>I don't understand why Apple's market share hasn't soared thanks to this and other similar advantages.
I'm betting a lot of potential Mac buyers are first introduced to linux as the "other OS," and thankfully re-install XP after the 80th time they've typed su or edited a 20 page config file written by CS majors for CS majors.
Linux advocates really need to realize that they're acting like a third-party spoiler when someone wants something simple to use. I don't see how installing what is essentially a server OS is a "MS killer" especially when Apple makes a product designed for people sick of windows.
Ideally, Linux advocates should be advocating Macs for non-techies. Instead, I see way too much mindless Apple bashing here and we wonder why MS is so dominant. For these reasons, when someone says they're a mac owner its the equivalant system shock of hearing "I'm a scientologist!"
Lets put the rhetoric and idealism to rest and push Apple products to those who need them.
>I'm sure it will be replaced with something highly mediocre.
Marketing: "Can't you see, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift, we're being proactive and pro-consumer! We've got to get more eyeballs on the screen. Imminetize the Eschaton!"
Customer: "Umm, what the hell does that mean?"
Marketing: "More religious programming and infomercials."
Yes it should apply. I know you're being facetious but lets look at your examples:
1.Stole that radio and it doesn't work? I should still be able to get it fixed under warranty.
Yes, you should. If that thing is polluting the FM band and causing problems for others, then it should be fixed regardless of its legal status.
2.Stole that car and the radiater hose burst?
Sure. I'd rather it be fixed and the cops take care of the legal stuff than having it go out of control and ram my car or help add 1 one to everyone's commute when it does break down.
It is not the job of the corporation to act like a quasi-police force. Crime should be taken care of by the cops, not by half-assed "we won't patch you" policies.
Exactly, its just a product and the manufacturer has a responsibility to repair flaws as needed.
Imagine if somebody with a stolen car tried to get a recalled part repaired, the dealer turned them down, and then his gas tank exploded and killed a handful of people. GM is not walking away from that, nor should MS.
Granted, its an extreme example, but there shouldnt be a double standard for software companies.
What MS should be doing is deactiving these things as they visit windows update, but it seems their stranglehold monopoly is more important than keeping these things from becoming spam relays, trojaned zombies, etc. Not giving them security updates is hardly a real deterrent. I doubt many casual copyright infringers even know anything about patching. The "community" copy of XP, 2000, or Office at someone's office isn't exactly in the hands of experts.
I wonder what the tort implications of this is. If a bunch of zombie machines attack a site/network and cost a company x amount of dollars, they should be able to sue MS for a purposely maintaining a faulty product, especially if MS is refusing to give these people patches.
Sorry but lets look at the web and then see if its a well maintaned suburb. Just like a real suburb, once you scratch the surface you see the crap underneath that makes city life so fulfilling.
1. Fake amazon, paypal,etc sites. It doesn't matter if they get pulled down, within minutes they have your credit card number. How often do people drop their cc number in newsgroups or irc?
2. Spyware. Lots of it. Misleading ads. Electronic extortion "look we can open your cd drive with activex, pay us 20 dollars for "security software"
3. Web exploits.
4. Ads and cookies compiling data about your surfing.
5. Sites that teach hacking, p2p info, etc that no one on irc would bother to tell n00bs.
Seems to me the web is a lot more dangerous for users than irc and newsgroups combined.
I don't think there's anything wrong with these specs for a computer almost four years in the future. What does bother me is that manufacturers will continue to push the envelope while still ignoring some basic problems with the PC form: the noise, size, and heat.
Things will get faster, no doubt about that, but will they get smaller and quieter?
Google does do "sucky things," just like any other company and now with the enormous data-mining potential it has and the current political climate it may get more "sucky" in the future.
Yes, Google isn't Diebold or SCO, but that's not saying much.
Reminds me, time to delete my google cookies on various browsers. Thanks anonymous coward!
Agreed, but only when it comes to things like drug laws, prostitution, "vice," or the eventual political revolution.
Now starting a fraudulent business as entirely a different matter. If anti-fraud laws failed consistancy, then amazon would be shipping you the wrong book for a higher price, etc without you having much legal recourse.
The fact is that the US has a lot of tolerance for business (look at the "psychics," snake-oil, exagerrated claims, etc) but all-out fraud is actually pretty rare. Obviously, you don't want to police the crap out of every business, but there will always be real criminals out there who will be victimizing others through commerce and who deserve a smack-down.
Also, even in "vice" laws you have some deterent. How many people casually do illegal drugs but would never take the chance of selling them? Lots.
"They" censored Galileo and killed Bruno. Copernicus published on his deathbed in fear.
"They" were the Catholic Church.
The good thing is that now that adults are more or less in charge the worst we can do is laugh at them. There is no secular police that will kill these men for being heretics and its thanks to the pioneers, western enlightenment, etc who went AGAINST the grain and fought for human rights that we are allowed to live in a secular state.
>popular thoughts of the society of the day.
What "popular thoughts" are you talking about? Most Americans believe in a creation and in various biblical myths. These people are the status quo defending "popular thoughts" not rugged individualists like the great minds of the past.
Oh man, quit saying that. You are way too passive agressive.
A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
>My faith is in the word of the Bible,
You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?
You claim that someplace or something isnt known then it must be the work of the gods. This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc.
Now your just taking the god of the gaps to a friggin mountain. Not terribly convicing.
So today its a mountain, will your grandchildren be telling us that its in a far off galaxy (just interpret the ark as being a spaceship) when this is debunked/explained? When will the "gappers" stand-down and not take some ancient script as fact, but as interpration of events through the eyes of highly religious and uneducated peoples?
This is simply untrue. Till wrote a good article on the subject: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazine s/tsr/1998/2/982front.html Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corro
Noah's Ark is the boat built by the Biblical character Noah. At the command of God, according to the story, Noah was to build a boat that could accommodate his extended family, about 50,000 species of animals, and about one million species of insects. The craft had to be constructed to endure a divinely planned universal flood aimed at destroying every other person and animal on earth (except, I suppose, those animals whose habitat is liquid). This was no problem, according to Dr. Max D. Younce, who says by his calculations from Genesis 6:15 that the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep. He says this is equivalent to "522 standard stock cars or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each." By some divine calculation he figures that all the insect species and the worms could fit in 21 box cars. He could be right, though Dr. Younce does not address the issue of how the big boxcar filled with its cargo rose with the rainwater level instead of staying put beneath the floodwaters.
Those not familiar with the story might wonder why God would destroy nearly all the descendants of all of the creatures he had created. The story is that God was displeased with all of his human creations, except for Noah and his family. Annihilating those one is displeased with has become a familiar tactic of the followers of this and many other gods.
Despite the bad example God set for Noah's descendants--imagine a human parent drowning his or her children because they were "not righteous"--the story remains a favorite among children. God likes good people. He lets them ride on a boat with a bunch of friendly animals. He shows them a great rainbow after the storm. And they all live happily ever after. Even adults like the story, though they might see it as an allegory with some sort of spiritual message, such as God is all-powerful and we owe everything, even our very existence to the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator expects us to behave ourselves. But there are many who take the story literally.
According to the story told in chapter 7 of Genesis, Noah, his crew, and the animals lived together for more than 6 months before the floodwaters receded. There are a few minor logistical problems with this arrangement, but before getting to them, there is one other thing that needs commenting on. It is obvious that floods are no laughing matter. The destruction of life and property caused by floods has plagued many animals, not just humans, from time immemorial. To watch one's family or home swept away in floodwaters must be a terrible spectacle. To see one's children drown, one's life and dreams washed away in an instant, must be a devastating experience. But if one were to discover that the flood was not a whimsical effect of chance natural events, not unplanned and purposeless, but rather the malicious and willful act of a conscious being, one might add rage to the feelings of devastation. I suppose one could argue that it is God's world; he created it, so he can destroy it if he feels like it. But such an attitude seems inappropriate for an All-Good, Loving God.
the "finding" of the Ark
Yet, as preposterous as this story seems, there are people in the twentieth century who claim they have found Noah's ark. They call themselves "arkeologists." Yes, they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species that had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat.
I dunno, its seems to me that only x amount of traffic is encrypted. I don't encrypt everything mainly because of the technophobes who don't even have keys or certs. Google is just assuming (and wisely so) that most mail will be unencrypted. The worst-case scenario is that they ask for your private key and just decrypt things on fly, but something tells me this would be fatal to the Gmail project.
Secondly, its good to see an industry leader take on encryption. MS, hotmail, yahoo, etc have all largely ignored encryption. Google could make encryption or at least encryption awareness a goal and a selling point. Hopefully it wont be a proprietary gmail to gmail system, but something based on open standards so everyone can use it. Gmail could issue free personal certificates and perhaps implement a simple "get someones public cert here" webpage.
It is marketing mostly, but we're dealing with a product that is trying to break into monopolies.
Cable and satellite are proprietary and self-controlled. So Tivo just can't make something to plug in, they need to cut deals with these companies.
The real problem is why should (pretend you are a ceo of a cable network) my company pay for the Tivo name/code when we can produce our own DVR cheaper and put in content control backdoors? It skips commercials today, but maybe not tomorrow, etc.
Tivo is too easily replicated. Its not playing in an open market. And its an pioneer. It could very well go the way of the Newton or the Commodore64.
The power button isn't very smart when dealing with a TV and a reviever.
Every part of me screams "The thumbs up should be on the LEFT side."
And one big complaint:
It looks *exactly* like a little black dildo when its upside down. This illusion is made much more realistic when it is upside-down on my bed. Tivo, for the sake of all this is good in the universe, please fix this!
>Movie from blockbuster = $3 / 2 hours = $1.50/hour
How is this insightful? A movie doesn't play itself.
A television tube has a useable lifespan of almost a decade.
There is serious downside to owning projection equipment, ignoring bulb lifespan and prices is setting up yourself up for a fall. The same way its much more economical to own a personal laser printer than an inkjet printer.
2000 hours is ONE YEAR at 6 hours a day, which is about the average time a television is left on, especially in the homes of videophiles or homes with kids. If you treat your projector the same way you treat your TV you will be replacing the bulb annually.
COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
No we will not put the "conspiracy theories" away just because they threaten your own ideas of just how corrupt things have gotten. At the very least this quote should make every state divest in Diebold.
After the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) the states found themselves with more money than sense on "fixing" voting. Many chose Diebold. They chose wrong. Its time to fix that mistake.
Australia had open source voting 2-3 years ago. We've got Diebold.
>, they are more concerned with making money.
Yes, they did a good job of convincing states that their product is the way to go. As with most government contracts there was plenty of pork and cronyism to go around. Lets not drink the "the market will save us all" Kool-Aid while corruption goes unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
>I don't understand why Apple's market share hasn't soared thanks to this and other similar advantages.
I'm betting a lot of potential Mac buyers are first introduced to linux as the "other OS," and thankfully re-install XP after the 80th time they've typed su or edited a 20 page config file written by CS majors for CS majors.
Linux advocates really need to realize that they're acting like a third-party spoiler when someone wants something simple to use. I don't see how installing what is essentially a server OS is a "MS killer" especially when Apple makes a product designed for people sick of windows.
Ideally, Linux advocates should be advocating Macs for non-techies. Instead, I see way too much mindless Apple bashing here and we wonder why MS is so dominant. For these reasons, when someone says they're a mac owner its the equivalant system shock of hearing "I'm a scientologist!"
Lets put the rhetoric and idealism to rest and push Apple products to those who need them.
>I'm sure it will be replaced with something highly mediocre.
Marketing: "Can't you see, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift, we're being proactive and pro-consumer! We've got to get more eyeballs on the screen. Imminetize the Eschaton!"
Customer: "Umm, what the hell does that mean?"
Marketing: "More religious programming and infomercials."
Yes it should apply. I know you're being facetious but lets look at your examples:
1.Stole that radio and it doesn't work? I should still be able to get it fixed under warranty.
Yes, you should. If that thing is polluting the FM band and causing problems for others, then it should be fixed regardless of its legal status.
2.Stole that car and the radiater hose burst?
Sure. I'd rather it be fixed and the cops take care of the legal stuff than having it go out of control and ram my car or help add 1 one to everyone's commute when it does break down.
It is not the job of the corporation to act like a quasi-police force. Crime should be taken care of by the cops, not by half-assed "we won't patch you" policies.
Exactly, its just a product and the manufacturer has a responsibility to repair flaws as needed.
Imagine if somebody with a stolen car tried to get a recalled part repaired, the dealer turned them down, and then his gas tank exploded and killed a handful of people. GM is not walking away from that, nor should MS.
Granted, its an extreme example, but there shouldnt be a double standard for software companies.
What MS should be doing is deactiving these things as they visit windows update, but it seems their stranglehold monopoly is more important than keeping these things from becoming spam relays, trojaned zombies, etc. Not giving them security updates is hardly a real deterrent. I doubt many casual copyright infringers even know anything about patching. The "community" copy of XP, 2000, or Office at someone's office isn't exactly in the hands of experts.
I wonder what the tort implications of this is. If a bunch of zombie machines attack a site/network and cost a company x amount of dollars, they should be able to sue MS for a purposely maintaining a faulty product, especially if MS is refusing to give these people patches.
Sorry but lets look at the web and then see if its a well maintaned suburb. Just like a real suburb, once you scratch the surface you see the crap underneath that makes city life so fulfilling.
,etc sites. It doesn't matter if they get pulled down, within minutes they have your credit card number. How often do people drop their cc number in newsgroups or irc?
1. Fake amazon, paypal
2. Spyware. Lots of it. Misleading ads. Electronic extortion "look we can open your cd drive with activex, pay us 20 dollars for "security software"
3. Web exploits.
4. Ads and cookies compiling data about your surfing.
5. Sites that teach hacking, p2p info, etc that no one on irc would bother to tell n00bs.
Seems to me the web is a lot more dangerous for users than irc and newsgroups combined.
I don't think there's anything wrong with these specs for a computer almost four years in the future. What does bother me is that manufacturers will continue to push the envelope while still ignoring some basic problems with the PC form: the noise, size, and heat.
Things will get faster, no doubt about that, but will they get smaller and quieter?
Google does do "sucky things," just like any other company and now with the enormous data-mining potential it has and the current political climate it may get more "sucky" in the future.
Yes, Google isn't Diebold or SCO, but that's not saying much.
Reminds me, time to delete my google cookies on various browsers. Thanks anonymous coward!
>>but historic fact.
Agreed, but only when it comes to things like drug laws, prostitution, "vice," or the eventual political revolution.
Now starting a fraudulent business as entirely a different matter. If anti-fraud laws failed consistancy, then amazon would be shipping you the wrong book for a higher price, etc without you having much legal recourse.
The fact is that the US has a lot of tolerance for business (look at the "psychics," snake-oil, exagerrated claims, etc) but all-out fraud is actually pretty rare. Obviously, you don't want to police the crap out of every business, but there will always be real criminals out there who will be victimizing others through commerce and who deserve a smack-down.
Also, even in "vice" laws you have some deterent. How many people casually do illegal drugs but would never take the chance of selling them? Lots.
All logical spellings of everything have been trademarked by drug companies.
Zamil, for instance, helps firm up stool for people on low-carb diets.
Common side effects may include:
Abdominal pain, abnormal dreams, abnormal vision, agitation, amnesia, anxiety, arthritis, back pain, bronchitis, burning sensation, chest pain, confusion, constipation, coughing, daytime sleeping, decreased mental alertness, depression, diarrhea, difficulty breathing, difficulty concentrating, difficulty swallowing, diminished sensitivity to touch, dizziness on standing, double vision, dry mouth, emotional instability, exaggerated feeling of well-being, eye irritation, falling, fatigue, fever, flu-like symptoms, gas, general discomfort, hallucination, hiccup, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased sweating, infection, insomnia, itching, joint pain, lack of bladder control, lack of coordination, lethargy, light-headedness, loss of appetite, menstrual disorder, migraine, muscle pain, nasal inflammation, nervousness, numbness, paleness, prickling or tingling sensation, rapid heartbeat, rash, ringing in the ears, sinus inflammation, sleep disorder, speech difficulties, swelling due to fluid retention, taste abnormalities, throat inflammation, throbbing heartbeat, tremor, unconsciousness, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, vertigo, vomiting, weakness, abnormal tears or tearing, abscess, acne, aggravation of allergies, aggravation of high blood pressure, aggression, allergic reaction, altered production of saliva, anemia, belching, blisters, blood clot in lung, boils, breast pain, breast problems, breast tumors, bruising, chill with high temperature followed by heat and perspiration, decreased sex drive, delusion, difficulty urinating, excessive urine production, e ye pain, facial swelling due to fluid retention, fainting, false perceptions, feeling intoxicated, feeling strange, flushing, frequent urination, glaucoma, gout, heart attack, hemorrhoids, herpes infection, high cholesterol, hives, hot flashes, impotence, inability to urinate, increased appetite, increased tolerance to the drug, intestinal blockage, irregular heartbeat, joint degeneration, kidney failure, kidney pain, laryngitis, leg cramps, loss of reality, low blood pressure, mental deterioration, muscle spasms in arms and legs, muscle weakness, nosebleed, pain, painful urination, panic attacks, paralysis, pneumonia, poor circulation, rectal bleeding, rigidity, sciatica (lower back pain), sensation of seeing flashes of lights or sparks, sensitivity to light, sleepwalking, speech difficulties, swelling of the eye, thinking abnormalities, thirst, tooth decay, uncontrolled leg movements, urge to go to the bathroom, varicose veins, weight loss, yawning
If its the ad-blocking hosts file you want, its here.
>bible defines as faith
There are other religious books than just the Bible. Other religious traditions.
M-W.com is just that. Its not Jesus.M-W.com.
From m-w.com.
Faith:
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
My definition is accepted and correct. You may not like it and you can play semantics all day long, but that is faith in a nutshell.
> They laughed at Galileo, and Copernicus.
No.
"They" censored Galileo and killed Bruno. Copernicus published on his deathbed in fear.
"They" were the Catholic Church.
The good thing is that now that adults are more or less in charge the worst we can do is laugh at them. There is no secular police that will kill these men for being heretics and its thanks to the pioneers, western enlightenment, etc who went AGAINST the grain and fought for human rights that we are allowed to live in a secular state.
>popular thoughts of the society of the day.
What "popular thoughts" are you talking about? Most Americans believe in a creation and in various biblical myths. These people are the status quo defending "popular thoughts" not rugged individualists like the great minds of the past.
> so feel free to mod me down.
Oh man, quit saying that. You are way too passive agressive.
A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
>My faith is in the word of the Bible,
You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?
For kicks take this fun Bible quiz. That's what you believe? Weird.
You are falling for the god of the gaps fallacy.
You claim that someplace or something isnt known then it must be the work of the gods. This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc.
Now your just taking the god of the gaps to a friggin mountain. Not terribly convicing.
So today its a mountain, will your grandchildren be telling us that its in a far off galaxy (just interpret the ark as being a spaceship) when this is debunked/explained? When will the "gappers" stand-down and not take some ancient script as fact, but as interpration of events through the eyes of highly religious and uneducated peoples?
>onsistent with archaeological evidence.
/2/982front.html
This is simply untrue. Till wrote a good article on the subject:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazine s/tsr/1998
Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corro
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark is the boat built by the Biblical character Noah. At the command of God, according to the story, Noah was to build a boat that could accommodate his extended family, about 50,000 species of animals, and about one million species of insects. The craft had to be constructed to endure a divinely planned universal flood aimed at destroying every other person and animal on earth (except, I suppose, those animals whose habitat is liquid). This was no problem, according to Dr. Max D. Younce, who says by his calculations from Genesis 6:15 that the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep. He says this is equivalent to "522 standard stock cars or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each." By some divine calculation he figures that all the insect species and the worms could fit in 21 box cars. He could be right, though Dr. Younce does not address the issue of how the big boxcar filled with its cargo rose with the rainwater level instead of staying put beneath the floodwaters.
Those not familiar with the story might wonder why God would destroy nearly all the descendants of all of the creatures he had created. The story is that God was displeased with all of his human creations, except for Noah and his family. Annihilating those one is displeased with has become a familiar tactic of the followers of this and many other gods.
Despite the bad example God set for Noah's descendants--imagine a human parent drowning his or her children because they were "not righteous"--the story remains a favorite among children. God likes good people. He lets them ride on a boat with a bunch of friendly animals. He shows them a great rainbow after the storm. And they all live happily ever after. Even adults like the story, though they might see it as an allegory with some sort of spiritual message, such as God is all-powerful and we owe everything, even our very existence to the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator expects us to behave ourselves. But there are many who take the story literally.
According to the story told in chapter 7 of Genesis, Noah, his crew, and the animals lived together for more than 6 months before the floodwaters receded. There are a few minor logistical problems with this arrangement, but before getting to them, there is one other thing that needs commenting on. It is obvious that floods are no laughing matter. The destruction of life and property caused by floods has plagued many animals, not just humans, from time immemorial. To watch one's family or home swept away in floodwaters must be a terrible spectacle. To see one's children drown, one's life and dreams washed away in an instant, must be a devastating experience. But if one were to discover that the flood was not a whimsical effect of chance natural events, not unplanned and purposeless, but rather the malicious and willful act of a conscious being, one might add rage to the feelings of devastation. I suppose one could argue that it is God's world; he created it, so he can destroy it if he feels like it. But such an attitude seems inappropriate for an All-Good, Loving God.
the "finding" of the Ark
Yet, as preposterous as this story seems, there are people in the twentieth century who claim they have found Noah's ark. They call themselves "arkeologists." Yes, they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species that had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat.
Still, none of t
I dunno, its seems to me that only x amount of traffic is encrypted. I don't encrypt everything mainly because of the technophobes who don't even have keys or certs. Google is just assuming (and wisely so) that most mail will be unencrypted. The worst-case scenario is that they ask for your private key and just decrypt things on fly, but something tells me this would be fatal to the Gmail project.
Secondly, its good to see an industry leader take on encryption. MS, hotmail, yahoo, etc have all largely ignored encryption. Google could make encryption or at least encryption awareness a goal and a selling point. Hopefully it wont be a proprietary gmail to gmail system, but something based on open standards so everyone can use it. Gmail could issue free personal certificates and perhaps implement a simple "get someones public cert here" webpage.
It is marketing mostly, but we're dealing with a product that is trying to break into monopolies.
Cable and satellite are proprietary and self-controlled. So Tivo just can't make something to plug in, they need to cut deals with these companies.
The real problem is why should (pretend you are a ceo of a cable network) my company pay for the Tivo name/code when we can produce our own DVR cheaper and put in content control backdoors? It skips commercials today, but maybe not tomorrow, etc.
Tivo is too easily replicated. Its not playing in an open market. And its an pioneer. It could very well go the way of the Newton or the Commodore64.
- A couple small complaints.
- The mute button is too easy to hit by accident.
- The graphics on the keys rub off too easily.
- The power button isn't very smart when dealing with a TV and a reviever.
- Every part of me screams "The thumbs up should be on the LEFT side."
And one big complaint:It looks *exactly* like a little black dildo when its upside down. This illusion is made much more realistic when it is upside-down on my bed. Tivo, for the sake of all this is good in the universe, please fix this!
Actually Directv was just bought by Rupert Murdoch and he also owns a DVR company. Tivo's deal with directv has been in jeopardy since.
>Movie from blockbuster = $3 / 2 hours = $1.50/hour
How is this insightful? A movie doesn't play itself.
A television tube has a useable lifespan of almost a decade.
There is serious downside to owning projection equipment, ignoring bulb lifespan and prices is setting up yourself up for a fall. The same way its much more economical to own a personal laser printer than an inkjet printer.
2000 hours is ONE YEAR at 6 hours a day, which is about the average time a television is left on, especially in the homes of videophiles or homes with kids. If you treat your projector the same way you treat your TV you will be replacing the bulb annually.
No we will not put the "conspiracy theories" away just because they threaten your own ideas of just how corrupt things have gotten. At the very least this quote should make every state divest in Diebold.
After the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) the states found themselves with more money than sense on "fixing" voting. Many chose Diebold. They chose wrong. Its time to fix that mistake.
Australia had open source voting 2-3 years ago. We've got Diebold.
>, they are more concerned with making money.
Yes, they did a good job of convincing states that their product is the way to go. As with most government contracts there was plenty of pork and cronyism to go around. Lets not drink the "the market will save us all" Kool-Aid while corruption goes unchecked.
/smartass
Can do a lot of these tasks and its $299 (supply your own laptop).
Info here