The fact that it can't be disproven doesn't mean much, lots of stuff can't be disproven. You can't prove there aren't pink unicorns, you can't prove this sentence isn't in spanish when nobody's looking, you can't prove that your dog isn't a criminal mastermind. However, if you believed any of these things, you'd be considered insane.
If you believed it because you found some really old book that told you it was true, you'd still be considered insane. The only reason, as far as I can tell, for people to believe in God is that a really old book tells them to. The bible is bronze age mythology.
It's insane to believe in God because there's absolutely no evidence or indication (outside the bible) that he exists, and theres no plausable explaination as to how he could possibly exist (almost by definition).
The fact that there's a really old book that says he exists is not enough evidence to believe something as out there and unreconsilable with reality as an invisible man in the sky.
Ugh. Shoulda posted that without karma bonus: Anyway:
I'm sorry, but you have to be truely batshit insane to believe that a personal god, as described by the bible, factually exists. If you use religion as a moral code or whatever, that's fine and even sorta makes sense (it's been tried and tested), but to seriously believe in God is just insane.
Even if we have trouble explaining or just can't explain how life on earth got started, "the magic man made it with magic" simply isn't a better theory.
Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.
Yeah, well, it amazes me that people still believe in God, period. Let's face it, if you're willing to believe in an ivisible man in the sky, you aren't exactly all that up on logic and rationality.
Shoulda hit preview: What I meant was:
After all, Boy's and Girl's bodies naturally develop completely differently, so I think it's pretty stupid to assume their minds develop the same way.
I agree. After all, Boy's and Girl's minds naturally develop completely differently, so I think it's pretty stupid to assume their minds develop the same way.
I don't understand why users ignore error messages like this. I've seen it a million times. Even if they can't understand the error message, don't they realize that it's what tells the tech what went wrong?
Just to clarify, this is not a point for the evolutionists. The monkey came by it's walking behavior through a disease and brain damage, not a genetic abberation, so it won't pass it on to it's kids.
Oh, and IANARN (religious nut). I don't believe creation "science" or any such rubbish. I just had to point out that this *isn't* evolution in action.
We used to play laser tag at night in a nearby graveyard. We'd duck behind gravestones, which was always fun. Also, we had a rule that you're not allowed to shoot unless your chest plate was visible to whoever you were shooting at.
Also, lasers bouncing off of glossy gravestones made things interesting.
Well, maybe. While I agree with you mostly, just because there is life doesn't mean it will be teeming with it. After all, Antartica has life but isn't teeming with it. Nothing's been able to get much more than a foothold there, and from space it would look pretty sterile.
Well, I know you're trying to be a smartass, but yeah, you do.
Rendering is rediculously parallel, so if one computer messes up, goes down, explodes, whatever, whatever it was working on can be picked up by another computer. Chances are you won't lose more than one frame on one pass of your render. Some other node can redo whatever was lost, it's not a big deal at all.
So having lots of unreliable but fast computers is more effective than having fewer reliable high quality ones. Two cheap PCs can do more work than, and cost less than one nice computer (in this case the Mac).
Now the central server that collects all the render files and passes out work- that one should be a damn good computer. But the actual rendernodes themselves, they're grunts.
Don't use macs. First off, you have less choice in renderers, and second, the hardware is more expensive. Rendering is grunt work. Buy cheap systems that you can upgrade more often, and run linux or something.
Macs are very nice hardware, but you really don't need that for rendering. For workstations they make sense, but for rendering you really want to have a lot of fast computers rather than nice computers.
But see, there's the problem. If god can't do illogical things, like making a square circle, a spherical triangle, a rock so big he can't lift it, or make colorless green ideas sleep furiously, then God is constrained by logic.
If God is constrained by Logic, then he can't do impossible things that break laws of physics, he can't create matter or energy out of nothing, etc., so if he existed he'd just be a powerful being, not an omnipotent being. The point of the "stone so big he can't lift it" is that omnipotence has serious logical flaws.
I don't see your point. I didn't say it was impossible to make live action movies about implausable things, just that in animation you can make things even less plausable with much greater ease. And besides, none of those ideas are as over-the-top as any of the pixar movies. All of those movies are about people who occasionally do rediculous or spectacular things, but none of them are nearly as rediculous as any pixar movie.
First off, this is the first Pixar movie that's actually about people. This is also the first one that could concievably work as a live action movie, but Pixar has done a great job of making their characters cartoony enough so as to make it clear that they are characters and not people.
And just for fun, lets see how past movies would work:
Toy Story: People in costumes? Wouldn't be workable as live action, unless marketed to four year olds. P
Bugs life: People in bug costumes again? Same as Toy Story, it'd suck.
Toy Story 2: See Toy Story
Monsters Inc: More people in silly costumes, would be stupid.
Finding Nemo: I don't even want to know how this would work.
Yes, I know there are potential problems with evolution, the biggest of which is the generation of the first cells, the other one being the jump from single celled life to multicelled. These are problems.
However, the rest works quite well. Go to any natural history museum and you can basically see evolution right in front of you.
And the case for the judeo-christian god? Bronze age mythology, that's it. The idea of this "god" isn't remotely plausable. The idea of something that, by definition, cannot be explained or understood is NOT useful for understanding the world around us. "God made it, who is so far beyond you can't possibly understand His motives and methods" is just a wussy way to ignore a problem.
I think it's quite safe to dismiss god, as easily as it is to dismiss the theory of the five elements being fire, wind, water, air, and earth. There just isn't anything to it to refute. It's just nonsense that doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Um, its more than that. Animated movies are different from live action movies in that nothing is real to begin with, so doing rediculous things is much more easily accepted. If toy story had been live action, and the toy soldiers were live action actors, for example, it would have been dumb. Same with the rest of their movies, none of them would have "worked".
And yeah. They are a movie company. They make brilliant movies with great writing and characters. But also great is the character animation.
The character animation in these movies is simply better than anything anyone else does. The animators are roughly equivelant to the actors in a live action movie, without them, it just isn't believable. What's nice about Pixar movies is that because their animation is so good, every one of their movies is like having an all-star cast, which keeps people watching. The visual gags in those movies are so funny because of the skill of the animators. The fact that you can forget you're watching animation and just watch the characters and the movie are a testament to their skill.
This is what disney used to do, but Pixar is now the new disney. It's not about the CG vs 2d cartoons, as disney seems to think, its about the quality. Pixar is doing the best animation every done.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The meteor killed 80% of life, not species. I'm sure there were small animals left, something like insects (that's multicelled), maybe also other small animals like lizzards that live in caves that were able to adapt. Even though most life was killed, I'm sure a lot of species survived.
And even if that wasn't true, and all multicellular life were wiped out, evolution is STILL a better theory than "The invisible man in the sky made it all with magic". That's just silly, and is a fairytale best reserved for kids.
I can attest to this. While in the US I'm not even allowed to drink yet, up here I get free beer on "Thirsty thursdays" when everyone in the studio hangs out and drinks.
By the way, I'm an American working in Toronto as a 3d animator. I like it here.
I wonder why they would place the circuit breakers outside the space station. If those ciruit breakers are like anything in my house, they go out all the time.
I think it's a pretty good bet the circuit breakers on the International Space Station are absolutely nothing like the ones in your house.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe, thanks. Anyway, why it's insane:
The fact that it can't be disproven doesn't mean much, lots of stuff can't be disproven. You can't prove there aren't pink unicorns, you can't prove this sentence isn't in spanish when nobody's looking, you can't prove that your dog isn't a criminal mastermind. However, if you believed any of these things, you'd be considered insane.
If you believed it because you found some really old book that told you it was true, you'd still be considered insane. The only reason, as far as I can tell, for people to believe in God is that a really old book tells them to. The bible is bronze age mythology.
It's insane to believe in God because there's absolutely no evidence or indication (outside the bible) that he exists, and theres no plausable explaination as to how he could possibly exist (almost by definition).
The fact that there's a really old book that says he exists is not enough evidence to believe something as out there and unreconsilable with reality as an invisible man in the sky.
Ugh. Shoulda posted that without karma bonus: Anyway:
I'm sorry, but you have to be truely batshit insane to believe that a personal god, as described by the bible, factually exists. If you use religion as a moral code or whatever, that's fine and even sorta makes sense (it's been tried and tested), but to seriously believe in God is just insane.
Even if we have trouble explaining or just can't explain how life on earth got started, "the magic man made it with magic" simply isn't a better theory.
Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species. Yeah, well, it amazes me that people still believe in God, period. Let's face it, if you're willing to believe in an ivisible man in the sky, you aren't exactly all that up on logic and rationality.
Shoulda hit preview: What I meant was: After all, Boy's and Girl's bodies naturally develop completely differently, so I think it's pretty stupid to assume their minds develop the same way.
I agree. After all, Boy's and Girl's minds naturally develop completely differently, so I think it's pretty stupid to assume their minds develop the same way.
I'm more or less convinced that proprietary UNIX is dead as a major force in the market.
You're forgetting Mac OS X.
More importantly, who's the loser? Paypal.
They only did a small amount of damage to each user, so the users themselves aren't really entitled to a lot of money.
I don't understand why users ignore error messages like this. I've seen it a million times. Even if they can't understand the error message, don't they realize that it's what tells the tech what went wrong?
Just to clarify, this is not a point for the evolutionists. The monkey came by it's walking behavior through a disease and brain damage, not a genetic abberation, so it won't pass it on to it's kids.
Oh, and IANARN (religious nut). I don't believe creation "science" or any such rubbish. I just had to point out that this *isn't* evolution in action.
We used to play laser tag at night in a nearby graveyard. We'd duck behind gravestones, which was always fun. Also, we had a rule that you're not allowed to shoot unless your chest plate was visible to whoever you were shooting at. Also, lasers bouncing off of glossy gravestones made things interesting.
Or Paedophelia?
Well, maybe. While I agree with you mostly, just because there is life doesn't mean it will be teeming with it. After all, Antartica has life but isn't teeming with it. Nothing's been able to get much more than a foothold there, and from space it would look pretty sterile.
Well, I know you're trying to be a smartass, but yeah, you do.
Rendering is rediculously parallel, so if one computer messes up, goes down, explodes, whatever, whatever it was working on can be picked up by another computer. Chances are you won't lose more than one frame on one pass of your render. Some other node can redo whatever was lost, it's not a big deal at all.
So having lots of unreliable but fast computers is more effective than having fewer reliable high quality ones. Two cheap PCs can do more work than, and cost less than one nice computer (in this case the Mac).
Now the central server that collects all the render files and passes out work- that one should be a damn good computer. But the actual rendernodes themselves, they're grunts.
Don't use macs. First off, you have less choice in renderers, and second, the hardware is more expensive. Rendering is grunt work. Buy cheap systems that you can upgrade more often, and run linux or something.
Macs are very nice hardware, but you really don't need that for rendering. For workstations they make sense, but for rendering you really want to have a lot of fast computers rather than nice computers.
The point is how much SUVs suck. There is no excuse for having worse fuel efficiancy than a fucking airplane.
But see, there's the problem. If god can't do illogical things, like making a square circle, a spherical triangle, a rock so big he can't lift it, or make colorless green ideas sleep furiously, then God is constrained by logic.
If God is constrained by Logic, then he can't do impossible things that break laws of physics, he can't create matter or energy out of nothing, etc., so if he existed he'd just be a powerful being, not an omnipotent being. The point of the "stone so big he can't lift it" is that omnipotence has serious logical flaws.
So there's the problem.
Spider-Man, The Matrix, and MIB, right?
I don't see your point. I didn't say it was impossible to make live action movies about implausable things, just that in animation you can make things even less plausable with much greater ease. And besides, none of those ideas are as over-the-top as any of the pixar movies. All of those movies are about people who occasionally do rediculous or spectacular things, but none of them are nearly as rediculous as any pixar movie.
First off, this is the first Pixar movie that's actually about people. This is also the first one that could concievably work as a live action movie, but Pixar has done a great job of making their characters cartoony enough so as to make it clear that they are characters and not people.
And just for fun, lets see how past movies would work:
Animation makes these movies possible.
Yes, I know there are potential problems with evolution, the biggest of which is the generation of the first cells, the other one being the jump from single celled life to multicelled. These are problems.
However, the rest works quite well. Go to any natural history museum and you can basically see evolution right in front of you.
And the case for the judeo-christian god? Bronze age mythology, that's it. The idea of this "god" isn't remotely plausable. The idea of something that, by definition, cannot be explained or understood is NOT useful for understanding the world around us. "God made it, who is so far beyond you can't possibly understand His motives and methods" is just a wussy way to ignore a problem.
I think it's quite safe to dismiss god, as easily as it is to dismiss the theory of the five elements being fire, wind, water, air, and earth. There just isn't anything to it to refute. It's just nonsense that doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Um, its more than that. Animated movies are different from live action movies in that nothing is real to begin with, so doing rediculous things is much more easily accepted. If toy story had been live action, and the toy soldiers were live action actors, for example, it would have been dumb. Same with the rest of their movies, none of them would have "worked".
And yeah. They are a movie company. They make brilliant movies with great writing and characters. But also great is the character animation.
The character animation in these movies is simply better than anything anyone else does. The animators are roughly equivelant to the actors in a live action movie, without them, it just isn't believable. What's nice about Pixar movies is that because their animation is so good, every one of their movies is like having an all-star cast, which keeps people watching. The visual gags in those movies are so funny because of the skill of the animators. The fact that you can forget you're watching animation and just watch the characters and the movie are a testament to their skill.
This is what disney used to do, but Pixar is now the new disney. It's not about the CG vs 2d cartoons, as disney seems to think, its about the quality. Pixar is doing the best animation every done.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The meteor killed 80% of life, not species. I'm sure there were small animals left, something like insects (that's multicelled), maybe also other small animals like lizzards that live in caves that were able to adapt. Even though most life was killed, I'm sure a lot of species survived.
And even if that wasn't true, and all multicellular life were wiped out, evolution is STILL a better theory than "The invisible man in the sky made it all with magic". That's just silly, and is a fairytale best reserved for kids.
Um, the weapons mentioned in the story are meant to take out tanks, surgically. They aren't nuclear bombs.
I wouldn't call that "designed to kill millions".
While a sorta agree with your point of not needed new weapons, your argument is a pure appeal-to-emotions, which is worthless.
I can attest to this. While in the US I'm not even allowed to drink yet, up here I get free beer on "Thirsty thursdays" when everyone in the studio hangs out and drinks.
By the way, I'm an American working in Toronto as a 3d animator. I like it here.
Well said. A sense of scale is something that's rare on Slashdot.
I think this one will burn your eyes out regardless of color.
I think it's a pretty good bet the circuit breakers on the International Space Station are absolutely nothing like the ones in your house.