Common sense would tell anyone that it is parents fault for allowing their children to stay up all hours of the night. Simply confiscate all electronic devices at bedtime. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the state.
Why would I want to sync my iPad to a hotel computer? It syncs directly with Apple or Dropbox and when I get back home all my stuff is on the iMac also. I also can take my iPad to a friend's house and plug it into their big TV which has an HDMI input connection. Anything I can display on the iPad will also display on the screen. I don't need a dock for this!
I do have assurance and it works great that the apps I use on my iPad also exist for my iMac. Pages, Numbers and Keynote work great on the iPad and I can also use the with the same programs on my iMac. I even have a couple of games that work on both. Apple is great for integrating all of their devices, better than anyone else that I know of.
I agree with you that if I had to buy only a 27" screen, I would certainly not buy an iMac to use for that purpose. The point is already had the iMac as most people these days already have a desktop or laptop and are buying an iPad or iPhone to take with them wherever they go. I think only a small percentage of the population uses an iPad or iPhone as their only computing device. I use my car every day, but if I need a truck I borrow or rent one.
No matter how powerful a processor and how much memory you put in the tablet, you will always have a small screen compared to large desktop monitor. If you don't care much about efficiency in your work, you can get away with a tiny screen, but there isn't and there never will be a substitute for big screen real estate.
Go a few comments up the thread:
I would like to have a single device that is a lightweight tablet with a tablet interface, but when I drop it into a dock with a real keyboard, mouse, and screen
That was essentially what I have and it is called an iPad. It communicates wirelessly with a screen that is called an iMac and synchronizes all important information between the two. The screen is the most expensive part of most computing devices. A 27 inch screen is not exactly cheap. For a marginal increase in cost, a powerful processor, storage and a decent keyboard can be added to the iPad. As a bonus, I can use the big screen for real work my home office, while someone else uses the iPad in the kitchen to look up some recipes.
No matter how powerful a processor and how much memory you put in the tablet, you will always have a small screen compared to large desktop monitor. If you don't care much about efficiency in your work, you can get away with a tiny screen, but there isn't and there never will be a substitute for big screen real estate.
When I want to work, I not only want a good keyboard, but also a big screen so I can see more of my work. This is why I use my desktop computer in my office where I have a large monitor or if I need to go on a trip, a laptop with a 15 inch screen. When I just want to surf the web or talk to friends on Skype, or read a Kindle book I use the iPad on my living room while relaxing on the couch. A $20 TracFone works fine when I need to phone someone while on the go. The rest of the time I use the phone on my desk, which I have done for more years than I care to remember.
I am so disgusted that I can't get 3 tons of manure into a sports car. IPads and iPhones are computers just as much as that monstrosity that may still be sitting on your desk or gathering dust in some closet. Why does this nonsense of the death of the PC get propagated again and again and again and again and again? Desktop computers are like 18 wheelers, laptops correspond to delivery trucks, iPads are alike passenger cars as the iPhone is like a sports car. There, now you have a car analogy. I see plenty of 18 wheelers and delivery trucks on the roads amidst all the smaller vehicles. Similarly there will always be desktop and laptop computers in addition to their smaller brethren.
Those who want to be totally safe in life should never get out of bed in the morning! That of course doesn't mean that person will be safe, because most people by far die in bed.
So how did these power plants and dams and refineries all get run before the Internet was invented that enables hackers from China to possibly control such industries? Don't they still have people in the control rooms of these places? Do they still have telephones? Do they know how to use them to call someone higher up if there is trouble? All of these things worked reasonably well before, so why can't they now? Why should there be any Internet connection into any of these critical places? If a plant operator needs to know whether it is going to freeze tonight, why can't he/she find that out over the phone, like they used to?
Yes, in some cases it might be less convenient, but sometimes it is necessary to give up convenience for security. Security, cost as well as convenience have been always will be a trade-off. Evidently, many of the operators of these critical industries value convenience and lower cost more than security. As for dongles, why would anybody in his right mind ever even dream about buying any software that requires such idiotic devices? Those gadgets are just a form of DRM and we all know that there has never been any DRM that has NOT been bypassed.
I don't understand why anyone would want to connect really important things such as power plants and dams to the Internet. We have been running such things for about a century now and they work just fine. Anything behind a barbed wire fence should never be connected to the Internet. Why do people do this? Just for the convenience of some fat executive or lazy engineer who doesn't want to get his fat @$$ out of this office and see what is really going on with the machinery?
Let's take a hydrogen atom is the simplest example. The atom itself is very large and its mass is largely concentrated in the nucleus. Even compared to the proton, the electron is very light and small. Are you saying that the electron is not "moving" in some sense when it is bound to the nucleus? By convention we say that electron carries a negative charge and proton positive. Because of the unlike charges, there is an attractive electrical force between the two. Regardless how motion is defined, what prevents the electron from being attracted all the way to the proton? Do you or anyone know the answer? Something obviously must stop the electron before it does crash into the nucleus.
Whether you call it an "orbit" or not is immaterial, because the electrons are definitely not moving in a linear fashion. Furthermore, the electrons are still in motion, even at absolute zero, 0 K. Therefore I see only two possibilities. 1) an electron moving in a nonlinear path around a nucleus is exempt from losing energy, no matter what energy state it is in, or 2) an electron in a nonlinear path around the nucleus DOES lose energy which is continually balanced by a gain in energy from the energy contained in the "vacuum" which has been called the "zero point energy". Do I understand you correctly therefore that when an electron is bound to a nucleus the first of the to possibilities applies?
Whether you call it an "orbit" or not is immaterial, because the electrons are definitely not moving in a linear fashion. Furthermore, the electrons are still in motion, even at absolute zero, 0 K. Therefore I see only two possibilities. 1) an electron moving in a nonlinear path around a nucleus is exempt from losing energy, no matter what energy state it is in, or 2) an electron in a nonlinear path around the nucleus DOES lose energy which is continually balanced by a gain in energy from the energy contained in the "vacuum" which has been called the "zero point energy". Do you or anyone else know of any experiment that has been done that can pin this down?
The physical law of synchrotron radiation is not confined to magnets or synchrotrons, just because this law was first discovered in such a machine. Any time an electron experiences acceleration, it loses energy by emitting photons. When an electron is accelerated by a collision with something, it also releases energy by emitting photons. What counterbalances the powerful attractive electric force between the negatively charged electron and a positively charged nucleus? In celestial mechanics such as the orbiting moon or other satellites, the centrifugal force of the orbit, an acceleration that is indistinguishable from gravity, exactly counterbalances the mutual attraction between the two bodies. Celestial bodies acted upon by gravity do not experience an energy loss because of acceleration, because the accelerations cancel each other. What cancels the acceleration experienced by an electron orbiting the nucleus? I am not trolling. I have recently read that this thing called the "zero point energy" which is real and can be measured is somehow involved in solving this puzzle.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus?
Because an electron bound to a nucleus has different properties than a free electron. Demonstrably so. In a synchrotron accelerator, you're accelerating free electrons. You don't need an accelerator to accerate electrons bound to a nucleus, photons do that just fine, but of course you can't boost them without limits. If you give them enough energy, they are freed from the nucleus. What I find curious is that I've learned that in high school, while you, supposedly an adult, pretend (perhaps dishonestly) that such basic knowledge is somehow best ignored.
So what you are saying is that an electron is not subject to the same laws of physics in different locations? If a force compels the electron to be accelerated, then that electron emits photons. Are you claiming that this law does not apply when an electron is bound to a nucleus? What basis do you have for that claim? If the electron DOES obey their synchrotron law, why does it NOT crash into the nucleus? An object experiences acceleration, any time some force makes it move in a nonlinear path.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus?
Same reason the Moon doesn't have a giant rocket in its side.
Yes, but the moon does not constantly lose kinetic energy as it orbits the earth. If it did, it would soon crash into the earth. Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom do indeed continuously lose energy.
How fast is the universe expanding, and how big is it? We might have just not seen it yet.
Pretty scary thought, that the universe is doomed to destruction by a wall of arbitrarily energetic photons traveling inward from its edges.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus? When an electron moves in a nonlinear path, it loses energy by something called synchrotron radiation. In a synchrotron accelerator, this energy loss is constantly compensated for by external energy input that keeps the electrons in their path. This principle applies to the protons accelerated in the accelerator at CERN also.
There is an external energy source called the "zero point energy" that keeps the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus. If that energy source is ever turned off or depleted, the all atoms in the universe will disappear in an event which is similar to the "Big Bang". Therefore the universe is doomed in any case.
It would seem that antimatter could only fall up, if there was some way to distinguish gravitational and inertial mass. From my experience of how electrons and positrons were accelerated at SLAC, their inertial mass was identical. The only difference between them was their charge.
Most things in life are a matter of faith or belief. Some things we learn by experiencing it ourselves, but most things I learned because someone we trust reveals what tells us this information. This is especially true of children. It is only as we grow up and find out that the adults around us are not always truthful and trustworthy, the seeds of doubt and skepticism begin to grow. There are some things you can't check out for yourself, but simply have to believe what someone else tells you. What you believe is not as important as whom you believe. If you can't or won't believe someone, it is most likely that you distrust their integrity or that they themselves are deceived. When you tell someone some particular aspect about yourself, they will believe you only if they trust you. Evidently your family or congregation has at some point has given evidence that they are not trustworthy. If the people that tell you things about God are not trustworthy in your estimation, you won't believe what they tell you. You can short-circuit that entire process by going to God yourself and asking him the important questions of life directly without some human being as an intermediary.
God does not mind an honest doubter that is willing to be convinced of His truth. God has chosen to communicate with each human being that is willing to listen to his voice. God speaks through many different avenues, but has primarily left us written testimony called the Bible. In Hebrews 11:6 it is written, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."
Faith is like muscles, the more you exercise it the stronger it gets. Operate the tiny bit of faith you have left and bypass all organized religion, including Christianity, and come to God directly. Read his love letter to humanity, the Bible, starting with the gospel of John. Jesus is God and as such you may ask him to communicate directly to you by whatever means He chooses. Leave religion behind and expect to start your own personal adventure with the living God.
The fact is that many if not most people are afraid to die. For some however life is more painful than death or whatever may happen afterwards, so they kill themselves. I was only using the idea of technology in connection with God as an analogy. Perhaps that was a poor way to illustrate what God is capable of. Of course you're right about that. It is also interesting that people have an innate sense of what is "fair". Many people believe in an ultimate working of justice in the universe and do not believe that people like Hitler, Stalin and other gross embodiments of evil are not going to be held responsible for the havoc they have wreaked while he were here on earth.
You are confusing belief and mental assent. Adam did not really believe God who had clearly told him what the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit would be. Belief as God defines it includes taking him seriously. God is not a liar like all humans are, so when he says what the consequences of an action will be, then those consequences MUST happen. Adam demonstrated that he did not really believe what God had told him. If the predicted event of death had NOT happened, then God would be a liar like us. Death is not to the cessation of existence, but a separation. Because man is a spirit being living in flesh and blood body, physical death is merely the separation of that body from the spiritual, conscious person. It is a law of physics that nothing ever goes out of existence, but only changes form. The idea that death is the cessation of existence is a modern fiction with no basis in science or reality.
If you would think about it, you would understand that death is actually a blessing in a world that contains not only good but also evil. If death did not exist, evil people like Hitler and Stalin and all the other evil ones throughout history would still be here to torment everybody. We would already be living in hell. The basic difference between heaven and hell is this: In heaven, everybody believes God and submits their own will to His will out of love. In hell, everybody does their own thing and nobody submits their will to anybody, including to the Devil. While on earth you get to choose whose will you submit to here and throughout all eternity. You can choose to submit to God or you can do your own thing. After you die physically that decision can never be reversed. Anybody who has not chosen to believe God and submit to his will here on earth is not going to do it in the hereafter.
The idea that something can be created out of nothing does not resonate in our everyday experience, because we don't have the technology to do that. The information on a hard drive may well be lost to most of us when that hard drive malfunctions, but someone with the proper technology can still recover such information. Why should it not be possible for God who is the source of all information, not have the technology to recover the information that embodies you, your consciousness, the essence of your being. No one need to fear death as such, but as humans we tend to fear the unknown. It is not the death itself that many people fear, but what may happen afterwards. It's that uneasy feeling that there may be a God after all and not having lived up to His standards of behavior. Many of us understand that we haven't even lived up to our own standards so that even if we are judged by God only by those, we fall far short. That, I believe is the main reason many people are afraid to die.
Jesus didn't start the Christian religion, but others who came later turned the freedom He brought into a religion. The word "religion" comes from the Latin root which means to "bind" as a prisoner is bound. All religions without exception, always bind people to some set of rules which must be followed. Jesus had only one rule, "love your neighbor as you love yourself".
Jesus did not come to start another religion, but he came to give life, hope and purpose to people who believe his words and act upon them. Secular psychology and psychiatry do not accept the fact that there is a spiritual nature to people. Thus at least one third of the total human being is left unrecognized and therefore untreated. NO religion, not even Christianity can help the deep inner needs of struggling human beings. Jesus claimed to be God. If this is true, then only He and He alone can help ALL human needs, not only some sometimes.
A central tenet of evolutionary dogma is the drive to survive to reproduce so the genes of that individual organism are passed on to the next generation. Evolutionists say that humans are subject to that competitive pressure in the same way as any other organism. Humans just happen to have developed better weapons than teeth or claws over the natural weapons of other creatures. There is nothing in evolution that I know of that prohibits humans or any other creature from using any and all weapons available to them in the competition for survival. From the purely evolutionary point of view then, there would be nothing wrong to nuke "them" before they nuke "us". That is not how we want to live is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Common sense would tell anyone that it is parents fault for allowing their children to stay up all hours of the night. Simply confiscate all electronic devices at bedtime. It is the parents responsibility to raise their children, not the state.
Why would I want to sync my iPad to a hotel computer? It syncs directly with Apple or Dropbox and when I get back home all my stuff is on the iMac also. I also can take my iPad to a friend's house and plug it into their big TV which has an HDMI input connection. Anything I can display on the iPad will also display on the screen. I don't need a dock for this!
I do have assurance and it works great that the apps I use on my iPad also exist for my iMac. Pages, Numbers and Keynote work great on the iPad and I can also use the with the same programs on my iMac. I even have a couple of games that work on both. Apple is great for integrating all of their devices, better than anyone else that I know of.
I agree with you that if I had to buy only a 27" screen, I would certainly not buy an iMac to use for that purpose. The point is already had the iMac as most people these days already have a desktop or laptop and are buying an iPad or iPhone to take with them wherever they go. I think only a small percentage of the population uses an iPad or iPhone as their only computing device. I use my car every day, but if I need a truck I borrow or rent one.
No matter how powerful a processor and how much memory you put in the tablet, you will always have a small screen compared to large desktop monitor. If you don't care much about efficiency in your work, you can get away with a tiny screen, but there isn't and there never will be a substitute for big screen real estate.
Go a few comments up the thread:
I would like to have a single device that is a lightweight tablet with a tablet interface, but when I drop it into a dock with a real keyboard, mouse, and screen
That was essentially what I have and it is called an iPad. It communicates wirelessly with a screen that is called an iMac and synchronizes all important information between the two. The screen is the most expensive part of most computing devices. A 27 inch screen is not exactly cheap. For a marginal increase in cost, a powerful processor, storage and a decent keyboard can be added to the iPad. As a bonus, I can use the big screen for real work my home office, while someone else uses the iPad in the kitchen to look up some recipes.
No matter how powerful a processor and how much memory you put in the tablet, you will always have a small screen compared to large desktop monitor. If you don't care much about efficiency in your work, you can get away with a tiny screen, but there isn't and there never will be a substitute for big screen real estate.
When I want to work, I not only want a good keyboard, but also a big screen so I can see more of my work. This is why I use my desktop computer in my office where I have a large monitor or if I need to go on a trip, a laptop with a 15 inch screen. When I just want to surf the web or talk to friends on Skype, or read a Kindle book I use the iPad on my living room while relaxing on the couch. A $20 TracFone works fine when I need to phone someone while on the go. The rest of the time I use the phone on my desk, which I have done for more years than I care to remember.
I am so disgusted that I can't get 3 tons of manure into a sports car. IPads and iPhones are computers just as much as that monstrosity that may still be sitting on your desk or gathering dust in some closet. Why does this nonsense of the death of the PC get propagated again and again and again and again and again? Desktop computers are like 18 wheelers, laptops correspond to delivery trucks, iPads are alike passenger cars as the iPhone is like a sports car. There, now you have a car analogy. I see plenty of 18 wheelers and delivery trucks on the roads amidst all the smaller vehicles. Similarly there will always be desktop and laptop computers in addition to their smaller brethren.
Those who want to be totally safe in life should never get out of bed in the morning! That of course doesn't mean that person will be safe, because most people by far die in bed.
So how did these power plants and dams and refineries all get run before the Internet was invented that enables hackers from China to possibly control such industries? Don't they still have people in the control rooms of these places? Do they still have telephones? Do they know how to use them to call someone higher up if there is trouble? All of these things worked reasonably well before, so why can't they now? Why should there be any Internet connection into any of these critical places? If a plant operator needs to know whether it is going to freeze tonight, why can't he/she find that out over the phone, like they used to?
Yes, in some cases it might be less convenient, but sometimes it is necessary to give up convenience for security. Security, cost as well as convenience have been always will be a trade-off. Evidently, many of the operators of these critical industries value convenience and lower cost more than security. As for dongles, why would anybody in his right mind ever even dream about buying any software that requires such idiotic devices? Those gadgets are just a form of DRM and we all know that there has never been any DRM that has NOT been bypassed.
So I guess your basic answer is simply, I don't know and neither does anybody else.
PS. I like your sig. I am an older engineer, so does the possibility of having a young lover extend the old engineers too?
I don't understand why anyone would want to connect really important things such as power plants and dams to the Internet. We have been running such things for about a century now and they work just fine. Anything behind a barbed wire fence should never be connected to the Internet. Why do people do this? Just for the convenience of some fat executive or lazy engineer who doesn't want to get his fat @$$ out of this office and see what is really going on with the machinery?
Let's take a hydrogen atom is the simplest example. The atom itself is very large and its mass is largely concentrated in the nucleus. Even compared to the proton, the electron is very light and small. Are you saying that the electron is not "moving" in some sense when it is bound to the nucleus? By convention we say that electron carries a negative charge and proton positive. Because of the unlike charges, there is an attractive electrical force between the two. Regardless how motion is defined, what prevents the electron from being attracted all the way to the proton? Do you or anyone know the answer? Something obviously must stop the electron before it does crash into the nucleus.
Whether you call it an "orbit" or not is immaterial, because the electrons are definitely not moving in a linear fashion. Furthermore, the electrons are still in motion, even at absolute zero, 0 K. Therefore I see only two possibilities. 1) an electron moving in a nonlinear path around a nucleus is exempt from losing energy, no matter what energy state it is in, or 2) an electron in a nonlinear path around the nucleus DOES lose energy which is continually balanced by a gain in energy from the energy contained in the "vacuum" which has been called the "zero point energy". Do I understand you correctly therefore that when an electron is bound to a nucleus the first of the to possibilities applies?
Whether you call it an "orbit" or not is immaterial, because the electrons are definitely not moving in a linear fashion. Furthermore, the electrons are still in motion, even at absolute zero, 0 K. Therefore I see only two possibilities. 1) an electron moving in a nonlinear path around a nucleus is exempt from losing energy, no matter what energy state it is in, or 2) an electron in a nonlinear path around the nucleus DOES lose energy which is continually balanced by a gain in energy from the energy contained in the "vacuum" which has been called the "zero point energy". Do you or anyone else know of any experiment that has been done that can pin this down?
The physical law of synchrotron radiation is not confined to magnets or synchrotrons, just because this law was first discovered in such a machine. Any time an electron experiences acceleration, it loses energy by emitting photons. When an electron is accelerated by a collision with something, it also releases energy by emitting photons. What counterbalances the powerful attractive electric force between the negatively charged electron and a positively charged nucleus? In celestial mechanics such as the orbiting moon or other satellites, the centrifugal force of the orbit, an acceleration that is indistinguishable from gravity, exactly counterbalances the mutual attraction between the two bodies. Celestial bodies acted upon by gravity do not experience an energy loss because of acceleration, because the accelerations cancel each other. What cancels the acceleration experienced by an electron orbiting the nucleus? I am not trolling. I have recently read that this thing called the "zero point energy" which is real and can be measured is somehow involved in solving this puzzle.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus?
Because an electron bound to a nucleus has different properties than a free electron. Demonstrably so. In a synchrotron accelerator, you're accelerating free electrons. You don't need an accelerator to accerate electrons bound to a nucleus, photons do that just fine, but of course you can't boost them without limits. If you give them enough energy, they are freed from the nucleus. What I find curious is that I've learned that in high school, while you, supposedly an adult, pretend (perhaps dishonestly) that such basic knowledge is somehow best ignored.
So what you are saying is that an electron is not subject to the same laws of physics in different locations? If a force compels the electron to be accelerated, then that electron emits photons. Are you claiming that this law does not apply when an electron is bound to a nucleus? What basis do you have for that claim? If the electron DOES obey their synchrotron law, why does it NOT crash into the nucleus? An object experiences acceleration, any time some force makes it move in a nonlinear path.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus?
Same reason the Moon doesn't have a giant rocket in its side.
Yes, but the moon does not constantly lose kinetic energy as it orbits the earth. If it did, it would soon crash into the earth. Electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom do indeed continuously lose energy.
How fast is the universe expanding, and how big is it? We might have just not seen it yet.
Pretty scary thought, that the universe is doomed to destruction by a wall of arbitrarily energetic photons traveling inward from its edges.
Why is it that that the negatively charged electrons in atoms are not attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus? When an electron moves in a nonlinear path, it loses energy by something called synchrotron radiation. In a synchrotron accelerator, this energy loss is constantly compensated for by external energy input that keeps the electrons in their path. This principle applies to the protons accelerated in the accelerator at CERN also.
There is an external energy source called the "zero point energy" that keeps the electrons in their orbits around the nucleus. If that energy source is ever turned off or depleted, the all atoms in the universe will disappear in an event which is similar to the "Big Bang". Therefore the universe is doomed in any case.
It would seem that antimatter could only fall up, if there was some way to distinguish gravitational and inertial mass. From my experience of how electrons and positrons were accelerated at SLAC, their inertial mass was identical. The only difference between them was their charge.
Most things in life are a matter of faith or belief. Some things we learn by experiencing it ourselves, but most things I learned because someone we trust reveals what tells us this information. This is especially true of children. It is only as we grow up and find out that the adults around us are not always truthful and trustworthy, the seeds of doubt and skepticism begin to grow. There are some things you can't check out for yourself, but simply have to believe what someone else tells you. What you believe is not as important as whom you believe. If you can't or won't believe someone, it is most likely that you distrust their integrity or that they themselves are deceived. When you tell someone some particular aspect about yourself, they will believe you only if they trust you. Evidently your family or congregation has at some point has given evidence that they are not trustworthy. If the people that tell you things about God are not trustworthy in your estimation, you won't believe what they tell you. You can short-circuit that entire process by going to God yourself and asking him the important questions of life directly without some human being as an intermediary.
God does not mind an honest doubter that is willing to be convinced of His truth. God has chosen to communicate with each human being that is willing to listen to his voice. God speaks through many different avenues, but has primarily left us written testimony called the Bible. In Hebrews 11:6 it is written, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."
Faith is like muscles, the more you exercise it the stronger it gets. Operate the tiny bit of faith you have left and bypass all organized religion, including Christianity, and come to God directly. Read his love letter to humanity, the Bible, starting with the gospel of John. Jesus is God and as such you may ask him to communicate directly to you by whatever means He chooses. Leave religion behind and expect to start your own personal adventure with the living God.
The fact is that many if not most people are afraid to die. For some however life is more painful than death or whatever may happen afterwards, so they kill themselves. I was only using the idea of technology in connection with God as an analogy. Perhaps that was a poor way to illustrate what God is capable of. Of course you're right about that. It is also interesting that people have an innate sense of what is "fair". Many people believe in an ultimate working of justice in the universe and do not believe that people like Hitler, Stalin and other gross embodiments of evil are not going to be held responsible for the havoc they have wreaked while he were here on earth.
You are confusing belief and mental assent. Adam did not really believe God who had clearly told him what the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit would be. Belief as God defines it includes taking him seriously. God is not a liar like all humans are, so when he says what the consequences of an action will be, then those consequences MUST happen. Adam demonstrated that he did not really believe what God had told him. If the predicted event of death had NOT happened, then God would be a liar like us. Death is not to the cessation of existence, but a separation. Because man is a spirit being living in flesh and blood body, physical death is merely the separation of that body from the spiritual, conscious person. It is a law of physics that nothing ever goes out of existence, but only changes form. The idea that death is the cessation of existence is a modern fiction with no basis in science or reality.
If you would think about it, you would understand that death is actually a blessing in a world that contains not only good but also evil. If death did not exist, evil people like Hitler and Stalin and all the other evil ones throughout history would still be here to torment everybody. We would already be living in hell. The basic difference between heaven and hell is this: In heaven, everybody believes God and submits their own will to His will out of love. In hell, everybody does their own thing and nobody submits their will to anybody, including to the Devil. While on earth you get to choose whose will you submit to here and throughout all eternity. You can choose to submit to God or you can do your own thing. After you die physically that decision can never be reversed. Anybody who has not chosen to believe God and submit to his will here on earth is not going to do it in the hereafter.
The idea that something can be created out of nothing does not resonate in our everyday experience, because we don't have the technology to do that. The information on a hard drive may well be lost to most of us when that hard drive malfunctions, but someone with the proper technology can still recover such information. Why should it not be possible for God who is the source of all information, not have the technology to recover the information that embodies you, your consciousness, the essence of your being. No one need to fear death as such, but as humans we tend to fear the unknown. It is not the death itself that many people fear, but what may happen afterwards. It's that uneasy feeling that there may be a God after all and not having lived up to His standards of behavior. Many of us understand that we haven't even lived up to our own standards so that even if we are judged by God only by those, we fall far short. That, I believe is the main reason many people are afraid to die.
Jesus didn't start the Christian religion, but others who came later turned the freedom He brought into a religion. The word "religion" comes from the Latin root which means to "bind" as a prisoner is bound. All religions without exception, always bind people to some set of rules which must be followed. Jesus had only one rule, "love your neighbor as you love yourself".
Jesus did not come to start another religion, but he came to give life, hope and purpose to people who believe his words and act upon them. Secular psychology and psychiatry do not accept the fact that there is a spiritual nature to people. Thus at least one third of the total human being is left unrecognized and therefore untreated. NO religion, not even Christianity can help the deep inner needs of struggling human beings. Jesus claimed to be God. If this is true, then only He and He alone can help ALL human needs, not only some sometimes.
A central tenet of evolutionary dogma is the drive to survive to reproduce so the genes of that individual organism are passed on to the next generation. Evolutionists say that humans are subject to that competitive pressure in the same way as any other organism. Humans just happen to have developed better weapons than teeth or claws over the natural weapons of other creatures. There is nothing in evolution that I know of that prohibits humans or any other creature from using any and all weapons available to them in the competition for survival. From the purely evolutionary point of view then, there would be nothing wrong to nuke "them" before they nuke "us". That is not how we want to live is it?