gnasher729
Oct 28, 01:19 PM
Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
mward333
Apr 15, 10:26 AM
Everybody deserves love and respect--it seems to me that this project is supportive of this notion. Very cool indeed.
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 03:07 PM
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:27 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
nimbusthegreat
May 6, 12:40 AM
ever since switching to sh&t when i bought the original iphone, i've had problems. it seems to get worse with each passing day. in the last month i've spent over 10 hours on the phone with sh&t trying to get this fixed to no avail. i love my iphone but HATE:mad: the network it's on.
CylonGlitch
Mar 18, 09:55 AM
Those of you who are so upset over this, please, get a lawyer, and start a class action lawsuit. Let's get this matter settled, should we, or should we not be allowed to use our data any way we want?
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
I'm not a lawyer, but I do think we should be allowed to use our data how we want. If you're on the 2GB plan, who cares if you use 2GB tethering or 2GB of emails, you should be allowed to use it any way you want.
With an unlimited plan, yeah, there needs to be something in place because truly unlimited just bring out a few a-holes who abuse it and makes life miserable for everyone.
Still; let a judge decide, get this going and see who finally wins. Best case, AT&T loses and we get tethering for our data plans. Worst case, AT&T offers no unlimited plans anymore and at the end of every contract EVERYONE has to get off, and you still have to pay for tethering. I'm guessing we'll see something in the middle. You can stay on unlimited, but are not allowed to tether, or you can move to a capped plan (2gb, 4gb, etc..) but can use it any way you want.
Go for it, make it happen, let's get it settled!
pkson
Apr 21, 08:44 PM
....yeah the anti-virus software that I don't use.
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
It's a clever marketing ploy.
OH MY GOD MY TEH PC COULD GET HAXORED?!?!!@2/22?
I CAN HAZ NORTON ANTI-VIRUS!?34@
OMNONNOMNNONOMNONOM
I didn't know you were still here.
So all those people telling you that stealing is bad and everything just flew over your head, eh?
And you post rubbish like... well like your post?
I don't know much about you, but whatever you do in the future (or maybe now) when people steal stuff from you, I'm sure you would be OK... or is that considered bad because you're not as rich as Kanye?
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
mdntcallr
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
While this certainly is a nice interface to a entertainment system.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:38 AM
Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
carfac
Sep 12, 06:55 PM
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
campingsk8er
May 2, 09:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Apple OC
Apr 22, 11:13 PM
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
the mind can play many illusionist tricks ... even the most faithful does not "know" for sure
the mind can play many illusionist tricks ... even the most faithful does not "know" for sure
gatearray
Apr 20, 05:25 PM
"Few customers want to be a system's integrator."
ZING!!!
ZING!!!
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:29 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
Nor did that poster go to the U.N because his followers are being persecuted for persecuting others.
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
Nor did that poster go to the U.N because his followers are being persecuted for persecuting others.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
teasphere
Apr 13, 09:22 AM
The product looks good for what it is, and I read most of the comments here... while I'm not a video guy I am an artist and IT professional and I do have to agree that Apple is strangely moving away from the core pro market that was very loyal. I have seen more and more artists move back to PCs lately and even though I have been moving the other direction, I can't fully blame them.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
I know Apple has a plan and they stick to their guns, but I just think they may be shooting themselves in the foot by going so fully consumer market. Avid has a lot more as far as hardcore features and scalability. Apple has basically dropped their server line and they are on a path of dumbing down many apps to fit a more iPad/App market. They are still powerful and "pro" apps but much of the scalability and truly "pro" features seem to be dwindling day by day. That's my concern.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
Mikael
Jul 12, 03:42 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
gnasher729
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
0 comments:
Post a Comment