Doesn't really matter, does it? Neither of 'em can swim very well.. and anyways, African swallows are non migratory so they couldn't bring a coconut back
I know you're not arguing for this POV, but still..
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
Unfortunately, the bible itself says it's to be taken literally (can't dig up the exact quote right now - maybe someone else would care to?) And if you accept that it doesn't - that it is open to interpretation - then it's so open to interpretation as to be utterly useless - and what wise god would allow that?
For example, it tells us the earth "stands on pillars". The problem is, we know it doesn't - not literally. So maybe it's a figure of speech. Maybe it means "pillars of the community" - those great people who do good and have influence in their communities are the metaphorical pillars supporting the weight of the world. Okay, fine.....So now it tells you "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18) So.. are we to literally accept that those who believe are rendered invincible to poisions? or is that just a figure of speech. Anyone feel like testing it?
What about even the most direct of commands? "Thou shalt not kill", well, okay, that one's pretty clear cut, isn't it? I mean.. nobody disputes THAT one, do they? it can be taken at face value.
Well.. I hope you're all vegan, because it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill *humans*". It also doesn't make any exceptions for criminals, which is why I find the US's death sentence so incongrouous with it's "pro-life" stance on abortion.
So, if all this stuff is literal then it's very obviously wrong, and if all this stuff is open to interpretation, it's so wide open as to be utterly pointless. Heck, to me "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not partake of hotdog buns on a thursday"
Oh well. Contradictions and vagaries. Religion's full of 'em.
Am I missing something here? From TFA: Theatergoers still have to wear those familiar cardboard glasses with red-and-blue cellophane
and
Unlike some 3-D systems that require two side-by-side film projectors, In-Three's system operates with a single digital projector, the filmmakers said.
It's a zarking anaglyph system! Why in the sodding hell WOULD it need two projectors? it's two colour tinted images (left eye/right eye) overlaid onto the same position. That can be done perfectly well with a single projector
Am I missing something here? Are they seriously wheeling out the same old crappy anaglyph technology, saying "Hey! look! it can be done on just one projector" and calling it revolutionary? Seriously, can someone more knowledgeable about cinema enlighten me
There are a LOT of ways of getting stereoscopic vision to people through a display. Of course, the best are either HMD or a display where different parts of the image are "aimed" at the left or right eye, neither of which are practical in a cinema.. but still. Anaglyphs suck! Yes, even the really good ones which barely distort the colour and have compensation in the movie. I was really hoping for some GOOD 3D tech, because god knows it's overdue.
Oh well. At least there's the likes of those DTI3D monitors, and the ones in some of the funky laptops these days.
Yes, I hear their first contract they're doing before the others is installing an installation for the Department Of Redundancy Department - specifically the PIN Number section. At least that's what I heard.
I think french designers should be forced to give up everything, just on principle. Nothing against the french, mind. Just their designers. That bloody Jean Paul Galtier one needs to be the first to go. I mean, did you SEE The Fifth Element? I can never, ever get those minutes of my life back, man. That opera scene will be with me until the day I die.
Hey! I know the one you mean! It was quite dark and violent, wasn't it? like an RPG or adventure or something.. I remember there was a bit where someone got impaled on spikes. I've got a feeling it was named for it's graphics - something like "ellipsia" or "sphereworld" or somesuch
The thing with dongles is they're expensive, they're a pain in the arse for users, and they still don't stop a determined cracker.
At the end of the day, there comes a point where the software checks it's key/dongle/word from the manual/price of fishcakes in japan and asks itself "So, am I allowed to run?" and all you need to do is ensure the answer to that is always "Yes!"
I dunno if they still do, but when that advert first came out Honda gave away free DVDs of it to anyone who phoned a free (from the UK) number and gave their address. I've got one knocking around here somewhere, and best of all, I've not had a single piece of spam (snailmail or phone. I didn't give my email) from them since
Good grief, why's everyone so mystified by the "wheels rolling uphill" bit in that advert? It's not CG, it's not magic, it doesn't even require any clever trickery. All you do is stick a heavy weight inside a wheel at the top and a little offcentre. Gravity pulls the weight down, and assuming it's sufficient to counter the other forces involved it'll haul the wheel round as it goes, uphill if necessary, and come to a stop once the weight is at the bottom.
Even I find this simple, and I never took even the most basic of physics classes in school!
Actually, from TFA: "They're detached from reality and suscepitble to influence," the army says. "Also, many of them read Slashdot, and we find those ones have especially small genitalia."
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't really matter, does it? Neither of 'em can swim very well.. and anyways, African swallows are non migratory so they couldn't bring a coconut back
I thought their usual mode of transport was carriage by swallow.
Probably doesn't work too well underwater, now that I think of it, though.
Sure, but to be fair, Slashdot is always first with the dupe!
Slashdot: News for nerds. Failed car analogies. We've got the scoop on the dupe.
(thanks and apologies to whoever I stole the "failed car analogies" bit from)
Probably the same as if you randomised a playlist of 1k SID files. You don't need RFID to do that.
Ah! Excellent, thankyou!
It was actually with that in mind that I mentioned the Norse, but I couldn't remember where it was to link to it
I know you're not arguing for this POV, but still..
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
..So now it tells you "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18)
Unfortunately, the bible itself says it's to be taken literally (can't dig up the exact quote right now - maybe someone else would care to?)
And if you accept that it doesn't - that it is open to interpretation - then it's so open to interpretation as to be utterly useless - and what wise god would allow that?
For example, it tells us the earth "stands on pillars". The problem is, we know it doesn't - not literally. So maybe it's a figure of speech. Maybe it means "pillars of the community" - those great people who do good and have influence in their communities are the metaphorical pillars supporting the weight of the world. Okay, fine...
So.. are we to literally accept that those who believe are rendered invincible to poisions? or is that just a figure of speech. Anyone feel like testing it?
What about even the most direct of commands? "Thou shalt not kill", well, okay, that one's pretty clear cut, isn't it? I mean.. nobody disputes THAT one, do they? it can be taken at face value.
Well.. I hope you're all vegan, because it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill *humans*". It also doesn't make any exceptions for criminals, which is why I find the US's death sentence so incongrouous with it's "pro-life" stance on abortion.
So, if all this stuff is literal then it's very obviously wrong, and if all this stuff is open to interpretation, it's so wide open as to be utterly pointless. Heck, to me "Thou shalt not kill" actually means "Thou shalt not partake of hotdog buns on a thursday"
Oh well. Contradictions and vagaries. Religion's full of 'em.
Like....
the Norse creation myth...
or how about the Egyptian one? Or maybe Greek? or Babylonian
Am I missing something here?
From TFA:
Theatergoers still have to wear those familiar cardboard glasses with red-and-blue cellophane
and
Unlike some 3-D systems that require two side-by-side film projectors, In-Three's system operates with a single digital projector, the filmmakers said.
It's a zarking anaglyph system! Why in the sodding hell WOULD it need two projectors? it's two colour tinted images (left eye/right eye) overlaid onto the same position. That can be done perfectly well with a single projector
Am I missing something here? Are they seriously wheeling out the same old crappy anaglyph technology, saying "Hey! look! it can be done on just one projector" and calling it revolutionary?
Seriously, can someone more knowledgeable about cinema enlighten me
There are a LOT of ways of getting stereoscopic vision to people through a display. Of course, the best are either HMD or a display where different parts of the image are "aimed" at the left or right eye, neither of which are practical in a cinema.. but still. Anaglyphs suck! Yes, even the really good ones which barely distort the colour and have compensation in the movie. I was really hoping for some GOOD 3D tech, because god knows it's overdue.
Oh well. At least there's the likes of those DTI3D monitors, and the ones in some of the funky laptops these days.
Please don't make uninformed comments. It doesn't make you look smart (hopefully).
You're new to Slashdot, aren't you?
Woohoo!
I was just going to mention that, but you beat me to it.
I'll just sit back and have some of my weak lemon drink instead.
Yes, I hear their first contract they're doing before the others is installing an installation for the Department Of Redundancy Department - specifically the PIN Number section. At least that's what I heard.
That's the one! Thanks :)
Okay, I was a bit off with the name, but it's been a very long time
I think french designers should be forced to give up everything, just on principle.
Nothing against the french, mind. Just their designers. That bloody Jean Paul Galtier one needs to be the first to go. I mean, did you SEE The Fifth Element? I can never, ever get those minutes of my life back, man. That opera scene will be with me until the day I die.
Hey! I know the one you mean!
It was quite dark and violent, wasn't it? like an RPG or adventure or something.. I remember there was a bit where someone got impaled on spikes.
I've got a feeling it was named for it's graphics - something like "ellipsia" or "sphereworld" or somesuch
The thing with dongles is they're expensive, they're a pain in the arse for users, and they still don't stop a determined cracker.
At the end of the day, there comes a point where the software checks it's key/dongle/word from the manual/price of fishcakes in japan and asks itself "So, am I allowed to run?" and all you need to do is ensure the answer to that is always "Yes!"
For goodness sake man, that's your first though?!
Don't you see? This could be used for porn!
For the betterment of all mankind, it must be done!
I'll miss Kazaa.
No, really. It's a great word. Like a magic spell - abracadabra or something
"Kazaa! Your download's fucked!"
"Kazaa! You've got spyware!"
"Kazaa! You thought it was Star Wars but it's really goat porn!"
I dunno if they still do, but when that advert first came out Honda gave away free DVDs of it to anyone who phoned a free (from the UK) number and gave their address. I've got one knocking around here somewhere, and best of all, I've not had a single piece of spam (snailmail or phone. I didn't give my email) from them since
Good grief, why's everyone so mystified by the "wheels rolling uphill" bit in that advert?
It's not CG, it's not magic, it doesn't even require any clever trickery. All you do is stick a heavy weight inside a wheel at the top and a little offcentre.
Gravity pulls the weight down, and assuming it's sufficient to counter the other forces involved it'll haul the wheel round as it goes, uphill if necessary, and come to a stop once the weight is at the bottom.
Even I find this simple, and I never took even the most basic of physics classes in school!
So would Heath Robinson, especially as he was British
No, there've been arguments about the size of a Slashdotters penis before
Actually, from TFA:
"They're detached from reality and suscepitble to influence," the army says. "Also, many of them read Slashdot, and we find those ones have especially small genitalia."
Can I use it to hitch a lift on a vogon ship?
I know an infinite money cheat for that game.
Send me $3000 and I'll tell you it