At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'
Not a problem, if it is just your arms. Or maybe even your face. But what about your eyes? Emissions from arc welding can cause cataracts or even retinal scarring.
"Electric arcs radiate much more than visible light. Infrared rays, although they cannot be seen, can be felt as heat. They can cause retinal burning and cataracts. At the other end of the radiation spectrum, ultraviolet rays. Its painful effects-swelling, tearing, even temporary blindness-may not show up for hours following exposure."
So, what would the effects of this thing be on a person's eyes? It just seems like a really bad idea to use EM to scorch people. We're actually pretty fragile.
I spent around $1500 on mine, but it's super-jumbo-deluxe all the way. It's got a locking door, for example. All pine construction with aluminum rivets in the khana. Made the canvas cover myself. Used Sunforger CPAI which is a little expensive - canvas was $600. It has two covers, a fitted conical one and a secondary square one. My first yurt started leaking after a few years. Having the second flat square cover gives me something easy to spray with chemicals and keep waterproof once the cloth begins to wear.
First off, thanks for not posting like the moron AC earlier. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.
If you were to lump together all the batteries consumed in 10 years, I'd suggest that your Prius would increase that number by a large percentage, probably as much as 100-300%.
True enough. My point was that nobody cares about all the AA batteries, or the 12v under the hood of your non-hybrid. People like to trot out the "huge batteries must be evil" chestnut whenever someone says hybrid.
Besides, Toyota has a recycling program for those batteries in place.
The only estimate we have, in my mind, would be cost - and it does take you a worrisome amount of time to recoup your added investment in the hybrid technology that makes the Prius different from the Toyota Yaris, which by itself gets a freakish 40mpg highway.
I'm not worried about my recoup costs. I *like* the Prius. The hybrid tech is dead silent on the freeway. It has wonderful fast pickup, since the electric motors are always 100% ready. Honestly, if you drove one you'd see there's more to love than the MPG.
Also, my wife will be getting a Yaris sometime within the next year or two. Also an awesome car.
Don't forget the added and possibly unnecessary tech besides the batteries - take a look at what disposing of used computer parts is doing to certain 3rd world nations sometime. Now, I'm not saying that driving a Prius makes you evil, far from it, but I think it's a long cry from sainthood as well, and people who drive them tend to act as smug as if the car were an instant holier-than-thou halo.
And I have a basement full of motherboards and other junk. Unfortunately, consumers these days tend to make tech waste. RoHS is working on helping that particular problem, though.
Also, just to pick another nit - in my original post you won't find any tree hugging there (despite my earlier link). I don't care if they make the batteries out of baby seals. My Prius is currently getting 52mpg. I'll be visiting a friend in Florida next spring, about 1000 miles away. Gas for the trip one way should cost me about $40. Couple that with the dashboard GPS and it'll be a fine trip.
Your other arguments have grievous flaws as well - such as comparing the mileage of a Prius vs. a Minivan, without regard for the capacity of each vehicle, in terms of mpg per passenger.
I am the only passenger, 95% of the time. Most of my driving is to and from work. Last year when I was driving my van I had a different job. It was 45 minutes away. I'd fill up every 4 work days or so, at a cost of around $50 (gas was >$3 then). I was spending around $300 a month on just gasoline. That's when I decided to get a hybrid.
Currently my job is much closer to home, so the numbers shifted and the van would now be cheaper. Gas is closer to $2, and the drive is down to 15 minutes. But you know what? Having the hybrid makes small trips nice too. I can go home for lunch if I want and not feel like I'm spending a lot of money to do so. It's nice having gas be an incidental expenditure again. I have no regrets with my Prius.
As for the passenger capacity, I think in 5 years I only had more than 4 passengers less than a half a dozen times. So yeah, the van from that point of view was wasteful. But - I bought the van when gas was cheap enough to where it didn't matter. Now that it does, the van is retired. I use it for camping, helping friends move and chores like that, and the occasional trip to the Home Depot.
Ah! There you are, Prius-troll. You took your time getting here. Ok. I'll tick off your trollitems one-by-one. Ready there, giggles?
Because you're a fucking retard? Lovely troll bait. I'm betting you weren't on any debate teams.
Because you're lousy at math? Fifty mpg is more than twice what my minivan was getting. Seems simple enough.
Because you paid that much more and will not recoup the purchase price difference between the Prius and and a fuel efficient "regular" vehicle like the Honda Civic when equipped with an automatic until a number of years after the purchase? I intend to keep this car for many years. And I simply don't like the Honda Civic.
And on the whole, I'd rather give my money to Toyota rather than Exxon, if I can help it. They're trying to help solve a problem - Exxon is perpetuating one. I don't even care if it costs more in the end. It's called "voting with your dollars". If everyone did it, change would take place. I also don't buy music CDs. Why? Same reason. I try to spend my money in ways that don't run counter to my conscience. You should try it.
Because you haven't accounted for battery replacement? Eight year 100,000 mile guarantee on the battery and all electronic parts of the hybrid system comes standard, so I should be good until 2014. But thank you for your kind concern.
Because you haven't accounted for the damage to the environment caused by manufacture of said batteries? Don't care. I'm not doing this for eco reasons. I am not a tree-hugger. You're wrong to assume everyone who has a hybrid vehicle is one. What I like is having an awesome car that goes 400 miles for $18. Batteries? Batteries get made all the time. There's one on your motherboard probably, one in your cell phone, packs in your laptop. And, a decent sized 12 volt one under the hood of a Honda Civic. And every other car in the world, pretty much. So - big deal.
Prius troll, thank you for playing. It's always fun.
As a general comment, the arguably stupid part of the fixation on SUVs is that if everyone stopped driving them tomorrow and drove a Prius instead, it would have a negligible impact on oil consumption in the US. That fixation is fundamentally misplaced.
I always love comments like these. Everyone on both sides of the argument will almost always use the Prius as the counterexample for an SUV.
Makes me grin every time. My Prius is, in the eyes of the public, the exact opposite of an SUV. Makes driving one that much more satisfying.
The fact that they couldn't do it in a couple years is proof enough they have no case at all. The fact that they repeatedly stated they had such evidence while they knew they had nothing is libel. Since it is reasonable to assume they did it with the purpose of manipulating the market is far worse.
Perfect description. Simple and easy to follow. I just hope some fed picks up that particular ball and runs with it.
It's a simple trail to follow.
SCO originally claimed it had "mountains of evidence".
After three years, they produced none. Therefore, the first statement is provably false.
Since it is provably false, that does indeed make those statements libel.
And since that libel manipulated the market, and Darl is a shareholder - that makes it fraud. Illegal market manipulation.
I hope the SEC is paying attention. As soon as the items in the list are set in stone from a judge, they really need to pay SCO a visit.
Honestly, I've taken a few karma hits bashing MS here. It's been a while though. IIRC, one of them was me simply pointing out some problem or something. It was enough to get me tempbanned. I couldn't post for about a week or so.
Because of the one true difference between most open source projects and Windows. It isn't bugs, or features, or open standards, or any of that.
Windows has a marketing department they have to take orders from.
No programmer in his right mind would ever have suggested Genuine Advantage. Flawed right from the gate, that idea is. And I can prove marketing is responsible for it. It's all right there in the name. "Genuine Advantage". It doesn't describe what it does at all. It hides it and even tells a little white lie. Having this thing on your system is no advantage at all - to you, anyways.
Yup. Marketing people. And the guy who wrote the thing probably ended the argument by throwing up his hands and saying "Fine. I'll just write the damn thing. Nobody listens to me anyways. But don't come crying to me when this thing tanks."
When it's running, move the unidentified USB device to the VMWare image.
Install the driver on the VMWare image.
Whenever you need network access, just run that image. If it gets pWn3d (by hackers or MS genuine advantage or whatever), just overwrite it with your backup image.
Doesn't really work for online gaming yet, but it will just as soon as the guys at VMWare fully support DX9.
First off, before I dig in I'd like to say I really liked reading your post.
Instead, it has everything to do with atheists not necessarily having any particular first principles instead of other first principles. One's moral codes derive (if we take an analytic (mathematical) view of philosophy) from one's first axioms.
Indeed. But as it has been explained to me, unless those first principles stem from the belief in a deity of some sort - you cannot have morality. Even if you are a humanist and reach the same conclusions.
My wife during part of her philosophy/english major took an ethics class and this was the widespread view among Christians in the class. Unless your first principles stem from God, you cannot have morality. This was not an isolated person. This was the majority opinion.
The point is, what reason does an atheist have to choose one of these over another? Or, what reason to choose some axiom which leads to one of these over some other axiom which leads to another one of these? Axioms, as I said, do not derive from anything, and thus there can be no reason to choose one over another.
The very heart of my point. In the absence of religion, what axioms would these people choose? If suddenly there were no Jesus/Heaven, what then? What would they pick? And are there choices they're currently not picking just because Invisible Guy is watching?
To put it another way, I've heard Christians aren't overly fond of homosexuality. Whenever I hear a Christian on the topic say "you must not give in to temptation", I always think to myself "If you're tempted, you're gay. Just because you won't actually go out and consummate it doesn't make you less gay." And I'm sure if religion just suddenly disappeared overnight, that very same person who was advocating restraint would have a boyfriend. Or two.
You clearly know nothing about storytelling, writing or film.
Rather a sweeping statement. Have we met?
They are different mediums and require changes in order to work effectively as stories.
Sure they do. Just like how the Mona Lisa needs a few extra brushstrokes so it looks good in a magazine. Or Notre Dame cathedral needs to have a few digital gargoyles added if you're going to film it.
You really need to take a few film classes
No, I don't. Films are made to be watched. Mostly by people who don't take film classes. And if you're claiming to make a movie based on a book - you should stick to that book. Want a different story? Write one. But don't stick some other author's name on it.
Obsessing over details makes you blind to overarching themes and structure of a story, which are what's really important.
Well, you're looking at one simple thing I pointed out and inferring a whole awful lot. Of the things that are the most screwed up in those movies, I'd say it's the themes that are the most incorrect.
As an example, let's study the relationship between Frodo and Sam, since that's what I started this topic out on. The relationship is between a master and a servant. Frodo is intelligent, educated, and a man of means. Sam digs in the dirt. There is a love between them, but it's more akin to the affection someone has for a hound. For instance, in the book when Frodo accepts Gollum along for the ride Sam tells himself that Frodo is big hearted and tends to make mistakes along those lines, but he knows best because he's the master - so Sam does what he says. He's a lesser being, and he knows so.
But - this doesn't carry over to an American audience. We're all equals here. At least we're fond of saying so.
So, the theme is changed. Sam and Frodo exist in conflict throughout a good bit of the film. In the books, Sam would start off his ideas with "beggin your pardon" and Frodo would explain things to him like a child, or at least as an inferior. And be genuinely surprised when Sam does something that is "more clever" than Frodo gives him credit for. Like impromptu songs. Or finding the ring for him after he loses it in the tower. He praises Sam the same way you'd praise your dog if he did something especially clever, like the rare occasion when a dog drags a sleeping kid out of a burning building. "Well, aren't you clever? Good boy!"
But since this whole master-servant relationship doesn't make sense to an American second millenium audience - out she goes! Now Sam and Frodo are equals. They bicker and argue. New Extreem Samwise(tm) raises his voice at Frodo a few times! And Frodo chooses the company of Gollum over him! Over a few fucking pieces of bread?
I realize that you do have to make changes going from a book to a film - I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that doesn't give you a blank check to change anything you like and chalk it up to "well, film is different".
It's all about intention. I don't believe a lot of the changes in the story are to translate it to film. I think most of the changes are to make the movie more sellable to a modern American audience. Which is why it doesn't get a pass from me.
Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality
I've heard that one too. Always really creeped me out.
Why? Because you can infer from that statement that the only reason they are moral is because they believe there is an invisible man watching their every move who will drop them in a boiling lake of sulfur if they misbehave. So the other side of that coin is that they would be completely amoral if The Big Guy wasn't watching them. If religion suddenly went away today, first thing these people would do is go berserk and give in to their every urge - since there would be no reason not to.
...as he says, keep the "spine" of the story and reject anything that won't work on the screen, because books and movies ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING MEDIUMS.
Sorry, my friend. But you are 100% wrong here.
The story is the story. And that's that. JRR wrote it in a particular way to tell a particular story. If you make changes, you change the story. It is no longer JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It becomes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - a different story.
Omissions, like Bombadil, I can excuse. It's not a change per se, it's an omission. In your mind's eye you can still imagine that they met Tom, they just didn't have enough time to show you the meeting. But the changes. Inexcusable.
If you'd like an example of why people get so torqued over this, consider Frodo. His relationship with Sam and with Gollum as they traveled. In the books it was Frodo, his trusted servant Sam, and Gollum whom he never really trusted. "His promise will hold him for a bit, Sam". That kind of a thing.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
Short answer is - it does not. It is a change that Peter Jackson thought would be better than the original story, or make for more exciting film, or whatever. And no offense PJ if you're reading this - but I seriously doubt you're a better story teller than the Old Professor.
Omit things due to time, fine. Add a few cute scenes that don't change the story (like the wagon ride with Frodo and Gandalf at the beginning of Fellowship) - fine.
Make a change because you think you're a better storyteller than JRR - no way. If you think you're a better storyteller then write your own damn stories and make movies of those.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Stern Talking-To" department.
At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'
Not a problem, if it is just your arms. Or maybe even your face. But what about your eyes? Emissions from arc welding can cause cataracts or even retinal scarring.
"Electric arcs radiate much more than visible light. Infrared rays, although they cannot be seen, can be felt as heat. They can cause retinal burning and cataracts. At the other end of the radiation spectrum, ultraviolet rays. Its painful effects-swelling, tearing, even temporary blindness-may not show up for hours following exposure."
So, what would the effects of this thing be on a person's eyes? It just seems like a really bad idea to use EM to scorch people. We're actually pretty fragile.
The conjugal visit expansion would confuse most online gamers anyways.
Always time to answer yurt questions. =)
Mine is 17' diameter, 6 1/2 foot wall, 30 degree roof slope, 2 1/2 foot diameter roof ring.
I spent around $1500 on mine, but it's super-jumbo-deluxe all the way. It's got a locking door, for example. All pine construction with aluminum rivets in the khana. Made the canvas cover myself. Used Sunforger CPAI which is a little expensive - canvas was $600. It has two covers, a fitted conical one and a secondary square one. My first yurt started leaking after a few years. Having the second flat square cover gives me something easy to spray with chemicals and keep waterproof once the cloth begins to wear.
Will they put our characters in a virtual debtor's prison?
Yup. A yurt.
It was actually a pretty geeky project, too. I designed most of it in Maple.
So asking a question is spreading ignorance? Nice troll, fanboy.
First off, thanks for not posting like the moron AC earlier. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.
If you were to lump together all the batteries consumed in 10 years, I'd suggest that your Prius would increase that number by a large percentage, probably as much as 100-300%.
True enough. My point was that nobody cares about all the AA batteries, or the 12v under the hood of your non-hybrid. People like to trot out the "huge batteries must be evil" chestnut whenever someone says hybrid.
Besides, Toyota has a recycling program for those batteries in place.
The only estimate we have, in my mind, would be cost - and it does take you a worrisome amount of time to recoup your added investment in the hybrid technology that makes the Prius different from the Toyota Yaris, which by itself gets a freakish 40mpg highway.
I'm not worried about my recoup costs. I *like* the Prius. The hybrid tech is dead silent on the freeway. It has wonderful fast pickup, since the electric motors are always 100% ready. Honestly, if you drove one you'd see there's more to love than the MPG.
Also, my wife will be getting a Yaris sometime within the next year or two. Also an awesome car.
Don't forget the added and possibly unnecessary tech besides the batteries - take a look at what disposing of used computer parts is doing to certain 3rd world nations sometime. Now, I'm not saying that driving a Prius makes you evil, far from it, but I think it's a long cry from sainthood as well, and people who drive them tend to act as smug as if the car were an instant holier-than-thou halo.
And I have a basement full of motherboards and other junk. Unfortunately, consumers these days tend to make tech waste. RoHS is working on helping that particular problem, though.
Also, just to pick another nit - in my original post you won't find any tree hugging there (despite my earlier link). I don't care if they make the batteries out of baby seals. My Prius is currently getting 52mpg. I'll be visiting a friend in Florida next spring, about 1000 miles away. Gas for the trip one way should cost me about $40. Couple that with the dashboard GPS and it'll be a fine trip.
Your other arguments have grievous flaws as well - such as comparing the mileage of a Prius vs. a Minivan, without regard for the capacity of each vehicle, in terms of mpg per passenger.
I am the only passenger, 95% of the time. Most of my driving is to and from work. Last year when I was driving my van I had a different job. It was 45 minutes away. I'd fill up every 4 work days or so, at a cost of around $50 (gas was >$3 then). I was spending around $300 a month on just gasoline. That's when I decided to get a hybrid.
Currently my job is much closer to home, so the numbers shifted and the van would now be cheaper. Gas is closer to $2, and the drive is down to 15 minutes. But you know what? Having the hybrid makes small trips nice too. I can go home for lunch if I want and not feel like I'm spending a lot of money to do so. It's nice having gas be an incidental expenditure again. I have no regrets with my Prius.
As for the passenger capacity, I think in 5 years I only had more than 4 passengers less than a half a dozen times. So yeah, the van from that point of view was wasteful. But - I bought the van when gas was cheap enough to where it didn't matter. Now that it does, the van is retired. I use it for camping, helping friends move and chores like that, and the occasional trip to the Home Depot.
Ah! There you are, Prius-troll. You took your time getting here. Ok. I'll tick off your trollitems one-by-one. Ready there, giggles?
Because you're a fucking retard? Lovely troll bait. I'm betting you weren't on any debate teams.
Because you're lousy at math? Fifty mpg is more than twice what my minivan was getting. Seems simple enough.
Because you paid that much more and will not recoup the purchase price difference between the Prius and and a fuel efficient "regular" vehicle like the Honda Civic when equipped with an automatic until a number of years after the purchase? I intend to keep this car for many years. And I simply don't like the Honda Civic.
And on the whole, I'd rather give my money to Toyota rather than Exxon, if I can help it. They're trying to help solve a problem - Exxon is perpetuating one. I don't even care if it costs more in the end. It's called "voting with your dollars". If everyone did it, change would take place. I also don't buy music CDs. Why? Same reason. I try to spend my money in ways that don't run counter to my conscience. You should try it.
Because you haven't accounted for battery replacement? Eight year 100,000 mile guarantee on the battery and all electronic parts of the hybrid system comes standard, so I should be good until 2014. But thank you for your kind concern.
Because you haven't accounted for the damage to the environment caused by manufacture of said batteries? Don't care. I'm not doing this for eco reasons. I am not a tree-hugger. You're wrong to assume everyone who has a hybrid vehicle is one. What I like is having an awesome car that goes 400 miles for $18. Batteries? Batteries get made all the time. There's one on your motherboard probably, one in your cell phone, packs in your laptop. And, a decent sized 12 volt one under the hood of a Honda Civic. And every other car in the world, pretty much. So - big deal.
Prius troll, thank you for playing. It's always fun.
I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.
I could see end users getting much happier about Vista. New eye candy, DX10, and all that, but generally businesses don't care about such things.
What is Vista's business argument in the first place? Not trolling, just genuinely curious.
As a general comment, the arguably stupid part of the fixation on SUVs is that if everyone stopped driving them tomorrow and drove a Prius instead, it would have a negligible impact on oil consumption in the US. That fixation is fundamentally misplaced.
I always love comments like these. Everyone on both sides of the argument will almost always use the Prius as the counterexample for an SUV.
Makes me grin every time. My Prius is, in the eyes of the public, the exact opposite of an SUV. Makes driving one that much more satisfying.
The fact that they couldn't do it in a couple years is proof enough they have no case at all. The fact that they repeatedly stated they had such evidence while they knew they had nothing is libel. Since it is reasonable to assume they did it with the purpose of manipulating the market is far worse.
Perfect description. Simple and easy to follow. I just hope some fed picks up that particular ball and runs with it.
It's a simple trail to follow.
I hope the SEC is paying attention. As soon as the items in the list are set in stone from a judge, they really need to pay SCO a visit.
Honestly, I've taken a few karma hits bashing MS here. It's been a while though. IIRC, one of them was me simply pointing out some problem or something. It was enough to get me tempbanned. I couldn't post for about a week or so.
He means that it's designed to be really hard to lose your work - but it'll be great when it stops crashing and is ready for release!
No, really! I honestly think that's what he means.
"Apple Prototypes: 5 Products Microsoft Never Got To Copy"
I should AC this, but what the hell. What good is karma if you don't spend some now and again? =)
Does that mean that they won't be able to sue you for copyright infringement if you do? I mean - fair's fair you know.
Plus, I think that's how the law might interpret it. "I'm not infringing - I paid. See my receipt?"
There's your answer. What if that was all there was? Of course more choices are better.
First thing I thought of.
Because of the one true difference between most open source projects and Windows. It isn't bugs, or features, or open standards, or any of that.
Windows has a marketing department they have to take orders from.
No programmer in his right mind would ever have suggested Genuine Advantage. Flawed right from the gate, that idea is. And I can prove marketing is responsible for it. It's all right there in the name. "Genuine Advantage". It doesn't describe what it does at all. It hides it and even tells a little white lie. Having this thing on your system is no advantage at all - to you, anyways.
Yup. Marketing people. And the guy who wrote the thing probably ended the argument by throwing up his hands and saying "Fine. I'll just write the damn thing. Nobody listens to me anyways. But don't come crying to me when this thing tanks."
Only compelling reason is that Direct3D acceleration only works if both the host OS and the guest OS are both Windows. Info here.
But yeah, if you're not interested in DirectX games your setup is ideal.
Worried about all that activation crap? Unplug your Windows box from the net! I did, and you can too.
Here's whatcha do.
Doesn't really work for online gaming yet, but it will just as soon as the guys at VMWare fully support DX9.
Enjoy!
First off, before I dig in I'd like to say I really liked reading your post.
Instead, it has everything to do with atheists not necessarily having any particular first principles instead of other first principles. One's moral codes derive (if we take an analytic (mathematical) view of philosophy) from one's first axioms.
Indeed. But as it has been explained to me, unless those first principles stem from the belief in a deity of some sort - you cannot have morality. Even if you are a humanist and reach the same conclusions.
My wife during part of her philosophy/english major took an ethics class and this was the widespread view among Christians in the class. Unless your first principles stem from God, you cannot have morality. This was not an isolated person. This was the majority opinion.
The point is, what reason does an atheist have to choose one of these over another? Or, what reason to choose some axiom which leads to one of these over some other axiom which leads to another one of these? Axioms, as I said, do not derive from anything, and thus there can be no reason to choose one over another.
The very heart of my point. In the absence of religion, what axioms would these people choose? If suddenly there were no Jesus/Heaven, what then? What would they pick? And are there choices they're currently not picking just because Invisible Guy is watching?
To put it another way, I've heard Christians aren't overly fond of homosexuality. Whenever I hear a Christian on the topic say "you must not give in to temptation", I always think to myself "If you're tempted, you're gay. Just because you won't actually go out and consummate it doesn't make you less gay." And I'm sure if religion just suddenly disappeared overnight, that very same person who was advocating restraint would have a boyfriend. Or two.
You clearly know nothing about storytelling, writing or film.
Rather a sweeping statement. Have we met?
They are different mediums and require changes in order to work effectively as stories.
Sure they do. Just like how the Mona Lisa needs a few extra brushstrokes so it looks good in a magazine. Or Notre Dame cathedral needs to have a few digital gargoyles added if you're going to film it.
You really need to take a few film classes
No, I don't. Films are made to be watched. Mostly by people who don't take film classes. And if you're claiming to make a movie based on a book - you should stick to that book. Want a different story? Write one. But don't stick some other author's name on it.
Obsessing over details makes you blind to overarching themes and structure of a story, which are what's really important.
Well, you're looking at one simple thing I pointed out and inferring a whole awful lot. Of the things that are the most screwed up in those movies, I'd say it's the themes that are the most incorrect.
As an example, let's study the relationship between Frodo and Sam, since that's what I started this topic out on. The relationship is between a master and a servant. Frodo is intelligent, educated, and a man of means. Sam digs in the dirt. There is a love between them, but it's more akin to the affection someone has for a hound. For instance, in the book when Frodo accepts Gollum along for the ride Sam tells himself that Frodo is big hearted and tends to make mistakes along those lines, but he knows best because he's the master - so Sam does what he says. He's a lesser being, and he knows so.
But - this doesn't carry over to an American audience. We're all equals here. At least we're fond of saying so.
So, the theme is changed. Sam and Frodo exist in conflict throughout a good bit of the film. In the books, Sam would start off his ideas with "beggin your pardon" and Frodo would explain things to him like a child, or at least as an inferior. And be genuinely surprised when Sam does something that is "more clever" than Frodo gives him credit for. Like impromptu songs. Or finding the ring for him after he loses it in the tower. He praises Sam the same way you'd praise your dog if he did something especially clever, like the rare occasion when a dog drags a sleeping kid out of a burning building. "Well, aren't you clever? Good boy!"
But since this whole master-servant relationship doesn't make sense to an American second millenium audience - out she goes! Now Sam and Frodo are equals. They bicker and argue. New Extreem Samwise(tm) raises his voice at Frodo a few times! And Frodo chooses the company of Gollum over him! Over a few fucking pieces of bread?
I realize that you do have to make changes going from a book to a film - I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that doesn't give you a blank check to change anything you like and chalk it up to "well, film is different".
It's all about intention. I don't believe a lot of the changes in the story are to translate it to film. I think most of the changes are to make the movie more sellable to a modern American audience. Which is why it doesn't get a pass from me.
Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality
I've heard that one too. Always really creeped me out.
Why? Because you can infer from that statement that the only reason they are moral is because they believe there is an invisible man watching their every move who will drop them in a boiling lake of sulfur if they misbehave. So the other side of that coin is that they would be completely amoral if The Big Guy wasn't watching them. If religion suddenly went away today, first thing these people would do is go berserk and give in to their every urge - since there would be no reason not to.
Maybe religion isn't such a bad idea after all.
Sorry, my friend. But you are 100% wrong here.
The story is the story. And that's that. JRR wrote it in a particular way to tell a particular story. If you make changes, you change the story. It is no longer JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It becomes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - a different story.
Omissions, like Bombadil, I can excuse. It's not a change per se, it's an omission. In your mind's eye you can still imagine that they met Tom, they just didn't have enough time to show you the meeting. But the changes. Inexcusable.
If you'd like an example of why people get so torqued over this, consider Frodo. His relationship with Sam and with Gollum as they traveled. In the books it was Frodo, his trusted servant Sam, and Gollum whom he never really trusted. "His promise will hold him for a bit, Sam". That kind of a thing.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
Short answer is - it does not. It is a change that Peter Jackson thought would be better than the original story, or make for more exciting film, or whatever. And no offense PJ if you're reading this - but I seriously doubt you're a better story teller than the Old Professor.
Omit things due to time, fine. Add a few cute scenes that don't change the story (like the wagon ride with Frodo and Gandalf at the beginning of Fellowship) - fine.
Make a change because you think you're a better storyteller than JRR - no way. If you think you're a better storyteller then write your own damn stories and make movies of those.