The article offers absolutely nothing. The only reason it was posted is because it mentions something Microsoft-related, and the submitter generates argumentative discussion by feeling the need to inject his unasked opinion. Slashdot editors know this article will get anti-Microsoft page hits.
Think about it. What other reason could there be? The article is drivel.
I love the fact that there's a great big Microsoft ad on this article.
Not only did Slashdot post this anti-Microsoft article to get ad hits, but the ad is from Microsoft themselves. Of course, Slashbots will choose to ignore the fact that Slashdot is corporate-owned.
It is bizarre watching you argue with yourself within a post. I clearly struck a nerve.
People are against SCO because it is the popular choice. SCO dared do something anti-Linux. Of course, that is not their motives, but Slashbots spin it that way and rally other sheep. People hate SCO because other people hate SCO. You and I both know this is the truth.
Well, it's hard to argue with such incredible arguments.
Pirating IS NOT stealing. They are DIFFERENT crimes with DIFFERENT laws. However closely related they may be is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Overlooking your bizarre, frantic, foaming-at-the-mouth usage of caps lock, you are still wrong. I don't care about different laws.
If you get music you should have paid for, you are withholding payment of money owed to the people who brought that music to the public. You are stealing their profits. This is incredibly simple, but people like you need to justify it in your mind because you've grown accustomed to the convenience of downloading mp3s and ignoring the obvious theft involved.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It's difficult for you because you're used to justifying downloading music in your mind. You're used to the convenience.
ps-sorry it just really pisses me off when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tries to definitively talk about something.
You and I both know exactly what I'm talking about and that I'm correct. I'm sorry it strikes such a nerve with you, but yes, you are stealing when you obtain music you should be paying for. There is always a theft involved--theft of intellectual property, theft of profit, and so forth. If you're going to reduce your viewpoint to "theft only occurs for physical shiny objects I can touch in my sweaty little palms" then you're purposely dumbing your viewpoint to justify the stealing going on.
There is hypotetical money being magically stolen, money that never was in the pockets of those who it is "stolen" from and does not en up in the pockets of the "thieves", and you wonder why people don't see it?
Download an album.
You know that $20 sitting in your wallet? It now belongs to the people who brought out that album you downloaded. But you're not going to pay it to them, are you? You're going to keep that $20 in your wallet.
There is always some yahoo who chimes in with this.
Yes, it is theft. You are depriving the owner of value by diminishing it. You are stealing their profits by obtaining one of their works that you should have paid them for. Taking money they should have, but don't.
Why is this so hard to understand? Is there just something about the word "stealing" that gets Slashbots in a fuss?
The Scouring was not filmed. There are no reshoots for it either. Saruman dies a completely different way (I won't reveal it for those avoiding spoilers).
Peter Jackson said he didn't want two climaxes for the film. With everything they already packed into the third film, he wants it to end on the Gray Havens, because that is his favorite part of the entire trilogy.
I don't know how you can't be 100% convinced when Peter Jackson himself said it wasn't filmed. He specifically said he does not want two climaxes to the film. It ends with the Gray Havens and a narration by Galadriel.
You've sure picked an odd way to criticize Titanic, considering:
* They hand-made the weapons and armor for Lord of the Rings, down to invidual armor links. * The set directors were told to treat everything historically, so you get everything from accurate Dwarvish runes everywhere that you'll never see to miniature dishes in Bilbo's kitchen to specially made "Elvish" boots with leaf designs that nobody will ever see. * In the soundtrack, choirs are singing in Elvish, Dwarvish, and even Entish. *...and much, much more. These are just the ones off the top of my head. I watched just the costume segment alone on the extended DVD and marvelled at all the "authentic" throwaway stuff that nobody will ever, ever see in the movie.
Sometimes, it's all about authenticity. Maybe you won't see it on screen, but you'll feel it through the actors, who feel it being on the set.
I understand why they moved the scene, but it makes me think that The Return of the King will probably show very little, if any, of the scourging of the Shire.
How many times does this need to be repeated? In just about every interview with Peter Jackson, cast, and crew since 1999, they have said the Scouring will not be in the movie. It's in the DVD audio commentaries, endless magazine articles, and web postings. They paid homage to it in the Mirror of Galadriel. This has been stated countless times.
For the last time, there will be no Scouring in the Return of the King!
X-Entertainment has been covering this movie for years. I wonder what's so different this time around. This has got to be at least the third time I've seen them write an article on it.
There is one very important fact that needs to be made clear about the entire Rosewell bru-ha-ha. A lot the publicity for it, namely the theory that an alien spacecraft crashed there, did not come about until well after the incident.
Uh, let's just disregard the front page headline the morning after the incident in which it was declared that a UFO had crashed in Roswell.
A pilot didn't recognize weather balloon debris. Then the military changed their story and we know the rest.
I don't give a crap about the rest of the theories out there that have been added on. My big question mark is what I stated--a pilot who doesn't recognize what is supposed to be a weather balloon, and then it's all covered up with strange actions by the military. UFO? Or perhaps some sort of classified unmanned device that wrecked? We'll never know, will we?
Most "UFOlogists" are idiots, but I often wonder about Roswell. Something like that is of much huger magnitude than the F117 or Clinton's affair. There are measures that could have been taken to protect something so huge, whatever it was.
The only reason I say this is that when a military pilot sees debris and does not recognize it as a weather balloon, and then suddenly the story changes that it WAS a balloon but nobody is allowed to view any of it, you have to recognize that something did happen, UFO or not, and it really appeared to have been covered up.
Apparently, we'll even get to see Sauron in physical form. The actor who played him in the prologue of the first one has done reshoots for the third movie.
Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.
It seems people are completely missing what happened in that scene.
That's EXACTLY what Neo did. He chose the door that would lead to a system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix. With Zion's destruction, that's the end of humanity.
If he had chosen the other door, he would have reloaded the Matrix, and at least the people in the Matrix would still go on living, and Zion would be rebuilt.
The entire point was that he didn't care, because he loved Trinity. So he chose the door that leads to the eventual extermination of humanity, just so he could save the women he loved.
The previous Ones didn't assume the Architect was lying. They simply didn't want the burden of exterminating all of humanity.
Neo, on the other hand, chooses the other door not because he gives credence to anything the Architect says--he chooses that door to save Trinity. Nothing more.
The point is that love made him choose that door just to save Trinity in the face of exterminating the entire human race. The previous Ones didn't have a Trinity, as the Architect states.
The screens have the images of the previous Ones, repeated. When zooming into the center, you can clearly hear them saying things like "There were four before me" and "There were none before me." They all talk at the same time, so listen carefully, but it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
So it was you who moderated it "Overrated." I'm glad I strike a nerve.
Next.
The article offers absolutely nothing. The only reason it was posted is because it mentions something Microsoft-related, and the submitter generates argumentative discussion by feeling the need to inject his unasked opinion. Slashdot editors know this article will get anti-Microsoft page hits.
Think about it. What other reason could there be? The article is drivel.
I love the fact that there's a great big Microsoft ad on this article.
Not only did Slashdot post this anti-Microsoft article to get ad hits, but the ad is from Microsoft themselves. Of course, Slashbots will choose to ignore the fact that Slashdot is corporate-owned.
It is bizarre watching you argue with yourself within a post. I clearly struck a nerve.
People are against SCO because it is the popular choice. SCO dared do something anti-Linux. Of course, that is not their motives, but Slashbots spin it that way and rally other sheep. People hate SCO because other people hate SCO. You and I both know this is the truth.
Trolled.
"Maybe, just _MAYBE_ slashdotters base their opinions not so much on who they think is the popular choice but rather on what makes the most sense..."
And what do you think the popular choice is in this situation, pray tell? Thought so.
You've just been trolled. You'll figure it out.
In Slashdot land, it's all about whose side of the fence you're on, not about ideals.
Come on, let's at least admit it...and then wait and laugh as SCO is pulverized into dust.
Should be: "We big people have things to do."
This post brought to you from the grammar nazis on the bridge.
You are an arrogant idiot.
Well, it's hard to argue with such incredible arguments.
Pirating IS NOT stealing. They are DIFFERENT crimes with DIFFERENT laws. However closely related they may be is irrelevant. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Overlooking your bizarre, frantic, foaming-at-the-mouth usage of caps lock, you are still wrong. I don't care about different laws.
If you get music you should have paid for, you are withholding payment of money owed to the people who brought that music to the public. You are stealing their profits. This is incredibly simple, but people like you need to justify it in your mind because you've grown accustomed to the convenience of downloading mp3s and ignoring the obvious theft involved.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It's difficult for you because you're used to justifying downloading music in your mind. You're used to the convenience.
ps-sorry it just really pisses me off when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about tries to definitively talk about something.
You and I both know exactly what I'm talking about and that I'm correct. I'm sorry it strikes such a nerve with you, but yes, you are stealing when you obtain music you should be paying for. There is always a theft involved--theft of intellectual property, theft of profit, and so forth. If you're going to reduce your viewpoint to "theft only occurs for physical shiny objects I can touch in my sweaty little palms" then you're purposely dumbing your viewpoint to justify the stealing going on.
There is hypotetical money being magically stolen, money that never was in the pockets of those who it is "stolen" from and does not en up in the pockets of the "thieves", and you wonder why people don't see it?
Download an album.
You know that $20 sitting in your wallet? It now belongs to the people who brought out that album you downloaded. But you're not going to pay it to them, are you? You're going to keep that $20 in your wallet.
You're stealing. Deal with it.
There is always some yahoo who chimes in with this.
Yes, it is theft. You are depriving the owner of value by diminishing it. You are stealing their profits by obtaining one of their works that you should have paid them for. Taking money they should have, but don't.
Why is this so hard to understand? Is there just something about the word "stealing" that gets Slashbots in a fuss?
The Scouring was not filmed. There are no reshoots for it either. Saruman dies a completely different way (I won't reveal it for those avoiding spoilers).
Peter Jackson said he didn't want two climaxes for the film. With everything they already packed into the third film, he wants it to end on the Gray Havens, because that is his favorite part of the entire trilogy.
I don't know how you can't be 100% convinced when Peter Jackson himself said it wasn't filmed. He specifically said he does not want two climaxes to the film. It ends with the Gray Havens and a narration by Galadriel.
You've sure picked an odd way to criticize Titanic, considering:
...and much, much more. These are just the ones off the top of my head. I watched just the costume segment alone on the extended DVD and marvelled at all the "authentic" throwaway stuff that nobody will ever, ever see in the movie.
* They hand-made the weapons and armor for Lord of the Rings, down to invidual armor links.
* The set directors were told to treat everything historically, so you get everything from accurate Dwarvish runes everywhere that you'll never see to miniature dishes in Bilbo's kitchen to specially made "Elvish" boots with leaf designs that nobody will ever see.
* In the soundtrack, choirs are singing in Elvish, Dwarvish, and even Entish.
*
Sometimes, it's all about authenticity. Maybe you won't see it on screen, but you'll feel it through the actors, who feel it being on the set.
I understand why they moved the scene, but it makes me think that The Return of the King will probably show very little, if any, of the scourging of the Shire.
How many times does this need to be repeated? In just about every interview with Peter Jackson, cast, and crew since 1999, they have said the Scouring will not be in the movie. It's in the DVD audio commentaries, endless magazine articles, and web postings. They paid homage to it in the Mirror of Galadriel. This has been stated countless times.
For the last time, there will be no Scouring in the Return of the King!
"even though that is almost certainly true."
Prove it.
X-Entertainment has been covering this movie for years. I wonder what's so different this time around. This has got to be at least the third time I've seen them write an article on it.
There is one very important fact that needs to be made clear about the entire Rosewell bru-ha-ha. A lot the publicity for it, namely the theory that an alien spacecraft crashed there, did not come about until well after the incident.
Uh, let's just disregard the front page headline the morning after the incident in which it was declared that a UFO had crashed in Roswell.
A pilot didn't recognize weather balloon debris. Then the military changed their story and we know the rest.
I don't give a crap about the rest of the theories out there that have been added on. My big question mark is what I stated--a pilot who doesn't recognize what is supposed to be a weather balloon, and then it's all covered up with strange actions by the military. UFO? Or perhaps some sort of classified unmanned device that wrecked? We'll never know, will we?
Most "UFOlogists" are idiots, but I often wonder about Roswell. Something like that is of much huger magnitude than the F117 or Clinton's affair. There are measures that could have been taken to protect something so huge, whatever it was.
The only reason I say this is that when a military pilot sees debris and does not recognize it as a weather balloon, and then suddenly the story changes that it WAS a balloon but nobody is allowed to view any of it, you have to recognize that something did happen, UFO or not, and it really appeared to have been covered up.
I just told you. The images are repeated.
Peter Jackson has been saying this for at least the past three years, in interview after interview.
There is no Scouring of the Shire. The movie ends with the Grey Havens.
Apparently, we'll even get to see Sauron in physical form. The actor who played him in the prologue of the first one has done reshoots for the third movie.
Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.
It seems people are completely missing what happened in that scene.
That's EXACTLY what Neo did. He chose the door that would lead to a system crash, killing everyone connected to the Matrix. With Zion's destruction, that's the end of humanity.
If he had chosen the other door, he would have reloaded the Matrix, and at least the people in the Matrix would still go on living, and Zion would be rebuilt.
The entire point was that he didn't care, because he loved Trinity. So he chose the door that leads to the eventual extermination of humanity, just so he could save the women he loved.
The previous Ones didn't assume the Architect was lying. They simply didn't want the burden of exterminating all of humanity.
Neo, on the other hand, chooses the other door not because he gives credence to anything the Architect says--he chooses that door to save Trinity. Nothing more.
The point is that love made him choose that door just to save Trinity in the face of exterminating the entire human race. The previous Ones didn't have a Trinity, as the Architect states.
The screens have the images of the previous Ones, repeated. When zooming into the center, you can clearly hear them saying things like "There were four before me" and "There were none before me." They all talk at the same time, so listen carefully, but it's there.