Do yourself a favor and get yourself a good Hebrew concordance. The word in question is "yom" (יום), which is most definately the word for day. It is also used occasionally as "a period of time defined by an associated term," exactly like our own word "day" -- if I say "the day of our suffering is upon us" or refer to the times after Christ as "the year of our Lord," I'm not referring to literal days or years.
I'm not sure what you mean by "original translation of the Bible." We've got the thing in it's original language, and the copy of an "original translation" is only meaningful if (a) we didn't have reliable copies of the source language (and the means to translate it) and (b) if we didn't have multiple reliable sources in parallel with unprecedented degrees of mutual confirmation. Neither is true.
The issue that the person who 'explained' this to you was trying to get at, or should have been trying to get at, is that the Bible is a piece of Hebrew literature -- much of it poetry. We have a pretty good understanding of Hebrew poetry, literature, and histories, and there are whole hermeneutic sciences devoted to the correct interpretation thereof. Most scholars worth their salt will concede that much of what appears in the Bible is figurative or at least hyperbolic. However, just because the word "יום" is translated 'Day' does not mean some gross oversight has been committed. In general, Bible translators go to great lengths to leave everything intact -- including unclear passages. That's why there are so many footnotes and parens providing alternate translations in any Bible.
"Day" is the correct translation. Whether or not we are to take it as a literal 24-hour day or as a metaphorical term is another issue, and a pretty petty theological one at that. I'm not aware of a single confession of faith on earth that requires one to affirm that the Earth was created in 168 hours, with 24 hours for lunch in there at the end.
It's a shame everyone's replying AC, becuase just about all of them are rebutting you fantastically.
It's amusing, how you backpedal. How is "It is impossible to get a job which pays $100,000 a year if you arent ivy league or born into it. Perhaps with a Phd you can, but you'll have a shit job at Walmart with your bachelors degree" consistent with 1% of the UofU starting fortune 500 companies (your ridiculous number, not mine)? The answer is, it's not.
Nobody's debating that it's an advantage in a lot of cases to go to ivy league schools. Is it true that a mildly disproportionate majority of fortune 500 CEOs are Ivy Leaguers? Perhaps. But not by a lot, and certainly not by enough to imply that it's 'the only way.' An Ivy League education is far more helpful in politics than most other fields, and it's not even imperative in politics -- I have family in state politics with nothing more than a nursing degree and a hell of a lot of hard work. If you work hard and well at what you do (and, admittedly, have a little bit of providence smiling on you) you can get just about anywhere, with or without an ivy league education. Given two identical applicants, one of whom is an ivy leaguer and the other of whom is from a state university? Sure, most places would take the ivy league guy. Given two identical applicants, one of whom is cheap offshore labor and the other of whom is expensive domestic labor? Sure, many places would take the cheaper guy.
Notice a theme? Two identical choices. If your goal in getting hired is to be an identical choice, you ain't getting hired anywhere, buddy; not WalMart, not Google, not NASA. Ivy League applicants have that advantage; offshore laborers have their own sets. Neither of those prevents someone from a community college, state university, or small private university from building his own repertoire, proving his stuff, and landing a job that pays twice that of some washed-up ivy leaguer ten years down the road.
Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant. I have friends and family without doctoral degrees who are making in excess of $100,000, not because of fraternities or associations, but because they are good at what they do and at marketing themselves. My dad's been at Boeing for close to thirty years, and he doesn't have a Ph.D -- just a masters in Philosophy from a state university. Yet he's worked at Boeing, was laid off after 9/11 but they came crawling back last year, and in the interim he was offered a position at Microsoft after lots of consulting.
Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
It's also worth noting that Intel's marketing machine has been an enormous success. For many average-joe computer users, AMD is in the same category as Linux and Firefox -- something nerds get excited about, but (they think) will destroy their computer or break the intarnets.
Even some of the more tech-savvy people I've run into aren't aware that an AMD will be essentially transparent to the user, except in that it has historically been more bang for the buck, especially for the gamer. And even when you tell them of a personal preference for AMD, or certain AMD chips, for whatever reason, the vast majority will still assume that since everybody (even Apple, soon) has "Intel inside," Intel is the way to go. Even if you convince them that AMD is a processor and not some kind of nerd voodoo magic, they won't be compelled to switch unless a computer salesman tells them it's cheaper and better while they're at the store.
By way of analogy: Every time I see a Dodge commercial for some HEMI-powered truck, I think "Oooh, it's got a HEMI. That must mean it's better than my poor HEMI-less Chevy." Do I know what the hell HEMI even means? Not at all. Which is why I'll have to ask one of my car-nut friends if I ever (god forbid) truck shopping. It's pure marketing and name recognition. People trust Intel becuase they think it makes the world go round. AMD is some communist revolutionary nerd chip from hell. (OK, that's exagerrating. But you get the idea.)
I learned an awful lot about Escape Velocity on my computer lab's Macs.
But yeah, those labs were pretty worthless. I spent the entire time making Star Wars games in Hypercard and telling the bumbling idiot of a teacher how to use the thing.
Read it again. "Any user outside the US, EU, or Canada (or in Quebec) is ineligible...."
Grammatically that's exactly correct. Paraphrased: "Users in the US, EU, and Canada, are eligable, excepting those who live within the US/EU/Canada but also live in Quebec."
It was built on kicking out the Native Americans? Sorry, no. The end goal of American colonization was not kicking out the native americans. You could make the argument that it was built, at least in large part, by kicking out native american populations or strongly discouraging them from living as they did (or even inadvertently making their lifestyle irrelevant in a modernized context), but to say that somehow the reason 'we' came to America was to displace the poor red men is patently absurd. If you want to argue over westward expansion, the jeffersonian ideal, and Manifest Destiny, fine. Indian-kicking was a side effect of a political enaction of the supposed Dominion Mandate from Genesis, among other things. It was not a goal in itself.
Also, who are you retards who order a "viente" latte? Did you know that baby cows don't drink that much milk in one day?
Dude, WTF? There's less than a glass of milk in a viente latte. In other words, less than the recommended daily allotment.
In fact, most grande lattes have less than half a glass. I used to make several a day back in junior high/high school. I mean, sure, it's stupid to drink a viente strawberries and creme every day or whatever, but a latte is not that bad. It's some coffee with a few ounces of steamed milk. Whoop-de-do.
So I'm reading the article thinking "what keeps the platform from floating away?" and of course I think "Duh, anchors." So then I'm thinking "if we have a giant powerplant tethered securely to teh seafloor, why not put the turbines UNDER the water and harvest energy from tidal movements rather than wind? Surely there's more to be had there.
Wow. Far Cry is virtually bugless? I must have gotten a bad copy. I've had more texture glitching in that game than just about any other to date, and sound errors that put HL2s stuttering to shame (for example, if you kill someone while he's firing, the supremely annoying assault rifle noise keeps playing. Forever.)
Some (but not all) of this was resolved over time with video driver updates, but still. I've never suffered any bugs with HL2. I thought I had the stuttering bug, but it turned out I had 512mb of RAM. Not enough for max settings. Half the people who complained about the stuttering bug (and some who still do, even though it's fixed) just didn't have enough memory in their computer or on their card.
Anyway, it's good to point out that HL2 isn't the first use of HDR in a game, although I find the implementation much more impressive than Far Cry or the half-way blooms used in some games (such as Tribes:Vengeance).
Most games to date have used HDR as equivalent to bloom. Perhaps Valve should have made up an equally confusing term, but their technology is, while not revolutionary, a breakthrough in terms of how it performs, how it looks, etc. And DoD:S is the first game that I'm aware of to SHIP with HDR.
Have you tried playing a Source game with HDR? You can turn it off. You can also scale the textures, models, resolution, filtering, etc., to your heart's content.
As for graphics cards... it's not that cards are becoming less long-lived, but that laptops inherently have a shorter life-span for games since they have compromises built in. I have a budget gaming system ($800 a year ago) including a BFG GeForce 6800 OC. I fully expect it to have a practical lifespan of more than another year. I'll probably swap in a new graphics card and eventually other components, but it's certainly not useless. I can play Lost Coast at almost max everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Do yourself a favor and get yourself a good Hebrew concordance. The word in question is "yom" (יום), which is most definately the word for day. It is also used occasionally as "a period of time defined by an associated term," exactly like our own word "day" -- if I say "the day of our suffering is upon us" or refer to the times after Christ as "the year of our Lord," I'm not referring to literal days or years.
I'm not sure what you mean by "original translation of the Bible." We've got the thing in it's original language, and the copy of an "original translation" is only meaningful if (a) we didn't have reliable copies of the source language (and the means to translate it) and (b) if we didn't have multiple reliable sources in parallel with unprecedented degrees of mutual confirmation. Neither is true.
The issue that the person who 'explained' this to you was trying to get at, or should have been trying to get at, is that the Bible is a piece of Hebrew literature -- much of it poetry. We have a pretty good understanding of Hebrew poetry, literature, and histories, and there are whole hermeneutic sciences devoted to the correct interpretation thereof. Most scholars worth their salt will concede that much of what appears in the Bible is figurative or at least hyperbolic. However, just because the word "יום" is translated 'Day' does not mean some gross oversight has been committed. In general, Bible translators go to great lengths to leave everything intact -- including unclear passages. That's why there are so many footnotes and parens providing alternate translations in any Bible.
"Day" is the correct translation. Whether or not we are to take it as a literal 24-hour day or as a metaphorical term is another issue, and a pretty petty theological one at that. I'm not aware of a single confession of faith on earth that requires one to affirm that the Earth was created in 168 hours, with 24 hours for lunch in there at the end.
Hell, you don't need much more than a .22 if they're coming at you in an inflatable.
Painting Mars red? Isn't that sort of like vacuuming the beach?
(BMI > 30) != (400lbs + skin grafted to couch)
Oh come on, give us some credit. She was at least a little atypical, don't you think?
Dude, misdirected anger. If it seems too kooky to be true, it usually is. NetAuthority.com is a total hoax.
Here's the author's website with his statement on NetAuthority: http://www.rudism.com/projects.shtml
The compulsory wikipedia article __________....
Oh noes! What compulsory wikipedia articles? Now I will never know! I'm doomed to lag behind my hip and stylishly retro peers once again!
I get the joke. At least we of all of Slashdot can enjoy our Greek humor :p
It's a shame everyone's replying AC, becuase just about all of them are rebutting you fantastically.
It's amusing, how you backpedal. How is "It is impossible to get a job which pays $100,000 a year if you arent ivy league or born into it. Perhaps with a Phd you can, but you'll have a shit job at Walmart with your bachelors degree" consistent with 1% of the UofU starting fortune 500 companies (your ridiculous number, not mine)? The answer is, it's not.
Nobody's debating that it's an advantage in a lot of cases to go to ivy league schools. Is it true that a mildly disproportionate majority of fortune 500 CEOs are Ivy Leaguers? Perhaps. But not by a lot, and certainly not by enough to imply that it's 'the only way.' An Ivy League education is far more helpful in politics than most other fields, and it's not even imperative in politics -- I have family in state politics with nothing more than a nursing degree and a hell of a lot of hard work. If you work hard and well at what you do (and, admittedly, have a little bit of providence smiling on you) you can get just about anywhere, with or without an ivy league education. Given two identical applicants, one of whom is an ivy leaguer and the other of whom is from a state university? Sure, most places would take the ivy league guy. Given two identical applicants, one of whom is cheap offshore labor and the other of whom is expensive domestic labor? Sure, many places would take the cheaper guy.
Notice a theme? Two identical choices. If your goal in getting hired is to be an identical choice, you ain't getting hired anywhere, buddy; not WalMart, not Google, not NASA. Ivy League applicants have that advantage; offshore laborers have their own sets. Neither of those prevents someone from a community college, state university, or small private university from building his own repertoire, proving his stuff, and landing a job that pays twice that of some washed-up ivy leaguer ten years down the road.
I'd do that in a heartbeat if I hadn't spent $250 on my prcoessor...
Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant. I have friends and family without doctoral degrees who are making in excess of $100,000, not because of fraternities or associations, but because they are good at what they do and at marketing themselves. My dad's been at Boeing for close to thirty years, and he doesn't have a Ph.D -- just a masters in Philosophy from a state university. Yet he's worked at Boeing, was laid off after 9/11 but they came crawling back last year, and in the interim he was offered a position at Microsoft after lots of consulting.
Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
It's also worth noting that Intel's marketing machine has been an enormous success. For many average-joe computer users, AMD is in the same category as Linux and Firefox -- something nerds get excited about, but (they think) will destroy their computer or break the intarnets.
Even some of the more tech-savvy people I've run into aren't aware that an AMD will be essentially transparent to the user, except in that it has historically been more bang for the buck, especially for the gamer. And even when you tell them of a personal preference for AMD, or certain AMD chips, for whatever reason, the vast majority will still assume that since everybody (even Apple, soon) has "Intel inside," Intel is the way to go. Even if you convince them that AMD is a processor and not some kind of nerd voodoo magic, they won't be compelled to switch unless a computer salesman tells them it's cheaper and better while they're at the store.
By way of analogy: Every time I see a Dodge commercial for some HEMI-powered truck, I think "Oooh, it's got a HEMI. That must mean it's better than my poor HEMI-less Chevy." Do I know what the hell HEMI even means? Not at all. Which is why I'll have to ask one of my car-nut friends if I ever (god forbid) truck shopping. It's pure marketing and name recognition. People trust Intel becuase they think it makes the world go round. AMD is some communist revolutionary nerd chip from hell. (OK, that's exagerrating. But you get the idea.)
I learned an awful lot about Escape Velocity on my computer lab's Macs.
But yeah, those labs were pretty worthless. I spent the entire time making Star Wars games in Hypercard and telling the bumbling idiot of a teacher how to use the thing.
Read it again. "Any user outside the US, EU, or Canada (or in Quebec) is ineligible...."
Grammatically that's exactly correct. Paraphrased: "Users in the US, EU, and Canada, are eligable, excepting those who live within the US/EU/Canada but also live in Quebec."
Slightly unclear wording? Perhaps. Double negative? Yeah. Incorrect? No.
Oh yeah, the day after christmas. Good move, faceless DVD company.
*mopes*
It was built on kicking out the Native Americans? Sorry, no. The end goal of American colonization was not kicking out the native americans. You could make the argument that it was built, at least in large part, by kicking out native american populations or strongly discouraging them from living as they did (or even inadvertently making their lifestyle irrelevant in a modernized context), but to say that somehow the reason 'we' came to America was to displace the poor red men is patently absurd. If you want to argue over westward expansion, the jeffersonian ideal, and Manifest Destiny, fine. Indian-kicking was a side effect of a political enaction of the supposed Dominion Mandate from Genesis, among other things. It was not a goal in itself.
Is there such a set? More importantly, is there a torrent? God I loved that show.
I have nothing to say except 0.0
Dude, WTF? There's less than a glass of milk in a viente latte. In other words, less than the recommended daily allotment.
In fact, most grande lattes have less than half a glass. I used to make several a day back in junior high/high school. I mean, sure, it's stupid to drink a viente strawberries and creme every day or whatever, but a latte is not that bad. It's some coffee with a few ounces of steamed milk. Whoop-de-do.
So I'm reading the article thinking "what keeps the platform from floating away?" and of course I think "Duh, anchors." So then I'm thinking "if we have a giant powerplant tethered securely to teh seafloor, why not put the turbines UNDER the water and harvest energy from tidal movements rather than wind? Surely there's more to be had there.
Or you could just float it somewhere where you don't get hurricanes. Say the strait of juan de fuca or something.
Wow. Far Cry is virtually bugless? I must have gotten a bad copy. I've had more texture glitching in that game than just about any other to date, and sound errors that put HL2s stuttering to shame (for example, if you kill someone while he's firing, the supremely annoying assault rifle noise keeps playing. Forever.)
Some (but not all) of this was resolved over time with video driver updates, but still. I've never suffered any bugs with HL2. I thought I had the stuttering bug, but it turned out I had 512mb of RAM. Not enough for max settings. Half the people who complained about the stuttering bug (and some who still do, even though it's fixed) just didn't have enough memory in their computer or on their card.
Anyway, it's good to point out that HL2 isn't the first use of HDR in a game, although I find the implementation much more impressive than Far Cry or the half-way blooms used in some games (such as Tribes:Vengeance).
Most games to date have used HDR as equivalent to bloom. Perhaps Valve should have made up an equally confusing term, but their technology is, while not revolutionary, a breakthrough in terms of how it performs, how it looks, etc. And DoD:S is the first game that I'm aware of to SHIP with HDR.
Have you tried playing a Source game with HDR? You can turn it off. You can also scale the textures, models, resolution, filtering, etc., to your heart's content.
As for graphics cards... it's not that cards are becoming less long-lived, but that laptops inherently have a shorter life-span for games since they have compromises built in. I have a budget gaming system ($800 a year ago) including a BFG GeForce 6800 OC. I fully expect it to have a practical lifespan of more than another year. I'll probably swap in a new graphics card and eventually other components, but it's certainly not useless. I can play Lost Coast at almost max everything.