I think what the United States needs right about now is a virus that kills about 80% of all litigators. You still need a few for legitimate, rational affairs, but it's clear that American civilization is going to be crushed under the weight of sheer greed, stupidity and self-destructive self-interest.
Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like the fall of the Roman Empire. Oh well, who needs to pay attention to history. The US of A knows how to handle itself in the grand scheme of things. We have people on the hot topics already: global warming, abortion, wars, murder, rapes, robberies, corporations gone mad, etc. We'll be just fine for another.......5 years or so.
Reading the article, it seems like it will be a nice show, but poses little chance of danger to Earth.
Just another on a growing list. (NEOs, Gamma Ray Bursts, Rouge Black Holes, Giant Hydrogen Clouds, etc.)
[can't track with watermarking]...If you pay with cash at the music store. So who cares.
What stops them from putting watermarks in music stamped onto CDs? Answer: Nothing. It may be harder because when the music is ripped it is changed but I'm sure they can come up with something.
After 15 years in IT, I've noticed that programmers as a lot typically cannot spell even the most basic 3-syllable words, so when you find a coder who actually spells properly get out your checkbook. Like it or not, being able to spell is a significant indication of character, especially the propensity for paying attention to detail (a trait you certainly want in a professional coder).
I've noticed a large percentage of programmers who can't or don't type properly. They type fast but they don't use standard typing form (home keys, proper fingers pressing keys, etc.) and basically do a fast hunt/peck which mainly consists of pecking. That percentage goes up when I expand my statement to include more than just programmers. I think the cause of this is just an issue of the more senior people where I work probably never had a typing class and maybe taught themselves how to type. All they did was memorize where the keys are but not how to use them.
9/11 was a flea bite. It killed fewer people than die every month on the highways, and did less property damage than good-sized hurricane (and *far* less than a major disaster like Katrina).
It (the attack) killed the same type of people that sometimes die by *accident* when the US military makes bombing runs on various targets in Iraq which coincidentally causes such a ruckus in the media and in anyone who opposes the war. Those people that the military kills by accident and those who were killed on *purpose* by terrorists in NYC and DC in 2001 were civilians. Civilians killed by accident is just a side effect of war (especially when the enemy is cowardly and hides among civilians) but killing civilians on purpose is an act of war. The people that die on the highways every month is largely a result of an accident; murder is not being committed. Murder is always treated differently (morally and legally) than accidental death. Both are obviously horrific events but murder is even moreso.
Just ask "How was your day?" I first did this with random girls I met as a joke, but then realized how right he was when he said that that one question can lead to a 45 minute conversation. I wasn't even aware that much 'stuff' could happen in one persons day.
That much (enough to fill a 45 min discussion and more) happens to everyone but if you ask a guy the same question you would get an answer like "it was good" and be on to talking about something else. Women like to talk and men learn to just nod as they do so. That can easily take up 45 minutes many times a day.
I've got a box full and it's always fun trying to find the 2.0 cable hiding among the 1.0 cables.I hate to toss them but I really haven't any use for 1.0 cables.
I have an extra box if you are too hard up to buy something that comes in a box (to eventually use the empty box) or if you are too lazy to find an empty one. With the extra box you can place all your 2.0 cables in one and the 1.0 cables in another. It might be difficult overcoming the quantum superposition of the cables though since someone else said that the same USB cable can do both 2.0 and 1.0. Maybe you can tape/glue the 2 boxes together and cut away the inner walls and then you can have all cables in both boxes at once?
Never mind that solar activity has trended downwards since 1980, and yet we have experienced the most significant GLOBAL warming since then, including the shocking drop in arctic sea ice this fall. Climate change denialists know no shame.
Wow, you linked to an animation. That is definitive proof. I recall seeing similar proof in a feature film much like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I believe it was called Ice Age 2. I thought I was already convinced global warming was real after watching that movie but after seeing the animation you linked to I'm just blown away. I'm ready to vote for billions of $ to be invested in technology to prevent natural occurrences from re-occurring.
Everyone knows that the last time there was some kind of reversal of polls on the Earth, the entire world lost electrical power for thousands of years and the whole planet was shattered into pieces!!
Um, no I believe we just had a change of parties in the Oval Office. You exaggerate too much.
That is a disputed assertion. I knew someone whose son was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of eighteen months. That child underwent surgery that extirpated a large part of his brain, leaving him severely handicapped until his death at the age of four.
You may say we do not understand God enough to know why He let that happen, He might have had His reasons, but that's certainly not what I define by "good". Either He is not omnipotent or He is not good.
It is only disputed in the mind of people like you who misplace blame. I know of someone who won millions of dollars in a lottery. Why not praise God for that instead of being so quick to blame him for the bad stuff? We aren't in Heaven where we are fully protected by Him and where nothing bad happens and where there is no sadness, war, etc.
So by your logic, God lets bad *and* good things happen which leaves Satan in the clear? You can blame God for the bad stuff but I don't ever hear anyone thanking him when good stuff happens. Why is he only blamed for bad and not praised for good? God doesn't let those things happen in Heaven but we aren't in Heaven right now. We are in a material world and we are subjected to all aspects of that world, both good and bad. You may ask, why would God put us here then? If he put us here that still must mean he is a bad god. No, it doesn't. *We* screwed up this world. Blame it on Adam and Eve. Everything was fine until they did a bad thing (but based on free will). I believe that is called the Fall of Man.
To the 3rd response to my post that said this seminal sentence:
What kind of "good" God allows genocides to happen? What kind of "good" God sits around and does nothing while thousands of children die every single motherfucking day?
My response is that God didn't allow it to happen. It was caused by Man and although God has largely removed himself from this world due to certain type of people who don't believe in him (so why should he stick around right?) he still does protect those who believe in him. Maybe some of the people who were killed in genocide believed in him. The point is that everything that happens on this planet is a result of a material world and it is ruled by Satan basically. Eventually God will return and take those away who have turned to him and your answer to your question at that point will be (and is still largely the answer now) that God does protect those who believe in him because he will rescue them from this world. It seems dc29A (the person who responded with that question) has issues with believing in God just because he incorrectly believes God lets bad things happen. It also seems many people have issues with blaming God for bad stuff and never thanking him for the good, all the while never considering Satan may be behind all the bad stuff. I think dc29A and others need to reconsider who they are blaming and why. And ask yourself, why should God help people who don't believe in his existence? It's a war between good and evil and it's all too easy to blame God but that's your choice. Another valid choice is to blame Satan for the bad stuff and praise God for the good and know that if you want to be in a better place then blaming God is not the way to do it.
As to the person (MightyYar) who questions my statement regarding questioning the Bible, yes the Bible has transcription errors but questioning the spirit of what was written is not a good thing. Any version of the Holy Bible is still the Holy Bible and is thus still viewed as the Word of God so questioning parts or all of it is not a good thing unless you just don't care about God in the first place. As far as free will evolving, if you believe in an organism arising out of nothing spontaenously and the spontaneity of an offspring of that organism growing an appendage the parent organism did not have then I guess anything is possible, even the fact you may be an ass. Of course, if you are a person who thinks above that level of random complexity then free w
And if that religion is Christianity, the resulting explanation is even stranger than the bizarre factual claims the religion makes.
Any claim is bizarre if you have a motivational bias to reject it. Many physical and cosmological claims over the last millennium have been considered even worse than bizarre. Some turned out to be true and some not. I guess using your logic we should ignore everything bizarre and consider anyone who supports those ideas and theories to be zealots, fanatics, lunes, etc. Would you feel better if we start doing that equally to supporters of both scientific and religious ideas? It would eliminate the double standards you like to create (see below or another).
Why didn't God just create us all as souls in Heaven? Everyone sings happily ever after, end of story.
Why didn't the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator) create a universe that would collapse in on itself and everyone singls happily ever after until the Big Crunch, end of story? Obviously the various physical parameters show that the universe isn't going to collapse but that doesn't explain why the parameters themselves are what they are. The point I'm making is that there are questions about God we do not yet (and may never on this planet) know the answer to but there are also "scientific" questions we do not yet (or may never) know the answer to. To suggest that some of the unanswered, important questions concerning God invalidate him in any way is a double standard that you are creating due to a bias you seem to have against God to protect your science.
But no, he has to create us with bodies in a material world and leave us unattended so we can fall prey to temptations we don't understand and get condemned to Hell for it, so he can show how much he loves all of us by saving a tiny, tiny fraction of us from eternal torture.
He hasn't left us unattended. He may not *seem* to perform miracles as much as he used to (some consider the birth of a new human a miracle every single time) but he hasn't left us unattended. Although maybe he has left you unattended personally because you seem to have a conflict with him. If you focus your life on him you won't fall prey to temptation as easily (good wins over evil) and he will seem to stick around more often as well. I find it a naive view to say that you could fall prey to a temptation you don't understand. He only saves those who ask for saving so it isn't his fault that only a tiny, tiny fraction end up getting saved. Don't blame him for our choices. We have free will.
The factual errors in evolution can be swept under the rug if you're so motivated but evolution is stupid beyond belief (it implies we have no free will) and the notion that it doesn't negate the existence of God is wholly incorrect. If you believe in God and in evolution then you are saying the Bible is wrong concerning the portions that describe how God created Man. He didn't create amino acids first and let things progress, he started with Man directly. I don't see you blaming Satan for any of this stuff (e.g. the reason for temptation). Why is that? You do realize God is the Good One, right?
The network browsing in 10.5 *is* much better, with it showing my network computers in the finder automatically.
Maybe browsing is fine but w/o being able to connect to a share it doesn't matter. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can't get Leopard to connect to hidden shares, specifically the admin shares of a Windows drive (C$, D$, etc.). I always get errors however, if I explicitly share out a drive or folder it connects fine. Any ideas?
Changing routers to some that support IPv6 isn't done over night.
Routers? It's the switches we have to worry about;)
But seriously, in addition to the network infrastructure a company also has to worry about their server hosts, workstations, and applications (both custom and COTS). Any appliances used in the network must also be IPv6 compatible. For users communicating over the Internet from home the backbone routers, the ISP, and any backbone providers the ISP uses must all be capable of routing IPv6 before full end-to-end communication over IPv6 occurs. Obviously, having DNS root servers will help but it isn't the last piece of the puzzle.
In the next few years products like Sharepoint will alleviate some of that, though storage is cheap enough that it may not be worth the cost to both reeducate users and build the infrastructure for it. A SAN can hold real a lot of word documents and PDFs after all...
Really? hmm, I didn't know Sharepoint would magically free up wasted space. With regard to storage, Sharepoint still creates the problem but from a different angle. Sure, you can create links in 1 site to documents in another site but when those documents are heavily modified and version history is enabled, you end up with 1 file that contains 30 versions and each one is basically 5 or 10 or 20 megabytes in size (usually increasing as the version # increases). Sharepoint could just exacerbate the problem of storage. We ran out of SAN storage at work for our Sharepoint database because we have people who like to create multiple files for a single document such as a presentation. Sharepoint of course provides versioning, and they know that, but they still insist on having presentation-1.ppt, presentation-2.ppt, and presentiation-master.ppt with each having multiple versions and what is worse is that the presentation could be a 10 megabyte file, obviously replicated needlessly many many times. OK, my rant is over, sorry.
As far as storage being cheap, there will always be cheaper managers who don't want to spend a dime.
People aren't blaming religion for scientific stagnation; quite the contrary: religion is holding back scientific progress in such areas as stem cell research, for example, where the government only funds research that are in line with the leaders' religious views. This hasn't stopped private research, which continues to happen regardless. Your strawman argument about people blaming religion for stagnation is absurd.
First, blaming religion for the lack of progress in stem cell research is an example of what I said and is not to the contrary even though you said it was. Private research does continue but that doesn't make my statement false.
Secondly, you must not have ever given a second's glance to the comment I had responded to, specifically this sentence:
The division of the Bible belt will have moved up to the 49th parallel and all scientific progress south of the Canadian border will have been halted.
It was the OP who stated that the lack of scientific progress is due to religion, specifically Christianity. The OP implies the future will produce scientific stagnation however I've seen many people on/. at present who think religion slows scientific progress.
it's the ones who try and foist their beliefs upon others who should be punished by society.
People who use the Constitution to say that someone else can not practice their religious beliefs in public (or have signs of their beliefs shown in public) are the ones who should be punished. That is just hypocritical especially when their defense for wanting to stop the other person is because their own beliefs are somehow trampled upon and they want to uphold the freedom of religion clause. The sad thing is preventing that other person from practicing in public is itself in violation of freedom of religion but that isn't how those extremists view their condemnation of religion.
Effectively, those extremists view freedom of religion as meaning no religion shall ever rear its ugly head in public which creates a double standard because many of those same people view freedom of speech as universal. I guess they prefer to pick and choose what, where, and when certain parts of the Constitution apply. These atheists already exist as your feared Jack Thompsons of the world or do they not count because they are trying to force removal of religion instead of accceptance of religion?
The country will have turned into a religious backwater, filled with power hungry zealots whose only purpose is to quash logical opposition. The division of the Bible belt will have moved up to the 49th parallel and all scientific progress south of the Canadian border will have been halted. Religious leaders will shout that if it's contrary to the Bible, then it's heresy and should be destroyed... otherwise, it's redundant and should be destroyed anyways. Religious leaders and politicians will be one and the same, and surveillance will be everywhere.
Maybe 100 years from now we won't have certain types of people who consider religious people as part of the untouchables class and religion itself will stop being blamed for scientific stagnation. In addition, maybe those who still want religious people at the bottom of society will not post as AC so that we may at least know who the real coward is who holds such prejudices.
Science is based on evidence; religion is based on faith.
Believers have faith in God, scientists have faith in the equations that describe what God has created. Of course, those equations are always being refined because they are not 100% accurate. As soon as someone suggests they are wrong in a way that suggests a supreme being everyone questions the recommendation for change until science proves time and time again that Creation did happen. An example of that is Fred Hoyle who hated the idea of a Big Bang because it suggested a point of creation which could lead some people to think The Creation, so he held fast to his steady state theory all the way to his deathbed. Obviously he was proven wrong despite his bias against religion. The Big Bang was another piece of evidence showing the Bible is not just a history book. The only thing missing in my opinion is the timelines are out of sync but that will eventually be fixed as well as soon as someone has the balls and the know-how to say that the multi-billion year timeline is way off target. Paradigm shifts take time and a lot of old-timers have to either die off or be willing to change their prejudices for those shifts occur. For some reason many scientists are too naive or ignorant to realize that however much they want to remove religion from their career they cannot because religion is the foundation for the world and science is just the method of discovering all the details.
A dvd-writer isn't feasible to backup nearly 300gb.
I think you could use a DVD writer for that amount. It would only take 10 single layer discs to backup 37.5 gigabytes (300gb/8) of data.
For that matter, I'd buy another hard drive and use that instead because it is much faster and then you could backup 300 gigabytes of data once your storage need grows.
The Dell comes with a TV tuner. People who like Dells also like American Idol and Fox news.
I can't tell what TV tuner is included but it probably isn't adding much more than $80 to the final price. I bought a Happauge PVR150 for about $80 I believe 1 year ago (analog only). Also, the Dell does have a 8-in-1 card reader which probably adds another $40 to the price but the iMac has a built-in camera. With those items taken into account, it puts the price spread at only ~$120. I guess which one you pick still depends on what you are looking for because they just aren't identical configurations.
I would have never thought there was a speed limit for the universe before I read Einstein's special theory of relativity. Anything is possible.
The speed limit of c applies to information but does not apply to light itself. Many experiments have been performed that scientifically prove light can travel faster than c but using that ability to transfer information faster than c has proven impossible.
1. Surfing will slow: The internet is not about to grind to a halt, but as more and more users clamber aboard to download music, video clips and games... surfing the web is going to be more like traveling the highways at holiday time.
I don't know about anyone else but I never have trouble accessing the Internet at holiday time such as on Labor Day, Easter, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, President's Day or Memorial Day. What's so special about those holidays?
Chill, man. No need to get so defensive. Nobody's going to take Christmas away from you.
Tell that to the media and secularists who don't want Christmas trees in public, don't allow "Merry Christmas" to be said, and don't even celebrate Christmas for fear of offending others or who believe religion should be confined to the home. That's despite the other part of the 1st Amendment (the freedom of speech) being universal to them. They pick and choose what they want to be universal.
"Inerrancy" implies ID at best, young-earth creationism at worst. If we take the Bible literally, Creation in seven days is not supported by science.
Those of faith do not believe in inerrancy. The Bible is right. Questioning it means you question God. I don't see people questioning history textbooks (which is what people compare the Bible to) so I don't see why some people feel the need to say the Bible is wrong. If scientists look at what the evidence shows them instead of interpreting it so they don't prove the Bible even more right than they already have, they will see that with current theories regarding the inconstancy of the speed of light, Creation could have taken 7 days because the age of the universe would no longer even be the billions of years scientists think it is. 7 days may not be supported now only because many choose to not want to prove the Bible right; there are strong enough biases in the scientific community to have a specific agenda like that. Not to mention that if they decided to support that idea many, if not all, of those people who do not believe in religion would just not accept it. But that is the usual first response to the beginning of a paradigm shift in scientific theories. It takes time for people to let go of the old, incorrect, theories because they still make some sense, if you choose to deny that the newer theory makes even more sense.
A "liberal" interpretation of the Bible certainly has no problems with science. However, I would argue that looking for scientific support for the Bible is a misguided search. With religious texts being so open to interpretation, there's a guaranteed confirmation bias. If scientists overturn the Big Bang theory, there'll be no trouble justifying it with Creation. "Why, the universe has always existed, with no beginning? Of course, God made it that way!"
Well the only reason some want scientific support is so that those who are non-believers will shut the hell up about how they are always right and they would eventually stop calling the believers fanatics. The believers actually don't need scientific proof; that's what faith is partially for: belief in something that isn't necessarily going to slap you in the face to show you it's there. Scientific evidence is open to interpretation too or have you not read as many cosmology books as I have to know that? People make mistakes. Scientists are people. They make errors in interpretation, calculation, observation. Peer review does help minimize those errors but some things are just so big they don't want it known that they could have screwed up and will ruin any new scientist who comes along and says "wait guys, I think we looked at this wrong" because of the consequences, dare I say much like a conspiracy.
It's all too easy to justify religious beliefs.
I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. I will defend my beliefs if I'm attacked however which seems to happen a lot on this site (no surprise...fanatics attacking supposed fanatics means I have to defend myself). As far as your example regarding believers using lack of a Big Bang to say it was still God's plan, I'll say that that is a bad example. The Bible says there is a beginning therefore the Big Bang is scientific proof of that. It would be stupid for believers to say otherwise. The problem with scientists is they really think science is separate from religion when it really isn't. They want it to be but God put in place the physi
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like the fall of the Roman Empire. Oh well, who needs to pay attention to history. The US of A knows how to handle itself in the grand scheme of things. We have people on the hot topics already: global warming, abortion, wars, murder, rapes, robberies, corporations gone mad, etc. We'll be just fine for another.......5 years or so.
At which point the only question remaining is who will be born to have chip ID# 666 inserted?
Wait, I'm confused. Are they red or black?
What stops them from putting watermarks in music stamped onto CDs? Answer: Nothing. It may be harder because when the music is ripped it is changed but I'm sure they can come up with something.
I've noticed a large percentage of programmers who can't or don't type properly. They type fast but they don't use standard typing form (home keys, proper fingers pressing keys, etc.) and basically do a fast hunt/peck which mainly consists of pecking. That percentage goes up when I expand my statement to include more than just programmers. I think the cause of this is just an issue of the more senior people where I work probably never had a typing class and maybe taught themselves how to type. All they did was memorize where the keys are but not how to use them.
It (the attack) killed the same type of people that sometimes die by *accident* when the US military makes bombing runs on various targets in Iraq which coincidentally causes such a ruckus in the media and in anyone who opposes the war. Those people that the military kills by accident and those who were killed on *purpose* by terrorists in NYC and DC in 2001 were civilians. Civilians killed by accident is just a side effect of war (especially when the enemy is cowardly and hides among civilians) but killing civilians on purpose is an act of war. The people that die on the highways every month is largely a result of an accident; murder is not being committed. Murder is always treated differently (morally and legally) than accidental death. Both are obviously horrific events but murder is even moreso.
That much (enough to fill a 45 min discussion and more) happens to everyone but if you ask a guy the same question you would get an answer like "it was good" and be on to talking about something else. Women like to talk and men learn to just nod as they do so. That can easily take up 45 minutes many times a day.
I have an extra box if you are too hard up to buy something that comes in a box (to eventually use the empty box) or if you are too lazy to find an empty one. With the extra box you can place all your 2.0 cables in one and the 1.0 cables in another. It might be difficult overcoming the quantum superposition of the cables though since someone else said that the same USB cable can do both 2.0 and 1.0. Maybe you can tape/glue the 2 boxes together and cut away the inner walls and then you can have all cables in both boxes at once?
Wow, you linked to an animation. That is definitive proof. I recall seeing similar proof in a feature film much like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I believe it was called Ice Age 2. I thought I was already convinced global warming was real after watching that movie but after seeing the animation you linked to I'm just blown away. I'm ready to vote for billions of $ to be invested in technology to prevent natural occurrences from re-occurring.
Um, no I believe we just had a change of parties in the Oval Office. You exaggerate too much.
That is a disputed assertion. I knew someone whose son was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of eighteen months. That child underwent surgery that extirpated a large part of his brain, leaving him severely handicapped until his death at the age of four. You may say we do not understand God enough to know why He let that happen, He might have had His reasons, but that's certainly not what I define by "good". Either He is not omnipotent or He is not good.
It is only disputed in the mind of people like you who misplace blame. I know of someone who won millions of dollars in a lottery. Why not praise God for that instead of being so quick to blame him for the bad stuff? We aren't in Heaven where we are fully protected by Him and where nothing bad happens and where there is no sadness, war, etc.
So by your logic, God lets bad *and* good things happen which leaves Satan in the clear? You can blame God for the bad stuff but I don't ever hear anyone thanking him when good stuff happens. Why is he only blamed for bad and not praised for good? God doesn't let those things happen in Heaven but we aren't in Heaven right now. We are in a material world and we are subjected to all aspects of that world, both good and bad. You may ask, why would God put us here then? If he put us here that still must mean he is a bad god. No, it doesn't. *We* screwed up this world. Blame it on Adam and Eve. Everything was fine until they did a bad thing (but based on free will). I believe that is called the Fall of Man.
To the 3rd response to my post that said this seminal sentence:
What kind of "good" God allows genocides to happen? What kind of "good" God sits around and does nothing while thousands of children die every single motherfucking day?
My response is that God didn't allow it to happen. It was caused by Man and although God has largely removed himself from this world due to certain type of people who don't believe in him (so why should he stick around right?) he still does protect those who believe in him. Maybe some of the people who were killed in genocide believed in him. The point is that everything that happens on this planet is a result of a material world and it is ruled by Satan basically. Eventually God will return and take those away who have turned to him and your answer to your question at that point will be (and is still largely the answer now) that God does protect those who believe in him because he will rescue them from this world. It seems dc29A (the person who responded with that question) has issues with believing in God just because he incorrectly believes God lets bad things happen. It also seems many people have issues with blaming God for bad stuff and never thanking him for the good, all the while never considering Satan may be behind all the bad stuff. I think dc29A and others need to reconsider who they are blaming and why. And ask yourself, why should God help people who don't believe in his existence? It's a war between good and evil and it's all too easy to blame God but that's your choice. Another valid choice is to blame Satan for the bad stuff and praise God for the good and know that if you want to be in a better place then blaming God is not the way to do it.
As to the person (MightyYar) who questions my statement regarding questioning the Bible, yes the Bible has transcription errors but questioning the spirit of what was written is not a good thing. Any version of the Holy Bible is still the Holy Bible and is thus still viewed as the Word of God so questioning parts or all of it is not a good thing unless you just don't care about God in the first place. As far as free will evolving, if you believe in an organism arising out of nothing spontaenously and the spontaneity of an offspring of that organism growing an appendage the parent organism did not have then I guess anything is possible, even the fact you may be an ass. Of course, if you are a person who thinks above that level of random complexity then free w
Any claim is bizarre if you have a motivational bias to reject it. Many physical and cosmological claims over the last millennium have been considered even worse than bizarre. Some turned out to be true and some not. I guess using your logic we should ignore everything bizarre and consider anyone who supports those ideas and theories to be zealots, fanatics, lunes, etc. Would you feel better if we start doing that equally to supporters of both scientific and religious ideas? It would eliminate the double standards you like to create (see below or another).
Why didn't God just create us all as souls in Heaven? Everyone sings happily ever after, end of story.Why didn't the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator) create a universe that would collapse in on itself and everyone singls happily ever after until the Big Crunch, end of story? Obviously the various physical parameters show that the universe isn't going to collapse but that doesn't explain why the parameters themselves are what they are. The point I'm making is that there are questions about God we do not yet (and may never on this planet) know the answer to but there are also "scientific" questions we do not yet (or may never) know the answer to. To suggest that some of the unanswered, important questions concerning God invalidate him in any way is a double standard that you are creating due to a bias you seem to have against God to protect your science.
But no, he has to create us with bodies in a material world and leave us unattended so we can fall prey to temptations we don't understand and get condemned to Hell for it, so he can show how much he loves all of us by saving a tiny, tiny fraction of us from eternal torture.He hasn't left us unattended. He may not *seem* to perform miracles as much as he used to (some consider the birth of a new human a miracle every single time) but he hasn't left us unattended. Although maybe he has left you unattended personally because you seem to have a conflict with him. If you focus your life on him you won't fall prey to temptation as easily (good wins over evil) and he will seem to stick around more often as well. I find it a naive view to say that you could fall prey to a temptation you don't understand. He only saves those who ask for saving so it isn't his fault that only a tiny, tiny fraction end up getting saved. Don't blame him for our choices. We have free will.
The factual errors in evolution can be swept under the rug if you're so motivated but evolution is stupid beyond belief (it implies we have no free will) and the notion that it doesn't negate the existence of God is wholly incorrect. If you believe in God and in evolution then you are saying the Bible is wrong concerning the portions that describe how God created Man. He didn't create amino acids first and let things progress, he started with Man directly. I don't see you blaming Satan for any of this stuff (e.g. the reason for temptation). Why is that? You do realize God is the Good One, right?
Maybe browsing is fine but w/o being able to connect to a share it doesn't matter. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can't get Leopard to connect to hidden shares, specifically the admin shares of a Windows drive (C$, D$, etc.). I always get errors however, if I explicitly share out a drive or folder it connects fine. Any ideas?
Routers? It's the switches we have to worry about ;)
But seriously, in addition to the network infrastructure a company also has to worry about their server hosts, workstations, and applications (both custom and COTS). Any appliances used in the network must also be IPv6 compatible. For users communicating over the Internet from home the backbone routers, the ISP, and any backbone providers the ISP uses must all be capable of routing IPv6 before full end-to-end communication over IPv6 occurs. Obviously, having DNS root servers will help but it isn't the last piece of the puzzle.
Really? hmm, I didn't know Sharepoint would magically free up wasted space. With regard to storage, Sharepoint still creates the problem but from a different angle. Sure, you can create links in 1 site to documents in another site but when those documents are heavily modified and version history is enabled, you end up with 1 file that contains 30 versions and each one is basically 5 or 10 or 20 megabytes in size (usually increasing as the version # increases). Sharepoint could just exacerbate the problem of storage. We ran out of SAN storage at work for our Sharepoint database because we have people who like to create multiple files for a single document such as a presentation. Sharepoint of course provides versioning, and they know that, but they still insist on having presentation-1.ppt, presentation-2.ppt, and presentiation-master.ppt with each having multiple versions and what is worse is that the presentation could be a 10 megabyte file, obviously replicated needlessly many many times. OK, my rant is over, sorry.
As far as storage being cheap, there will always be cheaper managers who don't want to spend a dime.
First, blaming religion for the lack of progress in stem cell research is an example of what I said and is not to the contrary even though you said it was. Private research does continue but that doesn't make my statement false.
Secondly, you must not have ever given a second's glance to the comment I had responded to, specifically this sentence:
The division of the Bible belt will have moved up to the 49th parallel and all scientific progress south of the Canadian border will have been halted.It was the OP who stated that the lack of scientific progress is due to religion, specifically Christianity. The OP implies the future will produce scientific stagnation however I've seen many people on /. at present who think religion slows scientific progress.
it's the ones who try and foist their beliefs upon others who should be punished by society.People who use the Constitution to say that someone else can not practice their religious beliefs in public (or have signs of their beliefs shown in public) are the ones who should be punished. That is just hypocritical especially when their defense for wanting to stop the other person is because their own beliefs are somehow trampled upon and they want to uphold the freedom of religion clause. The sad thing is preventing that other person from practicing in public is itself in violation of freedom of religion but that isn't how those extremists view their condemnation of religion.
Effectively, those extremists view freedom of religion as meaning no religion shall ever rear its ugly head in public which creates a double standard because many of those same people view freedom of speech as universal. I guess they prefer to pick and choose what, where, and when certain parts of the Constitution apply. These atheists already exist as your feared Jack Thompsons of the world or do they not count because they are trying to force removal of religion instead of accceptance of religion?
Maybe 100 years from now we won't have certain types of people who consider religious people as part of the untouchables class and religion itself will stop being blamed for scientific stagnation. In addition, maybe those who still want religious people at the bottom of society will not post as AC so that we may at least know who the real coward is who holds such prejudices.
Even if you like Vista, the ultimate license is not worth $400. No OS (yet) is worth $400.
Believers have faith in God, scientists have faith in the equations that describe what God has created. Of course, those equations are always being refined because they are not 100% accurate. As soon as someone suggests they are wrong in a way that suggests a supreme being everyone questions the recommendation for change until science proves time and time again that Creation did happen. An example of that is Fred Hoyle who hated the idea of a Big Bang because it suggested a point of creation which could lead some people to think The Creation, so he held fast to his steady state theory all the way to his deathbed. Obviously he was proven wrong despite his bias against religion. The Big Bang was another piece of evidence showing the Bible is not just a history book. The only thing missing in my opinion is the timelines are out of sync but that will eventually be fixed as well as soon as someone has the balls and the know-how to say that the multi-billion year timeline is way off target. Paradigm shifts take time and a lot of old-timers have to either die off or be willing to change their prejudices for those shifts occur. For some reason many scientists are too naive or ignorant to realize that however much they want to remove religion from their career they cannot because religion is the foundation for the world and science is just the method of discovering all the details.
Rubber bullets work well too. It's always nice to be able to punish a terrorist (therefore you need him/her alive) before sending him/her to Hell.
I think you could use a DVD writer for that amount. It would only take 10 single layer discs to backup 37.5 gigabytes (300gb/8) of data.
For that matter, I'd buy another hard drive and use that instead because it is much faster and then you could backup 300 gigabytes of data once your storage need grows.
I can't tell what TV tuner is included but it probably isn't adding much more than $80 to the final price. I bought a Happauge PVR150 for about $80 I believe 1 year ago (analog only). Also, the Dell does have a 8-in-1 card reader which probably adds another $40 to the price but the iMac has a built-in camera. With those items taken into account, it puts the price spread at only ~$120. I guess which one you pick still depends on what you are looking for because they just aren't identical configurations.
The speed limit of c applies to information but does not apply to light itself. Many experiments have been performed that scientifically prove light can travel faster than c but using that ability to transfer information faster than c has proven impossible.
I don't know about anyone else but I never have trouble accessing the Internet at holiday time such as on Labor Day, Easter, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, President's Day or Memorial Day. What's so special about those holidays?
Chill, man. No need to get so defensive. Nobody's going to take Christmas away from you.
Tell that to the media and secularists who don't want Christmas trees in public, don't allow "Merry Christmas" to be said, and don't even celebrate Christmas for fear of offending others or who believe religion should be confined to the home. That's despite the other part of the 1st Amendment (the freedom of speech) being universal to them. They pick and choose what they want to be universal.
"Inerrancy" implies ID at best, young-earth creationism at worst. If we take the Bible literally, Creation in seven days is not supported by science.
Those of faith do not believe in inerrancy. The Bible is right. Questioning it means you question God. I don't see people questioning history textbooks (which is what people compare the Bible to) so I don't see why some people feel the need to say the Bible is wrong. If scientists look at what the evidence shows them instead of interpreting it so they don't prove the Bible even more right than they already have, they will see that with current theories regarding the inconstancy of the speed of light, Creation could have taken 7 days because the age of the universe would no longer even be the billions of years scientists think it is. 7 days may not be supported now only because many choose to not want to prove the Bible right; there are strong enough biases in the scientific community to have a specific agenda like that. Not to mention that if they decided to support that idea many, if not all, of those people who do not believe in religion would just not accept it. But that is the usual first response to the beginning of a paradigm shift in scientific theories. It takes time for people to let go of the old, incorrect, theories because they still make some sense, if you choose to deny that the newer theory makes even more sense.
A "liberal" interpretation of the Bible certainly has no problems with science. However, I would argue that looking for scientific support for the Bible is a misguided search. With religious texts being so open to interpretation, there's a guaranteed confirmation bias. If scientists overturn the Big Bang theory, there'll be no trouble justifying it with Creation. "Why, the universe has always existed, with no beginning? Of course, God made it that way!"
Well the only reason some want scientific support is so that those who are non-believers will shut the hell up about how they are always right and they would eventually stop calling the believers fanatics. The believers actually don't need scientific proof; that's what faith is partially for: belief in something that isn't necessarily going to slap you in the face to show you it's there. Scientific evidence is open to interpretation too or have you not read as many cosmology books as I have to know that? People make mistakes. Scientists are people. They make errors in interpretation, calculation, observation. Peer review does help minimize those errors but some things are just so big they don't want it known that they could have screwed up and will ruin any new scientist who comes along and says "wait guys, I think we looked at this wrong" because of the consequences, dare I say much like a conspiracy.
It's all too easy to justify religious beliefs.
I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. I will defend my beliefs if I'm attacked however which seems to happen a lot on this site (no surprise...fanatics attacking supposed fanatics means I have to defend myself). As far as your example regarding believers using lack of a Big Bang to say it was still God's plan, I'll say that that is a bad example. The Bible says there is a beginning therefore the Big Bang is scientific proof of that. It would be stupid for believers to say otherwise. The problem with scientists is they really think science is separate from religion when it really isn't. They want it to be but God put in place the physi