I'm not a massive Tolkien fan, but I had read the books many, many times.
I agree with a lot of the stuff he dropped (even the scouring of the shire, I recognise time constraints), the issue I take with his interpretation of the books is that he changed the character of them. I have no problem with changes to the events when making films from books, I have a real issue with changes to the character of the books.
My major issues were: - There is a strong feeling that some people and items (swords) in the books are greater and stronger that the average. This is largely lost in the film. A classic example of this would be the character of of Aragorn. The film emphasis his human frailty, while the book makes him almost a superman. Take the scene where he leaps on top of the gate at Helm's Deep. It talks about the wild men being afraid and of him being an awesome figure. - The movie moves the external conflict the fellowship faces to a more internal conflict. It creates unnecessary tensions within the party. The feel of the books is that you have people struggling against an overwelming external evil, you don't get quite the same feeling coming out of the movies.
In addition, some of the characters were just a bit too simplified: boromir, faramir, denethor. The hobbits were turned into comic relief (although I see why it was done).
Actually those Christians are wrong, and provably so. From Romans 2:14-15
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Effectively this is saying that everyone has a conscience and that even gentiles, having no contact with God (in the way that the jews had), still do right and moral things.
Christians should have a greater incentive to be moral though. The bible talks about the Holy Spirit working in people to change them.
As an aside, you know why Christians should do good works?
It isn't: - to stop God from being angry with them - to repay God for what has has done for us
It is because Christians are new people, with a new way of life. In addition it pleases God to see us do good.
Most rational people - atheists and theists alike - are agnostic. They admit that the answer to the existence of gods is unknowable. This stems from the way in which gods are typically defined: supernatural beings outside our sphere of observation and understanding.
However this rational decision says nothing about their belief. Belief is not a choice. You can't say "rationally I know that the question of existence of gods is unknowable, therefore I choose to not make a decision about my belief". Your belief is something that you have, not something that you decide.
I have never understood the distinction between belief and rational thought. I believe something, but only because I can rationally deduce it. To put belief down as something you cannot chose cheapens it.
I choose to be a Christian. My rational basis for this works like this (roughly): - The bible has been subjected to numerous literary and historical tests, and stands up to that. To my knowledge there have been no internal or external inconsistencies found. - The bible makes claims that need to be addressed, in particular about the person and life of Jesus. - After reading the bible, it is clear that I can either ignore what it says or I can respond to it.
...written by dudes named John and Paul, which are very Jewish names, and also hand-picked by the Catholic church in later years
Where does this view come from? Has someone read the Da Vinci code lately and taken fiction as fact? Hmmm?
I suggest you read some history and maybe learn something about the subject.
To start you off: 1. Selection of the books of the bible was done largely under the Byzantine empire, the catholic church did not exist 2. OT texts were/are uncontraversial 3. The criteria for seclecting NT texts were roughly: written by an apostle or close to one, accepted by the church at large, consistent with other known books, reflecting the kind of moral values that would be expected of something inspired by the Holy Spirit. 4. Recent scolarship has validated those decisions. The NT books that have been included: - have early manuscripts - can be traced back to an author who was an apostle or close to one - are externally and internally consistent
This has meant the exclusion of obvious later fakes like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magdelene.
If you really want to read up on this, read FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".
Christianity has had its share of odd quirks. Limbo? What about having to fast for hours before eating a piece of bread that's supposedly the flesh of the son of God?
You mean catholocism.
Christianity lost all its dietary rules and other Judaism-like commandments because frankly their texts aren't as well-preserved as Islam's, which gave Christian leaders the justification for loosening some of its laws like usury, but hold onto other weaker ones, like Catholic priests not being allowed to marry. You don't think Jesus (peace be upon him) would have started laying down more laws had he been given more time to lead?
Rubbish. What utter rubbish. The dietary requirements in Chrisianity would be the same as judaism, however it is clear that under Christianity they are no longer necessary. From the horses mouth: "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'" Matthew 15:11
Actually one the bible says both: Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
This suggests that ruling over the world should not be incomatible with being a good steward of it.
On the one hand, America used Saddam all the time years ago but is rightfully ashamed of that history now
Are they? I'd characterise America as having two major views on that history: 1. What, we supported Saddam? 2. Yeah, well I guess we did the right thing at the time, pity it didn't work out. I'd do it again though.
Late response, but can I add that one of the best options around until recently was a hacked workaround to install all the versions of IE onto one box (here). Sure it was less than perfect (For example I had issues with cookies, making it impossible to test full applications but possible to test single pages). However it seems that Microsoft has decided to make life even more difficult for web developers by shutting this down. WTF?
This is a serious issue for web developers. We need to be able to run multiple versions of IE to test sites because web users still use earlier versions of IE. This is a particular issue because the different versions of IE do some things wildly differently (eg IE5 and 'undefined', a string as opposed to undefined which everyone else uses).
Sure I can run this under a virtual machine and kudos to Microsoft for making Virtual PC available for free. I shouldn't have to though. I can run multiple versions of Opera. I can run multiple versions of Gecko. I can run multiple versions of KHTML. I can't run multiple versions of mshtml.
RC stands for release candidate. In other words, this is a real candidate for release. It means that they believe that all the bugs have been worked out and that they have a finished product. The reason that they have an RC3 is that there was issues in RC2 and RC1. The reason there is no RC4 is that there aren't (significant) issues in RC3.
As a final note, I recently sent my entire team (10 Dutch guys) back to the US for training on our product. It was in the SF Bay Area and they all had a great time. The weather was perfect, the people were nice, and they all particular enjoyed Starbucks (the Dutch are huge coffee drinkers). When they all came back, each and every one of them pointedly asked me why the hell I would move here and leave San Francisco. It was nice validation for me and the US and makes me even more anixous to one day return.
But clearly not discerning coffee drinkers.
While I haven't been to the US, all of the people I have spoken to about have complained about lack of good coffee. Starbucks is terrible coffee.
I had a funny comment from a friend about ubuntu. He had been given a disk by someone (not me), and his comment was that Linux sucks, but Ubuntu is fantastic. As in he wasn't aware that Ubuntu was linux.
It is interesting to see "A day in the life of Ivan Denosavich" and "1984" in the list of books. It suggests that there is a greater recognition of the dangers posed by totalitarian regimes among programmers. Whether this is paranoia or far-sighted-ness is an exercise for the reader...
Peter Jackson did a great job so long as you don't know the books well. He fundimentally changed the character of the trilogy while maintaining the events. I prefer it the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a massive Tolkien fan, but I had read the books many, many times.
I agree with a lot of the stuff he dropped (even the scouring of the shire, I recognise time constraints), the issue I take with his interpretation of the books is that he changed the character of them. I have no problem with changes to the events when making films from books, I have a real issue with changes to the character of the books.
My major issues were:
- There is a strong feeling that some people and items (swords) in the books are greater and stronger that the average. This is largely lost in the film. A classic example of this would be the character of of Aragorn. The film emphasis his human frailty, while the book makes him almost a superman. Take the scene where he leaps on top of the gate at Helm's Deep. It talks about the wild men being afraid and of him being an awesome figure.
- The movie moves the external conflict the fellowship faces to a more internal conflict. It creates unnecessary tensions within the party. The feel of the books is that you have people struggling against an overwelming external evil, you don't get quite the same feeling coming out of the movies.
In addition, some of the characters were just a bit too simplified: boromir, faramir, denethor. The hobbits were turned into comic relief (although I see why it was done).
Effectively this is saying that everyone has a conscience and that even gentiles, having no contact with God (in the way that the jews had), still do right and moral things.
Christians should have a greater incentive to be moral though. The bible talks about the Holy Spirit working in people to change them.
As an aside, you know why Christians should do good works?
It isn't:
- to stop God from being angry with them
- to repay God for what has has done for us
It is because Christians are new people, with a new way of life. In addition it pleases God to see us do good.
Most rational people - atheists and theists alike - are agnostic. They admit that the answer to the existence of gods is unknowable. This stems from the way in which gods are typically defined: supernatural beings outside our sphere of observation and understanding.
However this rational decision says nothing about their belief. Belief is not a choice. You can't say "rationally I know that the question of existence of gods is unknowable, therefore I choose to not make a decision about my belief". Your belief is something that you have, not something that you decide.
I have never understood the distinction between belief and rational thought. I believe something, but only because I can rationally deduce it. To put belief down as something you cannot chose cheapens it.
I choose to be a Christian. My rational basis for this works like this (roughly):
- The bible has been subjected to numerous literary and historical tests, and stands up to that. To my knowledge there have been no internal or external inconsistencies found.
- The bible makes claims that need to be addressed, in particular about the person and life of Jesus.
- After reading the bible, it is clear that I can either ignore what it says or I can respond to it.
So I am a Christian.
...written by dudes named John and Paul, which are very Jewish names, and also hand-picked by the Catholic church in later years
Where does this view come from? Has someone read the Da Vinci code lately and taken fiction as fact? Hmmm?
I suggest you read some history and maybe learn something about the subject.
To start you off:
1. Selection of the books of the bible was done largely under the Byzantine empire, the catholic church did not exist
2. OT texts were/are uncontraversial
3. The criteria for seclecting NT texts were roughly: written by an apostle or close to one, accepted by the church at large, consistent with other known books, reflecting the kind of moral values that would be expected of something inspired by the Holy Spirit.
4. Recent scolarship has validated those decisions. The NT books that have been included:
- have early manuscripts
- can be traced back to an author who was an apostle or close to one
- are externally and internally consistent
This has meant the exclusion of obvious later fakes like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magdelene.
If you really want to read up on this, read FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".
Christianity has had its share of odd quirks. Limbo? What about having to fast for hours before eating a piece of bread that's supposedly the flesh of the son of God?
You mean catholocism.
Christianity lost all its dietary rules and other Judaism-like commandments because frankly their texts aren't as well-preserved as Islam's, which gave Christian leaders the justification for loosening some of its laws like usury, but hold onto other weaker ones, like Catholic priests not being allowed to marry. You don't think Jesus (peace be upon him) would have started laying down more laws had he been given more time to lead?
Rubbish. What utter rubbish. The dietary requirements in Chrisianity would be the same as judaism, however it is clear that under Christianity they are no longer necessary. From the horses mouth:
"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'" Matthew 15:11
There is a video of something that looks rather similar here. Everyonr likes gremlins, right?
Why use humans as weapons platforms - lousy senses, wobbly aim?
You clearly nothing about sensors, the kind of thing you might use on this. Human senses are far superiour.
Enjoying more mature games has nothing to do with craving violence.
Speak for yourself.
Actually one the bible says both:
Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
This suggests that ruling over the world should not be incomatible with being a good steward of it.
Its an indirect tax on you and me. Tell me, just where does the money that GM, IBM, or Amazon, gets to pay their taxes comes from? Huh? Please?
They come from shareholders, not necessarily you and me. Generally profits are taxed.
On the one hand, America used Saddam all the time years ago but is rightfully ashamed of that history now
Are they? I'd characterise America as having two major views on that history:
1. What, we supported Saddam?
2. Yeah, well I guess we did the right thing at the time, pity it didn't work out. I'd do it again though.
Late response, but can I add that one of the best options around until recently was a hacked workaround to install all the versions of IE onto one box (here). Sure it was less than perfect (For example I had issues with cookies, making it impossible to test full applications but possible to test single pages). However it seems that Microsoft has decided to make life even more difficult for web developers by shutting this down. WTF?
This is a serious issue for web developers. We need to be able to run multiple versions of IE to test sites because web users still use earlier versions of IE. This is a particular issue because the different versions of IE do some things wildly differently (eg IE5 and 'undefined', a string as opposed to undefined which everyone else uses).
Sure I can run this under a virtual machine and kudos to Microsoft for making Virtual PC available for free. I shouldn't have to though. I can run multiple versions of Opera. I can run multiple versions of Gecko. I can run multiple versions of KHTML. I can't run multiple versions of mshtml.
Did we have to enter WWI other than to line someone's coffers?
WTF? Learn some history. The US was making a mint selling to both sides in WWI. You were making more money by staying out of the war.
Thanks. That is exactly what I mean.
And? I can still generalise that most Americans voted your current government in.
RC stands for release candidate. In other words, this is a real candidate for release. It means that they believe that all the bugs have been worked out and that they have a finished product. The reason that they have an RC3 is that there was issues in RC2 and RC1. The reason there is no RC4 is that there aren't (significant) issues in RC3.
As a final note, I recently sent my entire team (10 Dutch guys) back to the US for training on our product. It was in the SF Bay Area and they all had a great time. The weather was perfect, the people were nice, and they all particular enjoyed Starbucks (the Dutch are huge coffee drinkers). When they all came back, each and every one of them pointedly asked me why the hell I would move here and leave San Francisco. It was nice validation for me and the US and makes me even more anixous to one day return.
But clearly not discerning coffee drinkers.
While I haven't been to the US, all of the people I have spoken to about have complained about lack of good coffee. Starbucks is terrible coffee.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but don't you vote your government in?
Unlike Microsoft, the mozilla team seems to understand what RC means. For their last two RCs, both have been identical to the final version.
Bush grew up without having to work for anything...
I had a funny comment from a friend about ubuntu. He had been given a disk by someone (not me), and his comment was that Linux sucks, but Ubuntu is fantastic. As in he wasn't aware that Ubuntu was linux.
It is interesting to see "A day in the life of Ivan Denosavich" and "1984" in the list of books. It suggests that there is a greater recognition of the dangers posed by totalitarian regimes among programmers. Whether this is paranoia or far-sighted-ness is an exercise for the reader...
How can you camp if you have to keep moving? These games will destroy FPS as we know it.
I play mail and female characters in SL.
How do you play a mail character? Do you get to deliver the post?
Peter Jackson did a great job so long as you don't know the books well. He fundimentally changed the character of the trilogy while maintaining the events. I prefer it the other way around.