Somehow you still manage to miss the point. Today with modern technology you can make exact copy. There is no such thing as exact translation on the other hand. I speak several foreign languages and I can easily think of several sentences in each that can not be translated into say English. You can write an entire page explaining the original, but the English speaker is still going to be robbed of something without actually learning the original language.
So, back to your point about "original" Greek text. You can claim the translation is 97% correct, what ever that means, but how correct is the Greek text the translation is based on? How removed from the actual first bible is it? When you actually take a look at that you will see that "original" Greek is actually centuries from the first copy ever written. And the first copy does not exist any more so nothing to compare it with.
So having a 100% correct copy of corrupt oldest now available copy is a useless metric. Besides all that, we know bible is full allegory (compelling case can be made that entire Jesus myth is allegory taken literally and later embellished by trying to insert it into history. See for example http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm), so taking allegory literally is just idiotic.
That's a really poorly researched argument. First of all we are not talking about the new testament here, but Genesis. And even then, the oldest known fragments of the new testament are centuries after the purported events took place. But that's beside the point. If you really care take a look at say Prof. Bart Ehrman's lecture (he is a new testament scholar at Chapel Hill) on this:
The Bible and the new testament in particular are full of errors, choice insertions and contradictions and deviations. Any attempt at literal understanding of the text is just silly at that point.
The bible can't be literally true because it has been copied (manually by scribes) so many times and each copy introduced random mutations. If you add translation into the mix all bets are off. This is why we now have thousands of versions of the "same" texts and verses and different versions can have meaning that is quite different from other instances in the same language, let alone if you add multiple languages into the mix. So, which exact version/copy are we disproving? And why that version and not some other?
This is also a good argument that god is quite stupid and incompetent (and therefore not omniscient), first to leave it to chance which religion you get indoctrinated into (strongly correlated with where you were born), and second all you have is fallible text about him, so fallible that it is meaningless and open to contradictory interpretations.
But all this is quite consistent with idea that religion and gods are man made.
How is this not making the browser more secure? Firefox is already pretty damn fast. Last 3-4 releases have consistently reduced browser and extension memory usage as well (it was never a concern for me personally, all systems I use have over 10 GB of RAM anyway). And this change only mitigates the third party risk in a least intrusive way possible.
I say go Mozilla. Firefox is still very competitive and in my opinion the best browser out there. This is why I still use it. In fact I can't imagine using anything else without Pentadactyl extension.
I can't believe that to be true. Even vi will give you auto complete out of the box and there are even better auto complete vi plugins for Python out there.
Actually, you are completely wrong. Also, no one is asking for permission to "replace" Safari engine, just to install another one and give user a choice. All browsers for iOS devices on the App Store use WebKit (Safari) engine and they just provide different UI around it. But if something doesn't render (work) in Safari, it won't work in any other browser. The only exception is Opera Mini which renders content on the server and then sends the rendered content to the browser on iOS device. In this regard Apple is way worse than Microsoft ever was.
Now Microsoft is playing catchup in evil practices that Apple got away with so easily.
I want standard US keyboard layout with only one thing written on each key, I want high resolution screen (130 DPI and over). I can't buy a PC laptop because none of them have good keyboard and every key has 5 things written on it and for some reason in Canada ALL keyboards have stupid layout where left shift key is split and \ placed next to z. All keys programmers use all the time like brackets, semicolon etc keys are at non-standard locations. Enter key is split and weirdly shaped. I pretty much have to buy Mac and then install whatever OS I want on it just because PC hardware is getting hideously unusable.
Facebook uses in house compiler that translates their PHP code to highly optimized C++, which is then compiled to native code. I would not call that PHP.
Chrome is hardly a better. Until it has pentadactyl and adblock plus (that actually doesn't download blocked content first and then discard it on the client after the fact) it's really useless to me.
Sure, I never said patch for Windows version was not released. But not everyone has patched it. Esp. since I know a lot of people that turn automatic java updates off.
I don't have to be deluded or believe in sky carpenter, gods etc to be spiritual or enjoy transcendent experiences, to be in awe of majesty and beauty, to feel love, to experience "magical moments". In fact they come all the time and I appreciate them even more knowing universe wasn't made just for me, and creator of the universe is not my personal buddy. It would take away from magic of the moment if I did believe that.
There are more possible moves in chess, than there are atoms in the visible universe. You can't physically make large enough memory storage to store all the moves even if you had all the atoms in the universe at your disposal.
Do you actually have any evidence for any of your claims? Do you know who wrote the new testament? And in the end it completely does not matter. No amount of textual evidence can ever prove existence of god, Jesus, his resurrection (nor does his resurrection prove his teachings are right).
But since you say you are a christian, care to explain why? Why aren't you a Muslim or a Jewish for example? What evidence made you a christian? Care to show it to us?
Did god create the earth and the universe? Did god create humans? In the present form? Does the sun move around the earth (it says in the bible it does, and even more god paused the sun's motion around the earth so a certain person could finish its work)? Etc? Any physical or metaphysical claim made by religion is false. Are you willing to look at the evidence or are you going to remain willfully ignorant?
Sure, asking for evidence is "weak" argument. All I'm saying is we have plenty of evidence religion and god is man made, and plenty of science to explain how life and the universe can come about without supernatural involvement. Even Occam in 1300s CE England could figure it out before we knew any of the science.
What value are you getting out of clinging to the explanations that come from infancy of our species? Why aren't you confident enough in your faith to recognize it for what it is? Why can't you say, this is my faith, and I believe it despite the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. Why do the people who reject reason and evidence based reasoning still try to find some evidence and justification for their irrational beliefs?
Atheism is the default position. You were born an atheist and had to be indoctrinated into a religion. Which one depends largely on where you were born (as I pointed out before). So, if you claim that you know something that the rest of us don't the onus of proof is on the side that makes the claim (see Celestial Teapot argument for more).
Besides it all comes down to some human mammal claiming to know the mind of god. They know precisely what god wants us to do, what he wants us to eat, on what days, who we may sleep with and in what position. Sorry, but some of us demand extraordinary evidence for such extra ordinary claims. Yet no evidence of any kind if offered.
You strike me as someone who never examined any of the arguments against your position. You do realize that bible is completely non-reliable non-historical, self contradictory text when it comes to crucial points, let alone minor ones. If you really care about that read something like "Jesus Interrupted" by a new testament professor at Chapel Hill. He does into much more detail than I can here. But suffice to say that there is absolutely no historical evidence that historical Jesus existed at all, the first historical reference occurs in first century CE but not directly to Jesus, but Chrestians, presumed followers of Chrestus. The earliest gospel was written in 70 CE at the earliest, and it was not written by any eye witness (it even says so itself). The others came much later. The mythical Jesus was made into a god much much later in 325 CE at the prompting of emperor Constantine who wanted to unify the empire and have one empire religion. At his prompting council of Nicea convened and created trinity and make Jesus into god incarnate. The rest is as they say history. All other religions were outlawed, evidence of their existence often destroyed, and this single minded culture and sense of entitlement continues to this day
But the biggest thing going against it is the required belief itself. We are all supposed to believe that god impregnated his virgin mother in order that he could die on the cross for what he condemned the humanity to and so he could make himself forgive the transgressions he invented, performed by the beings created in his own image. And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone we fear (essence of sadomasochism).
I am really glad there is no evidence for any of this, because wishing this to be true is wishing to live under dictatorship, wishing to be a slave really.
Do you really need some bibliography listed here? How about you take good math foundations, then learn about scientific method, then learn about quantum theory, then see how physical chemistry and atom theory follows from quantum theory, then go to organic chemistry, chemical bond theory, then learn about biology, cell theory, genetic and molecular biology, evolution, learn about diversity of life, astrobiology. Learn about how geology and how geology follows from quantum theory. Lean about tectonic plate theory, geologic time and evolution from geologic point of view. Then lean about theory of gravity, theory of relativity, cosmology, solar system formation, origin of universe (big bang theory), Casimir effect, quantum tunneling, vacuum energy and how a flat universe can come from nothing.
Now contrast that with the world view and understanding of the bronze age herdsmen and the tribe god they invented and the religion that flows from it. Look at the character of the god they have, how he behaves exactly as you would expect the people of that age to behave. Look at the competing religions all claiming to posses the true words of the creator of the universe, yet they are totally incompatible and different to one another. Look at all the claims about the real world and see if they are compatible with what we now know as scientific facts. Evolution of religions and the fact we have multiple religions like this is exactly what you would expect to see if religion were man made.
Yes none of the above claims are backed by any evidence at all. Which brings me to an interesting point. Presumably an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe would know people would invent scientific method and evidence based reasoning. Would it not be incredibly stupid of god to demand belief in him without any evidence and leaving something important like what to believe and if you will be saved largely correlated with where you were born. If you are born in Saudi Arabia you will be defending Islam, rather than Christianity. Needless to say in Islam, Jesus is not only not the son of god, but he never died on the cross, and never resurrected. Believing otherwise will get you damned to hell for eternity. Yet, how many Christians spend sleepless nights worrying if Islam could be right? And why is that?
There are two kinds of beliefs. One is based on evidence, rational thinking, logic and the healthy mind has no option but to accept them (doing otherwise leads to cognitive dissonance which is rather unpleasant). And then there is belief in something based on no evidence. You could say, it is based on ignorance. This kind of belief is called faith. Religion is really all about faith, otherwise if religion were based on facts it would be a branch of science. All we have in religion is dogma, a set of beliefs no matter how incredible (look at transubstantiation - a central dogma in Catholicism) that one must accept without question to be counted as member. The biggest fault with religion though is that it makes a virtue out of accepting dogma, i.e. belief without evidence. Religion is making a virtue out of ignorance.
Many people were killed for questioning and seeking evidence and challenging accepted dogmas by the religious. But now religion comes to use mild and meek with open hands offering consolation, but we should not forget how it behaved when it really thought it had god on its side.
If you note I quoted the word "need". This is because science really does not need religion at all, we are all curious enough to want to know the answers to fundamental questions. Religion was our first approximation to all the important questions, like cosmology, astronomy, medicine etc. But like all first approximations it proved to be quite wrong. We now know much better how life evolves, how solar systems and planets form, we now know how even universe can come from nothing. Even philosophy really has nothing useful to say about the real world we live in let alone religion. Religion on the other hand just wishes science would go away. The only thing it has going for it is ignorance.
That does not mean what you think it means: Science is constantly proving religion wrong and it gives science an underlying purpose to keep moving forward with its work in every category while religion is constantly revising its interpretations of an apparently flawless book. While at the same time religion needs science because it does actually explain how some of the "miracles" could have occurred if the people in the stories were the thinking kind of people who could predict wind patterns and sun locations. In short, they "need" each other
Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".
Samba uses GPL v3 so it was removed from OS X. Notice how bash in OS X is at version 3.2 from 2005? That's because bash is also GPL v3 and if you want modern bash currently at version 4.2 you have to install it yourself.
Apple has been purging all GPL open source software from Mac OS X and the goal is to have none in the end. This means to get good UNIX experience you will have to do a lot of work of downloading and compiling yourself, kind of like Windows. and Cygwin. Or you could just install Ubuntu.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow you still manage to miss the point. Today with modern technology you can make exact copy. There is no such thing as exact translation on the other hand. I speak several foreign languages and I can easily think of several sentences in each that can not be translated into say English. You can write an entire page explaining the original, but the English speaker is still going to be robbed of something without actually learning the original language.
So, back to your point about "original" Greek text. You can claim the translation is 97% correct, what ever that means, but how correct is the Greek text the translation is based on? How removed from the actual first bible is it? When you actually take a look at that you will see that "original" Greek is actually centuries from the first copy ever written. And the first copy does not exist any more so nothing to compare it with.
So having a 100% correct copy of corrupt oldest now available copy is a useless metric. Besides all that, we know bible is full allegory (compelling case can be made that entire Jesus myth is allegory taken literally and later embellished by trying to insert it into history. See for example http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm), so taking allegory literally is just idiotic.
That's a really poorly researched argument. First of all we are not talking about the new testament here, but Genesis. And even then, the oldest known fragments of the new testament are centuries after the purported events took place. But that's beside the point. If you really care take a look at say Prof. Bart Ehrman's lecture (he is a new testament scholar at Chapel Hill) on this:
http://youtu.be/-QPA7hnbTM4
The Bible and the new testament in particular are full of errors, choice insertions and contradictions and deviations. Any attempt at literal understanding of the text is just silly at that point.
The bible can't be literally true because it has been copied (manually by scribes) so many times and each copy introduced random mutations. If you add translation into the mix all bets are off. This is why we now have thousands of versions of the "same" texts and verses and different versions can have meaning that is quite different from other instances in the same language, let alone if you add multiple languages into the mix. So, which exact version/copy are we disproving? And why that version and not some other?
This is also a good argument that god is quite stupid and incompetent (and therefore not omniscient), first to leave it to chance which religion you get indoctrinated into (strongly correlated with where you were born), and second all you have is fallible text about him, so fallible that it is meaningless and open to contradictory interpretations.
But all this is quite consistent with idea that religion and gods are man made.
with the advancements we have achieved in the USA.
How is this not making the browser more secure? Firefox is already pretty damn fast. Last 3-4 releases have consistently reduced browser and extension memory usage as well (it was never a concern for me personally, all systems I use have over 10 GB of RAM anyway). And this change only mitigates the third party risk in a least intrusive way possible. I say go Mozilla. Firefox is still very competitive and in my opinion the best browser out there. This is why I still use it. In fact I can't imagine using anything else without Pentadactyl extension.
I don't see anything in Mountain Lion that restores Expose and Spaces functionality? What exactly are you referring to?
I can't believe that to be true. Even vi will give you auto complete out of the box and there are even better auto complete vi plugins for Python out there.
Actually, you are completely wrong. Also, no one is asking for permission to "replace" Safari engine, just to install another one and give user a choice. All browsers for iOS devices on the App Store use WebKit (Safari) engine and they just provide different UI around it. But if something doesn't render (work) in Safari, it won't work in any other browser. The only exception is Opera Mini which renders content on the server and then sends the rendered content to the browser on iOS device. In this regard Apple is way worse than Microsoft ever was. Now Microsoft is playing catchup in evil practices that Apple got away with so easily.
I want standard US keyboard layout with only one thing written on each key, I want high resolution screen (130 DPI and over). I can't buy a PC laptop because none of them have good keyboard and every key has 5 things written on it and for some reason in Canada ALL keyboards have stupid layout where left shift key is split and \ placed next to z. All keys programmers use all the time like brackets, semicolon etc keys are at non-standard locations. Enter key is split and weirdly shaped. I pretty much have to buy Mac and then install whatever OS I want on it just because PC hardware is getting hideously unusable.
Facebook uses in house compiler that translates their PHP code to highly optimized C++, which is then compiled to native code. I would not call that PHP.
Chrome is hardly a better. Until it has pentadactyl and adblock plus (that actually doesn't download blocked content first and then discard it on the client after the fact) it's really useless to me.
That's easy to solve. Just put a checkpoint in every American's house.
Sure, I never said patch for Windows version was not released. But not everyone has patched it. Esp. since I know a lot of people that turn automatic java updates off.
Funny thing is this Java Runtime vulnerability is also present in the Windows version of Java, and it can be exploited just as easily.
I don't have to be deluded or believe in sky carpenter, gods etc to be spiritual or enjoy transcendent experiences, to be in awe of majesty and beauty, to feel love, to experience "magical moments". In fact they come all the time and I appreciate them even more knowing universe wasn't made just for me, and creator of the universe is not my personal buddy. It would take away from magic of the moment if I did believe that.
There are more possible moves in chess, than there are atoms in the visible universe. You can't physically make large enough memory storage to store all the moves even if you had all the atoms in the universe at your disposal.
Do you actually have any evidence for any of your claims? Do you know who wrote the new testament? And in the end it completely does not matter. No amount of textual evidence can ever prove existence of god, Jesus, his resurrection (nor does his resurrection prove his teachings are right).
But since you say you are a christian, care to explain why? Why aren't you a Muslim or a Jewish for example? What evidence made you a christian? Care to show it to us?
Did god create the earth and the universe? Did god create humans? In the present form? Does the sun move around the earth (it says in the bible it does, and even more god paused the sun's motion around the earth so a certain person could finish its work)? Etc? Any physical or metaphysical claim made by religion is false. Are you willing to look at the evidence or are you going to remain willfully ignorant?
Sure, asking for evidence is "weak" argument. All I'm saying is we have plenty of evidence religion and god is man made, and plenty of science to explain how life and the universe can come about without supernatural involvement. Even Occam in 1300s CE England could figure it out before we knew any of the science.
What value are you getting out of clinging to the explanations that come from infancy of our species? Why aren't you confident enough in your faith to recognize it for what it is? Why can't you say, this is my faith, and I believe it despite the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. Why do the people who reject reason and evidence based reasoning still try to find some evidence and justification for their irrational beliefs?
Atheism is the default position. You were born an atheist and had to be indoctrinated into a religion. Which one depends largely on where you were born (as I pointed out before). So, if you claim that you know something that the rest of us don't the onus of proof is on the side that makes the claim (see Celestial Teapot argument for more).
Besides it all comes down to some human mammal claiming to know the mind of god. They know precisely what god wants us to do, what he wants us to eat, on what days, who we may sleep with and in what position. Sorry, but some of us demand extraordinary evidence for such extra ordinary claims. Yet no evidence of any kind if offered.
You strike me as someone who never examined any of the arguments against your position. You do realize that bible is completely non-reliable non-historical, self contradictory text when it comes to crucial points, let alone minor ones. If you really care about that read something like "Jesus Interrupted" by a new testament professor at Chapel Hill. He does into much more detail than I can here. But suffice to say that there is absolutely no historical evidence that historical Jesus existed at all, the first historical reference occurs in first century CE but not directly to Jesus, but Chrestians, presumed followers of Chrestus. The earliest gospel was written in 70 CE at the earliest, and it was not written by any eye witness (it even says so itself). The others came much later. The mythical Jesus was made into a god much much later in 325 CE at the prompting of emperor Constantine who wanted to unify the empire and have one empire religion. At his prompting council of Nicea convened and created trinity and make Jesus into god incarnate. The rest is as they say history. All other religions were outlawed, evidence of their existence often destroyed, and this single minded culture and sense of entitlement continues to this day
But the biggest thing going against it is the required belief itself. We are all supposed to believe that god impregnated his virgin mother in order that he could die on the cross for what he condemned the humanity to and so he could make himself forgive the transgressions he invented, performed by the beings created in his own image. And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone we fear (essence of sadomasochism).
I am really glad there is no evidence for any of this, because wishing this to be true is wishing to live under dictatorship, wishing to be a slave really.
Do you really need some bibliography listed here? How about you take good math foundations, then learn about scientific method, then learn about quantum theory, then see how physical chemistry and atom theory follows from quantum theory, then go to organic chemistry, chemical bond theory, then learn about biology, cell theory, genetic and molecular biology, evolution, learn about diversity of life, astrobiology. Learn about how geology and how geology follows from quantum theory. Lean about tectonic plate theory, geologic time and evolution from geologic point of view. Then lean about theory of gravity, theory of relativity, cosmology, solar system formation, origin of universe (big bang theory), Casimir effect, quantum tunneling, vacuum energy and how a flat universe can come from nothing.
Now contrast that with the world view and understanding of the bronze age herdsmen and the tribe god they invented and the religion that flows from it. Look at the character of the god they have, how he behaves exactly as you would expect the people of that age to behave. Look at the competing religions all claiming to posses the true words of the creator of the universe, yet they are totally incompatible and different to one another. Look at all the claims about the real world and see if they are compatible with what we now know as scientific facts. Evolution of religions and the fact we have multiple religions like this is exactly what you would expect to see if religion were man made.
Yes none of the above claims are backed by any evidence at all. Which brings me to an interesting point. Presumably an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe would know people would invent scientific method and evidence based reasoning. Would it not be incredibly stupid of god to demand belief in him without any evidence and leaving something important like what to believe and if you will be saved largely correlated with where you were born. If you are born in Saudi Arabia you will be defending Islam, rather than Christianity. Needless to say in Islam, Jesus is not only not the son of god, but he never died on the cross, and never resurrected. Believing otherwise will get you damned to hell for eternity. Yet, how many Christians spend sleepless nights worrying if Islam could be right? And why is that?
There are two kinds of beliefs. One is based on evidence, rational thinking, logic and the healthy mind has no option but to accept them (doing otherwise leads to cognitive dissonance which is rather unpleasant). And then there is belief in something based on no evidence. You could say, it is based on ignorance. This kind of belief is called faith. Religion is really all about faith, otherwise if religion were based on facts it would be a branch of science. All we have in religion is dogma, a set of beliefs no matter how incredible (look at transubstantiation - a central dogma in Catholicism) that one must accept without question to be counted as member. The biggest fault with religion though is that it makes a virtue out of accepting dogma, i.e. belief without evidence. Religion is making a virtue out of ignorance.
Many people were killed for questioning and seeking evidence and challenging accepted dogmas by the religious. But now religion comes to use mild and meek with open hands offering consolation, but we should not forget how it behaved when it really thought it had god on its side.
If you note I quoted the word "need". This is because science really does not need religion at all, we are all curious enough to want to know the answers to fundamental questions. Religion was our first approximation to all the important questions, like cosmology, astronomy, medicine etc. But like all first approximations it proved to be quite wrong. We now know much better how life evolves, how solar systems and planets form, we now know how even universe can come from nothing. Even philosophy really has nothing useful to say about the real world we live in let alone religion. Religion on the other hand just wishes science would go away. The only thing it has going for it is ignorance.
That does not mean what you think it means: Science is constantly proving religion wrong and it gives science an underlying purpose to keep moving forward with its work in every category while religion is constantly revising its interpretations of an apparently flawless book. While at the same time religion needs science because it does actually explain how some of the "miracles" could have occurred if the people in the stories were the thinking kind of people who could predict wind patterns and sun locations. In short, they "need" each other
Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this".
So they are all virtual machines.
Samba uses GPL v3 so it was removed from OS X. Notice how bash in OS X is at version 3.2 from 2005? That's because bash is also GPL v3 and if you want modern bash currently at version 4.2 you have to install it yourself.
Apple has been purging all GPL open source software from Mac OS X and the goal is to have none in the end. This means to get good UNIX experience you will have to do a lot of work of downloading and compiling yourself, kind of like Windows. and Cygwin. Or you could just install Ubuntu.
I always thought it would be OS X Liger.