We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics. You can assert there's no chance Christianity would have survived with "trivially falsifiable claims", but that's a straw man that I never said. What shows even that strawman is nothing but your assertion is that you'd have to concede the same about other religions that are as old as, and older than, Christianity, and plenty that are younger, about which the same can be said, but
The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.
So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter. You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof. That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.
Well, if all that's true, then why are all these "wireless HDMI" products dropping real data for compression? Even 802.11g should be able to do 35Mbps.
I'm looking to improve my current setup with something either available now, or right around the corner. It seems to me that at worst an H.264 compression should compress even 10.2Gbps losslessly over WiFi or something like it. But there isn't a product offering that performance, not even vaporware.
So we're both saying effectively the same thing. The disagreements about whether the high end that I say is doable is necessary are immaterial. What's taking so long for anything that deliver all the data we use HD for?
The value is to those who, through faith, guess right. Without which faith no one will guess at all, so no one will be right.
Metaphysical questions are not irrelevant to life, depending on their right answers. The right answers can be extremely valuable, perhaps of paramount value (depending on what they are).
As I said, faith is not to be abused by people without admitting its unreliability. But that kind of probabilistic uncertainty, though not simple or easy, is exactly what life is really like. To deny it is to ignore some of the essence of life.
So you deny that metaphysics is knowledge. What is the answer to the question "does god exist"? Either yes or no, it's knowledge. That cannot be proven. That could be either right or wrong, but is nevertheless knowledge.
Your question was just a troll. Because it's obvious you didn't even read my answer.
If you read it, you'd see that I'm not claiming some exclusive province of "knowing the unknowable" that no one else can know. As I detailed, some knowledge is not provable. It's a class of knowledge that is metaphysical, so it cannot be proven. But it can be known by faith, even if any given faith-derived knowledge is probably wrong. But some probably isn't. And faith is the only way to know it.
Look, if you don't want to know whether there's experience after death, or whether prayers have any delocalized effect, or whether there's a moral behavior code beyond arbitary human constructs, and how any/all of that works (if indeed it does), that's your problem. But don't come to me with empty talk about "educated guesses", when you won't even bother trying to learn something you asked about, by reading my answer to your question.
Especially when even proof depends on principles of falsifiability and consistency, which are themselves articles of faith, as easily revealed when evaluated in their own terms. You're welcome to your own ignorance, but don't pretend that it's somehow knowledge, that you have and I don't.
Fuck you. I posted a tangential joke, some people wanted to argue and even discuss the point rationally, and I had some fun doing all of it. Along the way it seemed some people either learned something (including me, as always when discussing something complex with reasonable strangers), or at least heard something new about something they're interested in.
And some people didn't like it, all of them (including you) uptight dogmatists who think everyone should think and act about religion the way they do.
I like direct confrontation, even when it's strong enough that pussies like you think it's "rabid" just because you're too coward to do it yourself. Nothing I've said is remotely like firebombing a church - that evil scene just popped out of your demented mind. Nothing "militant", "rabid", "bile spewing", or any of the other insane bullshit that actually describes what you are posting, you deranged, self-blind shitard.
If I cared what onlooking religious brainwashees thought about me, the way that evidently tortures you so much, I wouldn't be provoking this stupid conflict over my perfect right to mock the crudely superstitious while seriously discussing what's actually valuable in their oafish dogma. "Look at the atheists fighting, only Jesus can bring peace to pagans like them." But so what? If even a paranoid coward like you can throw distorted angry trolls at me because I dared to both mock blind faith and respect the real thing, then of course I'm perfectly righteous in talking legitimately about the joke that is religion at the expense of the gift that is faith.
I mean, what the fuck are you telling me, anyway? That I shouldn't provoke the brutes with little jokes and some reasoning, without taking any of their shit? Because somehow I'm firebombing a church? That I should keep quiet purely because you yelled at me with a bunch of strawmen and projected images of hysterical attack? You sound like you're trying to be a little voice in my head telling me how to morally conduct myself. I'm not tempted, because you're an obvious joke troll yourself.
Fuck you very much for your generous contribution.
Do you have a 1080p TV? My 2007 50" 1080p DLP looks spectacular, especially with my $500 PS3 (that runs Linux) Blu-Ray. But the PS3 fan is so loud that I'd like to keep it in the office room next door's datacenter, not in the livingroom with a 7.1 HiFi. A $150 cable that can connect only one TV makes me want a $400 wireless link that could maybe serve multiple TVs in my home for just $100 per receiver. And my existing Gb-e LAN makes me think I could get most of the benefits pretty soon, before the wireless is working/affordable.
All of which is just a little evolution away - evolution of HDMI. It looks like there are already some multi-channel 802.11n devices, and some fanless H.264 HW, that could do true wireless networked HDMI, with all its benefits. which puts about 10.2Gbps decompressed pixel data on my 50" screen. That looks a lot better than 35Mbps, or anything else less than actual HDMI. Which, if you've actually watched bigscreen HDMI, you already know.
So I don't consider HDMI/DLP, Gb-e, 802.11n, H.264, most of which I've already sunk a sizeable (but not bankrupting) investment into "buggy whips". Not when millions of others have also done so, when the product lifecycle of the format is at least 7-10 years longer than now, and when there's no reasonable alternative - and when it looks great and is fairly affordable. It's true that always dreaming of the next, more perfect tech is free, and even looks better (in your mind), but it's much harder to watch a movie with a friend that way.
Well, because faith is a way of knowing things that are unknowable otherwise. We know direct experiences (including experience of deduction and other logic) as fact, by proof. We can also know those facts, that can be proven, but have not been personally, by belief (the vast majority of the facts we know). But there is info we cannot prove, no matter how hard we try or lucky we get, which can be known by only faith.
Some of that knowledge that faith alone can offer is some of the most important (depending on the answer). Life after death, omnipotent/omniscient persona, answerable prayers, mandatory consequences of moral behavior, specific prophecies, the nature of soul - all knowable only by faith (as they all require the existence and performance of metaphysical entities or phenomena, which by definition cannot be proven, and perhaps not even experienced, but could still exist). And then there's the big picture, where there seems likely to be more to existence (unlimited by the merely human mind) than to experience (which even science hints with deductions like Godel's incompleteness theorem, and rational philosophy indicates is an experiential incongruence to a larger existence).
Now, I'm all for a minimum of faith. Proof is reliable, belief is less so but workable (or we'd never get anywhere), but faith, though the only way to know metaphysics, is much less reliable. But since even proof and belief indicate there is metaphysics knowable by faith, that minimum is not zero. Unless you think metaphysics is of no interest, perhaps because faith is too unreliable for you to indulge (or perhaps because you're really just denying that some faith you cannot ignore is telling you answers you don't like).
So I appreciate faith's place in the grand scheme (of human life). I also know that we act out of mostly learned behavior, and even our instincts seem likely to favor faith (knowing the "unknowable" can be a survival mechanism, especially if you guessed right), so I respect all kinds of human idiosyncrasies, including faith itself.
I don't respect people who ignore the unreliability of faith, and its proven disastrous consequences when treated as proof (or even mere belief). When people tell others what to do or think because of their own faith, despite the faith (or its lack) of their targets, they've exceeded the reliability of faith. And of course any time faith contests proof, proof must always win (unless you have faith in supernatural con jobs). But faith is powerful, even if it can be treacherous. I refuse to abandon it just because it's risky. I just think anyone who's going to use it should understand its limits, and not play games exaggerating its power in face of stronger proof/belief when available, or just mistaking for faith what is really either mere belief or even just lazy failure to prove.
That attitude lets me know the most, with the least risk (and least risk of ignorance). And it also allows me to accept (some) people who operate (even primarily) on faith.. Some of them through history have done quite a lot to benefit me, even when their faith has (probably) been misplaced - doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, like perhaps some self-sacrifices that protected civilization or preserved useful (or just beautiful and harmless) ancient knowledge. And it lets me distinguish between those who are properly faithful, objectively, and those who are sloppily faithy.
If more people interested in faith evaluated it along these undeniable lines, we'd probably be better at practicing faith without the pitfalls. A little goes a long way, in an infinitesimal inverse proportion.
You're just a coward who's too tolerant towards these superstitious dupes to have a little fun at their expense. I'm not your fellow member of some atheist kumbaya, and I'm not worried about your pious judgement of what I find amusing in mocking the bible. Besides, there's nothing about making a quick joke about the very same subject that the name of the comic mocks, and following it up with serious argument for those who want to argue about it, that makes "the rest of you" look bad. Whining like this makes you look bad: like there's some kind of "atheist agenda" that I'm revealing. I must have missed that revival meeting.
out of all the crystals that are possible to construct mathematically, just one shares these two properties with the diamond. So far, his K4 crystal exists only as a mathematical object. And nobody knows if it exists -- or if it can be synthesized.
Don't those conditions mean that "K4 == diamond"? Unless diamonds are impossible to "construct mathematically", then if there's only one that shares two of diamond's properties, then that one must be diamond.
So I can say that it exists, it can be synthesized, but if your fiancee catches you, you're not as smart as it looks.
No, I said "even the tiniest proof" that the bible isn't a myth is necessary if we were going to argue. But of course the tiniest proof is not sufficient. Proof that a star appeared as described in the bible (even though you offered proof of something unlike what's described as "a star") isn't even proof that the bible is not a myth. You could just as well point at the Earth, which is also mentioned in the bible, or the Egyptian pyramids, or Jerusalem as a whole, or even irrefutable records of a "Mary and Joseph of Egypt, with newborn Jesus of Bethlehem" etc, which obviously don't prove the mythical parts of the bible's story. You know, the miraculous parts (and I'm not talking about whether Jesus' DNA doesn't match Joseph's).
But all that, as I've been saying, is precisely opposite the point of the bible: faith. You fell for it by acting like proof of the myth is important compared to the faith it would destroy.
I can never get enough of faithy people hungering for scientific things like proof that someone rose from the dead, or was both merely human and infinitely divine, in trade for the more valuable faith that such proof would destroy. It's like someone revealed Santa was Dad carelessly to you way back when, and y'all still demand not just the presents, but also the suit and beard, and that he now actually come down the chimney, and not kiss Mommy.
I've got a 1.1ct brilliant cut round diamond with strong flourescence, and a brand new 200mW 532nm (green) laser pointer (and a.25ct diamond of the same shape). What can I do with them that's as fun for me as getting the diamonds was for my wife?
While you won't be able to prove to me tonight that your holding a bible is indeed a fact, that's entirely besides the point.
Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.
I'm not going to get into a long debunking of the bible's "facts". I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether a book about the otherwise undocumented past, that's been the supporting document for people with often unlimited power for millennia, isn't still a myth, even if it's got lots of facts in it. I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths. Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.
What does "proof" have to do with faith? If it was "real", it's one less example of the god the story is about. FWIW, some "paleontologists" have proven that Adam & Eve "walked with dinosaurs". There's even a museum to prove it, too. All of which, again, is just the destruction of ever more faith, the only thing the myth had going for it (except longevity).
Maybe it's just an excuse to make a joke about the bible. Not entirely offtopic in a story about comics that mentions the bible. And even if it is, still fulfilling.
Well, I'd probably get it from the most accessible source, the HDMI output, from my Blu-Ray player or my HD cablebox.
But I have an HDMI TV, and there's no equipment with an HDMI input. So I don't really want a new TV with the decompressor in the set. So given what we've actually got is a setup that could use exactly what I described.
Faith in the bible doesn't require "proof". Supplying proof that it's a myth is possible, but worthless to people who demand it.
What you meant to type, if you're defending on bible terms, is "poof".
What is necessary in an argument about whether the bible's stories of relentless supernatural events as explained by an epoch (or more) of primitive, aggressive and hypocritical people are true is even the tiniest proof that it's not a myth. If you're not impressed by just making stuff up according to voices in your head, that is.
Well, they admit that "video data is encoded using the JPEG2000 video codec". Since they don't claim it's the lossless version (and the compression ratio down from 10.2Gbps would be too high otherwise), it's got to be lossy compression. Which means it's not HDMI.
But I guess it's better than nothing, where the rest of the system is HDMI and wireless is required, and evidently it will interop with the other HDMI links in the signal path. And later, when when someone uses H.264 to compress only 20-30x, they'll have to replace only that link in the path.
That's pretty damn cool. But what it needs is a receiver to connect to the TV that can also do 300Mbps, and decode H.264. Preferably fanless, and hopefully the whole wireless/codec pair is under $800. Seems possible...
Slashdot Mirror
We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics. You can assert there's no chance Christianity would have survived with "trivially falsifiable claims", but that's a straw man that I never said. What shows even that strawman is nothing but your assertion is that you'd have to concede the same about other religions that are as old as, and older than, Christianity, and plenty that are younger, about which the same can be said, but
The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.
So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter. You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof. That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.
Well, if all that's true, then why are all these "wireless HDMI" products dropping real data for compression? Even 802.11g should be able to do 35Mbps.
I'm looking to improve my current setup with something either available now, or right around the corner. It seems to me that at worst an H.264 compression should compress even 10.2Gbps losslessly over WiFi or something like it. But there isn't a product offering that performance, not even vaporware.
So we're both saying effectively the same thing. The disagreements about whether the high end that I say is doable is necessary are immaterial. What's taking so long for anything that deliver all the data we use HD for?
The value is to those who, through faith, guess right. Without which faith no one will guess at all, so no one will be right.
Metaphysical questions are not irrelevant to life, depending on their right answers. The right answers can be extremely valuable, perhaps of paramount value (depending on what they are).
As I said, faith is not to be abused by people without admitting its unreliability. But that kind of probabilistic uncertainty, though not simple or easy, is exactly what life is really like. To deny it is to ignore some of the essence of life.
So you deny that metaphysics is knowledge. What is the answer to the question "does god exist"? Either yes or no, it's knowledge. That cannot be proven. That could be either right or wrong, but is nevertheless knowledge.
Your question was just a troll. Because it's obvious you didn't even read my answer.
If you read it, you'd see that I'm not claiming some exclusive province of "knowing the unknowable" that no one else can know. As I detailed, some knowledge is not provable. It's a class of knowledge that is metaphysical, so it cannot be proven. But it can be known by faith, even if any given faith-derived knowledge is probably wrong. But some probably isn't. And faith is the only way to know it.
Look, if you don't want to know whether there's experience after death, or whether prayers have any delocalized effect, or whether there's a moral behavior code beyond arbitary human constructs, and how any/all of that works (if indeed it does), that's your problem. But don't come to me with empty talk about "educated guesses", when you won't even bother trying to learn something you asked about, by reading my answer to your question.
Especially when even proof depends on principles of falsifiability and consistency, which are themselves articles of faith, as easily revealed when evaluated in their own terms. You're welcome to your own ignorance, but don't pretend that it's somehow knowledge, that you have and I don't.
Its value is irreplaceable, if unreliable.
Fuck you. I posted a tangential joke, some people wanted to argue and even discuss the point rationally, and I had some fun doing all of it. Along the way it seemed some people either learned something (including me, as always when discussing something complex with reasonable strangers), or at least heard something new about something they're interested in.
And some people didn't like it, all of them (including you) uptight dogmatists who think everyone should think and act about religion the way they do.
I like direct confrontation, even when it's strong enough that pussies like you think it's "rabid" just because you're too coward to do it yourself. Nothing I've said is remotely like firebombing a church - that evil scene just popped out of your demented mind. Nothing "militant", "rabid", "bile spewing", or any of the other insane bullshit that actually describes what you are posting, you deranged, self-blind shitard.
If I cared what onlooking religious brainwashees thought about me, the way that evidently tortures you so much, I wouldn't be provoking this stupid conflict over my perfect right to mock the crudely superstitious while seriously discussing what's actually valuable in their oafish dogma. "Look at the atheists fighting, only Jesus can bring peace to pagans like them." But so what? If even a paranoid coward like you can throw distorted angry trolls at me because I dared to both mock blind faith and respect the real thing, then of course I'm perfectly righteous in talking legitimately about the joke that is religion at the expense of the gift that is faith.
I mean, what the fuck are you telling me, anyway? That I shouldn't provoke the brutes with little jokes and some reasoning, without taking any of their shit? Because somehow I'm firebombing a church? That I should keep quiet purely because you yelled at me with a bunch of strawmen and projected images of hysterical attack? You sound like you're trying to be a little voice in my head telling me how to morally conduct myself. I'm not tempted, because you're an obvious joke troll yourself.
Fuck you very much for your generous contribution.
Do you have a 1080p TV? My 2007 50" 1080p DLP looks spectacular, especially with my $500 PS3 (that runs Linux) Blu-Ray. But the PS3 fan is so loud that I'd like to keep it in the office room next door's datacenter, not in the livingroom with a 7.1 HiFi. A $150 cable that can connect only one TV makes me want a $400 wireless link that could maybe serve multiple TVs in my home for just $100 per receiver. And my existing Gb-e LAN makes me think I could get most of the benefits pretty soon, before the wireless is working/affordable.
All of which is just a little evolution away - evolution of HDMI. It looks like there are already some multi-channel 802.11n devices, and some fanless H.264 HW, that could do true wireless networked HDMI, with all its benefits. which puts about 10.2Gbps decompressed pixel data on my 50" screen. That looks a lot better than 35Mbps, or anything else less than actual HDMI. Which, if you've actually watched bigscreen HDMI, you already know.
So I don't consider HDMI/DLP, Gb-e, 802.11n, H.264, most of which I've already sunk a sizeable (but not bankrupting) investment into "buggy whips". Not when millions of others have also done so, when the product lifecycle of the format is at least 7-10 years longer than now, and when there's no reasonable alternative - and when it looks great and is fairly affordable. It's true that always dreaming of the next, more perfect tech is free, and even looks better (in your mind), but it's much harder to watch a movie with a friend that way.
Well, because faith is a way of knowing things that are unknowable otherwise. We know direct experiences (including experience of deduction and other logic) as fact, by proof. We can also know those facts, that can be proven, but have not been personally, by belief (the vast majority of the facts we know). But there is info we cannot prove, no matter how hard we try or lucky we get, which can be known by only faith.
Some of that knowledge that faith alone can offer is some of the most important (depending on the answer). Life after death, omnipotent/omniscient persona, answerable prayers, mandatory consequences of moral behavior, specific prophecies, the nature of soul - all knowable only by faith (as they all require the existence and performance of metaphysical entities or phenomena, which by definition cannot be proven, and perhaps not even experienced, but could still exist). And then there's the big picture, where there seems likely to be more to existence (unlimited by the merely human mind) than to experience (which even science hints with deductions like Godel's incompleteness theorem, and rational philosophy indicates is an experiential incongruence to a larger existence).
Now, I'm all for a minimum of faith. Proof is reliable, belief is less so but workable (or we'd never get anywhere), but faith, though the only way to know metaphysics, is much less reliable. But since even proof and belief indicate there is metaphysics knowable by faith, that minimum is not zero. Unless you think metaphysics is of no interest, perhaps because faith is too unreliable for you to indulge (or perhaps because you're really just denying that some faith you cannot ignore is telling you answers you don't like).
So I appreciate faith's place in the grand scheme (of human life). I also know that we act out of mostly learned behavior, and even our instincts seem likely to favor faith (knowing the "unknowable" can be a survival mechanism, especially if you guessed right), so I respect all kinds of human idiosyncrasies, including faith itself.
I don't respect people who ignore the unreliability of faith, and its proven disastrous consequences when treated as proof (or even mere belief). When people tell others what to do or think because of their own faith, despite the faith (or its lack) of their targets, they've exceeded the reliability of faith. And of course any time faith contests proof, proof must always win (unless you have faith in supernatural con jobs). But faith is powerful, even if it can be treacherous. I refuse to abandon it just because it's risky. I just think anyone who's going to use it should understand its limits, and not play games exaggerating its power in face of stronger proof/belief when available, or just mistaking for faith what is really either mere belief or even just lazy failure to prove.
That attitude lets me know the most, with the least risk (and least risk of ignorance). And it also allows me to accept (some) people who operate (even primarily) on faith.. Some of them through history have done quite a lot to benefit me, even when their faith has (probably) been misplaced - doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, like perhaps some self-sacrifices that protected civilization or preserved useful (or just beautiful and harmless) ancient knowledge. And it lets me distinguish between those who are properly faithful, objectively, and those who are sloppily faithy.
If more people interested in faith evaluated it along these undeniable lines, we'd probably be better at practicing faith without the pitfalls. A little goes a long way, in an infinitesimal inverse proportion.
You're just a coward who's too tolerant towards these superstitious dupes to have a little fun at their expense. I'm not your fellow member of some atheist kumbaya, and I'm not worried about your pious judgement of what I find amusing in mocking the bible. Besides, there's nothing about making a quick joke about the very same subject that the name of the comic mocks, and following it up with serious argument for those who want to argue about it, that makes "the rest of you" look bad. Whining like this makes you look bad: like there's some kind of "atheist agenda" that I'm revealing. I must have missed that revival meeting.
Don't those conditions mean that "K4 == diamond"? Unless diamonds are impossible to "construct mathematically", then if there's only one that shares two of diamond's properties, then that one must be diamond.
So I can say that it exists, it can be synthesized, but if your fiancee catches you, you're not as smart as it looks.
No, I said "even the tiniest proof" that the bible isn't a myth is necessary if we were going to argue. But of course the tiniest proof is not sufficient. Proof that a star appeared as described in the bible (even though you offered proof of something unlike what's described as "a star") isn't even proof that the bible is not a myth. You could just as well point at the Earth, which is also mentioned in the bible, or the Egyptian pyramids, or Jerusalem as a whole, or even irrefutable records of a "Mary and Joseph of Egypt, with newborn Jesus of Bethlehem" etc, which obviously don't prove the mythical parts of the bible's story. You know, the miraculous parts (and I'm not talking about whether Jesus' DNA doesn't match Joseph's).
But all that, as I've been saying, is precisely opposite the point of the bible: faith. You fell for it by acting like proof of the myth is important compared to the faith it would destroy.
I can never get enough of faithy people hungering for scientific things like proof that someone rose from the dead, or was both merely human and infinitely divine, in trade for the more valuable faith that such proof would destroy. It's like someone revealed Santa was Dad carelessly to you way back when, and y'all still demand not just the presents, but also the suit and beard, and that he now actually come down the chimney, and not kiss Mommy.
I've got a 1.1ct brilliant cut round diamond with strong flourescence, and a brand new 200mW 532nm (green) laser pointer (and a .25ct diamond of the same shape). What can I do with them that's as fun for me as getting the diamonds was for my wife?
Getting your joke was done in my first sentence. The rest is for the people with no sense of either humor or faith.
Me and god, we've got an understanding. He doesn't exist, and I don't mind.
While you won't be able to prove to me tonight that your holding a bible is indeed a fact, that's entirely besides the point.
Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.
I'm not going to get into a long debunking of the bible's "facts". I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether a book about the otherwise undocumented past, that's been the supporting document for people with often unlimited power for millennia, isn't still a myth, even if it's got lots of facts in it. I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths. Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.
Save yourself. Concede the argument.
hahahahahaha
What does "proof" have to do with faith? If it was "real", it's one less example of the god the story is about. FWIW, some "paleontologists" have proven that Adam & Eve "walked with dinosaurs". There's even a museum to prove it, too. All of which, again, is just the destruction of ever more faith, the only thing the myth had going for it (except longevity).
Maybe it's just an excuse to make a joke about the bible. Not entirely offtopic in a story about comics that mentions the bible. And even if it is, still fulfilling.
Any time.
OK, how? I hid the cat and I'm rich.
Well, I'd probably get it from the most accessible source, the HDMI output, from my Blu-Ray player or my HD cablebox.
But I have an HDMI TV, and there's no equipment with an HDMI input. So I don't really want a new TV with the decompressor in the set. So given what we've actually got is a setup that could use exactly what I described.
And OTA 1080p with lossy pixels isn't HDMI.
Faith in the bible doesn't require "proof". Supplying proof that it's a myth is possible, but worthless to people who demand it.
What you meant to type, if you're defending on bible terms, is "poof".
What is necessary in an argument about whether the bible's stories of relentless supernatural events as explained by an epoch (or more) of primitive, aggressive and hypocritical people are true is even the tiniest proof that it's not a myth. If you're not impressed by just making stuff up according to voices in your head, that is.
Which is perfect for the bible, because it's a myth.
Well, they admit that "video data is encoded using the JPEG2000 video codec". Since they don't claim it's the lossless version (and the compression ratio down from 10.2Gbps would be too high otherwise), it's got to be lossy compression. Which means it's not HDMI.
But I guess it's better than nothing, where the rest of the system is HDMI and wireless is required, and evidently it will interop with the other HDMI links in the signal path. And later, when when someone uses H.264 to compress only 20-30x, they'll have to replace only that link in the path.
That's pretty damn cool. But what it needs is a receiver to connect to the TV that can also do 300Mbps, and decode H.264. Preferably fanless, and hopefully the whole wireless/codec pair is under $800. Seems possible...
That's not even close to 1080p, which is the 10.2Gbps I mentioned. Or did talking sense go out of order when you posted as an Anonymous Coward?