MarineGunrock: http://videosift.com/video/Duke-Nuken-Forever-Quicklook-yes-it-does-suck-that-much

Zifnab: http://videosift.com/video/Zero-Punctuation-Hunted-The-Demon-s-Forge

Arvana: http://videosift.com/video/Voyager-Finds-Magnetic-Bubbles-at-Solar-System-s-Edge

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove.
No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Educate yourself:
Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.
>> ^shinyblurry:

but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah.
You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.
If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure.


I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":

1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Example:
[FORGERY]
>> ^shinyblurry:

I deny the Holy Spirit.
[/FORGERY]

Does that forgery make all your actual words fundamentally suspect?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Some religious theologians think that the myth argument is unsound? Color me surprised. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?

[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]
Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]
>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.
Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.
There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.
P.S. I ate pickles

+1 for the pickles...

I had Antelope.

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.

hilarious. So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove. Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart. I'm stating to get the idea that you don't actually know anything and I'm arguing with a search engine.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

I'm avoiding nothing; yes, there are other sources for Cyrus, but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah. You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.

If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure. Either way, your evidence is firmly in my territory. I'll happily admit that you have one example in the whole of human history of slaves being freed if you'll admit that Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist,
and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors
clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical
authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much
chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his
motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?


[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]

>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.


Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.


Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

P.S. I ate pickles

Wait, wait, wait.

This guy is discharged. Then, after he's out of the armed forces, he does something or other to piss off the military. So they waste god knows how much government money to hold a trial to retroactively change what they call the conditions of his discharge?

You're fucking with me, right?>> ^d3n4l1:

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:
"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]
...
After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing
In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."
Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

WOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Then fuck his memorial anyway right?!! Seriously Sir you have NO FUCKING IDEA.

>> ^d3n4l1:

Just keep in mind. Jefferson didn't free our country. Military discipline did. If some German captain hadn't come over and whipped our boys into shape in spite of the harshest conditions imaginable at Valley Forge, we would be drinking very expensive tea over this argument.

Just keep in mind. Jefferson didn't free our country. Military discipline did. If some German captain hadn't come over and whipped our boys into shape in spite of the harshest conditions imaginable at Valley Forge, we would be drinking very expensive tea over this argument.

Here is a little education about the borderless idiot running the show:

"Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.[3] In 2004, he served in Fallujah.[4] Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq.[5] He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004,[3] violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.[5] Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"[5] Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty.[6]

...

After his discharge, and during a March 19, 2007, protest he attended, Kokesh was in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR);[5] a superior officer identified him in a photo caption in the Washington Post.[7] On "March 29, a Marine major sent him an e-mail to tell him he was being investigated for misconduct by appearing at a political event in uniform. Kokesh responded, telling the major what he thought" and used an expletive in his reply, resulting in an additional misconduct charge.[5] The charges were "brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies only to service members", confusing some veterans and lawyers.[5]
[edit] Hearing

In May 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation.[8][9] The panel recommended Kokesh be given a "general discharge under honorable conditions",[10] a discharge status below "honorable", and above "other than honorable".[11] Kokesh appealed the decision, and was denied."

Would the soldiers at Valley Forge appreciate your "victims" cries of "Foul" [language]?

I think about this stuff a lot. Lately I look at all the computer power we're developing and how dangerous the universe really is. I get fixed on the horrifying implications of "Von Neumann Machines" and think most civilizations like ours who reach out with radio probably get silenced by a swarm of machines as a consequence of their indiscretion. It could be that the galaxy will be endlessly culled for all time by such robots. Or, maybe the machines would be benevolent like the Monoliths in 2001, which are Von Neumann machines in that they appear autonomous and self-replicating.

It seems likely that really advanced civilizations might "go dark" and beyond ceasing to use radio (or at least ceasing to allow radio leakage) they might actually bury/hide their civilization. They might even offload their minds into computers and not bother communicating with the physical universe outside their programmed reality at all. I'm starting to think this last bit might be the most likely of all scenarios.

I've probably read too much hard sci-fi and I really love the stuff along these themes like Forge of God, Anvil of Stars, 2001 series, etc.

Thats tricky, because the parents are dual citizens, if that is the german parents did not wade across the ocean and hop a fence into mexico and forge documents.

if your parents are born in deutschland and have dual citizenship, what are yee ? a mexicaherman or a germexican can one pick and choose ? how is such a thing decided ?

In reply to this comment by dag:
But your parents could have moved from Germany and birthed you in Mexico. Are you not then Mexican - at least by nationality? Am I not American if I'm born in the USA - regardless of my ethnicity?

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^dag:
I may be insensitive - but I don't see how this is racism. If he referred to Norway or Belgium would we be having this discussion? "Mexican" is a nationaity - he may be being insensitive to their national culture, but this is not racism IMO.

Mexican is a race. It's a mixture of the indigenous native north/central Americans and Spanish, however not all Mexican's carry the Spanish blood. To be more general, Mexicans are Native Americans. This joke aimed at Mexicans is the same as saying native Americans are all drunks.
...that being said, Mexicans aren't as bad as blacks at dog ownership, and at least they don't eat dog like the Koreans.

Partly. The mold would definitely break if heated too quickly (either in the furnace or with the bronze being poured in) but it is also heated so the bronze doesn't cool and harden before all of it is poured in.

Bronze swords, unlike iron/steel, are cast in a mold, then (since about 2000 BC) the edges are forged with hammer and anvil to give it hardness and strength. >> ^deathcow:

I guess they preheat the sword mold to keep it from exploding when you pour stuff in it?


>> ^smooman:

im curious about the forging of it tho, thought you would hammer the metal out and shit to make it harder. Wonder if during the Bronze Age swords were made out of just one piece like this without forging

im curious about the forging of it tho, thought you would hammer the metal out and shit to make it harder. Wonder if during the Bronze Age swords were made out of just one piece like this without forging

In regards to Crosswords wondering if there's more than one way to solve the puzzles in Portal 2, I'd say yes, but not to the same degree as the first game in my experience (played the single-player 3 times now). Many test chambers require one specific solution with not much room for creative puzzle solving, well, besides the trial and error process of figuring a puzzle out; it seems that the introduction of all these new mechanics (the three kinds of gel, hard-light walkways, forward/backward tractor beams, faith plates, etc.) cumulatively make for much more specific solutions with less room for player delineation from the designer's intended sequence of events to complete them. So, the instances of forging your own path are there, just not as abundant as in the original. The puzzles themselves are varied enough to make repeat playthroughs still enjoyable, imo. The fantastic sense of atmosphere and thoughtful level/sound design, writing, and story also help.

I haven't played the co-op yet, so no clue on that front.

About the DLC stuff, it seems likely Valve will soon release more level packs, hopefully free. It would make no sense to spend dev resources making paid hats/gestures/doo-hickies if all there is to enjoy them in is the out-of-the-box coop campaign. It would be a smart move to counterbalance paid, non-vital cosmetic stuff with more meaty-but-free maps to ensure a vital and thriving community, a less disgruntled one at that. Valve is usually good about making the essential stuff free, and the paid optional stuff at least theoretically attainable through other means (if TF2 is any indication, also Portal 2 hats/gestures are able to be Found by playing/achievements a la TF2, not sure to what capacity though).

Some advanced chambers of the single-player stuff and a Challenge mode would be nice too. But I digress, we'll see which direction Valve takes it soon enough! Just an already happy customer thinking out loud about how Valve could make it even betterer than it already is.