Actually in my town I was lucky enough to find a shop that sells older chips & parts...
I got 10 8086's, a 80186 (AMD I think), an 80286... They also have: 8259A (old interrupt chip iirc), 680x0, 6888x, 256KB SIMM chips... it's like a computer collector's paradise:)
There may very well be one where you're at and about say $1/chip isn't too bad!!
Actually from what I read from one of my professor's books (Dr. Lipovski is his name and it's his EE345L class at UT Austin), Intel and TI worked on a microcomputer for Datapoint Corp. The system was a horribly slow so TI backed out (keeping some patents on it though), Datapoint got burned & gave up on it too, but Intel was newer then (around 1970 iirc) so they couldn't afford to scrap the idea. The thing eventually sold, with the 4004 processor and today we have P4's. So more than just "did some things right" they got lucky!
AMD began in 1969 (I cooped there one semester last year, so I know it's 1969) and have become leaders in Flash memory technology and also pretty well ranked with embedded processors. So while the K5/K6/Athlon/Hammer lines are well known among many, AMD isn't stuck with just that, nor are they likely to go out of business if Intel starts slashing prices insanely.
OOPS! You're right it is Carbon (and yes, I did know that already), and I was thinking write Carbon and not Cocoa at the time, yet I still missed that. Thanks for catching that one:)
I ramble at times, so if this doesn't sound 100% coherent, don't worry, it's not you:)
Well I meant actually running DOS 1.0 exe's, not just having support for them, because even if Windows doesn't have the code in place for that, you could write a frontend or something for them anyways.
In my understanding the x86 boot process involves running BIOS code to get started, then look at the MBR for the OS's bootstrap code, and run that code, which every OS must go thru. This of course means having 16bit non-protected mode code that puts the OS in 32bit protected mode (in most OSes I would think) and from there has no ties to 16bit code and such, if the user doesn't run old legacy apps.
Oh, there's no way I want to do away with AH/AL and all the other 8bit regs, that would make work on simple char variables a bit harder and I've programmed on the Motorola 6812 so I know all about 8 bit regs and their importance. I'm talking about phasing out the hated v8086, segmentation, etc, etc... stuff eventually.
One other thing I was thinking of is if you phase out certain less used x86 features on newer processors running @ X GHz, then writing an emulator to run the code would still run with not much modification and still be the equivalent of say 200-400MHz (well beyond what a lot of old DOS and Win 3.x type apps need anyways)... So really I don't see that as too much of a problem (unlike the iTanic, er Itanium:)
OK, I'm done rambling go about your normal lives:)
(1) What percentage of people ran (still run) DOS 1.0 exe's on a Pentium or even a 486?... Obviously not many, so it's there as more of a "just in case" feature. (I'm not arguing with you, your point is well taken, just pointing out something that I think the x86 market *should* do eventually)
(2) Map a 400GB HD 6 ways... Oh how much I await 20GB SSDs being standard on a PC! No more mechanical HDs!!
(3) Well I'm no Amiga guru, but I am a Mac enthusiast (in addition to my Duron 750, I run a G3 500 iBook hehe)... Anyways, you'll notice that Apple made FAT binaries to support the 68k -> PPC transition, and they did the whole Cocoa thing to deal with the OS 8/9 -> OS X transition... all in all a smart move I believe.
(4) What in the world am I rambling about? Well my idea is this:
*DO NOT* get rid of x86 completely for the next few decades... *INSTEAD* you slowly fade out old legacy parts of x86 until you have a hybrid x86, where you don't have the v8086 mode, nor 16bit mode (if people run win3.x there will still be AthlonXP's for them to use, more than enough for win3.x), nor certain other outdated features. That way you remove extra hardware that *most* people don't use, cut some design costs and still have compatibility with all the latest and greatest software.
(Yes, I realize that some people do use x86 for embedded solutions, but they can easily grab a 68xx, 68k, ARM, M-Core or embedded 386/486 processor and not worry about it)
I don't mean this to sound like I'm complaining, nor that I have all the answers... in fact for anyone taking the time to read this, I'd like to hear some feedback on ups and downs people see in this.
I have no pity for those deliberately making & sending out virii... I say if they're legal send the FBI to their door right away and if they're not, fine their parents heavily.
Now of course I haven't been hit with a virus this year, and even if I am, I always have my iBook with OS X on it to use while I clean out any of my infected systems, but I still have no pity for those sending out virii getting what's coming to em from the FBI!
Microsoft has been pretty much pro-Intel for quite a number of years, they haven't really made huge efforts to support other CPU makers and other architectures (NOTE: I said huge efforts, I don't consider WinNT for Alpha huge), so getting MS to use a *REAL* CPU like a sledgehammer will take some doing!
The unfortunate truth (unfortunate for him, where he is now I mean):
"he was actually an opponent of the idea"... more like he *still is*.
"advocated the "steady state" theory"... not any more, now I'm sure he advocates the Bible.
"He also believed that life didn't start on Earth"... again: not anymore.
and I'm not trying to joke around either, I grieve for him, however, he chose his path and the consequences of it and that cannot change for all eternity.
Well I don't want to restate what the other 3 comments so far have said, but if I do *oops*.
My numbering of the points isn't me being angry, it's just how I organize my thoughts:)
(1) regarding the 1st & 2nd paragraph: couldn't have stated it better than the other people... you must have been asleep the past couple of years. Only reason K6's didn't kick Celerons in FPU was their FPU wasn't pipelined, the Athlon line fixed that.
(2) 'exploiting mexican workers' -- really? I seriously hadn't heard that, I'd sure like to see an URL to a *trustworthy* website regarding this, else sounds like you've gone too far on blowing steam.
(3) Ok, I'll admit it, I'm an EE major who cooped at AMD for a semester, I believe in them very much. And well, while I can't give you specifics because of NDA's, frankly, I'm 100% sure AMD is ahead of Intel in the CPU market.
(4) regarding the 3rd paragraphs: that pertains to x86 in general, *NOT* AMD specifically, which is where your rant was going, try to stay on topic.
(5) Of course AMD has reaped the benefits of x86, so have several other companies... Intel, Cyrix, Rise, Transmeta, VIA, Asus, Epox, MSI, etc, etc, etc. It's got marketing power, even though it is ancient in computing terms.
(6) In case you missed AMD's move to befriend the hacker community: http://www.x86-64.org -- software version of their hammer family line, so the hacker community can make 64bit x86 Linux, FreeBSD, etc, etc.
(7) Unfortunately most large corporations are 'faceless', you get big enough and you can't be "mom and pop" to everyone. Just like presidential elections... can't expect the candidates to meet and talk to 275 million (or so) Americans individually in the course of a couple of years, not going to happen. 2 years is: 63,072,000 seconds, or 0.229 secs/person. Now consider AMD serving ~6 billion people...
(8) Oh, and all that about AMD coming out with stuff a year behind Intel... That's nonsense! AMD may have trailed in the past, but they're keeping up pretty well now, and even without supporting SSE/SSE2 yet on duron & so forth, they still manage to kick butt in most arenas, including gaming. Not to mention, Intel created x86, MMX, SSE/SSE2... AMD licensed such technologies, so were they supposed to release that stuff *BEFORE* intel? But on AMD's behalf, they are the ones creating the x86-64 (aka - AA64, see www.sandpile.org) architecture, which Transmeta wants to use, so they'll come out ahead in that arena, while Intel tries to push Itanium (*yawn*).
The article mentions that one of these toys is under construction down the road at UT. I can see I'm going to have to be extra nice to my lapsed contacts in the CS department!
CS people have one? That's soooooo not right! needs to go in the EE building... I mean there's already that *GIANT* capacitor in there, why not a giant screen?:)
that's kewl that there's an hc11 and hc12 port now, since those are some nice little microcontrollers... i wonder how easy/hard it would be to port it to other hc## chips, anyone know? i mean would it be just a matter of using the hc11 or 12 port as a template and swapping a few opcode names & values and recompiling? (since i've never gone as far as constructing a full fledged compiler, just some simpler parsers).
So because we share similar genomes and DNA with certain species & such, Darwin is true and we have a common ancestor? Or is it that we have a common DESIGNER? If you were God (not that any of us are, but just suppose for a second), would it make more sense to design things with common links or have all life and matter be made of totally different atoms, molecules, DNA, genomes, etc, etc? Darwin has not been proven, rather it has gained momentum among so-called scientists who gain power and prestige from it
As far as theories go... not really. Theories are hypothesis with insufficient evidence to be laws... What do I mean? Theories have a few pieces of 'evidence' that support it, but not SUFFICIENT 'evidence' for it to be a law. It may be considered law by some, but that doesn't make it law. A truth table for boolean AND is what I would call a law... You take FALSE AND FALSE and you always get FALSE, you take TRUE AND FALSE you still get FALSE, you take TRUE AND TRUE you get TRUE, and that's it. Darwinism: you take observations of
And one last item, why do you seem to believe the Bible and science are mutally exclusive? There are biological, geographical, astronomical facts stated in the Bible long before any scientists of the past millenia ever discovered them. And there's nothing to show that Ancient Egyptians or other ancient cultures had such knowledge, so where did this information come from? Certainly not the scientific process among peoples of the time
I'm saying to assume we can wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods in our own eyes... anything you put above God is a god (note the little 'g')... cars, houses, money, a lover, a pet, you name it... that doesn't mean they become God and have the power to control the science of the universe, we're talking egos.
1st question: Would you agree with me that God is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent (everywhere simultaneously) ?
2nd question: If you agree to the 1st question, couldn't God have made 100% certain that the exact words He wanted in the Bible were there and that language supported such concepts? and if not, why is He not and what scripture supports this claim?
If you support these questions, it becomes easy to see that He wanted the word "yohm" because it would express a literal day and therefore one week (minus the one day He rested from His labors) for creation of the universe.
And further, if God is all powerful, how could it be impossible for Him to create the universe in 6 days? If He created billions or trillions (or more?) of stars, made man from dust, fortold over 300 prophecies of Jesus and all of them were fulfilled, is it infeasible that He can do exactly what the wording says He did? Or is what the Bible records of God inaccurate and therefore false, and the very God we believe in doesn't exist, or at least isn't the God the Bible records. The Bible is one cohesive work, you pull out one thread it collapses. But since there are Christian Evidences and not one PROVEN contradiction in the Bible in 1000's of years, I lean towards the exact record given.
yes science is a puzzle, which man is always trying to piece together. but i'm not saying "these scientific FACTS don't fit", i'm saying "these scientific THEORIES don't fit"... I want true, verified science, not Darwin angered over religion deciding to try and anger religious officials, with a *FEW* observations (few as in even 200 years of observations each and every day is still few in the grand scheme of things, let alone the lesser number of years Darwin spent on it). And considering big bang is a NEW totally unverified concept (and don't tell me THEORIES are true & verified, they're not) too, I'll gladly take creationism with an innumerable number of evidences all around.
Once again, that is to deny God. The Bible clearly states there will be people alive when God returns, so for man to assume we can completely wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods.
I still argue that I am superior to animals and plantlife and soil, etc, etc... I take into account the human soul that is God-given (again if you deny God, you could believe otherwise)... no other lifeform, nor any matter has that, so whether I depend on it or not, I am in fact superior to it in that fashion. That does not make me superior to other humans or God, of course, because I am equal to other humans and God is still superior to me. Nevertheless, I still contend I am superior to anything non-human.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The reason He doesn't open His mouth to anyone thru miracles, revelations, prophecies, etc, etc is that He has already done so. I've personally never seen a person raised from the dead, however, John 11 already showed that, and if I have proof that the Bible is true (which I do, things call Christian Evidences), then I don't need to see someone raised from the dead.
the truth, shown by science.
I think we will both agree (or at least should), that science is NEVER in error. However, THEORIES and HYPOTHESIS can be and many times ARE wrong. Also, no one started believing the scriptures 2000 years ago, they started to believe it about 6000 to 10,000 years ago.
The Hebrew word for 'day' in Gensis there is pronounced "yowm" and means a LITERAL 24 HOUR DAY
I would ask you to recall from English class, what a simile is... a comparison using 'like' or 'as'. The Bible says "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Pet. 3:8)... note: "*AS* a 1000 years".
i believe in dinos, sure. but akin to what misfit said, i don't believe evolution & the big bang...
(1) they calculated the chances of the big bang and all to be like 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000... i personally think those odds to be utterly ridiculous AND impossible
(2) WHICH theory of evolutionn do you believe? you do know there are over 100 of them right?
(3) as far as the "et al" type stuff... billions of years, come on, they use carbon & uranium dating IN A LAB setting, you can't use that process for something that has existed IN NATURE for however many 100's or 1000's of years, because you have ***NO*** means of observation over all those years
(4) there was a FOSSILIZED cowboy boot found in Texas (i believe it was in TX)... and unless "scientific" theories say cowboys existed billions of years ago, hrmm, guess that blows that theory
(5) scientists have talked about the different ages of layers of soil on the earth (almost like rings on a tree show its age), yet for the billions of years they estimate, they can't seem to explain why LARGE sections of lands (we're talking many acres) in Texas have 3 such layers INVERTED as though someone removed them, flipped them, and put them back. Accident or design? (i think you could guess my vote
So while you don't have to believe Creationism, those of us who do, aren't duped by the masses of religious zealots into believing it, we make every effort to consider *ALL* the evidence and come to our own conclusions.
well if you deny God's existence you could believe that. However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth. So while I don't plan to try and make everything extinct or make the earth totally toxic, I'm still superior to my dog and to any other wildlife I see (not to mention plants, soil, etc, etc).
there is a such thing as "frivolous lawsuits"... the courts outta tell them... "Get off it, go make your overpriced junk (RDRAM that is) better so you can sell more and stop taking advantage of everyone else!"
well that depends... it's not an all new instruction set like the Itanium, it still has mov, push, pop, movsx, movzx,... but it extended them, if you want to know more, click the "x86-64" link on www.sandpile.org . Hope that helps:)
As to the new core, it's certainly not the K5, and the K6's FPU wasn't pipelined, so it's certainly not that one either, so either it's athlon based, or completely new... With the fact it's got 16 new GPR's (again, see sandpile for details) and they're all 64bits, I'm thinking it's gonna be a new core...
ok, so i didn't say x86-64 or even AA64 applications, but I think you can tell where I'm going, trying to be technical here isn't gonna win you points in my book... I know that there's 64bit Alpha chips out there, 128bit Sun chips, etc, etc, etc, but I'm talking about 64bit apps for x86! And yeah, I know it takes just a recompilation to make a 32bit app 64bits unless it's pure asm with things like:
mov eax, [blah]
vs.
mov rax, [blah];; see www.sandpile.org
but i'm talking kernel wise... and my guess is that MOST kernels for today's well known desktop/workstation/server/etc OSes don't use pure C/C++, or if they do, they *WILL* lose some needed speed that only comes from assembler (regardless of the level of compiler optimization today)!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually in my town I was lucky enough to find a shop that sells older chips & parts...
I got 10 8086's, a 80186 (AMD I think), an 80286... They also have: 8259A (old interrupt chip iirc), 680x0, 6888x, 256KB SIMM chips... it's like a computer collector's paradise :)
There may very well be one where you're at and about say $1/chip isn't too bad!!
Actually from what I read from one of my professor's books (Dr. Lipovski is his name and it's his EE345L class at UT Austin), Intel and TI worked on a microcomputer for Datapoint Corp. The system was a horribly slow so TI backed out (keeping some patents on it though), Datapoint got burned & gave up on it too, but Intel was newer then (around 1970 iirc) so they couldn't afford to scrap the idea. The thing eventually sold, with the 4004 processor and today we have P4's. So more than just "did some things right" they got lucky!
AMD began in 1969 (I cooped there one semester last year, so I know it's 1969) and have become leaders in Flash memory technology and also pretty well ranked with embedded processors. So while the K5/K6/Athlon/Hammer lines are well known among many, AMD isn't stuck with just that, nor are they likely to go out of business if Intel starts slashing prices insanely.
OOPS! You're right it is Carbon (and yes, I did know that already), and I was thinking write Carbon and not Cocoa at the time, yet I still missed that. Thanks for catching that one :)
I ramble at times, so if this doesn't sound 100% coherent, don't worry, it's not you :)
Well I meant actually running DOS 1.0 exe's, not just having support for them, because even if Windows doesn't have the code in place for that, you could write a frontend or something for them anyways.
In my understanding the x86 boot process involves running BIOS code to get started, then look at the MBR for the OS's bootstrap code, and run that code, which every OS must go thru. This of course means having 16bit non-protected mode code that puts the OS in 32bit protected mode (in most OSes I would think) and from there has no ties to 16bit code and such, if the user doesn't run old legacy apps.
Oh, there's no way I want to do away with AH/AL and all the other 8bit regs, that would make work on simple char variables a bit harder and I've programmed on the Motorola 6812 so I know all about 8 bit regs and their importance. I'm talking about phasing out the hated v8086, segmentation, etc, etc... stuff eventually.
One other thing I was thinking of is if you phase out certain less used x86 features on newer processors running @ X GHz, then writing an emulator to run the code would still run with not much modification and still be the equivalent of say 200-400MHz (well beyond what a lot of old DOS and Win 3.x type apps need anyways)... So really I don't see that as too much of a problem (unlike the iTanic, er Itanium :)
OK, I'm done rambling go about your normal lives :)
(1) What percentage of people ran (still run) DOS 1.0 exe's on a Pentium or even a 486? ... Obviously not many, so it's there as more of a "just in case" feature. (I'm not arguing with you, your point is well taken, just pointing out something that I think the x86 market *should* do eventually)
(2) Map a 400GB HD 6 ways... Oh how much I await 20GB SSDs being standard on a PC! No more mechanical HDs!!
(3) Well I'm no Amiga guru, but I am a Mac enthusiast (in addition to my Duron 750, I run a G3 500 iBook hehe)... Anyways, you'll notice that Apple made FAT binaries to support the 68k -> PPC transition, and they did the whole Cocoa thing to deal with the OS 8/9 -> OS X transition... all in all a smart move I believe.
(4) What in the world am I rambling about? Well my idea is this:
*DO NOT* get rid of x86 completely for the next few decades... *INSTEAD* you slowly fade out old legacy parts of x86 until you have a hybrid x86, where you don't have the v8086 mode, nor 16bit mode (if people run win3.x there will still be AthlonXP's for them to use, more than enough for win3.x), nor certain other outdated features. That way you remove extra hardware that *most* people don't use, cut some design costs and still have compatibility with all the latest and greatest software.
(Yes, I realize that some people do use x86 for embedded solutions, but they can easily grab a 68xx, 68k, ARM, M-Core or embedded 386/486 processor and not worry about it)
I don't mean this to sound like I'm complaining, nor that I have all the answers... in fact for anyone taking the time to read this, I'd like to hear some feedback on ups and downs people see in this.
I have no pity for those deliberately making & sending out virii... I say if they're legal send the FBI to their door right away and if they're not, fine their parents heavily.
Now of course I haven't been hit with a virus this year, and even if I am, I always have my iBook with OS X on it to use while I clean out any of my infected systems, but I still have no pity for those sending out virii getting what's coming to em from the FBI!
Microsoft has been pretty much pro-Intel for quite a number of years, they haven't really made huge efforts to support other CPU makers and other architectures (NOTE: I said huge efforts, I don't consider WinNT for Alpha huge), so getting MS to use a *REAL* CPU like a sledgehammer will take some doing!
The unfortunate truth (unfortunate for him, where he is now I mean):
... more like he *still is*.
... not any more, now I'm sure he advocates the Bible.
... again: not anymore.
"he was actually an opponent of the idea"
"advocated the "steady state" theory"
"He also believed that life didn't start on Earth"
and I'm not trying to joke around either, I grieve for him, however, he chose his path and the consequences of it and that cannot change for all eternity.
Well I don't want to restate what the other 3 comments so far have said, but if I do *oops*.
:)
My numbering of the points isn't me being angry, it's just how I organize my thoughts
(1) regarding the 1st & 2nd paragraph: couldn't have stated it better than the other people... you must have been asleep the past couple of years. Only reason K6's didn't kick Celerons in FPU was their FPU wasn't pipelined, the Athlon line fixed that.
(2) 'exploiting mexican workers' -- really? I seriously hadn't heard that, I'd sure like to see an URL to a *trustworthy* website regarding this, else sounds like you've gone too far on blowing steam.
(3) Ok, I'll admit it, I'm an EE major who cooped at AMD for a semester, I believe in them very much. And well, while I can't give you specifics because of NDA's, frankly, I'm 100% sure AMD is ahead of Intel in the CPU market.
(4) regarding the 3rd paragraphs: that pertains to x86 in general, *NOT* AMD specifically, which is where your rant was going, try to stay on topic.
(5) Of course AMD has reaped the benefits of x86, so have several other companies... Intel, Cyrix, Rise, Transmeta, VIA, Asus, Epox, MSI, etc, etc, etc. It's got marketing power, even though it is ancient in computing terms.
(6) In case you missed AMD's move to befriend the hacker community: http://www.x86-64.org -- software version of their hammer family line, so the hacker community can make 64bit x86 Linux, FreeBSD, etc, etc.
(7) Unfortunately most large corporations are 'faceless', you get big enough and you can't be "mom and pop" to everyone. Just like presidential elections... can't expect the candidates to meet and talk to 275 million (or so) Americans individually in the course of a couple of years, not going to happen. 2 years is: 63,072,000 seconds, or 0.229 secs/person. Now consider AMD serving ~6 billion people...
(8) Oh, and all that about AMD coming out with stuff a year behind Intel... That's nonsense! AMD may have trailed in the past, but they're keeping up pretty well now, and even without supporting SSE/SSE2 yet on duron & so forth, they still manage to kick butt in most arenas, including gaming. Not to mention, Intel created x86, MMX, SSE/SSE2... AMD licensed such technologies, so were they supposed to release that stuff *BEFORE* intel? But on AMD's behalf, they are the ones creating the x86-64 (aka - AA64, see www.sandpile.org) architecture, which Transmeta wants to use, so they'll come out ahead in that arena, while Intel tries to push Itanium (*yawn*).
The article mentions that one of these toys is under construction down the road at UT. I can see I'm going to have to be extra nice to my lapsed contacts in the CS department!
CS people have one? That's soooooo not right! needs to go in the EE building... I mean there's already that *GIANT* capacitor in there, why not a giant screen? :)
that's kewl that there's an hc11 and hc12 port now, since those are some nice little microcontrollers... i wonder how easy/hard it would be to port it to other hc## chips, anyone know? i mean would it be just a matter of using the hc11 or 12 port as a template and swapping a few opcode names & values and recompiling? (since i've never gone as far as constructing a full fledged compiler, just some simpler parsers).
So because we share similar genomes and DNA with certain species & such, Darwin is true and we have a common ancestor? Or is it that we have a common DESIGNER? If you were God (not that any of us are, but just suppose for a second), would it make more sense to design things with common links or have all life and matter be made of totally different atoms, molecules, DNA, genomes, etc, etc? Darwin has not been proven, rather it has gained momentum among so-called scientists who gain power and prestige from it
As far as theories go... not really. Theories are hypothesis with insufficient evidence to be laws... What do I mean? Theories have a few pieces of 'evidence' that support it, but not SUFFICIENT 'evidence' for it to be a law. It may be considered law by some, but that doesn't make it law. A truth table for boolean AND is what I would call a law... You take FALSE AND FALSE and you always get FALSE, you take TRUE AND FALSE you still get FALSE, you take TRUE AND TRUE you get TRUE, and that's it. Darwinism: you take observations of
And one last item, why do you seem to believe the Bible and science are mutally exclusive? There are biological, geographical, astronomical facts stated in the Bible long before any scientists of the past millenia ever discovered them. And there's nothing to show that Ancient Egyptians or other ancient cultures had such knowledge, so where did this information come from? Certainly not the scientific process among peoples of the time
I'm saying to assume we can wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods in our own eyes... anything you put above God is a god (note the little 'g')... cars, houses, money, a lover, a pet, you name it... that doesn't mean they become God and have the power to control the science of the universe, we're talking egos.
1st question: Would you agree with me that God is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent (everywhere simultaneously) ?
2nd question: If you agree to the 1st question, couldn't God have made 100% certain that the exact words He wanted in the Bible were there and that language supported such concepts? and if not, why is He not and what scripture supports this claim?
If you support these questions, it becomes easy to see that He wanted the word "yohm" because it would express a literal day and therefore one week (minus the one day He rested from His labors) for creation of the universe.
And further, if God is all powerful, how could it be impossible for Him to create the universe in 6 days? If He created billions or trillions (or more?) of stars, made man from dust, fortold over 300 prophecies of Jesus and all of them were fulfilled, is it infeasible that He can do exactly what the wording says He did? Or is what the Bible records of God inaccurate and therefore false, and the very God we believe in doesn't exist, or at least isn't the God the Bible records. The Bible is one cohesive work, you pull out one thread it collapses. But since there are Christian Evidences and not one PROVEN contradiction in the Bible in 1000's of years, I lean towards the exact record given.
yes science is a puzzle, which man is always trying to piece together. but i'm not saying "these scientific FACTS don't fit", i'm saying "these scientific THEORIES don't fit"... I want true, verified science, not Darwin angered over religion deciding to try and anger religious officials, with a *FEW* observations (few as in even 200 years of observations each and every day is still few in the grand scheme of things, let alone the lesser number of years Darwin spent on it). And considering big bang is a NEW totally unverified concept (and don't tell me THEORIES are true & verified, they're not) too, I'll gladly take creationism with an innumerable number of evidences all around.
Once again, that is to deny God. The Bible clearly states there will be people alive when God returns, so for man to assume we can completely wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods.
I still argue that I am superior to animals and plantlife and soil, etc, etc... I take into account the human soul that is God-given (again if you deny God, you could believe otherwise)... no other lifeform, nor any matter has that, so whether I depend on it or not, I am in fact superior to it in that fashion. That does not make me superior to other humans or God, of course, because I am equal to other humans and God is still superior to me. Nevertheless, I still contend I am superior to anything non-human.
Why doesn't he open his big mouth anymore, Jon?
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The reason He doesn't open His mouth to anyone thru miracles, revelations, prophecies, etc, etc is that He has already done so. I've personally never seen a person raised from the dead, however, John 11 already showed that, and if I have proof that the Bible is true (which I do, things call Christian Evidences), then I don't need to see someone raised from the dead.
the truth, shown by science.
I think we will both agree (or at least should), that science is NEVER in error. However, THEORIES and HYPOTHESIS can be and many times ARE wrong. Also, no one started believing the scriptures 2000 years ago, they started to believe it about 6000 to 10,000 years ago.
The Hebrew word for 'day' in Gensis there is pronounced "yowm" and means a LITERAL 24 HOUR DAY
I would ask you to recall from English class, what a simile is... a comparison using 'like' or 'as'. The Bible says "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Pet. 3:8)... note: "*AS* a 1000 years".
i believe in dinos, sure. but akin to what misfit said, i don't believe evolution & the big bang...
(1) they calculated the chances of the big bang and all to be like 1 in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000... i personally think those odds to be utterly ridiculous AND impossible
(2) WHICH theory of evolutionn do you believe? you do know there are over 100 of them right?
(3) as far as the "et al" type stuff... billions of years, come on, they use carbon & uranium dating IN A LAB setting, you can't use that process for something that has existed IN NATURE for however many 100's or 1000's of years, because you have ***NO*** means of observation over all those years
(4) there was a FOSSILIZED cowboy boot found in Texas (i believe it was in TX)... and unless "scientific" theories say cowboys existed billions of years ago, hrmm, guess that blows that theory
(5) scientists have talked about the different ages of layers of soil on the earth (almost like rings on a tree show its age), yet for the billions of years they estimate, they can't seem to explain why LARGE sections of lands (we're talking many acres) in Texas have 3 such layers INVERTED as though someone removed them, flipped them, and put them back. Accident or design? (i think you could guess my vote
So while you don't have to believe Creationism, those of us who do, aren't duped by the masses of religious zealots into believing it, we make every effort to consider *ALL* the evidence and come to our own conclusions.
well if you deny God's existence you could believe that. However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth. So while I don't plan to try and make everything extinct or make the earth totally toxic, I'm still superior to my dog and to any other wildlife I see (not to mention plants, soil, etc, etc).
there is a such thing as "frivolous lawsuits"... the courts outta tell them ... "Get off it, go make your overpriced junk (RDRAM that is) better so you can sell more and stop taking advantage of everyone else!"
i have 384MB PC133 Micron, 256MB of which I bought myself... does that make me a crusader for the underdog? ;)
well that depends... it's not an all new instruction set like the Itanium, it still has mov, push, pop, movsx, movzx, ... but it extended them, if you want to know more, click the "x86-64" link on www.sandpile.org . Hope that helps :)
As to the new core, it's certainly not the K5, and the K6's FPU wasn't pipelined, so it's certainly not that one either, so either it's athlon based, or completely new... With the fact it's got 16 new GPR's (again, see sandpile for details) and they're all 64bits, I'm thinking it's gonna be a new core...
ok, so i didn't say x86-64 or even AA64 applications, but I think you can tell where I'm going, trying to be technical here isn't gonna win you points in my book... I know that there's 64bit Alpha chips out there, 128bit Sun chips, etc, etc, etc, but I'm talking about 64bit apps for x86! And yeah, I know it takes just a recompilation to make a 32bit app 64bits unless it's pure asm with things like: mov eax, [blah] vs. mov rax, [blah] ;; see www.sandpile.org
but i'm talking kernel wise... and my guess is that MOST kernels for today's well known desktop/workstation/server/etc OSes don't use pure C/C++, or if they do, they *WILL* lose some needed speed that only comes from assembler (regardless of the level of compiler optimization today)!