"Meanwhile, politicians are speaking out saying improvements need to be made to the emergency system."
I don't have anything against making an emergency system more reliable or robust, but I just hate when everyone says that "something needs to get done to improve this" when something bad happened. In this case, if politicians knew of this ahead of time, why was something not done about it then??? My guess is that it's just a politically correct statement to make but the politicians just have no clue on how the system works.
So following your logic, I can copy your intellectual property, sell it on my website as long as I put a disclamer that you or anyone related to you have no right on my website and cannot use any information that you see there for legal preceedings and then I can get away with it? Wow, that's a different way to see the laws on IP! I think I'll start that right now!
Hello, this is your wake up call to reality. Do you really think a clause will stop law enforcement from finding criminals? Then commit a crime and put a clause on your doorstep that no law enforcement is to enter your home. Stay inside your home and get someone to do your stuff for you (groceries, etc). You should then be able to get away with free crimes!! Right???
oups, sorry for the duplicate... the link on NS didn't work for me the first time, but accessing the site directly, I was able to get it. Didn't realize it was the same as in the main article. I'm sleeping...
Here is some more information on the book. You can even download a part of Ch5. Also, it can be purchased on this web site for $14.95 instead of $24.95 (USD).
Stating the obvious for those who can't get it : Jesus was living in the same period as great philosophers. Period. I am not insinuating that he talked with them or anything like that. But an ideology is in the air. And yes, we are living in the same area as Galileo and Einstein and others. Doesn't mean that we talked to them, but their ideas do inspire us. We use what they discovered and elaborated as a base for our understanding of nature and for the advancement of science. Hope this clarifies furthermore what I said.
Gee, I guess that I miswrote my point. I meant that Braveheart is more believable that the Passion based on the human factor. The Wallace dude was tortured in the end. He died. Other humans that would have gone through the same thing would have died as well around the same point that Wallace died in Braveheart. Before the chopping of the head off, the torture techniques, while brutal, were not deadly. This isn't the case for the Passion where Jesus is stripped of his skin and left to carry his cross while being whipped again... That was a bit exaggerated in the amount of suffering one can endure. I believe most people would die or get into shock way before the end.
Sorry about the confusion. I never said that Jesus was just a man, but I mentionned that He took the human form once on earth. Therefore, he was limited to the human condition.
Another interesting fact (leaving the movie aside - this could not have been included in it), is that Jesus was living in the time of the great philosophers : Socrates: 469 - 399 B.C.E., Plato: 427 - 347 B.C.E., Aristotle: 384 - 323/2 B.C.E. just to name a few. These philosophers are also quite well documented.
I don't mean to influence your beliefs, but just to point out different things. You said that you're an individual who do not necessarily believes what the majority believes so I thought you might be interested by this point.
Finally, my last argument for now is that science was not very well developed in those days. Therefore, a scientific method or objective method or reporting the facts was not necessarily used by those who documented the life of Jesus (and of all other philosophers of the time). In my opinion, this is also another interesting point to consider when philosphing on the life if Jesus
That's true. Good point on that. But what I was referring to was the few flashbacks that we got in the movie. Those helped depicting Jesus as an humain being (which He was, even if He was the son of God) but in my opinion, the movie was a bit too much centered on the brutal part and I found that little importance were given to Jesus' actions.
And I respect your belief of Jesus being God in the flesh, but I rather have Him as a "normal" human being. Because if He were God in the flesh, than Him being brutalized and executed loses of its prestige since He has "special power" - for a lack of better words - that helps Him through.
yes... talking about context, having seen the movie helps getting and idea of the context.
Now to add to what I said, Jesus was the son of God, granted. But the son of God was given to us in the human form. And what I said is that it seems humanly impossible (Health science people correct me if I'm wrong) to survive the first few steps of what Mel depicted as the passion of Christ, thus removing the human portion of Jesus and leaving only the Son of God part. Which I consider as a big failure from Mel's part. His other movies, even though exaggerated still, were not as bad as this one (again, this is my opinion and I welcome comments proving the opposite as I haven't probably seen all movies in which Mel played or directed or produced but I saw at least a good few)
You're right... The movie doesn't really mock Christ, but the people building the religions based on him... or to better say it, based on their interpretation of him. Life of Brian achieves this beautifully!
I certainly agree! While Mel's movie was meant to be based on facts and not the "Hollywood" factor, I think exaggeration was still part of his movie. Unlike Braveheart - where William Wallace fights his way to freedom - the Passion is quite exaggerated in the amount of pain endured by Jesus. It would have been a great occasion to show Jesus as an human with great ideas and a good philosophy, but this time, Mel failed to show this. Instead, the Passion is a movie based (too much??) on the Bible, showing miracles for miracles and ripping the skin off a human being in a way that would have surely killed anyone. After being stripped off his skin, Jesus had to go carry his cross. Not very likely to be able to do so, but he is...
All in all, mocking this movie may not be exactly appropriate as it may insult some religious people, but at least some people have the guts to say THEIR opinion of the life of Christ and the religions based on it.
(This is my 0.02$ and I hope I am not insulting anyone)
Getting ?fiber to the home? ? telecom?s long-sought solution to the problem of directly delivering high-quality and high-speed video may cause some more problems. Alright, this would be able to bring high bandwidth lines to homes, but how about backbones? The current technologies are still pretty much limited at 40Gb/s for one single fiber. And since all-optical networks are still developing, I believe it may still be a while before we can profit from this.
"... in that most people have learned not to open e-mails that have attachments they aren't expecting," Belthoff said from Sophos's lab in Boston, Mass.
Is that guy clueless??? People still open attachments even though they don't know what it is. Remember a few weeks ago?? It happened and will happen again. This "new" twist of a virus is still crap news though...
The article has a picture of the "watch" displaying a map in such a small screen. They don't mention about any real specs... I sure hope the resolution is high in fact for this to be useful at all.
On the other hand, I would certainly have a PDA/Calculator/Cell Phone/Digital camera all in one and in a PDA size (with a decent screen size and definition) and a regular watch. When such a device will come out AND be quite reliable for ALL the functions, I will consider the investment.
Mod me down if you wish... but why is everyone exaggeratedly swearing in their posts when the article is about censorship. You can say that you disagree without saying three hail maries in the same post while at the same time giving everyone a biology lesson... It just looks very childish to me. Someone expresses an opinion different from the norm and we start stonning him/her... Good example of censorship, right?
I don't have a problem with people swearing if they really want to emphasize their point. Even if it's part of their language. But fucking swearing at every stupid goddamn line just to fucking prove their shitty point sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Does that mean that they will censor out Britney's "I'm a virgin"?? If so, I have nothing against it. (Plus the fact that swearing doesn't really reflect intelligence to me... Bash me out, but I find it teenagish...)
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who sees a connection with US politicians?? :P
I like the number of Geek points you earn when purchasing the hamster pc case : Buy this and earn 3.14159 Geek Points!
Finally, I can start implementing my MORSE OVER IP OVER PIGEON CARRIER protocol stack!!
Since very old means a few months... (for computers, optical technology, etc)
I don't have anything against making an emergency system more reliable or robust, but I just hate when everyone says that "something needs to get done to improve this" when something bad happened. In this case, if politicians knew of this ahead of time, why was something not done about it then??? My guess is that it's just a politically correct statement to make but the politicians just have no clue on how the system works.
So following your logic, I can copy your intellectual property, sell it on my website as long as I put a disclamer that you or anyone related to you have no right on my website and cannot use any information that you see there for legal preceedings and then I can get away with it? Wow, that's a different way to see the laws on IP! I think I'll start that right now!
Hello, this is your wake up call to reality. Do you really think a clause will stop law enforcement from finding criminals? Then commit a crime and put a clause on your doorstep that no law enforcement is to enter your home. Stay inside your home and get someone to do your stuff for you (groceries, etc). You should then be able to get away with free crimes!! Right???
oups, sorry for the duplicate... the link on NS didn't work for me the first time, but accessing the site directly, I was able to get it. Didn't realize it was the same as in the main article. I'm sleeping...
Further details can be found on New Scientist
Am I the only one who finds that name Grace Hopper and the expression "computer bug" go well together? :oP
Here is some more information on the book. You can even download a part of Ch5. Also, it can be purchased on this web site for $14.95 instead of $24.95 (USD).
True. True. I didn't see it like that, but now that you mention it, it makes sense. Thx
Stating the obvious for those who can't get it : Jesus was living in the same period as great philosophers. Period. I am not insinuating that he talked with them or anything like that. But an ideology is in the air. And yes, we are living in the same area as Galileo and Einstein and others. Doesn't mean that we talked to them, but their ideas do inspire us. We use what they discovered and elaborated as a base for our understanding of nature and for the advancement of science. Hope this clarifies furthermore what I said.
Gee, I guess that I miswrote my point. I meant that Braveheart is more believable that the Passion based on the human factor. The Wallace dude was tortured in the end. He died. Other humans that would have gone through the same thing would have died as well around the same point that Wallace died in Braveheart. Before the chopping of the head off, the torture techniques, while brutal, were not deadly. This isn't the case for the Passion where Jesus is stripped of his skin and left to carry his cross while being whipped again... That was a bit exaggerated in the amount of suffering one can endure. I believe most people would die or get into shock way before the end.
Sorry about the confusion. I never said that Jesus was just a man, but I mentionned that He took the human form once on earth. Therefore, he was limited to the human condition.
Another interesting fact (leaving the movie aside - this could not have been included in it), is that Jesus was living in the time of the great philosophers : Socrates: 469 - 399 B.C.E., Plato: 427 - 347 B.C.E., Aristotle: 384 - 323/2 B.C.E. just to name a few. These philosophers are also quite well documented.
I don't mean to influence your beliefs, but just to point out different things. You said that you're an individual who do not necessarily believes what the majority believes so I thought you might be interested by this point.
Finally, my last argument for now is that science was not very well developed in those days. Therefore, a scientific method or objective method or reporting the facts was not necessarily used by those who documented the life of Jesus (and of all other philosophers of the time). In my opinion, this is also another interesting point to consider when philosphing on the life if Jesus
cheersAnd I respect your belief of Jesus being God in the flesh, but I rather have Him as a "normal" human being. Because if He were God in the flesh, than Him being brutalized and executed loses of its prestige since He has "special power" - for a lack of better words - that helps Him through.
Cheers,Now to add to what I said, Jesus was the son of God, granted. But the son of God was given to us in the human form. And what I said is that it seems humanly impossible (Health science people correct me if I'm wrong) to survive the first few steps of what Mel depicted as the passion of Christ, thus removing the human portion of Jesus and leaving only the Son of God part. Which I consider as a big failure from Mel's part. His other movies, even though exaggerated still, were not as bad as this one (again, this is my opinion and I welcome comments proving the opposite as I haven't probably seen all movies in which Mel played or directed or produced but I saw at least a good few)
So this is my idea of the context.
Cheers,You're right... The movie doesn't really mock Christ, but the people building the religions based on him... or to better say it, based on their interpretation of him. Life of Brian achieves this beautifully!
All in all, mocking this movie may not be exactly appropriate as it may insult some religious people, but at least some people have the guts to say THEIR opinion of the life of Christ and the religions based on it.
(This is my 0.02$ and I hope I am not insulting anyone)
Getting ?fiber to the home? ? telecom?s long-sought solution to the problem of directly delivering high-quality and high-speed video may cause some more problems. Alright, this would be able to bring high bandwidth lines to homes, but how about backbones? The current technologies are still pretty much limited at 40Gb/s for one single fiber. And since all-optical networks are still developing, I believe it may still be a while before we can profit from this.
Is that guy clueless??? People still open attachments even though they don't know what it is. Remember a few weeks ago?? It happened and will happen again. This "new" twist of a virus is still crap news though...
On the other hand, I would certainly have a PDA/Calculator/Cell Phone/Digital camera all in one and in a PDA size (with a decent screen size and definition) and a regular watch. When such a device will come out AND be quite reliable for ALL the functions, I will consider the investment.
You mean this technology I presume...
I don't have a problem with people swearing if they really want to emphasize their point. Even if it's part of their language. But fucking swearing at every stupid goddamn line just to fucking prove their shitty point sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Does that mean that they will censor out Britney's "I'm a virgin"?? If so, I have nothing against it. (Plus the fact that swearing doesn't really reflect intelligence to me... Bash me out, but I find it teenagish...)