Well, that depends on the religion, and the problem is that many of the "religious" really aren't, they go against their own religion for their own gain while merely pretending to be religious, the "wolves in sheep's clothing" as it were. Pat Robertson and that guy from Florida who demonstrates at soldiers' funerals come to mind. I'd bet Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to athiesm than Richard Dawkins could ever dream of converting.
These people piss me off too, probably more than they piss off an athiest. Take these anti-gay "Christians", for example, who don't read their own bible. "God hates fags?" No, God may not like homosexuality, but he loves gays as much as you love any program you write. The ones who bash gays in the name of Jesus who turn out to adulterers are the worst; self-seekers who haven't read "take the ceiling joist out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brothers' eye". Homosexuality is little mentioned in the bible (mostly in the old testament), but adultery is one of the biggies as far as Christian-Judeo sin is concerned, one that Moses brought down.
The "conservative Christians" are the worst. Conservatism goes against everything Christ taught. Tea party tax haters? "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's." Welfare for the poor? "It is better to give than recieve."
Anyone who tries to restrict your actions based on their own morals is far from a Christian. "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself". Hell, the very foundation of Christianity is forgiveness. If you can't give it, how can you expect to receive it?
The stake burning is a good example. Nowhere in the bible does it say you're supposed to burn wiccans, but plenty caught fire a few hundred years ago. "Thou shalt not kill", but there are plenty of these fake Christians who are both war hawks and for the death penalty. How could a real Christian possibly be for the death penalty? They may say "well, deuteronomy says stone adulterers", but the new testament says to forgive them ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). Why are these bible thumpers not eating a kosher diet if they're all so old testament on everybody?
The Bhuddists worship life itself, but when I was in Thailand two separate Bhuddist stuck guns in my face. Meanwhile, one woman chastised me for killing a fly. But that's just how people are.
There's nothing on earth that can't be used for evil.
Without proof either way, yours is the only logical position (note that some of us have been shown proof, albeit not scientific proof, and it's nothing we can show others).
I journaled about my friend Amy last week, she's the kind of agnostic that wants to believe but hasn't really met God. Her boyfriend, Tim, was an athiest who actually did find God a few Sundays ago. They're both homeless, staying at the Salvation Army shelter. One of the requirements is they have to go to church (even though they're athiest and agnostic). She was telling me that something hit him hard in church, he started crying, now is almost evangelical. "Seek and you shall find".
He's also been sober since then; oth of them are horribly addicted to alcohol.
"Athiesm takes as much of a leap of faith as belief in a diety or dieties" Yes. And not collecting stamps is as much of a hobby as collecting them.
That's an argument (and a valid one) against saying that athiesm is a religion, which it obviously is not, although many athiests (e.g., Dawkins) are evangelical in their anti-religion; like a man who wants to outlaw the hobby of collecting stamps. It isn't an argument against the fact that disbelief needs as much faith as belief.
"It's sad how so many athiests think religion is anti-science" Maybe because, well, it is.
Then please explain why over half of all scientists are in fact religious?
While science can't accept the 'argumentum ad auctoritatem', it is the only valid one for (theist) religion.
No, in fact it isn't for everyone. Anyone who seeks God will find him, but you'll never find what you're running away from. And what's not to like about the ten commandments and loving one's neighbor? What's to not like about a religion that worships life itself (Bhuddism)? What's not to like about teaching people to love their enemies and do good to them that harm them (Christianity)?
Science asks and answers "how." Religion asks and answers "why". One why I don't understand is why anyone would lead such a meaningless existance? Sooner or later you will die. Sooner or later there will be no trace you ever existed. Sooner or later the human race will become extinct, as all species do. Sooner or later (ok, much later) the sun will go supernova and destroy half the solar system. What's the point in living if that's all there is to life?
"if they don't believe in a diety why do they even mention one?" It might be because people like you don't stop talking about it.
It was an athiest who started this very thread with an anti-religious rant. In fact, about the only time I see religion mentioned at slashdot at all it's an athiest bashing it for no reason and usally completely off the topic. The one exception I can think of is a troll named "preacher jake" or some such nonsense.
But when someone bashes my religion, by God I'm going to defend it.
I will admit that there is one thing wrong with all religions -- slimeballs who pretend to be religious (Newt Gingrich, Osama Bin Laden, that guy in Florida who demonstrates at soldiers' funerals, Pat Roberston, etc) to further their own agendas and spew shit that isn't in the bible (or Koran or other texts) at all.
After a few days of use, it uses 1.5 GB of RAM for 5 pages and pegs the CPU every 10 seconds for like 5 seconds. You can't even type while it's doing whatever it's going.
?? IE 6 did that on the ancient XP computer at work. My main box is an old HP running kubuntu with only 750 megs of RAM. I have two dozen tabs open at once often, and the only time it gives me any trouble is when Flash crashes or the hard drive goes "chong chong chong" (she's dying, Jim). My notebook has a gig of RAM and running Win 7 and has no issues at all.
I never boot the netbook except for patching, since I hate reopening everything after a boot, instead I put it in hibernate. The big PC gets shut off nightly most of the time. What OS/distro are you running? What sites are bogging it down like that? Yahoo News only took one page to bring IE 6 down on the work computer, and IE7 gives me maybe 3 pages of that site, but it gives me no trouble on my home computers with FF.
The absense of a deity is as unfalsifiable as the presence of one. The existance of neutrinos was unfalsifiable in the 17th century. When one has experienced a thing, one can no longer deny that thing's existance, scientifically falsifiable or not.
Going on evidence alone, the only logical choice is agnosticism; "I don't know" considering that there are witnesses to this unfalsifiable phenomenon.
True. A lot of athiests are good people, and a lot of churchgoers are assholes+. Example: Newt Gingrich. How big an asshole would one have to be to divorce your wife for another woman while your wife is dying of cancer?* And how in the hell can anybody even contemplate voting for this toilet scum?
The GP probably thinks all athiests are assholes because of assholes like Richard Dawkins, and the assholes on slashdot who have to interject their faith that no diety exists, in every goddamned thread, and in the most disrespectful way possible.
I say if you have a Jesus fish or a Darwin legfish on your car, you should drive with the utmost courtesy so as not to make your fellow Christians/athiests look bad (guilt by association).
* I don't believe Gingrich is a Christian, I think he pretends to be one to get the evangelical votes.
I agree that special effects are the cruch of some, perhaps most, screenwriters these days, but the fact that you just didn't like LOTR really has no bearing on anything except your lack of taste. I bet you hate Dickens, Twain, and Melville, too.
Someone my height that weigs 2.5 times as much as me would experience the same stresses on the body as I would on the new planet. Perhaps more stress since the fat interferes with some body functions. I've heard of people weighing 700 pounds or more.
It was a hell of a lot better than I expected. I have yet to see a film that follows its book very closely. Look at the True Grit movies. Two completely different movies from the same book (with almost identical dialog). The 1969 version set it in the summer, while the book and 2010 version had it in the winter. But the 1969 version followed the book when they carted off the corpse, while the 2010 version had "if he wanted a decent buriel he'd have got hisself shot in the summer".
Or how about I, Robot? I mean WTF, a hot Susan Calvin?
LOTR was closer to the book than any movie I can think of. I really expected it to suck, and was pleasantly surprised.
Odd how the fanatical, radical athiests get away with trolling so easily, and sometimes get modded up. Athiesm takes as much of a leap of faith as belief in a diety or dieties. More if you've actually experienced a diety. It's sad how so many athiests think religion is anti-science, and how they somehow think that you can have science or religion but not both, when over half of scientists are in fact religious.
I wish everyone would stop the damned trolling. It annoys me and detracts from slashdot. This thread is no place for a religious discussion. And if they don't believe in a diety why do they even mention one?
That has nothing to do with the technology itself. But I find most menu systems to be horribly designed, and not just TVs. I wish they'd put a little more thought into the IU.
Any movie, whether it's a western, sci fi, or Gone With The Wind. In older westerns, not having outhouses kind of ruined them for me. But sci-fi and fantasy especially need to look realistic, more so than any other genres. As to being a work of art, any filmmaker should strive for that unless he's just a hack.
Interestingly enough, I was reading a while back that they would not be able to shoot 2001 today because of insurance company demands, as the closed rotating set would be a death trap if it caught fire. OTOH, LOTR would have been impossible fo film in 1968.
A ball bouncing down stairs shot with practical effects looks real because it is real... The same shot using CGI looks real because some guy spend hours/days/weeks tweaking the shot until it looked right.
Using GCI for a ball bouncing down the stairs would be a bit of a misuse IMO. A man bouncing down the stairs on his head would be a different matter.
But what if you're doing a fantasy or science fiction movie? Do you really want realism?
Not real, but real looking. You need to make your FTL ships and dragons believable, which is hard because they intrinsically aren't.
Right after you talk about how CGI is nice for doing impossible things, you say that it should all be as realistic and believable as possible?
Impossible things should especially be realistic, or they'll destroy the story.
They'll probably do it exactly the same way the original Star Trek did it... And Next Generation did it... Without a green screen.
They've been using green screens for a long time, and not just sci fi. Whenver you see a shot of two people in a car, it's either a green screen or the car's being towed.
They'll probably do it exactly the same way the original Star Trek did it...
But the original Star Trek didn't do it. There was always camera cuts and dialog. The shots on a couple of episodes of TNG where they had a group of people seeing themselves required a green screen. The filmmakers seemed pretty proud of that shot in the Making of.
You misunderstand him. the producers he's referring to are the people who actually produce the wealth -- the folks on the factory floor making wealth out of component parts, NOT their overlords who only aggregate and control the wealth that the worker produces.
Unfortunately, the folks actually creating the wealth aren't sharing in much of it.
Being able to edit posts would enable all sorts of insane troll behavior. Here's just one of many scenarios: you get a +5 funny, then completely change it to a GNAA troll. Or you see you're -1 flamebait and rewrite it to be less infammatory.
That's why there's a preview button and no comment editing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that depends on the religion, and the problem is that many of the "religious" really aren't, they go against their own religion for their own gain while merely pretending to be religious, the "wolves in sheep's clothing" as it were. Pat Robertson and that guy from Florida who demonstrates at soldiers' funerals come to mind. I'd bet Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to athiesm than Richard Dawkins could ever dream of converting.
These people piss me off too, probably more than they piss off an athiest. Take these anti-gay "Christians", for example, who don't read their own bible. "God hates fags?" No, God may not like homosexuality, but he loves gays as much as you love any program you write. The ones who bash gays in the name of Jesus who turn out to adulterers are the worst; self-seekers who haven't read "take the ceiling joist out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brothers' eye". Homosexuality is little mentioned in the bible (mostly in the old testament), but adultery is one of the biggies as far as Christian-Judeo sin is concerned, one that Moses brought down.
The "conservative Christians" are the worst. Conservatism goes against everything Christ taught. Tea party tax haters? "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's." Welfare for the poor? "It is better to give than recieve."
Anyone who tries to restrict your actions based on their own morals is far from a Christian. "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself". Hell, the very foundation of Christianity is forgiveness. If you can't give it, how can you expect to receive it?
The stake burning is a good example. Nowhere in the bible does it say you're supposed to burn wiccans, but plenty caught fire a few hundred years ago. "Thou shalt not kill", but there are plenty of these fake Christians who are both war hawks and for the death penalty. How could a real Christian possibly be for the death penalty? They may say "well, deuteronomy says stone adulterers", but the new testament says to forgive them ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). Why are these bible thumpers not eating a kosher diet if they're all so old testament on everybody?
The Bhuddists worship life itself, but when I was in Thailand two separate Bhuddist stuck guns in my face. Meanwhile, one woman chastised me for killing a fly. But that's just how people are.
There's nothing on earth that can't be used for evil.
PS -- yes, I know that line was from Big Bang Theory.
Without proof either way, yours is the only logical position (note that some of us have been shown proof, albeit not scientific proof, and it's nothing we can show others).
I journaled about my friend Amy last week, she's the kind of agnostic that wants to believe but hasn't really met God. Her boyfriend, Tim, was an athiest who actually did find God a few Sundays ago. They're both homeless, staying at the Salvation Army shelter. One of the requirements is they have to go to church (even though they're athiest and agnostic). She was telling me that something hit him hard in church, he started crying, now is almost evangelical. "Seek and you shall find".
He's also been sober since then; oth of them are horribly addicted to alcohol.
Howard? No, Moe was funny. Britney, maybe.
"Athiesm takes as much of a leap of faith as belief in a diety or dieties"
Yes. And not collecting stamps is as much of a hobby as collecting them.
That's an argument (and a valid one) against saying that athiesm is a religion, which it obviously is not, although many athiests (e.g., Dawkins) are evangelical in their anti-religion; like a man who wants to outlaw the hobby of collecting stamps. It isn't an argument against the fact that disbelief needs as much faith as belief.
"It's sad how so many athiests think religion is anti-science"
Maybe because, well, it is.
Then please explain why over half of all scientists are in fact religious?
While science can't accept the 'argumentum ad auctoritatem', it is the only valid one for (theist) religion.
No, in fact it isn't for everyone. Anyone who seeks God will find him, but you'll never find what you're running away from. And what's not to like about the ten commandments and loving one's neighbor? What's to not like about a religion that worships life itself (Bhuddism)? What's not to like about teaching people to love their enemies and do good to them that harm them (Christianity)?
Science asks and answers "how." Religion asks and answers "why". One why I don't understand is why anyone would lead such a meaningless existance? Sooner or later you will die. Sooner or later there will be no trace you ever existed. Sooner or later the human race will become extinct, as all species do. Sooner or later (ok, much later) the sun will go supernova and destroy half the solar system. What's the point in living if that's all there is to life?
"if they don't believe in a diety why do they even mention one?"
It might be because people like you don't stop talking about it.
It was an athiest who started this very thread with an anti-religious rant. In fact, about the only time I see religion mentioned at slashdot at all it's an athiest bashing it for no reason and usally completely off the topic. The one exception I can think of is a troll named "preacher jake" or some such nonsense.
But when someone bashes my religion, by God I'm going to defend it.
I will admit that there is one thing wrong with all religions -- slimeballs who pretend to be religious (Newt Gingrich, Osama Bin Laden, that guy in Florida who demonstrates at soldiers' funerals, Pat Roberston, etc) to further their own agendas and spew shit that isn't in the bible (or Koran or other texts) at all.
After a few days of use, it uses 1.5 GB of RAM for 5 pages and pegs the CPU every 10 seconds for like 5 seconds. You can't even type while it's doing whatever it's going.
?? IE 6 did that on the ancient XP computer at work. My main box is an old HP running kubuntu with only 750 megs of RAM. I have two dozen tabs open at once often, and the only time it gives me any trouble is when Flash crashes or the hard drive goes "chong chong chong" (she's dying, Jim). My notebook has a gig of RAM and running Win 7 and has no issues at all.
I never boot the netbook except for patching, since I hate reopening everything after a boot, instead I put it in hibernate. The big PC gets shut off nightly most of the time. What OS/distro are you running? What sites are bogging it down like that? Yahoo News only took one page to bring IE 6 down on the work computer, and IE7 gives me maybe 3 pages of that site, but it gives me no trouble on my home computers with FF.
The absense of a deity is as unfalsifiable as the presence of one. The existance of neutrinos was unfalsifiable in the 17th century. When one has experienced a thing, one can no longer deny that thing's existance, scientifically falsifiable or not.
Going on evidence alone, the only logical choice is agnosticism; "I don't know" considering that there are witnesses to this unfalsifiable phenomenon.
How would a being intelligent enough and powerful enough to create an entire universe NOT?
4 to 6 Gs for these effects.
True. A lot of athiests are good people, and a lot of churchgoers are assholes+. Example: Newt Gingrich. How big an asshole would one have to be to divorce your wife for another woman while your wife is dying of cancer?* And how in the hell can anybody even contemplate voting for this toilet scum?
The GP probably thinks all athiests are assholes because of assholes like Richard Dawkins, and the assholes on slashdot who have to interject their faith that no diety exists, in every goddamned thread, and in the most disrespectful way possible.
I say if you have a Jesus fish or a Darwin legfish on your car, you should drive with the utmost courtesy so as not to make your fellow Christians/athiests look bad (guilt by association).
* I don't believe Gingrich is a Christian, I think he pretends to be one to get the evangelical votes.
Why should anyone else's beliefs make you miserable? Does not compute.
I agree that special effects are the cruch of some, perhaps most, screenwriters these days, but the fact that you just didn't like LOTR really has no bearing on anything except your lack of taste. I bet you hate Dickens, Twain, and Melville, too.
Someone my height that weigs 2.5 times as much as me would experience the same stresses on the body as I would on the new planet. Perhaps more stress since the fat interferes with some body functions. I've heard of people weighing 700 pounds or more.
It was a hell of a lot better than I expected. I have yet to see a film that follows its book very closely. Look at the True Grit movies. Two completely different movies from the same book (with almost identical dialog). The 1969 version set it in the summer, while the book and 2010 version had it in the winter. But the 1969 version followed the book when they carted off the corpse, while the 2010 version had "if he wanted a decent buriel he'd have got hisself shot in the summer".
Or how about I, Robot? I mean WTF, a hot Susan Calvin?
LOTR was closer to the book than any movie I can think of. I really expected it to suck, and was pleasantly surprised.
Odd how the fanatical, radical athiests get away with trolling so easily, and sometimes get modded up. Athiesm takes as much of a leap of faith as belief in a diety or dieties. More if you've actually experienced a diety. It's sad how so many athiests think religion is anti-science, and how they somehow think that you can have science or religion but not both, when over half of scientists are in fact religious.
I wish everyone would stop the damned trolling. It annoys me and detracts from slashdot. This thread is no place for a religious discussion. And if they don't believe in a diety why do they even mention one?
That has nothing to do with the technology itself. But I find most menu systems to be horribly designed, and not just TVs. I wish they'd put a little more thought into the IU.
How many sci-fi films how sounds in space during epic space battles?
Those are easily explained away with a tiny bit of imagination. The sounds are the microphone or camera picking up stray EMF.
As to how many, well, how many didn't? I can think of only two, 2001 and 2010.
Maybe they're just not looking in the right place.
Any movie, whether it's a western, sci fi, or Gone With The Wind. In older westerns, not having outhouses kind of ruined them for me. But sci-fi and fantasy especially need to look realistic, more so than any other genres. As to being a work of art, any filmmaker should strive for that unless he's just a hack.
Interestingly enough, I was reading a while back that they would not be able to shoot 2001 today because of insurance company demands, as the closed rotating set would be a death trap if it caught fire. OTOH, LOTR would have been impossible fo film in 1968.
A ball bouncing down stairs shot with practical effects looks real because it is real... The same shot using CGI looks real because some guy spend hours/days/weeks tweaking the shot until it looked right.
Using GCI for a ball bouncing down the stairs would be a bit of a misuse IMO. A man bouncing down the stairs on his head would be a different matter.
But what if you're doing a fantasy or science fiction movie? Do you really want realism?
Not real, but real looking. You need to make your FTL ships and dragons believable, which is hard because they intrinsically aren't.
Right after you talk about how CGI is nice for doing impossible things, you say that it should all be as realistic and believable as possible?
Impossible things should especially be realistic, or they'll destroy the story.
They'll probably do it exactly the same way the original Star Trek did it... And Next Generation did it... Without a green screen.
They've been using green screens for a long time, and not just sci fi. Whenver you see a shot of two people in a car, it's either a green screen or the car's being towed.
They'll probably do it exactly the same way the original Star Trek did it...
But the original Star Trek didn't do it. There was always camera cuts and dialog. The shots on a couple of episodes of TNG where they had a group of people seeing themselves required a green screen. The filmmakers seemed pretty proud of that shot in the Making of.
You misunderstand him. the producers he's referring to are the people who actually produce the wealth -- the folks on the factory floor making wealth out of component parts, NOT their overlords who only aggregate and control the wealth that the worker produces.
Unfortunately, the folks actually creating the wealth aren't sharing in much of it.
Don't get me wrong, i do enjoy a good movie, but special effects are for the lazy of mind.
There's a reason nobody made a decent LOTR until CGI came along.
Being able to edit posts would enable all sorts of insane troll behavior. Here's just one of many scenarios: you get a +5 funny, then completely change it to a GNAA troll. Or you see you're -1 flamebait and rewrite it to be less infammatory.
That's why there's a preview button and no comment editing.
The young are taking care of the old and in turn we hope we will get the same dignity.
You won't if the 1%ers and their idiot teabag followers have their way. Glad to see a young person with a little sense.