I asked Comcast why they didn't have the HDNet channels in their HDTV lineup..
Their answer: "They (HDNet) need to change their equipment."
Right... the premiere High Definition channels in the country, the guys who paved the way for HiDef and provided NBC with the knowhow and equipment to broadcast the Olympics in HD need to change THEIR equipment... Equipment that is already servicing several other cable and satellite feeds. Including Time Warner cable whose area is about a mile and a half north of me.
OK. Fine. Whatever.
My feeling is... if they can't answer a question, they should just say "Sorry, but I don't have that information."
I don't want to go off topic, but to make a logical conclusion about something, you have to have evidence that supports an equation both ways, i.e. you could start from either end, and given the same variables you'll wind up at the other. Or at least that's the stipulation I make, as this is the mathematical way. For example. A = B+C; Then if you only have two of the values you can figure out the third.
So, let's put this in programming terms, as this is slshdot...
if ($jesus_existed == true)
{
echo "Jesus existed \n";
} if ($god_exists == true)
{
echo "god exists \n";
if ($jesus_parent == "god")
{
echo "jesus was the son of god \n;//insert more religious arguments here
}
}
else
{
echo "god does not exist";
}
See the problem here? While it can be proven a man named Jesus actually did exist, there's no way to assume that he was divine or even that God exists (which would be a requirement for the divinity part), unless someone specifically created the value of $jesus_parent and set it to "god", and set the value of $god_exists to true. The value does not get set to true, just because there isn't a function setting it to false. In the real world of science and logic, we start out from the assumption something IS NOT, unless proven otherwise. Religion requires you to assume something IS, unless proven otherwise. And herein lies the problem with the equation.
Men created the connection in their minds (set the $god_exists variable to true and then some set the $jesus_parent variable to "god"), and therefore any subsequent function or argument based on those variables will work. If you however don't put the $god_exists variable to true (as there's nothing in science or nature to prove that it should be, we must assume it's false), the rest of the if statement won't work, including the $jesus_parent variable, which won't even come into play.
The problem with any logic according to those who consider themselves religious, which has to do with nature or religion is that they start out with the assumption God exists, or at least make that decision based on one-way logic, and therefore all the related subsequent statements and functions automatically come into play. Someone sees order and structure in nature and assumes intelligent design. Another person sees the same thing and assumes billions of years of evolution. The difference? One can actually be proven, the other cannot. Evolution is a scientific fact, intelligent design is a conveniently disguised renaming of Creationism, and pure fantasy.
To rephrase something else you said, if I find a Rolex at the beach, I KNOW someone somewhere dropped it, because a Rolex does not exist in nature and doesn't form by itself, it was designed by man, and that is something we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I find a rock or a pebble that looks suspiciously like Jay Leno, I assume it was formed that way by the ocean over a long period of time, and the similarity is simply my brain filling in the blanks (it's called creative thinking), it doesn't mean nature conciously decided to make a Leno lookalike out of stone.
The difference is in how we interpret things. I see order and to me it shows the laws of nature at work. You see order and it means some superior being decided it must be that way. Guess which one can be affirmed.
Seeing as you're a born again Christian, I'm fully aware that no amount of evidence can convince you that your religion is based on lies. I know that. However, you would do well to remember what should be the eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself".
Christianity is so full of hypocracy, hatred and bigotry that it has always made me ill to think about how many people believe it to be an absolute truth, while there exists no evidence to support their claims. The Church has always had a very simple answer "it's a matter of faith". We live in a world of science and logic, not one of fantasy and fairy tale. If you insist on believing something which cannot be demonstrated, and frankly isn't logical, then that's your right, but it's also my right to consider you a simpleton for it.
Christianity has not made any contributions to philosophy or literature, and it is certainly not the foundation of western culture. The foundation of western culture is personal freedom. The Bible doesn't care much for personal freedom. In fact it condones slavery and the putting to death of those with whom the religious leaders disagree. That's not what our culture is based on. Your insistance on making this about me and my opinion (even though mine is based on logic, and yours is based on faith), rather than the evidence or lack thereof, tells me you're not likely to listen to reason of any kind, so I'm not going to try. Have a nice life. Somwhere along the line, you should open your mind and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It is the most logical dissemination of Christianity I have ever seen, and it does not resort to any leaps of faith, but is rather firmly grounded in logic.
You see, you are right on one thing. I don't think there's anything divine involved, and there has not been a shred of evidence to suggest that. You think there's a God, even though no evidence exists to support that claim. That's the fundamental difference. I need logic, you don't.
Also, you must keep in mind that Jesus was a Rabbi, and is referred to as such on many occasion. In Judaism (Jesus was Jewish), no man can become a Rabbi without being married.
Anyone who abandons logic for fairy tale, cannot be taken seriously in an argument.
Christianity is a sham from beginning to end. Jesus was at best a "Vegas Act"... a hoax, a showman, a "magician". He was fully aware of the Jewish prophecies and used it to it's fullest effect. E.g. he had Lazarus arrange for him an ass to ride on into Jerusalem, just like the prophecy had predicted. He was a wealthy man, and his family had a personal tomb (where he was buried and subsequently "rose from the dead"). Anyone who says "I used to be an atheist" must have lost sight of logic and coherent thought somewhere along the way.
Now you're just getting strange. There's no evidence what-so-ever of this in the Gospels. Nice to see I made you get personal. That's usually the first sign someone can't argue on the facts. You want evidence? How's this: I'm sure you're familiar with the "miracle" of Jesus turning water into wine. OK. 1. It was obviously his responsibility to serve the wine (he is instructed to by his mother). 2. At the time, it was customary for the host to be responsible for the wine, so we can safely assume he was either the host or closely related to the host. 3. He supposedly made over 700 bottles of wine. That's one big party. If he was indeed the host of a party big enough to consume 700 bottles of wine, then he must have been a) wealthy, b) royalty, c) an important figure or d) all of the above. 4. As you think logically about the layouts and setups of the party itself, its guests and the host, it becomes increasingly clear what the party was. A wedding. The marriage of royalty would certainly be reason enough for a party that huge. Whose wedding? At a wedding, only the groom sits at the high seat. Jesus did. At a wedding, the groom was considered the host. Jesus was very likely the host, based on his wine duties. So, it is extremely likely the party was his own wedding. To whom? Mary Magdalen of course. She enjoyed a status with Jesus and the apostles no woman not related by marriage or by blood would have. Seeing as she wasn't his sister, she most likely would have been his wife.
the death of Christ, which is one of the most heavily documented events in the history of the world This is a completely absurd thing to say. First of all, there are only 4 "accounts" of his death, ALL of which were written well AFTER it supposedly happened. And those four accounts (the gospels) don't even agree on how it happened, or even where! One says it was on the barren hill of Golgatha, while another says it was in a garden. They don't even agree on what his last words were, nor do they agree on who was there at the time. Second, this may be the most written about event, centuries after the fact, but it's certainly not the most heavily documented. My college years were more heavily documented than this... in fact they were probably better documented.
Pilate went out of his [way] to try to set Jesus free You must keep one thing in mind. The Gospels were written for a Roman audience. Therefore, any blame had to be shifted from the Romans. Instead of talking about their part directly and trying to explain their actions, it was simply omitted, and the parts that could not be omitted were covered up, as in the case of Pilate. He may have agreed to give his body up after the fact (which nobody ever got, before or since, all those crucified were left hanging for days until the elements and birds had had their way with them, so it is likely Pilate was coerced or even bribed to give the body up). There actually is suggestive material that might indicate that Jesus did in fact stage his own death, in order to fulfill the Jewish Prophecies. There is even strong likelyhood he was "crucified" in his own backyard, in a private ceremony, from which he was taken directly to the tomb, before anyone other than his brother in-law could verify his death. Penn & Teller can do that too.
Legend says it reveals the location of the Holy Grail.
This is of course based on the assumption that The Holy Grail is an object. Most often it refers to the cup Jesus drank from at the last supper, or the cup used to catch his blood as he hung on the cross, or both.
This is most likely a mistake, or a misunderstanding due to faulty translation of the original text.
The original term used for the holy grail is "sangraal", and that's where the problem starts. San Graal does in fact mean "Holy Grail". Sang Raal however, means "Royal Blood".
Since there is ample evidence to suggest Jesus was in fact the descendant of Solomon and David, and therefore he was true Royalty, the rightful heir to the throne of Palestine, and a threat to the Roman Empire. Which is exactly why they killed him (jews did not), if he was even killed, which is not even certain and cannot be proven.
So if Royal Blood is indeed the proper translation of sangraal, and due to its inherent connection with Christianity then it most likely refers to Jesus' bloodline. As is generally believed, Mary Magdalen moved to the South of France after the crucifixion carrying with her the Holy Grail, so it's not such a big leap of logic to assume the Holy Grail was in fact Jesus' son, being brought out of Palestine in order to save his life, and the Royal bloodline. There is also ample suggestion in the gospels of Jesus being married, and that Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany were one and the same. Seeing how close Jesus was to this Mary of Bethany, and her brother Lazarus, it's also very likely Lazarus was in fact Jesus' brother-in-law, and that Mary Magdalen was in fact Mary of Bethany. Also, Mary Magdalen was not a prostitute and Magdalen was not her last name. If you can point to the passage in the Bible that specifically says she was a prostitute, please make a note of it and inform the world, because not a single biblical or historical scholar has been able to do so to this day. It is in fact a lie concocted by religious leaders trying to obfuscate the fact Jesus was a married man with a family; being married and having children was practically required at that time and it's unfathomable that he didn't.
If you found any of what I said interesting or infuriating, please read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" available here.
Oh, and in case you were still wondering, I am an Atheist.
However, just to stay a little bit more on topic, here are a few suggestions as to what DOUOSVAVVM stands for:
Designed Overreacting Usage Of Some Very Agitated Violent Viagra Malfunction.
Do Only Uneducated Overly Simplistic Villains Accept Very Violent Methods?
Deaths Of Unbridled Overreaching Sacrifices Values And Virtue Very Much.
But of course, DOUOSVAVVM is NOT an english acronym...
The simple answer is yes. For the common good of the internet, as well as for the sake of protecting Microsoft's already spotty image, they should be allowed to download hotfixes... after all, they wouldn't need them if Micrsoft had done it right in the first place.
The corporate answer is no. They didn't pay for the software and are therefore ineligible for updates.
My opinion? For the common good, Windows should go away. But until then, everyone running it, legally or not, needs to have access to emergency patches and fixes.
OK... RTFA. It says the tree was discovered. It's not a man made hybrid of any kind. He reproduced a genetic mutation. He didn't modify anything, and as such should not be issued a patent for the tree, as it is a discovery, and not an invention.
Genetic modifications can be patented, not genetics themselves, and certainly not something which existed in nature with no input from man.
You just can't patent something natural you just discovered... what's next? Patenting oxygen or water? What about the Do-Do bird? Maybe some crazy scientist manages to bring it back to life through cloning, should he receive a patent on the Do-Do bird? He didn't create it, he copied it.
The say the mistake was issuing the patent to Microsoft, not that it was issued in the first place.
which can be as high as $1/minute, DOUBLING every minute
Assuming that means $1 first minute, $2 second minute, $4 third minute then $8, $16, $32 etc, I'd like to say this for future reference:
If I get stuck in traffic and show up 1 hour late, and my babysitter hands me a bill for $576.460.752.303.423.488 for an hour of her time, she'll need surgery to get my foot out of her ass.
If billing like that can be considered legal under ANY law, ANYWHERE, please tell me where you live and I'll move there and become a babysitter, starting tomorrow...
From Sen. Hatch' introduction: American citizens are using this software to create and redistribute infringing copies of popular music, movies, computer games and software.
Methinks the Republican Senator from Utah doesn't even understand the very software he's trying to fight. P2P software doesn't create the copies, it merely distributes them.
Editing the Windows registry allows you to change the name in the title bar of Internet Explorer.
Mine currently says "Internet Exploder".
How? I'm glad you asked, here's how:
Look for Window Title under HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Intern et Explorer\Main If Window Title doesn't exist there, create it as a new String Value, edit the value with whatever name you want, restart your IE and enjoy the new name.
oh, do grow up. If you want to be a racist, stop hiding behind this "getting rid of PC" shtick.
Get off your high horse. Racism is not my "shtick", and frankly I'm offended by your implication. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous the PC terms are and how they do the opposite of what they were meant to do. You've completely missed the point I was trying to make, and for what? To be a troll?
I didn't say it, George Carlin did. Besides, I don't even believe in god. But that's not the point either. The point is, the term Indian isn't negative. Being referred to as "people in god" by anyone, no matter which god, ought to be complimentary.
The term Native-American is offensive to me, because it, much like the other politically correct crap that came about around the same time, has no meaning, no value and undermines race relations if anything.
Let's take two Oscar winning actors I respect very much, as an example:
Denzel Washington was born in America. He's probably approximately 4th or 5th generation American. Charlize Theron was born in South Africa, and moved to America 12 years ago.
Now, which one of them is African-American?
If you said Denzel Washington, it's because of the color of his skin, right? Isn't that interesting?
The old myth that Columbus thought he was in India when he came to America, is just that, a myth. Not true.
The fact is, the term Indian is actually more accurate than most people think it is. First of all, there are no Native Americans. Never have been. Every human on earth originally came from Africa if you believe that whole evolution theory... The Indians originally came here from Asia.
The following is from George Carlin's Braindroppings, as it explains the origin of the term Indian a lot better than I can:
Native Americans are neither, and the term is an ironic slight against the people that many of us piously try to protect by revising our language. In fact, this term was invented by the Federal Department of the Interior in 1970 when they were catching grief from some Indians who were discovering their tribal identities (remember Alcatraz and Wounded Knee?). Why would an Indian feel good about an ethnic label that refers to one of their European conquerors? Columbus did *not* call them "Indians" due to his navigational error. He called them Indians, because our Italian explorer tried expressing in Spanish his characterization of them as "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. in Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable term. At least he did better than our government.
I don't want a G5 on my lap anyway. It'd make me feel guilty, having that much power in a small package while other people can't even get it in a PC tower.
Lookit... if you were a film director who had just pulled off the greatest gamble in film history, made a three-peat at the box office AND the Oscars (nominations at least), successfully taking three unfilmable books and made them into three monster hits AND critical darlings, got nominated for everything and won a boatload of awards, and made the studio and yourself more money than a mere mortal could ever spend, and you were then given carte blanche to make whatever film you wanted to make as your next project; are you telling me you wouldn't make the movie you'd wanted to make since you were six years old? Of course this is a masturbatory effort for PJ, but knowing him, he'll probably make it interesting, and people will line up to watch it, good or bad. And please remember that he's not making this movie for us, he's making it for himself. After bringing us the LOTR trilogy, I'd say he earned it.
Come to think of it, I'll stick with my original letterbox VHS until they disintegrate.
Or... do what I did... get the LaserDiscs with the original version, and make your own DVDs.
As a video professional (well, part time pro), I was able to make a pretty good looking 16:9 transfer... which actually shocked me considering the quality of LD isn't that great (it's still an analog composite signal, with a relatively low 480x420 resolution approximately). For sure, LD is much better than VHS, but not nearly as good as DVD.
I've seen some home-brew LD-2-DVD copies floating around, but most of them look like shit, and on some, the encoder didn't even bother removing the 3:2 pulldown from the LD cap... so I decided to make my own... Sadly, it will probably be the only DVD I will ever own of the original versions of these movies, as Lucas seems hell-bent on destroying his own legacy and refuses to release anything but the special edition. ("special" as in "Cameron Diaz' brother in There's Something About Mary...")
Why do you assume it must take less than X time to find evidence of WMD? Oh, I don't know... perhaps because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell said they knew for a fact Iraq had them, what kind, how many and in fact, where they were. So forgive me if I seem a bit sceptical, when they can't back that up after looking for 8 months. It doesn't make any difference "how big the desert is", if they say they know about them, and then can't find them or even trace evidence they were ever there, then either they were mistaken, or they lied.
That having been said. I'm glad they caught the guy. I was against the invasion, and I still maintain it was the wrong thing to do. But they did, and since they did, this is a better outcome than not finding him. The military is great, and deserves our support 100% (make sure you tell your representative you're dissappointed in Bush for cutting benefits for Veterans - Way to support our troops, George!). But the soldiers don't make the policies, they follow orders and do their jobs better than any other military on Earth. It's the policy makers that are inept and need to be replaced. Our troops never should have been there in the first place.
What if the attack was an inside job, designed to create publicity? That could explain why their LAN was affected during the "attack".
However, that having been said, I still haven't seen an explanation as to why ftp.sco was ok and responsive during the attack. The bandwidth gobbled up by this attack would have killed everything on the same subnet, including the ftp.
People are already buying DRM'd files compressed in a lossy format by about 13 times over. And they're paying 99 cents per song. How many songs per album on average? Around 12-14 songs. That makes a $10 album a fair price in my book. People are buying Windows Media files by the ton. They're buying AAC files through iTunes by the shiploads. The fact is, artists have every right to use DRM, and at the moment, the only open source alternative I know of is for OGG Vorbis (itself a lossy format, although less so than mp3, wma or aac), and is not nearly ready for primetime use. So for better or for worse, the DRM options are pretty limited.
You being a FreeBSD user shouldn't have anything to do with you respecting copyrights. I use FreeBSD too, but I still support copyrights and digital rights management.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked Comcast why they didn't have the HDNet channels in their HDTV lineup..
Their answer: "They (HDNet) need to change their equipment."
Right... the premiere High Definition channels in the country, the guys who paved the way for HiDef and provided NBC with the knowhow and equipment to broadcast the Olympics in HD need to change THEIR equipment... Equipment that is already servicing several other cable and satellite feeds. Including Time Warner cable whose area is about a mile and a half north of me.
OK. Fine. Whatever.
My feeling is... if they can't answer a question, they should just say "Sorry, but I don't have that information."
That's affirm and deny to common folk :)
//insert more religious arguments here
I don't want to go off topic, but to make a logical conclusion about something, you have to have evidence that supports an equation both ways, i.e. you could start from either end, and given the same variables you'll wind up at the other.
Or at least that's the stipulation I make, as this is the mathematical way.
For example.
A = B+C; Then if you only have two of the values you can figure out the third.
So, let's put this in programming terms, as this is slshdot...
if ($jesus_existed == true)
{
echo "Jesus existed \n";
}
if ($god_exists == true)
{
echo "god exists \n";
if ($jesus_parent == "god")
{
echo "jesus was the son of god \n;
}
}
else
{
echo "god does not exist";
}
See the problem here? While it can be proven a man named Jesus actually did exist, there's no way to assume that he was divine or even that God exists (which would be a requirement for the divinity part), unless someone specifically created the value of $jesus_parent and set it to "god", and set the value of $god_exists to true. The value does not get set to true, just because there isn't a function setting it to false. In the real world of science and logic, we start out from the assumption something IS NOT, unless proven otherwise. Religion requires you to assume something IS, unless proven otherwise. And herein lies the problem with the equation.
Men created the connection in their minds (set the $god_exists variable to true and then some set the $jesus_parent variable to "god"), and therefore any subsequent function or argument based on those variables will work. If you however don't put the $god_exists variable to true (as there's nothing in science or nature to prove that it should be, we must assume it's false), the rest of the if statement won't work, including the $jesus_parent variable, which won't even come into play.
The problem with any logic according to those who consider themselves religious, which has to do with nature or religion is that they start out with the assumption God exists, or at least make that decision based on one-way logic, and therefore all the related subsequent statements and functions automatically come into play.
Someone sees order and structure in nature and assumes intelligent design.
Another person sees the same thing and assumes billions of years of evolution.
The difference? One can actually be proven, the other cannot. Evolution is a scientific fact, intelligent design is a conveniently disguised renaming of Creationism, and pure fantasy.
To rephrase something else you said, if I find a Rolex at the beach, I KNOW someone somewhere dropped it, because a Rolex does not exist in nature and doesn't form by itself, it was designed by man, and that is something we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If I find a rock or a pebble that looks suspiciously like Jay Leno, I assume it was formed that way by the ocean over a long period of time, and the similarity is simply my brain filling in the blanks (it's called creative thinking), it doesn't mean nature conciously decided to make a Leno lookalike out of stone.
The difference is in how we interpret things. I see order and to me it shows the laws of nature at work. You see order and it means some superior being decided it must be that way.
Guess which one can be affirmed.
Seeing as you're a born again Christian, I'm fully aware that no amount of evidence can convince you that your religion is based on lies. I know that. However, you would do well to remember what should be the eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself".
Christianity is so full of hypocracy, hatred and bigotry that it has always made me ill to think about how many people believe it to be an absolute truth, while there exists no evidence to support their claims. The Church has always had a very simple answer "it's a matter of faith". We live in a world of science and logic, not one of fantasy and fairy tale. If you insist on believing something which cannot be demonstrated, and frankly isn't logical, then that's your right, but it's also my right to consider you a simpleton for it.
Christianity has not made any contributions to philosophy or literature, and it is certainly not the foundation of western culture. The foundation of western culture is personal freedom. The Bible doesn't care much for personal freedom. In fact it condones slavery and the putting to death of those with whom the religious leaders disagree. That's not what our culture is based on.
Your insistance on making this about me and my opinion (even though mine is based on logic, and yours is based on faith), rather than the evidence or lack thereof, tells me you're not likely to listen to reason of any kind, so I'm not going to try.
Have a nice life. Somwhere along the line, you should open your mind and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It is the most logical dissemination of Christianity I have ever seen, and it does not resort to any leaps of faith, but is rather firmly grounded in logic.
You see, you are right on one thing. I don't think there's anything divine involved, and there has not been a shred of evidence to suggest that. You think there's a God, even though no evidence exists to support that claim. That's the fundamental difference. I need logic, you don't.
Also, you must keep in mind that Jesus was a Rabbi, and is referred to as such on many occasion.
In Judaism (Jesus was Jewish), no man can become a Rabbi without being married.
Anyone who abandons logic for fairy tale, cannot be taken seriously in an argument.
Christianity is a sham from beginning to end. Jesus was at best a "Vegas Act"... a hoax, a showman, a "magician".
He was fully aware of the Jewish prophecies and used it to it's fullest effect. E.g. he had Lazarus arrange for him an ass to ride on into Jerusalem, just like the prophecy had predicted.
He was a wealthy man, and his family had a personal tomb (where he was buried and subsequently "rose from the dead").
Anyone who says "I used to be an atheist" must have lost sight of logic and coherent thought somewhere along the way.
Now you're just getting strange. There's no evidence what-so-ever of this in the Gospels.
Nice to see I made you get personal. That's usually the first sign someone can't argue on the facts.
You want evidence?
How's this:
I'm sure you're familiar with the "miracle" of Jesus turning water into wine.
OK.
1. It was obviously his responsibility to serve the wine (he is instructed to by his mother).
2. At the time, it was customary for the host to be responsible for the wine, so we can safely assume he was either the host or closely related to the host.
3. He supposedly made over 700 bottles of wine. That's one big party. If he was indeed the host of a party big enough to consume 700 bottles of wine, then he must have been a) wealthy, b) royalty, c) an important figure or d) all of the above.
4. As you think logically about the layouts and setups of the party itself, its guests and the host, it becomes increasingly clear what the party was. A wedding. The marriage of royalty would certainly be reason enough for a party that huge. Whose wedding? At a wedding, only the groom sits at the high seat. Jesus did. At a wedding, the groom was considered the host. Jesus was very likely the host, based on his wine duties. So, it is extremely likely the party was his own wedding. To whom? Mary Magdalen of course. She enjoyed a status with Jesus and the apostles no woman not related by marriage or by blood would have. Seeing as she wasn't his sister, she most likely would have been his wife.
the death of Christ, which is one of the most heavily documented events in the history of the world
This is a completely absurd thing to say.
First of all, there are only 4 "accounts" of his death, ALL of which were written well AFTER it supposedly happened. And those four accounts (the gospels) don't even agree on how it happened, or even where! One says it was on the barren hill of Golgatha, while another says it was in a garden. They don't even agree on what his last words were, nor do they agree on who was there at the time.
Second, this may be the most written about event, centuries after the fact, but it's certainly not the most heavily documented.
My college years were more heavily documented than this... in fact they were probably better documented.
Pilate went out of his [way] to try to set Jesus free
You must keep one thing in mind. The Gospels were written for a Roman audience. Therefore, any blame had to be shifted from the Romans. Instead of talking about their part directly and trying to explain their actions, it was simply omitted, and the parts that could not be omitted were covered up, as in the case of Pilate. He may have agreed to give his body up after the fact (which nobody ever got, before or since, all those crucified were left hanging for days until the elements and birds had had their way with them, so it is likely Pilate was coerced or even bribed to give the body up).
There actually is suggestive material that might indicate that Jesus did in fact stage his own death, in order to fulfill the Jewish Prophecies. There is even strong likelyhood he was "crucified" in his own backyard, in a private ceremony, from which he was taken directly to the tomb, before anyone other than his brother in-law could verify his death. Penn & Teller can do that too.
Also, Pilate didn't f
Legend says it reveals the location of the Holy Grail.
This is of course based on the assumption that The Holy Grail is an object. Most often it refers to the cup Jesus drank from at the last supper, or the cup used to catch his blood as he hung on the cross, or both.
This is most likely a mistake, or a misunderstanding due to faulty translation of the original text.
The original term used for the holy grail is "sangraal", and that's where the problem starts.
San Graal does in fact mean "Holy Grail".
Sang Raal however, means "Royal Blood".
Since there is ample evidence to suggest Jesus was in fact the descendant of Solomon and David, and therefore he was true Royalty, the rightful heir to the throne of Palestine, and a threat to the Roman Empire. Which is exactly why they killed him (jews did not), if he was even killed, which is not even certain and cannot be proven.
So if Royal Blood is indeed the proper translation of sangraal, and due to its inherent connection with Christianity then it most likely refers to Jesus' bloodline.
As is generally believed, Mary Magdalen moved to the South of France after the crucifixion carrying with her the Holy Grail, so it's not such a big leap of logic to assume the Holy Grail was in fact Jesus' son, being brought out of Palestine in order to save his life, and the Royal bloodline.
There is also ample suggestion in the gospels of Jesus being married, and that Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany were one and the same. Seeing how close Jesus was to this Mary of Bethany, and her brother Lazarus, it's also very likely Lazarus was in fact Jesus' brother-in-law, and that Mary Magdalen was in fact Mary of Bethany.
Also, Mary Magdalen was not a prostitute and Magdalen was not her last name. If you can point to the passage in the Bible that specifically says she was a prostitute, please make a note of it and inform the world, because not a single biblical or historical scholar has been able to do so to this day. It is in fact a lie concocted by religious leaders trying to obfuscate the fact Jesus was a married man with a family; being married and having children was practically required at that time and it's unfathomable that he didn't.
If you found any of what I said interesting or infuriating, please read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" available here.
Oh, and in case you were still wondering, I am an Atheist.
However, just to stay a little bit more on topic, here are a few suggestions as to what DOUOSVAVVM stands for:
Designed Overreacting Usage Of Some Very Agitated Violent Viagra Malfunction.
Do Only Uneducated Overly Simplistic Villains Accept Very Violent Methods?
Deaths Of Unbridled Overreaching Sacrifices Values And Virtue Very Much.
But of course, DOUOSVAVVM is NOT an english acronym...
Call Microsoft with a credit card number in hand...
And you dare call yourself a Slashdotter?
The simple answer is yes.
For the common good of the internet, as well as for the sake of protecting Microsoft's already spotty image, they should be allowed to download hotfixes... after all, they wouldn't need them if Micrsoft had done it right in the first place.
The corporate answer is no.
They didn't pay for the software and are therefore ineligible for updates.
My opinion?
For the common good, Windows should go away. But until then, everyone running it, legally or not, needs to have access to emergency patches and fixes.
OK... RTFA.
It says the tree was discovered. It's not a man made hybrid of any kind. He reproduced a genetic mutation. He didn't modify anything, and as such should not be issued a patent for the tree, as it is a discovery, and not an invention.
Genetic modifications can be patented, not genetics themselves, and certainly not something which existed in nature with no input from man.
You just can't patent something natural you just discovered... what's next? Patenting oxygen or water? What about the Do-Do bird? Maybe some crazy scientist manages to bring it back to life through cloning, should he receive a patent on the Do-Do bird? He didn't create it, he copied it.
The say the mistake was issuing the patent to Microsoft, not that it was issued in the first place.
which can be as high as $1/minute, DOUBLING every minute
Assuming that means $1 first minute, $2 second minute, $4 third minute then $8, $16, $32 etc, I'd like to say this for future reference:
If I get stuck in traffic and show up 1 hour late, and my babysitter hands me a bill for $576.460.752.303.423.488 for an hour of her time, she'll need surgery to get my foot out of her ass.
If billing like that can be considered legal under ANY law, ANYWHERE, please tell me where you live and I'll move there and become a babysitter, starting tomorrow...
From Sen. Hatch' introduction:
American citizens are using this software to create and redistribute infringing copies of popular music, movies, computer games and software.
Methinks the Republican Senator from Utah doesn't even understand the very software he's trying to fight.
P2P software doesn't create the copies, it merely distributes them.
Editing the Windows registry allows you to change the name in the title bar of Internet Explorer.
n et Explorer\Main
Mine currently says "Internet Exploder".
How?
I'm glad you asked, here's how:
Look for Window Title under
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Inter
If Window Title doesn't exist there, create it as a new String Value, edit the value with whatever name you want, restart your IE and enjoy the new name.
I assumed that you believed because you capitalized the g
Here's where reading skills come in handy.
I clearly said that the paragraph was taken from George Carlin's book. I didn't write it.
oh, do grow up. If you want to be a racist, stop hiding behind this "getting rid of PC" shtick.
Get off your high horse.
Racism is not my "shtick", and frankly I'm offended by your implication. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous the PC terms are and how they do the opposite of what they were meant to do. You've completely missed the point I was trying to make, and for what? To be a troll?
I didn't say it, George Carlin did.
Besides, I don't even believe in god. But that's not the point either. The point is, the term Indian isn't negative. Being referred to as "people in god" by anyone, no matter which god, ought to be complimentary.
The term Native-American is offensive to me, because it, much like the other politically correct crap that came about around the same time, has no meaning, no value and undermines race relations if anything.
Let's take two Oscar winning actors I respect very much, as an example:
Denzel Washington was born in America. He's probably approximately 4th or 5th generation American.
Charlize Theron was born in South Africa, and moved to America 12 years ago.
Now, which one of them is African-American?
If you said Denzel Washington, it's because of the color of his skin, right? Isn't that interesting?
Actually, it's not.
The old myth that Columbus thought he was in India when he came to America, is just that, a myth. Not true.
The fact is, the term Indian is actually more accurate than most people think it is.
First of all, there are no Native Americans. Never have been. Every human on earth originally came from Africa if you believe that whole evolution theory... The Indians originally came here from Asia.
The following is from George Carlin's Braindroppings, as it explains the origin of the term Indian a lot better than I can:
Native Americans are neither, and the term is an ironic slight against the people that many of us piously try to protect by revising our language. In fact, this term was invented by the Federal Department of the Interior in 1970 when they were catching grief from some Indians who were discovering their tribal identities (remember Alcatraz and Wounded Knee?). Why would an Indian feel good about an ethnic label that refers to one of their European conquerors?
Columbus did *not* call them "Indians" due to his navigational error. He called them Indians, because our Italian explorer tried expressing in Spanish his characterization of them as "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. in Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable term. At least he did better than our government.
I don't want a G5 on my lap anyway. It'd make me feel guilty, having that much power in a small package while other people can't even get it in a PC tower.
How do I mod an original post as Flamebait?
Lookit... if you were a film director who had just pulled off the greatest gamble in film history, made a three-peat at the box office AND the Oscars (nominations at least), successfully taking three unfilmable books and made them into three monster hits AND critical darlings, got nominated for everything and won a boatload of awards, and made the studio and yourself more money than a mere mortal could ever spend, and you were then given carte blanche to make whatever film you wanted to make as your next project; are you telling me you wouldn't make the movie you'd wanted to make since you were six years old? Of course this is a masturbatory effort for PJ, but knowing him, he'll probably make it interesting, and people will line up to watch it, good or bad.
And please remember that he's not making this movie for us, he's making it for himself. After bringing us the LOTR trilogy, I'd say he earned it.
A time machine, so they can go back to 1999, when goofy job titles and goofily-named companies were acceptable.
Maybe they could be persuaded to get Dubya drunk so he'll drop out of the 2000 presidential race?
Come to think of it, I'll stick with my original letterbox VHS until they disintegrate.
Or... do what I did... get the LaserDiscs with the original version, and make your own DVDs.
As a video professional (well, part time pro), I was able to make a pretty good looking 16:9 transfer... which actually shocked me considering the quality of LD isn't that great (it's still an analog composite signal, with a relatively low 480x420 resolution approximately).
For sure, LD is much better than VHS, but not nearly as good as DVD.
I've seen some home-brew LD-2-DVD copies floating around, but most of them look like shit, and on some, the encoder didn't even bother removing the 3:2 pulldown from the LD cap... so I decided to make my own...
Sadly, it will probably be the only DVD I will ever own of the original versions of these movies, as Lucas seems hell-bent on destroying his own legacy and refuses to release anything but the special edition. ("special" as in "Cameron Diaz' brother in There's Something About Mary...")
Consider yourself corrected.
Our oceans are blue because they reflect the sky.
I agree.
Norse mythology is in the public domain - anyone can make a RPG about it if they want to.
Who would have thought I would ever be on Microsoft's side in any lawsuit?!
Why do you assume it must take less than X time to find evidence of WMD?
Oh, I don't know... perhaps because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell said they knew for a fact Iraq had them, what kind, how many and in fact, where they were.
So forgive me if I seem a bit sceptical, when they can't back that up after looking for 8 months.
It doesn't make any difference "how big the desert is", if they say they know about them, and then can't find them or even trace evidence they were ever there, then either they were mistaken, or they lied.
That having been said.
I'm glad they caught the guy. I was against the invasion, and I still maintain it was the wrong thing to do. But they did, and since they did, this is a better outcome than not finding him.
The military is great, and deserves our support 100% (make sure you tell your representative you're dissappointed in Bush for cutting benefits for Veterans - Way to support our troops, George!). But the soldiers don't make the policies, they follow orders and do their jobs better than any other military on Earth. It's the policy makers that are inept and need to be replaced. Our troops never should have been there in the first place.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here.
What if the attack was an inside job, designed to create publicity?
That could explain why their LAN was affected during the "attack".
However, that having been said, I still haven't seen an explanation as to why ftp.sco was ok and responsive during the attack.
The bandwidth gobbled up by this attack would have killed everything on the same subnet, including the ftp.
People are already buying DRM'd files compressed in a lossy format by about 13 times over. And they're paying 99 cents per song. How many songs per album on average? Around 12-14 songs. That makes a $10 album a fair price in my book.
People are buying Windows Media files by the ton. They're buying AAC files through iTunes by the shiploads. The fact is, artists have every right to use DRM, and at the moment, the only open source alternative I know of is for OGG Vorbis (itself a lossy format, although less so than mp3, wma or aac), and is not nearly ready for primetime use. So for better or for worse, the DRM options are pretty limited.
You being a FreeBSD user shouldn't have anything to do with you respecting copyrights. I use FreeBSD too, but I still support copyrights and digital rights management.