CalBoy
Apr 22, 10:41 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything actually.
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
cmcconkey
Jul 12, 12:15 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
skunk
Mar 27, 08:51 AM
That's obviously ad hominem.Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:30 AM
Shame on you, Apple. Corporate greed wins again - so what else is new?
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
Designer Dale
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
I don't have an iPhone, but I do have an iPod Touch. My wife has an Android phone. I can't use her phone well but I feel I could use an iPhone with zero learning curve just because everything is so consistent across Apple mobile devices. That's what I like about Apple devices. No big surprises.
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Dale
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Dale
BruiserBear
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 09:19 PM
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
well let it be the Mods to merge them ... why tell someone to post in an old thread that died and tell them not to post in this thread?
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
well let it be the Mods to merge them ... why tell someone to post in an old thread that died and tell them not to post in this thread?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
DeathChill
Apr 21, 07:53 AM
Ouch, it must really have hurt Apple that Android *smartphones* outsold all Apple iOS *devices* worldwide in Q1 (40 million Android smartphones compared to 32 million iOS devices). So they now are making again strange comparisons that only cover *one* market and *phones* vs. *devices.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
AppliedVisual
Nov 1, 06:35 PM
Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:41 AM
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
2ndPath
Sep 26, 03:13 AM
I wonder whether Apple will keep the two Woodcrest quad-core configuration, or whether they introduce a new single CPU quad-core one for the new low end. When Apple switched to the dual-core G5, they replaced the dual CPU lower end systems by single CPU dual-core systems, which was suspected to reduce the building cost of the system.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
Swift
Mar 18, 03:44 PM
DRM is a big, fat target for every hacker in the world. I doubt very much it will ever be perfect. It can't be. It would be easy to encrypt music so badly that you couldn't play it. To allow legit users to listen to it means the key is already there. The hacker just finds it.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 01:40 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing........
That is not the way it's done. One does not asign threads to cores. What yu do is crate threads and let the operating system shedle cores to "ready" threads
That is not the way it's done. One does not asign threads to cores. What yu do is crate threads and let the operating system shedle cores to "ready" threads
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
ThunderSkunk
May 5, 05:51 PM
Well I just came across this in the local paper:
Samsung Seek Blue
Deimo
Jul 11, 11:19 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
ZenoVT
May 8, 03:41 PM
I live in manhattan and the call failed frequency is soo great that if I'm connected to wifi, you bet I'm using skype to make my calls. I hate when I'm on hold with a company going through those annoying labyrinth of an automated they set up to tie us in a loop, and when i finally get a hold of a representative I get a Call Failed error on my iPhone.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 08:20 PM
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.Doubtful. What I'm hoping for is a base of two 1GB sticks, losing the two 512 sticks as you say they should end selling with this update. An 8-core Mac Pro would not run very well with only 1GB of slower RAM. I believe an 8-core Mac is going to want 8GB of RAM to run properly but I imagine 4GB would be enough for fairly decent operation. Depends on your apps. The ones I like to run don't use much RAM at all.
winmacguy
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
speedriff
Feb 17, 06:51 AM
So what is your job at Apple? The problem with Apple (trust me I love their products) is that they don't care what their customers want concerning wireless products. They seem to only change when they might lose marketshare. If you call that good business then I suggest a history lesson of Japanese business practices. They see a company that is succsessful but isn't giving customers what they want, they fill that demand and walk away (eventually) with all the marketshare. One only has to look at Cars, motorcycles, televisions etc. to see it. I am starting to think Steve Jobs is a douche for more reasons than flash. I am always reading articles about him having a little tantrum and banning this or that because someone made him mad. Grow up Steve and give your LOYAL customers what they want or we will go elsewhere when a viable alternative arrives. Don't fall into the, "The bigger they are the harder they fall" category. As for Flash, it may be a little buggy so let me download it at me own risk. Sorry, but Flash is everywhere and I am tired of not being able to view it. Someday that won't be the case but until then...let me have it. I'm going to spend $800 on an iPad when I can't view Flash content? Really? Sorry, not me. I will just stick with my trusty notebook.:apple:
Surely
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
