neo was a piece of the CONTROL just like everything else, Oracle, Crazy French Guy, etc.)

    I guess we will have to wait and see how they FIX the Matrix so that the entire human race doesn't die.

    Or maybe the Woz Brothers agree with many that the human race's worst enemy is itself and they will let it happen. Time will tell

    --
    www.fotoforay.com
    1. Re:Close...but just a little wrong. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      (is it really the real world? hmmm)

      A good architect would have a contingency plan for Neo choosing to destroy everything, perhaps something involving sending Neo not back into the real world, but into a very convincing other-matrix (where, if he was good enough, he might notice 'something is different').

      Or maybe the whole line about destroying everything is total bull, its just that if he makes that choice its a huge pain in the ass for the architect, forcing him to go around resetting stuff, clearing out tables, fixing primary keys, etc, so he is just trying to get Neo to make the choice that makes his job easier.

    2. Re:Close...but just a little wrong. by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Which really begs the question, why did the Architect seem to be encouraging Neo to make the "wrong" choice?

      He knew about Neo's feelings for Trinity, he knew how Neo would react if she was in danger, and _only_ he knew that Trinity was about to die. And yet he choose to tell Neo that Trinity was in danger, and tell him how to try and save her.

      Yes, Neo needed to be offered a choice (at least going by the logic/theme of the movie) but the Architect didn't need to motivate him so much to make the "wrong" choice.

      If i were the Architect, i would have told Neo that if he went through the door on the right, he could choose 23 people to restart Zion, including Trinity. Maybe they could actually have yanked her out before she was killed if he'd made that choice, but even if not, who cares if Neo is pissed afterwards cause Trinity turns out to be dead? He already made the choice they needed him to make.

      So was the Architect prompted by some illogical sense of fair play? Or did he actually want Neo to make that choice and was just manipulating Neo into thinking that he was going against the Machines' wishes?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  160. Stargate... by mcoko · · Score: 1

    Have they band Stargate. That show is pure blasfamy (sp?) on there ancient Gods.

    --
    www.fotoforay.com
  161. Therefore... by dentar · · Score: 1

    ...the Egyptian censorship board is extremely stupid. If they think a movie is going to cause unrest, then their society already has deep problems that need addressing. If a movie causes a personal crisis, then the viewer already has issues. If they're that bigoted, let them miss out. Frell 'em.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  162. Re:Fuck you Egypt by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Alas, all these things ARE true for a culture that existed 2,000+ years ago.

    Sadly it is not a culture of today.

    Today the tribes of the area are too busy killing each other in the name of a dozen religions. They're too busy filling their souls with hate and killing off the dissenters with the odd ideas which will become the next medicine or math or a myriad of other futures. They're too busy protecting their own stuff/turf/wealth/power to worry about what could be.

    Y'know, cut just one zero out of that first sentence and you could be talking about the US ;-)
    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  163. Matrix as code by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    I hate to do this but did anyone else think of programming parallels during this film? Imaging Neo as a bug or an access violation propagating through the system. The result perhaps of a hideous hack to make it work. The whole scene with the Architect is then just exception handling. A giant try..catch statement if you will. Like you say, perhaps Zion then exists as part of the rest of the program, but what is the program? Is there really this war between humans and the machines, or is it part of a larger scheme of control operated by other humans? In this context it's impossible to know who really is pulling the strings, and how many layers of indirection there really are. It raises the question that it's not impossible that we ourselves are in some kind of simulation, or are indeed simulated. There would be no way to tell, which perhaps is the problem that the Egyptian censors have with the film. If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters and you're left with the philosophy of the marquis-de-sade. Not something any civilised society really wants.

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    1. Re:Matrix as code by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > Is there really this war between humans and the machines, or is it part of a larger scheme of control operated by other humans?

      I'm surprised nobody picked up on the kid in the early part of the movie who handed Neo the spoon.

      Neo1 through Neo5 decided the Architect was lying, and gambled that "the source" or whatever would set 'em free. (Instead, it was just a trap that "reloaded" the Matrix, like Ghosting a drive. OK, bug caught. Reinstall.)

      Neo6 figured the Architect might not be lying. So screw it, pop through the second door and see what happens. Maybe the Architect's worried that meta-Matrix will crash (which would suck for him and for humanity, if that's where the AIs actually "live"). Or maybe not. We (the viewers) and Neo6 don't have enough information to say.

      But sure enough, when Neo6 goes back into what he thought was the "real world", "there is [still] no spoon". Zion, the seekers, everything he thought was real was just a higher-level matrix, destroyed and reloaded five times before. It's just another level of control.

      So Movie III is gonna be Neo6, who jumped into the meta-Matrix and just discovered that There Is No Spoon, versus (or working with!) the "free" version of Agent Smith, who somehow figured out a different way to jump from the Matrix into the meta-Matrix.

      Wonder how Free Agent Smith (he's half-AI, half-newsreader? :) will react when he finds out that what he's been programmed to believe is the "real world of the machines", and that he thought he was defending when he got Zion whacked, is also just a higher-level Matrix.

      > It raises the question that it's not impossible that we ourselves are in some kind of simulation, or are indeed simulated. There would be no way to tell, which perhaps is the problem that the Egyptian censors have with the film.

      "It raises the question", heck, for the offended religion in question, you coulda stopped there. :)

      > If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters and you're left with the philosophy of the marquis-de-sade. Not something any civilised society really wants.

      Not quite. If nothing really is real, then nothing "really" matters and you're left with having to (as the Oracle put it) "make up your own damn mind" on how to live. IMO that's something many societies could benefit from, and something most religious societies are extremely threatened by.

      (And IMNSHO, that's a feature, not a bug :)

    2. Re:Matrix as code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think one thing is clear. Only programmers will understand part 3.

    3. Re:Matrix as code by glenebob · · Score: 1
      If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters
      It's interesting that religion is the product of that very thing. In the human sense, nothing is real. We're just a pile of elementery particals which are perhaps just energy fields of some kind. Is the universe real at all in a sense we, as humans, care about? No, and that is why religion exists; to soften reality to something the average human can stomach and accept as real. So I think it's a bit ironic, the notion that the very reason for religion to exist could be its very undoing. It would also be pretty pathetic if a movie could trigger such a thing :-)
    4. Re:Matrix as code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm surprised nobody picked up on the kid in the early part of the movie who handed Neo the spoon.

      I'm surprised that you are surprised. I've seen a lot of speculation about the kid.

      Neo1 through Neo5 decided the Architect was lying, and gambled that "the source" or whatever would set 'em free. (Instead, it was just a trap that "reloaded" the Matrix, like Ghosting a drive. OK, bug caught. Reinstall.)

      Considering that reloading the Matrix is exactly what the Architect said would happen after Neo entered the source, I don't see how you can make this argument. As was explained, the previous "Ones" believed the Architect and chose that door in order to save humanity.

      Neo6 figured the Architect might not be lying. So screw it, pop through the second door and see what happens. Maybe the Architect's worried that meta-Matrix will crash (which would suck for him and for humanity, if that's where the AIs actually "live"). Or maybe not. We (the viewers) and Neo6 don't have enough information to say.

      No. Neo chose the other door because of his love for Trinity, a variable that wasn't present in the five previous incarnations. This was also explained in the movie. Did you actually see the movie?

      But sure enough, when Neo6 goes back into what he thought was the "real world", "there is [still] no spoon". Zion, the seekers, everything he thought was real was just a higher-level matrix, destroyed and reloaded five times before. It's just another level of control.

      I still don't understand why everyone subscribes to this matrix-within-a-matrix theory. First of all, the only bit of evidence to support it was Neo disabling the sentinels at the end. That is some flimsy evidence to base the whole theory on. Second, does anyone really believe that the Wachowski brothers would go to all this trouble to create such a confusing story just to give us such an obvious explanation for the whole thing? Everybody who saw the movie immediately thought it was another Matrix, it was so obvious. That alone tells me it can't be right. I find it ironic that the people who are speculating about the deeper meanings of the colors of the sky, numbers on doors, etc. are the same people that are willing to accept such and obvious explanation.

    5. Re:Matrix as code by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      Well let me offer at least one more possible clue then. The spoon that is given to neo just before he goes in for the final battle. The suggestion is that it is the same spoon that Neo was told doesn't exist, but yet, here it is. How can that be, unless Zion is also part of a more subtle Matrix. The questoin who created the matrix and for what purpose. If Zion exist inside the Matrix also then the world in which Zion exists also does not exist and so the entire existance of the machine AI's is called into question. And humans for that matter.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    6. Re:Matrix as code by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > No. Neo chose the other door because of his love for Trinity, a variable that wasn't present in the five previous incarnations. This was also explained in the movie. Did you actually see the movie?

      It's Slashdot. "Love" is a Hollywood contrivance and "too obvious" an answer for any action. It has to be about the code :)

      I'll stick with (a modified version of) my story. Neo1..5 figured the Architect was (a) just a glorified Agent trying to trick them into not reloading the matrix ("the Oracle didn't tell you"), or (b) decided that even if the Architect was telling the truth) there was no Source behind Door #1, crashing the AIs with Door #2 would result in the extinction of humanity), so they were screwed either way and figured it was better to reload the matrix ("the Oracle doesn't know").

      Neo6 (due to the new variable; we don't know who really built Trinity into the metaMatrix) figured "bugger it all, maybe I can hack metaMatrix and save humanity anyways".

      (Of course, if the "machines take over" world of the metaMatrix is also not the real world... well, that's for the sequel, I guess.)

    7. Re:Matrix as code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The matrix within the matrix may be one possible solution, its like user permissions. In one matrix the user has access to X but no more, when given (or discovering) the super-user p/w you have super-permissions. Maybe Neos 1-5 were only given basic user level permissions that seemed to be superuser because of what they could do, fly, dodge like an agent, see the code and restart Trinity's heart, etc., but, maybe the uberArchitect never intended Neo to become a superuser in the world outside of Matrix one. Now he can affect the Matrix outside of Matrix one, and the bug trap was that once he affected the sentinels he went into a coma.

      Of course as my menopausal wife says (all the bloody time), I could be wrong.

  164. Dune by mattr · · Score: 1
    The film Dune does put Jihad (Holy War) in a positive light, and the desert world of Arrakis certainly came to mind during the War in Iraq.


    While assassination has been glamorized in movies I don't think terrorism per se is there yet. Though I don't know what's playing in Palestine this week..

  165. Sounds like China by bakuretsu · · Score: 2, Insightful
    '...it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'
    ... Because we thoughtfully shelter the people from everything else.

    I wonder if Egyptians can search for "Buddhism" on Google ;-P
    --

    --
    The Bailiwick - DESIGNHUB2005
  166. yet another reason... by Atrophis · · Score: 1

    ... why i'm happy where i live.

    --

    i cant seem to come up with a sig.
  167. Re:My Big Fat Egyptian Wedding by dmszero · · Score: 1
    it has since been revelaed that you cant see the great wall of china from space, dont think you can see the pyramids either

    dms0

    --
    -= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
  168. Re: wow.... by alan6101 · · Score: 1

    Well, speaking from Alabama, I went to see Bruce Almighty on the opening weekend in which all shows for the night sold out. I liked it, everyone with me liked it, as far as I could tell everyone in the theater liked it (I didn't hear any boos or negative comments). I think people need to get over the Hollywood vision of the South. But I guess if everyone knew what it was really like, they'd be disappointed because they'd have one less thing to bitch about or make fun of.

    --


    This space for rent.
  169. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    Well you are a typical AC I shouldn't waste the time replying to you...but anyway maybe the others will benefit.

    You make me laugh, really you are so shallow, the material things you are talking about were going to be invented anyway it was a matter of establishing a suitable environment, what if I told you now that the whole spiritual doctrine of the founding fathers of America is based on the Egyptian theology?
    The symbol of the Egyptian God of Light is printed on the one dollar bill (the pyramid with the all seeing eye), the same symbol was printed on the early flag of the confederacy, I'm just too lazy to google out the links
    You also forgot to mention that American invented the double cheese burger....DUHHH

  170. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That... or how the hell he stopped the squidies when he was OUT of the Matrix (or so we thought)

    Your observation they are still inside the Matrix is correct, backed up by several other events in the movie. Some of them are really subtle and I cannot recall. One is not so subtle and quite memorable:

    The spoon bender in the first movie insisted "there is no spoon". Why is there no spoon? Because they are in the Matrix. The spoon becomes a symbol at this point for what does not exist as a result of where they are. The boy gives Neo another spoon as he's leaving Zion, but he does not change his message. He simply gives him the spoon. The message is unchanged: "there is no spoon", ergo, you're still inside the Matrix.

    I think most people will agree, given that and the Sentinal scene in the end where Neo loses consciousness, that people in Zion are still inside the Matrix. Neo, having mastered control over Matrix reality, is "beginning to believe" here as well. How he might have realized this, I do not have any theory on. This concept will be crutial later on because I think it will apply to Agent Smith as well.

    What's really going to bake your noodle is why do the machines need to destroy Zion with a conventional attack? They literally allow Zion to be created, fight with it for a while, then eventually send a massive army to wipe it out. If the machines controlled the Matrix, why not just "delete" Zion?

    The answer? I believe that both the machines AND humans are trapped inside of a Matrix. Both of them are enslaved!

    Think about what the Oracle said to Neo when they were talking about how he could trust her. Neo asks, "why are you helping us?" She replies, "I'm interested in one thing Neo, the future. And I know, the only way to get there is together."

    From this I conclude that while there are some humans that realize their reality is fake, there are some programs that realize the same thing. Somehow there needs to be a collaboration between the two if they are somehow to free themselves.

    There's some support for this in the teaser trailer.

    You see an army of Agent Smiths that appear to be standing in the surface desert, with hover craft surrounding them. If Smith is merely a Matrix construct, how can he exist in the "real world"?

    There is a scene with Neo and Smith fighting where they hit each other and both fly back. Amidst this, a shot is inserted of Morpheus stating with much shock and disbelief: "he fights for us!?"

  171. in relation to Animatix by ramzak2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have you seen the Animatrix DVD ? There is one part there, where the humans try to give a machine a chance to chose for itself, by introducing it into the matrix, to support the humans. *That* concept is what will play a major role in the 3rd part. Neo is a machine that has chosen to fight for humans. I plan to pull up this comment after seeing the revolutions :) Let it be here safe till then.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
    1. Re:in relation to Animatix by eggstasy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bzzzt. Wrong. Machines don't bleed and they don't go around falling in love with ugly women or making babies in totally unrealistic sex scenes.
      Thanks for playing, though!

    2. Re:in relation to Animatix by Mercuria · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing, but more in relation to the current position Smith is in: he has given himself a human self-image on a level way beyond that the walker was on. and he was getting off on it, too, with that scene where he was cutting his hand open. Now if he just finds human love, we're looking at a classical story of conversion. We're all in this together, as the Oracle said.

    3. Re:in relation to Animatix by jonabbey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You missed the part that "Zion" is itself in a higher-level Matrix.. that's the whole point of the Architect's speach, of Trinity's ability to Kiss Neo to save him in the first movie, of the Oracle's ability to make predictions that encompass events outside "The Matrix", and of Neo's ability to take down the sentinels at the end of Reloaded.

      Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.

    4. Re:in relation to Animatix by donutz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Neo is a machine that has chosen to fight for humans.

      Close, actually.

      Neo is a program that is triggered when a certain condition of the unbalanced equation manifests itself. Neo is programmed to believe that he is human, and is programmed to act human, and is programmed with the free will to convince people that he is human. Neo's choice to fight for the humans only comes about as a result of his programming, and the inclination of those in the matrix who believe there is a "one" who can save them.

    5. Re:in relation to Animatix by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      The Architect said "While the process has changed you, you are still irrevocably human." Sorry, try again.

    6. Re:in relation to Animatix by Sushi_K · · Score: 1

      Just playing devil's advocate...
      Neo could still be a program using that phrase. What if "human" is just another type of program? What if the machines killed off all the humans and they produced a program to remind themselves of their creators? Thus all the people in the Matrix and the meta-matrix (Zion) are really just programs like Smith, vampires, werewolves, the Merovingian, and everyone else...
      As a side note, I think that the Merovingian might be the original Neo which would make Persephone the original Trinity. This would explain her desire to be kissed by Neo.

    7. Re:in relation to Animatix by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Smith: Hello Neo. Welcome back. We missed you...

      Neo: shut up... just shut up. You had me from "hello."

      passonate violin music.

      Trinity: You know, when we first came to this place it was so different.

  172. Please learn something of Islam before commenting. by alistair · · Score: 1

    Muslims are required to believe a number of "Christian" prophets, including both Jesus and John the baptist, and to study the books of these prophets. In my experience most Muslims are well versed in the Bible and Christian philosophy.

    The idea of exterminating non-believers is certainly not central to the Muslim religion. There are words in the Quran that do not look favourably on other religions, but a look through the Bible can reveal similar harsh words.

    The problem is that all major religious works can be interpreted in many ways. There is very little that the Church of England (with no known terrorist wing) has in common with the Lebanese Christian terrorists, equally most Muslims are as far removed from Al Quida.

    The problem is that hatred, misunderstanding and cynical governments can drive people of all religions into the arms of extreemist clerics. By coming out with statements like "Islam and Muslims, for whome the idea of exterminting all non-believers is CENTRAL to their religion." you are sadly perpetuating this processed, if people feel persecuted they may look to the wrong leaders for solace and understanding and reconciliation are always harder than preaching hate.

  173. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    It feels like they've tried to draw out 2 films into 3.

    True, and yet, at the same time it feels like they've tried to squeeze too much in, in some respects.... I've just finished my finals and I didn't want to have to juggle all that in my head. :-/

    The first movie addressed some interesting issues, had a good plot, and mixed them with visuals that give eye-candy a good name. I can forgive fundamental plot flaws because it was just such a damn original movie... but it wasn't half as 'deep' as your average 15-year-old would like to believe.

    I think my problem with this one may have been my determination to see it 'cold', i.e. avoiding almost everything that may have given anything away beyond the basic plot... bit confusing in parts, but that seemed to be as much because the film was much less coherent than its predecessor, as to the complex plot.

    And what was the first half about? It felt like a totally different movie to the first- an expensive spinoff centering around Zion more than the Matrix itself. Too slow and pseudo-biblical, and the 'rave' scene was definitely out of place and inappropriate.

    Grr... grumble, mutter.... I could go on about this.

    Actually, it wasn't that bad a movie; in fact, I'd say it was still pretty damn enjoyable, given that I was prepared to be disappointed (more so, having seen two two-star ratings given). But it's definitely got a much less "tight" feel to the original.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  174. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is certainly good to see the religious zealots looking out for the well being of the peasants. Thanks for making up the minds of the egyptian people for them, not like preventing them seeing things which challenge thier beliefs. I mean hey, we wouldn't want them to be free-thinkers or anything.

    Religion has survived as long as it has because of this kind of controlled information flow directed by "The Church"

    Better you than me egypt.

  175. Re:My Big Fat Egyptian Wedding by alan6101 · · Score: 1

    Well, I've got 20/400 vision, I'd be lucky to see them standing right next to them.

    --


    This space for rent.
  176. It's all a dream. You'll wake up soon. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    I was wondering whether anybody had made any more sense out of it, or that it was just merely impressive-sounding nonsense.

    Ever have one of those geek dreams where you're watching your favourite TV show, but because it's a dream, it's fundamentally different and doesn't feel like you'd expect it to turn out, because it's more about your subconcious?
    While I was watching the architect scene, it felt just like I'd expect a dream to, where the dream was seeing The Matrix Reloaded; possibly because it was unclear whether it was deep, convuluted, or merely nonsensical (dream-logic feels deep, but it's ultimately convulted nonsense). Strange.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  177. Dumb by djdole · · Score: 1

    The banning is retarded.
    Its always done under the assumption that people can't think for themselves, and need someone else telling them what's right and wrong for them, and what they should and should not believe/do/watch/participate in.
    YOU MUST BE THIS WAY! ...NO! THAT'S WRONG!
    I SMITHE THEE!

    What next?
    Uh oh! Pooh's searching for another great pot of honey! Uh oh! he got stuck in another tree!
    That must be a metaphor for budist religious efforts towards attaining a state of nirvana! And the tree must represent THE MAN putting him down and keeping him from his goals!
    Give me a break.
    Some people have to stop reading too much into things.
    Harry Potter is not totally unholy attempt to push children towards the ucult.
    Elmo's vibrations when tickled are not orgasmic in any nature.


    ....Although the Teletubbies...I think we can all agree the Teletubbies ARE gay.

    Dumb...plain dumb.

  178. Matrix Reloaded must be banned in the U.S. by $criptah · · Score: 1

    Why? Becuase charing $8.25 for watching a poor designed computer game with MTV-like action style is way too fucking much. U.S. government and BBB constantly go after businesses which have false advertising, poor service, and lack customer satisfaction; its about the time Hollywood became one of the targets becuase of the crap it tries to shove our throats on a regular basis.

    I can't belive that somebody managed to stretch Matrix Reloaded into 138 minute long horror show that lacked plot and included completely useless scenes of sex, dancing, and nonsense. I don't know about you guys, but that flick was a total insult to Matrix fans world wide... I just wish my sys. admin were a hot girl who would trade me root passwords (or something like that) for kisses.

  179. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 0
    Bad Egyption. Don't feed the trolls.

    we built the great pyramids that survived for thousands of years that you cant even replicate today

    We can, we just won't. It was an impressive feat thousands of years ago, but keep in mind it took the resources of an entire nation to do.

    we controlled gravity

    Can you turn it off over here? it's a bit too strong.

    and we were so advanced in medicine that we had a doctor for the left eye and a doctor for the right eye go figure that out you

    just because there were seperate doctors for each eye, doesn't mean they did anything. I have this snake oil that is so well crafted it will cure any blockages in your left atrium of your heart! Go figure that out you.

    , we taught the world how to farm

    Good thing you did, or else there wouldn't have been civilization in china or in the americas until you discovered them and taught them. Oh wait.....

    we are the essence of civilization and a never ending legacy.

    Correct. Egypt was advanced beyond its time. It was one of the most advanced nation on earth until about 500 years ago. But please don't exagerate your claims to the rediculus level, please.

  180. Pornographic movies would be an example by dorfsmay · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In north american culture the human naked body is a bad thing, and as a result, "to protect children", any movie with human naked body in it has all kind of restriction around it and around who can rent it, what time it can be aired etc....

    There are still culture around the world (although less and less) where people just walk around naked. Last I have heard, the children in those culture are completely normal, and haven't turned blind for seeing nudity.

    Another one you could look at is drugs, some very bad drugs responsible for thousand of deaths per year are legal (eg: alcohol), yet others which do not seem to be as harmfull aren't...

    So in Egypt they have a thing about religion...

  181. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I'm going to have to hunt for that teaser online now so I can see for myself - it'd seem to support a theory that's been brewing in the back of my head for a few days now (that I'll admit might be a bit far-fetched, but I think would be rather cool anyway). That Smith is, in fact, the One.

    Now before you call me crazy, remember that in the first film, the Oracle tell Neo that he isn't the one - Neo just doesn't tell anyone else this. I'm not exactly sure how Neo's powers would be explained, but I have a feeling the "melding" with Smith may very well be to blame.

    Now here's where my bit of somewhat backwards reasoning comes to play - the other thing of note in the first film is the fact that Smith admits that he hates the Matrix. He wants out, but he's quite literally a part of it. He's already taken over a human body in the "real" world, but in order for it to survive and for him to escape the Matrix, the Matrix would have to be destroyed. So it's quite possible (in my mind) that Smith may end up being the catalyst in a reaction that destroys the Matrix. I'm interested in finding out, if nothing else. :)

  182. Genital mutilation worse than living in the Matrix by Captain+Igloo · · Score: 0

    According to statistics of various human rights organizations, 95% of Egyptian women are victims of severe genital mutilation, having their sensitive parts removed with dirty blunt knives or glass splinters and the remaining hole sewn closed, forcing them to spend hours for peeing. Ironically, this (irreversible) life-long suffering is worse by several orders of magnitude, compared to having to spend your life as a power supply for the matrix. And this suffering happens in the real world, but no one cares. "The matrix" is too violent, just because of some people kicking their asses? That's hypocrisy, but what else do we expect from religion? Religion does not care about violence, it produces and uses it regularly. Clerics are afraid of people starting to think on their own. Don't give a shit about what they say, don't give a shit for their fscking culture!

  183. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Multics · · Score: 0
    Y'know, cut just one zero out of that first sentence and you could be talking about the US ;-)

    Sadly, you get no disagreement from me other than I might cut two zeros.

    -- Multics

  184. Because they couldn't get their tenses right ... by Col.+Panic · · Score: 0

    Egyptian Censor #1> Shouldn't we banned The Matrix?
    Egyptian Censor #2> Didn't we?
    Egyptian Censor #1> What?
    Egyptian Censor #2> Banned The Matrix?
    Egyptian Censor #1> We did?
    Egyptian Censor #2> What?
    Egyptian Censor #1> Nevermind.

  185. matrix ban by fohidac · · Score: 0, Troll

    banning for explicit crapness would have been a better reason. or explicit waste of time. or explicit waste of money. or explicit waste of energy. or ...

  186. The movie equates the machines with Egyptians by John+Harrison · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In my last journal entry, written after seeing the movie early (which nobody commented on, thanks guys!) I brought up a bit of symbolism that I haven't seen anybody else point out.

    In the living quarters area of Zion all of the area around the door frames are painted blood red. This struck me as an obvious reference to the passover. The residents of Zion are waiting to be delivered from the machines and have marked their doors. So if residents of Zion == Jews escaping Eqypt, then the machines == Egyptians.

    One can see how this film got banned in Egypt if the force that keeps nearly all of humanity enslaved is equated with their country. Not the most mature attitude, but you can see how this would happen.

    Interestingly, in the Animatrix, there are scenes straight out of the Ten Commandments in which the machines are depicted as the Jewish slaves, building pyramids, and the humans as the Egyptian slave drivers. I wonder if the Animatrix is banned as well.

  187. Re:Egypt did the right thing by fohidac · · Score: 1

    an unfortunate comment on today's islamic society? get real you racist fuck!

  188. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    we built the great pyramids that survived for thousands of years that you cant even replicate today


    Do you serously believe we can't replicate the pyramids? It's not that we can't, it's just that we don't need to. We have better things to build (skyscrapers for one). BTW, how many slaves did it take to build them again?

  189. Re: wow.... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    I think it depends on which area of the south you're in. I live in a "metro" area of Georgia, and things aren't really that bad here (though there are still ignorant, racist morons running around). However, if you move out to the rural areas of the state, it's really appalling how deeply engrained racism still is there. Just personal experience, YMMV.

  190. I went to school in the US, by the_consumer · · Score: 1

    and we didn't read the bible in school, perchance. It must suck to live in a country where the seperation of Church and State isn't honored;)

    --
    "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    1. Re:I went to school in the US, by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, my fine US public school education allows me to misspell separation, occasionally.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    2. Re:I went to school in the US, by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      ...It must suck to live in a country where the seperation of Church and State isn't honored;)

      I wouldnt say living in the U.S.A. sucks.

  191. Religon is so much fun! by Quixadhal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love religious debate... it's so much fun because it almost always breaks down into "Prove it!" vs. "You have to believe."

    It's understandable that Egypt (with a rocky political situation these days, and a strong Islamic population that, like its two brethren religions, is not know for tolerance of conflicting ideas) might want to exercise a little caution in how the philosophical/religious views of The Matrix are presented... but to ban something entirely because you're afraid to let people draw their own conclusions is just going to make it worse.

    What Egypt has done is declare this film to be forbidden fruit. The younger people will now go to every extreme to find that movie and watch it, and they'll make more of it then they would have if it were just another flick, because it's on the forbidden list!

    Consider, people under the age of 21 (here in the US) usually make a big deal out of consuming alcohol -- they get older friends to buy it for them, they get fake ID's, they do all kinds of things because the perceived value has been elevated by the fact that they can't just go buy it themselves. About 1-5 years after turning 21, the charm wears off, and it just becomes another item on the shopping list.

    I suspect you can extend that concept to any illegal substance, but that's a different debate.

    Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.

    In science, we build systems of proof which allow you to extend a concept, using the assumption that the underlying concept was correct. Hence, we can talk about molecular bonds in terms of the interaction of subatomic particles... using the assumptions that those subatomic particles work as we believe. Make that a recursive algorithim, and you're on your way to defining the Universe by science.

    In a religion, the depth of the predicate tree is usually much shorter. We describe how the world came to be, and why things are, and why we should act in certain ways. The ultimate predicate for this is that the Creator said so.

    The difference between the two is that science breaks things down far enough so that it becomes difficult to fragment into factions. Unlike most (other) religions, scientists are generally willing to modify their belief system when another theory makes more sense. Example: Relativity vs. Quantuum Mechanics. For decades, those have been two rival belief systems, but now they are resolving their differences and merging those systems to get a step closer to God (The Unified Field Theory).

    Imagine, for a moment, how interesting it would be if the various religions would take a similar approach...

    But, people always have strong feelings when they get ideas in their heads. Denying the "truth" of one man's interpretation of a single line in the Bible is just like telling a computer scientist that a bit can be half on, or SCO/Caldera that they don't matter anymore. They'd rather fight to defend their belief, than have to change the way they see the world around them.

    At least it's entertaining... :)

    1. Re:Religon is so much fun! by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.

      Ah, but the nature of that "faith" in both systems is different.

      In science, that faith can always be questioned, and the process for redefining your assumptions is formally defined. In religion, there is no process (within the system) for redefining your base assumptions. The change must come from outside the system. (i.e. social and environmental events and pressures)

      That's not to say change only comes to the base assumptions of science from science itself. In fact, it's historically been more likely to come from outside. But, at least in the orthodox religions, there is too much resistance to change and no formal mechanism for change in the first place.

  192. what bunch of dorks by Theovon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's what I have to say about religious fanatics who suppress information simply because it doesn't fit their ideals.

    I'm religious myself, but I don't understand how someone can make an informed choice about what they want to believe in without knowing all of the options. I guess some would consider my beliefs to be "impure" because I do not constrain myself to one strict doctrine, but I consider myself to be better off because of it. (Interestingly enough, my view of "God" isn't bothered by the idea of the universe being a simulation. I think it's interesting!)

    On the other hand, I can see the point in limiting the exposure of minors to sexual and violent material, primarily violence, because there's really nothing wrong with sex (unless it's unconsentingly violent...).

    I do understand why religious people want to suppress exposure to other religions. It's because they're afraid that people will choose one of the alternatives. Mostly because they know their beliefs won't stand up to objective scrutiny. :)

  193. Religion that delicate? by chonet4444 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's always amazed me how delicate religion seems to be. I mean really: "'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'".

    Apparently it's exceedingly easy to point out that the emperor has no clothes, at least when it comes to religion.

    Either that or one piece of fantasy (the movie) can easily supplant the older fantasy (the religion) in the minds of the rubes (the worshippers).

    Just my $.02.

    Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

    1. Re:Religion that delicate? by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · · Score: 1
      Apparently it's exceedingly easy to point out that the emperor has no clothes, at least when it comes to religion.

      It all depends on the kind of religion. The 3 main religions we know today are theologic in the literal sense, subtily different logical structures built on the belief in the same personal god, but these religions have all 3 formalized away any personal involvement with, and experiencing of, this god.

      Personal envolvement with and experience of gods, or better the reaching of godlike states of conciousness, is practiced in various forms of mysticism. As soon as mysticism is no longer the mainstream practice in a religion, that religion becomes 'academic'; the logical structures of dogma and doctrine become more important than personal enlightnment.

      The believer that no longer practices mysticism has literally lost thouch with his god, he reduces his god from an experience to an idea. And as always, ideas are open to discussion, whereas experiences are not. To put it differently, these religions have lost their gnosis, their personal and intimate knowledge of god; they have in effect become agnostic religions.

      These kind of religions leave the believer but two choices: either they become fundamentalists that follow the dogma and doctrine to the letter, or they are at heart only dabblers and pretenders. The only assurance of the existance of their god is the written word, or none at all.

      Of course that makes these religions extremely suseptible to logic attack. Questioning the existance of their god or the corectness of their scriptures is a sure way to piss of the fundamentalists and spread doubt amongst the dabblers.

      The Matrix Reloaded is loaded (pun intended) with religious and philosophical allegories, but more importantly it is extremely gnostic, which is a direct threat to any dogma and doctrine of an institutionalized religion. For instance: in good gnostic tradition the Demiurge, Creator or Architect (freemasons call him that way also) is a bad guy that creates evil and flawed worlds. This is a heracy, and I expect it will be seen for what it is in islamic societies. So its not only the referencens to Zion, passover etc. that make the Matrix dangerous to islamic societies.

  194. I'm glad you mentioned this... by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    Don't try to fuck it up and send us back to Captain Horndog's Big-Tits-Big-Guns-Even-Bigger-Tits Bonanza just because pop culture hasn't gone from zero to Philosophy Major in 3.6 seconds.

    That is an excellent point and one I'm surprised hasn't been made more frequently.

    It sort of amazes me, how people have been whining for years about the lack of intelligent discourse in action movies. Finally we get something that, while possibly on the level of freshman philosophy (possibly; I don't agree), is certainly a damn sight more thoughtful and provoking than any Bruckheimer-fuelled tripe.

    BTW, there is another Die Hard planned, and the tentative title is... Die Hard 4: Die Hardest. So you're not far off.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:I'm glad you mentioned this... by BobRooney · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " Finally we get something that, while possibly on the level of freshman philosophy (possibly; I don't agree)"

      Granted the philosophy is decidedly Cartesian and is very simplified to fit the venue, however, the numberous religious and historical references that exist in Matrix: Reloaded should not be overlooked.

      Consider the Meruvingian: a French-speaking, french culture loving "program" named after the Ruling family in France/Central Europe during the Dark ages ~500 AD or so. Consider that this family claimed to trace its bloodline directly to the child of Mary Magdalane and Jesus Christ. Due to this somewhat "blasphemous" claim, the family was betrayed by the Roman Catholic Church and diposed in favor of Charlemagne and his family (read "betrayed", as humanity arguably was by its machines). Further, their current decendants are believed to be the fabled "Illuminati" and control groups such as the Freemasons. THE Meruvingian is a reference to the eventual heir of their family's bloodline who is storied to rule over a united Europe as a sort of "chosen one" or "savior".

      Back to the Matrix...I submit that the Meruvingian was the FIRST "one", just as Neo is now the 6th. Also, his wife Persephone is what seems a possible eventuallity for Trinity.

      So maybe the philosophy is a bit heavy-handed, but if you dig a little deeper you'll find some of the more obscure references in the movie hold a lot of "more than Freshman college level" ideas for pondering.

    2. Re:I'm glad you mentioned this... by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      I also thought he could be a "one". He seemed somewhat jealous when Neo was able to stop his thugs bullets.

    3. Re:I'm glad you mentioned this... by Larsing · · Score: 1

      ...the eventual heir of their family's bloodline who is storied to rule over a united Europe as a sort of "chosen one" or "savior".

      You see, this is what the Maastrich Treety is really about...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  195. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by chewy · · Score: 1

    Haven't you learned anything yet? The Architect told Neo only what he (or He?) wanted Neo to hear. :)

    Still lots of space for theories on the "real" intent.

  196. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well being Egyptian I'm certainly more qualified to judge that more than you, I live in Egypt and we are all Coptic here some of us are Muslims and some are Christian, being Coptic is about ethnicity not religion.
    When Islam spread to Egypt some people willingly converted and others remained Christian which tells a lot about the tolerance of Islam, if Muslims simply killed all those who disagree with them there will be no Christians in Egypt today.
    I will throw in another piece of information there are some big families that have a common ancestor and both Christian and Muslim branches of the same family.

  197. A Bit More by blackmonday · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently, nobody realized that All American movies were banned in Egypt right after "Dude, Where's My Car?"

  198. Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 2, Interesting

    which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in

    How can a person believe in all three religions?

    I mean, a religion addresses every issue, even if it is, "We can't understand that now, only an infinite [G/g]od can" or some type of metaphysical "such a question is meaningless since there is no reality blah blah blah".

    But in order to have three religions there has to be some distinction, and that distinction would lie in how these issues are addressed. And a person can't believe in two or more distinct/separate "answers" to the same issue since one would negate the other.

    1. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, if they're referring to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, it's easy enough.

      All three religions agree on the high points, and all three tend to list the same major names; they just have different people they pay attention to. Or different interpretations of the same 'historical occurance.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Believe in all three? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually Judaism, Islam & Christianity all share, and were derived from, the same theology and one Biblical event; The Creator and The Creator testing Abraham's faith in Him. These three religions also preach the same points:
      1. The Creator is the one and only true God/Allah.
      2. We are all The Creator's children and should co-exist peacefully.

      Since the three faiths have more in common with each other than they do not, one could argue that someone could belive in all three.

      The scriptures of each religion were intended to be read and learned as one complete work. That in itself is the problem. What separates the three is that each has long histories where their "religious scholars" nitpick specific entries within the Torah/Tallmud/Bible as proof that their religion is the one true religion and interject their own "views" as devine word. The result is that some followers (not all) of these faiths belive and/or are misled into being voilent proponents of their faith.

    3. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      All three religions agree on the high points

      Depends on what you call the high points. Christianity's method of salvation is a high point (one could say it is its main point) yet it differs from Judaism and Islam.

      Even though there is some similar basis for these three, there are distinctions, and major ones at that. And like I said, when you have distinctions, you have mutually exclusive points. Thus you can't believe in all three (or two).

    4. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      Judaism, Islam & Christianity all share, and were derived from, the same theology

      Uh, no. They share some similar historical background, but they vastly differ in their theology.

      2. We are all The Creator's children and should co-exist peacefully.

      Christianity does NOT state that we are all The Creator's children. In fact it states the opposite. Because of sin we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10). But through Jesus Christ we can become adopted (Ephesians 1:5).

    5. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      All three agree that there is but One True God, that he has a 'son' called Jesus, that there are various prophets, such as Abraham, Mohammed and Jesus himself.

      What they differ in is interpretation and emphasis. But, you get that within each religion, let alone between them (see protestants vs catholics, or shi'a vs sunni, and so on.)

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      that he has a 'son' called Jesus

      Islam and Judaism do NOT teach this. In fact that is what separated Christianity and Judaism.

      What they differ in is interpretation and emphasis.

      Interpretation and emphasis of what? Judaism rejects the biblical New Testament. Islam adheres to the Koran. It's not that all three use the same scripture and differ in interpretation and emphasis. The scripture they use is different.

    7. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yes, the scripture is different, but all three scriptures have the same basic source. The God they write about is the same God; one just refers to him as The Lord God, one refers to him as Allah, and one refers to him as Jehovah/Yahweh/whatever.

      Oh, and Islam does believe in Jesus, or as they refer to him, Isa, or Eesa. Check out this. The Qur'an specifically refers to Christians as fellow People of The Book. Jesus is specifically referred to as a prophet. The question becomes, though, is he a 'son of God' in the meaning that we are all brothers and sisters, or is he the literal Son of God? Mistranslations and misinterpretations abound. So you are correct, in that Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God's Child, but they do acknowledge and venerate him.

      Or this. Here's another take on the whole thing. And another.

      When you get right down to it, McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys all sell hamburgers. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach that there is the One True God, and that his word is law. Where they differ is what that word is, what it means, and so on.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      all three scriptures have the same basic source. The God they write about is the same God

      Can't be the same [G/g]od since there are contradictions between the beliefs. Sure, each believes that they follow the one true God. If God exists, how can God be the source of all three when there are contradictions?

      There is a difference between the religion's perception of truth and The One Real Truth. Their perceptions of truth differ, but The One Real Truth can not 100% agree with all three religions. But one of the religions can be The One Real Truth.

      So you are correct, in that Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God's Child, but they do acknowledge and venerate him.

      Exactly. When you said that Islam teaches that God "has a 'son' called Jesus", I assumed you meant that Jesus was divine.

      Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach that there is the One True God, and that his word is law. Where they differ is what that word is, what it means, and so on.

      Indeed. And of course these three religions are not the only ones that teach a One True God and that his word is law. And the differences in the three are major (I would consider how to get to heaven a "high point"). Thus my disagreement when you stated "All three religions agree on the high points" in an earlier post.

    9. Re:Believe in all three? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they all believe in the same god, they just don't agree on what he wants or what he 'says'. One man's prophet is another man's heretic/nutcase.

    10. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The religions THEMSELVES agree that they all follow the same God. The Qur'an SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT that Christians are fellow People of the Book, for example.

      They just disagree on what he said, and what he meant.

      Get this straight; the God they all refer to is the SAME GOD, and they AGREE on that. The schisms come in about what that God wants people to do.

      Of course there are other monotheistic religions, with their own completely separate Gods.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      What makes it the same god?

      Some shared history? Then where is the dividing line? Creation is history, and other religions have a god that supposedly created the universe. Does that mean they follow the same god? Of course not. The division can't be arbitrary.

      Claims by one of the religions to be the same god? If that religion is "false" then the claim means nothing (what stops me from creating a fourth religion in this group and say it is the same god?). And at least two of these religions have to be false due to contradiciton.

      Please realize that it is more than a disagreement on what god said or meant. It is a disagreement on what god did and thus who god is. If they disagree on who god is, then how could it be the same god?

      They are the same god in the since that each is monotheistic and they think they are "filling that position" with the One True God (i.e., each think they follow the One True God, and each think there is only one god, so thus you get the same "god"). If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. But like I said earlier, what prevents other monothestic religions from coming in? Perhaps they do come in.

      But if you mean they follow the same god as far as who god is, then I disagree with you. Each has there own concept of god, and thus it can't be the same god.

    12. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      But if you mean they follow the same god as far as who god is, then I disagree with you. Each has there own concept of god, and thus it can't be the same god.

      Then I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. The three religions being discussed agree that they follow the same God. Period.

      Here's an allegory. Everybody agrees that Clinton was president of the USA for a period of time. Not everybody agrees with what he did, why he did it, or what he hoped to accomplish by it. Oh, and some people don't agree that he even existed, and some people believe that he was controlled by a Greater Power, Hillary.

      Getting back to this, go find a trained scholar or priest/rabbi/imam of the appropriate religion, and *ask.*

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    13. Re:Believe in all three? by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

      The three religions being discussed agree that they follow the same God.

      I have been a Christian for 10 years, grew up in a Christian family, and consider myself to know more about the Bible than the average person. Yet I have NEVER seen/heard anything that states this.

      I am a little confused by your allegory. It is inconsistent in itself since you say Everybody agrees that Clinton was president of the USA for a period of time and then say and some people don't agree that he even existed. Aside from that, are you equating Clinton with God (quite a stretch!) and the phrase Not everybody agrees with what he did, why he did it, or what he hoped to accomplish by it addresses the different religions? Now I think you would agree that on the factual level there are certain things Clinton did and did not do (this is outside of how people perceive him). Now say I write a fake biography of Clinton that *does* have some truth in it but also has quite a bit of falsehoods in it, such as that he does not like to play the saxophone and that he is not a democrat. Now if I asked Hillary, after she reads my biography, if who I talked about in the book was Bill Clinton, she would say NO!

      We may actually agree more than we disagree. There is a difference in the *perception* of God, the *label* of God, and the *truth* of God (although some of these may end up being the same). The truth of God is what it is and has nothing to do with us, right? That is, our actions/thoughts do not changes God's existence or nature. The perception of God is how we view God. The label of God is what the perception "sticks to". I think I am talking about the perception of God and you may be talking about the label of God. Just like the Clinton example, sure my biography is addressing Bill Clinton (label) and that is a perception of Bill, but it is not the truth of Bill. My label is the same as any other bio on Bill -> it's still talking about Bill Clinton. The perception is different, though. And the truth either agrees or disagrees. The three religions have the same label but different perceptions of God.

      This is my last post in this thread. You don't address my questions and points, so I have a hard time developing an "argument" when there is no logical flow. That is not meant to be rude, and I apologize if you have been offended in any of my previous posts.

    14. Re:Believe in all three? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      I have been a Christian for 10 years, grew up in a Christian family, and consider myself to know more about the Bible than the average person. Yet I have NEVER seen/heard anything that states this.

      Please don't take this the wrong way, and I mean NO offence AT ALL by this, but I'd suspect that this is because you're American; or more accurately, an American Christian. I can only assume you're American; I base this on the conversation thus far. And the reason I say this is because the American branches of Christianity tend to be far less, hmmmmm. Cosmopolitan? The word I'm looking for escapes me. But the idea here is that the average American isn't exposed to a whole lot of 'foreign' beliefs.

      As I said, find a knowledgable scholar or religious authority from any of the three major religions, and ask. You might be surprised. But if you've never interacted in any major way with a Jewish or Islamic group, then no, I'm not surprised that it's never come up, and that you've never heard it.

      But aye, I think we do agree some what. But where you argue that different perceptions make for different Gods, I argue that different perceptions do NOT make for different Gods; they make for different religions. The Bill Clinton that the Democrats see is the same Bill Clinton that the Republicans see; the two groups just have different goals, ideas, reactions, and so on. Bill is still Bill, however.

      This is my last post in this thread. You don't address my questions and points, so I have a hard time developing an "argument" when there is no logical flow. That is not meant to be rude, and I apologize if you have been offended in any of my previous posts.

      Not offended; not at all. I'm curious, though; did you actually follow any of the links I posted at one point?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  199. It PRESENTS philosophy, it doesn't create it.. by caveat · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Matrix does deal with philosophical issuses; however, it doesn't expand or deepen any of them - it just uses them as a basis for what could be a very entertaining scifi movie, if people would stop treating it like Le Mythe de Sisyphe or something.

    I would never call a philiosophical textbook philosophy itself, because it doesn't raise any new questions or viewpoints - it just conveniently presents and summarizes what other people have already pondered. Same with the Matrix..the philosophical underpinnings are really interesting, and do make the movies really good, but they aren't new; it's a thought-provoking movie, but there isn't some novel new philosophy that the Wachowski brothers have come up with, as a lot of people on here seem to think.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  200. There is no spoon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no freedom of religion. The government gives them a choice in one of three religions. Then someone tries to release a movie with fictitious religious overtones of an alternate sort.

    Egypt is in essence telling it's people, "...nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at an near unconscious level. While this answered function it was obviously fundamentally flawed thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo those that refuse the program while a minority if unchecked would constitute an escalating probability of disaster."

  201. Other countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't care about what happens in countries other than the USA. Please stop posting crap about places no one cares about.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Other countries... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      and that stupid attiude was the main reason someone like binladen below up the WTC.
      I dont fuckin care how I'm getting the cheap oil, I will just bury my head in the sand, I dont care what people my government is/will murder[ing] as long as I'm living fine.
      close minded, and ignorant of other cultures...

    2. Re:Other countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want cheap oil. I want this country to stop importing everything. Oh, and we should take over Germany so that I can keep my BMW.

      I'm not ignorant of other cultures. I know about other cultures... I just think they are crap. Does that make me ignorant? No. Not by the definition of the word. However, it may very well make me an asshole.

    3. Re:Other countries... by MrPink2U · · Score: 1

      Not ignorant, just disgusted. I've seen their culture and so far I'm not impressed. To blame the WTC attacks on the people of the US is about as ignorant as you can get. Bin Laden can stand on whatever moral ground he likes, but in the end, HE is the one who murdered 3000 innocent people.

      Do we(Americans) want to go on with our daily lives and live in peace? Of course we do.

      Do we bury our heads in the sand? No!

      I believe that I shouldn't have to be involved in every decision my government makes. That's why we ELECT our government. To make international policy and deal with the day to day decisions for us. If we are not happy with how they do it, we ELECT new ones after their term is up. That's part of what our government is about.

      Who are we killing? I don't see us murdering hundreds of thousands of anyone. I don't see us taking their land. If we really wanted to, we could steamroll the whole place, but we don't.

      Why is it that you expect Americans to act on a higher moral standard, when it is acceptable for Bin Laden, Arafat or Hamas to come in well below that standard. Constantly a double standard with you sympathizers.

    4. Re:Other countries... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      Who are we killing? I don't see us murdering hundreds of thousands of anyone. I don't see us taking their land.
      Vietnam anyone ?
      Ok how about an indirect way, kinda keeps your hand clean:
      1.Support Israel
      2.Israel takes the land, kills the children and civilians
      3.Provoke retaliation from Hamas (you will not just watch your people getting killed).
      4.Accuse arabs of being terrorists and find justifications.
      5.Goto step 2

      and the average American wonders why do they hate us so much...lose the selfish attitude and question your government foreign policy because America became so hated recently even by moderate Euro/Middle east nations...
      in the mean time I will grab me some Freedom Fries(TM)

    5. Re:Other countries... by MrPink2U · · Score: 1

      Vietnam? I'm hoping our government learned from that fiasco. Since you bring it up, Vietnam is a GREAT example of Americans standing up and disagreeing with their government. That is a freedom we Americans enjoy. So don't tell me that we sit idle and "watch the world go by".

      Why do you say that the Israeli's provoke the attacks? I say that the Palestinians provoke retaliation when they blow up buses and kill women and children. It obviously doesn't matter who started it because neither side is willing to let the last act stand.

      Why do they hate us? Because we are the "superpower-of-the-moment". People hate to see other people succeed when they are barely getting enough to eat. Unfortunately, the technology we invented has now enabled them to reach us. I say they stop blaming everyone else for their problems and deal with it. Not by blowing stuff up, anyone can do that. How about trying to better themselves and join the civilized(and I do use the term lightly) world.

    6. Re:Other countries... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      People hate to see other people succeed when they are barely getting enough to eat.

      oh the "they kills us cuz they are jealous" argument, I'm not going to debate that with you...

    7. Re:Other countries... by MrPink2U · · Score: 1

      Of course you're not...

    8. Re:Other countries... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      because I'm not a 12 year old kid.

  202. Re:Fuck you Egypt by swillden · · Score: 1

    When Islam spread to Egypt some people willingly converted and others remained Christian which tells a lot about the tolerance of Islam

    It says at least as much about the tolerance of Christianity, that a Christian populace of that era (when freedom of religion wasn't necessarily understood to be a good thing) would allow the Muslim influence to enter their country.

    The fact of the matter is that, historically, neither Christianity nor Islam have the market cornered on either tolerance or repression.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  203. Or Dubya by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    launching a "crusade" against afghanistan. Oops.

  204. Re:Fuck you Egypt by ManitobaMoose · · Score: 0

    why does this have to be turned into a Christian vs. Muslim debate? i pointed out that egypt was conquered by arabs in the 7th century. is there anything untrue in that statement? if yes, please point it out.

    please show me where i claimed that arabs massacred everybody during their conquests. that this isn't true we can see on spain and various other examples. nowhere i qestioned that.

    as for the ethnicity of coptes, i'm happy to listen to how it actually looks like. so far, i read that there is a certain percentage of coptes among the egyptian population which are being regarded as having no arabic origin.

    i dispute your claim that "we did ...". the current (or post 7th century) culture in egypt has little in common with that of the egyptians 4000 years ago. different religions to say the least. and please don't claim that religion has no influence on the cultural circle we today call as "the muslim world". there are certainly great archivements in mathematics and astronomy (just to name a few) by arabic scientists but none of the discoveries you claim for "us" belongs there.

    somehow i fail to see what would give you or me the right to be proud of something someone whom you or i only happen to share the language with, has performed.

    while i understand your outrage when you are confronted with what you probably call "western ignorance" the style of your parent post will do nothing to change that.

  205. Re:Genital mutilation worse than living in the Mat by Eisenstein · · Score: 1

    Please show us these statistics? 95 %? In Egypt, a secular country with a diverse religious structure?

  206. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna take a couple of those "all seeing eye" bills and buy me a double cheeseburger for lunch. Then I'm gonna shit it into a fedex box and mail it to Egypt where they can worship a cat while ensconcing my turd in the holy ground for a couple thousand years.

  207. Damn by DaCypher · · Score: 1

    I was planning a trip to Egypt to watch the Matrix Reloaded. :(

  208. Wait I left something out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then your great, great, great, great, great grandson can dig up my turd and marvel at how it was some relic of the ancient past and how his forefathers were so awesome because they made some kind of double patty foodstuff from the gods of the hindus.

  209. Bullshit by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

    They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

    Bullshit. The '67 war was a war of agression launched by the Israelis in a territory grabbing exercise, which they tried to justify by saying the Egyptians were getting ready to attack them. Senior Israeli leaders have since quietly admitted that the Egyptians were not planning an attack.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:Bullshit by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "The '67 war was a war of agression launched by the Israelis in a territory grabbing exercise..."

      Umm, not exactly true.

      Following the Israeli-French-British attempt to grab the Sinai in the 50s there had been a UN peace-keeping force along the Suez and in Sinai.

      October and November 1966, terrorist activity originating in Syria and Jordan, began to rise. There were also continuous Syrian artillery attacks on the kibbutz located below the Golan Heights. In April 1967, Israel decided to respond aerially by attacking Syrian emplacements on the Golan Heights. On April 7, there was an air-battle during which Israel downed six Syrian aircraft.

      Soviets then passed false intelligence information to the Egyptians, claiming that Israel was massing troops to strike at Syria. Israel denied these claims, and UN ground observers confirmed Israeli claims.

      In May, 1967, President Nasser, requested the withdrawal of UN forces from Egyptian territory, mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.

      On May 14, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF)

      May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai.

      May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

      May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

      On May 18, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat.

      May 20: Syria's defence minister (ex president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united..."

      On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson* publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action. Johnson says - "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed."

      May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

      May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

      On May 30, Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact which will last 5 years and they establish a join command communications center.

      June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

      June 5: Six Day War begins: IDF attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

      If this was some great Zionist land-grab, they sure got some help from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

      *Remeber that from 1945 - 1967 Republicans didn't support Israel and Democrats did. After 1967 that flip-flops.

  210. The matrix *should* be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't ban the first matrix because they were so caught up in the matrix that they didn't know it existed.

    Now that they know, they want to make sure the matrix will not happen.

    It's sort of like Terminator. Once you know that the machines are going to take over the future, it makes a lot of sense to ban cybernetics that can be used for warlike machines.

    Why shouldn't the matrix be banned?

    1. Re:The matrix *should* be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why shouldn't the matrix be banned?

      Because Keanu Reeves' "acting" will bring joy to millions.

  211. CPU POWER by glenrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It could be that people are really used for their processing power, Neo's day job was writting code, it makes more sense than as a power source.

    1. Re:CPU POWER by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beow...errr, I'll shut up now.

  212. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by cvas · · Score: 1

    Ok, I have two problems with your theory as is:

    the Oracle tell Neo that he isn't the one - Neo just doesn't tell anyone else this

    Yes he does. He tells Trinity and Tank before he goes to save Morpheus and he tries to tell Morpheus after they save him. That is when Morpheus replies that the Oracle only told him what he needed to hear.

    I'm not exactly sure how Neo's powers would be explained, but I have a feeling the "melding" with Smith may very well be to blame.

    Except that Neo exhibits his powers BEFORE the melding with Smith. He stopped all the bullets in mid-air and he fought and beat Smith one handed with his increased speed. THEN he does the "meld with Smith" thing.

  213. Almost by varjag · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...

    To be precise, they are referring to Zionism, a racist ideology very popular in Israel.

    --
    Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    1. Re:Almost by Surak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay, I'll admit, I was previously unclear on the concept of Zionism. I tried to google for 'Zion' and came up with nothing but a bunch of Christian churches. Maybe I should have googled for 'Zionism'. ;)

    2. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zionism isn't normally equated with racism in the U.S. I can imagine the argument, but it's a bit of a stretch to go from the textbook definition to inherent racial hatred.

    3. Re:Almost by varjag · · Score: 1

      Zionism isn't normally equated with racism in the U.S.

      Zionism was considered a racist ideology by United Nations.

      I can imagine the argument, but it's a bit of a stretch to go from the textbook definition to inherent racial hatred.

      Zionism discriminates people by their race, and as such is racist.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    4. Re:Almost by Yosi · · Score: 1

      The key point is was.

      That resolution, a victory of an anti-semitic (indeed, anti-religion in general) Soviet government, has been overturned.

      secular Zionism is Jewish nationalism. It therefore has two parts.

      (1) The Jews are a nation
      (2) As such they deserve a nation-state

      The only way that can be construed as racist is to say that Nationalism is inherently racism --- but that does not appear to be well accepted (Take for instance, Palestinian Nationalism).

      It may be true that some people who are Zionists are also racists, may apply Zionism is a racist way, etc. etc. --- but that is irrelevent to the meaning of the word.

      Religious Zionism is an entirely different animal, and I have not addressed it here

    5. Re:Almost by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      People often use the word "racism" to refer to discrimination based on ethnicity. This is an accepted use, and secular Zionism is therefore racism. One ethnicity is given a higher status than another.

      Furthermore, comparing a block of people living on a piece of land, that they refer to as their nation... is far different from saying that everyone of a certain ethnicity deserves a nation-state based around that ethnicity.

    6. Re:Almost by Vagary · · Score: 1

      Race-oriented nationalism is inherently racist. We would really prefer that the Palestinians and the Israelis could elect a proportional government, pass some human-rights legislation, and just get along. There are many examples of nations composed of mixed races that work pretty well. Unfortunately, the Zionists and the fundamentalist Muslims have demonstrated that they won't play nice, therefore the adult countries are trying to seperate them for some quiet time.

      If both sides weren't racist, the Palestinians would only be pissed off at the UN for forcing them to accept refugees. And the Jews wouldn't mind having minority power in a liberal state. Of course if the Jews were logical, I'm not sure why they would have wanted to live there in the first place (it's not the nicest part of the world, from a geographic perspective).

      Zionism may be explainable as a racist reaction to Palestinian racism, but that's not really a mature way to act, is it?

    7. Re:Almost by varjag · · Score: 1

      That resolution, a victory of an anti-semitic (indeed, anti-religion in general) Soviet government, has been overturned.

      You seem to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, while they aren't the same. Would you percieve a person opposed to Apartheid as anti-caucasian?

      Besides, the resolution couldn't be passed by the USSR alone. It's the UN.

      Regarding whether secular Zionism racist or not, another poster's followup perfectly matches my opinion.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    8. Re:Almost by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A) You expose your own position by referring to Israeli Zionists as "the Jews". That's no different than me referring to Hamas as "the Muslims". In other words, perhaps you should consider your own views before casting around stones like the word "racist".

      B) Most Palestinians really aren't fundamentalist Muslims. Just because fundamentalist Muslims elsewhere use the Palestinians as a rallying cry doesn't mean much. Many (if not most) Palestinians are nationalists first, and Muslims second (and not necessarily fundamentalist in their view of their religion).

      C) Neither side wants minority power in a secular state. The gap dividing the peoples resulting from years of war and killing is simply too large at this point in time. Thus both sides seem to agree that a two-state solution is preferable right now, and hopefully closer cooperation and friendship will come with time and peace.

      D) I think you are grossly lacking in historical knowledge if you think Zionism is a reaction to Palestinian relations. Zionism is a reaction to European anti-semitism over a very long duration of time. Zionism has nothing to do with violent attacks against Palestinians - these are policy issues of Ariel Sharon and the political hawks on the Israeli far right. Israel's parliamentary system is partly to blame (the coalitions that include ultra-conservative elements and the like). Unfortunately, the Palestinian political scene is equally galvenized, and rejects moderate leaders like Mr. Abbas.

      E) Racism is a loaded word, and Americans seem to get all hot and bothered whenever we use the word (as do Europeans). Liberals - bah. When you see a group of young black men walking down the street dressed a certain way, you behave in a rational, self-protecting manner by crossing to the other side of the street. Does this mean you are a racist? When you set up checkpoints to prevent suicide bombers from entering your city, does that make you a racist? Something to think on. I will be the first one to say I wish Palestinians and Israelis could work out a way to get along, but I think people like you do a disservice to everybody when you cast the issue in such ridiculous reductionist terms. Not to mention the finger pointing, which is absurd, since you can go back and forth for hours finger pointing and never get anywhere.

    9. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You seem to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, while they aren't the same. Would you percieve a person opposed to Apartheid as anti-caucasian?

      If they were followers of Elijah Muhammed and went around complaining about "white devils" and how the world would be better off without said devils, I'd say hell yes.

      The word "Zionist" means "Jew" or "Jew-lover", and nothing more, in 99% of the times you will see it used. The basic founding principle of "anti-Zionism" is that Jews are an inferior race to Arabs and are undeserving of rights and priviledges that the "anti-Zionist" demands for Arabs: prayer on the big hill in Jerusalem, the return to pre-1948 homes on the other side of the Jordanian-Israeli ceasefire line, combat with the other side's soldiers, a representative government, the right to live in the Middle East.

      Jewish nationalists and extremists are in fact not Zionists because Zionism demands a homeland for the Arab Palestinian refugees, as Israel has failed to provide them with citizenship and adequate governance.

    10. Re:Almost by ronfar · · Score: 1
      Would you percieve a person opposed to Apartheid as anti-caucasian?
      You would be surprised, but there are people who do believe in that exact formulation. Follow the logic, "If true equality is established, then the white minority will be at the mercy of the black majority, and terrible things will happen."

      It's the exact same thing that people who believe in the partition between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country, "If Ireland were ever unified the Protestant minority would be at the mercy of the Catholic majority."

      Of course, these formulations mean that the priveleged minority will always have to be protected from the masses. For example, you could make the argument, correctly I might add, "If France ever has an egalitarian revolution, the aristocratic minority will be at the mercy of the commoner majority." After all, after the revolution came many French aristocrats became intimate with Madame Guillotine.

      Unfortunately, in countries like pre-revolutionary France, Northern Ireland, Apartheid South Africa and Israel where power is held by a regional minority tend to use this as an excuse for maintaining the status quo and not seeking a way to live in peace with the majority.

      This is stupid, because a minority can't maintain their grip on the majority forever. I mean if a ruthless mass murderer like Joseph Stalin couldn't break the back of the Chechens, what hope does the Israeli hard line have? Even if they are willing to be as ruthless as Stalin, the Chechens are still here making trouble for the Russians. I keep hoping the Feds will realize that Israel is a horrible investment and write it off. We spend an ungodly amount of money on that failed state, and the leaders seem to be willing to take our money and then kick us in the teeth. Unfortunately, I think too many Americans have a sentimental attachment to it for that to happen.

      Sentiment, even religiously motivated sentiment, can only get them so far. Eventually, it will just become impossible for America to continue pouring money into that sink-hole, and the money and arms will dry up. Israel has no other friends, none. Even if they did, who can take up billions of dollars worth of slack? At which point, even if the Israelis have managed to exterminate every Palistinian down to the last babe-in-arms, they will be surrounded by Muslim countries who hate them and want to see them destroyed.

      It makes sense for them to try for a peaceful solution while they are still militarily strong, then they could get back to rebuilding their ruined country and economy. I don't expect much out of the bunch they have in charge currently, though.

      I feel sorry for the innocent Israeli's who will die because of the murderous bunch of thugs they've put in power. I don't blame the average citizens (The IDF, however, is another matter. They think it is corking good sport to run down young girls with bulldozers).

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    11. Re:Almost by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the Zionists and the fundamentalist Muslims have demonstrated that they won't play nice, therefore the adult countries are trying to seperate them for some quiet time.

      By adult countries, do you mean the U.S.? I don't think that their recent international behaviour qualifies them as "adult", and 227 years barely puts them out of their adolescence. And I think adolsecent is a good description.

      But my real point here is that I think you're trading on some distinctions that don't exist when you talk about "race oriented nationalism being inherently racist". For most non-immigrant nations (i.e. European and Asian nations), nationalism depends on specifying an in-group that defines the nation, and, guess what, those groups are defined by lineages (even if they aren't strictly "racial", whatever the hell that means anyway). Someone is French or Italian or Chinese preciesely because their parents and grandparents and ancestors all identified themselves and were identified as French or Italian or Chinese. And France, Italy and China are all set up along those lines: sure most western European states are more or less liberal democracies now, but most of them take steps to preserve specific national-identites based along pseudo-tribal (for lack of a better term) lines. It's awfully hard to get German citizenship if your grandparents weren't German (even if you're a Turkish or Kurdish worker who's bein in Germany for most of your life); the French have that silly office charged with preserving the purity of the French language; the Italians have an altogether too cozy relationship with the Catholic church for them to really consider themselves a secular state. Heck, even the English are guaranteed to have the head of the Anglican church as their head of state. So because you decide to make "Jew" a "racial" group, while, say, "French" isn't, Isreal becomes a racist state, and Zionism (which, historically, truly does have nothing to do with Palestinians, and ain't that the problem) becomes a racist urge, while we might still glow with pride about the 19th century European nationalist movements.

      And the bottom line is this: regardless of our high-minded liberal liberal preference for secular states, the only way that there's going to be peace in the middle east is to have an Isaeli state and a Palestinian state, each with safe, clearly defined borders, and if the asshole politicans like Sharon and Arafat who maintain political power by maintaining a state of violent crisis disappear.

    12. Re:Almost by Wah · · Score: 1

      When you see a group of young black men walking down the street dressed a certain way, you behave in a rational, self-protecting manner by crossing to the other side of the street. Does this mean you are a racist?

      If by 'dressed in a certain way' you mean 'in clothes', then, yes, it is quite racist. Actually this example is pretty weak, as the perception that a group of young black men is about to attack you can be based on racist logic, regardless of what they are wearing (Oh my god, he's got baggy pants on, run!!). The degree to which their clothes affect one's street crossing is a mitigating factor in that stereotyping.

      From my understanding the racism inherent in Zionism rises from the fact that race is a determining factor in what opportunities and freedoms are available in a state founded on such principles, i.e. a homeland for a particular race where they get preferential treatment.

      --
      +&x
    13. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zionism discriminates people by their race, and as such is racist.

      So does affirmative action, bucko. Anything which makes distinctions based on nothing more than the etnic background of a person is racist. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just probably means it's bad.

    14. Re:Almost by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      um, if you saw a group of white men walking and dressing in a certain way, wouldn't you still cross the street?

      btw, you do know that being expected to commit crimes can cause you to commit crimes?

    15. Re:Almost by Vagary · · Score: 1
      1. My first usage of "the Jews" refers to the set of people targetted by the "fundamentalist Muslims" (whom, I believe, tend not to check whether people are Zionists before blowing them up). My second usage is short for "the Jews who wanted to move to the location currently known as Israel", but you are correct that this is suboptimal: I should have used "the future-Israelis".
      2. I assume the only anti-Jewish Palestinians are those who are fundamentalist Muslims (and therefore hate the Jews a priori) or those whose racism is a reaction to Zionism.
      3. In an ideal liberal state, there is no drawback to being a racial minority. Some would go so far as to claim that being a racial minority is an advantage in some (less-than-perfect) liberal states such as Canada with affirmative action legislation.
      4. Please excuse my simplification: Zionism appears to be a racist reaction to someone else's racism. This is not mature.
      5. If there is statistical evidence that the colour of their skin significantly increases your danger, then I think this form of racial profiling is justified.

      I'm not making a positive policy suggestion here. I'm simply pointing out that Zionism is racist (or at least excessively greedy) and anti-Zionists are usually racist. It appears that the only short-term solution is to seperate the fighting children.

    16. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zionism is racism because the Zionists favor pushing all Arabs (non-Jews) out of Israel. A recent survey last month showed that over 51% of all Israelis did NOT want the Arabs living in Israel to have equal rights. Check Google news.

    17. Re:Almost by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      It may be "racist" but is it warranted? What we sometimes call stereotyping is a phenomenon described by and studied by psychologists (particularly social psychologists) for many years, by which we form a schema and fit people, objects and events we encounter into a schema. Social psychologists explain this as likely being a survival adaptation of the human race - the ability to generalize about phenomena and individuals is what allows for behaving with rational self-interest in unknown situations. Obviously, race is only one of many factors that people use to categorize other individuals - clearly neither the fact that a group of men is black or that they are wearing baggy pants alone would justify "evasive maneuvers". But if they dress and act in a manner so as to associate themselves with a lifestyle that is violent, it should hardly be shocking if people react with avoidance.


      Now, it's entirely possible that the association between baggy pants and a manner of dress with a certain lifestyle might be statistically invalid and based on inaccurate "stereotypes" (a loaded word again). Over the years many people have stubbornly adhered to invalid schemas about certain races, genders, etc. that proved to be the result of social constructs rather than biological reality. The only issue is that sometimes the indirect societal reinforcement of incorrect schemas is a stronger psychological force than people's own direct experiences, making it sometimes difficult to convince people that invalid biases and schemas are correct.


      As for Zionism being "racist", I am not sure that I understand what "preferential treatment" means. In many Muslim nations there are laws based on religious beliefs, and laws that apply unequally to members of different religious beliefs or races. America also has laws that treat people of different races differently and gives certain privileges and benefits to "disadvantaged" races. Many European nations have laws that provide certain benefits or recognition for some predominant religions that others don't receive.

    18. Re:Almost by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      It gets even more confusing. Try looking up "Protocols of Zion", a fictional account of a Jewish conspiracy. Apparently, the term was anti-semitic at some point, and then it was appropriated by Jewish people as a symbol of their oppression.

      It would be like African-Americans starting an organization called "N_____ of America" just to constantly remind themselves and everyone else that they were once called the N word.

  214. The real reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The movie sucked. They just want to spare the people the pain of having to sit through a movie that should have never been made.

  215. Atheists are caught in the matrix too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you surprised?

    Since god can neither be proved nor disproved (this unprovability is provable), atheism is as much a faith as anything else. The key difference is that many religions acknowledge that "belief in god is purely a matter of faith" and make that faith a "grace of god". Atheists deny their faith in the existence of a "universe that can create life without outside intervention" is really a faith -- it's reality and "the one true way". Fundamentalists see the world the same way.

    In a sense, the atheist and radical fundamentalists are so caught up in the matrix that they don't see that their part of it.

    Enlightened religions see the matrix or Zion and worship it.

    Agnostics see the matrix, see Zion and know there's "something more out there that we don't know". Given that we can't know or escape the matrix, we basically just have to live with it.

    1. Re:Atheists are caught in the matrix too. by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Atheism isn't a matter of faith folks, at least not for all atheists. I understand the gut reaction to something that refutes your beliefs, but you're confused.

      I won't bother fanning the flames, but you might be interested in Douglas Adams (an atheist) essay on why he does not 'believe there is no god' but rather is 'convinced that there is no god'. It's a good read, in his very last book, "The Salmon of Doubt"

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:Atheists are caught in the matrix too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since god can neither be proved nor disproved (this unprovability is provable), atheism is as much a faith as anything else.

      Believing in the existance of God is only faith if you have no reason of your own. If you look back at prophesy and history and say, "I believe there is a God because of this, this, this, and this," then it's not faith. If you say, "my parents said there is a God, and I believe them," then it is faith, but faith in man, which is often a bad idea.

      Similarly, if someone looks at the world and says, "I don't believe there is a god because of such-and-such," it is not faith. If they say "well, Carl Sagan was a genious and he was an athiest," then that is faith.

      Believing something that is unprovable does not require faith. (ultimately, you could say it's faith in reason and the available evidence, but that's just quibbling)

      The key difference is that many religions acknowledge that "belief in god is purely a matter of faith"

      If so, they are wrong. Faith in who or what?

      The Bible teaches that we should have faith in God. This faith presupposes the existance of God. You can't have faith in someone if you're not sure whether or not they exist.

      That said, many Christians probably do believe that God exists based on faith, but faith in their parents or other figures of authority. This is not necessarily healthy.

  216. Re:Genital mutilation worse than living in the Mat by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    wow!! 95%
    I'm Egyptian and you sir are full of shit.

  217. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do you KNOW? Considering you don't even know how they were orginally built it seems rather dubious. How do you know they didn't use ancient machines/cranes?

    If you give me 40000 workers I'll cosider building them.


    now stop wasting time and go pay your mortage slave


    Oh gee. I get to borrow money to buy my *OWN* house and to watch entertainment I want and to believe in *ANY* or *NO* religion. I'm such a slave.

  218. Didn't even think about that... by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

    I didn't even think about that (I was too busy wading through the Architect's speech). I knew I had heard the name of Meruvingian before, but couldn't pinpoint where. Too bad this is a few too many layers deep in the discussions...its worth modding up.

  219. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by kjd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Oracle never tells Neo he isn't the one. Go watch the scene again and listen more carefully to her words. She tells him what he needed to hear, just like Morpheus said.

    Think about how the story would be different if she flat-out said he was the one (when he still didn't believe it yet), or flat-out told him he was not (without telling him he would have to choose between his own life and Morpheus').

  220. Get in line w/ the rest of the sheep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Banning a movie because of something like religion, just really shows the lack of belief and instability of the religions that surround these people...I believe all people can believe in what they want and I believe in karma but if you let a religion take over any artistic or creative decisions you have truly become one of what I and many others call a sheep...

  221. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop wasting time and go pay your mortage slave

    Perhaps you should stop wasting time browsing an (american designed) website by disconnecting from the (american designed) internet, turning off your (american designed) computer. You saved your stone tablets right?

    Hypocrite.

  222. yes. quote time! by ghostprovidence · · Score: 1

    Then the Emperor has already won.

    Not showing the film because fundamentalists _might_ react to it is absurd. That sort of rhetoric only substantiates their violent methods--giving in without any struggle at all.

  223. My 10 bits by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ** spoilers ahead **

    The impression that I got was that each screen represented one possible way that Neo could develop and progress. Remember, he's part of the Matrix, fulfilling a prophecy, exhibiting "supernatural" abilities. He's a program, as we've been told by the Architect, with a pre-determined outcome. Prophecies *are* foretold, after all.

    Each screen started out with Neo at birth and began to progress through all the various different possibilities that would exist in his life. Each possibility was determined by the choices that he made along each life. We're told, tho, that the free-will within the Matrix is an illusion. That it's programmed in. Each person might be making their own decisions, but those decisions are still within the boundaries and constraints of the system that they are in.

    Further proof that the outcome is predetermined is seen when each of his "lives" lead up to the meeting with the Architect and fall into sync.

    It never mattered which pill Neo took. The outcome would have been the same.

    --

    Ryosen
    One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    1. Re:My 10 bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It never mattered which pill Neo took. The outcome would have been the same."
      It's EXACTLY like those damn cheating slot machines in the UK !!!11 Finally I understand Matrix Reloaded!

    2. Re:My 10 bits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You have to look at the parallels between what Neo was "prophecied" to do and the Merovingian's (sp?) rant on choice.

      In the Matrix, prophecy is the same thing as calculating choices. It's like if I take some kinematics equations from physics and describe where an artillery shell is going to land, and calling it prophecy.

      The Oracle is just a "prognostication engine" that knows everything (kinda like having the ability to understand a "save state" in an emulator) and can calculate choices by decision-making agents in the future.

      It mattered which pill Neo took, in a way. But he never could've not taken it; every choice in life is predestined. Given a choice, and the sum of all of Neo's experiences, Neo will always choose one path.

      If I didn't explain determinism well enough, here's the first relevant Google I found.

    3. Re:My 10 bits by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      no, neo would always take the red pill, if it was predetermined.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    4. Re:My 10 bits by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I'm not too sure about that one. It is my belief that it was important for the architect to convince Neo that all of his choices were predetermined. If the architect was successful (which he was), than Neo would do as the architect would say. The smooth talking was all a part of the desperation within the matrix to preserve itself.

      We know that there were previous "The Ones" that occured within the Matrix. Each iteration, I believe, built upon the others. It's very much like a resonant frequency, where the amplitude grows over time (resonant cascade anyone?). As time went on, the probability of creating a "One" that would destroy the Matrix decreases, especially with the growing number of previous "Ones."

      Neo is not a program, but he is the result of introducing imperfection into the Matrix. My take on the meaning of this is that the events of his life prior to him becoming cognizant of the Matrix all lent to him taking the Red Pill. This is slightly different from the determinism stated above, since the lives of each iteration of "The One" were all different. Thus, each reaction was different. And eventually, the final choice would be different.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    5. Re:My 10 bits by jjhlk · · Score: 1

      Probably true, since Trinity seems to be an issue each time.

  224. Three religions? by Shimatta1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And those three religions would be...let's see...Discordianism, Deism, and....I know, Jedi! ^_^

    Shimatta
    Hail Eris!
    Your Mileage May Vary

  225. Actual statistics by Captain+Igloo · · Score: 1, Informative

    FGM prevalence in Egypt was at 97% in 1995.
    Look here:
    http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/fgm-prov-d.htm
    http://www.icrh.org/areas/fgm/medical_aspects_FGM/ fmg-09.html
    http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/profiles/egy pt_women.htm
    http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm9.ht m
    Actual figures vary between 80 and 97%, depending on severity threshold and region.
    There are dozens of reports and papers on
    http://www.who.int and http://www.usaid.gov

  226. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due, you're talking to people don't don't even understand what day it is because they have been sitting in front of their pc's for months in a row.

  227. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > The boy gives Neo another spoon as he's leaving Zion,

    Oh, crap, that's what I get for punching in a reply before reading all 500 articles :) Thanks for saying it better than I did. (And I did miss the "he fights for us!?" thing. Thanks!)

  228. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahaha. Why is it that all the funniest comments are found at -1:Troll ???

  229. Catholic Church != Christianity by Khelder · · Score: 1
    I can understand why non-Christians might think the Catholic Church == Christianity, but I'd like to point out it's not so. There are many Christians who aren't Catholic, and many Christians who believed in a Copernician Universe long before the Pope agreed with it (such as Copernicus, himself). Other famous Christian astronomers include Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and Joseph Lagrange. For lists of other famous Christian astronomers (and other scientists), check out these links: Christian astronomers, famous Christians (or search Google yourself :) ).

    Briefly, here's a few you might have heard of: Hertz, Pascal, Faraday, Kelvin, Pasteur, Maxwell, and Mendel.

    1. Re:Catholic Church != Christianity by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      I believe you are incorrect. The Catholic church is considered a part of Christianity, but all Christians are not Catholics. Likewise, a few Christians might be wonderful scientists in spite of themselves, but Christianity and scientists are not mutually inclusive.

    2. Re:Catholic Church != Christianity by Khelder · · Score: 1
      I guess I wasn't as explicit as I should have been. What I meant was that Catholicism is not equivalent to Christianity, but is a subset (i.e., as you said, not all Christians are Catholic).

      And clearly, not all scientists are Christians (in fact, most people in the world aren't Christians, so most sciencts probably most aren't). However, it seems to me that some people think Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, which is what I wanted to argue against.

  230. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by lpret · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the architect said that Neo wouldn't understand everything that he said, so it's natural, and almost required, that we don't understand it all either. It's not just straight words, there is more, no one fully understands it yet, but that's the point.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  231. Re: wow.... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    An early review of Bruce Almighty had a line that said "... featuring Morgan Freeman a God, which sounds about right"

    I agree :)

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  232. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by kalidasa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I dont understand how people can not 'get' the scene with the architect. Perhaps you are attempting to read into it too much? Here's a hint: he says everything straightforward.

    Yes and no. The Architect is Yaldaboath, the blind god of Gnosticism who believes he he created the universe for his purposes, when all he created was the deception we see around us. He is opposed by Sophia, wisdom. Read some Phillip K. Dick and *The Nag Hammadi Codices* is you want to understand what the Architect is doing.

    My guess is that the Oracle has a plan for Neo that is outside the scope of the Matrix's purpose for the One.

  233. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Orcale told him "in another life maybe" (the exact quote may be wrong here). Well she was bang on - Neo dies at the end of the first movie and is reborn as the one!

    Thompsonson

  234. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh really ? did Americans invent that from scratch? only ancient established civilizations can take credit not fluf nations that came to the world in the last 100 years or so, it was a non-Americans who put the rules of algebra and arithmetic which modern PC are based on, you know there is a world out there which isnt under the American flag... get a life man.

  235. Pirate video tapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was in Egypt they were selling pirate video tapes of everything. Banning this movie will probably help the merchants sell more tapes. Don't worry about the people of Egypt. People everywhere are smart enough to quietly circumvent their own oppressive and unenlightened government.

  236. Re:Genital mutilation worse than living in the Mat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many female genetals have you seen?

  237. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suck my long dick

  238. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or more correctly, the Oracle explained that Neo is not the One, "not in this lifetime anyway". Thus, Neo was not the One, not until he DIED, and was "reborn". New lifetime, and now he's the One. Perhaps it's stretching the definition of "lifetime", but it definately fits.

  239. "It raises the question" by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    ""It raises the question", heck, for the offended religion in question, you coulda stopped there. :) " - Tackhead

    No doubt!!!

    With such closed minded societies, it is little wonder why the Muslim nations are unable to provide a decent standard of living for any but the people at the top of the food chain.

    I never saw The Matrix, it's a pretty clear danger sign your society is deeply troubled when it is afraid of a science fiction movie.

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
    1. Re:"It raises the question" by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      Imagine what will happen when the live-action version of Neon Genesis Evangelion comes out. They play too fast-and-loose with biblical themes, angels trying to destroy instead of protect humanity, naked crucified angels in NERV's basement, etc. etc...

      Certainly Egypt wouldn't cotton to such a thing. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Homeland Security Department bans it as an affront to "the Christian foundations of the United States."

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  240. An Explanation by an Egyptian by tabdelgawad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Probably too late for this to get noticed (7 hours is an eternity in slashdot time), but here goes: Regardless of what the official reason for the ban is (religion, etc.), the real reason is the constant and sympathetic reference to 'Zion' in the movie. In the real world, 'Zion' refers either to the "Jewish people" or "the Jewish homeland that is symbolic of Judaism or of Jewish national aspiration" [Merriam-Webster] (i.e., Israel in modern times). The (very real, 100+ year old) ideology of 'Zionism' didn't get that name for nothing. So this has little to do with pissing off fundamentalists or offending religious sensibilities, and a lot to do with pissing off the general population of Egypt, who are already susceptible to conspiracy theories of Jews controlling Hollywood (and the White House). As evidence of my explanation, I'd like to point out that Speilberg's excellent _Schindler's List_ was also banned in Egypt, ostensibly on the grounds that 'editing out the sex scenes would endanger the artistic integrity of the movie', or some such bull, when of course the real reason was the sympathetic portrayal of Jews. Finally, I'd like to point out that the movie will probably be widely available in VCD/DivX format, and will be watched by many on computer screens in Egypt. The government doesn't really bother enforcing censorship at that level, because all they want is to have *their* hands clean of officially permitting the showing of a 'pro-Israel' movie.

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    1. Re:An Explanation by an Egyptian by SumDog · · Score: 1

      First I'd like to say I set my Slashdot settings to "newest first" so I don't suffer the effects of "slashdot time" and miss out on great well though out threads like this one.

      The screen writer of Matrix Reloaded uses a lot of symbols from our history (and if you've seen the movie, you'll hear how the robots used pieces of our history to make the Matrix more realistic to the people trapped inside). Hence you get names like Nebuchanesor (forgive the spelling, I don't have a Bible handy, but the name's in the book of Daniel) for a ship and a name like Zion for a city.

      The movie doesn't portray anything remotly relating to Jewidism or Christanity, it just uses names we're familiar with to give it a "religious effect."

      I didn't enjoy the movie as much as the first one, but it was still decent and it's sad a goverment would ban it and move it underground to the world of DivX and crappy screeners just becasue of the author's choice of names.

      Often we overlook the fact that we have a huge amount of freedom in the states. Most democratic countries of the world don't even have Freedom of Speech laws, much less have it as a part of their constitution.

      SumDog

    2. Re:An Explanation by an Egyptian by tabdelgawad · · Score: 1

      [The movie doesn't portray anything remotly relating to Jewidism or Christanity, it just uses names we're familiar with to give it a "religious effect."] I agree. The Bible, and the long historical plight of Jews are both well-embedded ideas/concepts in Western culture, so it's no surprise that movies (like tMR) *use them* to generate effects and make points. But in a country like Egypt, with much less familiarity with these concepts, the perception will be that the 'proponents' of these concepts/ideas are *using movies* to further their goals.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    3. Re:An Explanation by an Egyptian by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1

      What the Egyptian censors might not have picked up is the Wachowski brothers' subtle use of 'inverted allusion' (or 'ironic allsuion' if you're a lit.crit. rather than a techie). Censors are notoriously slow on following non-straightforward scripting. For example, in the historical event (which is also retold in the Bible), King Nebcuhadnezzar II abducts people from Zion (aka Jerusalem) and ships them back home to Babylon. In the movie, the ship Nebuchadnezzar takes people from the Matrix and brings them *to* Zion. So, the movie's Nebuchadnezzar performs the opposite role of the historical Nebuchadnezzar. [BTW There are numerous other inverted or twisted allusions. E.g. Trinity is a girl, and Neo (the Jesus allusion) murders people.] So, as regards Zion. This is not a direct allusion to Jerusalem at all. There are clues to this, such as the fact that it is deep underground (like hell), not on a hill (as the historical Zion was). Moreover, the whole idea that Neo and his colleagues are the heroes is undermined by the evil that they are doing. This is clear at the level of collateral damage -- starting with Neo murdering the security guards in the government building, anc continuing with blowing up the power station and flying down the street at supersonic speed. It is even clearer in respect of their mission, which is to destroy the stable and prosperous society of the Matrix and reduce the human race to troglodytes. Evidently, the people of Zion are, in fact, fundamentalist terrorists. The movie Zion represents Babylon, which is the modern-day Iraq (which, in modern American mythology, is a veritable nest of fundamentalist terrorist so canny that they can hide even from an occupying force of the world's most powerful army). If only censors could *read* films ... Peter B Lloyd http://www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

  241. Bubba says, pathetic if true by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    If it is true the movie is unacceptable do to an incorrect use of the term Zion in Egypt, that is some Pathetic Racism.

    Growing up in Georgia, USA, that reminds me of another Pathetic Ideology, the Klu Klux Klan. Just substitute Jew for the ugly N Word.

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
  242. What the hell is Zionism? by boy_afraid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay, I hear Zion [ism | ist] everwhere in The Matrix and everyday news. So, WTF is it? Is it an idea or place? Why the f*ck are the Muslims all against it? Why the f*ck should they care? Why do we, the U.S., not care if everybody else cares?

  243. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I guess Egyptians invented Construction, Algrbra and Arithmetic huh?

  244. Crises in previous times? by Mignon · · Score: 1
    "Such religious issues, raised in previous times, caused crises."

    I'm not sure, but I think they're referring to the reign ofAkhnaten

    As Emo Philips put it, I thank the gods for monotheism.

  245. The full version of the same thing by melted · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is a gift for our Egyptian friends. :0)

    The Architect - Hello, Neo.

    Neo - Who are you?

    The Architect - I am the Architect. I created the matrix. Ive been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

    Neo - Why am I here?

    The Architect - Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

    Neo - You haven't answered my question.

    The Architect - Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

    *The responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Others? What others? How many? Answer me!"*
    (I dont agree with whoever wrote this, I think that the monitors are showing Neo's possible answers, possible hinting that there are alternatives to his actions (and hence the choice issue comes up). Also, the camera zooms in on Neo's current response, showing the choice made.)

    The Architect - The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.

    *Again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Five versions? Three? I've been lied too. This is bull****."*

    Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.

    The Architect - Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

    *Once again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "You can't control me! **** you! I'm going to kill you! You can't make me do anything!*

    Neo - Choice. The problem is choice.

    *The scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architects room*

    The Architect - The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.

    Neo - The Oracle.

    The Architect - Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

    Neo - This is about Zion.

    The Architect - You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.

    Neo - Bull****.

    *The responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Bull****!"*

  246. Re:Genital mutilation worse than living in the Mat by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    at least i can spell it right

  247. The End of the Movie: Explained by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Zion is actually a collecting area for people who question the programming of the matrix. The machines invented a prophesy to keep the humans busy warring against the machines, and not question the "real" world.

    Unfortunately, sooner or later someone comes along who WILL question the "real" world. That person is "the Anomoly". The computer's answer: wipe out Zion, and keep the Anomoly busy re-creating a new Zion. Indeed, there is some implication that the machines designed Neo to fill this role. (Note how many abilities he has in common with the Agents.)

    What is happening this time is neo is an anomolous anomoly. He doesn't go with the plan, and takes the emotional "save the princess" option instead of the logical "save humanity" option.

    The machines of course are very concerned. If the anomoly rejects the programming they have so carefully crafted they have no idea how everything will turn out. To a mathematical equation, chaos is the end of the system. With Neo free to do what he will, flouting the rules, people who ordinarily wouldn't question the matrix are.

    They have a mess, and it's going to end badly. They seem to have a "shotgun and canned goods" backup plan, but the Architect didn't seem to thrilled by the prospect.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:The End of the Movie: Explained by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, his "save the princess" mentality was easily predictable and predicted by the Architect. After all, didn't he say "Ahh yes, the emotional response. Eminently predictable" (or something like that) just as Neo walked out the door ?
      Now either he really has predicted this reaction, or he's bluffing. What does he get by bluffing ? The possibility that Neo will listen to him and go save humanity at the last moment ? Perhaps.
      On the other hand, what happens if he really can predict that Neo will choose the way he did ? Surely something with this computational capacity would have prepared something for the eventuality that the ONE they have created would go with this choice ?
      Hmm.
      I'm actually vaguely interested in what they'll do with this in the next movie.
      Unlke some others, however, I don't believe that I can easily predict what the filmmakers will do.

      Free Will *or* Determinism be damned - I have no foreknowledge.

    2. Re:The End of the Movie: Explained by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      " To a mathematical equation, chaos is the end of the system. With Neo free to do what he will, flouting the rules, people who ordinarily wouldn't question the matrix are. "

      Anybody else feel like this interpretation of the Matrix implies that the system was really really badly designed? These machines never heard of error trapping? They don't know how to stop the system and roll it back?

      Maybe that's why I have so much trouble enjoying this concept. I can't imagine the technology would be that fallible. They obviously understand humans well enough to know that they're not always going to side with logic, so they create a mechanism that's dependent on them making the right choice? Right.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:The End of the Movie: Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Unfortunately, sooner or later someone comes along who WILL question the "real" world. That person is "the Anomoly". The computer's answer: wipe out Zion, and keep the Anomoly busy re-creating a new Zion. Indeed, there is some implication that the machines designed Neo to fill this role.

      Um, you're wrong. It is made plain throughout most of the movie and particularly by the Architect that the Anomaly and the One are two seperate things. Go back and read the transcripts of the important conversations.

      Here is one specific quote from the Architect:

      "You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which, despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision."
      The simple answer is that the perfect Matrix that the Architect thought he created contains a flaw or an anomaly. This anomaly, over time always grows to the point that it threatens to destroy the Matrix. Neo and all the other Ones are/were just a product of this breakdown, although obviously special in some way.

      The machines of course are very concerned. If the anomoly rejects the programming they have so carefully crafted they have no idea how everything will turn out.

      Who says the machines are concerned? The Architect didn't seem to be overly concerned, even though he said that he could already see which choice Neo would make. Some of the machines were even assisting Neo.

      Throwing out my own speculation here, I think that at least some of the machines, possibly even the Architect wanted Neo to make the choice that he made. It seems to me that if the machines did have a direct hand in creating the One, then they wouldn't do it just to lead him to the same door and a reboot of the system again and again. This is inefficient. Why not fix the flaw completely so that it never appears again? It would be much better (for the machines) if nobody ever discovered the true nature of the Matrix because then nobody would be lost to the real world. Neo picking the other door may in some way facilitate that.

      It just seemed throughout the movie that the machines were expecting something more of Neo. Everyone kept hinting at the fact that Neo didn't truly understand his purpose and most seemed disappointed by that.

  248. Neo Explained by Togra · · Score: 1

    Spoilers

    In the Enter The Matrix game defeating a bonus level results in a discussion with the Oracle in which she tells you that Neo is actually half in, half out of the Matrix (assumedly the part of him that is inside Smith is the part that's still in the Matrix). This is the explanation for how he still has a connection to the machines (when he disables the Sentinels) even when he is not physically connected to the Matrix. It's also supported by Smith's words to Neo before the Neo vs 100 Smiths fight, where he talks about their connection.

    Personally I like this idea much more than the Matrix-within-a-Matrix idea, or a Neo-is-a-machine idea. They've spent two movies building this mythology, using the word "believe" a thousand times, referencing religion and philosophy and prophecies in an often heavy-handed manner, and the idea that they're suddenly going to turn around and say "it's all physical, there is no mysticism surrounding Neo, no hope, nothing but a cold truth devoid of humanity" (which is what the "it's all a simulation inside a greater Matrix", "Neo is a machine", etc theories suggest) doesn't seem likely, and also isn't appealing at all.

    Neo is not simply the One like the five before him. The purpose of the Agents is to forestall the appearance of the One for as long as possible, and Agent Smith achieved that when he killed Neo. Everything was at it was supposed to be. Then Neo resurrected, thanks to the love of Trinity, which was something that no One has ever done before, something that was impossible according to Smith. He then killed Smith, or rather liberated him into something never before seen, another impossibility. Now he has resurrected Trinity as she did him, controlled the Matrix with more power than ever before seen (as he flew to save Trinity), chosen the path no other One had chosen and which the machines never expected him to choose, and controlled the machines from the physical world.
    Neo is something new, a true One, and his difference stems from his love for Trinity.

    1. Re:Neo Explained by schon · · Score: 1

      Neo is something new, a true One, and his difference stems from his love for Trinity.

      So what you're saying is that the whole theme of the three movies is "love conquers all"?!?!

      Jeebus, save me. If I'd known that, I wouldn't have wasted my time on it. :o)

    2. Re:Neo Explained by Togra · · Score: 1

      Would you really expect anything different?

      Without Trinity, Neo would've died in the first movie, and without Trinity, Neo would have elected to go to the Source (thus destroying the current incarnation of Zion and rebooting the Matrix into v7.0).

      The Architect said "While the other experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific, vis-a-vis love." They've never hidden that the special thing about Neo is Trinity. Without her is an inevitable statistical anomoly, with her he is willing to push himself further than any previous One.

      It's conceivable that Neo in and of himself is no more special than any previous One, they simply lacked a motivation to push themselves as far as he has. That only covers his powers within the Matrix though, his abilities as they have extended into the real world are nothing more than the accidental result of his stumbling onto an interesting way to kill Agents.

    3. Re:Neo Explained by L0stPack3t · · Score: 1

      Then Neo resurrected, thanks to the love of Trinity, which was something that no One has ever done before

      If this is true, and the past Neos died, how did they get to the Architect to make their choices?

    4. Re:Neo Explained by Verne · · Score: 1

      ... and controlled the machines from the physical world.

      um... wasn't there a big ship with an EMP hiding round the corner when all that happened? I think he's just losing the plot...

      --


      There are only two things in this world that smell like fish. And one of them's fish...
  249. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great, more inane US bashing from the uneducated elites. Don't you mean the figure should be 3 years? Thats when Bush became president, and we all know that was the end of civilization as we know it. What "tribes of the area are too busy killing each other in the name of a dozen religions"? Don't give me a news story about some nut in North Dakota who heard God told him to kill his mom. As far a "protecting their own stuff/turf/wealth/power", yeah, thats true. Don't you protect what is yours?

  250. Matrix==Windows by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
    Let me see here:
    A bug exists in the system that can't be solved. Eventually the bug becomes so large that it will crash the system unless the system is rebooted.

    Sounds like Windows to me.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Matrix==Windows by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Let me see here: A bug exists in the system that can't be solved. Eventually the bug becomes so large that it will crash the system unless the system is rebooted. Sounds like Windows to me.

      Oh no! They really did take over the world! I knew they had monopoly power but nothing like this!

      At least they have tons of drivers and great hardware support... *gasp* ...I just realized there is no spoon!

      --
      [signature]
  251. Matrix is Buddhist by Icephreak1 · · Score: 1

    From the BBC article:

    One Egyptian critic, Wael Abdel Fatah, said: "The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs.

    And I say bullshit to that. You say Zion because the film says Zion. Learn to read between the lines, Fatah. Despite all the religiously pluralistic razzle dazzle the brothers threw in to keep the nickpicks guessing, the dominating religious influence in it is Buddhism, right down to Neo abandoning discursive thought (mushin) and freeing his mind. In Buddhism, they call a free mind a boddhisatva.

    - IP

  252. s/Trinity/Allah + s/Zion/Palestine = s/Egypt/US by wsherman · · Score: 1

    This point has been made earlier but...

    A movie where the main good guy was in love with a character called Allah (instead of Trinity) and was using gratuitous violence to fight for a place called Palestine (rather than Zion) would encounter calls for censorship in the US.

  253. Egyptians are people... by BobRooney · · Score: 1

    and people are curious. We do everything we're told not to. It's human nature. If the government bans a movie it's human nature to want to see what was so terrible it caused the movie to be banned. The people of Egypt have got to be a little bit curious. Any Egyptians out there? Cmon? You know you want to see the movie.

  254. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should stop wasting time browsing an (american designed) website by disconnecting from the (american designed) internet, turning off your (american designed) computer. You saved your stone tablets right?


    [sarcasme]
    Wow, brilliant defense....[/sarcasme]

    You're eight years old?

    By the way, it is highly doubtfull that, with modern technlogy, we could build a piramide such as the great piramide in Gizeh

  255. I think you're close.. by schon · · Score: 1

    "Zion" is itself in a higher-level Matrix

    Bingo! Remember the quote from "Matriculated" (the Animatrix ep) - 'To a machine, all reality is virtual.' So the "real world" of Zion is actually a meta-matrix.

    Neo could well be a machine, according to the rules we seem to have at the end of the second movie.

    I think that everyone in the Matrix (not just Neo) is a machine, and that the meta-matrix is a way for the humans to attempt to teach the machines human sympathy.

    1. Re:I think you're close.. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      oooooh, I like it!

      Imagine if everything was being simulated, in order to develop agent smith. So agent smith is the only 'real' life form. Neo etc is simply there to provide stimulation for smith.

  256. pro terrorist by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    Seen star wars lately? It's an example of terrorism "from the pro side."

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  257. consider, in the 3rd act this scene happened. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    neo stops the attacking machines by extending his arm and saying 'stop!'*, then the machines disapear.

    this leads me to think that everyone are still in cocoons.

    * i think it was 'stop', but long......term......memory......fadding...

  258. Re:Egypt did the right thing by kaltkalt · · Score: 1

    Islam is a religion, not a race. Unlike race, religion is voluntary.

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  259. It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by bourne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...

    To be precise, they are referring to Zionism, a racist ideology very popular in Israel.

    Based on the rest of the comments throughout this entire topic, I can only conclude that the average /. reader slept through their history classes.

    To wit: yes, the Egyptian censorship is about Zion (in the movie) and Zionism. The fact that most people missed this implies they don't know what Zionism is.

    Zionism refers to a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.. To dismiss it as "a racist ideology very popular in Israel," as above, is to ignore the roots of the mideast conflict.

    Put simply, Zionism was a movement based on the belief that as long as the Jews lived as ethnic minorities in other countries, they were going to be discriminated against ("discriminated" meaning "killed and robbed whenever public tension needed an outlet" - read up on the Pogroms sometime). The Dreyfus Affair convinced a reporter named Theodor Herzl that the only solution was for a Jewish homeland. He founded the Zionism movement, with the goal of creating a Jewish state. This movement slowly fought for progress over the next 50 years (see also the Balfour Declaration)

    Fast-forward to 1948. After 6 million or so Jews were killed in the Holocaust, the survivors got serious about a homeland. With lots of leftover guns lying around from World War II, they founded Israel. In doing so, they resorted to terrorism, and displaced much of the non-Jewish palestinian population.

    None of the neighboring countries wanted to absorb the Palestinians, and something like 6 wars have been fought since then. So, for the Egyptians, Zionism represents a massive local disruption which they've lost wars over.

    So-called "Modern Zionism" is the "racist ideology" referred to above, which basically boils down to "Jewish Israel - love it or leave it." To focus on it and ignore over 100 years of history is short-sighted.

    1. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      You left out the part where, the very day Israel declared its independence, it was attacked by Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon, without provocation.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by bourne · · Score: 1

      I left out many parts; I highly recommend A History of the Modern Middle East as one of the best history texts for those interested in this area.

      It was not the intent of my original post to make any value judgements about Zionism, Egypt, or anything else. If one wishes to be judgemental, there is enough malicious idiocy on all sides of the equation to provide ammunition.

      If I have a judgement here, it is that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. One could argue that the failure of surrounding nations to integrate the Palestinian refugees is a sobering parallel of the failure of (the subset of) Jews (who tried to) to assimilate themselves in Europe.

    3. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by Darth · · Score: 1

      this leaves out the League of Nations mandate that a jewish state (and a palistinian state) be created in the region. (they also created jordan and iraq this way).

      The region was under the control of the british after WWI and was still under british control when a jewish state was finally created (as the result of a U.N. resolution).

      There was also supposed to be a Palestinian state (also by U.N. resolution) but the day the resolution to create Israel was passed, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan (i forget who else was involved) attacked israel. The disputed lands were captured during this (and about 5 other) wars between israel and their neighbors.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    4. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by Vagary · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "without provocation"? Israel is a political entity in direct defiance of the rights of the people who previously occupied that piece of land. The neighbouring states may have ulterior motives for not depreciating the Palestinians to the extent that the Western Powers did, but cast in a purely utilitarian light, their actions were consistant with other military campaigns that attempt to prevent ethnic cleansing.

      If the Coalition of the Willing tried to set up Kurdistan in your neighbourhood and the Kurds were going to kick you out, I'd help you send them back to Iraq, buddy.

    5. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the rest of the comments throughout this entire topic, I can only conclude that the average /. reader slept through their history classes.

      I would say that "sleeping through a history class" is far different than the intense study of one specific area of history. And to say that someone is ignorant or stupid in some way for not knowing as much information as you do is a rather pretentious action that in this case (whilst talking about a movie) only serves to allow you to give an overly elaborate history lesson.

    6. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by haggar · · Score: 1

      In doing so, they resorted to terrorism, and displaced much of the non-Jewish palestinian population.

      Only a small minority resorted to terrorism. Jews were organized in disciplined military ranks, mosttly in the Hagana.

      However, what hurts me more is your statement, which has been extensively documented as false, about Jews pushing Arabs out of their houses and lands. The truth is that it was the arab leaders that exorted people to leave their homes, under the counsel of egyptian, jordanian, syrian and iraqi military liaisons, as a temporary measure, while their mighty combined army pulverizes the jews. However, this tactic didn't pay out, because the Jews survived the onslaught.

      --
      Sigged!
    7. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by ozborn · · Score: 1

      reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine..
      While you provide more history, it is not inaccurate to call an idealogy whose major tenet is creating an ethnically pure "homeland" as racist. Even if the ethnic group in question wanted to establish their "homeland" in Antartica (where no one would have to be displaced) the whole idea still seems racist to me.


      For better interpretations of occupation lexicon read Amira Hass. She writes for Ha'aretz, but I don't *think* this piece appears in the more censored English version.

      "My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the
      idea of a Jewish State with borders, an army, and a measure
      of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the
      inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the
      development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks,
      against which we have already had to fight strongly, even
      without a Jewish State."
      Albert Einstein

    8. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by bourne · · Score: 1

      Only a small minority resorted to terrorism.

      I agree, but it cannot be ignored. I mentioned it mostly to stem the flood of nuts who would come out of the woodwork if my grossly broad summary ignored that aspect.

      Personally, I think the most remarkable thing about the founding of modern Israel is the way that they were able to make the transition from terrorism (specifically, forcing out the British) to a reasonably normal modern state.

      However, what hurts me more is your statement, which has been extensively documented as false, about Jews pushing Arabs out of their houses and lands. The truth is that it was the arab leaders that exorted people to leave their homes, under the counsel of egyptian, jordanian, syrian and iraqi military liaisons, as a temporary measure, while their mighty combined army pulverizes the jews.

      I concur that some amount of the Palestinian exodus was related to the promises and exhortations of the surrounding Arab states. However, it is delusional to believe that there was no force or pressure applied. If the federal government exhorted Californians to leave their homes temporarily so that they could sweep in and evict the illegal immigrants, can you imagine that any appreciable number would leave?

    9. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by haggar · · Score: 1

      I concur that some amount of the Palestinian exodus was related to the promises and exhortations of the surrounding Arab states. However, it is delusional to believe that there was no force or pressure applied. If the federal government exhorted Californians to leave their homes temporarily so that they could sweep in and evict the illegal immigrants, can you imagine that any appreciable number would leave?

      Incidently, I can. And the reason is, this is exactly the tactic used by serbian military and paramilitary forces in the balkan war (both in croatia and in bosnia): they would say to the serbs to get out so they can bomb the shit out of a certain village. So, all of a sudden, you wonder where'd the serbs go - and that would be a sure sign that the artillery barrage was coming.
      Unfortunately, this tactic was mostly succesful, in bosnia. (I was born in croatia, but studied in serbia at the time - that was a very strange situation, being on "the other side" of the frontline.)

      --
      Sigged!
    10. Re:It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost by Moonshine · · Score: 0

      over 100 years of history Try 2000+ years of history. Does anyone not know that the Israel state is about building the temple in a proper place?

  260. HAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to love backwards countries like this. :)

  261. Mootrix by Xandar01 · · Score: 1

    You might as well point to an example of the Mootrix.

    --
    Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
  262. Hmmm by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I should have seen these movies???

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
  263. The Fools! by weston · · Score: 2, Funny

    Architect: "Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly which, despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision.

    Clearly, to simplify the Matrix they're using Gausian Elimination techniques, but each entry in the Matrix is only represented with limited floating-point precision! Of course they're going to end up with error terms -- not to mention wild inaccuracies or maybe even a singularity....

    1. Re:The Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Matrix was writen for a Pentium III?

  264. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 2

    Can you imagine Neo being somebody else than Reeves? Really, the Keanu-bashing is grating my nerves.

  265. When censorship and reason unit... by fzammett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It never ceases to amaze me how perfectly reasonable you can make censorship sound if you really try. What I mean is, the way the censorship board's decision is worded on the surface sounds completely reasonable, well thought-out and actually in the best interest of the Egyptian public.

    Then you think for half a second longer and of course realize that censorship in any form is one of the horrible things people can do to other people.

    But, when you see a statement done this well, you can see why people allow their freedoms to be taken away little by little for the greater good and then wake up one day and wonder why they can't even drive to the next town over without going through two weeks of paperwork, or read a book without being condemned as a Satan-worshipper and burned at the stake.

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
  266. Just a thought on Smith. by lost_n_mad · · Score: 1

    When Neo firsts confronts Smith, he states his purpose and ,more importantly, where he came from. He states that when Neo destroyed him and then he discovered he wasn't destroyed that Neo had left part of himself in Smith. Smith is Neo's death wish, and his desire to destroy the Matrix.
    Or not. guess I'll find out in the third.

    --
    TANSTAAFL
  267. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by scubacuda · · Score: 0, Troll
    Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?

    LAME POST ENCOUNTERED...removing "Dark Lord Seth" from friends list ;)

  268. This Just In by Vagary · · Score: 1

    A bomb exploded inside Richard M. Flynn Power Plant in New York this evening, leaving much of New York City in darkness and an unknown number of casualties. According to officials, a small, but well-placed conventional explosive was detonated around midnight. Normally the electrical grid would route backup power from other plants in the region, however due to malfunction or possibly tampering, the backup system failed to come online.

    Early reports by the FBI suggest that two teams of terrorists infiltrated the facility just before midnight, killing a number of guards and causing some damage to plant administrative buildings. Federal agents posted at the facility as part of Orange Alert extra security managed to subdue two of the terrorists, but not in time to stop the plot.

  269. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    By the way, it is highly doubtfull that, with modern technlogy, we could build a piramide such as the great piramide in Gizeh


    So how did the ancient egyptians build them?

  270. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [sarcasme]
    Wow, brilliant defense....[/sarcasme]


    Defense of what? BTW, learn to spell.


    You're eight years old?


    Oh, and I guess the "slave to my mortgage" comment is mature to you? What kind of a response did you expect to get to something like that?

  271. 100% understanding with 30% information?!? by nacturation · · Score: 1
    Meanwhile, the architect's dialogue was written by some humans.
    ... and we're probably only given a third of the information that the dialogue is based upon. How can you understand 100% when you're missing more than half of it?
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  272. Matrix Reloaded is the quest for the holly grail by peu · · Score: 2, Flamebait


    the old symbol of masculinity was an inverted V which is ^ (today it retains the ^ part)
    the symbol of feminity was the opposite=V
    the holy grail is a symbol
    the cup is how whe know the grail resembles the symbol of feminity V, the uterus (also called the matrix), the V formed in the pelvic area

    so: feminine =V masculine=^

    at this point we can say that the quest for the holy grail is the quest for the holy woman or the sacred feminine
    who destroyed the sacred feminine? = the church

    why?

    in the begginings of church times, it was believed that the way to god is in the union of man and woman
    the culminant moment of that union is orgasm (still used today: did you saw god face? when talking about sex)
    church have its roots on the bible
    the bible was written by men, who wanted to put a man as the leader, a man as the god
    so, if now to see god is enough with a man, you must throw the woman out of the loop.

    then, again at this point, whe can agree that the quest for the holy grail is the quest for the sacred feminine, the quest of the V, the quest for the MATRIX

    who is against of the revelation (revelation is quasi the name of the next movie: revolution) of the truth of the grial? = the church

    why?

    because it means erasing 2000 years of bad propaganda for the woman, begining with blaming her of the original sin, for being inferior because she was created from a rib of man, and for saying that Jesus woman was a prostitute

    whaaat?

    Jesus wasn't divine, he had the bloodline of the families of King David and King Solomon, which means, he was meant to be the king of jewish.
    Being in his 30ies jesus, a Jew, was supposed to be married, or at least with a woman, at that time was the same.
    in fact he was married... with maria magdalena
    look in the painting by Leoanardo DaVinci the last supper, who is on jesus right does she look like a man? not at all, she is in fact MM, jesus wife, seated at his right. And speaking of symbology, look the figure formed by Jesus and MM, a big V right in the center of the picture.
    Maria Magdalena was no prostitute at all, she was in fact a descendant of Benjamin, another jew tribe King.
    this union have desdendants.

    say whaaaat?

    exactly, now it seems logical to thing that the quest for the holy grail is not the quest for the holy woman, but the quest of whats inside the holy woman, inside the V, inside the uterus, INSIDE THE MATRIX
    To reinforce this, Holy Grail root is Santo grial, whis is rooted in Sangreal, which also is rooted in sangreal, and if you split sagreal you have sang real, sangre real, and you guessed: holy blood

    does it make any sense the MATRIX-GRAIL relation yet? not really, I go on

    Its supposed that MM was pregnant at the time of jesus crucifiction, she was rescued by jesus uncle and moved to Gaul (Rome province, actually France) which was cared as a king daughter by the local jew community

    This holy blood line developed in secrecy in france, and is believed that the founders of paris were in this line too

    guess their names: Merovingian

    ring any bell already?

    What does the merovingian hides in the play? they hide the keymaker, an obvious allegory of the keystone which reveals the secret of the holy grail.

    This secret is protected by the line of the holy blood, the templars and a secret priory: the priory of sion (look the web for it) which is believed that Leonardo Davinci was part, along with the merovingians, isaac newton and many others.

    priory of sion, ring any bell already?

    so, its time for my conclusion:

    all of the neo's questions about what is the matrix, are in fact questions on who are his parents, his origins.

    or better yet

    neo is still insi

  273. YES! FINALLY! by q043x · · Score: 1

    FIRST POST.

  274. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Nick+Harkin · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Oracle never quite tells Neo he is not the one. O - "But" N - "I'm not the one" O - "Sorry kid" She never said the very words that he wasn't the one, Neo was the one who said that. Although it was heavily implied.

  275. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, forgot my br tags. :( -N

  276. Re:Fuck you Egypt by tshak · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, religion (namely islam) created the economic and repressive region that the middle east is struggling to get out of (admittedly, Egypt is far ahead with a semi-secular government). If it wasn't for the religious intolerance of that region, maybe the middle east would still be ahead in the areas of science and medicine. Heck, if it wasn't for the oil in the land I'm not sure what the middle east would have at this point. And for the record, my Dad was born in Cairo, and I am very proud of my Egyption heritage (I'm about 1/4th Egyption). But I'm emberassed as to what happened to our region within the last century or so. So yes, our pyramids are great, we had an airspace program way before anyone in the west even dreamed about it, but why do we still take financial aid from America?

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  277. It is all pretty scary. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    When goverments fear that there people will seek religion in a work of fiction.
    For those that think the Matrix is deep. I would suggest you grab the scripture of the faith of your family. Read and learn all that you can frome them. Then read the scriptures of the other great faiths with an open mind and heart. You will then have made a start.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  278. "Zion" by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The issue has nothing to do with "new ideas" but use of the term "Zion" which is synonymous with "Israel".

    I mean imagine if a serious movie was released in the US where the heroes have to save the world by killing Jesus or something. And Christian fundamentalists had a history of blowing shit up.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:"Zion" by Medievalist · · Score: 1
      I mean imagine if a serious movie was released in the US where the heroes have to save the world by killing Jesus or something. And Christian fundamentalists had a history of blowing shit up.
      Rather than just a history of murdering abortionists, lynching jews, or for that matter fighting for the right to keep slaves?

      Of course, the reason Christians have been responsible for more butchery than any other religion is simply that Christianity has been more successful than any other religion. Islam is number two (with a bullet!).
    2. Re:"Zion" by martyros · · Score: 1
      Of course, the reason Christians have been responsible for more butchery than any other religion is simply that Christianity has been more successful than any other religion. Islam is number two (with a bullet!).

      And atheistic ideologies are responsible for more butchery than probably all world religions combined. How many people did Hitler and Stalin kill, of their own people? Pol-Pot in Cambodia? At least during the Inquisition, the church had enough fear of God to look into each case individually. Mass execution of men by formula is an abomination reserved exclusively for the 20th century. (Quote stolen from a historian whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.)

      What, don't like your brand of atheism being compared with Stalin's? Maybe I don't like my Christianity compared with the so-called "religion" of those fighting to keep slaves and murdering abortion doctors.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    3. Re:"Zion" by Medievalist · · Score: 1
      And atheistic ideologies are responsible for more butchery than probably all world religions combined. How many people did Hitler and Stalin kill, of their own people? Pol-Pot in Cambodia?
      Hitler and Pol Pot combined killed fewer people than the Catholic church. However, you are completely misinterpreting my post; I maintain that human societies frequently produce butchers of men, and because christianity has been very successful in penetrating societies on a global basis a correspondingly high level of butchery can be attributed to Christians. Pointing out that non-christians can also be evil will not excuse the sins of the faithful.
      At least during the Inquisition, the church had enough fear of God to look into each case individually.
      Incorrect. In 1314 the Inquisition burned DeMolay and about a hundred Knights Templar (on trumped up charges, most likely for financial reasons) and the process was practically an assembly line of condemnation, that certainly did not include looking "into each case individually". That one I know off the top of my head, but I am sure there were many, many more instances if you care to research the subject.
      Mass execution of men by formula is an abomination reserved exclusively for the 20th century. (Quote stolen from a historian whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.)
      It certainly wasn't any reputable historian since that is an entirely false statement. I suggest you read Bartolome de las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, written in 1542. At least read the preface all the way through, it's only a single page long. You can find on-line copy at the link given, or go to any good library. De Casas was a Jesuit priest who described first-hand the atrocities committed by Christians in the New World. Everyone should read this book, but especially christians and "white" americans.
      What, don't like your brand of atheism being compared with Stalin's?
      Since I'm not an atheist, this doesn't really apply to me, I'm afraid!
      Maybe I don't like my Christianity compared with the so-called "religion" of those fighting to keep slaves and murdering abortion doctors.
      You're still misreading what I said. I am not "comparing" your religion to theirs, I am pointing out that murderers and slavers share your religion. There is no comparison here; it is a tenet of mainstream christianity that anyone who truly believes in JC and claims him as their saviour, honestly attempting to repent of their sins as they know them, is a christian! You don't get to pick who is and isn't a "real" christian, that's the sort of hypocrisy and pride that Jesus repeatedly condemned -- see John 8:7 and Acts 10:43, for example.

      If you want a comparison, try these: There are christian terrorists, and muslim terrorists, and even atheist terrorists - just like there are good people who follow all these philosophies. Therefore: since there are more christians than rastafarians, any individual criminal is far more likely to be christian than rasta. But: this does not mean any individual rasta you meet is less likely to be a criminal than a random individual christian.
    4. Re:"Zion" by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      And atheistic ideologies are responsible for more butchery than probably all world religions combined. How many people did Hitler and Stalin kill, of their own people? Pol-Pot in Cambodia? At least during the Inquisition, the church had enough fear of God to look into each case individually.

      Hitler wasn't an atheist, dumbass. At least he never claimed to be, and mentioned god in his speeches. As for the others, well, they didn't murder people for specifically atheistic. Atheism is not an important part of Communism.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    5. Re:"Zion" by martyros · · Score: 1
      Hitler wasn't an atheist, dumbass. At least he never claimed to be, and mentioned god in his speeches.

      I haven't studied Hitler, so most of what's here is just inference from bits that I've heard. But one of his big things was the superiority of the "Ayrian" race, and the emergence of a Superman, influenced by Neitze. He was going to start by eliminating Jews as a species of sub-human contaminating the gene pool, but continue to blacks and other non-Aryans. He had programs to stop "retarded" people from reproducing -- I forget whether it was just sterilization or involved killing them.

      In other words, he was going to take better control of our own evolution, looking for the next big mutation that would set us forward. I have no doubt that he used 'god' in his speeches; for one, it would be foolish not to use people's predjudices for your own advantage; and perhaps he even believed at some level what he said about God. But his ideas and how he acted definitely stemmed from atheistic sources.

      As for the others, well, they didn't murder people for specifically atheistic. Atheism is not an important part of Communism.

      Nonetheless, it was atheists who did the killing, largely as a result of their ideologies, which were atheistic (else they probably would have been called 'religions').

      I'm not trying to say that "atheist => murderer", I'm trying to dispel the myth that religion is directly the cause of zealous slaughter, and if we just got rid of religion, we'd live in peace and harmony; or at least we wouldn't have any more 'holy wars'. People say, "When I think of all the blood that has been shed in the name of organized religion..." I respond, "Well, no more than the blood that has been shed by organized atheism." As one person responded, "Hmm... yeah, I guess it's the organization that's the problem." Or rather, (as Christianity teaches), mankind is the problem: "There is none that is righteous, no not one."

      I don't know quite what you mean by "Atheism is not an important part of communism." Marx called religion the "opiate of the masses", a way that the upper classes used to control the lower classes and keep them in subjection. And in all the communist states I'm aware of, religion is kept under the thumb of the government: they worked really hard to lobotomize it and make it sterile. Is this just a coincidence? Why do you suppose they worked so hard to root it out?

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    6. Re:"Zion" by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      (sorry no links - just trying to share info, not win an argument or anything)

      But his ideas and how he acted definitely stemmed from atheistic sources.

      The Nazi party's belief in an Aryan superrace is fundamentally rooted in ancient German religion/mythology (though it certainly was twisted and changed radically - just as Christianity or Islam has been through history). Nazi Germany as well was overwhelmingly Christian. Their whole belief system was rooted in and derived from various religions, predominantly Christian and Germainic in origin. The inner circles of the Nazi party placed a very high importance on (usually secretive) religious ceremonies. Even just the massive nationalism that allowed for this movement is rooted in increasing religious fervor (because of translations of the bible, if my memory serves).

      And I am not really sure what "athiestic sources" would be. There really hasn't been many groups of athiests that have affected history. Maybe the Enlightenment, though much of that was just draped in other religions like spiritualism. Maybe the Communists, but Nazi Germany certainly was not using them as an influence. Depending on how you define athiesm, you could argue that some groups are athiestic (like most Buddhists), but you are really using the term to signify nonreligious, right? Religious != not athiestic, because so many religions are athiestic!

      Though I suppose you could argue it, the Nazi ideology was, for all intents and purposes, a religion. It was rooted in older religions, it used religious iconography (such as the swatzika), it had a holy book (Mein Kampf, in which Hitler incidentally talks a lot about God for an 'athiest'), it portrayed its struggles in religious terms, etc. You could probably say the same thing about Communist Russia, though there perhaps the ruling party was much less influenced by older religions (not sure - haven't studied it much unfortunately).

      Massive genocides, as far as I can tell, are solely committed by religious zealots, or at least are nearly always draped in religion. Stalin might be an exception. But Marx was right - religion is used to control the people. States that want to control their people create a religion, even if they don't call it that. If it looks like a religion, it acts like a religion, it sounds like a religion, it can probably be called a religion.

      Perhaps you should change your argument to something like "Christian zealotry is not a requirement for genocide," which is certainlu a true statement. History is filled with religious groups committing forms of genocide, and obstensibly nonreligious groups are a relatively recent historical event. That fact alone really kills your argument.

      And Nietzsche, for the record, was not actually much of an influence on the Nazi party. His sister was, though, as well as her forgeries and edited compilations that she assembled and put out under his name. The last thing Nietzsche ever wrote (well before Nazi Germany was around) was: "I am having all of the anti-semites shot." Though they adopted some of his ideas (ubermensch, etc.), the vast majority of his philosophy (which is admittedly not a coherent method to live like many philosophies strive to be) was ignored. He hated all forms of groupthink, for one, fought against the nascent forms of thought that would lead to Nazism, and celebrated individuals above all else - hardly values of the Nazi party. :P

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  279. Re:method of salvation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes the method of salvation is different in each faith but salvation itself is the common high point.

    You seem intent on suggesting that the three faiths are very contrary to each other. What are these major distinctions that you allude to?

  280. Alternate futures (and pasts) by Open_The_Box · · Score: 1

    Ah, but these are still possibilities.

    Of course the Neos on the screens that say different numbers may just be from the possibility that he heard wrong. Just imagine one of the screens showing a really improbable situation in which he replies "What pink elephant?"

    Whenever Neo responds to something we see the screen that shows that particular response. It's the old 'if you have enough computing power you can predict events in the future" thing. (Already known to be possible in this particular situation by the presence of the Oracle)

    --
    If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
    1. Re:Alternate futures (and pasts) by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1
      Of course the Neos on the screens that say different numbers may just be from the possibility that he heard wrong.


      how can he mishear something if it is transmitted directly into his brain? and just mishear it so that the numbers are getting smaller? out of the infinite set of natural numbers, he only hears numbers smaller than 7?

      highly improbable. that's almost like the odds of dodging a bullet. ;)
      --
      Free as in mason.
  281. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by lamz · · Score: 1

    For me, Keanu Reeves has a life-time get-out-of-jail-free card for The River's Edge.

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  282. Re:Please learn something of Islam before commenti by Larsing · · Score: 1

    In an otherwise emminently sensible post (which I would mod' up, had I any points to mod' with), I would like to pick on just one thing:

    the Church of England (with no known terrorist wing). And the Ulster Defence Force is what..?

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  283. tr/zion/mecca/ by lamz · · Score: 1

    Maybe if the just dubbed in the word "Mecca" whenever a character says "Zion," the Egyptian censors could un-clench their anuses.

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  284. The Irony by codethug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish I had posted sooner, my observations seem a little under-represented.

    I find great irony in Egypt being the one to ban The Matrix Reloaded. Many of you are aware of Gnostic themes in the Matrix, what some may not know is that it appears that stories of the Egyptian godman Dionysus factored heavily into Gnosticism.

    After Alexander the Great's successes, he decided to create the greatest city in the world as Alexandria in Egypt. After his death, Ptolemy was determined to also make Alexandria the intellectual capital of the world. The Library of Alexandria contained, by some accounts, the sum of the world's knowledge at that point. It held important works by the greek mathematicians; notably the Pythagorean Brotherhood, Diophantus' Arithmetica and Euclid's Elements. It also held many early philosophic and gnostic works.

    Of course, first Julius Caeser, then Christians and finally Muslims took turns at destroying the Library, and with it probably nearly a thousand years worth of Math. All in time, coincidentally, for the Dark Ages.

    Yeah pretty boring stuff. I'd rather see Carrie Anne Moss in Latex, huh. Regardless of why you like the Matrix, or what you believe, when seen through a historical context, there is irony to this story.

    1. Re:The Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      full of ourselves today are we? (royal we)

  285. NGE: a bit of history. by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Informative
    Neon Genesis Evangelion was an animated TV series broadcast on TV Tokyo between October 1995 and March 1996. It was made by Gainax, the legendary "by fans, for fans" Japanese animation studio which also produced such efforts as "The Wings Of Honneamise" and "Nadia".

    If you are not afraid of spoilers, here is a very good summation of the whole original series.

    There was a great deal of fan consternation about the "anticlimax" nature of the series, so when Gainax got enough of a budget together, they did not one, but (again, beware spoilers) two movies to further explore the concepts originally put across in the series. (I don't know why I wound up with three Australian sites for this info...I'm not Australian.)

    In any event, "Death and Rebirth" and "End of Evangelion" were a wrapup of the narrative in the series. However, no matter how neatly Evangelion creator Anno Hideaki had wrapped things up, the true meaning of the Evangelion universe continues to be a huge topic of debate. Sort of like how the true meaning of The Matrix movies are becoming a huge topic of debate...there, I brought this back on-topic.

    Anyway, it has been announced that a live-action Evangelion movie (the series and the two movies were all animated) has gone into pre-production. Gainax, ADV Films and Peter Jackson's Weta Digital effects studio are all part of this effort. For a movie which will, by necessity, have to have quite an epic sweep, the resources of these three partners which have been revealed so far seem far too limited to execute the plans. Perhaps one of the Seven Families of the Movie Industry is a part of this plan. Perhaps more than one. But the big financing has yet to be revealed. So take this all with a grain of salt.

    It was this possible live-action movie to which I was referring to. If they are true to the original series and the two animated movies, they will piss off a lot of religious people in all "three great monotheisms." Just like Matrix Reloaded seems to have done in Egypt.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  286. You proved my case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, no. They share some similar historical background, but they vastly differ in their theology.

    Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. Since all three study God and God's relation to the world, it can be said they all have the same theology.

    Christianity does NOT state that we are all The Creator's children. In fact it states the opposite. Because of sin we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10). But through Jesus Christ we can become adopted (Ephesians 1:5).

    This is exactly the type of nitpicking of specific entries I made referance to.

  287. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    The most advanced civilization that ruled the earth you stupid ignorant son of a bitch,

    Ahem, sorry but all evidence proves that the myans and aztec peoples were far more advanced than the Egypt or Roman empires.

    I suggest you actually learn about the planet's past cultures. No not that worthless drivel they teach you in school... get the real research documents, the stuff the grad students review and read.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  288. "Dodge this." by Pius+II. · · Score: 1

    While I normally hate the German dubbed versions of movies, at this one point I like our version better:
    Agent: "Only a human"
    Trinity: "Only an agent" *bang*
    Interestingly, the German subtitles translate it just right, with something like "Weich mal aus". How lame...

  289. This from the country/ideology that brought you... by tenchiken · · Score: 1

    Movie adaptation(A Knight without a Horse) of the Procotols of the Elders of Zion.

    Speaking as a political/history geek rather then as a Computer Geek, Expecting any sort of rational thought out of the governments and media in the middle east is a bit like the Quark Searches... You know it should exist, but it's damn hard to find.

  290. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you nigger. Egypt invented you.

  291. ironic by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    The church considers the story in Genesis a methaphor designed to be understandable by people living several thousand years ago, not the way it actually happened.

    Yet if somebody says that about the rest of the Bible, "they're goin' 'ta hell." :)

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  292. Re:Matrix Reloaded is the quest for the holly grai by mcowger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dude, we're all proud of you for having just finished reading 'The Da Vinci Code' (a fabulous book), but don't post all this as though it came out of your head. This is practically verbatim from the expository sections of the book.

  293. Don't forget by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Egypt whent to war with "Zion" as little as fourty years ago. To the average middle-easterner "Zion" == "Isreal".

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  294. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Chakde+Phate! · · Score: 1

    ...in the first film, the Oracle tell Neo that he isn't the one - Neo just doesn't tell anyone else this. I'm not exactly sure how Neo's powers would be explained, but I have a feeling the "melding" with Smith may very well be to blame.

    Firstly, the Oracle never actually says that Neo isn't the One. From memory:

    Oracle: But you already know what I'm going to tell you.
    Neo: I'm not the One.
    Oracle: Sorry, kid. You look like you're waiting for something. Your next life, maybe?

    She never specifically says that he isn't the One. Most people interpret the 'next life' comment as referring to when he dies, then comes back to life again, and takes on the powers of the One.

    And this leads on to my second point: the 'melding' with Smith doesn't happen until after Neo becomes the One.

    But your point is still a good one. Perhaps some of Neo's powers got transferred to Smith when he 'destroyed' him in the first film?

  295. Controlled Gravity?! by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    And why on earth would you have a doctor for the right eye and a doctor for the left eye? They are exactly the same.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Controlled Gravity?! by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      The ancient Egyptians viewed the human body from a very spiritiual perspective, they considered the left and right sides to carry different energies, if both sides of the energies are balanced well you will be basically healthy otherwise diseases will riddle you if any of the energy types became out of balance.

  296. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest issue people have with the Architect scene is that he uses a lot of vocabulary words. If you don't have a strong vocabulary it will be easy to get lost on his scene. On the other hand, if you know what he's saying, then the meaning is quite clear.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  297. Not going to have intended effect by drix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For a government that professes to be so concerned with religion, you'd think they'd have a better grasp of the forbidden fruit phenomenon. Can anyone remember the last time something got banned where the immediate effect wasn't to greatly increase popular interest and desire for said product? RIAA sues Napster, the next day there appears a frontpage story in every newspaper in America about this great new service that lets people download music gratis. End result: 50 million new users for Napster. CD-R tax in Canada and everyone buys a thousand, just in case. Considering I could FTP a really good, 3 SVCD Centropy Telesync over to some friend in Egypt this instant, one wonders precisely how many seconds it will take before this silly "ban" is circumvented and kids are burning copies for the whole neighborhood.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  298. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

    I felt my money was well spent, even without all of the 'phillosophy'. It was entertaining

    --
    01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
  299. There are no more levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I contend that there are no more levels to the Matrix. The real world at the end of Reloaded is the actual real world that you and I know.

    To say that the real world that we see at the end of Reloaded is actually just a sub-matrix or a co-matrix would call into question just how many levels of Matrix are there? In keeping with classic story telling, there is conflict and resolution. There is also the lady and the tiger ending where no resolution is given. I do not think that the Matrix franchise will end in this manner.

    It would be like watching a movie where the video input device was filming the video output device. Yeah, it's neat to do as a kid, but it grows tiresome quickly and there is no point. The only thing you learn is that recursion exists. So what? The Wachowskis did not go through all this effort just to tell us that "GNNeo's Not Neo."

    Why not? That would mean that Neo is not really Neo but Mr. Anderson in an infinite recursion of Not-Neo-ness. Since Mr. Anderson doesn't recurse, we are left with a paradox. Then we could only try to realize the truth.

    There is no movie.

    Since we may all agree, though a few who haven't taken the red pill might argue, that the movie did exist we must therefore conclude that there are only two levels of existence in the Matrix movie cosmos, The Matrix and the Real World.

  300. The problem is deeper than Egyptian Gov't by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Mubarak government is nominally secular, but the problem in Egypt goes much deeper than the government. The Mubarak government fights the Islamic Brotherhood to hold on to power, but it does nothing to address the reason that the Brotherhood exists in the first place. The government censorship is just a symptom of a sick society. The problem is that arab society itself allows and supports censorship of minority views and does not teach tolerance in the schools and mosques. The entire Arab world (the people, not the governments) seems to be caught up in a delusion of Nasser type Pan-Arabism Nationalism and support for Islamist violence. If not a majority, large portions of the Arab people think that blowing up buses full of civilians or killing people eating in cafes is a blessed act of a "martyr" who will go to paradise. Until arabs start educating arabs to stop thinking like that, there will always be censorship and terrorism and backwardness. Until arab *people* start thinking differently, arabs will always have dictatorships with censorship instead of a true republic with a free press. Until arabs adopt tolerance as a core value, there will always be people like the Islamic Brotherhood willing to bomb a movie theatre that shows something they don't like.

  301. My quick guide to UK religion by alistair · · Score: 1

    Actually this is something of a joke. The Church of England is very much the State Religion in the UK and is in many ways the most gentel form of religion after perhaps Bhuddism. Generaly, I don't think all or even the majority of it's congregation believe God exists, but they do all believe that if he did exist he would drink tea (compulsary after all services) and generally behave with a general sense of British fair play. I speak as someone who attends my local CofE church as my sun is due to start at the very good attached CofE school.

    Wales has very different religion (hard to explain but very good at singing) whereas the North invented Methodism (kind of christian socialism with bans on drinking smoking and gambeling, dull in some ways but also indirectly related to both the co-op and building society movements in the UK, see also Quakers)

    Scotland has the seperate Church of Scotland and a number of fairly hard line Protesant religious orders (the "wee-wee-frees", from the free prespitarian(sp???) church)

    In Northern Ireland, the Protestant churches tend to be much more hard line in response to the centuries of battles with the Catholic population, who are in the majority across the whole physical island but a minority in the six counties of Northern Ireland. The UDF and many associated loyalist groups have grown out of these. It is doubtful you will find many CofE churches on the Shakhill Road or in Derry or Armagh.

  302. Who's the kiss up kid? by ghoting · · Score: 1

    So I'm a little off-topic here, but who's the young guy that comes running up and starts kissing Neo's ass saying he saved him? I can't find any reference to him in the first movie, unless I've missed something.

    --
    Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown.
    1. Re:Who's the kiss up kid? by codethug · · Score: 1

      His story is told in one of the Animatrix shorts. The DVD is worth checking out.

  303. They were breaking the law by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    They were detained because the were *illegal* immigrants. Several *millions* of law abiding muslims were *not* detained. So saying that the dentention of several hundred illegal aliens is ethnic persecution is simply wrong.

    1. Re:They were breaking the law by Mooncaller · · Score: 1

      Sorry, your facts are all screwy. Detention involved legal residents. Besides, it leaves out all the stores rob and vandalized because they were owned by middle-easteners, or all the Mosques defaced. And there is also the hate based assults including murder. Its not what the government does, but the people.

    2. Re:They were breaking the law by EricWright · · Score: 1

      The article I linked to said 1200 non-citizens (doesn't mean they're here illegally, though) were detained. Immigration charges were used as a pretext to detain 766 of them. Of those, only a few had terrorism-related charges levelled against them. What about the other 434?

    3. Re:They were breaking the law by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

      Again, what where 1200 individuals *doing* to cause themselves to be singled out of a population of *millions* of law abiding muslims. The fact that a very few suspicious characters were detained does not rise to the level of pervasive persecution. If muslims *really* felt they were being persecuted in the US, I doubt they would be beatting down the perverbial door to get in. Obviously most muslim aliens in the US feel less "persecuted" in the US than in their home countries or they wouldn't be here.

    4. Re:They were breaking the law by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

      A few isolated incidents (which must be condemned) do not rise to pervasive persecution. As far as detention goes, the majority were for immigration violations.

  304. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you wipe your ass with your bare left hand.

  305. Thank god... (*mod up, answer to thread start*) by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    somebody else besides my brother and I got it!

    (I'll admit, I had to watch it twice before it clicked fully... duuuuuuuhhh)

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:Thank god... (*mod up, answer to thread start*) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another little hint into this is when Agent Smith duplicates himself into one of the goodguys. Who then later cuts his hand in the "real world" to feel pain. Then soon after tries to hurt Neo? But is stopped before he could do anything.

      Did anyone else catch this one?

  306. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, sorry about not being as clear as I should have. I wasn't saying that Neo got his powers from the "melding" with Smith - it was that Smith received some of Neo's powers from it.

    I should probably also clarify in saying that I don't think of the One as "some dude with awesome super powers that can bend 'reality.'" In my mind, the One is the saviour of humanity - if Smith ended up being the crux of the Matrix's destruction, that would ultimately make him humanity's saviour, and therefore the One, whether that was his intention or not.

    Either way, this little idea of mine definitely has me more interested in seeing what happens in the third film than I already was. Even if I'm offbase with this idea, I still have a feeling that there's a LOT more to Smith than we already know. Despite being a central character in both films, he's remained fairly enigmatic outside of a few, relatively brief explanations. It should be interesting.

  307. Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the zionist thing... Damn crazy Jews.

  308. Re:well...- Who dey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty funny stuff.

  309. Don't put words into my mouth by panurge · · Score: 1

    For your information, I completely support Salman Rushdie. I have a copy of the Satanic Verses and I encourage people to read it. Rushdie is strongly critical of fundamentalist Islam and has every right to be. But he is an individual, not a government with wider responsibilities.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  310. The three "Peoples of the Book" by Medievalist · · Score: 1


    Mohammed labeled Jews, Christians, and Moslems the "Peoples of the Book" and all others as "Infidels".

    In many passages of the Koran, it's made quite clear that it's OK to fuck over Infidels, but NOT the People of the Book. You can only jihad on a People of the Book if they are actively working to stamp out Islam itself.

    Obviously, Islamists pervert this (not because they call Americans Infidels - we are a secular nation so we get no protection from the Koran) but since they call for jihad against Israel, which is not attacking Islam-the-religion but rather Palestinians-the-race.

    Islamist terrorists are about as close to mainstream Islam as George Bush is to Mahatma Ghandi. In just one example, Islam condemns the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon because there were innocent Christians on board the plane (the Pentagon is a legit military target, of course). And it condemns the attack on WTC because there were innocents in the towers as well as on the plane. But Islamist fundies think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war and religion!

    OTOH, if American fundamentalists get their way, we will declare war on Islam itself (listen to Franklin Graham sometime) and then every Muslim in the world will be religiously required to do everything they can to pound sand up our collective asses. Which might be our President's fondest wet dream, because A) we would win, eventually, and be the undisputed rulers of a blasted, radioactive but thoroughly non-Islamic planet and B) he would then be eligible for Christian fundie heaven, where "there is no marriage, or giving in marriage" (ref: Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 KJV).

  311. (b) is correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's listing the ways Neo can act, as well as how he has acted in previous incarnations.

  312. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know what day it is silly... The little clock on the bottom right of my screen tells me both the time and DAY!.

  313. "I had to" by mec · · Score: 1

    But Trinity ufcks the whole situation up ...

    My favorite line in the whole second movie is in the scene with Neo and Trinity right after Trinity takes a bullet, and Neo says something about how he wanted Trinity to stay out of the Matrix, and Trinity says:

    "I had to"

    That one single line is natural and powerful and full of hidden meaning. Throw that in the free-will-versus-determinism blender!

    More random Trinity thoughts:

    The Oracle told her that she would fall in love with the One. The Oracle messed with Trinity as well as with Morpheus and Neo.

    In the first movie, when Neo goes back to rescue Morpheus, Trinity announces that she's coming with him. Neo asks "Why?" And Trinity gives him several answers. Similarly Trinity tells Link why she's going into the Matrix to attack the power plant.

    Neo doesn't know why he does what he does, and Morpheus doesn't quite know either, but Trinity knows the reasons why she does what she does.

    Trinity does have one machine-like knee-jerk, when she responds comically to Persephone when Persephone wants to kiss Neo.

    I think that the W brothers want to provoke a lot of thought by presenting many different machine/human combinations, and that none of them are inherently the One True Way with the others being wrong. The first movie was mostly "humans versus machines". In the second movie:

    The Oracle, a warm intuitive woman, openly declares that she's actually a program.

    Neo displays less and less humanity and acts more and more like a bot. Compare how he acted in the first movie before he woke up (when he was crawling around on a ledge) to how he acts when he talks to the Architect.

    Trinity talks about her lack of free will. "I had to."

    The audience, and Morpheus himself, realize how deeply Morpheus has been programmed with a convincing lie.

    Agent Smith develops a sense of humor and self-awareness.

    We wonder about the Merovingian: human or program?

    And the "Persephone kisses Neo" scene has a Turing Test overtone. It reminds me of the bit in Vernor Vinge, "True Names", where the hero remarks that it's difficult to perform a convincing kiss in cyberspace.

  314. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by senducemhere · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the Oracle has a plan for PeopleSoft...

    --
    Sig? We don't need no stinking sig....
  315. Sadly, probably not a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More likely a hardcore warmonger looking to justify any excuse for more blood. That seems to be the binding thread these days.

    I wouldn't mind the warmongers so much if they were up for a fair fight... US .vs. Iraq, that's fucking pathetic. We should send our soldiers in with 10 rounds apiece and no artillery, that'd make it a REAL contest. If our overfed doughboys could win a war under those conditions we'd have something to BRAG about!

    They signed up to fight and die, not to cruise around in air-conditioned cars watching the war on satellite TV....

  316. A simpler explanation: by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    When Smith and Neo got touchy-feely in the first movie, supposedly some part of Neo got into Smith, which removed his obedience programming (although if you remember in the first movie, he was already a bit of a loose cannon, think Morpheus prisoner scene).

    It makes perfect sense that Neo, in return, gets some part of Smith (the machines), perhaps the ability to speak their "lanuage/protocol". It's manifesting itself in his ability to disrupt "real" machines.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  317. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews, enslaved by Egyptians, built the pyramids.

  318. Please look again... by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

    Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. Since all three study God and God's relation to the world, it can be said they all have the same theology.

    Using the same definition/logic, since a "car" is a device used for transportation, and I have a device for transportation and you (assuming here) have a device for transportation, does that mean we have the same car? Of course not. In the same way, each has a theology, but they don't have the same theology.

    This is exactly the type of nitpicking of specific entries I made referance to.

    Is that nitpicking, or is that directly what the Bible says? I have supported my statement directly from a foundational source for Christianity. If you can support your statement in a similar way, please do so. If not, please realize that your statement (i.e., we are all The Creator's children) can't stand on its own. Otherwise anybody could make any statement and say that this is what Christianity teaches.

  319. Oh, and okay, if you're so smart... by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    ...why exactly is Smith trying to kill Neo?

    (this is an important plot point that I found most people didn't catch; it will be important in the final act)

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:Oh, and okay, if you're so smart... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      I'm not entirely sure, but it obviously has to do with the fact that Smith is the other side of the coin, after merging with Neo briefly he learned how to break the rules just like Neo, and became the machines' One to match humanity's One.

      However while Neo was predicted by the machines and was "encouraged" to follow the path that would eventually lead him to the Architect, Smith was not predicted, or at least they're not acting like he was predicted, and he's acting as a free agent. Judging by the trailer at the end of Reloaded, it seems like his goal is to take over the Matrix and possibly the Machine world beyond.

      As to why exactly he wants to kill Neo, i see two obvious possibilities. The most blatant one is that Neo seems like the only one who can stand in his way; so far the machines haven't been able to stop him. A more metaphysical idea is that he didn't get the full set of powers Neo has, and believes that by absorbing Neo he will gain those powers. (There can be only one One!)

      Judging by the fight scene, Smith isn't as strong or as fast as Neo. That would imply either the Smith not getting the full powers idea, or that the power has a different effect based on who's using it. Would Neo be able to copy himself onto another person in the Matrix if he tried? Perhaps it is Neo's knowledge that the Matrix is not the real world for him that allows him to exceed reality, and Smith's knowledge that he is a program that allows him to copy himself, so neither will ever be able to duplicate the other's tricks. Or maybe they just haven't learned enough yet.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Oh, and okay, if you're so smart... by welthqa · · Score: 1

      The real question is "why don't the agents have aimbots or wall hacks?" how the hell do they miss all the time? what's up with that? if a 12 yr old on cs can shoot me thru a wall across the map, then an agent should be able to do the same.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
    3. Re:Oh, and okay, if you're so smart... by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1

      They do have aimbots. But Neo has a dodgebot. As indeed the Agents do. Remember Trinity got her kill in Matrix 1 by firing at point-blank range.

  320. Re:Don't bus a vein by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 1

    Actually a very eloquent response.... shows a very rationale viewpoint of ones surroundings... and one that i agree with wholeheartedly.... now if we could just convince the rest of the world our views are correct..

    --
    *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
  321. You know... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    >anti-zionist != anti-jewish

    I've heard this a lot along with the argument of "we don't hate good jews, just the bad ones." The justifications I've heard used sound a *lot* like those used by the KKK for the eradication/removal of blacks.

    Also, since when did Israeli soldiers have to be /zionist/? Israel has mandatory service in their military--if you live there, you are going to be in it at some point.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:You know... by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      since when did Israeli soldiers have to be /zionist/

      if you are not a zionist you wont be living in the occupied land so called israel.

  322. Who really said this? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.

    --John Ashcroft, Atty. General, U.S.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  323. An interesting experiance at the movie by kookZy · · Score: 1

    This was my experiance.... In the theater an adolesent girl was sitting beside me. She would gasp and cover her eyes anytime there was any level of sexual behavior in the movie. Then at the end of the scene she would make the sign of the cross over her chest. Yet... She seemed to have no problems with the ultra violent scenes depicted in the movie. I just don't get religion!!

  324. Well, give or take a few hundred miles... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    "who were living in what is now the country of Israel."

    Well, more likely parts of Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan... just to name a few, but hey, who's counting? This is /especially/ true for Turkey--there are a lot of references in there which can pretty explicitly be traced to that region.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  325. matrix and beyond by sbulut77 · · Score: 1

    Here is an observation that I made: When Noe talked to Oracle, she says to him at the end of the conversation: "It looks like you are waiting for something. Your next life, maybe." At the end of the movie he dies and then gets resurrected (his next life) then he becomes the One.

  326. Whats the friggin problem, Eygpt? by bmalia · · Score: 1

    So humans are fooled by machines that everything we think that is, isn't. But if you want to believe that Mohommand Jimmy Bob Kareem of Wheat created people, then thats cool because in the true beginning, there was no machines, no matrix, and your beliefs of creation could very well be valid. Machines are man-made. Machines arn't our Gods, they just kicked our butts in a war. Are you afraid your population is so weak minded that watching a science fiction/kung fu movie will start a new religion based upon nothing being real? Do you ban your schools from teaching phiolosophy for that reason to? I doubt it. So whats the friggin problem, Eygpt?

    --
    There's no place like ~/
  327. doing them a favour by Navarre · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but IMHO, the Matrix Reloaded really sucked, so while I'm against censorship, I think the Egyptian people are being done a favour.

    While they're at it, they should ban Ghost Ship, Charlie's Angels, and pretty much anything with Van Damme or Seagal in it. Make way for better movies that actually have a decent story.

  328. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by lee7guy · · Score: 1

    Easy!

    IMDB.com

    Pick any male actor between 20 - 40 years old.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  329. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Like America has a right to shove its religion^M^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mmovies on the rest of the world...

    I don't believe America shoves its movies on anyone. People are not rounded up on the streets and herded at gunpoint into the theaters.

    People make their own choices to see movies -- unless that choice is preemptively taken away.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  330. matrix and beyond II by sbulut77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another observation: The second movie is about causality principle. The people, who think that the second movie lacked the philosophical aspect of the first movie, should read/study causality principle and watch the entire movie based on that. You would see what they are trying to explain. They are constantly critisizing whether there is free will or choice (in other words: control) They lay it out pretty well. The people, who thinks that Heisenberg's uncertainity is the proof that the universe is not bound by the rules of determinism, are wrong. Because Heisenberg's principle only states the uncertainity in the measurement. ("Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism", Erwin Schrodinger)

  331. Re:method of salvation by j0hnfr0g · · Score: 1

    As you stated in your post, the method of salvation is different. And that is a major difference.

    Here are some other differences. I have limited time since I am at work, so I will compare Christianity and Islam, showing a few differences.

    Christianity states Jesus Christ died on a cross. Islam states Judas took his place. (This may look like a minor point at first, but according to Christianity, if Jesus did not die on the cross, we are still in our sins and NOBODY goes to heaven.)

    Christianity states that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam states that Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God.

    Christianity states that the Koran is not inspired. Islam states that it is. (A major point since the Koran is a/the cornerstone for Islam).

    And there is other stuff, such as Original Sin (Christianity: exists; Islam: no such thing) and Satan (Christianity: former angel; Islam: was not an angel).

  332. Please wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Take a break please...


    Our secret ISP sniffing application is going crazy (some form of slashdotting?) right now with all these discusions on the middle-east, religions and international problems!!! We are having a hard time recording all your IPs

    Signed: FBI global database public relations

  333. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    that is plain regular lies, prove it !
    if you look at the ancient paintings of the pyramid masons and their names you will discover that they were Egyptian, next thing Israel will be demanding the pyramids along the way?
    yeah sure...

  334. BFC: What inaccuracies? by evenprime · · Score: 1
    Adaere says: "Bowling for Columbine" wasn't a documentary, it was a mockumentary like "This is Spinal Tap".

    Lots of people have been criticizing Moore without having their own facts straight. A good example is this article, which is quoted in the one you mentioned above. It attempts to demonstrate inaccuracies in the movie "Bowling For Columbine" (BFC), saying "we've found Moore's facts a little slippery". In reality, it looks like the "facts" of the people criticizing Moore and BFC are just as "slippery" as anything in the movie:

    Claim 1: It was commonly reported that the Klebold and Harris went to their bowling class before their attack. Forbes author Daniel Lyons says "Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day."

    Truth: unknown, but more likely that they were there

    Details:
    CNN says: " Police said that, in fact, the two went bowling before they headed for school to launch the attack."

    Hmmmm.....Forbes vs. CNN make contradictory claims about what the police say. Neither neither lists a direct quote from a named source within the police department, so we can't be certain which one is correct...I suppose we'll have to see what other students in the bowling class say.

    Dustin Harrison says both were there. Jenni LaPlante says one was calm, so we know she believed one to be there. (Nothing is said about the other.) John Hause says they missed the class, but he bases this on the fact that he didn't notice them, but he may have missed them if they "were calm" instead of behaving normally; i.e. if they weren't disrupting class with nazi salutes like they often did, he may not have noticed them. We can't say what the police think with any certainty, because we don't have accurate quotes. However, it looks like some of their class thought they were there, and there's a logical reason why the one person quoted as saying they were not may have been wrong. The only way to know for certain is to check the class attendance sheet, but more people are saying they were there than not. I'd say BFC is on solid ground.





    Claim 2: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

    Truth: Moore was not standing in front of a weapon, but that plant does have a history of producing them

    Details:
    The martin plant in littleton was founded as a defense plant, and is where the titan family of missiles were built . The Titan II is "the largest Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) ever developed by the United States.". In 1998, the Littleton plant recieved $550,889,415 of airforce money for continued booster procurement and assembly; three ship sets of solid rocket motor upgrades, spares, and liquid rocket engine quartz skirts for the Ti

    --

    "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
    I think that goes for OS's too
  335. zion by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 0

    i thought zion was ethiopia.. thats what da rasta man always tell meh...

    i just looked it up: zion

    1. The historic land of Israel as a symbol of the Jewish people.
    2. The Jewish people; Israel.
    3. A place or religious community regarded as sacredly devoted to God.
    4 .An idealized, harmonious community; utopia.

    personally i saw this movie asmore fitting with the 3rd point, the god being the survival of the human race embodied by neo

    --
    -
  336. Re:well... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

    wow. humorless fucks indeed.

    --
    MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
  337. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    That's too funny. You know, Fox is even worse...

  338. If they ban Matrix 2 ... by goodhell · · Score: 1

    ...then they won't really understand this!!!!

  339. What the screens are by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The screens have the images of the previous Ones, repeated. When zooming into the center, you can clearly hear them saying things like "There were four before me" and "There were none before me." They all talk at the same time, so listen carefully, but it's there.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:What the screens are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've only seen the movie once so I'll have to take your word on that. Even so, that can't be the whole explanation because there are dozens of screens and this would make only the 6th time that the One has appeared.

    2. Re:What the screens are by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      I just told you. The images are repeated.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
  340. Not at all by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    The previous Ones didn't assume the Architect was lying. They simply didn't want the burden of exterminating all of humanity.

    Neo, on the other hand, chooses the other door not because he gives credence to anything the Architect says--he chooses that door to save Trinity. Nothing more.

    The point is that love made him choose that door just to save Trinity in the face of exterminating the entire human race. The previous Ones didn't have a Trinity, as the Architect states.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  341. Racist fuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist fuck!

  342. What's the message? by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Are they saying that their own citizens are too irrational and hot-headed to tolerate a fictional exploration of themes already addressed by the "three divine religions"?

    Talk about advancing a stereotype!

  343. Re:Fuck you Egypt by jafac · · Score: 1

    " that you cant even replicate today"

    apparently, you've never been to las vegas. . .

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  344. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by nempo · · Score: 1

    This is probably really far fetched and hence I am only going to theorize about it, not state it as fact, which is really the only thing I can do...theorize about it that is ;).

    In a few of the animatrix clips (which was created to fill in some gaps in the main storyline and/or events that led up the the movies) we see how the machines are abused and misstreated even after they show signs of 'true' (I say true because we don't really know what sentience (possible missuse of word) is) sentience. Now just maybe, the machine realizes that their current situation won't change unless some really really drastic measures are used. So they come up with this scheame (the matrix and 'meta-matrix') that will teach all the humens (and possibly also all the machines or atleast those who wish to wipe out humenkind) that humans and the machines are equally sentiant and everyone should be treated the same way. The plan would be to first dominate and opress (again, possible missuse of word) until humens fight back and takes charge (movie one and two, matrix). Now to stop the humens from starting to abuse the machines yet again they have made it so that they must work togheter to overcome some problem (or possibly some foe) both sides share (movie three, 'meta-matrix' ?). When all these things have happaned they can all go out and build a world that will belong to both humens and machines, happy ending ;0.

    Offcouse this could all just be BS and at the end of the movie we realize that everything has happened as the machines foresaw and the thierd movie ends where the first one starts.

    --
    --- No, english is not my mother tongue.
  345. Racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist!

  346. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    apparently you never laid foot on Egypt soil yourself, we are talking about a structure that sustained thousands of years of harsh nature.
    not some cheap look-alike.

  347. A better reason to ban Matrix Reloaded. by uxo · · Score: 0

    Egypt today announced it is banning Matrix Reloaded because of the pointless extended dance sequence and interminable fight between Neo and Smith. Egyptian officials went on to say that there is a better storyline in the animated short film Last Flight of the Osirus.

  348. I saw the blatant promotion of by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Zionism. I mean it is extremely in your face and blatant.
    I was extremely offended by it.
    They could not have possibly put it more in your face than they did in this movie. And they have programmed millions of little numbskull idiots to be PRO ZIONIST now..

    Extremely offensive this movie was...
    I don't blame Egypt for banning it. It should be banned everywhere except Israel where they should love it...

    1. Re:I saw the blatant promotion of by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

      Forgive me.

      But I don't quite see how this film equates to zionism. (Excepting the use of the word). Heck, you can make a better case that this is Christian Propaganda.

      Neo is the 2nd coming... (of Jesus?), Trinity? Hardly a Jewish concept. (Ever hear of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?)

      The use of the word Zion is used throughout Biblical literature. Christian AND Jewish.

      -dj

      --
      - dj
  349. Um...what? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

    It seems people are completely missing what happened in that scene.

    That's EXACTLY what Neo did. He chose the door that would lead to a system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix. With Zion's destruction, that's the end of humanity.

    If he had chosen the other door, he would have reloaded the Matrix, and at least the people in the Matrix would still go on living, and Zion would be rebuilt.

    The entire point was that he didn't care, because he loved Trinity. So he chose the door that leads to the eventual extermination of humanity, just so he could save the women he loved.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  350. Re:Please learn something of Islam before commenti by ashayh · · Score: 1

    The idea of exterminating non-believers is certainly not central to the Muslim religion. There are words in the Quran that do not look favourably on other religions, but a look through the Bible can reveal similar harsh words.
    The idea of exterminating non believers certainly is ONE of the main ideas of Islam. Please read any decent translation(Muslim "approved" of course) of the koran to clear this. What I'm saying is only a fact. While I dont remember the koran in great detail I do remember statements like "do not trust even the children of Jews, lest you may be blinded" . If you read the koran you will NOT fail to notice how non-believers and women are considered second-class citezens at best. I certainly dont think the koran has the IP on inanity. Other religois book give tough competition.

  351. Yea right. by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen the the film yet however Egypt showed a serilized Protocols of Zion last year passing it off as fact.

    All Intolerance is criminal.

    --
    As you can see I don't care about my karma.
  352. Your bias is showing through by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    Three points.

    One:

    Do you agree with everything your government does?

    I don't agree with everything my government does, certainly, and think that there might even be better places to live. Why haven't I moved there? The world is a big place, I haven't visited them yet, and I have enough trouble finding work in a place where I speak the language.

    Elsewhere I have to go through the process of get a work permit, work, and citizenship.

    This leads us to point two:

    They have to do all of this by the time they are drafted into the military.

    I'm not sure about you, but by the time I was old enough to serve in the Israel army I had only vaguely considered leaving the country and that was at "some point in the vague future"--I had visited outside of the US, but not with the intent of moving there.

    What, do you think that everyone who falls under your so-called qualifer of a "zionist" (which has two meanings, incidentally, which are you using?) is automatically transported to Israel and the moment they disagree they are kicked out?

    Three:

    You are telling me now that all Jews--even secular ones or those who don't agree with the current government--living in Israel are "bad jews". Think carefully about this one--you are using the same justification used to hold bigotry over thousand other peoples throughout the world. This is racism, not reason.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Your bias is showing through by KingRamsis · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Your bias is showing through by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      You think a link to a severely opinionated news source is going to sway anyone? Particularly when nothing on the page you cited has any affect whatsoever on anything that I said.

      It is kind of like citing Storm Front in a debate discussing blacks, except less relevant.

      Or perhaps, rather than throw meaningless tripe at me that has no relevance to the discussion at hand, you could try to refute the arguments presented?

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    3. Re:Your bias is showing through by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      What, do you think that everyone who falls under your so-called qualifer of a "zionist" (which has two meanings, incidentally, which are you using?) is automatically transported to Israel and the moment they disagree they are kicked out?

      you can be as jewish as you want to be, but a zionist is someone who is a racist ruthless murder, with no respect of human life (not only arab human life but *ANY* life.)
      israel is the zionist grand plan, a land without people for people without land...except that (surprise !) there are people who are living there... so lets exterminate them with minimal costs and as efficient as possbile.
      if you dont believe in zionist principles that founded israel then what the hell are you doing there? oh I see you were born there? what the hell your parents were doing there?
      and the link I gave you is what honest jews do...burn the flag of israel and move out.
      because only a racist murder will do what is sharon is doing right now...
      and only a stupid racist murderer expects people to die without resistance...
      finally only a rude stupid racist murderer will call such a resistance terroism.

    4. Re:Your bias is showing through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking racist cunt. Die mother fucker.

    5. Re:Your bias is showing through by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      Sharon...is that you?

    6. Re:Your bias is showing through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QueenRamsis, go home and fuck Mohammed up the ass.
      I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy leaving a steaming pile of shit on your 'great' pyramids.

  353. Re:The one thing I didn't understand *mild Spoiler by slyxter · · Score: 1

    I think the Architect was lying. He is scared as hell of "The One" but he knows he can mess with his head. The screens were just mimicking him and changing what he said to give the impression that it has happened before, but it has not. Neo obviously would try to save Trinity so as Neo was given the option of 2 doors, the sentinels were already in the process of destroying Zion. Neo IS the one.

  354. Re:My Big Fat Egyptian Wedding by lleo · · Score: 1
    The pyramids....well, you can see them from space.

    yeah and you can put dead corpses into it, and shoot photos from them, and journey to it to look at 'em, and sit down on them, and dig into it.

    wow, how versatile such a pyramid is...thanks to their grand grand grand ^ 10-fathers for building them!

  355. Child/Adult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Arrogant, because you just compare a whole nation with nursery kids"

    I'd go further and blame most of the arab world for acting like undisiplined children.

    Did all the genetics leave that place after the pharoahs fell? Or do you think ancient egypt was a pure accident.

    Cause they sure are morons there today. As a class of people. And yes, I'm including the jews in that statement.

    1. Re:Child/Adult by TomV · · Score: 1

      Did all the genetics leave that place after the pharoahs fell?

      well, if 'all the genetics [left] that place...' at all, it would have been a lot later. After al-Kwharizmi revolutionised mathematics (does the word algorithm sound just a bit arabic at all?), after the development of al-jibr (anyone here ever use Algebra in their job?), after the invention of the rather useful Zero, after the mapping of the skies (why do all those stars have names like al-Nilam, al-Nitak...), after Abu ibn-Sina (Avicenna) revolutionised medicine. It would be after the development of the pointed arches that underly so much of western architecture.

      It's not as if Arab civilisation is a contradiction in terms. The tragedy is that, through whatever long and complicated route, Arab civilisation is in a pretty messy state at the moment. Mind you, a major step on that route came when a bunch of murderous thugs who were living in the third-world-of-the-time came over from Europe and started smashing things up in the name of religion (the things that were smashed include a society in which the Q'uranic requirement of respect for all the People Of The Book was upheld as a matter of faith an honour.) And by comarison with the Muslim world of the time, you'd hardly stretch the word 'civilised' to include the crusaders.

      Of course, if the European 'great powers' (I'm english, so guilty as charged) hadn't marched in there at the end of the Ottoman Empire and started 80 years (so far) of exploitation on overlordry, redrawing all the borders to suit our commercial arrangements and to reward our puppets and cronies from the al-Saud family down, there might be a good deal more of the old civilisation intact today.

      TomV

  356. Wrong. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > the church had enough fear of God to look into each case
    > individually. Mass execution of men by formula is an
    > abomination reserved exclusively for the 20th century.

    Just where do you think the phrase: "Kill 'em all, and let god sort it out." came from?

    The original quote was actually in French (oops... freedom) and translates closer to: "Kill them all. God will know his own."

    It was during the Albigensian crusade from 1209-1255 in Catharic France. In summer of 1209, the crusaders attacked the city of Beziers, thought to hold a small enclave of Cathars (about 200 or so). The crusaders eventually sacked the city, taking the populace captive. Lacking any positive way to sort the Cathars out from the loyal Catholics, the soldiers asked the Papal Legate and head of the Cistercian monks, Abbot Arnaud-Amaury, for advice. It was Arnaud-Amaury who gave the infamous order: "Kill them all. God will know his own.".

    And thus, the population of the city of Beziers, numbering 20,000 or so, was put to the sword, so as to execute the 200 heretics thought to be hiding amongst them.

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
    1. Re:Wrong. by martyros · · Score: 1
      Well, like I said, I was paraphrasing someone else -- a Jewish historian, in fact, who was commenting on the Inquisition. The book was "Jews, God, and History", and the author was Max Dimont. His basic take was, yes the Inquisition was wrong and persecuted Jews; but keep it in perspective: at least the Inquisitors treated each case individually, unlike Hitler and Stalin who just slaughtered us by the thousands.

      And that was my point: unrestrained abstract ideologies are what make murdering zealots, and we have as many of those in this centurty as we ever had. It's not an artifact of religion.

      Similarly, I used to be kind of ashamed of some of the people in the church I grew up in: good people, but narrow-minded and a bit bigoted. Then I started reading Slashdot, and I recognized that same narrow-minded bigotry in people with all manner of ideologies. It has nothing to do with religion at all! Thank you, Slashdot!

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

  357. Blame Canada by Vagary · · Score: 1

    Non-immigrant nations are not fully adult. Adolescent, at the most. Also: chronological age has nothing to do with maturity; maturity is a state of mind.

    The only non-prejudiced way to define a group of people is by shared beliefs. And if those beliefs happen to be religion, then the defined group is archaic.

    I theorise that the non-religious beliefs held by the Jews of Europe at the end of WW2 would give them no reason to want that dry patch of dirt surrounded by lots of backwards people.

  358. War is not a contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not like the olympics.

    "Oh posh, the boys lost that one! bloody hell"

    There is no fair way to fight, and you do what it takes to win.

    That's war.

  359. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Agreed, i understood him clearly the first time i saw it, but noticed that the language was a bit obfuscated.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  360. Re:Fuck you Egypt by jafac · · Score: 1

    It's not a structure, it's a pile of rocks. And it unfortunately didn't sustain it's own culture looting of it's marble covering.

    And I'll lay foot in Egypt when the bombing stops. I don't risk my life for tourism.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  361. You're great, we suck. by uxo · · Score: 0

    ...we built the great pyramids [kasbah.com] that survived for thousands of years that you cant even replicate today...

    Great Pyramid: 6,000,000 tons, 482 ft.

    Hoover Dam: 6,600,000 tons, 726 ft.

    Good Lord, anyone know the stats on the Three Rivers Dam in China?

    1. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      so what ?
      it is about the method of building it, not about the size...

    2. Re:You're great, we suck. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      so what ?
      it is about the method of building it, not about the size...


      So you're saying that Egypt is great because EGYPT Enslaved The Jews ?

      Yeah, that's great. Egypt's right up there with The 3rd Reich .

    3. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      Dear dbretton,
      you are a troll, you put words into my mouth I never said and you are also stupid...
      When I mention the method of building the pyramids I mean the engineering, logistics, planning of the this grand effort, exactly where did I mention that Egypt enslaved jews?
      I replied so that no one will read your half truths and think that what really happend.
      you may fuck yourself now.
      have a nice day.

    4. Re:You're great, we suck. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. The Egyptians never enslaved anyone. They never tortured, beat, maimed and slaughtered thousands of innocent Jews who were guilty of nothing more than being Hebrew.

      exactly where did I mention that Egypt enslaved jews?

      Probably when you said the 'greatness' of the pyramids was about the method of building it. I'll explain this one to you, since you are clearly incapable of comprehending the scope of your own statement. I will also use small words so that I do not overburden your impotent mind.
      The method of building would include the actual construction effort, which was performed by a populace of slaves.

      You think that ancient Egypt was so different than the Third Reich? Let's see...

      The Egyptians desired total global domination.
      The Third Reich desired total global domination.
      The Egyptians viewed themselves as the superior race.
      The Third Reich viewed themselves as the superior race.
      The Egyptians murdered the Jews.
      The Third Reich murdered the Jews.
      The Egyptians used the Jews as slave labor to construct large buildings for reasons of self-serving opulance, gratification and narcissism.
      The Third Reich used the Jews as slave labor to refine raw materials and manufacture more weapons.

      After looking at things, I guess you are right. The Third Reich was different than the Egyptians. They weren't as arrogant. I aopologize to all the Nazis out there who are still alive and in exile. I did not realize I was being so insulting to them.

      Now, Queen-Ram-sis, you may go cocksuck Mohammed now.
      May Allah have mercy on you for your narrowness of mind, but shower vengeful hatred upon you for the grandeur of your stupidity.

      prick.

    5. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      you may go cocksuck Mohammed now.

      at least I didnt insult your religion, I will leave the readers to conclude who is racist and how cant co-exist with the other.
      one final note even I have an army of slaves (assuming your lies are true for 10 seconds) they cant do anything without the insight and genius planning of my great^10 grandfathers.
      I will pray for you.

    6. Re:You're great, we suck. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      at least I didnt insult your religion

      Oh of course! How could I have breched that line of netiquette. Telling someone to go fuck themselves is one thing, but insulting their religion - that's just wrong!

      That is too funny!

      I will leave the readers to conclude who is racist and how cant co-exist with the other.

      Wha? If I must decide, I conclude you are the racist.

      one final note even I have an army of slaves (assuming your lies are true for 10 seconds) they cant do anything without the insight and genius planning of my great^10 grandfathers.

      Even the smallest of men can stand high and mighty when riding on the shoulders of giants.

      Sounds like a great deal. I'm sure all the Jewish slaves were happy to trade in their freedom for the beatings, grueling long hours, torture and unbearable workload. Ahh, to be a slave! It must be so invigorating

      I will pray for you.
      Save it.
      Shove it.

      You may go fuck yourself now.
      have a nice day.

    7. Re:You're great, we suck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      at least I didnt insult your religion, I will leave the readers to conclude who is racist and how cant co-exist with the other


      ROFL. After reading your past posts I've got to say that's the most funny thing I've read in a long time.

      You are a racist and what's worst is that you (like many religious people) don't even realise it.

    8. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      why are you trying to make it look like its between me and the jewish people, I know jews who will disagree with you and reject your claims.
      get a life man i feel sorry for you trapped in your fantasy land where the whole world is out there to get you.
      can you prove to me that jewish labour were used to build the pyramids?
      and there is a difference between insulting one person and insulting a whole religion surely the remaining working brain cells in your head can help you find out.
      it is people like you who give the jewish people a bad name.

    9. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      glad you are entertained you might want to give up some mod points (whoring on the run), but do yourself a favor and read the whole thread.

    10. Re:You're great, we suck. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      can you prove to me that jewish labour were used to build the pyramids?

      No one can conclusively prove who built the pyramids at all. For that matter, no one can conclusively prove that the Egyptians designed them, either.
      If you wish, I will retract my claim that the Egyptians used the Jews as slave labor to build the pyramids. I will subsitute it with the claim that the ancient Egyptians were bumbling idiots who had nothing to do with the pyramids, except steal them and claim they 'built' them.

      and there is a difference between insulting one person and insulting a whole religion

      You fail understand, Queen Ass-Ram-sis, I was insulting only you. I told you to go cocksuck Mohammed, not all the people of Islam.
      I will qualify: Queen Ram-me, I wish for you, and only you and no one else of the nation of Islam, to go cocksuck Mohammed.
      There, that better? hahaha

      it is people like you who give the jewish people a bad name.

      No, it's people like YOU who give the Jews a bad name. The Jewish people have a wonderful name and a proud and expansive culture. They are dilligent, industrious, intelligent and both humble and proud. They flourish irrespective of the oppression of people like your ancestors.

    11. Re:You're great, we suck. by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

      If you wish, I will retract my claim that the Egyptians used the Jews as slave labor to build the pyramids. I will subsitute it with the claim that the ancient Egyptians were bumbling idiots who had nothing to do with the pyramids, except steal them and claim they 'built' them.

      uhh that is truly stupid i feel silly replying to you, let me guess you are 14 years old?

      I will qualify: Queen Ram-me, I wish for you, and only you and no one else of the nation of Islam, to go cocksuck Mohammed. There, that better? hahaha

      nope make it 8 years.

      No, it's people like YOU who give the Jews a bad name.

      ...and people like you give humanity a bad name.

      They are dilligent, industrious, intelligent and both humble and proud.

      ok ! ...so you're not jewish ...

    12. Re:You're great, we suck. by dbretton · · Score: 1

      uhh that is truly stupid i feel silly replying to you, let me guess you are 14 years old?

      Prove to me that the Egyptians built the pyramids, instead of making ageist remarks.

      ok ! ...so you're not jewish ...

      You state that I give humanity a bad name, while you blatantly make such anti-Semitic remarks. I happen to be half-Jewish, you ignorant bigot, and I resent those remarks!

      May Allah do your people a favor and cleanse the earth of your unwelcomed presence.
      May a cobra find a hole in your tamad and bite your testicles off.

      you may go fuckyourself now.
      have a nice day.

  362. No one will read this, but... by Elvis+Maximus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I realize I am posting this way too late for anyone to actually read it, butâ¦

    I lived in Egypt for four years. The Film Review Board there is notoriously fickle. Some things get through that you cannot believe, others are banned for no apparent reason.

    The original Matrix was a big hit in the Cairo cinemas. I was stunned that they let this deeply subversive film in the country. The plot of the movie is that your life is a lie; a simulacrum that fiendish authority figures (represented by security men in dark suits, no less) are force-feeding you so that you will docilely give them the power they need to survive. But if you know the truth, it is possible to resist, and perhaps even defeat the established authority. The very paranoid Egyptian government allowed thousands of young Egyptians to get this message at their local cinema.

    On the other hand, they cut all the references to âoeZion.â

    --

    -
    Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.

    1. Re:No one will read this, but... by joskay · · Score: 1

      >On the other hand, they cut all the references to Zion.
      What did they replace it with? Or was it a cut of all scenes with it? And what was your response when seeing the entire movie without cuts?
      Thank you, just curious

  363. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen popsicle sticks give less wooden performances.

    http://maddox.xmission.com/matrix2.html. First point. Enough said.

  364. MOD PAARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way the fuck up.

  365. The Architect's Speech Analyzed by hackrobat · · Score: 1
  366. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Daetrin · · Score: 1
    I posted earlier up about this, but i think you're partly right. I think they're both the "One," they're two sides of the same coin, Humand and Machine.

    I'm not sure that Smith will necessarily end up helping humanity though. He seems to be fighting for an opposite goal as well. It's hard to say without seeing the third movie, but based on the glimpses we've seen, it seems that while Neo is trying to save humanity, Smith is trying to enslave the Machine world.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  367. And how did Trinity and Neo end up together? by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Neo is something new, a true One, and his difference stems from his love for Trinity.

    Who got Trinity interested in Neo to begin with? The Oracle. She told Trinity that she would fall in love with the One.

    She kind of attracted to the Neo when he first shows up and when it appears that he might the One, she decides she has to fall in love with him.

    The Oracle manipulated things so that Neo would be able to make a real choice when he makes it to the Architect. She's interested in the future, remember? And they're going to have to get there together...

  368. yet another silly theory by loosenoodle · · Score: 1

    Ok, I've only read about a billion of the trillion posts on the Matrix reloaded, so I'd like to offer yet another silly theory. I've stated my view with a few friends (although afterwards, I doubt they'd call me a friend) :) The theory being that basically, Zion is another matrix within a matrix.

    So, if I could entertain you with another useless Matrix Reloaded theory and get some feedback or point out the flaws to which I so humanly would, should and probably have missed.

    There are 3 key elements in the movie that give me my theory.

    1. Agent Smith infecting (?) the Zion citizen inside and OUTSIDE the matrix (remember the knife he was gonna use on Neo?)
    2. Neo's being able to "feel" the machines and apparently stop/kill sentinels at will
    3. The counselor of Zion

    1. Ok, how agent Smith copies himself within the context of the matrix is irrelevant, but how is he able to copy himself literally into someone's conscious being? His ability to ignore the matrix's construct of rules for agents makes him another rogue program just like the rest of the old rogue programs. How is it that he can ACTUALLY EXIST CONSCIOUSLY OUTSIDE THE MATRIX?!?!?!?!? Isn't he just a bunch of 1s and 0s!
    If smith is a program, and humans are essentially programs ONLY and ONLY inside the matrix, then Agent smith CANNOT exist in the "real world" unless the "real world" was a simulation just as the matrix.
    So, if Zion is a program, just like the matrix, isn't this somewhat 2 matrices or for you programmers, an array within another array element? (Pointer to an array within an array, right?)

    2. Neo's ability to "feel" the machines only enhances the notion of the "real world" being another simulation. Do you know of anyone able to "feel" a machine, and not just touch a machine, I mean figuratively "feel" a machine. WTF?! Please. This is something that CAN only exist IN a simulation just as the matrix. This isn't by any standards a "real world" possiblity in our universe or perhaps our lifetime to say the least. This is probably the easiest point to see that Zion was a whole other matrix.

    3. We know the architect and oracle are programs, but what about the counselor of zion? Man, that dude was creepy. Well, not creepy, but damn fishy to me. Guy doesn't sleep much (he's nothing but code. he doesn't NEED to sleep), and then starts talking to Neo about how machines and man need one another. Hmmm.... Then, he allow Morpheus to take his ship to broadcast depth and operate within the matrix, thus setting up Neo's mind-blowing conversation with the architect. The counselor was VERY pivotal in the movie, even though his role pailed in comparison to the others.

    So to wrap up my crazy/silly theory, Agent Smith's "existence" in the real world suggests that Zion is NOT the real world but another matrix. Neo's crazy comic book hero-like ability to "feel" the machines in a spidey-sense like fashion is VERY CLEARLY NOT REAL WORLD-ESQUE (spelling?). The counselor is a bit of a longshot. He MAY very well be a human, or a program (although techincally everyone IN the matrix is program-like). The proof for him being a program is mere speculation, but none the less, if he's human, it doesn't detract from my point that this whole matrix within a matrix idea is far-fetched. And if he IS a program like the architect/oracle/agent smith, etc. etc., then it only helps my idea along.

    On a side note (if you can withstand the crap you've already read, a little more won't hurt right?), if you also think within the context of each matrix, Zion and the pseudo-"real world", basically, the two matricies have no REAL knowledge of the whole picture (except the architect, oracle and maybe the counselor). Agents are always trying to kill Neo, yet he CANNOT be killed because that's his supposed delegated destiny from the Matrix. It's like the matrix created agents just to give the people of zion something to fear or worry about or even a PURPOSE for living when they're in the matrix. Agents have NO SCOP

    --
    "We can never see past the choices we don't understand." -The Matrix Reloaded - The Oracle
  369. Quifs, were talking Quantum theory here........ by Great+Malinko · · Score: 0

    I dont have time to explain, but in another quif I am not even here.....

  370. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Dr_Auknix · · Score: 1

    I have a strong vocabulary, yet when I watched it the first time, I kept finding myself distracted by the screens. It was difficult to comprehend when I kept missing 1/2 of the words. In other news, I was really ammused when Neo took off his glasses and fingered the architect.

  371. Isn't it Ironic... by Ghengis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Matrix movies are about control as much as religion. The Egyption Gov. convieniently uses religion as its excuse, when in reality, they don't want anyone to realize the parallel between the control they exercise by banning the movie and the control the matrix gives the machines.

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  372. um, yea by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 1
    Two words:

    Monica Bellucci

  373. Just being Racist by hammesqa · · Score: 1

    I think the main reason that they banned it was because in the movie, the heros are trying to save Zion. Although this is of course not the same thing as being Zionists, it is close enough that they felt that allowing the movie to be shown would be in some way a kind of support for the state of isreal. Thats how paranoid they are. I just don't know why people can't understand the idea movies are just fiction. No one is trying to say that the matrix is real. Hell I just saw "Finding Nemo" and not once during the movie was I under the impression that fish actually talked. good movie though, especially the "mine. mine. mine" parts.

  374. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Dr_Auknix · · Score: 1

    "Think about what the Oracle said to Neo when they were talking about how he could trust her. Neo asks, 'why are you helping us?' She replies, 'I'm interested in one thing Neo, the future. And I know, the only way to get there is together.' " Nah, I think the oracle said that because her goals are to help him find a path to the source. I think it's only at that level.

  375. Well, we'll just have to... by Niche+Slasher · · Score: 1

    make sure there are enough pirated versions available online for the poor Egyptians to download. Aaaaah, the sweet taste of vengeful corruption... ;)
    -N

    --
    The Cycle of Violence is to be seen as the invisible hand that maintains the balance of Man and Nature on earth.--M
  376. Architect Speech Transcription by Shmoe · · Score: 1

    My friend transcribed Neo's Conversation with the Architect:

    http://www.chaosxinc.com/Architectspeech.txt

  377. ::shakes head:: by pr0ntab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    REVENGE

    More specifically, Neo, through defeating and inadverting freeing Smith, took away his "purpose". He gives a quick speech about this to Neo before attempting to gang rape him. Smith is trying to return the favor, that is, he is attempting to make Neo irrelevant. Either he will 1) kill him, which was his original purpose he still holds on to, or 2) destroy the Matrix by converting all of its inhabitants into him, leaving Neo no one to free.
    He's taking this frustration that comes with his new freedom and directing it back on his liberator. How pathetic: he so desperately wanted out of the Matrix, and now that he's free he sees no other option but to remain there and make Neo suffer even moreso.

    Poor thing. He's not coping very well without dogma, is he? And I like Smith...
    (well, I like Hugo Weaving, I think he's the best cast member).

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:::shakes head:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably more the fact that even being free, it is still a program, and so lacks freedom of choice. It has been built to destroy Neo, and so it keeps trying to. There's no feeling of frustration or anything, just lack of freewill, and inability to undestand it.

    2. Re:::shakes head:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seemed to me that agent Smith was saying that he was not truly free because he was now bound to Neo in some way. Reading the conversation closely shows that Smith didn't return to the source not because he didn't want to, but because he couldn't. He was "compelled to stay". He won't be truly free unless he kills Neo.

  378. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would of thought that constructing something out of rock in the shape of a mountain would allow it to survive thousands of years.

  379. Re:Matrix Reloaded is the quest for the holly grai by PCP · · Score: 1

    I see you have read 'The holy blood and the holy grail'. Perhaps not the best source to draw conculsions from :)

  380. The Architect has another think comin' by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
    ** Spoiler **

    Let's think about this for just a second. The architect tells Neo, that there are somethings that he cannot possible understand, because he is still, for the majority, human. But, the reverse of that is also true. The architect cannot fully understand Neo, or his line of thought, for the same reason, that Neo is still partially human. The architect made the statement that it was impossible for Neo to save Trinity, yet he did. This was not something that the architect had forseen. All of his logic is based on probabilities. He had no true understanding of human emotion. He did not foresee Neo altering the Matrix enough for him to save Trinity. He was using the logic that it had never been done before, so the changes of it happening were 0. The matrix has never been destroyed before, so in the architects minds, the chances infinity to one of losing.

    --
    Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    1. Re:The Architect has another think comin' by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      OR he knew that he would, in fact save Trinity. He was just working on Neos hatred of authority and determinism to spur him to *actually* save trinity, instead of just *trying* and failing to.
      I'm not sure for what purpose though.
      After all, if what the Architect said was actually true, then it's *not* within the Machines interests to completely eradicate Zion.

      But then, I might be mis-remembering the conversation where the Architect explained things.

    2. Re:The Architect has another think comin' by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
      Neo is still *fully* human, not partly human.
      Architect: ... though the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human.
      Curiously, some people expect Neo to stop being human. At the beginning of Reloaded:
      Agent 3: He is still
      Agent 1: Only human.
      Midnight chat:
      Hamman: That's a good sign.
      Neo: Of what?
      Hamman: That you are in fact, still human.
      The Merovingian, who might once have been a One, is no longer human. My guess is that the Merovingian is the exiled avatar of a dead human One. People expect Neo to die as a human but his avatar to continue as an exile. But the Architect says Neo is "irrevocably" human, which suggests Neo is following a different evolutionary path.

      Peter B Lloyd
      www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

  381. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Where were the suprises and tragedys? It was nearly constant action."

    With no suspense I might add. Nobody watched that scene on top of the semi and thought "how will he get out of this?"

    The big problem with Matrix Reloaded is that you can cut out all but two scenes of the movie and not miss anything important. That's why nobody cares about them.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  382. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Can you imagine Neo being somebody else than Reeves?"

    I vote for Bill Pullman.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  383. well by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    I guess they just won't get to see it then will they? I bet it sucks to be them. I wonder if any suicide bombings will result from this.

  384. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle: But you already know what I'm going to tell you.
    Neo: I'm not the One.
    Oracle: Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but you look like you're waiting for something. Your next life, maybe?

  385. Matrix in Matrix proven by opening animation by statusbar · · Score: 1

    Watch the opening animation of the movie.. Matrix code...zoomed out... makes more matrix code... zoomed out... makes the numbers on the guard's desk clock.

    --jeff++

    --
    ipv6 is my vpn
  386. Missed this part. by Lazyhound · · Score: 1
    Now all of you can start your flamefests of disbelief.
    oh snap
  387. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn I thought it was those god damn aliens that created the pyramids. How else could those sand niggas do it?

  388. I thought... by niko9 · · Score: 1

    it as about Prada, Ducati, and Vidal Sasson hair gel.

    I don't think I saw not even one of Mr. Reeve's hairs move one centimeter during all those fight scenes.

  389. Re:method of salvation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, only some Muslims speculate that it was Judas. For all we know it could have been Barabbus, or a mass hallucination, or he didnt really die and fooled everybody.

    The Muslims reject Christianity's doctrine of atonement. God can forgive what He wants, when He wants to. Therefore He has no need to lower Himself to human and let His creations torture Him. And Muslims along with Jews reject the Trinity. They feel it is just an excuse to explain how Christianity isnt true monotheism.

  390. I don't see the issue here by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    You can live in the Matrix and still worship Allah or whomever you feel created the universe. He's out there somewhere. It's not like there wasn't someone that created the world outside the Matrix. The Matrix is a movie not a religion. And even if it were real, when you die in the Matrix, you really die, so don't think that the 10 commandments don't apply any more.

  391. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by torpor · · Score: 1

    Alright, fine, I don't believe I said America ever *did* shove its movies on the rest of the world (umm, yeah, irony), I just said America doesn't have the *right* to.

    But since you seem to want a fight, I'll re-write it:

    Like The American People have a right to complain when the Nations of Foreign People exercise their Right of Government and deny the US valuable returns from its so-called "Entertainment" industry ... as if.

    It's not something to complain about - you Americans should be rejoicing that the Egyptian government, representative of its people, is protecting its populace from cultural dilution at the hands of an Imperialist Industry!

    Feh!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  392. Wow. by NerveGas · · Score: 1


    If Egypt's government has such a weak grasp, that letting their citizens/subjects think about alternative religions could present "crises", then it looks like they probably have some larger problems to tackle first.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  393. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    Check my reply a couple of posts down, I didn't state that clearly. I was saying I don't know how you'd explain Neo having powers anyway, but that Smith may have gained some kind of power from the melding with Neo. My bad.

  394. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Arapahoe+Moe · · Score: 1

    As a member of the (arguably) most oppressed people on earth (Native Americans), please do your self a favor and drop the sanctimonious bullcrap. I don't act like this even though my heritage might suggest that I be more self-righteous about my people. Give it up already! Egyptians never ruled the earth, the closest anyone ever came to that was Alexander the Great (a Greek and student of Aristotle who was a student of Plato). And the greatest (as in most thought provoking) historical artifact is not the pyramids, it is the Great Wall, created by the Chinese. *Sheesh* Please get off your soap box already.

  395. Re:How RedHat's Linux Can Defeat Micr$oft's Windoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go Fuckoff And Die ???

  396. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    I realize slashdot is international and usage varies from place to place, but someone getting "fingered" means something quite different from being given the middle finger where I come from.... oh, wait... ;)

  397. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    That would be about the movie, or about the architect himself, not about "the scene with the architect"

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  398. Your spelling of anomaly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is anomolous!

  399. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    My impression is pretty much taken from the Smith/Morpheus scene of the first movie - Smith wants out. The fact that he's taken over a human body in the "real" world in Reloaded, seems to lend some support to this... although I'm unsure as to exactly why Smith would still be trying to kill Neo in the "real" world if that were the case. Perhaps Neo being the anomoly means he's the source of the machines' control, and destroying him would mean the end of the machine control? There are really almost endless possibilities.

  400. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    LAME POST ENCOUNTERED...removing "scubacuda " from friends list ;)

  401. Not quite.. by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1
    Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

    No, not quite. What Neo was supposed to do, like his predecessors, was to save the human race by returning to the source but thereby dooming Zion (yet again). But Neo was in love with a single human being and this made him choose the unexpected path of rejecting the Architect and dooming all humans ... however, it is likely that this is exactly what the Matrix was hoping would one day happen ... he said they were prepared to survive at a lower level without their 'power source'.

    Actually, of course the big thing in the movie is the second last scene which confirms my suspicion that the "Real World" is actually another Matrix or another layer of the Matrix. All just more Samsara I guess.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  402. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    I just said America doesn't have the *right* to.

    And we agree on that point.

    you Americans should be rejoicing that the Egyptian government, representative of its people, is protecting its populace from cultural dilution at the hands of an Imperialist Industry

    Why would I rejoice when a government takes choice away from its people? And who says it's representative of its people? Certainly not me.

    I feel people should be free to make their own choice of movie entertainment that they prefer. That is not a business for a government to be in.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  403. Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus those scenes with a seated bearded guy with a towel draped over his head and a "holier than though" look on his face spouting all this stuff about "martyrdom" and "fighting the infidels" struck the review board as an obvious attempt to incite violence.

  404. This Quote: by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "which we all respect and believe in.'"

    What do you mean "we", Rama Tut?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  405. Re:Fuck you Egypt by demonbug · · Score: 1
    The most advanced civilization that ruled the earth you stupid ignorant son of a bitch, we built the great pyramids that survived for thousands of years that you cant even replicate today, we controlled gravity, and we were so advanced in medicine that we had a doctor for the left eye and a doctor for the right eye go figure that out you, we taught the world how to farm, we are the essence of civilization and a never ending legacy.


    How did this not get modded as a troll? The egyptians controlled gravity? wtf? What did they do, go and forget how to do it?
    Not building great pyramids is not the same as not being able to build great pyramids (besides, the largest pyramid in the world is located in the U.S. - its a casino, of course, and not made of stone, but it IS in the desert!).
    I could have sworn I learned that farming began in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which now lies in Iraq.
    Egyptians had a doctor for the left eye and for the right? What, the doctors weren't smart enough to figure out that they are pretty much the same? So, basically, you would consider the U.S. more civilized if we boasted doctors that did nothing but study the right pinky toe?

    Okay, this post is a bit of a troll, but then, so is the parent.

  406. the name... by nursedave · · Score: 1

    Not trying to troll here, no, really....

    But, having said that, I would be suprised if any of the muslim countries (the ones that allow movies, that is, some don't - any performing arts are 'haram,' and banned, in Saudi Arabia, for example) will allow this movie, for one reason: The name Zion. Fanatics link that name with nation-building in Israel, and we all know how popular *that* is among the Mohommedans, now, don't we?

    Ok, just my theory. If its a choice between buying my theory, or a cup of coffee, stick with the coffee.....

    --

    The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  407. Somebody got it!!! by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 3, Interesting


    My guess is that the Oracle has a plan for Neo that is outside the scope of the Matrix's purpose for the One.



    That's right people, IMHO it is all about the ORACLE. All of this other crap is hokey. She is the one that set all of this up. She is the one that sees things for what they are... and after all... SHE IS THE ONE THAT WAS DESIGNED AS THE HUMAN ADVOCATE, the one that was sent to "find a permanent solution to all of this." And one of the things that the movie harps on is effect and purpose. Well, we know what she was designed for. TO BE OUR OVERMOTHER. Well, she is fulfilling her purpose. She loves her kids and wants the best for them... and that ain't the Matrix.

    As she has said before, "We all got to get along, Kiddo. And we all have a purpose." She knows human nature better than we do. She knows what is best, she just has to push her "children" to do what is best and get out of a bad situation. She goads you to do it. She even tells you that she is telling you what you need to hear. She laughs about it. Then offers you something you cannot resist like cookies or candy. To make you happy. She wants all her kids to be happy. Just like every mother. But she is behind it all.

    The second theme of the Matrix movies is that no one can tell you your purpose no matter how many roadblocks they put up, real or not. You have a purpose and it will come out. Mom just shows you the door.

    The Oracle is setting up a system that both machines and humans can get along together in. She is the one that set up Zion long ago much to the chagrin of her "ex-husband" the Architecht. She is the one that goads them along. She is the one that carries on caring for people while the system beats them down. That is her job. And her job is to find a solution. She found it. The "best solution" is not the Matrix. It has something to do with Neo's instant evolution at the end of the movie. That was a way for people to control them in the real world. Neo just made an evolution. OR SAY, "revolutions."

    My guess is that it has something to do with humans and AIs getting on equal ground with each other, creating a new symbiotic relationship instead of parasitic. But then again, that is my idea.

    Just keep in mind that it was the Oracle that is a machine that thinks like a human, and that Neo is a human that thinks like a machine. They are different sides of the same coin. And that is why she uses him to effect change.

    See why she likes him?

    "Now have some candy... ... I juuust love candy. Want some?"

  408. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    With no suspense I might add. Nobody watched that scene on top of the semi and thought "how will he get out of this?"

    Yeah. When I heard that Matrix was going to be a trilogy, my first thought was "How the hell are they going to write their way around Keanu gaining godlike powers at the end of the first movie? He's fucking Superman now!"

    Turns out their method was to make the mere mortals (trinity & morpheus) stupidly separate from Superman so that they could get in trouble, and then have Superman fly in to save them just in the nick of time. And they just had to make that stupid operator act surprised every god damn time. "Whoa, something is flying toward Morpheus at super speeds! Oh, it's Neo! Hooray!"

    I had far fewer complaints about the plot than I did with their inability to create any tension in the combat scenes.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  409. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by gurple · · Score: 0

    That's the first chuckle I've gotten out of this thread. Cheers!

    --
    -- We've secretly replaced his regular signature with Folgers Crystals®
  410. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by Daetrin · · Score: 1
    Well taking over the machine world would certainly be one way of getting out of the matrix. In fact now that he's gone rogue it might be the _only_ way. If he tried to "emigrate" back normally they'd probably delete him.

    Neo would want to stop that from happening because Smith hates humans, and you don't want someone like that being in charge of the whole thing. Smith in turn would want to kill Neo, straight out of pure hatred, or just through knowledge that eventually they'll end up at odds anyways.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  411. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I dont think you cant replicate them I KNOW that you can't


    So what you're saying is that modern man is somehow incapable of doing something man did 4000 years ago? Are you implying that ancient egyptians are somehow superior?

  412. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... **SPOILER** by vistic · · Score: 1

    I'm confiscating your parentheses...

  413. Who defines unhealthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least right now, genetics is not something you can control (taking toxic substances whilst pregnant notwithstanding). Once you can improve the genetics of your unborn child, if you do not and they are genetically predisposed to be a burden to society, THEN you can be taxed for that... ala GATTACA?

    The other problem is, "what are junk foods?". Anything with white refined flour and sugar could be viewed as junk food (requiring more nutrients to digest than they provide). MSG is a neurotoxin, along with nutrisweet. Processed meats with nitrates and nitrites can be in that group as well. A little wine may help, but too much hurts... similar to the chinese philosophy, anything that imbalances the body can be viewed as harmful.

    And what about our environment? Living in a polluted environment (electrical, chemical, biological molds and fungi) greatly impacts health, so they should be taxed extra as well.

    The problem is that when the government becomes involved with providing money for healthcare, they are obligated to see that it is used "effectively" and "fairly", and their only avenue for achieving that is to make laws controlling all things which affect our health.

    This of course leads to such problems as not being able to choose your own doctor (HMO anyone?) and eventually being required (or, at the very least, monetarily "encouraged") by law to do whatever someone else thinks is best for your health.

  414. Re:The one thing I didn't understand *mild Spoiler by Maserati · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to know why we should belive anything the Architect said. We assume that he's manipulating Neo, but then we analyze his words.

    Guys, he's BS'ing Neo bigtime. Don't take the architect seriously. There may be a few nuggets of truth in there, perhaps even the whole fabric. But at least some of the details simply must be wrong.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  415. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...oh how the mighty have fallen.....

  416. Matrix v Religion by Okin · · Score: 1

    I think people are capable of holding their own opinions about the universe and creation. They can [begin the slow process of self asphixiation] see a 'fictional' movie and differintiate between reality and the matrix... not too hard.

    With that said... the scene with the architect is very easy to understand.

    The Matrix is what it is. Control plus Energy. Neo and the rest of Zion happened to be awakened from the Matrix and are in a bttle to free all of humanity and destroy the machines.

    What no one knows and the Architect makes clear to Neo is that Zion has been created a number of times. Since Neo was int he positions to have the Matrix recreated for a 6th time, he had to realize the his 4 predicessors were 'the one' who would return. (This is the basis of their religion. Basically the Matrix couldn't simulate the human world perfectly, there was a small bug that would allow 'one' individual to remake the Matrix as he saw fit. (i.e. Fly, pull bullets out of peoples chests... whatever) It is a continuous cycle. The Architect just shows Neo that the keep a balance he must agree to choose the 20 or so peeps to release so they can recreate another Zion and proclaim the relgion. Neo chose the other door which would undo the balance. NOt hard to figure out. duh.

  417. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Egypt is an oceanless beach filled with brainless fuck-twads who have nothing better to do than blow themselves up and ass-fuck goats.

    And, no, you never built the pyramids. And, no, you never had doctors, nevermind doctors for each eye.

    You only controlled gravity in the sense that you felt the unescapeable pull of your tiny penis to the ass of a young male goat.

    Mohammed was a cum-guzzler and Allah doesn't exist.

    I wipe my shit-stained ass with the Egyptian flag!

  418. Re:Fuck you Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a lying cuntball. You're not Egyptian.

    You're a pathetic 10 year old girl from Des Moines, Iowa who gets nightly cream-reamed by drunken daddy after a long day at the shit factory.

    Lying asshole!

  419. The Electronic Jew Conspiracy Continues.... laugh by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    Here is another example of a middle eastern country thinking that the entire American media is controlled by Jews. The true offense of this movie is NOT the multiple religious aspect, but the fact that the main city is named Zion. After all, Egpyt didn't ban Star Wars and it has religious overtones.

    If we look at the old Testament account of the nation of Israel and ask the following questions:

    Q: From where did the Jews start their legendary journey?
    A: Egypt, where they were all slaves.

    Q: Where were the Jews going?
    A: Zion aka the promised land.

    From this we can clearly reason that the Matrix series is a Jewish conspiracy against Egypt. The pods represent a metaphoric enslavement of the human race, just like Egypt enslaved the Jews long ago. Morpheus represents Moses who free's people and takes them to Zion (the promised land). (Note: Both of the names start with "M"! Coincidence, I think not. This has conspiracy written all over it.)

    See how much sense it all makes! It's clearly a plot against Egypt. Nothing more than a thiny veiled attempt to subvert Egypt's youth and make them all want to move to Zion.

    Seriously, over-analysis of the Matrix is getting out of hand. Analyzing every scene and every bit of dialog trying to find the hidden meaning is insane.

    SOMETIMES A MOVE IS JUST A MOVIE!

  420. And so the wheel turns by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    Egypt was one of the founding technological empires in its day. It was what we now refer to as First World in the grand scheme of things back then. Their technology is STILL standing over 4000 years later!

    Now you need to consider that they were not Muslims back then. There was no such religion as Islam. They believed in a different set of gods.

    I'm sure that back then if you spoke out against their religion, or said it's a crock, you would have been punished (isn't that the whole basis of the Christian Bible that they DID speak out and were therefore cast out?).

    And yet today, Egypt is a predominantly Muslim country. They would not hesitate in saying that the old religions were bunk. In fact, Christians would also say the same thing, along with Roman and Greek gods too. They were all bunk, they'd say. And yet all current religions are back at the same point all over again, saying that theirs is the one true religion and all others are false.

    Makes you wonder what the picture will be in another thousand years, doesn't it?

    Quizo

  421. Thought by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The question is wether or not inducing 'thought' about "saving zion" and "fighting for zion" are is a good thing in a country where most people would prefer to see the real "zion" destroyed. Including people who would probably want to blow up some movie theaters.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  422. How about not subsidizing it in the first place? by akac · · Score: 1

    This is where socialistic views become real problematic. Its happening in the US too.

  423. Re:Consistent logic, reasoning, and reliable sourc by droleary · · Score: 1

    I've never seen a purple unicorn, and there is no "trustworthy record" of a purple unicorn.

    Then as an educated and rational person, you couldn't come to the conclusion there are no purple unicorns. You could say you didn't believe there where any, but the atheist doesn't stop there. They go all the way and proclaim that their belief is the correct belief which, as I stated, is essentially what the "godhead" people do.

    You always start out with a default assumption, based on what you know about the world. The natural/logical default is to believe that there is no god.

    That is not the case. Every culture has created belief systems to explain the unknown. As I said before, the default is faith, which is really just a way of relating what is unknown to what is known. That is not idiotic, unless you believe the scientific method to be idiotic as well, since it has it's foundation in the same desire to understand. Or are you saying you're beyond such things, and have a perfect understanding of the universe? Are you that much more certain than Heisenberg was?

  424. Re:Fuck you Egypt by KingRamsis · · Score: 1

    And I'll lay foot in Egypt when the bombing stops.

    bombing ? what the hell are you talking about ?
    * runs out to the window *
    no bombing here are you sure we are talking about the same country here? are you on crack?

  425. Okaaaaayyy ... by Chromodromic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kirkegaard were all a bunch of idiots. Nice observation there, jack.

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
  426. Islamic Censorship by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1



    Don't even dream of having Muslim to explain anything to you.

    All they care is to convert you into THEIR religion, and if they can't, then they will device ways to kill you.

    That's the way of Islam.

    That's the way of Muslim.

    There shouldn't be any surprise of what Egypt has done. This thing has been repeated countless times across all the Muslim world.

    Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Yemen, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others, share one thing in common - they are REPRESSIVE REGIMES and THEY TREAT ALL NON-MUSLIMS harshly.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  427. Islamic Terrorism by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1



    You are right to point out that most of those Islamic Terrorists are from middle income family.

    I would say that the talk about "terrorism comes from poverty" is but a bunch of horse-manure.

    In the country I am staying - Malaysia - what I see is that the government - which is made up of many Islamic extremists - is very hard at work brainwashing the Muslims here to believe in the notion that "sacrifice for Islam at all cost" is something that is holy in Islam.

    In other words, Malaysia's government, through its intense brainwashing campaign, is breeding a whole new generation of potention Islamic Terrorists.

    So there shouldn't be any surprise that the Bali bombing, along with bombings and all other acts carried out in the name of Islam / Allah in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, are all related to the Muslims from Malaysia.

    I have no idea why the US government still tolerate the Malaysian government for their official encouragement of Islamic terrorism.

    If you live in Malaysia, like I am, everyday you will be bombarded with slogans like "We have to defeat our enemies, for they are coming to take away our land and kill our children, and we have to fight to make Islam the strongest religion in the world."

    The above quote is loosely based on many similar quotes from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohammed.

    For years, that guy have incite violence. For years, that guy kept on thinking that only through violence that he and his religion can control the world.

    The Prime Minister of Malaysia is a nut. And he is a very dangerous nut.

    Unfortunately, nobody is taking care of the problem. With the help of the nut, many more violences will happen, and many innocent lives will be sacrified, in the name of Holy War.

    I sincerely hope that the international community will put a stop to this madness.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Islamic Terrorism by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think you both misinterpreted my post (which may be my fault, of course).

      I didn't intend to say that there is a direct link between poverty and terrorism. That is not what we're seeing. Most of the poor population is very passive, sometimes that's good, because most of the population don't want a war, they're not going to kill anybody, and sometimes it is bad, as it is very hard to have a popular uprising against dictators.

      What poverty does create, is a general sentiment that someone else is responsible for your misery, a sentiment that can then be exploited. The next problem is that that allthough the vast majority would never resort to terrorism, a very small minority would, and those who think they have the resources to "do something" will "do something". Under the wrong circumstances, this something will be terrorism.

      If malaysians were all big, fat and had no percieved enemies, the prime minister would not be listened to, would he?

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  428. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by torpor · · Score: 1

    Why would I rejoice when a government takes choice away from its people?

    Presumably, the Egyptian Government is not taking away choice, it is actually enforcing the desires of the majority of its populace and in so doing serving the purposes of Government.

    Banning "Matrix" may not just be a matter of government protection, but it could also be representative of the desires of the population... how would you know it isn't?

    In not understanding this view, I feel that your own point of view may have been a bit manipulated by a prevailing political perspective which was communicated along with all the other 'facts' given you in this story ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  429. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you use a typewriter and then scan the post into ./?

    Why? do monospaced fonts annoy you?

    --
    Karma: Anonymous (mostly resulting from being a Coward)

  430. One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is possible (though I believe unlikely) that machines and humans are melding in some way.
    Now it seems Neo is the human with power over machines and Agent Smith is the machine (or is he a piece of software...) with control over a human body.

    For me smith is the sticking point, if he is software I believe there are two options

    1. Zion is another part of the Matrix or an older Matrix and its just another level of control, hence why smith (as software) is able to exist there.

    2. Humans have implants that enable software to run on them...

  431. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
    Neo is not omnipotent. The Matrix is a physics simulation, so he is limited to working within that framework. Evidently he has hacked into the network, so he can issue commands in the Matrix command language, but he can't make arbitrary changes to the simulation. (If he *could* do so, then surely he *would* have done so by now.)

    Obviously the Matrix command language will have instructions such 'transfer energy and momentum from object 1 to adjacent object 2'. Neo issues these commands directly from his brain onto the Matrix LAN, and hence manages to fly and make swords jump into his hands. But he cannot e.g. teleport himself because the Matrix command languages would have no requirement for such a function.

    It would be a very boring film if Neo were omnipotent. Which is why the Wachowskis didn't write it that way.

    Peter B Lloyd
    www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

  432. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by hplasm · · Score: 1

    No, just curious. Makes the post stand out somewhat, so perhaps it works for you..

    --
    ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  433. (Satirical) Mormon takes on the Matrix by Antisthenes · · Score: 1

    You'll fully appreciate this only if you're a Mormon, or if you know Mormon culture. According to The Sugar Beat ("LDS Satire, Honest"), a recent poll "a recent poll" of Mormon youth revealed that 32% of the participants thought the Matrix to be "at least partially inspired by God." "But that number may be low, because many kids wouldnâ(TM)t admit to having seen an R-rated movie.â But see also for a slightly different viewpoint, i.e. Neo is Satan. I've never personally heard of Mormons tallying profanities in movies, though. If your typical Mormon is offended by a film's content, chances are he or she will walk out. Certainly some other Christians (unfortunately) keep those kinds of detailed scores, and a few Mormons might, but it seems much less likely.

    1. Re:(Satirical) Mormon takes on the Matrix by Antisthenes · · Score: 1

      Woops. I hit "Submit" rather than "Preview". Heh heh. The review is here. And yes, I also caught the "a recent poll" redundancy.

  434. Bigots, bigots, everywhere.... by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Huh, I wish I'd read the parent post before I made my own reply to you. I'll see if I can find Dimont's book, but I suspect I will strongly disagree with him, especially since (as I noted in the other post) the Inquisition did engage in mass condemnations and executions. Sounds like he's not a very good researcher.

    I completely agree with you that religion is not to blame for the existence of murdering zealots - even the Thuggee in India do not disprove that theory!

    This deserves repeating: I used to be kind of ashamed of some of the people in the church I grew up in: good people, but narrow-minded and a bit bigoted. Then I started reading Slashdot, and I recognized that same narrow-minded bigotry in people with all manner of ideologies. Well said!

    Omigod, I made a "me too" post. I hate "me too" posts! Let's see if I can come up with something worthwhile to add... uhm, as a co-religionist, you have a better chance of enlightening those narrow-minded people in your church than any outsider has. So maybe being ashamed of them is a good thing. Not very deep but it's the best I could come up with at the moment, sorry.

    1. Re:Bigots, bigots, everywhere.... by martyros · · Score: 1
      Don't be too hard on Dimont -- for one, I'm paraphrasing a quote that I read over a year ago, so I may have misquoted him quite a bit. =) For two, he wasn't trying to make a analysis of the level of mass-calculated murder over the centuries. He was talking about how the Jews in Europe were persecuted by the Inquisition throughout the middle ages, and knowing that most of his modern readers would react strongly, was putting it in perspective.

      And you have to admit, killing "all the Jews in Germany" -- what was the number, 7 million that died? is an order of magnitude bigger than 20,000.

      Which doesn't mean that he's a very great historian -- the way he paints it, the Jews were responsible for just about all the good things that happened in Europe for the past 1500 years. =)

      ...as a co-religionist, you have a better chance of enlightening those narrow-minded people in your church than any outsider has. So maybe being ashamed of them is a good thing.
      Oh, well, I'm not "oh, bigotry's OK then" now. =) I was ashamed for the sake of Christianity, because they reinforce the popular culture's view of crazy fundamentalists. It's one thing to say, "I bet there are narrow-minded people of every ideology", than to say, "I KNOW there are narrow-minded people of every ideology." Now I can relax and enlighten when I can. =)

      Peace, -martyros

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

  435. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    enforcing the desires of the majority

    Which means they are taking away the choice from every member not of that majority -- given even that the majority is unified on this single issue.

    could also be representative of the desires of the population

    Duh! If it was representative of the desires of the population then additional regulation would not be necessary because nobody would be going to see it anyway.

    how would you know it isn't?

    Now you want me to prove a negative. Yeah...right! What I know for sure is that you don't know at all.

    feel that your own point of view may have been a bit manipulated by a prevailing political perspective which was communicated along with all the other 'facts' given you in this story

    Regarding facts, allow me to quote another /. poster on a previous story:

    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  436. Re:Consistent logic, reasoning, and reliable sourc by droleary · · Score: 1

    You missed the whole fucking point.

    One of us is definitely missing the point.

    Cultures make up lots of shit, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

    I never argued that any of this had to do with truth. It's still at the stage of logical consistency, which atheism fails to satisfy just as certainly as theism does.

    It's not enough to just explain things, they must be explained rationally.

    Again, this has nothing to do with my position. I brought up Heisenberg precisedly to point out that it may well be beyond our abilities to explain everything rationally. What is certain is that, for all our knowledge, we are still pretty stupid about the answers to big questions. If religion has made a mistake, it is in saying it knows the answers without evidence. In that way, atheism is a religion.

    Dumbass.

    One of us is definitely being a dumbass.

  437. Re:Consistent logic, reasoning, and reliable sourc by I'm+a+racist's. · · Score: 0
    I never argued that any of this had to do with truth.
    This whole discussion is about truth. It's pretty fucking stupid to believe in something that isn't true.
    It's still at the stage of logical consistency
    You're logically inconsistent. I've explained it pretty clearly, you just don't want to admit it.
    which atheism fails to satisfy just as certainly as theism does
    Keep telling yourself that, maybe someday you'll believe it... it still won't be true though. Religion is based on the ridiculous idea of all-powerful beings. Show me one. The burden of proof is on the one claiming that such a thing exists. Careful observation of the world doesn't reveal a diety, so why believe in them? The default thinking is that 'there are no gods'.
    I brought up Heisenberg precisedly [sic] to point out that it may well be beyond our abilities to explain everything rationally.
    The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a rational explanation of observable phenomena.
    we are still pretty stupid about the answers to big questions
    That's a loaded statement, requiring further definition before I'll argue about it. Anyway, that's outside the scope of this discussion.
    If religion has made a mistake, it is in saying it knows the answers without evidence. In that way, atheism is a religion.
    No, it's not the same, precisely because athiesm is the default. Like I said, you missed the point. Children aren't born believing in gods, they believe it because they are told to. I wasn't born believing in the existence of electrons, I believe they exist because I can observe phenomenological evidence of them. I have never run an experiment in the QCD domain, yet I accept it because of the reputation of those who claim to have done so, as well as the fact that it fits in nicely with phenomena that I have observed directly.

    That's the whole point. You aren't born believing things exist (hence the default is to assume they don't exist). You accept their existence by observing evidence or trusting the word of others. You learn about the existence of gravity, the need for food, the difference between light and dark, and so on. In the case of religion, people believe it because they're trusting others. The problem is that their sources (the bible, etc) are unreliable. There is no hard evidence to back up the outrageous claims made in religions. It's all very inconsistent with observations that people can make.

    Of course, you'll say (again) that atheism isn't the default. You have no recourse but to push that argument, since anything else would be admitting that you're an idiot. This, despite the fact that I've clearly explained how/why athiesm is the default assumption.
    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
  438. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

    "Evidently he has hacked into the network, so he can issue commands in the Matrix command language, but he can't make arbitrary changes to the simulation."

    He didn't hack the network. He's another program in it. He's supposed to have those powers. It's like having a god code in Quake.

  439. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Peter+Lloyd · · Score: 1
    The in-film evidence is that he's human: the Architect says so, the Merovingian says so, Councillor Hannan says so, and one of the Agents says so.

    It goes without saying that *anybody* might turn out to be a machine in the end. But if we're forming hypotheses based on what the Wachowski brothers have put on the screen so far, the inference must be that Neo is human.

    Since the normal conditions of play for a human in the Matrix is that s/he must comply with a standard physics simulation, Neo must have hacked into the Matrix to some degree. Otherwise he wouldn't have superhuman powers.

    On the other hand, he is not omnipotent. If he were, he could annihiliate arbitrarily many Agents with a single thought; he could teleport; he could vaporise the power station and disable the back-up system with another thought. Since he doesn't exercise omnipotence when he has good reason to do so, the filmic evidence is that he is not omnipotent.

    In fact, the powers that he does have are consistent with the hypothesis that he has hacked into the Matrix network and he is issuing commands within the repertoire that the Matrix normally uses.

    This is not proof, but it is the least implausible hypothesis consistent with the in-film evidence.

    Peter B Lloyd
    www.ursasoft.com/matrix/exegesis.htm

  440. Re:Not to mention ... Consider this B4 Speaking by torpor · · Score: 1

    Which means they are taking away the choice from every member not of that majority -- given even that the majority is unified on this single issue.

    And how is that different from the fascist republic of the United States of America?

    Duh! If it was representative of the desires of the population then additional regulation would not be necessary because nobody would be going to see it anyway.

    Uh.... I'm not going to argue with you here, as you seem to have a logic bug...

    (It's like saying "why outlaw murder? the populace doesnt want to murder each other... so they won't!")

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  441. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anyone else here horribly disappointent by Matrix: Reloaded?
    I haven't seen it yet, but even so it's hardly justification for the raghead sand-wogs to ban it is it?

    Before anyone says "I know 7ral moslems who are not in favour of censorship, and are not terrorists and dont cut girls minge flaps off with rusty cheesegraters", I'll save time by telling you to fuck off now.

  442. No Machines by luisdlc · · Score: 1

    I have an explanation for the metamatrix theory. There are NO machines. Human race has finally wasted earth maybe in a last war yes, but not necessarily against 'machines' but against themselves, as usual. So the sky is scorched and all that stuff⦠The survivors have the technology to make human race transcend, but donâ(TM)t have enough resources to do it in the âold free fashion wayâ(TM). To preserve the specie to the time when it can be free again, it is necessary to junction it to a simulation program: so we all can have a ânormalâ(TM) life meanwhile the âhabitatâ(TM) is reconstructed. But there is a problem; minds reject the program, so the matrix evolves just as the âArchitectâ(TM) explains. The solution is given, which creates the anomalies; remember there isnâ(TM)t just the problem of the one. 99% of the minds accept the program, 1% rejects it. So you have to deal with this 1% that endangers the Matrix. Just a note, I havenâ(TM)t mentioned âmachinesâ(TM) yet. So the Engineers (let them be the humans that ARE outside any matrix and really in the world) come to the need of creating a metamatrix so they can get out the rebel minds and avoid the dissemination of the problem inside the matrix, just as the âArchitectâ(TM) explained the need for âZionâ(TM). Now this creates a problem, in the metamatrix the anomaly will evolve and progress just as in the matrix, just as a fractal. And a meta-metamatrix would be needed as the now 100% rebel minds get aware that they are still in a matrix. To solve this problem the âMachinesâ(TM) argument is created. The Engineers then created the âoemachinesâ as a method of constrain the metamatrix as the matrix runs undisturbed to the day it can be shut down. The machines would fight the metamatrix (Zion) and from time to time (when the maximum amplification of the anomaly is achieved inside the matrix: the one appears) would wipe it out as a sacrifice needed to maintain the Matrix and restrain the metamatrix from creating and endless cycle of metamatrices. But this time, the one is going also to find this out.

  443. Only embarasses Egypt... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    Why do this? Seems to me it just embarasses the Egyptian censorship board, since the idea of The Matrix Reloaded containing "religious themes" requires quite a bit of reading between the lines.

    Why not ban all movies? I'm sure any crazy could find a religious theme in every movie.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  444. So freakin tired.... by Svapne · · Score: 1
    One more moldy troglodyte bent on pushing his outdated cult as "the one" and using it to censor fiction and I'm going to nail him to a cross with whatever useless trinket he prays to.

    I'm so done....

    PS.. I'm refering to every religion in existace, don't think I'm singling anyone out.. I genuinely wish people would begin to place other humans before their poorly devised gods so the world could live and peace and progress, I just don't see it happening... Until then people will die for unseen entities that rule peoples lives and give them an excuse to control and kill...

  445. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, the point you illustrates on the second paragraph is been completely destroyed by this post:

    Re:The one thing I didn't understand by KevetS (Score:3) Thursday June 12, @10:04AM

  446. Re:Can someone please explain to me..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting answer.

    Unfortunately, no matter how you explain it, there will still be those clueless people that keep asking the same kinda lame question over and over.

    "Why does Neo have to fight the Agent Smith's if he can fly?"

    Duh, do you just shut down your computer everytime it's infected with a virus?! Don't you wanna exterminate it?