You need to buy a copy of the song for EVERY piece of hardware. See you get the CD for your CD player. You buy the songs online to put on your MP3 player. You buy a DVD-Audio copy for your DVD drive. You buy the songs online again for your MP3 CD's for your car stereo. Oh, and lest we forget, you write a check to RIAA for the copies of the songs that are in your head. Wait, you HAVEN'T written your check yet? You should be ashamed!
How can macroevolution be extrapolated from microevolution?... I've been told when trying to figure out if a plant is safe to eat you go through a process of tasting, then chewing, then swallowing, each time waiting a period of time before doing the next step. The thing is you have to repeat the process SEPARATELY for leaves, branches, and fruit (berries or what not) from the SAME plant.
Microevolution does not necessarily prove macroevolution. If you prove one you must prove the other separately, otherwise you are not following the scientific process... your "extrapolating," as you put it, is poisonous to the scientific process because it assumes too much.
I agree that microevolution occurs... a beagle with a golden retriever... yeah that's microevolution in action. But I can't extrapolate a human from an ape or an amoeba based on a new breed of dog.
Sites like this have articles to help show how you can harmonize the Bible and science without need of evolution, the Big Bang or otherwise. The site doesn't simply quote religious philosophers or scientists, but includes quotes from men like Carl Sagan to disprove their own theories and show how even evolutionists, like Mr. Sagan, didn't believe evolution as deeply as they wanted us to believe. I'm still looking for proof on how the O.T. is metaphorical and not literal plus metaphorical. (Side note, please remember that the Torah is Genesis to Deuteronomy, not the whole of the O.T. canon). One common rule of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Bible) is that you take a passage as being literal unless the context demands a non-literal interpretation. If the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, but were 1 billion (or another large number) years each then plants went quite a long time without the sun and hence photosynthesis... YIKES!
I'm not trying to preach or flame, just asking you to be careful which theories and ideas you accept as true.
I'm not fully understanding why 70Mbit is being treated like it is so dense. I mean we have 16 chip 512MB DDR nowadays don't we? That's 256Mbit and 256 > 70. Am I just missing some nuance or what?
when you're only ability to exist as a corporation seems to be in suing others. Granted you may have legal right to in some cases, but if that seems to become your business model then you are truly a sad group.
From the article: "Before we go to commercial production there remains a lot of work to do."
Man I wish they'd just release some anyways. I don't care if the 1st generation is 1.42 microns^2 per cell, I'd just like to have the stuff. I've been waiting on the stuff ever since I first heard about it ages ago. But it's good to see they are still moving forward.
that I'm not the only one who encountered the seemingly infinite Finder crash loop. I got it installed on my A64 3200 winxp pro machine a few days ago and gave up for now due to that loop. But I think I'll wait on PearPC updates to fix this issue and implement more functionality.
Granted I'm no expert on the matter, but here's some evidence (for your consideration) I've seen going against dating methods trying to date objects back past a *few* 1000 years...
I've seen a video (sadly I forget the name, I'd have to ask around to find it again) where 2 scientists took about a 1" diameter, 2-3" long piece of wood, put it in a testtube of water, placed it in some machine that subjected it to large amounts of pressure and over the course of 2 weeks it was nearly indistinguishable (including at a chemical level) from other samples of wood found that are dated as being millions of years old. If this test can be repeated in a laboratory using wood and probably animals and other forms of life then that doesn't bode well for the dating methods regardless of the isotope used.
The video did go on to propose that the decay rate constants used for various dating methods could have been constant all the way back to the worldwide flood in Genesis 7-8ish where conditions would be right to make the constant spike temporarily and thus effect dating methods drastically.
I may not know all the science involved here, but I always did question the dating formulas I saw in one of my chemistry classes because it supposed the constant was truly constant throughout when that cannot be tested. You can test it now, but you cannot test it in the past. That's the same reason I question macro-evolution. I do not question micro-evolution, but macro-evolution is "unproved and unprovable" (I forget who I'm quoting here, but whoever it is deserves credit for the statement).
While carbon dating and such may be accurate for a few 1000 years back, I prefer helping to substantiate any such results by looking at layers of strata of civilizations as well as historical documents and such that help to know that "Object X was in the same time period as Y civilization or king/ruler." Such methods allow us to construct the timeline based on other fixed events/persons we can more easily prove the time for.
Anyways, just some thoughts for your consideration is all.
DISCLAIMER: you have the right to believe as you wish. But by the same token I have the right not to believe the same thing and further I have the right to refute your argument just as scientists are allowed to question and refute each others theories and beliefs. So I am merely exercising that right, not trying to force you to change your mind because I can't FORCE that, nor would I want to. I'm just asking you to consider another point of view and the evidence for it. From all I've read today on this article that is the approach in science... consider one anothers' theories, beliefs, etc. and the evidence for or against and come to a conclusion. I have done this with evolution (several varieties of it), big bang, distant origins theory, etc. so I just ask the same of others with the Christian faith.
One - It is based on an object (computer/AI)we know is created by another entity. The setup dictates a creator/createe relationship.
How do you know the AI is created by another entity? Why does the setup dictate a creator/createe relationship?
Is it because the AI is a complex object that could not have occurred by mere chance? Does a car fall into the same category? How about a watch? If I showed you a fully loaded car with tons of bells and whistles and told you it appeared to me by chance, would you believe that? I know I sure wouldn't because the car is complex and could not have come about by mere chance. There must have been something/someone intelligent that created it.
How much of the evidence for God (again see my previous link) have most people truly considered though? That link doesn't have a lot of "Reverand this-or-that says this." It relies on what respected scientists (many who are non-Christians) have discovered in areas of archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. for its arguments.
Also, *if* the AI ponders its existence? (1) Could not the creator wire the AI to do so? (2) How many people do NOT ponder their existence at some time in life?
Everyone ponders what they're doing here and what they're values are at some point in their life. They may reach different conclusions, but everyone questions their surroundings, it's inherent in us. I happen to believe God wired us this way, but regardless of how it occurs it still occurs.
Lastly, I'm not saying the story cannot be tested. I'm saying the computer cannot find scientific data about the creator beyond the files left for the AI. I know that I cannot test for God because God is not affected by the laws of the universe. If he were would that not make him just another being and part of the universe? Would that not negate his being all-powerful as the Bible claims?
However, just because I cannot test God does not mean there is no evidence. Just as the files for the AI, God left evidence for us to find. We're not talking a few pieces of evidence for God and the Bible, nor in one area of science, but rather 1000's of pieces in all major branches of science and many sub-branches.
The idea of "I have to be able to run a test on God himself to know he exists" is fallacious because that idea pre-supposes that God can be tested/experimented on. And in case I'm still not being clear about what I mean (sorry to belabor the point)... just because you cannot run tests on God himself doesn't mean you cannot run tests that prove he exists.
No offense intended... My response was to Darby not you. The part about Matt. 7:1-2 was just another example. I was trying to bring out the point that Darby and others tend to like take what the Bible says completely out of context. It's not fair to take the Bible out of context to prove a point or to bash it either.
For bonus points where is the passage found that talks about turning the other cheek... WITHOUT looking it up.
Or here's another many like to use but have no idea where it's found... Don't judge me, the Bible says not to judge (here's a hint Matthew 7:1... now read v.2 and really several verses past that... then you see it says nothing about not judging at all, it's talking about judging hypocritically)
This is not a rant, just a call for people to consider other's points of view before concluding they're ignorant beliefs based on nothing.
Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.
Funny you should mention that... Have you ever seen God? How do you know he does not exist? How do you know the Bible is not true? Have you considered evidence for it ( try here )?
Here's a scenario (with parameters) for your consideration...
Let's say I was smart enough to create an AI with the intelligence of a human and put it on a PC
The PC has no access to the internet, no webcams or any other devices to allow the AI to see any of the outside world
Basically its only link to the outside world is a power cable (a headless box, no keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. all external ports are unused, you with me?)
And I leave files and various clues and hints of my existence on the PC to let the AI know I exist...
Now, by all accounts that AI has NO ability to see me or even know I exist right? The only evidence I exist is those files I left to prove I exist. Now the AI has two choices about my existence, it can either choose to believe the evidence I left (that is a true faith and not a blind faith) or it can reject my evidence and decide it will only go off what it can "see" (files it can read, parse, programs it can run, etc.). The AI has only these two choices because it cannot see outside the box or think outside the box because it has no way to even figure out where the walls of the box are. Yet I still exist regardless of the AI's choice. And the AI's existence depends on my pulling the power plug or not.
This is where Christianity vs. atheism/skepticism/agnosticism/etc. stands. The Christian is like the AI saying I can't see him (me for this example), but I see the evidence he left for me so I believe he exists. The atheist/etc. is like the AI saying I see the evidence, but I still can't "see" him directly so I cannot believe in him.
The choice you make is still up to you, but your belief or lack thereof doesn't effect whether God exists. I choose to believe in God because I've considered Christianity, I've considered what other religions say, and I've considered various scientific theories so-called and Christianity has far fewer holes than any other items mentioned if you allow yourself to believe that the creation cannot find the creator UNLESS the creator reveals himself. In this case the creator revealed himself through the Bible, scientific evidences (see the link above), and common sense (IMHO). God does not have to show me his literal spirit for me to believe in Him, he's left evidence that leads to the conclusion that he and he alone exists as God.
Like I was saying you're allowed to believe what you want, but be careful that you don't dismiss others and their beliefs lightly. Not all of us believe things because "pastor so-and-so" told me so. In fact, pastor is the wrong term for a preacher anyways, but that's another topic for another day.
No faith's definition has changed, probably by those who don't want to accept Christianity as valid. Faith, as defined by the Bible, is a belief based upon evidence and upon which one acts. In other words a true Christian examines all the evidence, doesn't jump to conclusions, acknowledges he/she has biases, but sets them aside to consider all the evidence properly, and then comes to a logical conclusion based on the evidence.
If you want a good example of this try the Warren-Flew debate between Thomas Warren (Christian) and Anthony Flew (Atheist). It's 6 hours long, or without all of Flew's "uhh's" and heavy breathing probably half that time.
Also, there's http://www.apologeticspress.org which is another example of Christians *USING* the scientific method properly to come to their conclusions. But before you dismiss it lightly at least read some articles and set aside your biases.
True religion is not the absence of science, but really the proper use of it. You'll find millions, if not billions, of people who have a *blind* faith (the definition you're thinking of) in God or some form of god. Those are the ones you are using as a stereotype for those of us who don't want to be led around blindly. You'll also find millions who believe evolution, the big bang, etc, etc. blindly without considering any of what it has to say. Anyone can blindly follow something, but it is unfair and foolish to charge that all of a certain belief/way believe as those blind followers.
achieve 100MHz bus speeds either. Er wait, never mind:)
Humans do have certain limits (despite humanist arguments to the contrary), but the limits in our ability to achieve higher data rates is probably many many times higher than the limit proposed here.
to stop worrying about this? I know this may sound inflammatory, but I'm really curious... Has anyone decided to stop caring about which is best: Windows, Linux, *BSD, OSX, xyz OS, etc? In the past I cared more, but time has shown me that they all are beneficial in certain areas and that they add to the collective good, so why drown so much energy in this? Why not use the energy for something more productive and less stressful?
Not to knock the accomplish (because that is kewl), but how fast is it? Flash memory and optical disk technologies annoy me immensely because of the slow speeds! So if this new media can give AT LEAST HD speeds that would be great.
Intel goofed on Itanic? Nah, most of us already knew that, I'm not surprised by x86-64 CPUs from Intel. I just hope AMD is soaking them for the royalties:)
it's DOS, knock off or otherwise. I mean I can maneuver in a dos prompt well enough, but JUST DOS and no gui installed? that's ridiculous. in such a case just about any unix distro is going to kick DOS. and if you want it for nostalgia why waste $320 on a 2.6GHz box? that sounds like buying a ferari just drive through school zones all day!! but if you dig that kinda thing more power to ya.
I don't know if kjorn will ever be back to read this, but just in case...
Why are you pitting scientists against Christians? Are you saying a Christian cannot be a scientist too? I've mentioned it before on slashdot... http://www.apologeticspress.org... one of the writers there, Bert Thompson, has a PhD in biology (aka - a scientist) and he is a Christian.
Too many assume that the 2 groups are mutually exclusive is one of the classic mistakes our culture has made today regarding Christianity. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian believes what they're told about the Bible without questioning it. Equally true is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, that distinction is reserved for those who DO what a Christian is instructed to do by the Bible, plain and simple. And that really goes for any group... If I claimed to be a mechanic and tried to fix your car, you'd be taking the bus or walking most likely. That's because while I might claim to be a mechanic, in reality I don't know how to be one and haven't done the things necessary to qualify as a mechanic.
Lastly, I'm sorry to see that you oppose Christianity without truly taking the time to see what a Christian stands for. And to make sure that the people around you that call themselves Christians are TRULY Christians, might I suggest you use the Bible. Because if those "Christians" around you aren't following the Bible, then they either (1) aren't Christians, or (2) have apostatized.
Once every 600,000 years? That sounds almost like they're saying the solar system is stationary or that any rocks >1km that could hit us are in orbit around our solar system. The sun has an orbit too, so unless they've looked at all the >1km rocks within range of the Sun's orbit, I kinda doubt their percentages are too accurate.
How does this stop cd ripping? The industry should have learned from DeCSS and such that this is pointless. But I guess they figure *most* people won't figure it out and that'll be worthwhile. Anyhoo, if they eventually go to this totally, maybe i'll just go to iTunes on my 15" PB or listen.com and get around it anyways... not that I give them to anyone, just that I, like many, hate having to whip out CD cases every time I wanna hear a song. It's much easier just to double click the entry in winamp.
Slashdot Mirror
It's so obvious people...
You need to buy a copy of the song for EVERY piece of hardware. See you get the CD for your CD player. You buy the songs online to put on your MP3 player. You buy a DVD-Audio copy for your DVD drive. You buy the songs online again for your MP3 CD's for your car stereo. Oh, and lest we forget, you write a check to RIAA for the copies of the songs that are in your head. Wait, you HAVEN'T written your check yet? You should be ashamed!
Quiet or I'll edit your comment out of existence! :)
How can macroevolution be extrapolated from microevolution? ... I've been told when trying to figure out if a plant is safe to eat you go through a process of tasting, then chewing, then swallowing, each time waiting a period of time before doing the next step. The thing is you have to repeat the process SEPARATELY for leaves, branches, and fruit (berries or what not) from the SAME plant.
Microevolution does not necessarily prove macroevolution. If you prove one you must prove the other separately, otherwise you are not following the scientific process... your "extrapolating," as you put it, is poisonous to the scientific process because it assumes too much.
I agree that microevolution occurs... a beagle with a golden retriever... yeah that's microevolution in action. But I can't extrapolate a human from an ape or an amoeba based on a new breed of dog.
Sites like this have articles to help show how you can harmonize the Bible and science without need of evolution, the Big Bang or otherwise. The site doesn't simply quote religious philosophers or scientists, but includes quotes from men like Carl Sagan to disprove their own theories and show how even evolutionists, like Mr. Sagan, didn't believe evolution as deeply as they wanted us to believe. I'm still looking for proof on how the O.T. is metaphorical and not literal plus metaphorical. (Side note, please remember that the Torah is Genesis to Deuteronomy, not the whole of the O.T. canon). One common rule of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Bible) is that you take a passage as being literal unless the context demands a non-literal interpretation. If the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, but were 1 billion (or another large number) years each then plants went quite a long time without the sun and hence photosynthesis... YIKES!
I'm not trying to preach or flame, just asking you to be careful which theories and ideas you accept as true.
Fry's + online deals == little need for Best Buy 95% of the time (if not more :)
The entire system will crumble to bits as the sheer bulk of rubbish circling around in the net exceeds the public pain threshold.
You mean like this guy's article?
Windows and Mac OS X both have their ups and downs. I run both (XP Pro and 10.3).
I'd at least consider dual booting the two. But my concern would be OSX's ability to run windows apps or apps off other platforms.
But I will say this... if Safari comes to Windows (and works as well as on OSX) I will start using that over IE.
I'm not fully understanding why 70Mbit is being treated like it is so dense. I mean we have 16 chip 512MB DDR nowadays don't we? That's 256Mbit and 256 > 70. Am I just missing some nuance or what?
Thanks.
when you're only ability to exist as a corporation seems to be in suing others. Granted you may have legal right to in some cases, but if that seems to become your business model then you are truly a sad group.
From the article: "Before we go to commercial production there remains a lot of work to do."
Man I wish they'd just release some anyways. I don't care if the 1st generation is 1.42 microns^2 per cell, I'd just like to have the stuff. I've been waiting on the stuff ever since I first heard about it ages ago. But it's good to see they are still moving forward.
that I'm not the only one who encountered the seemingly infinite Finder crash loop. I got it installed on my A64 3200 winxp pro machine a few days ago and gave up for now due to that loop. But I think I'll wait on PearPC updates to fix this issue and implement more functionality.
Granted I'm no expert on the matter, but here's some evidence (for your consideration) I've seen going against dating methods trying to date objects back past a *few* 1000 years...
I've seen a video (sadly I forget the name, I'd have to ask around to find it again) where 2 scientists took about a 1" diameter, 2-3" long piece of wood, put it in a testtube of water, placed it in some machine that subjected it to large amounts of pressure and over the course of 2 weeks it was nearly indistinguishable (including at a chemical level) from other samples of wood found that are dated as being millions of years old. If this test can be repeated in a laboratory using wood and probably animals and other forms of life then that doesn't bode well for the dating methods regardless of the isotope used.
The video did go on to propose that the decay rate constants used for various dating methods could have been constant all the way back to the worldwide flood in Genesis 7-8ish where conditions would be right to make the constant spike temporarily and thus effect dating methods drastically.
I may not know all the science involved here, but I always did question the dating formulas I saw in one of my chemistry classes because it supposed the constant was truly constant throughout when that cannot be tested. You can test it now, but you cannot test it in the past. That's the same reason I question macro-evolution. I do not question micro-evolution, but macro-evolution is "unproved and unprovable" (I forget who I'm quoting here, but whoever it is deserves credit for the statement).
While carbon dating and such may be accurate for a few 1000 years back, I prefer helping to substantiate any such results by looking at layers of strata of civilizations as well as historical documents and such that help to know that "Object X was in the same time period as Y civilization or king/ruler." Such methods allow us to construct the timeline based on other fixed events/persons we can more easily prove the time for.
Anyways, just some thoughts for your consideration is all.
DISCLAIMER: you have the right to believe as you wish. But by the same token I have the right not to believe the same thing and further I have the right to refute your argument just as scientists are allowed to question and refute each others theories and beliefs. So I am merely exercising that right, not trying to force you to change your mind because I can't FORCE that, nor would I want to. I'm just asking you to consider another point of view and the evidence for it. From all I've read today on this article that is the approach in science... consider one anothers' theories, beliefs, etc. and the evidence for or against and come to a conclusion. I have done this with evolution (several varieties of it), big bang, distant origins theory, etc. so I just ask the same of others with the Christian faith.
One - It is based on an object (computer/AI)we know is created by another entity. The setup dictates a creator/createe relationship.
How do you know the AI is created by another entity? Why does the setup dictate a creator/createe relationship?
Is it because the AI is a complex object that could not have occurred by mere chance? Does a car fall into the same category? How about a watch? If I showed you a fully loaded car with tons of bells and whistles and told you it appeared to me by chance, would you believe that? I know I sure wouldn't because the car is complex and could not have come about by mere chance. There must have been something/someone intelligent that created it.
How much of the evidence for God (again see my previous link) have most people truly considered though? That link doesn't have a lot of "Reverand this-or-that says this." It relies on what respected scientists (many who are non-Christians) have discovered in areas of archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. for its arguments.
Also, *if* the AI ponders its existence? (1) Could not the creator wire the AI to do so? (2) How many people do NOT ponder their existence at some time in life?
Everyone ponders what they're doing here and what they're values are at some point in their life. They may reach different conclusions, but everyone questions their surroundings, it's inherent in us. I happen to believe God wired us this way, but regardless of how it occurs it still occurs.
Lastly, I'm not saying the story cannot be tested. I'm saying the computer cannot find scientific data about the creator beyond the files left for the AI. I know that I cannot test for God because God is not affected by the laws of the universe. If he were would that not make him just another being and part of the universe? Would that not negate his being all-powerful as the Bible claims?
However, just because I cannot test God does not mean there is no evidence. Just as the files for the AI, God left evidence for us to find. We're not talking a few pieces of evidence for God and the Bible, nor in one area of science, but rather 1000's of pieces in all major branches of science and many sub-branches.
The idea of "I have to be able to run a test on God himself to know he exists" is fallacious because that idea pre-supposes that God can be tested/experimented on. And in case I'm still not being clear about what I mean (sorry to belabor the point)... just because you cannot run tests on God himself doesn't mean you cannot run tests that prove he exists.
No offense intended... My response was to Darby not you. The part about Matt. 7:1-2 was just another example. I was trying to bring out the point that Darby and others tend to like take what the Bible says completely out of context. It's not fair to take the Bible out of context to prove a point or to bash it either.
For bonus points where is the passage found that talks about turning the other cheek... WITHOUT looking it up.
Or here's another many like to use but have no idea where it's found... Don't judge me, the Bible says not to judge (here's a hint Matthew 7:1... now read v.2 and really several verses past that... then you see it says nothing about not judging at all, it's talking about judging hypocritically)
This is not a rant, just a call for people to consider other's points of view before concluding they're ignorant beliefs based on nothing.
Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.
Funny you should mention that... Have you ever seen God? How do you know he does not exist? How do you know the Bible is not true? Have you considered evidence for it ( try here )?
Here's a scenario (with parameters) for your consideration...
Now, by all accounts that AI has NO ability to see me or even know I exist right? The only evidence I exist is those files I left to prove I exist. Now the AI has two choices about my existence, it can either choose to believe the evidence I left (that is a true faith and not a blind faith) or it can reject my evidence and decide it will only go off what it can "see" (files it can read, parse, programs it can run, etc.). The AI has only these two choices because it cannot see outside the box or think outside the box because it has no way to even figure out where the walls of the box are. Yet I still exist regardless of the AI's choice. And the AI's existence depends on my pulling the power plug or not.
This is where Christianity vs. atheism/skepticism/agnosticism/etc. stands. The Christian is like the AI saying I can't see him (me for this example), but I see the evidence he left for me so I believe he exists. The atheist/etc. is like the AI saying I see the evidence, but I still can't "see" him directly so I cannot believe in him.
The choice you make is still up to you, but your belief or lack thereof doesn't effect whether God exists. I choose to believe in God because I've considered Christianity, I've considered what other religions say, and I've considered various scientific theories so-called and Christianity has far fewer holes than any other items mentioned if you allow yourself to believe that the creation cannot find the creator UNLESS the creator reveals himself. In this case the creator revealed himself through the Bible, scientific evidences (see the link above), and common sense (IMHO). God does not have to show me his literal spirit for me to believe in Him, he's left evidence that leads to the conclusion that he and he alone exists as God.
Like I was saying you're allowed to believe what you want, but be careful that you don't dismiss others and their beliefs lightly. Not all of us believe things because "pastor so-and-so" told me so. In fact, pastor is the wrong term for a preacher anyways, but that's another topic for another day.
No faith's definition has changed, probably by those who don't want to accept Christianity as valid. Faith, as defined by the Bible, is a belief based upon evidence and upon which one acts. In other words a true Christian examines all the evidence, doesn't jump to conclusions, acknowledges he/she has biases, but sets them aside to consider all the evidence properly, and then comes to a logical conclusion based on the evidence.
If you want a good example of this try the Warren-Flew debate between Thomas Warren (Christian) and Anthony Flew (Atheist). It's 6 hours long, or without all of Flew's "uhh's" and heavy breathing probably half that time.
Also, there's http://www.apologeticspress.org which is another example of Christians *USING* the scientific method properly to come to their conclusions. But before you dismiss it lightly at least read some articles and set aside your biases.
True religion is not the absence of science, but really the proper use of it. You'll find millions, if not billions, of people who have a *blind* faith (the definition you're thinking of) in God or some form of god. Those are the ones you are using as a stereotype for those of us who don't want to be led around blindly. You'll also find millions who believe evolution, the big bang, etc, etc. blindly without considering any of what it has to say. Anyone can blindly follow something, but it is unfair and foolish to charge that all of a certain belief/way believe as those blind followers.
achieve 100MHz bus speeds either. Er wait, never mind :)
Humans do have certain limits (despite humanist arguments to the contrary), but the limits in our ability to achieve higher data rates is probably many many times higher than the limit proposed here.
to stop worrying about this? I know this may sound inflammatory, but I'm really curious... Has anyone decided to stop caring about which is best: Windows, Linux, *BSD, OSX, xyz OS, etc? In the past I cared more, but time has shown me that they all are beneficial in certain areas and that they add to the collective good, so why drown so much energy in this? Why not use the energy for something more productive and less stressful?
Not to knock the accomplish (because that is kewl), but how fast is it? Flash memory and optical disk technologies annoy me immensely because of the slow speeds! So if this new media can give AT LEAST HD speeds that would be great.
Intel goofed on Itanic? Nah, most of us already knew that, I'm not surprised by x86-64 CPUs from Intel. I just hope AMD is soaking them for the royalties :)
it's DOS, knock off or otherwise. I mean I can maneuver in a dos prompt well enough, but JUST DOS and no gui installed? that's ridiculous. in such a case just about any unix distro is going to kick DOS. and if you want it for nostalgia why waste $320 on a 2.6GHz box? that sounds like buying a ferari just drive through school zones all day!! but if you dig that kinda thing more power to ya.
Why are you pitting scientists against Christians? Are you saying a Christian cannot be a scientist too? I've mentioned it before on slashdot... http://www.apologeticspress.org
Too many assume that the 2 groups are mutually exclusive is one of the classic mistakes our culture has made today regarding Christianity. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian believes what they're told about the Bible without questioning it. Equally true is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, that distinction is reserved for those who DO what a Christian is instructed to do by the Bible, plain and simple. And that really goes for any group... If I claimed to be a mechanic and tried to fix your car, you'd be taking the bus or walking most likely. That's because while I might claim to be a mechanic, in reality I don't know how to be one and haven't done the things necessary to qualify as a mechanic.
Lastly, I'm sorry to see that you oppose Christianity without truly taking the time to see what a Christian stands for. And to make sure that the people around you that call themselves Christians are TRULY Christians, might I suggest you use the Bible. Because if those "Christians" around you aren't following the Bible, then they either (1) aren't Christians, or (2) have apostatized.
Once every 600,000 years? That sounds almost like they're saying the solar system is stationary or that any rocks >1km that could hit us are in orbit around our solar system. The sun has an orbit too, so unless they've looked at all the >1km rocks within range of the Sun's orbit, I kinda doubt their percentages are too accurate.
How does this stop cd ripping? The industry should have learned from DeCSS and such that this is pointless. But I guess they figure *most* people won't figure it out and that'll be worthwhile. Anyhoo, if they eventually go to this totally, maybe i'll just go to iTunes on my 15" PB or listen.com and get around it anyways... not that I give them to anyone, just that I, like many, hate having to whip out CD cases every time I wanna hear a song. It's much easier just to double click the entry in winamp.