It's true -- I'm the only geek left who hasn't read Lord of the Rings. I've read many more O'Reilly books than science fiction novels. But I am an avid moviegoer -- I LOVE movies.
I went into LotR with an open mind. Having never read the books, I really didn't know what to expect. From the opening sequence, I was enthralled.
Several things struck me about this movie. First and foremost, it takes itself seriously. I'll never be able to watch Phantom Menace again, because LotR does what PM should have -- presented a serious and dark tale of myth.
After seeing LotR for the second time, I find it curious that so many people complain about character progression. When your last impression of Sam and Frodo is of them walking off together, and then you see them at the beginning of the movie again, the change is stark.
The special effects were fantastic.
The acting was fantastic.
The dialogue and pacing were fantastic.
The last action/adventure movie I saw that was this good was the Matrix, period. For three hours I was swept away into a different land with vivid scenery, odd creatures, and a compelling story. I can't imagine what more I would want from this movie.
Best movie ever? If Towers and King turn out just as good, then I believe the trilogy as a whole is worthy of such consideration. It's certainly not a cinematic masterpiece like Citizen Kane, but if you were going out this weekend, which movie would you rather see?
Fellowship of the Rings could be described with one word that I rarely use but is completely apropos: epic. How many other movies can claim the same?
I wish more people were this level-headed (as lythander). I am continually amazed at how people leap to conclusions without supporting facts.
Glancing around at other posts, my amazement continues. People are quick to blur the difference between fact and supposition, and this sort of muddy thinking only hurts the situation, it doesn't help.
And while I'm posting...
"When a serious matter like medical research involving stem cells from frozen embryos arises, politicians worry at least as much about religious support as they do about what scientists advise."
Couldn't politicians be concerned that life begins at conception rather than birth? That's the real crux of the abortion debate, too. Every human is granted rights in our country, but at what point do we consider them "human."
I don't see this as a religious debate at all. I find it unforunuate that so often "religious" people are assailed in such ways. And while I won't agree that some politicians make their decisions based on popular opinion, I hold out hope that others follow their conscience, and I find it perfectly reasonable that some might believe that life begins at conception.
Guess I'm getting off-topic. I'm just sick of this sort of poor journalism. Does Katz get paid for this rubbish?
Re:The laws are giving us insight into our country
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
I believe the key word here is responsibility, not morality. I think what religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever) brings to the table is belief in the sanctity of life (well, maybe scratch Muslim from the list), and that lends itself to not shooting other people in the face.
The real issue (and it seems that everyone knows what the real issue is - I digress) is the lack of responsibility taken by many of our citizens today. You're right, we want the government to raise our children now. Parents don't want the chore of actually paying attention to their kids long enough to know what sort of music they are listening to, or what books they are reading, or heaven forbid what video games they are playing. If we cut it off at the source (retailers) then parents have more time to shop for a new SUV.
On topic, I've been playing video games since the Atari 2600. I think it's sick that people would blame video games for violence among young people. But, when I play first person shooters, I definitely notice an elevation in my agressiveness, even hours after I've finished playing. I'm not going to go out and shoot somebody, and neither are your kids, but those game have become incredibly realistic, and I think it is potentially dangerous for young kids to be exposed to intense and graphic violence.
Nevertheless, that responsibility should fall to the parents, to the government.
Personally, I thought Laurence Fishburn was fabulous, and Carriane Moss was - in leather.
...the plot was well-worn ground..."
I've seen a lot of movies, but this is the only one I've seen where reality exists within the confines of a computer simulation, enslaving the human race for use by machines. Now before I get a reply pointing out seven movies made in the 1960's that no one who's getting laid has ever heard of, let me stress the point that the Matrix plot is certainly not "well-worn ground."
Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking
I think the whole point of the movie was that Neo was able to trancend the Matrix, to manipulate it as he saw fit. He mentally "hacked" the Matrix, so to speak.
Neo is handed a magic pill.
You are forgetting the entire sequence regarding the rescue of Morpheus. Neo only became the "One" after realizing his destiny, not swallowing a pill.
The answer is: War Games.
War Games got my vote, too.
The biggest mistake you've made, however, is to say that the Matrix was "eye candy with no point." That couldn't be further from the truth. The Matrix made a statement about our society that few grasp.
The next time you are plopped on the couch watching Friends, you should pay attention to the commercials. Like any other Generation X'er, raised by TV and not by parents, I've learned to unconciously tune out the commercials - I don't even notice them anymore. But the message they send is a perfect indicator of our society.
We consume, consume, consume. And to what end? To make our government and Sam Walton richer. Think about the average American's life - you work your whole life, constantly consume new things in a vain attempt at happiness (if only I could afford the Super Jumbo 200-inch TV, then I'd be happy), and then die in pretty much the same financial situation as in which were were born.
A lot of people in this country are a slave to the system. That was the "point", IMHO.
I would suspect that rejecting this theory because it makes God a "liar" or "cheat" is more likely due to fear and insecurity than reasonability.
Personally, I find most Christians to be an unreasonable bunch. It is impossible to take a verbatim approach to the Bible, for instance, because the Bible contradicts itself. Yet some Christians will fight to the death to protect the notion that the Bible is perfect.
From a completely realistic pespective, though, I think that if there were an omnipotent power creating a universe, he would bring it into existance under his own terms. I'd like to believe that the creation of mankind was a seperate step from the creation of the rest of the universe - we'll never really know.
But I don't see how believing that God created the universe with an apparent age - with rock formations seemingly millions of years old, despite being perhaps only 10,000, I don't see how that would make God a con-man. Just creative.
First of all, I don't understand the desire to prove Creationism impossible.
The response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The proof is right here, in our genes."
Thump their bible?
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
Indisputably and beyond serious doubt?
Regardless, it's rather easy to prove that it is possible that God created the universe.
Let's assume for a moment that God did create the universe.
Boom - there's the Earth. Now, if we take the Bible at face value, the claim is that everything happened within a span of six days. So God didn't really have time to wait billions of years for Earth to become habitable - he would have had to create it already habitable.
Boom - there's Adam. Again, God didn't sit around for 30 years and wait for Adam to become fully-grown. Adam was supposedly created as an adult. I'm sure by every scientific standard, Adam would appear to be 30 years old.
So which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well according to the Bible, it would be the chicken. God didn't create eggs and then wait for them to be hatched.
It's rather possible that God, if there is one, created the universe with an "apparent age." Furthermore, it's impossible to prove that there isn't a God, and that God didn't create the universe based on specific rules.
Assuming God did create the universe, and he did so in six days, then Adam was born with hairy armpits and a full bank of sperm. If you and I were to see him a day or two after creation, it would appear to us that he must have gone through puberty.
It's a rather simple argument that obviously does not attempt to prove God's existence, but to disprove any claim that God's existence is impossible.
Could it be because they don't have a real clue on what they sued MS over?
Not to defend the government, but the people involved in this case aren't some rapid group of sick, Mircosoft hating crazies.
I believe one of the original reasons for the DOJ case was the integration of the IE browser into Windows, and the subsequent threatening MS did of its customers (see Compaq) to pull Windows if they didn't cooperate. In a nutshell, that's what they did, and it's quite illegal in this country.
Spending millions on a case that you are going to try and settle after the trial seems absurd
This argument defies logic in my opinion. I heard it a lot during Bill Clinton's impeachment, people complaining about the amazing cost of Ken Starr's investigation. The 2001 Federal Budget is $1.77 trillion dollars. Of everything this government spends money on, persecuting criminals is one of which I am in favor.
You can't blame MS for other companies that can't come out with a good OS or have poor marketing strategies.
I think this case is less about the evils of Windows, and more about how Microsoft used its monopoly in the desktop OS market to force people to use its application software. It's the equivalent of your local phone company (if you only have one, like me) saying you can only have a phone through them if you also buy your food through them, too. (And to make this analogy work, you have to picture a phone that only works right 50% of the time, and bland, tasteless food that gives you gas).
Maybe someone should have thought about the implications of all this before they started this silly adventure and actually put the consumer in mind first, and not the alimighty dollar of corporations.
I'm sure anyone else that might be reading this and can attest to the quality of MS products (or lack thereof) versus other major computer vendors, they'll appreciate that this case is neither a "silly adventure" nor about the "almighty dollar..." It's about holding a company responsible for its illegal actions.
I don't think it's fair to say that "Christianity" is "tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy." Today, we have fragments of Christ's teachings embedded into man-made religions, but all are a far cry from what I'm sure Christ had intended. This may be a rather insignificant statement to some, but quite significant to other I would imagine.
Futher, I am apt to disagree that "People know right and wrong." I don't think such a thing as right and wrong exists.
For instance, if I kill someone, you might say to me, "That was wrong." But I say, "wrong for who?" Because we live in a society that deems it "uncivilized" to kill each other, then as a collective, we have deemed that behavior as "wrong." But some might look from a biological standpoint -- are we not an agressive lifeform? Many of us can appreciate the rage and anger of human emotions. Not that these emotions mean we are required to kill each other, but we don't look at animals in nature who kill each other and think, "That is wrong."
And so another perspective -- it is "wrong" according to our laws. So what happens when my feelings contradict with the law, does that mean I am "wrong?" What makes my viewpoint any more invalid than the lawmakers? Because it is a popular concensus? Slavery was once the popular concensus.
As far as needing "a reason to care", I agree that our country appears to suffer from a lack of "values", and many seem not to care whatsoever.
But I attribute this to the inability to think for ourselves. There was a republican nominee who was very articulate and extremely intellegent. He carried himself with dignity and grace. He told it how he felt it was, and one never had to guess whether or not he was being honest. And although he was receiving a solid 3-7% of the votes in each state, when my absentee ballot from Pennsylvania arrived in the mail, his name wasn't even on it.
We have a society that is becoming more and more ignorant by the day. Look at our presidential candidates, easily the worst of the litter compared to all of the primary candidates, but they're the nominees nonetheless because mainstream media picked them as such. People aren't taking the time to educate themselves and would rather get the quick, spoon fed version than invest their time in learning. I think this is the real reason for our decline.
So I come back to the question of "right and wrong." If I take the time to consider the pro's and con's of killing other people, it won't take long to come to the conclusion that I would rather not end the life of another human being, excluding perhaps to save my own. But that process, while it might seem simple on paper, actually involves taking the time to sit down and consider my thoughts and feelings on the matter, to put weight into both arguments and make a genuine concious decision. I think many people lack such skills, or at least refuse to use them.
We are a nation overcome by our own excesses. Right and wrong aside, we have allowed techonology to think for us, and computers don't have a soul.
The only way to get rid of an addiction, as I've found, is to give it up completely, cold turkey.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. I was once addicted to a MUD - so much so that I flunked out of college. But now, years later, I log on when I get a chance, after I've accomplished everything else on my agenda (including homework), and it is no longer an obsession. I know of lots of people who have quit smoking by using the patch or some other nicotine-controlling product. I think the only way to get rid of an addiction is to want to stop. If a person is serious about giving up an addiction, they will. Even if they can't do it themselves, they will find the help to get it done.
If you're a Christian, and you've read all of the nasty comments by Slashdot readers, most likely you're either angry or upset - I know I was. But then it occured to me - why should I be surprised by such a response?
America has become God-less society, that much is evident by turning on the T.V., picking up a newspaper, or just having a conversation with the average Joe. Once a country built upon religious principles, the United States has mutated into a sinful, litigious, self-serving group of fools overcome by their own excesses. And while it's difficult to keep your mouth shut when the masses are screaming "crucify Jesus!" at the top of their lungs, I think that's what He'd want us to do.
We know the truth, there's no reason to bang our heads against a wall trying to convince someone who chooses to turn his back on God. If these people want to call you names because of your beliefs - let them. Such persecution is completely irrelevant.
As for the actual topic of discussion, as many have pointed out, evolution is a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. Once upon a time, the very best scientists thought the world was flat. And it wasn't too long ago that the very best believed the atom was the smallest "thing" in the universe. Science is imperfect - always has been, always will be. Does that mean we stop teaching that man evolved from goo zillions of years ago? Who cares?
True learning begins in the home. By the time a child goes to school, he or she should have been molded enough by their parents to know to what they should listen, and in what they should believe. I never took anything any teacher said as an absolute - no child should. If a parent is concerned that a teacher is warping their child, then they haven't given that child a strong enough foundation of truth from which to build.
The family unit is no longer a sacred institution in this country. If it were, evolution in schools would be a non-issue. But rather than examine the real problems facing our society, it's much easier to resort to name-calling and insults. Bigotry and stereotyping are the cornerstones of our weak society - and it's never been more obvious than in the responses to this article.
Have faith - those who believe. Be damned those who don't.
Re:Your Brain is a Lump of Sod
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
What if it started to rain? Although they could deal with it, being soaken wet would make things a lot more uncomfortable. But then again, my goal would be to make it back out in one day, period. So you're right, I wouldn't need the tent.
Re:Your Brain is a Lump of Sod
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
>>Your Brain is a Lump of Sod That has been programmed to be scared at certain "cliche" hollywood routines
I would hardly call "The Shining" Hollywood "cliche routines." The movies that appeal to me are intellegent, realistic, and interesting. The Blair Witch Project fails in all three categories.
>>Its a horror movie
Its is the plural possessive of it It's is a contraction short for "it is"
>> It made 40 million dollars, so someone is watching it
I already explained why people are watching it - it's been hyped all over the internet. Lots of people saw Titanic, too. But what was a better movie, Titanic or Shawshank Redemption?
>>Your problem is that you couldn't leave certain things behind in your approach to the film that made watching it (and being scared of it) necessary.
If common sense is one of the things I had to leave behind, then you're absolutely correct.
>> But without that convention the film was impossible, you twit.
This is my favorite. How typical of our society t o result to name-calling. But let me understand your "logic." Without the bouncing camera, the "convention" of this film would have been impossible? That is to say, it is okay to ignore plain common sense in order to present a particuliar "convention?" Ever see Austin Powers? Remember the joke about elaborate escapable schemes to kill Powers? The reason that parody works is because such scenes in movies really are stupid. Bam! Just kill the guy already. Hey! Don't go upstairs, just get out of the house!
I suppose that watching movies involves a little bit of suspended reality - it's a movie, and certain things must be taken with a grain of salt. But if the "convention" of a movie is to put the viewer in the first person, then how can you expect the viewer not to use their brains? Who would possibly continue to tape this? The video cameras would have been dumped early, if only to lessen the weight to make moving easier. Water and food would be the only things in my pack (unless I was carrying the tent).
Re:I say: Open Up and Swallow to ppl ...
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it was mental independence that made this movie almost impossible to watch.
Realism scares people. Sharks attack people in shallow water. Jaws was scary. People go insane and hack up their families. The Shining was scary. Being able to put yourself in the shoes of the central characters and saying "What if this happened to me?" is what good horror is all about. We can all imagine how our hearts would thump if the cops said they traced the calls and they're coming from inside our house.
I find it hard to believe that people consider the Blair Witch Project scary - how frightening is it to watch a bunch of idiots stand in the woods and argue for an hour? I can't relate with these morons for several reasons....
1. The first time I heard strange sounds in the middle of the night and realized I didn't have a weapon for self defense, I'm turning around and going home.
2. If I'm lost in the woods, I don't spend all my time standing around arguing and swearing a rediculous amount. I walk and walk and walk until I can't move anymore.. then I walk another few miles.
3. Follow the damn creek downstream, how tough is that?
As for the camera shaking - my wife had to leave half-way through because it made her sick. I didn't really have a problem with it, but I found it quite unrealistic that they would continue to film once they had been lost for several days. If someone would have stuck a camera in my face come day 3, I would have put it down their throat.
People are putting an awful lot of blame on Hollywood for making big-budget movies. It's not Hollywood's fault - it's the viewers. People actually like dumb shit like "Independence Day" and "Armegeddon" - completely unrealistic rubbish with big booms and lots action. Nobody thinks twice when Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to an alien computer, because it's followed with a loud explosion and neat special effects. Plots have become irrelevant, not because Hollywood doesn't want to include them, but because viewers have stopped requiring them.
The Blair Witch Project isn't much better. Its success isn't derived from its quality, it's derived from hype. Ask yourself this - how did you hear about this movie? Did a friend say, "Ah dude, you just got to check out this flick, it rocks!" Or did you see something about it on the internet? Did you catch the pseudo-documentary on The Sci-Fi channel? This movie has received tons of internet exposure - and therein lies its success.
You certainly can't argue a strong plot. The dialouge was painful, the pace was molasses, and the realism factor was a big fat zero. And those of you who think this movie had good acting need to go rent "Saving Private Ryan."
Pehaps had I been able to check my brain at the door, I might have been scared by this movie. Maybe most people do such, and that's why so many of them like this movie. But for someone who has mental independence, this movie was awful.
Re:Should GPL prohibit use of code to KILL people?
on
Linux in the Military
·
· Score: 2
I don't think anyone who would worry about Linux being used to kill people understands much about how the military works.
cd/world/enemies; rm -r *?
I'm sure not a single fatality has every been directly related to a computer operating system, except perhaps someone snapping at the sight of one "Blue Screen of Death" too many.
But as far as linking the use of Linux to the "deaths of innocents", this conjures up images of Rambo slinging a Micron over his shoulder and screaming Eat My GPL!!
A more realistic picture is a pilot receives a weather report before take-off. That weather report was sent to his Air Base via a classified network. The source of the report (somewhere in the U.S.) generated the report using data readily available from the Weather Channel and software that is mostly COTS. This software, I can assure you, is, and always will be, run on a commercial OS, if only because of Support - I'll get back to this. The machine that is used for the weather report development is part of a subnet, pushing data back and forth. Perhaps one of the machines is using Linux as its OS, to push some files from here to there. The people administering such a machine would surely be Airman - techies - computer people who most likely have fired an M-16 once in their lives, and who will go the next 50 years without killing anyone.
Now just because the pilot decides to fly between some cables at a ski resort for fun, can you possibly say that Linux was used to kill?
As for the military following the GPL movement, it'll never happen large scale. Upper echelon military people THRIVE on blame. If something goes wrong, there HAS to be someone to point the finger at. With Linux, there is no 24-hour hotline to call. There is no vendor to boycott. There is simply no accountability, and that's what the military is all about.
But remember: Code doesn't kill people. People kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
...is Tiggers are wonderful things...
How can you possibly suggest that Tigger is a cartoon character from which adults can glean nothing?
If everyone were like Pooh, the world would be a much nicer place in which to live. And we all need a little Tigger from time to time.
It's true -- I'm the only geek left who hasn't read Lord of the Rings. I've read many more O'Reilly books than science fiction novels. But I am an avid moviegoer -- I LOVE movies.
I went into LotR with an open mind. Having never read the books, I really didn't know what to expect. From the opening sequence, I was enthralled.
Several things struck me about this movie. First and foremost, it takes itself seriously. I'll never be able to watch Phantom Menace again, because LotR does what PM should have -- presented a serious and dark tale of myth.
After seeing LotR for the second time, I find it curious that so many people complain about character progression. When your last impression of Sam and Frodo is of them walking off together, and then you see them at the beginning of the movie again, the change is stark.
The special effects were fantastic.
The acting was fantastic.
The dialogue and pacing were fantastic.
The last action/adventure movie I saw that was this good was the Matrix, period. For three hours I was swept away into a different land with vivid scenery, odd creatures, and a compelling story. I can't imagine what more I would want from this movie.
Best movie ever? If Towers and King turn out just as good, then I believe the trilogy as a whole is worthy of such consideration. It's certainly not a cinematic masterpiece like Citizen Kane, but if you were going out this weekend, which movie would you rather see?
Fellowship of the Rings could be described with one word that I rarely use but is completely apropos: epic. How many other movies can claim the same?
The last one, anyway.
I wish more people were this level-headed (as lythander). I am continually amazed at how people leap to conclusions without supporting facts.
Glancing around at other posts, my amazement continues. People are quick to blur the difference between fact and supposition, and this sort of muddy thinking only hurts the situation, it doesn't help.
And while I'm posting...
"When a serious matter like medical research involving stem cells from frozen embryos arises, politicians worry at least as much about religious support as they do about what scientists advise."
Couldn't politicians be concerned that life begins at conception rather than birth? That's the real crux of the abortion debate, too. Every human is granted rights in our country, but at what point do we consider them "human."
I don't see this as a religious debate at all. I find it unforunuate that so often "religious" people are assailed in such ways. And while I won't agree that some politicians make their decisions based on popular opinion, I hold out hope that others follow their conscience, and I find it perfectly reasonable that some might believe that life begins at conception.
Guess I'm getting off-topic. I'm just sick of this sort of poor journalism. Does Katz get paid for this rubbish?
I believe the key word here is responsibility, not morality. I think what religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever) brings to the table is belief in the sanctity of life (well, maybe scratch Muslim from the list), and that lends itself to not shooting other people in the face.
The real issue (and it seems that everyone knows what the real issue is - I digress) is the lack of responsibility taken by many of our citizens today. You're right, we want the government to raise our children now. Parents don't want the chore of actually paying attention to their kids long enough to know what sort of music they are listening to, or what books they are reading, or heaven forbid what video games they are playing. If we cut it off at the source (retailers) then parents have more time to shop for a new SUV.
On topic, I've been playing video games since the Atari 2600. I think it's sick that people would blame video games for violence among young people. But, when I play first person shooters, I definitely notice an elevation in my agressiveness, even hours after I've finished playing. I'm not going to go out and shoot somebody, and neither are your kids, but those game have become incredibly realistic, and I think it is potentially dangerous for young kids to be exposed to intense and graphic violence.
Nevertheless, that responsibility should fall to the parents, to the government.
I'm not sure we saw the same movie...
Personally, I thought Laurence Fishburn was fabulous, and Carriane Moss was - in leather.
I've seen a lot of movies, but this is the only one I've seen where reality exists within the confines of a computer simulation, enslaving the human race for use by machines. Now before I get a reply pointing out seven movies made in the 1960's that no one who's getting laid has ever heard of, let me stress the point that the Matrix plot is certainly not "well-worn ground."
Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking
I think the whole point of the movie was that Neo was able to trancend the Matrix, to manipulate it as he saw fit. He mentally "hacked" the Matrix, so to speak.
Neo is handed a magic pill.
You are forgetting the entire sequence regarding the rescue of Morpheus. Neo only became the "One" after realizing his destiny, not swallowing a pill.
The answer is: War Games.
War Games got my vote, too.
The biggest mistake you've made, however, is to say that the Matrix was "eye candy with no point." That couldn't be further from the truth. The Matrix made a statement about our society that few grasp.
The next time you are plopped on the couch watching Friends, you should pay attention to the commercials. Like any other Generation X'er, raised by TV and not by parents, I've learned to unconciously tune out the commercials - I don't even notice them anymore. But the message they send is a perfect indicator of our society.
We consume, consume, consume. And to what end? To make our government and Sam Walton richer. Think about the average American's life - you work your whole life, constantly consume new things in a vain attempt at happiness (if only I could afford the Super Jumbo 200-inch TV, then I'd be happy), and then die in pretty much the same financial situation as in which were were born.
A lot of people in this country are a slave to the system. That was the "point", IMHO.
I would suspect that rejecting this theory because it makes God a "liar" or "cheat" is more likely due to fear and insecurity than reasonability.
Personally, I find most Christians to be an unreasonable bunch. It is impossible to take a verbatim approach to the Bible, for instance, because the Bible contradicts itself. Yet some Christians will fight to the death to protect the notion that the Bible is perfect.
From a completely realistic pespective, though, I think that if there were an omnipotent power creating a universe, he would bring it into existance under his own terms. I'd like to believe that the creation of mankind was a seperate step from the creation of the rest of the universe - we'll never really know.
But I don't see how believing that God created the universe with an apparent age - with rock formations seemingly millions of years old, despite being perhaps only 10,000, I don't see how that would make God a con-man. Just creative.
First of all, I don't understand the desire to prove Creationism impossible.
The response to all those who thump their bible and say there is no proof, no test and no evidence in support of evolution is, "The proof is right here, in our genes."
Thump their bible?
The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.
Indisputably and beyond serious doubt?
Regardless, it's rather easy to prove that it is possible that God created the universe.
Let's assume for a moment that God did create the universe.
Boom - there's the Earth. Now, if we take the Bible at face value, the claim is that everything happened within a span of six days. So God didn't really have time to wait billions of years for Earth to become habitable - he would have had to create it already habitable.
Boom - there's Adam. Again, God didn't sit around for 30 years and wait for Adam to become fully-grown. Adam was supposedly created as an adult. I'm sure by every scientific standard, Adam would appear to be 30 years old.
So which came first - the chicken or the egg? Well according to the Bible, it would be the chicken. God didn't create eggs and then wait for them to be hatched.
It's rather possible that God, if there is one, created the universe with an "apparent age." Furthermore, it's impossible to prove that there isn't a God, and that God didn't create the universe based on specific rules.
Assuming God did create the universe, and he did so in six days, then Adam was born with hairy armpits and a full bank of sperm. If you and I were to see him a day or two after creation, it would appear to us that he must have gone through puberty.
It's a rather simple argument that obviously does not attempt to prove God's existence, but to disprove any claim that God's existence is impossible.
Could it be because they don't have a real clue on what they sued MS over?
Not to defend the government, but the people involved in this case aren't some rapid group of sick, Mircosoft hating crazies.
I believe one of the original reasons for the DOJ case was the integration of the IE browser into Windows, and the subsequent threatening MS did of its customers (see Compaq) to pull Windows if they didn't cooperate. In a nutshell, that's what they did, and it's quite illegal in this country.
Spending millions on a case that you are going to try and settle after the trial seems absurd
This argument defies logic in my opinion. I heard it a lot during Bill Clinton's impeachment, people complaining about the amazing cost of Ken Starr's investigation. The 2001 Federal Budget is $1.77 trillion dollars. Of everything this government spends money on, persecuting criminals is one of which I am in favor.
You can't blame MS for other companies that can't come out with a good OS or have poor marketing strategies.
I think this case is less about the evils of Windows, and more about how Microsoft used its monopoly in the desktop OS market to force people to use its application software. It's the equivalent of your local phone company (if you only have one, like me) saying you can only have a phone through them if you also buy your food through them, too. (And to make this analogy work, you have to picture a phone that only works right 50% of the time, and bland, tasteless food that gives you gas).
Maybe someone should have thought about the implications of all this before they started this silly adventure and actually put the consumer in mind first, and not the alimighty dollar of corporations.
I'm sure anyone else that might be reading this and can attest to the quality of MS products (or lack thereof) versus other major computer vendors, they'll appreciate that this case is neither a "silly adventure" nor about the "almighty dollar..." It's about holding a company responsible for its illegal actions.
I don't think it's fair to say that "Christianity" is "tainted with holes, contradictions, and hypocrisy." Today, we have fragments of Christ's teachings embedded into man-made religions, but all are a far cry from what I'm sure Christ had intended. This may be a rather insignificant statement to some, but quite significant to other I would imagine.
Futher, I am apt to disagree that "People know right and wrong." I don't think such a thing as right and wrong exists.
For instance, if I kill someone, you might say to me, "That was wrong." But I say, "wrong for who?" Because we live in a society that deems it "uncivilized" to kill each other, then as a collective, we have deemed that behavior as "wrong." But some might look from a biological standpoint -- are we not an agressive lifeform? Many of us can appreciate the rage and anger of human emotions. Not that these emotions mean we are required to kill each other, but we don't look at animals in nature who kill each other and think, "That is wrong."
And so another perspective -- it is "wrong" according to our laws. So what happens when my feelings contradict with the law, does that mean I am "wrong?" What makes my viewpoint any more invalid than the lawmakers? Because it is a popular concensus? Slavery was once the popular concensus.
As far as needing "a reason to care", I agree that our country appears to suffer from a lack of "values", and many seem not to care whatsoever.
But I attribute this to the inability to think for ourselves. There was a republican nominee who was very articulate and extremely intellegent. He carried himself with dignity and grace. He told it how he felt it was, and one never had to guess whether or not he was being honest. And although he was receiving a solid 3-7% of the votes in each state, when my absentee ballot from Pennsylvania arrived in the mail, his name wasn't even on it.
We have a society that is becoming more and more ignorant by the day. Look at our presidential candidates, easily the worst of the litter compared to all of the primary candidates, but they're the nominees nonetheless because mainstream media picked them as such. People aren't taking the time to educate themselves and would rather get the quick, spoon fed version than invest their time in learning. I think this is the real reason for our decline.
So I come back to the question of "right and wrong." If I take the time to consider the pro's and con's of killing other people, it won't take long to come to the conclusion that I would rather not end the life of another human being, excluding perhaps to save my own. But that process, while it might seem simple on paper, actually involves taking the time to sit down and consider my thoughts and feelings on the matter, to put weight into both arguments and make a genuine concious decision. I think many people lack such skills, or at least refuse to use them.
We are a nation overcome by our own excesses. Right and wrong aside, we have allowed techonology to think for us, and computers don't have a soul.
The only way to get rid of an addiction, as I've found, is to give it up completely, cold turkey.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. I was once addicted to a MUD - so much so that I flunked out of college. But now, years later, I log on when I get a chance, after I've accomplished everything else on my agenda (including homework), and it is no longer an obsession. I know of lots of people who have quit smoking by using the patch or some other nicotine-controlling product. I think the only way to get rid of an addiction is to want to stop. If a person is serious about giving up an addiction, they will. Even if they can't do it themselves, they will find the help to get it done.
Jon Katz at his best:
"Wait a minute... It's a great movie, but is it worth the cover of both 'Time' and 'Newsweek?'"
"And it's truly original. But it's not a great movie, nor even a particularly frightening one."
If you're a Christian, and you've read all of the nasty comments by Slashdot readers, most likely you're either angry or upset - I know I was. But then it occured to me - why should I be surprised by such a response?
America has become God-less society, that much is evident by turning on the T.V., picking up a newspaper, or just having a conversation with the average Joe. Once a country built upon religious principles, the United States has mutated into a sinful, litigious, self-serving group of fools overcome by their own excesses. And while it's difficult to keep your mouth shut when the masses are screaming "crucify Jesus!" at the top of their lungs, I think that's what He'd want us to do.
We know the truth, there's no reason to bang our heads against a wall trying to convince someone who chooses to turn his back on God. If these people want to call you names because of your beliefs - let them. Such persecution is completely irrelevant.
As for the actual topic of discussion, as many have pointed out, evolution is a scientific theory - nothing more, nothing less. Once upon a time, the very best scientists thought the world was flat. And it wasn't too long ago that the very best believed the atom was the smallest "thing" in the universe. Science is imperfect - always has been, always will be. Does that mean we stop teaching that man evolved from goo zillions of years ago? Who cares?
True learning begins in the home. By the time a child goes to school, he or she should have been molded enough by their parents to know to what they should listen, and in what they should believe. I never took anything any teacher said as an absolute - no child should. If a parent is concerned that a teacher is warping their child, then they haven't given that child a strong enough foundation of truth from which to build.
The family unit is no longer a sacred institution in this country. If it were, evolution in schools would be a non-issue. But rather than examine the real problems facing our society, it's much easier to resort to name-calling and insults. Bigotry and stereotyping are the cornerstones of our weak society - and it's never been more obvious than in the responses to this article.
Have faith - those who believe. Be damned those who don't.
What if it started to rain? Although they could deal with it, being soaken wet would make things a lot more uncomfortable. But then again, my goal would be to make it back out in one day, period. So you're right, I wouldn't need the tent.
>>Your Brain is a Lump of Sod That has been programmed to be scared at certain "cliche" hollywood routines
I would hardly call "The Shining" Hollywood "cliche routines." The movies that appeal to me are intellegent, realistic, and interesting. The Blair Witch Project fails in all three categories.
>>Its a horror movie
Its is the plural possessive of it
It's is a contraction short for "it is"
>> It made 40 million dollars, so someone is watching it
I already explained why people are watching it - it's been hyped all over the internet. Lots of people saw Titanic, too. But what was a better movie, Titanic or Shawshank Redemption?
>>Your problem is that you couldn't leave certain things behind in your approach to the film that made watching it (and being scared of it) necessary.
If common sense is one of the things I had to leave behind, then you're absolutely correct.
>> But without that convention the film was impossible, you twit.
This is my favorite. How typical of our society t o result to name-calling. But let me understand your "logic." Without the bouncing camera, the "convention" of this film would have been impossible? That is to say, it is okay to ignore plain common sense in order to present a particuliar "convention?" Ever see Austin Powers? Remember the joke about elaborate escapable schemes to kill Powers? The reason that parody works is because such scenes in movies really are stupid. Bam! Just kill the guy already. Hey! Don't go upstairs, just get out of the house!
I suppose that watching movies involves a little bit of suspended reality - it's a movie, and certain things must be taken with a grain of salt. But if the "convention" of a movie is to put the viewer in the first person, then how can you expect the viewer not to use their brains? Who would possibly continue to tape this? The video cameras would have been dumped early, if only to lessen the weight to make moving easier. Water and food would be the only things in my pack (unless I was carrying the tent).
Actually, it was mental independence that made this movie almost impossible to watch.
Realism scares people. Sharks attack people in shallow water. Jaws was scary. People go insane and hack up their families. The Shining was scary. Being able to put yourself in the shoes of the central characters and saying "What if this happened to me?" is what good horror is all about. We can all imagine how our hearts would thump if the cops said they traced the calls and they're coming from inside our house.
I find it hard to believe that people consider the Blair Witch Project scary - how frightening is it to watch a bunch of idiots stand in the woods and argue for an hour? I can't relate with these morons for several reasons....
1. The first time I heard strange sounds in the middle of the night and realized I didn't have a weapon for self defense, I'm turning around and going home.
2. If I'm lost in the woods, I don't spend all my time standing around arguing and swearing a rediculous amount. I walk and walk and walk until I can't move anymore.. then I walk another few miles.
3. Follow the damn creek downstream, how tough is that?
As for the camera shaking - my wife had to leave half-way through because it made her sick. I didn't really have a problem with it, but I found it quite unrealistic that they would continue to film once they had been lost for several days. If someone would have stuck a camera in my face come day 3, I would have put it down their throat.
People are putting an awful lot of blame on Hollywood for making big-budget movies. It's not Hollywood's fault - it's the viewers. People actually like dumb shit like "Independence Day" and "Armegeddon" - completely unrealistic rubbish with big booms and lots action. Nobody thinks twice when Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to an alien computer, because it's followed with a loud explosion and neat special effects. Plots have become irrelevant, not because Hollywood doesn't want to include them, but because viewers have stopped requiring them.
The Blair Witch Project isn't much better. Its success isn't derived from its quality, it's derived from hype. Ask yourself this - how did you hear about this movie? Did a friend say, "Ah dude, you just got to check out this flick, it rocks!" Or did you see something about it on the internet? Did you catch the pseudo-documentary on The Sci-Fi channel? This movie has received tons of internet exposure - and therein lies its success.
You certainly can't argue a strong plot. The dialouge was painful, the pace was molasses, and the realism factor was a big fat zero. And those of you who think this movie had good acting need to go rent "Saving Private Ryan."
Pehaps had I been able to check my brain at the door, I might have been scared by this movie. Maybe most people do such, and that's why so many of them like this movie. But for someone who has mental independence, this movie was awful.
I don't think anyone who would worry about Linux being used to kill people understands much about how the military works.
/world/enemies; rm -r *?
cd
I'm sure not a single fatality has every been directly related to a computer operating system, except perhaps someone snapping at the sight of one "Blue Screen of Death" too many.
But as far as linking the use of Linux to the "deaths of innocents", this conjures up images of Rambo slinging a Micron over his shoulder and screaming Eat My GPL!!
A more realistic picture is a pilot receives a weather report before take-off. That weather report was sent to his Air Base via a classified network. The source of the report (somewhere in the U.S.) generated the report using data readily available from the Weather Channel and software that is mostly COTS. This software, I can assure you, is, and always will be, run on a commercial OS, if only because of Support - I'll get back to this. The machine that is used for the weather report development is part of a subnet, pushing data back and forth. Perhaps one of the machines is using Linux as its OS, to push some files from here to there. The people administering such a machine would surely be Airman - techies - computer people who most likely have fired an M-16 once in their lives, and who will go the next 50 years without killing anyone.
Now just because the pilot decides to fly between some cables at a ski resort for fun, can you possibly say that Linux was used to kill?
As for the military following the GPL movement, it'll never happen large scale. Upper echelon military people THRIVE on blame. If something goes wrong, there HAS to be someone to point the finger at. With Linux, there is no 24-hour hotline to call. There is no vendor to boycott. There is simply no accountability, and that's what the military is all about.
But remember: Code doesn't kill people. People kill people.