Slashdot has been making sure to post a Microsoft article at least once a day, most likely because of the page hits they generate. It doesn't matter if the article is poorly researched, intentionally vague, or completely innaccurate--it's not as though the editors actually answer to anybody or care. Any response is given through modbombing threads, shrugging it off as a running joke (i.e., duplicate articles), or simply ignoring the problem. In other words, Slashdot is guilty of the exact same thing Slashbots claim everyday against "Micro$loth"--FUD campaigns. This is clear just by browsing the story archives.
For crying out loud, there was an article about Ballmer selling Microsoft stock. Wow! What was the point, other than to have Microsoft on the front page so the pseudo-intellectuals who think they have everything figured out can rush in and post "M$" all over the place? In this case, it's an update that conflicts with firewall software for a "handful" of people, so the update has been pulled. But, of course, it is posted as a serious fault of Windows Update, that Microsoft posted something that shut off 600,000 people's connections. The majority of "M$-bashers" won't read the links themselves and will just blindly follow the summary, and so we get the further propagation of falsehoods permeating the worldviews of those who derive their perspective from Slashdot headlines--a tragically high number of Slashbots. We'll get everything from the "apt-get" comments to the "this only proves my point that..." and so forth. Nobody will bother realizing that this a minor issue and didn't even warrant an entire Slashdot article, and that they are being played by the editors into generating page hits and discussion threads bashing Microsoft. Sadly, such has become the norm around this place, a website that used to post really good science articles and keep us updated on kernel development but has now become a corporate shill that posts anti-Microsoft propaganda everyday in between story dupes.
And what was Microsoft convicted of? It is not illegal to be a monopoly.
What am I arguing with you about? I simply pointed out that foaming-at-the-mouth zealots like yourself write amusing posts like that one. You think someone is waging a holy war if all they pointed out was that the Slashbots will see anything Microsoft does as evil, even if they're giving away their software for FREE. Clearly, your bias clouds any objectivity you once possessed. Stop deriving your worldview from Slashdot headlines.
It brings the hip Slashbots out to bash Microsoft and impress their IRC Linux buddies, which generates page hits and therefore advertising revenue as well as potential subscribers.
Honestly, people constantly berate Microsoft for being a money-hungry company, but all companies are by definition money-hungry...and Slashdot itself happens to be corporate-owned...doesn't anybody else recognize the patterns? It seems we get at least three to four Microsoft articles a week, and they get more and more inane. Wow, Ballmer sold some stock! Ooh.
"2D MS apologists?" Have you actually objectively looked at the frantic Linux-heads around this place? Microsoft can't even give their software away for FREE without being bad in some way. Think about it.
Welcome to Slashdot, where everything Microsoft does is wrong, and anybody defending them is a Microsoft employee. Watch for the penguin-stamped tinfoil hats.
That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.
Christians have a habit of avoiding anything that contradicts their worldview. The fact that you have seemingly never heard of the more popular websites or read any of them leads me to believe you are of the same sheepish ilk.
Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you.
As I correctly guessed, you would ignore my statement that there are literally thousands of resources at your fingertips. Why should I reiterate all of it when a simple Google search will provide you the information? I don't desire to argue with you because I know your belief system is one of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy, and so nothing I can say will convince you. But the materials out there will at least point out the factual errors and inconsistencies inherent in the Christian religion.
There are so many resources. Hell, of the top of my head, there is the most well-known mistranslation, that of "virgin," which was a mistranslation of the Greek word:
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either your god makes errors or the Bible does not come from your god, but rather from fallible men.
Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.
I told you where to find the material. If you can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search to bring up simple places like this, this, and more, it shows me you are unwilling to seek out the information and therefore unwilling to crank open that closed steel trap of a Christian-diseased mind you've got there. The fact that the Bible isn't so straightforward as you claim is a testament to the fact that it is a monumental failure as a medium for the word of your god.
'Many 'words of the Lord', attributed to the historical Jesus are in fact utterances....'transmitted' through Christian prophets. Of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, only the authentic Pauline epistles are strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing, there is not a single writing in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus'. -- Professor R. H. Fuller A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, pp.103,197.
And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?
The fact that the original Hebrew texts referred to an ancient Babylonian king. Lucifer is a Latin name--how do you think it got in there? Freaking READ something other than that black book they raised you on:
Heck, even the Christian idea is paradoxical. Supposedly, Lucifer was a perfect creation, and his perversion was not put there by a god but by himself. But that would inva
Unfortunately, organized religion is a cancer of the planet, and it is impossible to reason with people who actually believe in such things as a "Satanic OS." Such people are relics of a dying era.
The very second I saw this headline on Slashdot, I knew people would feel the overwhelming need to make Windows jokes, and the crackhappy Slashbot moderators would be falling over themselves to mod it up fast enough.
What a clever and original joke. The effort exerted to make such a connection left me in utter awe at the fact. And the way he lets you know it is a joke with the "Oh wait" part at the end! Gets me every time they do that...every single time, in every single article with the word "window" in the headline.
Fine, I'll be frank. There is a major spoiler to be revealed in these two sequels. The first half was revealed at the end of Reloaded, in the Architect scene.
The second half will be revealed in Revolutions.
Every bit of dialogue is leading up to this big reveal. Some of it obviously correlates to the ending of Reloaded, and the rest that doesn't make sense...will in time.
You have to keep in mind that this is the first half of a story that is being treated as one big movie. And yes, there was a reason for the Matrix vision come shot.
I don't have any explanation. All I can offer is that, in the Revolutions preview at the end, there is a very quick shot at the beginning of Neo waking up on the table--but he has his trenchcoat on.
So perhaps the Zion world really is a Matrix, or Neo has found a way to bring his powers from that world into the real world.
Another posssibility is, of course, that Neo is a machine, or has inherited some part of Agent Smith, who stated repeatedly that there was a connection between them. Neo senses Smith throughout the movie.
No, it isn't. People are better if they don't accept the superficiality of things and are able to gleam meaning from something, knowing there is more than meets the eye.
The person who sits in the corner, writing about a walk in the park in order to mock others who found meaning where he couldn't, is the tragedy in this. The people around him are better.
Clearly, you are just a frustrated Christian trying to cope with the reality that conflicts your failed beliefs.
Really? You know in debatng circles, that would be known as an appeal to authority suggesting there is no substance to your argument.
One has only to do a Google search; however, you wouldn't click them anyway.
While there are some erorrs in rtanslation and translaton necessitates interpretation to a degree, there are plenty of good translations that very accurately reflect the original Biblical texts, such as the NRSV or NIV.
No, there aren't. Read up.
Would you care to point out where several dozen people with a great deal of experieicen in Hebrew and Greek went wrong with their translations?
Hell, off the top of my head, the whole Lucifer fiasco.
Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion which your better understanding of ancient languages has provided you with?
No, I simply am able to read materials critical of the Bible because I am not biased, having not been raised to believe something without question, and then react amusingly when somebody questions it.
Are you talking about Revelaton? If so then take for a moment the assumption that the supernatural exists. Wuldn't it be rather difficult to desribe it in terms of things which exist within nature?
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? There is absolutely no evidence that what the book says is true. It is just written words, but people are raised to believe in it for no reason other than they are told to. It is much more likely that the book was either misinterpreted, or the writers were eating shrooms out in the desert. However, your narrow worldview will not allow such a thing because you are emotionally attached to the idea of a powerful Savior who throws around dinosaur bones to "test your faith."
And the book's reputation for being a little crazy is vastly overstated. The vast majority of it is quite straightforward and clear with only a couple of chapters having difficult to interpret sections.
For anyone to say the vast majority of the Bible is quite straightforward is to invalidate your entire position. I could post pages and pages of contradictions, as well as vulgarities and bizarre instructions by your god that includes killing children and raping women. If you choose to follow such a god, have at it.
Or maybe it's to preserve some very valuable pieces of manuscript that are no doubt in a pretty fragile condition?
You are right--scholars and historians wouldn't know how to deal with precious, ancient manuscripts, despite that being their profession. Instead, the church should keep them locked up from prying eyes. Better we don't know what they say, right? You clearly have not read up on these scrolls that are kept locked up. If you actually trust that as their only reason for keeping them, quite honestly, you are kidding yourself because you don't want to face the obvious truth. The issue of the scrolls is a well-known controversy that simply exposes another faulty layer of organized religion--their inability to accept contradiction.
Most of the Bible is pretty straighforward. What are you struggling with? Maybe I can help. And I'm more interested in following sometihng that is true than something that is simple.
The Bible is not straightforward. Perhaps the new, modernized, English translation you have sitting on your shelf is easier to read, but most of the book is full of parables, metaphors, and other vagueness, which is the reason so many groups of the world have been able to use it to justify their means. As a medium for the word of god--the Bible has miserably failed. You and I both know this.
You do realise that most Christians live in Africa/Asia/South America rather than Europe/North America right?
You do realize it is crusty old white men who get together via committee to decide what parts o
As I guessed, you don't have issues with the philosophical references--you just don't like the movie. Congratulations on letting your bias cloud the discussion.
As I guessed, another person who doesn't really have issues with the philosophical references--they just don't like the movie. Your bias is showing.
Next.
It is well known that the Bible is a hodge-podge of mistranslated pieces of history that have been modified over the years for each era in which it is being interpreted.
The Bible is, indeed, confused and hallucinogenic (the latter likely referring to the fact that many parts of the book actually seem drug-inspired).
Find out sometime why the Church keeps such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls under lock and key (hint: it has something to do with their fear of contradictions). At least Islam has a book that is incredibly straightforward in contrast, and doesn't have to deal with crusty old white men changing the meanings of things so that they fit their worldviews. However, it is clear that organized religion as a whole is a cancer of the planet.
How amusing. Your insecurities forced you to distance yourself from implying any sort of meaning from a simple walk. Perhaps the others are more insightful than you are because they were not afraid to draw meaning from something, even if it was not intended by the orginal creator. There is nothing wrong with teaching people to look beneath the surface of something to find a deeper layer.
Forced elitism through reductionism and mocking of others is simply lame and nothing more, and really reveals your character.
Who is better, the person who sees a walk as a walk, or the person who chooses to see the metaphor of life progression that a walk could represent? I think the answer is clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it wasn't listed as a "Critical Update." Next.
Slashdot has been making sure to post a Microsoft article at least once a day, most likely because of the page hits they generate. It doesn't matter if the article is poorly researched, intentionally vague, or completely innaccurate--it's not as though the editors actually answer to anybody or care. Any response is given through modbombing threads, shrugging it off as a running joke (i.e., duplicate articles), or simply ignoring the problem. In other words, Slashdot is guilty of the exact same thing Slashbots claim everyday against "Micro$loth"--FUD campaigns. This is clear just by browsing the story archives.
For crying out loud, there was an article about Ballmer selling Microsoft stock. Wow! What was the point, other than to have Microsoft on the front page so the pseudo-intellectuals who think they have everything figured out can rush in and post "M$" all over the place? In this case, it's an update that conflicts with firewall software for a "handful" of people, so the update has been pulled. But, of course, it is posted as a serious fault of Windows Update, that Microsoft posted something that shut off 600,000 people's connections. The majority of "M$-bashers" won't read the links themselves and will just blindly follow the summary, and so we get the further propagation of falsehoods permeating the worldviews of those who derive their perspective from Slashdot headlines--a tragically high number of Slashbots. We'll get everything from the "apt-get" comments to the "this only proves my point that..." and so forth. Nobody will bother realizing that this a minor issue and didn't even warrant an entire Slashdot article, and that they are being played by the editors into generating page hits and discussion threads bashing Microsoft. Sadly, such has become the norm around this place, a website that used to post really good science articles and keep us updated on kernel development but has now become a corporate shill that posts anti-Microsoft propaganda everyday in between story dupes.
ME came out how many years ago? Windows Server 2003 is crushing Linux in the majority of tests. Yes, the non-biased ones.
Next.
What did I learn from Microsoft?
And what was Microsoft convicted of? It is not illegal to be a monopoly.
What am I arguing with you about? I simply pointed out that foaming-at-the-mouth zealots like yourself write amusing posts like that one. You think someone is waging a holy war if all they pointed out was that the Slashbots will see anything Microsoft does as evil, even if they're giving away their software for FREE. Clearly, your bias clouds any objectivity you once possessed. Stop deriving your worldview from Slashdot headlines.
Next.
It brings the hip Slashbots out to bash Microsoft and impress their IRC Linux buddies, which generates page hits and therefore advertising revenue as well as potential subscribers.
Honestly, people constantly berate Microsoft for being a money-hungry company, but all companies are by definition money-hungry...and Slashdot itself happens to be corporate-owned...doesn't anybody else recognize the patterns? It seems we get at least three to four Microsoft articles a week, and they get more and more inane. Wow, Ballmer sold some stock! Ooh.
"2D MS apologists?" Have you actually objectively looked at the frantic Linux-heads around this place? Microsoft can't even give their software away for FREE without being bad in some way. Think about it.
Welcome to Slashdot, where everything Microsoft does is wrong, and anybody defending them is a Microsoft employee. Watch for the penguin-stamped tinfoil hats.
That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.
Christians have a habit of avoiding anything that contradicts their worldview. The fact that you have seemingly never heard of the more popular websites or read any of them leads me to believe you are of the same sheepish ilk.
Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you.
As I correctly guessed, you would ignore my statement that there are literally thousands of resources at your fingertips. Why should I reiterate all of it when a simple Google search will provide you the information? I don't desire to argue with you because I know your belief system is one of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy, and so nothing I can say will convince you. But the materials out there will at least point out the factual errors and inconsistencies inherent in the Christian religion.
There are so many resources. Hell, of the top of my head, there is the most well-known mistranslation, that of "virgin," which was a mistranslation of the Greek word:
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either your god makes errors or the Bible does not come from your god, but rather from fallible men.
Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.
I told you where to find the material. If you can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search to bring up simple places like this, this, and more, it shows me you are unwilling to seek out the information and therefore unwilling to crank open that closed steel trap of a Christian-diseased mind you've got there. The fact that the Bible isn't so straightforward as you claim is a testament to the fact that it is a monumental failure as a medium for the word of your god.
'Many 'words of the Lord', attributed to the historical Jesus are in fact utterances....'transmitted' through Christian prophets. Of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, only the authentic Pauline epistles are strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing, there is not a single writing in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus'.
-- Professor R. H. Fuller A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, pp.103,197.
And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?
The fact that the original Hebrew texts referred to an ancient Babylonian king. Lucifer is a Latin name--how do you think it got in there? Freaking READ something other than that black book they raised you on:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
Heck, even the Christian idea is paradoxical. Supposedly, Lucifer was a perfect creation, and his perversion was not put there by a god but by himself. But that would inva
Yeah. That's it.
Unfortunately, organized religion is a cancer of the planet, and it is impossible to reason with people who actually believe in such things as a "Satanic OS." Such people are relics of a dying era.
The very second I saw this headline on Slashdot, I knew people would feel the overwhelming need to make Windows jokes, and the crackhappy Slashbot moderators would be falling over themselves to mod it up fast enough.
What a clever and original joke. The effort exerted to make such a connection left me in utter awe at the fact. And the way he lets you know it is a joke with the "Oh wait" part at the end! Gets me every time they do that...every single time, in every single article with the word "window" in the headline.
Fine, I'll be frank. There is a major spoiler to be revealed in these two sequels. The first half was revealed at the end of Reloaded, in the Architect scene.
The second half will be revealed in Revolutions.
Every bit of dialogue is leading up to this big reveal. Some of it obviously correlates to the ending of Reloaded, and the rest that doesn't make sense...will in time.
You have to keep in mind that this is the first half of a story that is being treated as one big movie. And yes, there was a reason for the Matrix vision come shot.
I don't have any explanation. All I can offer is that, in the Revolutions preview at the end, there is a very quick shot at the beginning of Neo waking up on the table--but he has his trenchcoat on.
So perhaps the Zion world really is a Matrix, or Neo has found a way to bring his powers from that world into the real world.
Another posssibility is, of course, that Neo is a machine, or has inherited some part of Agent Smith, who stated repeatedly that there was a connection between them. Neo senses Smith throughout the movie.
No, it isn't. People are better if they don't accept the superficiality of things and are able to gleam meaning from something, knowing there is more than meets the eye.
The person who sits in the corner, writing about a walk in the park in order to mock others who found meaning where he couldn't, is the tragedy in this. The people around him are better.
Clearly, you are just a frustrated Christian trying to cope with the reality that conflicts your failed beliefs.
Really? You know in debatng circles, that would be known as an appeal to authority suggesting there is no substance to your argument.
One has only to do a Google search; however, you wouldn't click them anyway.
While there are some erorrs in rtanslation and translaton necessitates interpretation to a degree, there are plenty of good translations that very accurately reflect the original Biblical texts, such as the NRSV or NIV.
No, there aren't. Read up.
Would you care to point out where several dozen people with a great deal of experieicen in Hebrew and Greek went wrong with their translations?
Hell, off the top of my head, the whole Lucifer fiasco.
Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion which your better understanding of ancient languages has provided you with?
No, I simply am able to read materials critical of the Bible because I am not biased, having not been raised to believe something without question, and then react amusingly when somebody questions it.
Are you talking about Revelaton? If so then take for a moment the assumption that the supernatural exists. Wuldn't it be rather difficult to desribe it in terms of things which exist within nature?
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? There is absolutely no evidence that what the book says is true. It is just written words, but people are raised to believe in it for no reason other than they are told to. It is much more likely that the book was either misinterpreted, or the writers were eating shrooms out in the desert. However, your narrow worldview will not allow such a thing because you are emotionally attached to the idea of a powerful Savior who throws around dinosaur bones to "test your faith."
And the book's reputation for being a little crazy is vastly overstated. The vast majority of it is quite straightforward and clear with only a couple of chapters having difficult to interpret sections.
For anyone to say the vast majority of the Bible is quite straightforward is to invalidate your entire position. I could post pages and pages of contradictions, as well as vulgarities and bizarre instructions by your god that includes killing children and raping women. If you choose to follow such a god, have at it.
Or maybe it's to preserve some very valuable pieces of manuscript that are no doubt in a pretty fragile condition?
You are right--scholars and historians wouldn't know how to deal with precious, ancient manuscripts, despite that being their profession. Instead, the church should keep them locked up from prying eyes. Better we don't know what they say, right? You clearly have not read up on these scrolls that are kept locked up. If you actually trust that as their only reason for keeping them, quite honestly, you are kidding yourself because you don't want to face the obvious truth. The issue of the scrolls is a well-known controversy that simply exposes another faulty layer of organized religion--their inability to accept contradiction.
Most of the Bible is pretty straighforward. What are you struggling with? Maybe I can help. And I'm more interested in following sometihng that is true than something that is simple.
The Bible is not straightforward. Perhaps the new, modernized, English translation you have sitting on your shelf is easier to read, but most of the book is full of parables, metaphors, and other vagueness, which is the reason so many groups of the world have been able to use it to justify their means. As a medium for the word of god--the Bible has miserably failed. You and I both know this.
You do realise that most Christians live in Africa/Asia/South America rather than Europe/North America right?
You do realize it is crusty old white men who get together via committee to decide what parts o
I'm a troll.
I'm making a killing with this Matrix article. Fans give me power.
"[F]orm of advanced troll." I like that.
You're far too blatant to be effective. Be subtle next time, though I appreciate your following my posts. Do you still post in my journals?
As I guessed, you don't have issues with the philosophical references--you just don't like the movie. Congratulations on letting your bias cloud the discussion.
You have a spelling error.
Next.
As I guessed, another person who doesn't really have issues with the philosophical references--they just don't like the movie. Your bias is showing. Next.
No need to reply to all my posts. Fans make me stronger.
I love that you're responding to all of my posts. Fans make me stronger.
It is well known that the Bible is a hodge-podge of mistranslated pieces of history that have been modified over the years for each era in which it is being interpreted.
The Bible is, indeed, confused and hallucinogenic (the latter likely referring to the fact that many parts of the book actually seem drug-inspired).
Find out sometime why the Church keeps such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls under lock and key (hint: it has something to do with their fear of contradictions). At least Islam has a book that is incredibly straightforward in contrast, and doesn't have to deal with crusty old white men changing the meanings of things so that they fit their worldviews. However, it is clear that organized religion as a whole is a cancer of the planet.
How amusing. Your insecurities forced you to distance yourself from implying any sort of meaning from a simple walk. Perhaps the others are more insightful than you are because they were not afraid to draw meaning from something, even if it was not intended by the orginal creator. There is nothing wrong with teaching people to look beneath the surface of something to find a deeper layer.
Forced elitism through reductionism and mocking of others is simply lame and nothing more, and really reveals your character.
Who is better, the person who sees a walk as a walk, or the person who chooses to see the metaphor of life progression that a walk could represent? I think the answer is clear.