2 a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity
Please explain to me how a an article about wasting time at work, posted on Slashdot, is incongruous.
For your benefit:
incongruous: 1 Lacking in harmony; incompatible: a joke that was incongruous with polite conversation. 2 Not in agreement, as with principles; inconsistent: a plan incongruous with reason. 3 Not in keeping with what is correct, proper, or logical; inappropriate: incongruous behavior
You are correct about one thing - I think it is ok to make fun of bibles and chritians. But on the other hand, I am equally happy to make fun of other religions as well. They are all pretty much the same superstitious mumbo-jumbo in my book.
Equal-opportunity denigration is the only way to go!
At the time of this comment, this story has 314 comments attached to it. The story below it on the front page (a non-dupe) has 365. The one above, 165.
My point? This is not that heavily commented of a story. Replace it with a non-duped story that's actually interesting and Slashdot will make as much or more in ad-revenue.
Ad-revenue, or the lack of it, is not the reason we are still seeing dupes. It's carelessness on the part of the editors and a lack of accountability. The only way to counter that is to let them know how unhappy people are about it.
Except almost every god damn comment in this thread is "dupe!!!!!!!!!! bitchbitchbitchbitchbitchbitch!" I'm whining about excessive dupe bitching, not bitching about dupes
I personally am glad there is substantial complaining about dupes. Maybe if there is enough of it the so-called editors will begin to pay attention. Dupes are annoying and they should fricken' do something about it.
Because most people in the know DO have family members and friends that are not in the know. I don't pay attention to such books, but now, based on this review, I can recommend it to those who might need it.
All in all, a very helpful review, even though I won't read the book myself.
Fair enough. I had miss-remembered things. After googling, I found the actual text is something like "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
True, I have read this also. The way I originally stated it is the way it was taught to me as a wee lad by the Catholic nuns.
By the way, I absolutely love the idea of "substantial transformation". I am supposed to believe that this object in front of me has changed in a very profound way. Except that it is identical in form - meaning any physical or chemical test would detect no change whatsoever.
Frankly, if a change in an object is unable to affect ANY of that objects interactions with the world it, it is not much of a change in my book. And claims to the contrary start to sound a lot like snake oil to me.
For example, the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus refer to "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...".
Of course there is also substaintial evidence that the writings of Josephus were edited after the fact in order to agree with biases of believers in Jesus. See, for example, "Jesus, A Life," (unfortunately, I forget the author), a book about the historical Jesus.
If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.
Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.
For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.
Though the debate continues around global warming...
What an excellent opening sentence. The problem is, which debate is he referring to? Is he talking some real scientific debate? Or maybe a politically motivated debate based on non-science in which the powers that be try to confuse the public into believing there is no scientific consensus, with the goal being to maintain the status quo and avoid angering the energy lobby.
Because, scientifically, there is no real debate anymore over whether or not man is impacting the climate and causing global warming.
Have you people heard of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"? It says an alleged Australian spammer. Let's make sure he really is Australian before we start jumping to conclusions.
Who cares what the spammers' nationality is? Seems to me a million dollor fine is a bit steep for someone who was only spamming Australians.
It's pretty clear you didn't RTFA because he says in the article that his observations only apply to his situation - i.e. text editing, and not to graphics.
But, that aside, the article overall is a pretty pointless, piece of fluffy opinion with lots snarky commentary used to hide the general lack of clever insight.
It doesn't matter to me whether you are agnostic or not. I wonder about anyone claiming to know the thoughts of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Especially when said thoughts relate to modern events.
Slashdot Mirror
Picture a world where slashdot credited the author of the article, rather than the submitter who simply cuts and pastes the blurb as their own.
Sigh, sorry to complain, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
Did you not even look at #2 in the definition?
irony
2 a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity
Please explain to me how a an article about wasting time at work, posted on Slashdot, is incongruous.
For your benefit:
incongruous:
1 Lacking in harmony; incompatible: a joke that was incongruous with polite conversation.
2 Not in agreement, as with principles; inconsistent: a plan incongruous with reason.
3 Not in keeping with what is correct, proper, or logical; inappropriate: incongruous behavior
I find this story deeply ironic. Only two hours until I can leave this place...
In that case, you should spend some of your waste time at work looking up the definition of irony.
You are correct about one thing - I think it is ok to make fun of bibles and chritians. But on the other hand, I am equally happy to make fun of other religions as well. They are all pretty much the same superstitious mumbo-jumbo in my book.
Equal-opportunity denigration is the only way to go!
Fair enough. They'd actually have to spend effort to read the site to get rid of dupes
At the time of this comment, this story has 314 comments attached to it. The story below it on the front page (a non-dupe) has 365. The one above, 165.
My point? This is not that heavily commented of a story. Replace it with a non-duped story that's actually interesting and Slashdot will make as much or more in ad-revenue.
Ad-revenue, or the lack of it, is not the reason we are still seeing dupes. It's carelessness on the part of the editors and a lack of accountability. The only way to counter that is to let them know how unhappy people are about it.
Except almost every god damn comment in this thread is "dupe!!!!!!!!!! bitchbitchbitchbitchbitchbitch!" I'm whining about excessive dupe bitching, not bitching about dupes
I personally am glad there is substantial complaining about dupes. Maybe if there is enough of it the so-called editors will begin to pay attention. Dupes are annoying and they should fricken' do something about it.
Because most people in the know DO have family members and friends that are not in the know. I don't pay attention to such books, but now, based on this review, I can recommend it to those who might need it.
All in all, a very helpful review, even though I won't read the book myself.
And then we could have one that goes something like
Most pedantic Anonymous Cowards
(a) lack a sense of humor
(b) don't have a sense of humor
(c) are humorless
(d) are not amused by CowboyNeal poll options
There should be a new poll:
Slashdot editor responsible for the most dupes:
(a) Commander Taco
(b) Zonk
(c) write-in candidate
(d) CowboyNeal
Wow, and I thought OUR company's filters were annoying!
For those interested, here is the link to the published Optics Express article. Best of all, the full article is free to read.
Fair enough. I had miss-remembered things. After googling, I found the actual text is something like "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
True, I have read this also. The way I originally stated it is the way it was taught to me as a wee lad by the Catholic nuns.
By the way, I absolutely love the idea of "substantial transformation". I am supposed to believe that this object in front of me has changed in a very profound way. Except that it is identical in form - meaning any physical or chemical test would detect no change whatsoever.
Frankly, if a change in an object is unable to affect ANY of that objects interactions with the world it, it is not much of a change in my book. And claims to the contrary start to sound a lot like snake oil to me.
For example, the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus refer to "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...".
Of course there is also substaintial evidence that the writings of Josephus were edited after the fact in order to agree with biases of believers in Jesus. See, for example, "Jesus, A Life," (unfortunately, I forget the author), a book about the historical Jesus.
If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.
Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers.
For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.
Man that is heelarious, because nobody ever made that joke before.
Oh wait, I forgot. Slashdot is all about beating a dead horse.
Though the debate continues around global warming...
What an excellent opening sentence. The problem is, which debate is he referring to? Is he talking some real scientific debate? Or maybe a politically motivated debate based on non-science in which the powers that be try to confuse the public into believing there is no scientific consensus, with the goal being to maintain the status quo and avoid angering the energy lobby.
Because, scientifically, there is no real debate anymore over whether or not man is impacting the climate and causing global warming.
Original lame joke was to read the phrase as "(alleged Australian) spammer."
My lame joke was to read the phrase as "alleged (Australian spammer)".
Of course any humor has long ago been sucked out of this thread.
As for death penalties for being Australian - what the hell. I'll miss my Australian friends but you do what you gotta do.
No he is advocating a death penalty for being australian not, for spamming. Can't you read what it says.
Yes. Yes I can read what it says.
Can you get a joke?
Have you people heard of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"? It says an alleged Australian spammer. Let's make sure he really is Australian before we start jumping to conclusions.
Who cares what the spammers' nationality is? Seems to me a million dollor fine is a bit steep for someone who was only spamming Australians.
It's pretty clear you didn't RTFA because he says in the article that his observations only apply to his situation - i.e. text editing, and not to graphics.
But, that aside, the article overall is a pretty pointless, piece of fluffy opinion with lots snarky commentary used to hide the general lack of clever insight.
Bell Labs was responsible for an enormous number of breakthroughs. The problem is that AT&T and Lucent were never very good at making money off them.
It doesn't matter to me whether you are agnostic or not. I wonder about anyone claiming to know the thoughts of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Especially when said thoughts relate to modern events.