I don't know much about the electric universe theory. It probably is a load of crap, but still I like to laugh at the expense of anyone who is offended by those who dare to put forward alternatives to the "settled" theories of mainstream science. (Hah! I'm not afraid to use the phrase, so there.)
Re:Comedy? You mean it's not real?
on
Iron Sky Trailer
·
· Score: 1
That's because the Neuschwabenland base was invisible.:D
You are right about the one plane crash. There were not "huge casualties". That's what happens when I try to go from memory. There was also Vance Woodall, who died in an accident.
But still, as you say, the speed of heading down there soon after the war, with 4700 men, 3500 of whom were Marines, sure begs the question, "Why?"
Re:Comedy? You mean it's not real?
on
Iron Sky Trailer
·
· Score: 1
I know where they got their material.
There is a segment of the UFO research community, (call it the "I don't believe it's aliens" crowd), who follow research which suggests that the Nazi's had anti-gravity and exotic power sources which were on the verge of being used in the war. However, Hitler was so focused on making bombers to retaliate the barrage of firebombing which their major cities endured at the hands of the Allies, that he directed most of their manufacturing and research into bombers, thus curtailing the more exotic programs.
Project Paperclip, so the theory goes, imported this technology into America, and developed it under various black-ops projects, eventually exporting the bulk of the project to Pine Gap, Australia, under the direction of Edward Teller. This, they believe, accounts for the bulk of modern UFO sightings.
Add to this the rumors of a secret Nazi Antarctic base where the bulk of the developed technology was supposedly stored.
There is also a whole genre of UFO sightings in the literature which are very similar to the bell-shaped craft which the trailer shows, and in which individuals interacted with the pilots of the craft, whom they described as being dressed in what looked like Nazi SS uniforms.
This much is true: Admiral Byrd DID take what amounted to an invasion force to Antarctica after the war, and had hugh casualties. Then, at that same period of time, an article appeared in a Chilean newspaper in which it is claimed that they interviewed Admiral Byrd after his return from the expedition. In this interview, they cite him talking about flying craft which could accelerate at tremendous velocities and make hair-pin turns.
In addition to this, there are the reports of what were later called "foo fighters" in the records of American pilots. These things were bright fireballs that raced along side the American planes, freaked out the pilots, and screwed up their radar. That much is in the reports. Some researchers claim that the extant German documentation makes reference to a research project involving "der feuerball".
Comedy? You mean it's not real?
on
Iron Sky Trailer
·
· Score: 1
I for one believe that the Nazi's did have a secret Antarctic base, and developed the core "UFO" technology which project Paperclip imported into the USA after the war. If Germans are aliens, then, yeah, we stole "alien" technology to make the American "UFOs". Germany was "this" close to world domination. And it would have worked, too - if it hadn't been for those pesky Yanks. Oh, and Admiral Byrd's invasion of Antarctica after the war. Ahah! He's the pidgeon!
But Nazi's on the moon? That's just silly. Obviously a disinformation campaign to hide the truth.
no other LCD display can use it's full set of subpixels in B&W mode for things like text rendering, like the OLPC can True if you limit it to B&W, but not true of subpixel rendering in general. Subpixel rendering in color, for text especially, has been since 1988, when IBM invented it, and in common use since Windows XP (Cleartype). The unique innovation of the OLCP is not subpixel rendering, but the fact that the pixels lose their color in direct light, so it makes sense to create a B&W display mode in which subpixels can be addressed individually. It's a great idea that I hope we see in other devices.
Yes, I'm sure it was pure random chance that Google was successful, and free market forces had absolutely nothing to do with it, stupid capitalist pigs that they were back then and all.
There was no real quality of search results when that fight took place. It was a different era, with little more than keyword lookups. I totally disagree. When Google first appeared on the scene, they had two things that nobody else did. The first was speed. It was jaw-droppingly fast. Nobody was that fast. Not Yahoo. Not Altavista.
Second, was a design decision: That search results would contain every word you typed. No more of this +term nonsense. This made things very simple for users who don't care to learn a search-term language.
The result: happy users.
After that, they hit hard on designing good algorithms, and hired the mathematical talent to do it. Nobody else treated search with so much science. This made users even more happy. Google had the most relevant results.
So - Google won because, from the common end user's perspective, they had a superior product. Period. That plays right into the GP's argument. Superior product = more customers = more ad revenue = the first.com services company to be seriously in the black.
I didn't say it could not function as a workstation. Indeed it can - sometimes. Installing lots of junk on them often has the side effect of breaking the RIP. Again, it all depends upon what particular package EFI puts together. I hate EFI. Only use them because we are forced to.
The difference is that the Xeroxes without a separate box have some sort of RIP hanging off the back of them, or a very simple internal RIP. Fiery sells simplified controllers that are still running XP (or 2000) internally, but have no external ports to hook a monitor or keyboard up to. Often the Fiery RIPs provide the value added stuff like Mailboxes, Scan-to-network, etc. If it's just a basic B&W Xerox printer, then often they will just have the simpler embedded PS Rip. Canon uses Fiery RIPs even on their office BW printers if there is a need for good Postscript support. If only PCL is needed, then they don't bother. Mac's need the Postscript support, as anything else works poorly on many Canons. Our supplier here in the Twin Cities won't even place a machine without a Fiery RIP if their customers are using Macs.
If the device is a business color device from Canon, Toshiba, Konica, Xerox, etc., it will almost always have a RIP of some kind, usually Fiery, sometimes Creo (another Windows box). Xerox has their own Unix based RIP as well (running Solaris), but I'm not sure who wrote their PS rip for that one. Maybe Global Graphics.
What you are describing is an EFI Fiery RIP. This is not just a "workstation hanging off of the printer." It is doing the actual work of rasterizing the Postscript. Get rid of it, and your Xerox is not even a dumb printer. It won't print at all.
EFI Fiery controllers generally run a version of XP Embedded, which is itself locked down in a variety of ways, but sometimes not. They often have a proprietary motherboard with unique RIP hardware. We have several here. One, driving a Canon CLC 4000, does not even have enough of Windows present to install a driver (VNC in this case).
Another, driving a Konica BizHub Pro 6500 is almost wide open, except that we actually had to pay for the privilege of hooking up a monitor and keyboard. That's right, they flash the motherboard in such a way that the machine is headless, unless you pay extra.
I just about choked when I heard the news of this acquisition. We just migrated to the Zimbra Open Source Edition at my company. I adore this product. Now Microsoft will own Zimbra, which is a direct competitor to Exchange. This sucks royally. In the past they have - to a degree - continued to develop competing packages (Fox Pro vs. Access for instance - I know, not a real fair comparison). How will this play into an open source acquisition? My only question is can Zimbra, if necessary, be forked?
Your original post was about the grammar and the translation of same. Therefore it is not a ridiculous comparison, since your argument was not about the theology, but about the meaning of specific words.
As to your other questions, I never waste my time arguing theology on Slashdot. Fully prepared to do so. Stupid place to do it. It's like trying to play chess while there is an entire audience booing, throwing rotten vegetables, and spouting Monty Python quotations.
Actually, I think Luther would laugh at your question and shake his head. Then he'd offer to discuss it over beer and brats. I'd be willing to do the same if you're ever in Minneapolis.:)
Well, if you basically use the rule "anyone can make words mean anything they want them to", you can surely make Genesis say whatever you want. What the Kabbalists do is pretty much irrelevant to what the actual words of a manuscript are, and what those word mean (I am thoroughly acquainted with what they do to a biblical text, having read many of the old talmudic sources). The same thing is done with the Greek texts by the gematria-obsessed gnostic crowd. Don't even get me started on all the Bible-code garbage (show me one vetted statistician who believes that nonsense). Grammar is grammar and vocabulary is vocabulary. Words have meanings that can be proven by historic use and context. Pray tell, would you treat the text of, say, the epic of Gilgamesh the same way? The Code of Hammurabi? The works of Julius Caesar?
But as to your examples, the translations are either following the Septuagint or the Hebrew text. Expanse is the most accurate word. Firmament/vault/arch all follow the Greek (as did Jerome in the Vulgate). Since the Hebrew word raqiah basically means a thing that is stamped down, stretched out or stamped thin, context must determine what is meant. The context in this case is obvious. Go grab three or four different translations of the Brother's Karamazov and compare them. You will find the same problem.
As to your first contention, that "there is no Hebrew text of Genesis" I make the same response. Show me your manuscript evidence. Show me source fragments. Show me documented proof of a recession. If all you are going to do is repeat the unproven hypothesis (for lack of any evidence) of a small handful of 19th century German theologians, then at least admit it.
Correct. Jerome was influenced heavily by the Septuagint, who were in turn influenced by the prevailing cosmology of Alexandria, Egypt, which considered the sky as a vaulted ceiling with support structures.
As for the Hebrew understanding of the construction of the sky, other references hold the idea of something that is stretched or spread out. The idea of a vaulted support is not to be found in Hebrew cosmology.
Hail Slashdot, where ideology always trumps evidence.
I always have the same response for this, every time: Stop with the rhetoric and show me the manuscripts. It's not like Hebrew is some obscure language that nobody understands. So, how would YOU translate the passage in question?
Well, if y'all can show me a single documented form of proof that the USB spec for 2.0 requires a cable in any way different that the spec for 1.0, then I will gladly issue a mea culpa.
Otherwise, I think y'all are just trying to justify all that extra money you spent on new cables.
No doubt. But that has more to do with the general skill set of those who are using Access. I've seen horrendous schemas in Postgres/MySQL as well.
Access is a swiss army knife. Makes it easy to do down-and-dirty stuff. Great for prepping data to go into other tools or DB's. Horrible platform for apps.
Yeah, hear hear! I just upgraded from a Kaypro 16 to a Northgate 386SX. Man, let me tell you, this baby screams! And that Wolfenstein 3D thing is just sooooo cool in 256 color VGA.
Yes, thank you! For every barrier in Linux desktop adoption there are ten thousand Linux ideologues insisting that the barrier is a good thing, and you are just stupid if you can't deflibberate your cronoodleblitz.
I ran exclusively Linux on desktop and laptop for 3 years. I ran Gentoo. I deflibberated many many cronoodleblitzen. I loved it. Still love it. Still manage 6 Gentoo servers.
I currently run Leopard an a Macbook Pro.
Sorry, but TFA's right. I run CS3; I develop in Eclipse; I have Terminal open almost all the time; I run Parallels w/convergence and effortlessly run Access databases with no library/3rd party control weirdness such as WINE/Crossover gave me.
My business needs are broad. I live in a mixed Mac/Windows/Linux office environment. I commonly am required to mix graphics design, database, and server work all together into one project (image personalization, data scrubbing, variable data printing, bulk snail-mail processing). I need all the above tools. I could do almost all of the above in Linux, and spend hours being unproductive while I was just trying to make things work. Or I can just use a Mac.
Someday, when life is simple for me again, I may go back to Linux on the laptop. (As it is, I occasionally fire up an Kubuntu VM in Parallels for certain things). But until then, I am very content with OS X.
So much of a nightmare, in fact, that when I have to touch one of my qmail distributions to introduce a needed patch, I cringe, put it off, dread it. It is a horrendous mess. netqmail has helped clean things up to a degree, but not enough.
My postfix installs are easy. Need to patch in a new filter, setup a second SMTP instance, pass stuff back and forth via lmtp? Easy. Add/change a couple lines in master.cf. Try that in qmail. You are writing scripts, patching control files, cursing and swearing when it doesn't work for no apparent reason, not because you did something wring, but because the various patches are colliding, etc.
qmail is, in itself, an incredible design. Robust, simple, and lightning fast. For what it is, qmail is perfect. Unfortunately, the complexity of handling email has outgrown the simplicity of qmail. I mean, here it is 2007, and you still need a patch to implement filtering. Sorry, old friend. You've been tried and true, but I've outgrown you. No hard feelings, I hope.
Slashdot Mirror
Burn them! Burn them!
Yes, because, after all "ordinary physics" has provided the answer to everything already.
I don't know much about the electric universe theory. It probably is a load of crap, but still I like to laugh at the expense of anyone who is offended by those who dare to put forward alternatives to the "settled" theories of mainstream science. (Hah! I'm not afraid to use the phrase, so there.)
That's because the Neuschwabenland base was invisible. :D
You are right about the one plane crash. There were not "huge casualties". That's what happens when I try to go from memory. There was also Vance Woodall, who died in an accident.
But still, as you say, the speed of heading down there soon after the war, with 4700 men, 3500 of whom were Marines, sure begs the question, "Why?"
I know where they got their material.
There is a segment of the UFO research community, (call it the "I don't believe it's aliens" crowd), who follow research which suggests that the Nazi's had anti-gravity and exotic power sources which were on the verge of being used in the war. However, Hitler was so focused on making bombers to retaliate the barrage of firebombing which their major cities endured at the hands of the Allies, that he directed most of their manufacturing and research into bombers, thus curtailing the more exotic programs.
Project Paperclip, so the theory goes, imported this technology into America, and developed it under various black-ops projects, eventually exporting the bulk of the project to Pine Gap, Australia, under the direction of Edward Teller. This, they believe, accounts for the bulk of modern UFO sightings.
Add to this the rumors of a secret Nazi Antarctic base where the bulk of the developed technology was supposedly stored.
There is also a whole genre of UFO sightings in the literature which are very similar to the bell-shaped craft which the trailer shows, and in which individuals interacted with the pilots of the craft, whom they described as being dressed in what looked like Nazi SS uniforms.
This much is true: Admiral Byrd DID take what amounted to an invasion force to Antarctica after the war, and had hugh casualties. Then, at that same period of time, an article appeared in a Chilean newspaper in which it is claimed that they interviewed Admiral Byrd after his return from the expedition. In this interview, they cite him talking about flying craft which could accelerate at tremendous velocities and make hair-pin turns.
In addition to this, there are the reports of what were later called "foo fighters" in the records of American pilots. These things were bright fireballs that raced along side the American planes, freaked out the pilots, and screwed up their radar. That much is in the reports. Some researchers claim that the extant German documentation makes reference to a research project involving "der feuerball".
Anyway, google around and you will find plenty. Here's one of the better sites: http://naziufomythos.greyfalcon.us/index.html
I for one believe that the Nazi's did have a secret Antarctic base, and developed the core "UFO" technology which project Paperclip imported into the USA after the war. If Germans are aliens, then, yeah, we stole "alien" technology to make the American "UFOs". Germany was "this" close to world domination. And it would have worked, too - if it hadn't been for those pesky Yanks. Oh, and Admiral Byrd's invasion of Antarctica after the war. Ahah! He's the pidgeon!
But Nazi's on the moon? That's just silly. Obviously a disinformation campaign to hide the truth.
Proof at last, that that guy who kept saying, "You can't get there from here" is a bloody liar.
No way I'm falling for this one.
Yes, I'm sure it was pure random chance that Google was successful, and free market forces had absolutely nothing to do with it, stupid capitalist pigs that they were back then and all.
Second, was a design decision: That search results would contain every word you typed. No more of this +term nonsense. This made things very simple for users who don't care to learn a search-term language.
The result: happy users.
After that, they hit hard on designing good algorithms, and hired the mathematical talent to do it. Nobody else treated search with so much science. This made users even more happy. Google had the most relevant results.
So - Google won because, from the common end user's perspective, they had a superior product. Period. That plays right into the GP's argument. Superior product = more customers = more ad revenue = the first
I didn't say it could not function as a workstation. Indeed it can - sometimes. Installing lots of junk on them often has the side effect of breaking the RIP. Again, it all depends upon what particular package EFI puts together. I hate EFI. Only use them because we are forced to.
The difference is that the Xeroxes without a separate box have some sort of RIP hanging off the back of them, or a very simple internal RIP. Fiery sells simplified controllers that are still running XP (or 2000) internally, but have no external ports to hook a monitor or keyboard up to. Often the Fiery RIPs provide the value added stuff like Mailboxes, Scan-to-network, etc. If it's just a basic B&W Xerox printer, then often they will just have the simpler embedded PS Rip. Canon uses Fiery RIPs even on their office BW printers if there is a need for good Postscript support. If only PCL is needed, then they don't bother. Mac's need the Postscript support, as anything else works poorly on many Canons. Our supplier here in the Twin Cities won't even place a machine without a Fiery RIP if their customers are using Macs.
If the device is a business color device from Canon, Toshiba, Konica, Xerox, etc., it will almost always have a RIP of some kind, usually Fiery, sometimes Creo (another Windows box). Xerox has their own Unix based RIP as well (running Solaris), but I'm not sure who wrote their PS rip for that one. Maybe Global Graphics.
What you are describing is an EFI Fiery RIP. This is not just a "workstation hanging off of the printer." It is doing the actual work of rasterizing the Postscript. Get rid of it, and your Xerox is not even a dumb printer. It won't print at all.
EFI Fiery controllers generally run a version of XP Embedded, which is itself locked down in a variety of ways, but sometimes not. They often have a proprietary motherboard with unique RIP hardware. We have several here. One, driving a Canon CLC 4000, does not even have enough of Windows present to install a driver (VNC in this case).
Another, driving a Konica BizHub Pro 6500 is almost wide open, except that we actually had to pay for the privilege of hooking up a monitor and keyboard. That's right, they flash the motherboard in such a way that the machine is headless, unless you pay extra.
Perhaps now we will finally catch live specimens which will prove the existence of the hotheaded naked ice borer once and for all!
I just about choked when I heard the news of this acquisition. We just migrated to the Zimbra Open Source Edition at my company. I adore this product. Now Microsoft will own Zimbra, which is a direct competitor to Exchange. This sucks royally. In the past they have - to a degree - continued to develop competing packages (Fox Pro vs. Access for instance - I know, not a real fair comparison). How will this play into an open source acquisition? My only question is can Zimbra, if necessary, be forked?
Your original post was about the grammar and the translation of same. Therefore it is not a ridiculous comparison, since your argument was not about the theology, but about the meaning of specific words.
:)
As to your other questions, I never waste my time arguing theology on Slashdot. Fully prepared to do so. Stupid place to do it. It's like trying to play chess while there is an entire audience booing, throwing rotten vegetables, and spouting Monty Python quotations.
Actually, I think Luther would laugh at your question and shake his head. Then he'd offer to discuss it over beer and brats. I'd be willing to do the same if you're ever in Minneapolis.
Well, if you basically use the rule "anyone can make words mean anything they want them to", you can surely make Genesis say whatever you want. What the Kabbalists do is pretty much irrelevant to what the actual words of a manuscript are, and what those word mean (I am thoroughly acquainted with what they do to a biblical text, having read many of the old talmudic sources). The same thing is done with the Greek texts by the gematria-obsessed gnostic crowd. Don't even get me started on all the Bible-code garbage (show me one vetted statistician who believes that nonsense). Grammar is grammar and vocabulary is vocabulary. Words have meanings that can be proven by historic use and context. Pray tell, would you treat the text of, say, the epic of Gilgamesh the same way? The Code of Hammurabi? The works of Julius Caesar?
But as to your examples, the translations are either following the Septuagint or the Hebrew text. Expanse is the most accurate word. Firmament/vault/arch all follow the Greek (as did Jerome in the Vulgate). Since the Hebrew word raqiah basically means a thing that is stamped down, stretched out or stamped thin, context must determine what is meant. The context in this case is obvious. Go grab three or four different translations of the Brother's Karamazov and compare them. You will find the same problem.
As to your first contention, that "there is no Hebrew text of Genesis" I make the same response. Show me your manuscript evidence. Show me source fragments. Show me documented proof of a recession. If all you are going to do is repeat the unproven hypothesis (for lack of any evidence) of a small handful of 19th century German theologians, then at least admit it.
Correct. Jerome was influenced heavily by the Septuagint, who were in turn influenced by the prevailing cosmology of Alexandria, Egypt, which considered the sky as a vaulted ceiling with support structures.
As for the Hebrew understanding of the construction of the sky, other references hold the idea of something that is stretched or spread out. The idea of a vaulted support is not to be found in Hebrew cosmology.
Hail Slashdot, where ideology always trumps evidence.
I always have the same response for this, every time: Stop with the rhetoric and show me the manuscripts. It's not like Hebrew is some obscure language that nobody understands. So, how would YOU translate the passage in question?
Well, if y'all can show me a single documented form of proof that the USB spec for 2.0 requires a cable in any way different that the spec for 1.0, then I will gladly issue a mea culpa.
Otherwise, I think y'all are just trying to justify all that extra money you spent on new cables.
Umm, you do realize that USB 1.0 and 2.0 use the exact same cables and connectors, don't you?
Just asking, because you sound too serious to be joking.
No doubt. But that has more to do with the general skill set of those who are using Access. I've seen horrendous schemas in Postgres/MySQL as well.
Access is a swiss army knife. Makes it easy to do down-and-dirty stuff. Great for prepping data to go into other tools or DB's. Horrible platform for apps.
Yeah, hear hear! I just upgraded from a Kaypro 16 to a Northgate 386SX. Man, let me tell you, this baby screams! And that Wolfenstein 3D thing is just sooooo cool in 256 color VGA.
Yes, thank you! For every barrier in Linux desktop adoption there are ten thousand Linux ideologues insisting that the barrier is a good thing, and you are just stupid if you can't deflibberate your cronoodleblitz.
I ran exclusively Linux on desktop and laptop for 3 years. I ran Gentoo. I deflibberated many many cronoodleblitzen. I loved it. Still love it. Still manage 6 Gentoo servers.
I currently run Leopard an a Macbook Pro.
Sorry, but TFA's right. I run CS3; I develop in Eclipse; I have Terminal open almost all the time; I run Parallels w/convergence and effortlessly run Access databases with no library/3rd party control weirdness such as WINE/Crossover gave me.
My business needs are broad. I live in a mixed Mac/Windows/Linux office environment. I commonly am required to mix graphics design, database, and server work all together into one project (image personalization, data scrubbing, variable data printing, bulk snail-mail processing). I need all the above tools. I could do almost all of the above in Linux, and spend hours being unproductive while I was just trying to make things work. Or I can just use a Mac.
Someday, when life is simple for me again, I may go back to Linux on the laptop. (As it is, I occasionally fire up an Kubuntu VM in Parallels for certain things). But until then, I am very content with OS X.
So much of a nightmare, in fact, that when I have to touch one of my qmail distributions to introduce a needed patch, I cringe, put it off, dread it. It is a horrendous mess. netqmail has helped clean things up to a degree, but not enough.
My postfix installs are easy. Need to patch in a new filter, setup a second SMTP instance, pass stuff back and forth via lmtp? Easy. Add/change a couple lines in master.cf. Try that in qmail. You are writing scripts, patching control files, cursing and swearing when it doesn't work for no apparent reason, not because you did something wring, but because the various patches are colliding, etc.
qmail is, in itself, an incredible design. Robust, simple, and lightning fast. For what it is, qmail is perfect. Unfortunately, the complexity of handling email has outgrown the simplicity of qmail. I mean, here it is 2007, and you still need a patch to implement filtering. Sorry, old friend. You've been tried and true, but I've outgrown you. No hard feelings, I hope.