If computers had remained a niche for a handful of knowledgeable uber-geeks instead of going mainstream in the 90's, we wouldn't have such a robust internet today or consumer pricing on computers and components.
We geeks tend to live in a bit of an echo chamber and so we can lose perspective on just how ignorant and computer illiterate the average citizen is. Just the response "A few google searches by her would have revealed..." is just one example. There are a LOT of people (probably the *majority* of people) out there who have no idea what a "google search" is. Most of the people that I work with (and these are college-educated people, mind you), don't know what a browser is (they refer to Internet Explorer as "the internet"). And no, I'm not joking (I wish I was).
Yes, digital has its disadvantages over film. But film also has its disadvantages over digital. Digital, for example, doesn't degrade like film stock. In the real world, film prints inevitably become worn and corroded over time (even if they're not played and are stored out of any UV light). The chemicals break down, the stock becomes brittle, the environment takes its toll. Digital prints, by contrast, remain forever pristine (as long as the data is preserved and backed up, which is trivially easy compared to making degraded film print copies).
Supposedly his tomb is already finished. Rumor has it that on the day he dies, they'll mummify him in a giant (but stylish) monument and entomb him with his employees, his possessions, and thousands of wild-eyed Apple fanboys.
Robert Ford is a complete flake and is not taken seriously in the SC General Assembly. He introduces these sort of nutball bills all the time. He's also currently running for governor (the election isn't even until 2010), trying to bring back video poker, and probably trying to make contact with the aliens too.
That's because people like you can't seperate yourself from your religious zealotry long enough to realize just how absurd your rationalizations of your beloved holy book really are. Your book tells the story of a God who would strike down an entire village of children just for taunting one of his followers, who would happily order the mass slaughter of innocents just to advance his chosen tribe, who would personally kill babies in their cradle just because some Pharaoh was a dick, who condones polygamy and incest, who tortures his followers on a dare, etc., etc., etc. And yet you maintain, in all seriousness, that your God is loving, good, compassionate, unchanging, and still relevant in our modern times. If you don't see the *profound* absurdity in that, then it's only because your blinders are so comically large.
You ever been drunk enough to fuck your own daughters and not even realize they're your daughters (maybe God miracled him into this unlikely stupor!)? Try that "my daughters are pregnant because they seduced me" line in a court of law sometime with a straight face. I guess God works in mysterious ways--ways like mass slaughter, rape, and incest.
I live not far from Nashville and can assure you that there is NOTHING even remotely comparable about his energy usage and mine, even adjusting for house size.
Well, it seems to me that you either accept that God killed innocent children in Egypt or you don't. If he *didn't*, then it's just a interesting story or a parable (an idea most modern Christians, especially fundie types, would outright reject). If he *did*, then he's hardly the kind loving, compassionate God that most modern Christians seem to conceive of him as (or he has changed over time, an idea both rejected by fundies and downright silly considering that you're ostensibly talking about an omniscient, omnipresent being).
As for historical context, OF COURSE the Bible makes sense as a historical document. Why does it talk about polygamy? Because the contemporary Hebrews in those accounts practiced it. Why does it excuse Rome for Jesus' crucifixion? Because that part of it was written by Roman citizens. But modern Christians and Jews treat the Bible as a lot more than just some interesting historical document. They assert that it's some ultimate guide to modern life. They assert this with an kind of willful obliviousness that's actually rather amusing. They pick and choose some passages that seem to support some modern position, and blithely ignore the glaring disconnect between modern values and those of the ancient Hebrews, Diaspora-era Hebrews, and Greek-speaking Romans of the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Reminds me of the story of Job too. Satan comes to God and says "Hey, I dare you to torture one of your devout followers just for kicks" and God says "No problem, let's fuck him up!"
What does his net value have to do with how much resources he consumes as an individual human being? I guess I missed his documentary "Why Americans Should Conserve--Unless, of Course, They're Rich."
I'm a Democrat, but even I know a blowhard hypocrite when I see one. Just because he would have made a better President than Bush (joining an illustrious group there that includes several species of closely-related primates) doesn't mean he still isn't a scumbag politician.
He and his wife live alone. Even if the guy wasn't some self-righteous conservationist, why SHOULDN'T they live in an average house? Is he, as the former Vice President, supposed to be some kind of royalty now--too good to live in anything less than a sprawling mansion? I mean more power to His Lordship if he can afford it, but I'm certainly not going to listen to him turn around and lecture me on *MY* wastefulness without pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.
I, as an individual, use an average of $90 a month in electricity with no natural gas, living in the same part of the country as His Royal Highness. I drive a little car (not an SUV, much less a fleet of them) that gets about 35 mpg. I'm not an environmentalist. I would describe my position on the global warming idea as "open, but skeptical." I'm not particularly big on conservation. And I don't go around telling everyone else how to live their lives or taunting any new religion or cause. But I guess His Kingship would say that I'm "part of the problem" because I don't kiss his ring and tell him how great he is, even as he does more to contribute to the problem of over-consumption and CO2 emissions in the course of one year than a lowly peasant like me will do in most of my lifetime.
Oh excuse me, you're right, that was Lot. You remember him don't you? He was the hero of the story most modern Christians commonly use to assert that God hates fags. He saved some angels from homosexual rape by offering his daughters for rape instead, then later he got drunk and knocked-up those daughters himself (making him both the father and grandfather of two new tribes). Truly another one of our great biblical heroes for the kids to look up to. I guess marriage is between one man, one woman, the man's two daughters, and anyone who wants to rape the two daughters--as long as no dude buggers another dude.
No one expects Al Gore to live like a monk. But using *20 TIMES* more electricity than the average person and then going around lecturing *us* about conservation?!?!?!? I mean, Jesus Christ, that's like a guy telling you not to liter as he's dumping a barrel of toxic waste into the lake.
I often wonder how many people who hold up the Bible as this great moral document to guide our modern times have ever *really* read the thing. I don't mean read as in "listen to my local minister/priest/rabbi talk about some cherry-picked passage and then read that passage," I mean really READ the entirety of the texts that make it up (and not just some Talmudic interpretation or minister's inspirational book of happy Jesus sayings). I have to wonder what a modern Christian would think when they read about their great loving God sending his angel of death to kill every innocent first-born child of Egypt just because some Pharaoh was a dickhead; or about God's chosen one, Moses, fucking his daughters; or about the rampant polygamy among God's chosen leaders (one man/one woman my ass!); or about the slaughter of entire tribes (men, women, and children) not only endorsed by, but actually ordered by, their "loving and compassionate" father-figure in heaven.
Either God went through a pretty radical transformation at some point, or the God they're worshiping bears a much stronger resemblance to the modern conception of Satan than some loving, monogamy-supporting hippie.
Some serial killer goes and and murders dozens of innocent people; and we reward him with veneration, books written about him, endless press coverage, etc. Scumbags don't deserve our respect, our veneration, or polite treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
If computers had remained a niche for a handful of knowledgeable uber-geeks instead of going mainstream in the 90's, we wouldn't have such a robust internet today or consumer pricing on computers and components.
We geeks tend to live in a bit of an echo chamber and so we can lose perspective on just how ignorant and computer illiterate the average citizen is. Just the response "A few google searches by her would have revealed..." is just one example. There are a LOT of people (probably the *majority* of people) out there who have no idea what a "google search" is. Most of the people that I work with (and these are college-educated people, mind you), don't know what a browser is (they refer to Internet Explorer as "the internet"). And no, I'm not joking (I wish I was).
she has called Dell to request Windows instead however was talked out of it"
Only if you view iPhones as superior, which no decent person would.
Yes, digital has its disadvantages over film. But film also has its disadvantages over digital. Digital, for example, doesn't degrade like film stock. In the real world, film prints inevitably become worn and corroded over time (even if they're not played and are stored out of any UV light). The chemicals break down, the stock becomes brittle, the environment takes its toll. Digital prints, by contrast, remain forever pristine (as long as the data is preserved and backed up, which is trivially easy compared to making degraded film print copies).
They also say he can heal the sick and turn iPhones to Blackberries.
Supposedly his tomb is already finished. Rumor has it that on the day he dies, they'll mummify him in a giant (but stylish) monument and entomb him with his employees, his possessions, and thousands of wild-eyed Apple fanboys.
Robert Ford is a complete flake and is not taken seriously in the SC General Assembly. He introduces these sort of nutball bills all the time. He's also currently running for governor (the election isn't even until 2010), trying to bring back video poker, and probably trying to make contact with the aliens too.
That's because people like you can't seperate yourself from your religious zealotry long enough to realize just how absurd your rationalizations of your beloved holy book really are. Your book tells the story of a God who would strike down an entire village of children just for taunting one of his followers, who would happily order the mass slaughter of innocents just to advance his chosen tribe, who would personally kill babies in their cradle just because some Pharaoh was a dick, who condones polygamy and incest, who tortures his followers on a dare, etc., etc., etc. And yet you maintain, in all seriousness, that your God is loving, good, compassionate, unchanging, and still relevant in our modern times. If you don't see the *profound* absurdity in that, then it's only because your blinders are so comically large.
I agree...depending on the definition of "agree."
You ever been drunk enough to fuck your own daughters and not even realize they're your daughters (maybe God miracled him into this unlikely stupor!)? Try that "my daughters are pregnant because they seduced me" line in a court of law sometime with a straight face. I guess God works in mysterious ways--ways like mass slaughter, rape, and incest.
I'll use that as my defense the next time I blow up a high school because some kids call me uncool.
Mod me flamebait all you want, Bible thumpers. Your mod points don't make your holy book any less brutal or archaic.
Ha, by American standards my car is an ant in a sea of crocodiles. And, sadly, my car is old enough to vote.
I live not far from Nashville and can assure you that there is NOTHING even remotely comparable about his energy usage and mine, even adjusting for house size.
If that's the case, why is he paying thousands of $ to the electric and gas companies each month? The allegations of waste are based on those bills.
Well, it seems to me that you either accept that God killed innocent children in Egypt or you don't. If he *didn't*, then it's just a interesting story or a parable (an idea most modern Christians, especially fundie types, would outright reject). If he *did*, then he's hardly the kind loving, compassionate God that most modern Christians seem to conceive of him as (or he has changed over time, an idea both rejected by fundies and downright silly considering that you're ostensibly talking about an omniscient, omnipresent being).
As for historical context, OF COURSE the Bible makes sense as a historical document. Why does it talk about polygamy? Because the contemporary Hebrews in those accounts practiced it. Why does it excuse Rome for Jesus' crucifixion? Because that part of it was written by Roman citizens. But modern Christians and Jews treat the Bible as a lot more than just some interesting historical document. They assert that it's some ultimate guide to modern life. They assert this with an kind of willful obliviousness that's actually rather amusing. They pick and choose some passages that seem to support some modern position, and blithely ignore the glaring disconnect between modern values and those of the ancient Hebrews, Diaspora-era Hebrews, and Greek-speaking Romans of the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Reminds me of the story of Job too. Satan comes to God and says "Hey, I dare you to torture one of your devout followers just for kicks" and God says "No problem, let's fuck him up!"
What does his net value have to do with how much resources he consumes as an individual human being? I guess I missed his documentary "Why Americans Should Conserve--Unless, of Course, They're Rich."
I'm a Democrat, but even I know a blowhard hypocrite when I see one. Just because he would have made a better President than Bush (joining an illustrious group there that includes several species of closely-related primates) doesn't mean he still isn't a scumbag politician.
He and his wife live alone. Even if the guy wasn't some self-righteous conservationist, why SHOULDN'T they live in an average house? Is he, as the former Vice President, supposed to be some kind of royalty now--too good to live in anything less than a sprawling mansion? I mean more power to His Lordship if he can afford it, but I'm certainly not going to listen to him turn around and lecture me on *MY* wastefulness without pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.
I, as an individual, use an average of $90 a month in electricity with no natural gas, living in the same part of the country as His Royal Highness. I drive a little car (not an SUV, much less a fleet of them) that gets about 35 mpg. I'm not an environmentalist. I would describe my position on the global warming idea as "open, but skeptical." I'm not particularly big on conservation. And I don't go around telling everyone else how to live their lives or taunting any new religion or cause. But I guess His Kingship would say that I'm "part of the problem" because I don't kiss his ring and tell him how great he is, even as he does more to contribute to the problem of over-consumption and CO2 emissions in the course of one year than a lowly peasant like me will do in most of my lifetime.
Oh excuse me, you're right, that was Lot. You remember him don't you? He was the hero of the story most modern Christians commonly use to assert that God hates fags. He saved some angels from homosexual rape by offering his daughters for rape instead, then later he got drunk and knocked-up those daughters himself (making him both the father and grandfather of two new tribes). Truly another one of our great biblical heroes for the kids to look up to. I guess marriage is between one man, one woman, the man's two daughters, and anyone who wants to rape the two daughters--as long as no dude buggers another dude.
No one expects Al Gore to live like a monk. But using *20 TIMES* more electricity than the average person and then going around lecturing *us* about conservation?!?!?!? I mean, Jesus Christ, that's like a guy telling you not to liter as he's dumping a barrel of toxic waste into the lake.
I often wonder how many people who hold up the Bible as this great moral document to guide our modern times have ever *really* read the thing. I don't mean read as in "listen to my local minister/priest/rabbi talk about some cherry-picked passage and then read that passage," I mean really READ the entirety of the texts that make it up (and not just some Talmudic interpretation or minister's inspirational book of happy Jesus sayings). I have to wonder what a modern Christian would think when they read about their great loving God sending his angel of death to kill every innocent first-born child of Egypt just because some Pharaoh was a dickhead; or about God's chosen one, Moses, fucking his daughters; or about the rampant polygamy among God's chosen leaders (one man/one woman my ass!); or about the slaughter of entire tribes (men, women, and children) not only endorsed by, but actually ordered by, their "loving and compassionate" father-figure in heaven.
Either God went through a pretty radical transformation at some point, or the God they're worshiping bears a much stronger resemblance to the modern conception of Satan than some loving, monogamy-supporting hippie.
Given a choice between the two, I might go with the testicles.
Some serial killer goes and and murders dozens of innocent people; and we reward him with veneration, books written about him, endless press coverage, etc. Scumbags don't deserve our respect, our veneration, or polite treatment.