Video games. Sony's reaching a high enough marketshare to pull some serious shenanigans against Microsoft and Nintendo. Getting game systems out there isn't what wins the race. (Nintendo, for example, has the cheapest system.) It's the games. The bigger the marketshare Sony has, the more exclusives they can gobble up. They also have enough clout to boss their retailers around about how their displays are set up. They can even play games like "You can't sell our products if you're selling competing products."
Will they? Who knows? Sony has deep pockets, too. The difference between Sony and Microsoft is that Sony has the marketshare to leverage their power.
Of course it was non-responsive, what did you expect with the way you phrased your question?
To answer your question:
It depends on what his motives are. If his goal was to create a civilization that could exist without his intervention, then no, he wouldn't show himself. You've seen how people with too much faith behave, imagine a planet like that. (i.e. refusing medical care because they feel god will heal them.)
Just to clear up any misconceptions here:
1.) I am not a bible thumper. 2.) I am not anti-stem cell research. 3.) I did not vote for Bush. 4.) I am not anti-gay marriage. 5.) I'm not anti evolutionary theory. Moreso, I am not pro-Intelligent Creation. 6.) I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old. 7.) I think it's very likely there is life on other planets. 8.) I do not think less of you for not sharing my belief in god, nor do I have any interest in 'converting' you. I think your beliefs are up to you and I have no reason to think mine are any better.
If you are being hostile towards me because you've attributed incorrect assumptions about me, I hope you'll make the necessary corrections here.
Now, I've answered your question even though I fully expect you to use my answer to try to wind me up. Would you care to show me the same respect and answer a question for me?
Suppose you over the duration of your life, you asked God for help. Then suppose on some occasions that you not only got your wish, but the turn of events was quite surprising. I don't mean anything that couldn't be ruled as just coincidence. But just the sheer number and appearant thoughtfulnes of it.
Now, here's my question, please read it VERY carefully: Would you be open to the idea that God could exist? (Note: I'm not asking if you'd believe he exists, just the idea that he could.)
"Wrong again. There was evidence of this long before the proof. The people who came up with the theory based it on the evidence they were able to observe."
Before evidence is hypothesis. Science often requires faith mixed with a little helping of creativity. I'd expect somebody who claims to know anything about scientific history to know this.
"Like someone already said earlier, it wouldn't hurt you to study up on some scientific history before you declare yourself an idiot to the world."
Funny thing is, if you knew your scientific history like you claim I don't, you'd have a devastating rebuttal here. I should have thougt a little bit more before using that particular example, but at least it did point out you're not so educated as you'd like to think, either. Hehe.
"So, are you expecting a deity to suddenly decide to provide some evidence of its existence?"
Faith... faith in general, I don't just mean religious faith, has a strong application in scientific progress. If you don't understand that, I don't see how you can say you're not small minded.
"The obvious way this would be done is by legislating/regulating feature out of existence, i.e. giving up freedom."
Eh. Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but the problem is that the freedom you describe potentially means people getting TV without 'paying' for it. (by paying for it, I mean watching commercials.) In other words, 'paying' for the TV is the step that's trying to be skipped. (Though not intentionally.) I see your point that it's 'giving up a freedom', but the alternative is 'no tv for you'. That is, of course, if we're talking about going to unlikely extremes.
"Not content with theory when better research methods arise, scientists go off and try to get better evidence for what was "known" before."
In other words: Some ignorant freak had this really strange idea that matter is composed of atoms. He had no proof of it, but he believed it. Weird ignorant small minded loon. Eventually he was proven right, though. Lucky bastard.
" Do yourself a favor: put down that silly work of imaginative fiction known as the Bible, and pick up some secular historical works about this."
Interesting assumption you've made about me here. Lemme guess: You think that I don't believe theory of evolution, that I think stem cell research is bad, that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old, that God is anti-gay, and that I voted for Bush, right? Surprise! Wrong on ALL counts. (Oh yeah, I've never read the bible but I have studied science. Oopsie!)
"This is why you don't understand why educated people like us find a belief in God to be anywhere from pathetic to amusing...Your ignorance is staggering. Please correct it."
Speaking of ignorance, you seem blissfully unaware that lots of 'educated people' believe in God. You'll pardon me for not feeling terribly put in my place, here. Afterall, I'm being called ignorant by a guy operating totally on generalizations.
Skeptic: Everybody who believes in god is small minded.
Me: You have a small mind.
I didn't say that because he believes in god, I said that because he's making generalizations about something he doesn't understand. Funny thing is, Mr no-a-small-mind lept to the wrong conclusion and tried to shut me up. You'll pardon me for not feeling humbled by him.
"Perhaps he just refuses to believe in something for which there is no evidence beyond the smug assertions of people like you?"
So... he doesn't believe that something exists until proof smacks him over the head.
Isn't that basically the definition of one with a small mind? If you're shaking your head, then please tell me, what do you think of people who thought the world was flat?
"He was doing what he had to do to become powerful enough to learn how to keep Padme from dying. He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor (since eliminating the Senate would make things more efficient to ensure stability for the galaxy)"
If Episode II had been a better movie, this could have been a real good point. (err I mean point in the movie, not your point.) Instead of basically just a one-liner saying how he'd run the galaxy, it would have been more interesting for him to 'see' lack of order in the galaxy causing chaos.
"the kessel run, allegedly, was a test of maneuverability -- not of speed. a ship that could navigate a shorter route through a mess of spatial anomalies, asteroids, black holes, etc., was an admirable ship."
The author who wrote that bit into his book was trying to cover for George's mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
"In what field is Sony near a monopoly?"
Video games. Sony's reaching a high enough marketshare to pull some serious shenanigans against Microsoft and Nintendo. Getting game systems out there isn't what wins the race. (Nintendo, for example, has the cheapest system.) It's the games. The bigger the marketshare Sony has, the more exclusives they can gobble up. They also have enough clout to boss their retailers around about how their displays are set up. They can even play games like "You can't sell our products if you're selling competing products."
Will they? Who knows? Sony has deep pockets, too. The difference between Sony and Microsoft is that Sony has the marketshare to leverage their power.
Of course it was non-responsive, what did you expect with the way you phrased your question?
To answer your question:
It depends on what his motives are. If his goal was to create a civilization that could exist without his intervention, then no, he wouldn't show himself. You've seen how people with too much faith behave, imagine a planet like that. (i.e. refusing medical care because they feel god will heal them.)
Just to clear up any misconceptions here:
1.) I am not a bible thumper.
2.) I am not anti-stem cell research.
3.) I did not vote for Bush.
4.) I am not anti-gay marriage.
5.) I'm not anti evolutionary theory. Moreso, I am not pro-Intelligent Creation.
6.) I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
7.) I think it's very likely there is life on other planets.
8.) I do not think less of you for not sharing my belief in god, nor do I have any interest in 'converting' you. I think your beliefs are up to you and I have no reason to think mine are any better.
If you are being hostile towards me because you've attributed incorrect assumptions about me, I hope you'll make the necessary corrections here.
Now, I've answered your question even though I fully expect you to use my answer to try to wind me up. Would you care to show me the same respect and answer a question for me?
Suppose you over the duration of your life, you asked God for help. Then suppose on some occasions that you not only got your wish, but the turn of events was quite surprising. I don't mean anything that couldn't be ruled as just coincidence. But just the sheer number and appearant thoughtfulnes of it.
Now, here's my question, please read it VERY carefully: Would you be open to the idea that God could exist? (Note: I'm not asking if you'd believe he exists, just the idea that he could.)
I realize there are obvious answers (toxic fuel, fire, etc...) but I'm often surprised when asking these questions.
"How's this for the ultimate conundrum: the combination of "Nobody RTFA here" and "the Slashdot Effect" taking down sites?"
Just act as though you're an expert on the topic like a bunch of other +5 loud mouthes.
"Sucks to be a cow ..."
Must... resist... yo mama... joke...
"Wrong again. There was evidence of this long before the proof. The people who came up with the theory based it on the evidence they were able to observe."
Before evidence is hypothesis. Science often requires faith mixed with a little helping of creativity. I'd expect somebody who claims to know anything about scientific history to know this.
"Like someone already said earlier, it wouldn't hurt you to study up on some scientific history before you declare yourself an idiot to the world."
Funny thing is, if you knew your scientific history like you claim I don't, you'd have a devastating rebuttal here. I should have thougt a little bit more before using that particular example, but at least it did point out you're not so educated as you'd like to think, either. Hehe.
"Many people are sticking with Win2K because of the draconian licensing and validation process required with WinXP"
More people pay the Microsoft tax and end up with the latest version of Windows when they buy a new computer.
It isn't a great move, but it's not that damaging. Win2K users have an alternative anyway.
"So, are you expecting a deity to suddenly decide to provide some evidence of its existence?"
Faith... faith in general, I don't just mean religious faith, has a strong application in scientific progress. If you don't understand that, I don't see how you can say you're not small minded.
"The obvious way this would be done is by legislating/regulating feature out of existence, i.e. giving up freedom."
Eh. Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but the problem is that the freedom you describe potentially means people getting TV without 'paying' for it. (by paying for it, I mean watching commercials.) In other words, 'paying' for the TV is the step that's trying to be skipped. (Though not intentionally.) I see your point that it's 'giving up a freedom', but the alternative is 'no tv for you'. That is, of course, if we're talking about going to unlikely extremes.
"but i have windows, you insensitive clod!"
Then look out the window, yeesh!!
"Not content with theory when better research methods arise, scientists go off and try to get better evidence for what was "known" before."
...Your ignorance is staggering. Please correct it."
In other words: Some ignorant freak had this really strange idea that matter is composed of atoms. He had no proof of it, but he believed it. Weird ignorant small minded loon. Eventually he was proven right, though. Lucky bastard.
" Do yourself a favor: put down that silly work of imaginative fiction known as the Bible, and pick up some secular historical works about this."
Interesting assumption you've made about me here. Lemme guess: You think that I don't believe theory of evolution, that I think stem cell research is bad, that I think the Earth is 6,000 years old, that God is anti-gay, and that I voted for Bush, right? Surprise! Wrong on ALL counts. (Oh yeah, I've never read the bible but I have studied science. Oopsie!)
"This is why you don't understand why educated people like us find a belief in God to be anywhere from pathetic to amusing
Speaking of ignorance, you seem blissfully unaware that lots of 'educated people' believe in God. You'll pardon me for not feeling terribly put in my place, here. Afterall, I'm being called ignorant by a guy operating totally on generalizations.
Actually, it was more like this:
Skeptic: Everybody who believes in god is small minded.
Me: You have a small mind.
I didn't say that because he believes in god, I said that because he's making generalizations about something he doesn't understand. Funny thing is, Mr no-a-small-mind lept to the wrong conclusion and tried to shut me up. You'll pardon me for not feeling humbled by him.
"Ok, try to keep up here: atomic theory is supported by evidence."
It wasn't always. Same for the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, instead of vice versa.
"Why, do you have some proof to offer? Ok, forget proof, how about some evidence?"
I'm really curious if we'd know anything about atoms today if people behaved like you'd like them to.
"BBC Launches Linux Powered Weather Format"
Linux users rejoice at finally knowing what the weather's like outside!
"Perhaps he just refuses to believe in something for which there is no evidence beyond the smug assertions of people like you?"
So... he doesn't believe that something exists until proof smacks him over the head.
Isn't that basically the definition of one with a small mind? If you're shaking your head, then please tell me, what do you think of people who thought the world was flat?
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hairstyle."
Bald IS a hairstyle, Mr. Tannen.
"Geeks have lots of words that noone else uses. "Stereochemistry, Hexadecimal, Defrag"
They also don't know how to spell fuck.
It's a cat word! It's a sound you make when you get your genitals caught in something.
Is it in the dictionary?
Well it could be, if you're reding in the nude and you close the book too fast. *SLam* Jaycksk!!
"He was doing what he had to do to become powerful enough to learn how to keep Padme from dying. He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor (since eliminating the Senate would make things more efficient to ensure stability for the galaxy)"
If Episode II had been a better movie, this could have been a real good point. (err I mean point in the movie, not your point.) Instead of basically just a one-liner saying how he'd run the galaxy, it would have been more interesting for him to 'see' lack of order in the galaxy causing chaos.
"I wish they'd told me that before I'd seen the movie three times..."
It's not their fault you missed em all three times!
"the kessel run, allegedly, was a test of maneuverability -- not of speed. a ship that could navigate a shorter route through a mess of spatial anomalies, asteroids, black holes, etc., was an admirable ship."
The author who wrote that bit into his book was trying to cover for George's mistake.
"The battle is Firefox vs IE. The danger is of Microsoft winning again, but not because they have a better product."
Gee, then I guess the Mozilla group will have to keep innovating. Boy, that'd sure suck for the rest of us.
"Well, OK, I also want standards compliance which maybe counts as functionality. "
You'll need unambiguous standards before that happens. Even today, no two browsers are alike.
"I am annoyed that it's caught up with three years ago and isn't even going to tiptoe any further."
What is your basis for that assumption? IE7's not even out yet, and MS isn't going to give FireFox time to catch up to them.