What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
142 Comments
- Kujila, on 10/12/2007, -10/+139Of course it "doesn't work" it's a fiction novel. That's like saying "Jurassic Park doesn't work; there's no way it could be true!" Well no crap.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -20/+67It is indeed fiction: but the author (Mr. Brown) has claimed that all of the bacground information is true. This is a book with an agenda.
Glad to see it wither under the light of scrutiny!
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/14461099.htm - Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -10/+51Couldn't agree more.
I can't believe HowStuffWorks actually picked it apart like they did.
"GPS tracking devices are larger than a watch battery"...
"The bathrooms in the Louvre have liquid soap, not solid soap.."..
Wow..
Let's not get carried away boys and girls, it ain't real..
Jimzip :D - Kujila, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42"Great Story; Would buy from again! A++++"
- scottauth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33This is Digg.com not Ebay's feedback section.
- stou, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25When the CIA was at my university last week talking about "Careers in Intelligence" I asked the CIA guy if the spy gadgets are built in-house. He said that "its just like Q's workshop, not like a warehouse with random gadgets but you go to the lab and talk to the engineers who build you special single-use devices".... Point being the James Bond gadgets are a bit closer to reality than the da vinci code.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26OMG, next your going to tell me that James Bond's gadgets won't work either!
- Kujila, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24I guess this story is up front since there's cliques of people that are following the Da Vinci Code as if it were a holy text. They actually believe what's written in it. I mean, hell, that's worse than Scientology.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22But the Catholic Church doesnt have anything against James Bond :-P
- KhadBanks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23LIQUID SOAP IS THAT OF SATAN!!!
- stou, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30Thats excellent, I hated the way that book was written precisely because the author tries to impress you with his detailed descriptions of paths taken and street layouts... and him not knowing the louvre has liquid soap.
- EnderW, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19You mean maybe I've been worrying about those poor people on Gilligan's island for nothing.
- pmr12002, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18The Problem with the book is that people tend to take it as fact when indeed it isn't
- zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13A movie is not accurate to real life? WHEW.. good thing this article got written.. should clear up a lot of things for teenagers and younger children.
- thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Ok, I haven't finshed reading it yet, but the first two pages are completely asinine observations. It seems like Howstuffworks is working on the assumption that everything in the book ACTUALLY happened. So what if the restroom in that wing doesn't have a window? So what if it is actually stocked with liquid soap instead of bars?
- WailOS, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25Dan Brown prefaces his entire book on hokum he's picked up from other, better books. The Priory of Sion is not real. His entire emphasis on "Female" spirituality is lifted directly from feminist literary theory seeking to politicize religion. The things he lifts from Nag Hammadi texts are just out and out lies by omission. When you're quoting from sources where pages at a time are missing, or in many cases more than 50% of the words are indecipherable it's utterly asinine to try and pretend like you have an authoritative reading of the text. (Go try to read them yourself: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlcodex.html).
I took a few religion courses in my day, yet even I was able to see glaring flaws in Dan Brown's book. An undergraduate in college shouldn't be able to solve all of the puzzles of some two-millenia-spanning conspiracy, yet I was able to because Dan Brown is a hack who only draws on other people's work and has no knowledge of religious studies beyond his reading of [much better] conspiratorial works. - JoeCoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I agree that some of the points raised were rather pedantic, but the historical section on the second page was pretty interesting. Perhaps the digg crowd as a whole is more analytic and less prone to believe a work of fiction as truth.
- GaurdianDevil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15who cares?
it was a good book - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15This from the site that has a detailed explanation of how Light Sabers work... http://www.howstuffworks.com/lightsaber.htm
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24Not sure why I don't care about this Da Vinci Code crap.
I think its because its crap based on crap, probably why...... - quincymd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Surely Dan Brown would've visited the Louvre at some point just to see the Mona Lisa.
I'm surprised he didn't notice the liquid soap in the toilet...unless...::penny drops:: Good god, he doesn't wash his hands. - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So wait, when they categorized it under fiction they were being serious?!?
- chrisc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Point and case."
Point IN case.
I hate it when people use cliches, but it's even worse when they completely butcher it. (Like "for all intensive purposes" should be "for all intents AND purposes".) - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Exactly. I've heard priests who give tours to abbeys and gothic churches on TV who are tearing their hair out when people question them concerning the DaVinci Code. One priest said "I wish I had never hear of that book." People come and question them as if the book was fact--a work of non-fiction..
- stevester, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I'm finding it very annoying how the world is reacting to the book and movie. I don't find it appealing because it threatens Christianity, I find it appealing because it is a well written fiction book.
- TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think they went at it like a crew of Myth Busters and just ripped it to shreads for fun.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's a problem for me. I don't like people trying to backdoor the truth using fiction.
- stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I can’t help remembering how, after The Blair Witch Project, some people (quite a few actually) were discussing the film as though it’s events really happened. They were desperately searching around the internet, trying to research the facts of the case, in spite of a clear statement in the film that the story is entirely fiction. The hysteria went on for several months.
Downside of a media saturated culture: If something only seems real, that’s often enough for many people to believe in. Historical Fiction is especially problematic, because people with limited literary and historical perspective will often fail to distinguish the fictitious story from its real historical setting, embracing the entire piece as actual history, and then having true facts from the piece to argue the reality of its fiction with. - ViceVirtue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Funny how these days you don't need to believe in the Bible to call yourself a Christian.
Fact is, so many people take The Da Vinci Code as fact rather than fiction. It doesn't help that the Church dignifies that idea by calling for a ban. (morons...) - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How about this disclaimer?
"A lightsaber is not a toy! Keep it out of reach of children at all times. Lightsaber locks are required in most states."
They have a sense of humor. - offcenter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think this proves conclusively that the only _Bad_ publicity is _No_ publicity.
...Although I must say I'm not holding my breath for Brown to write, or Hanks to star in, a movie that contradicts the tenets of Islam. - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7That disclaimer is relatively new. It wasn't there when the article first appeared. Besides, I'm not trying to discredit them so much as point out that it is equally absurd (with the disclaimer or not).
- chesterjosiah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Many Christians fear that this book will be misinterpreted as something the author believes to be true, not just some work of fiction. This is surely motivation for some of the proofs against the book.
- TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I keep telling people its bad luck to be superstitious.
Some actually believe me. - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7HowStuffWorks would know, wouldn't they!
- gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7and, Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four isn't representative of all female 24-yr old senior corporate executives in the US ;)
- jay314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Are you sure you guys aren't trying to use the term "case in point"?
- cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@Kujila: "Of course it "doesn't work" it's a fiction novel."
Someone else may have pointed this out to you, but next time you have the Da Vinci Code in your hands, crack it open, and read the introduction, stating how all the facts and references in the book are accurate. There is a goofball notion that a "fiction" novel that proclaims to have its facts straight shouldn't be held accountable for its research on those facts. If the book had started out with no such statement, I doubt anyone would care, but part of its mystique is that it is based on a number of real things. He claims at the beginning that the descriptions of paintings, secret societies, and historical documents are all true, even though the book itself is a work of fiction.
In "Digital Fortress", Dan Brown's character "Jabba" gives his distinction between a "virus" and a "worm". If that definition was wrong, and book was wildly popular, HowStuffWorks would do well to note that Brown got it "wrong" there as well.
Brown's characters throw around a lot of fast and loose things that are excellent topics for discussion, but would benefit from using a book like this as a launching point. Have you ever read through a fictional story that was annotated for all its references to real world things? That's what this book is all about.
Get a grip people. Allow people to jumpstart real learning without getting a stick up your butts about defending fiction. - Cybert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's fiction about fiction! That's all you need to know. Don't take myths too seriously.
- Kujila, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"I think we can all agree that Jesus is the person portrayed in the Mona Lisa. Also, there is a marriage certificate on the back of the Mona Lisa, proving that Jesus was a gay transsexual man who married five men, a woman, and a few ground squirrels."
"OMG it's so true, hurry make a movie" - dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does that mean that if they were trying to prove it right, then they would really be hiding something wrong?
Oh my gosh...I've gone cross-eyed. - booberry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So, if my hypothesis is correct...Mona Lisa was rumored to be a painting of Jesus.....The Mona Lisa is courtesy of NASA......
So this means Jesus walked on the moon....good now im up to speed. - d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I just think its humorous.
- xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All I can say is that the author of this book got exactly what he wanted, A BUNCH OF FREE PUBLICITY!! How many authors would love for their work of fiction to be partially accpted as fact and then bashed across the media...
Where is the public outcry about Dianetics? It created a religon off of someones imagination for (add whatever deity you believe in here) sakes. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those who find it too difficult to click and actually READ the article, before lighting into for having the audacity to pick at a "fictional" book for its "facts":
From the Article: "It's a work of fiction, but it presents itself as based in fact, and many critics have raised questions about whether those facts are accurate. It's no secret that the HowStuffWorks staff likes to take things apart and see what makes them tick. Some of us are also the kind of sticklers who point out science and technology mistakes in TV shows and movies, much to the chagrin of the people listening. But when we heard about the controversy surrounding "The Da Vinci Code," we couldn't resist picking it apart." - HowStuffWorks.com
Skeptic Magazine, which takes on a number of things note many of the same issues. People who like Da Vinci Code might find many of the topics, like fibonacci sequence and its appearance in nature... very interesting. This article puts it very well:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Shermer/E-Skeptic/DaVinciCode.html
"Ordinarily, reviewing fiction doesn't come under the purview of Skeptic Magazine. However, like The Exorcist in the 1970s, The Da Vinci Code has become so popular (it has for weeks been number one on the New York Times bestseller list) that the mythic elements within it have given energy to a set of beliefs about the real world, beliefs that do fall under the scope of skeptical investigation." - RareSaturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Coming soon...the socking revelation that Star Wars is fake, and The Lord of the Rings is not real history. Geez get a grip, it's just a book!!
- PrayerNeeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jay actually got it right.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cas1.htm
Regarding the Adam and Eve thing: Either it happened or it didn't. There is plenty of testimony to hear from either side of the debate. It comes down to who (or Who) you want to hear. The Creation of Adam and Eve isn't scientifically less provable than the Big Bang theory. Whether one agrees with Darwin or not, he, and his grampa and Kant and Maupertuis did propose, or advance the proposal of a common ancestor. Either multitudes of humans independently evolved with the similar features from many different (apes, chimps, neandertals, cro-magnons...whatever) yet mintaining enough similar genetic material to propogate as a single species, or humans have one common human ancestral pair. Who may safely enough be called Adam and Eve, unless they left photo identification proving that their names are different.
What of the story about how every bit of matter in the universe (or multitude of universes) was compacted at one time to a point smaller than a golf ball? Why is that less incredible than the idea of a Creator? - grapfx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3they should change the name of their website from entertainment.howstuffworks.com to toomuchtimeontheirhands.com
- smilingman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Many people erroneously take this book as fact, (and contrary to what many people have claimed, Dan Brown does claim that his underlying theories are true). The article systematically dismantles those misconceptions. This isn't much different than Mythbusters proving you can't save yourself in a falling elevator or a scholar debunking a piece of faulty research.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If I had a dime for every time someone had enough time on their hands to prove to everybody that something is fiction, while only really proving it to themselves, I would be wondering "Where the hell are all these dimes coming from?"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is