Thin plot, sketchy characterization, and John Travolta all combine to make a movie that just wasn't all that engrossing.
Wait, why'd you suddenly start talking about Battlefield: Earth? Or did you mean Broken Arrow? Or maybe Face-off or Password: Swordfish? Now I'm really confused.
Mormons believe that Jesus was the son of god, hence they are Christians.
Um, Mormons believe you and I are sons of God, and on equal footing with Jesus (he's just our big brother). So, no, they're not Christian.
Other than that though, you have no more clue than anybody else what the truth is. If you had the courage to admit that, then you would be a much better person.
No, it would make me weak like you. I have the courge of my convictions to say I'm right, you're wrong. You can only sit there and say "I don't know." Any weakling can do that, and in fact they all do. Those with courage stand tall and proud and confront those who are wrong.
So Mormons are at least as good of Christians as any fundamentalist wacko branch.
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Mormons aren't Christians. You can say they're good people, which they are, but they're no more Christian than Jews or Muslims.
the rules of priesthood will always encourage this type of behavior
The rules of priesthood have existed for thousands of years. The pedophilia only existed a few decades. Tell me again how the one encourages the other?
Oh, and ignore the fact that you're more likely to be abused by a camp councilor or Protestant minister than you are a Catholic priest.
Well, atheists tend to lump them together, forgetting that Mormons place as much emphasis on Jesus as Muslims do. In fact, people should check out some of the online resources, like religioustolerance.org, and read some of the essays comparing Islam with the LDS church. Some startling similarities, especially WRT their founders and how they started their religions (both were aproached by beings of light that only they met, both claimed knowledge from a hidden source [Joseph Smith had tablets only he could read, Mohammed took dictation when he supposedly couldn't write], and both were started with the premise that the Christian had messed up Jesus' teachings and they were prophets with a mission to get the Church back on track). So if you meet someone who insists Mormons are Christian, tell them, in that case, Muslims are Christian.
But they put a set of guidelines in place that practically guarantees such behavior will occur in a non-negligable portion of their priests.
That's completely absurd. It was only a handful of priests who committed that sin. The problem was that, on the advice of psychologists, the church leaders in America failed to handle the situation properly, putting those same predators back in positions with access to young boys.
Most of the references to the groups planting road side bombs targetting Americans or Brits call them "insurgents", not "terrorists". They become terrorists, however, when they blow up a cafe full of civilians (for example), or "assassins" when they gun down a politician. Different actions result in different labels.
I'm curious to know your reasons on why MoveOn.org is a kook fringe organization.
Let's address them in sequence. Why are MoveOn.org a bunch of kooks? Because they stand for anything anti-Bush (without question). The "without question" bit is the important part. They don't care what someone else stands for, as long as they're not Bush. That's not a very sane way of looking at the world.
Whether they're fringe or not depends on which type of fringe you mean. Yeah, they've got money and some political clout, but they're also extremists, so unless you already agree with their stance on an issue, they're not going to change your mind. Since they're not likely to swing the ever important middle ground voters, that makes them a fringe group (just like the Christian Coalition, they pretty much only preach to the choir).
No, no it doesn't. If you honestly think taking part in real, live wargames is like getting your undergraduate degree, you have no sense of perspective on the subject.
Running around in chem suits under a desert sun. - Trying sitting inside a small computer lab with no air conditioning in the middle of Summer
You don't honestly think sitting in a hot room in tee-shirt and shorts (or even collard shirt and jeans) is anything remotely like having a limited amount of oxygen, and no ability for the sweat sticking to your skin to evaporate, do you? At least you could wipe off your sweat.
For bonus points, try running for a couple of miles in that same chem suit, carrying 80 lbs of gear on your back. I was only in the Navy, so my worst experience with chem warfare training was turning off the air conditioning in the ship, feeling the tempature go up to 110 degrees (steel and aluminum tend to get hot when being hit by the mid-day sun in the Persian Gulf), and having to drink water through a straw in my gas mask. The Marines we dropped on the beach had it infinitely worse.
Mock me all you want but don't come crying to me when I'm living off the grid and growing my own food and you're paying out the ass for food, water, shelter, and gasoline.
Here's hoping you smithy your own rifles and ammunition, too, or else you'll be real popular during the next major societal breakdown.:)
It seems that someone has difficulty in reading the disclaimer at the bottom of my message.
I can't imagine why someone would skip the "disclaimer" at the end, after having read through all the trollish gibberish you spout before it.
Face it, developers are responsible for creating new products. Sysadmins are responsible for keeping production systems up and running. Those are two completely different areas of responsibility and skillsets. Further, if a developer honestly thinks he needs any kind of access to the production system, then he needs to go back and learn how to work in a four stage environment (dev, QA, staging, and prod). Only one of those environments should have any actual development work done in it.
Just because something is ancient does not mean is's obsolete. Lisp is ancient... The atomic bomb is ancient... Airplanes are ancient...
You need to get a better perspective on what's ancient. I suggest spending some time in some Roman, Greek, or even Mayan ruins. Walking amongst buildings which have not been inhabited for thousands of years gives a much better appreciation for the word "ancient".
The first amendment is about speech and assembly, not about posession.
It also guarantees freedom of the press, which includes freedom to write, publish, distribute, and read pretty much anything. So, yes, it does cover possession. And of course, other constitutional amendments cover being "secure in their papers and possessions", so either way you're covered.
Needless to say, the state has the ability and authority to outlaw certain activities. Some of these activities include certain types of writings or depictions, which would normally be covered under freedom of the press. But since the courts have determined that it is permissible for these things to be outlawed, preventing people from accessing them ("censorship") is just an extension of those laws, and are no different than preventing people from accessing outlawed weapons or drugs. The censorship by itself is not wrong, the laws allowing it are, but only when the censorship covers something of a political, religious, or idealogical nature. Kiddie porn (along with the other outlawed writings, like libel) doesn't fall into those categories, so defending it on free speech grounds will just get you looked at as a kiddie porn collecting loon.
There is a legitimate argument for blocking harmful material, and some would say there is a legitimate argument for blocking immoral material.
Wait, you actually want the state to determine what's moral?? In that case, kiddie porn is definitely immoral, so what's the big deal with blocking access to it?
However, blocking illegal material is, by definition, blocking material the government doesn't want you to see, if you accept it as legitimate, you are accepting every possible act of government censorship.
Even with freedom of speech, some things can't be said. And it's perfectly reasonable for the government to block access to those sites which say those things.
In china, for instance, certain kinds of political material are illegal, so by your argument there is nothing wrong with the Chinese government blocking it.
Outlawing poltical thoughts and beliefs goes against first amendment type protections in the first place. Blocking sites to that material is just another way of enforcing those laws. For instance, it's illegal in Canada to distribute KKK flyers. So if the Canadian government wanted to block access to the homepage of the KKK, there'd be nothing (more) wrong with it.
Slipping betwen `immoral' and `illegal' is easy and dangerous.
Except that kiddie porn is already illegal, not just immoral. So blocking access to it is perfectly legal, and moral.
I in no way approve of or condone child pornography.
Yes, you do.
However, censorship is a slippery slope.
No, it's not.
Once we allow the child pornographers to be blocked, what's stopping them from taking the next step and censoring all they deem obscene?
Child porn isn't obscene, it's flat out illegal. If you're caught with child porn on your computer, you could face years in prison. Given that it's possible to find kiddie porn accidentally, it makes sense to have it blocked my the ISP: it means innocent people won't suffer for honest mistakes. It also creates roadblocks between people who really want to see that crap, and the people who produce it. Which means the producers don't make as much money, which means some of them die off, which means there's less kiddie porn available.
I'm not insane, just concerned.
You're neither, you're hopelessly naive. Child porn involves heinous abuse of young children. Anything that prevents it from happening, which this will, is a good thing.
No, and I also don't buy so little that I could fit a week's worth of groceries on my back for the trip home. I don't see how the Segway would help anyone do their grocerie shopping.
Slashdot Mirror
Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world.
Huh? Jacques Chirac was re-elected?
They should probably let Shatner on for free
Except if they did that, his ticket would end up having Leonard Nimoy's name stamped on it.
Nah, avoid the green alien pussy. It isn't ripe.
Thin plot, sketchy characterization, and John Travolta all combine to make a movie that just wasn't all that engrossing.
Wait, why'd you suddenly start talking about Battlefield: Earth? Or did you mean Broken Arrow? Or maybe Face-off or Password: Swordfish? Now I'm really confused.
Mormons believe that Jesus was the son of god, hence they are Christians.
Um, Mormons believe you and I are sons of God, and on equal footing with Jesus (he's just our big brother). So, no, they're not Christian.
Other than that though, you have no more clue than anybody else what the truth is. If you had the courage to admit that, then you would be a much better person.
No, it would make me weak like you. I have the courge of my convictions to say I'm right, you're wrong. You can only sit there and say "I don't know." Any weakling can do that, and in fact they all do. Those with courage stand tall and proud and confront those who are wrong.
The pedophilia only has been reported and recorded for a few decades.
And if you can find evidence of older occassions, I'll change my view.
As for sources for the camp counselor statement, this is Slashdot, not a doctoral thesis. If you're interested, do a Google search.
But you can see in many cases when a man is denied his god given urge for sexual companionship some unsavory things can happen...
True only if the man relies on his own abilities. But with God, all things are possible.
So Mormons are at least as good of Christians as any fundamentalist wacko branch.
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Mormons aren't Christians. You can say they're good people, which they are, but they're no more Christian than Jews or Muslims.
the rules of priesthood will always encourage this type of behavior
The rules of priesthood have existed for thousands of years. The pedophilia only existed a few decades. Tell me again how the one encourages the other?
Oh, and ignore the fact that you're more likely to be abused by a camp councilor or Protestant minister than you are a Catholic priest.
Well, atheists tend to lump them together, forgetting that Mormons place as much emphasis on Jesus as Muslims do. In fact, people should check out some of the online resources, like religioustolerance.org, and read some of the essays comparing Islam with the LDS church. Some startling similarities, especially WRT their founders and how they started their religions (both were aproached by beings of light that only they met, both claimed knowledge from a hidden source [Joseph Smith had tablets only he could read, Mohammed took dictation when he supposedly couldn't write], and both were started with the premise that the Christian had messed up Jesus' teachings and they were prophets with a mission to get the Church back on track). So if you meet someone who insists Mormons are Christian, tell them, in that case, Muslims are Christian.
But they put a set of guidelines in place that practically guarantees such behavior will occur in a non-negligable portion of their priests.
That's completely absurd. It was only a handful of priests who committed that sin. The problem was that, on the advice of psychologists, the church leaders in America failed to handle the situation properly, putting those same predators back in positions with access to young boys.
Take a look, at the self description of the poster! About Him
OK, but all I got was: Not Found. Seems Art's gone missing. Quick, somebody call the FBI and report a missing person!
delime opinions (which can be untrue, like "IMO, /. is a bunch of whiney racist faggots")
Wait, I thought you were talking about things which are untrue?
Most of the references to the groups planting road side bombs targetting Americans or Brits call them "insurgents", not "terrorists". They become terrorists, however, when they blow up a cafe full of civilians (for example), or "assassins" when they gun down a politician. Different actions result in different labels.
I'm curious to know your reasons on why MoveOn.org is a kook fringe organization.
Let's address them in sequence. Why are MoveOn.org a bunch of kooks? Because they stand for anything anti-Bush (without question). The "without question" bit is the important part. They don't care what someone else stands for, as long as they're not Bush. That's not a very sane way of looking at the world.
Whether they're fringe or not depends on which type of fringe you mean. Yeah, they've got money and some political clout, but they're also extremists, so unless you already agree with their stance on an issue, they're not going to change your mind. Since they're not likely to swing the ever important middle ground voters, that makes them a fringe group (just like the Christian Coalition, they pretty much only preach to the choir).
Sounds like my undergraduate degree
No, no it doesn't. If you honestly think taking part in real, live wargames is like getting your undergraduate degree, you have no sense of perspective on the subject.
Running around in chem suits under a desert sun. - Trying sitting inside a small computer lab with no air conditioning in the middle of Summer
You don't honestly think sitting in a hot room in tee-shirt and shorts (or even collard shirt and jeans) is anything remotely like having a limited amount of oxygen, and no ability for the sweat sticking to your skin to evaporate, do you? At least you could wipe off your sweat.
For bonus points, try running for a couple of miles in that same chem suit, carrying 80 lbs of gear on your back. I was only in the Navy, so my worst experience with chem warfare training was turning off the air conditioning in the ship, feeling the tempature go up to 110 degrees (steel and aluminum tend to get hot when being hit by the mid-day sun in the Persian Gulf), and having to drink water through a straw in my gas mask. The Marines we dropped on the beach had it infinitely worse.
Mock me all you want but don't come crying to me when I'm living off the grid and growing my own food and you're paying out the ass for food, water, shelter, and gasoline.
:)
Here's hoping you smithy your own rifles and ammunition, too, or else you'll be real popular during the next major societal breakdown.
It seems that someone has difficulty in reading the disclaimer at the bottom of my message.
I can't imagine why someone would skip the "disclaimer" at the end, after having read through all the trollish gibberish you spout before it.
Face it, developers are responsible for creating new products. Sysadmins are responsible for keeping production systems up and running. Those are two completely different areas of responsibility and skillsets. Further, if a developer honestly thinks he needs any kind of access to the production system, then he needs to go back and learn how to work in a four stage environment (dev, QA, staging, and prod). Only one of those environments should have any actual development work done in it.
Just because something is ancient does not mean is's obsolete.
Lisp is ancient...
The atomic bomb is ancient...
Airplanes are ancient...
You need to get a better perspective on what's ancient. I suggest spending some time in some Roman, Greek, or even Mayan ruins. Walking amongst buildings which have not been inhabited for thousands of years gives a much better appreciation for the word "ancient".
Ahhh, so you are evaluating your software based on looks of the people in the company? Wow. Can it get any more closed minded than that?
Actually, I'd say it's ironic, not just close minded. I mean, have you seen some of the gurus of "open source" lately?
I don't remember. That's the second thing they teach you.
The first amendment is about speech and assembly, not about posession.
It also guarantees freedom of the press, which includes freedom to write, publish, distribute, and read pretty much anything. So, yes, it does cover possession. And of course, other constitutional amendments cover being "secure in their papers and possessions", so either way you're covered.
Needless to say, the state has the ability and authority to outlaw certain activities. Some of these activities include certain types of writings or depictions, which would normally be covered under freedom of the press. But since the courts have determined that it is permissible for these things to be outlawed, preventing people from accessing them ("censorship") is just an extension of those laws, and are no different than preventing people from accessing outlawed weapons or drugs. The censorship by itself is not wrong, the laws allowing it are, but only when the censorship covers something of a political, religious, or idealogical nature. Kiddie porn (along with the other outlawed writings, like libel) doesn't fall into those categories, so defending it on free speech grounds will just get you looked at as a kiddie porn collecting loon.
There is a legitimate argument for blocking harmful material, and some would say there is a legitimate argument for blocking immoral material.
Wait, you actually want the state to determine what's moral?? In that case, kiddie porn is definitely immoral, so what's the big deal with blocking access to it?
However, blocking illegal material is, by definition, blocking material the government doesn't want you to see, if you accept it as legitimate, you are accepting every possible act of government censorship.
Even with freedom of speech, some things can't be said. And it's perfectly reasonable for the government to block access to those sites which say those things.
In china, for instance, certain kinds of political material are illegal, so by your argument there is nothing wrong with the Chinese government blocking it.
Outlawing poltical thoughts and beliefs goes against first amendment type protections in the first place. Blocking sites to that material is just another way of enforcing those laws. For instance, it's illegal in Canada to distribute KKK flyers. So if the Canadian government wanted to block access to the homepage of the KKK, there'd be nothing (more) wrong with it.
Slipping betwen `immoral' and `illegal' is easy and dangerous.
Except that kiddie porn is already illegal, not just immoral. So blocking access to it is perfectly legal, and moral.
I in no way approve of or condone child pornography.
Yes, you do.
However, censorship is a slippery slope.
No, it's not.
Once we allow the child pornographers to be blocked, what's stopping them from taking the next step and censoring all they deem obscene?
Child porn isn't obscene, it's flat out illegal. If you're caught with child porn on your computer, you could face years in prison. Given that it's possible to find kiddie porn accidentally, it makes sense to have it blocked my the ISP: it means innocent people won't suffer for honest mistakes. It also creates roadblocks between people who really want to see that crap, and the people who produce it. Which means the producers don't make as much money, which means some of them die off, which means there's less kiddie porn available.
I'm not insane, just concerned.
You're neither, you're hopelessly naive. Child porn involves heinous abuse of young children. Anything that prevents it from happening, which this will, is a good thing.
Do you walk to the grocery store?
No, and I also don't buy so little that I could fit a week's worth of groceries on my back for the trip home. I don't see how the Segway would help anyone do their grocerie shopping.
I'm not going to be satisfied until I get my flying car.
Even if it meant being taken advantage of by a bunch of deranged, German scientists? Perv.