Those don't count. Half-assed, half-quality drivers for an expensive video card are no drivers at all. You might as well just save yourself some money and buy a previous-generation NVIDIA card instead, beause you'll be getting the same sort of performance.
Or to run stuff like Glitz, the OpenGL-accelerated Cairo implementation. In theory, the FD.O server will eventually run everything in OpenGL mode, and at that point, you'll want a good OpenGL accelerator.
I forgot to add: Maya and XSI can also use them to partially accelerate rendering, and can use them to provide a higher-detail, faster realtime preview.
Perhaps. When Longhorn/FD.O come out, with all the windows being textured, gradient-filled, and convoluted using shader programs, you'll need all the horsepower you can get to scroll your window:)
If you'd check to see, the benchmarks on the Ruby demo were 30-40fps, or less than human perception. And the Ruby demo doesn't look as good as Shrek, much less Final Fantasy the Movie!
Definitely depends on your experience. I play games on my PS2 and Gamecube (Xenosaga rocks!), my resume (and all my documents) are PDFs, and I just spent 6 hours fussing with a wireless USB dongle in Windows (still doesn't work) that took 15 minutes to get working in Linux.
Smalltalk was rather original, though it borrowed a lot of stuff from Lisp (regular-ish syntax, closures, etc). Had nothing to do with BASIC. And Java isn't an evolution of ObjC, its a refactorization of C++. If they'd copied Objective C instead, Java would suck less.
I love how I keep making all these points and you ignore them and, like a broken record, keep attempting to "de-prove" G-d by "logic." I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God. I believe, however, that the claim that God is all-powerful and the claim that he gives humans free will (among other things) is contradictory. As for where God claims he is all powerful: God hasn't ever spoken to us, so I don't think he does. His followers, however (of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic background), do make the claim that he is an omnipotent God.
instead of an ant, make it a chimp, a dog, or an ape. None of these have rational thoughts either. 'Rational' means having the use of logic. So far as we can see, human beings are the only creatures that can rigerously (is there any other way?) use logic.
Again, I said, as did G-d, that He has made mistakes (re: I pointed this out in a previous post). Point to where G-d says both "I am perfect and never make mistakes" and the passage where G-d says that He will never again try to destroy the world. If God has made mistakes, then he cannot be all-powerful. A mistake implies regret, and regret cannot exist when one knows the entirity of the future.
An ant cannot possibly conceive of his place vs that of humans in the evolutionary, ecological or scientific order of the universe. if its little brain even attempted such a proof, it would fantastically fail. Does that imply that we humans cannot exist in his universe? Same idea. Not at all. An ant is not a rational creature. Logic, like mathematics, transcends our own minds.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If he's all powerful, he is omnisciant, which means he already knows what you are going to do before you do it, thus you cannot really make your own decisions. God needn't make any decisions, because decisions are the result of imperfect knowledge. Indeed, decisions imply change, and a perfect God could not change, because a perfect God would be immutable (any change would be a change away from perfection!).
Now, if you deny that elementary logic can be used to understand the nature of God, then fine, that in itself is a consistent argument. However, note that by rejecting fundemental logic you assert the fact that the "man in the sky" vision of God can only exist in an irrational universe. Indeed, to believe in such a God, you are being irrational. There is nothing wrong with rejecting rationality, of course, as long as you fully understand the consequences and implications of doing so.
If God is not all-powerful, why do we call him the almighty? The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is, in theory, omnipotent. That omnipotency is at odds with his supposed interest in human affairs.
That's a very revisionist reading of the Bible. Now, I don't think that their is anything wrong with revisionism, but it would seem to me that religion of any sort would not be amenable to revision, given that they are predicated on the in-faith belief of unverifiable 'truths.' In truth, modern Christianity as embraced by the Western world is more of a moral philosophy than a religion per-se.
I say this as an engineer by the way --- I'm always a little disgusted with myself whenever I have to convert a number in a historical table to metric, wondering why we haven't thrown all that crap away and built our foundation on something a little more logical and consistent.
Any system of logic starts with axioms. At a metalogical level, if you don't accept certain principles of logic, then yes, religion becomes a tangible alternative to modern western philosophical thought. On the other hand, if you do accept the basic framework of logic, then religion becomes an entity independent of science, though the underlying principles of logic place restrictions on the form religion can take. In summery:
- You can be a literalist religious person and not believe in modern logic and science. This is a perfectly self-consistent set of beliefs. - You can be a scientist, and not believe in religion, this is also consistent. - You can be a scientist, and believe in God, but not many elements of literal religion, and still be consistent. - You cannot be a literalist religious person and embrace modern logic and science at the same time without rejecting the principles of consistency.
Which pretty much throws your whole "omnipotent creator" pretty much out the window, doesn't it. The "big man in the sky" image of God is pretty well-debunked by modern philosophy. Either he is all-powerful and perfect, but entirely non-anthropomorphic and uninvolved in human affairs, or he is just a minor diety.
I don't think the parent poster was arguing against the Bible itself, but specifically against the grand-parent poster, who was offering a very literalist interpretation of it.
Now the interesting part is that Christianity is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is the infallible word of God. By comprimising on that infallibility, aren't you compromising the religion itself?
Slashdot Mirror
Rogue app? CTRL-ALT-ESCAPE (to bring up xkill) always does the trick for me --- no reboot necessary.
Don't you actually have to invent something new to get a patent? Because there sure as hell isn't anything in Longhorn that's the least bit new!
Those don't count. Half-assed, half-quality drivers for an expensive video card are no drivers at all. You might as well just save yourself some money and buy a previous-generation NVIDIA card instead, beause you'll be getting the same sort of performance.
To play cutting edge games like XSI or Blender :)
Or to run stuff like Glitz, the OpenGL-accelerated Cairo implementation. In theory, the FD.O server will eventually run everything in OpenGL mode, and at that point, you'll want a good OpenGL accelerator.
I forgot to add: Maya and XSI can also use them to partially accelerate rendering, and can use them to provide a higher-detail, faster realtime preview.
If you do any sort of 3D modeling (either artistic or engineering). I use mine GeForce4 as a cheapo-but-usable 3D CAD card.
For gaming, there are two sets of usable 3D drivers on Linux. You've got NVIDIA's binary drivers, and XiG's Summit drivers for ATI cards.
Perhaps. When Longhorn/FD.O come out, with all the windows being textured, gradient-filled, and convoluted using shader programs, you'll need all the horsepower you can get to scroll your window :)
If you'd check to see, the benchmarks on the Ruby demo were 30-40fps, or less than human perception. And the Ruby demo doesn't look as good as Shrek, much less Final Fantasy the Movie!
Definitely depends on your experience. I play games on my PS2 and Gamecube (Xenosaga rocks!), my resume (and all my documents) are PDFs, and I just spent 6 hours fussing with a wireless USB dongle in Windows (still doesn't work) that took 15 minutes to get working in Linux.
Nope. Every time a story about Blender came up on Slashdot, people would complain constantly.
People complained about blender's interface way before it was open source.
Smalltalk was rather original, though it borrowed a lot of stuff from Lisp (regular-ish syntax, closures, etc). Had nothing to do with BASIC. And Java isn't an evolution of ObjC, its a refactorization of C++. If they'd copied Objective C instead, Java would suck less.
Let's see if I can get a +5 funny too...
format-out("10 PRINT \"HELL\"");
format-out("GOTO 10");
Guess what language?
Either-or. He is all-powerful, or he gave humans free will. Not both at the same time. I'm more inclined to believe the former, though.
I love how I keep making all these points and you ignore them and, like a broken record, keep attempting to "de-prove" G-d by "logic."
I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God. I believe, however, that the claim that God is all-powerful and the claim that he gives humans free will (among other things) is contradictory. As for where God claims he is all powerful: God hasn't ever spoken to us, so I don't think he does. His followers, however (of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic background), do make the claim that he is an omnipotent God.
instead of an ant, make it a chimp, a dog, or an ape.
None of these have rational thoughts either. 'Rational' means having the use of logic. So far as we can see, human beings are the only creatures that can rigerously (is there any other way?) use logic.
Again, I said, as did G-d, that He has made mistakes (re: I pointed this out in a previous post). Point to where G-d says both "I am perfect and never make mistakes" and the passage where G-d says that He will never again try to destroy the world.
If God has made mistakes, then he cannot be all-powerful. A mistake implies regret, and regret cannot exist when one knows the entirity of the future.
An ant cannot possibly conceive of his place vs that of humans in the evolutionary, ecological or scientific order of the universe. if its little brain even attempted such a proof, it would fantastically fail. Does that imply that we humans cannot exist in his universe? Same idea.
Not at all. An ant is not a rational creature. Logic, like mathematics, transcends our own minds.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If he's all powerful, he is omnisciant, which means he already knows what you are going to do before you do it, thus you cannot really make your own decisions. God needn't make any decisions, because decisions are the result of imperfect knowledge. Indeed, decisions imply change, and a perfect God could not change, because a perfect God would be immutable (any change would be a change away from perfection!).
Now, if you deny that elementary logic can be used to understand the nature of God, then fine, that in itself is a consistent argument. However, note that by rejecting fundemental logic you assert the fact that the "man in the sky" vision of God can only exist in an irrational universe. Indeed, to believe in such a God, you are being irrational. There is nothing wrong with rejecting rationality, of course, as long as you fully understand the consequences and implications of doing so.
There is a third option: God is seperate from the knownable universe, and is thus neither the universe itself, nor a being in the universe.
If God is not all-powerful, why do we call him the almighty? The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is, in theory, omnipotent. That omnipotency is at odds with his supposed interest in human affairs.
That's a very revisionist reading of the Bible. Now, I don't think that their is anything wrong with revisionism, but it would seem to me that religion of any sort would not be amenable to revision, given that they are predicated on the in-faith belief of unverifiable 'truths.' In truth, modern Christianity as embraced by the Western world is more of a moral philosophy than a religion per-se.
I say this as an engineer by the way --- I'm always a little disgusted with myself whenever I have to convert a number in a historical table to metric, wondering why we haven't thrown all that crap away and built our foundation on something a little more logical and consistent.
Any system of logic starts with axioms. At a metalogical level, if you don't accept certain principles of logic, then yes, religion becomes a tangible alternative to modern western philosophical thought. On the other hand, if you do accept the basic framework of logic, then religion becomes an entity independent of science, though the underlying principles of logic place restrictions on the form religion can take. In summery:
- You can be a literalist religious person and not believe in modern logic and science. This is a perfectly self-consistent set of beliefs.
- You can be a scientist, and not believe in religion, this is also consistent.
- You can be a scientist, and believe in God, but not many elements of literal religion, and still be consistent.
- You cannot be a literalist religious person and embrace modern logic and science at the same time without rejecting the principles of consistency.
Which pretty much throws your whole "omnipotent creator" pretty much out the window, doesn't it. The "big man in the sky" image of God is pretty well-debunked by modern philosophy. Either he is all-powerful and perfect, but entirely non-anthropomorphic and uninvolved in human affairs, or he is just a minor diety.
I don't think the parent poster was arguing against the Bible itself, but specifically against the grand-parent poster, who was offering a very literalist interpretation of it.
Now the interesting part is that Christianity is predicated on the assumption that the Bible is the infallible word of God. By comprimising on that infallibility, aren't you compromising the religion itself?