But we have been visited about 2000 years ago by God himself. We celebrate that every year on December 25th. Jesus claimed to be God in human form. He came to his own but his own rejected him and had him crucified. He didn't stay dead, but demonstrated a technology far greater, if you can call it a technology, than instantaneous travel to the furthest corner of the universe. What Jesus Christ promised to those who believe him immortality. That to me this is infinitely greater than being able to instantly travel to the remotest corner of the universe.
He came from a place he called heaven, but was constantly talking in parables and pictures of what people knew - life on earth. Heaven is an eternal place, whereas Earth is time bound. Jesus said:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Human beings, such as science fiction writers are often pretty imaginative. However, the apostle Paul understood this:
1Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him."
After 1 billion years, the first nanosecond of eternity has gone by.
....But the NT was written about 300 years after his death....
That is patently false. The earliest writings were put down about 35 years after Jesus' resurrection. All the original documents upon which our New Testament is based were completed around 90 A.D. There is more documentation about Jesus and the early Christians, than most, if any, other ancient historical figure. There are more ancient documents about Jesus than about any of the Roman emperors.
....I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible...
What if anything can ever be "proved"? Even in mathematics we make certain assumptions (belief), and then based upon those we make a "proof".
Things in the past can never be "proved". There can be witnesses that will testify what they saw happened, like a crime for example, but there is no proof. The judge or jury has to believe. The job of defense attorney is to cast doubt on the testimony or credibility of the eyewitnesses.
The Gospels are simply eyewitness accounts of what took place in history. It is up to the opposition to come up with convincing evidence that these eyewitnesses are liars or are deceived. That is difficult to do, because it is also recorded history that these witnesses were all put to death for their testimony. These witnesses did not die for an idea or a cause, but simply for the fact that they gave testimony of what they saw and heard. One of these eyewitnesses, the apostle Peter wrote this:
2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Peter 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," 2Peter 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
Even in a court of law nothing is ever proved. The best we can do is to believe the evidence.
When there are eyewitnesses in a court of law, they are assumed to be telling the truth, especially since they have sworn to do so. The Gospel story is claimed to have been written down by eyewitnesses to the events they wrote of. They claimed that what they heard and saw to be the truth.
Whether you choose to believe these eyewitnesses or not is your business. It is however incumbent upon you, as the opposition, to give some good reasons why you think that they were either liars or deceived.
...But your evidence is entirely within the pages of a single flawed book...
The person who wrote the volume of books titled: "The Rules of Evidence" would differ with you. You will find this book in every court of the land and in almost every lawyer's office. What he outlines in these volumes is still followed by all courts of law. He examines the four Gospels, applying these rules. You can read here what he found:
This man, named Simon Greenleaf, was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. I think he knew a little bit more about evidence and its presentation than you do.
Some scholars believe that the book of Luke and the book of Acts, written to someone named Theophilus, were the basis of Paul's defense and appeal to Caesar.
(...in order for testimony of a miracle to be believed...)
you have to trust or distrust the credibility of eye witnesses thereof. When eyewitnesses testify, it is assumed in any court of law, that these witnesses are telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent upon the opposing party to bring forth evidence why the witnesses should be doubted. Therefore, if this debate were taking place in a court of law, YOU would have to provide evidence that the witnesses are liars or are deceived.
One of these eyewitnesses, the apostle Peter wrote this:
2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Peter 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," 2Peter 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
Peter was not talking about hearsay or secondhand information, but is testifying to what he actually saw and heard really happening.
Anyone who does not want to believe, will not believe even if confronted with eyewitnesses to the truth. The people who crucified Jesus Christ saw his deeds, even extending to the raising of the dead, but still did not believe that he is the Messiah.
It depends on what you consider valid evidence. Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of Harvard University Law school, wrote a huge volume, still in use in all courts and lawyers offices today, on the rules of evidence in jurisprudence. These rules are still in force in every court of our land. He applied these rules to the Gospels, four books of the Bible, to determine if the evidence therein would hold up in a court of law. You can read his thoughts on the matter here:
...If you do decide to call the uncaused cause God, how do you jump from that to believing that God cares about you and listens to your prayers?...
If you believe in a God that created the entire universe with all its complexity, including life, then why is it so difficult to believe that such a God can communicate knowledge about himself and his purposes?
I believe this, and that this belief is reasonable. How could such a God communicate? Could he split the sky once every generation and tell us that he is God and we better behave? He could, but apparently has chosen not to do it that way.
Of all creatures here on earth, man has several unique abilities, including the ability to read and write. This gives humans a unique ability to communicate with each other not only in the present, but also through the historical record. It is a reasonable belief to me, that the God who created the universe, including us humans, communicated through the art of writing. There is a unique written record of 66 books penned by 40 different writers, over a period of about 1500 years. This library bears the hallmarks of a single author - the Creator God.
We call this collection of books the Bible. It is the most widely distributed and translated collection of documents in existence. It has been translated into more languages than any other writing.
In this book we read that the Creator God took on human form and lived for a time on this tiny planet called Earth. His human name is Jesus. The concept that the God who flung the galaxies into the depths of space would want to come here and live among us is mind-boggling, but that is what we read in the Bible. We read, that the first humans were given the choice of whether they wanted to believe what God said or to rebel against the limitation the sovereign ruler of the universe had placed on them.
Ever since then, most people have generally disbelieved God and still rebel. Repeatedly, Jesus chided those around him, eyewitnesses, those who saw him in perfect control of the forces of nature, for their disbelief.
God has made reasonable faith, not intellect, not athletic ability, or anything else, the means by which we can come to the knowledge of God. Everybody on this planet, from the smallest child on, can believe if they WANT to.
It it is simply that which is beyond perception by our senses and intellect. When Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he demonstrated clearly the power of God because he claimed to be God come in human form. How the conquering of our worst enemy, death, can be accomplished, we have not the foggiest notion about. We can only believe or disbelieve, but it cannot be explained by human reasoning. The path to God is by faith in him who can do things far above and beyond our intellect or reasoning.
...Science is the collection and understanding of knowledge about all things in existence....
As long as they can be perceived by our senses and intellect, or the extensions thereof. Microscopes and telescopes are simply the extension of human eyes. I think it is totally nonsensical to categorically deny the existence of realities outside of human sensory or intellectual capacity.
...However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it....
Jesus Christ did prove it by rising from the dead and accurately predicting the future. He is the only founder of a major religion, in fact the only one, who even claims to have conquered death, our biggest enemy. It has been almost 2000 years, and there still isn't anybody who has topped that.
....the term Liberal in America to mean those who support change....
A liberal is a person who is liberal in spending other people's money. A conservative is a person who wants to keep liberals from being too liberal with spending the conservative's money.
Right now, Obama is liberal with your grandchildren's money.
...I can't imagine that they forgot to take that into account...
But they do purposely neglect and forget the effects of electricity in trying to explain the small anomalous effects. Electric forces can act to slow down slightly or as observed in some cases speed the space probe up slightly. I just cannot understand why electricity as the cause of these mysterious effects is never mentioned or investigated.
....but I don't think it could explain the energy gain...
If electric forces are involved, depending on their polarity, there can be either a gain or loss in velocity. It seems that the existence of electric forces in space are seldom if ever discussed.
...I've often carried a small charge (shuffle your feet on the carpet to try it yourself) and never have I found my weight has noticeably changed...
That is because you are on the earth with a considerable mass compared to your mass. If you did this experiment of charging yourself up in relation to another object, in a gravity free or gravity neutral environment, you might be surprised how much a small charge can affect the movement of a mass comparable to that of your body.
(...Macroscopic objects like probes and humans have lower charge-to-mass ratios...)
That is true, but in this case we are talking about a small, very small effect. A tiny charge imbalance and a small electric field, if applied over large distances could possibly explain the "odd" behavior. However, as far as I know, that possibility is not even being looked into. Astronomers and astrophysicists have no or very little training into the behavior of electrically charged objects and fields.
The fact that space objects can carry quite a charge, was brought home my project "deep impact", where a spacecraft from Earth was made to collide with a comet. Electric theory predicted that before the flash generated by the collision there likely would be a prior flash caused by an electric discharge. This is exactly what was observed. Those astrophysicists and space scientists who do not believe that electricity has a significant role to play in the larger cosmos were and still are baffled by the data. It also predicted that there would be a burst of x-rays. This was also observed and cannot be explained by any gravity only theories. Electromagnetic radiation never arises by the operation of gravity, but by means of electricity.
...This effect is a flyby effect and is different from the Pioneer Anomaly...
How does anyone know? Everybody assumes (believes) that the spacecraft as a whole are scrupulously electrically neutral. If that is not the case, which is very likely, then the electrical and magnetic fields in space would certainly affect its motion. An electric field, even a very weak one, affects a charged object 36 orders of magnitude more than gravity. Depending on the polarity of the charge, which can sometimes be negative and sometimes positive, there can be a change of either slowing down or speeding up.
The particles of the solar wind (electrons) ACCELERATE by the action of an electric field, where as they should slow down slightly if gravity were the only force affecting them. The Pioneer probes may have a slight positive charge, which means they would slow down a little more than we would expect by gravity alone.
...The fact that OS X has never had a virus or worm (don't know how true this is) doesn't necessary show the platform is secure....
Windows may be more secure, at least in your opinion, but it is definitely a fact that OS X is much safer in practice. The overwhelming majority of viruses on the Internet are for Windows. You may be able to give all kinds of excuses why this is so, but the likelihood of a Mac getting infected is still close to zero.
...That Mac OS X is more secure is a common misconception....
However, Macs are MUCH safer! There are 7 million Windows PCs infected with the conficker are worm alone. How many infected Macs are there? How many infected iPhones? It doesn't really matter WHY someone's computer is infected or someone's house was broken into. The facts are simply this: it is safer to surf the Internet with a Mac than with Windows.
........For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work!....
Of course that is the reason why Microsoft didn't let Apple die, but gave them some money and promised to continue developing Office for the Mac. They knew that if Apple bit the dust, there goes Microsoft's research and development department.
...So Microsoft can copy "look and feel" all they want,...
Boy and they have been doing it too, wholesale! The problem is they do a pretty poor job of it. The task-bar, for example, is a second rate copy of the OS X dock. They have copied the transparency effect in the task-bar and Window frames. They even copied the crinkled paper sound when emptying the trash can they call they "recycle bin".
They still shut down the computer using the "start" menu. It still has the abomination called the registry. It won't open PDF files without downloading a reader program first. A user still has to go through a not always working "uninstall" rigamarole, rather than simply dragging the program to be deleted to the trash. Apple trusts their users by not requiring lengthy installation codes and don't require an Internet connection to activate their computer. The computer, even a Hackintosh is always activated.
What does Windows 7 have out-of-the-box that OS X won't do? Play as many games? Run some specialized corporate software? OK, what else?
The Apple Time Machine program is a far better backup system that requires no work, being fully automatic, after setup. It is able to backup multiple computers over the network. The Apple iLife programs are light-years ahead of what Microsoft offers.
Last time I looked, there were about 18 million happy owners of the iPhone, about 17% of the total smartphone market. Most users don't care if there's a mouse running around inside the phone making it do its thing, but what matters is that it is easy to use and works reasonably well. They could care less about Java or any other technical details. That's just for us Slashdot users to talk about. There is nothing standard about phones from other manufacturers that allows the same piece of software to run on them all. It's not like windows on PC. They are all mutually incompatible and that includes the various flavors of the Android system. It's just like the various flavors of Linux are generally incompatible out-of-the-box and require special tweaking, by someone knowledgeable, to adapt it to a particular flavor.
...they do not purposefully break said system that already works....
If you have a hacked system with an atom processor that works now, it will continue to work unless you install an update intended for Macintoshes. Apple is not forcing you to install anything at all.
...Intentionally breaking interoperability through blacklists...
is something you know for a FACT that Apple is doing? All of Apple's computers that they actually sell have multiple cores, or at least two. The atom is only one. Could it be, just possibly, that Apple has decided to increase the efficiency of their operating system by optimizing for multiple cores? Apple is entitled to do this, just as they are entitled to drop PPC support in their current operating system. If you don't update your hacked computer, it will continue to run just fine. Apple is not breaking it.
... A $500.00 price point would be about right....
To make a measly profit, compared to the immense profit they are now making on their hardware. Apple is not a charity, but a for-profit stock company. Apple has been smart to avoid the race to the bottom in computer pricing.
Slashdot Mirror
...maybe we've been visited....
But we have been visited about 2000 years ago by God himself. We celebrate that every year on December 25th. Jesus claimed to be God in human form. He came to his own but his own rejected him and had him crucified. He didn't stay dead, but demonstrated a technology far greater, if you can call it a technology, than instantaneous travel to the furthest corner of the universe. What Jesus Christ promised to those who believe him immortality. That to me this is infinitely greater than being able to instantly travel to the remotest corner of the universe.
He came from a place he called heaven, but was constantly talking in parables and pictures of what people knew - life on earth. Heaven is an eternal place, whereas Earth is time bound. Jesus said:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Human beings, such as science fiction writers are often pretty imaginative. However, the apostle Paul understood this:
1Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him."
After 1 billion years, the first nanosecond of eternity has gone by.
....But the NT was written about 300 years after his death....
That is patently false. The earliest writings were put down about 35 years after Jesus' resurrection. All the original documents upon which our New Testament is based were completed around 90 A.D. There is more documentation about Jesus and the early Christians, than most, if any, other ancient historical figure. There are more ancient documents about Jesus than about any of the Roman emperors.
....I agree there is no proof that it happened other than the Bible...
What if anything can ever be "proved"? Even in mathematics we make certain assumptions (belief), and then based upon those we make a "proof".
Things in the past can never be "proved". There can be witnesses that will testify what they saw happened, like a crime for example, but there is no proof. The judge or jury has to believe. The job of defense attorney is to cast doubt on the testimony or credibility of the eyewitnesses.
The Gospels are simply eyewitness accounts of what took place in history. It is up to the opposition to come up with convincing evidence that these eyewitnesses are liars or are deceived. That is difficult to do, because it is also recorded history that these witnesses were all put to death for their testimony. These witnesses did not die for an idea or a cause, but simply for the fact that they gave testimony of what they saw and heard. One of these eyewitnesses, the apostle Peter wrote this:
2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Peter 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Peter 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
...But the bible is no proof....
Even in a court of law nothing is ever proved. The best we can do is to believe the evidence.
When there are eyewitnesses in a court of law, they are assumed to be telling the truth, especially since they have sworn to do so. The Gospel story is claimed to have been written down by eyewitnesses to the events they wrote of. They claimed that what they heard and saw to be the truth.
Whether you choose to believe these eyewitnesses or not is your business. It is however incumbent upon you, as the opposition, to give some good reasons why you think that they were either liars or deceived.
...But your evidence is entirely within the pages of a single flawed book...
The person who wrote the volume of books titled: "The Rules of Evidence" would differ with you. You will find this book in every court of the land and in almost every lawyer's office. What he outlines in these volumes is still followed by all courts of law. He examines the four Gospels, applying these rules. You can read here what he found:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
This man, named Simon Greenleaf, was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. I think he knew a little bit more about evidence and its presentation than you do.
Some scholars believe that the book of Luke and the book of Acts, written to someone named Theophilus, were the basis of Paul's defense and appeal to Caesar.
(...in order for testimony of a miracle to be believed...)
you have to trust or distrust the credibility of eye witnesses thereof. When eyewitnesses testify, it is assumed in any court of law, that these witnesses are telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent upon the opposing party to bring forth evidence why the witnesses should be doubted. Therefore, if this debate were taking place in a court of law, YOU would have to provide evidence that the witnesses are liars or are deceived.
One of these eyewitnesses, the apostle Peter wrote this:
2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Peter 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Peter 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
Peter was not talking about hearsay or secondhand information, but is testifying to what he actually saw and heard really happening.
Anyone who does not want to believe, will not believe even if confronted with eyewitnesses to the truth. The people who crucified Jesus Christ saw his deeds, even extending to the raising of the dead, but still did not believe that he is the Messiah.
....It doesn't offer evidence....
It depends on what you consider valid evidence. Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of Harvard University Law school, wrote a huge volume, still in use in all courts and lawyers offices today, on the rules of evidence in jurisprudence. These rules are still in force in every court of our land. He applied these rules to the Gospels, four books of the Bible, to determine if the evidence therein would hold up in a court of law. You can read his thoughts on the matter here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
...If you do decide to call the uncaused cause God, how do you jump from that to believing that God cares about you and listens to your prayers?...
If you believe in a God that created the entire universe with all its complexity, including life, then why is it so difficult to believe that such a God can communicate knowledge about himself and his purposes?
I believe this, and that this belief is reasonable. How could such a God communicate? Could he split the sky once every generation and tell us that he is God and we better behave? He could, but apparently has chosen not to do it that way.
Of all creatures here on earth, man has several unique abilities, including the ability to read and write. This gives humans a unique ability to communicate with each other not only in the present, but also through the historical record. It is a reasonable belief to me, that the God who created the universe, including us humans, communicated through the art of writing. There is a unique written record of 66 books penned by 40 different writers, over a period of about 1500 years. This library bears the hallmarks of a single author - the Creator God.
We call this collection of books the Bible. It is the most widely distributed and translated collection of documents in existence. It has been translated into more languages than any other writing.
In this book we read that the Creator God took on human form and lived for a time on this tiny planet called Earth. His human name is Jesus. The concept that the God who flung the galaxies into the depths of space would want to come here and live among us is mind-boggling, but that is what we read in the Bible. We read, that the first humans were given the choice of whether they wanted to believe what God said or to rebel against the limitation the sovereign ruler of the universe had placed on them.
Ever since then, most people have generally disbelieved God and still rebel. Repeatedly, Jesus chided those around him, eyewitnesses, those who saw him in perfect control of the forces of nature, for their disbelief.
God has made reasonable faith, not intellect, not athletic ability, or anything else, the means by which we can come to the knowledge of God. Everybody on this planet, from the smallest child on, can believe if they WANT to.
...What is "supernatural" anyway?...
It it is simply that which is beyond perception by our senses and intellect. When Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he demonstrated clearly the power of God because he claimed to be God come in human form. How the conquering of our worst enemy, death, can be accomplished, we have not the foggiest notion about. We can only believe or disbelieve, but it cannot be explained by human reasoning. The path to God is by faith in him who can do things far above and beyond our intellect or reasoning.
...Science is the collection and understanding of knowledge about all things in existence....
As long as they can be perceived by our senses and intellect, or the extensions thereof. Microscopes and telescopes are simply the extension of human eyes. I think it is totally nonsensical to categorically deny the existence of realities outside of human sensory or intellectual capacity.
...However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it....
Jesus Christ did prove it by rising from the dead and accurately predicting the future. He is the only founder of a major religion, in fact the only one, who even claims to have conquered death, our biggest enemy. It has been almost 2000 years, and there still isn't anybody who has topped that.
....the term Liberal in America to mean those who support change....
A liberal is a person who is liberal in spending other people's money. A conservative is a person who wants to keep liberals from being too liberal with spending the conservative's money.
Right now, Obama is liberal with your grandchildren's money.
...I can't imagine that they forgot to take that into account ...
But they do purposely neglect and forget the effects of electricity in trying to explain the small anomalous effects. Electric forces can act to slow down slightly or as observed in some cases speed the space probe up slightly. I just cannot understand why electricity as the cause of these mysterious effects is never mentioned or investigated.
....but I don't think it could explain the energy gain ...
If electric forces are involved, depending on their polarity, there can be either a gain or loss in velocity. It seems that the existence of electric forces in space are seldom if ever discussed.
...I've often carried a small charge (shuffle your feet on the carpet to try it yourself) and never have I found my weight has noticeably changed...
That is because you are on the earth with a considerable mass compared to your mass. If you did this experiment of charging yourself up in relation to another object, in a gravity free or gravity neutral environment, you might be surprised how much a small charge can affect the movement of a mass comparable to that of your body.
(...Macroscopic objects like probes and humans have lower charge-to-mass ratios...)
That is true, but in this case we are talking about a small, very small effect. A tiny charge imbalance and a small electric field, if applied over large distances could possibly explain the "odd" behavior. However, as far as I know, that possibility is not even being looked into. Astronomers and astrophysicists have no or very little training into the behavior of electrically charged objects and fields.
The fact that space objects can carry quite a charge, was brought home my project "deep impact", where a spacecraft from Earth was made to collide with a comet. Electric theory predicted that before the flash generated by the collision there likely would be a prior flash caused by an electric discharge. This is exactly what was observed. Those astrophysicists and space scientists who do not believe that electricity has a significant role to play in the larger cosmos were and still are baffled by the data. It also predicted that there would be a burst of x-rays. This was also observed and cannot be explained by any gravity only theories. Electromagnetic radiation never arises by the operation of gravity, but by means of electricity.
...This effect is a flyby effect and is different from the Pioneer Anomaly...
How does anyone know? Everybody assumes (believes) that the spacecraft as a whole are scrupulously electrically neutral. If that is not the case, which is very likely, then the electrical and magnetic fields in space would certainly affect its motion. An electric field, even a very weak one, affects a charged object 36 orders of magnitude more than gravity. Depending on the polarity of the charge, which can sometimes be negative and sometimes positive, there can be a change of either slowing down or speeding up.
The particles of the solar wind (electrons) ACCELERATE by the action of an electric field, where as they should slow down slightly if gravity were the only force affecting them. The Pioneer probes may have a slight positive charge, which means they would slow down a little more than we would expect by gravity alone.
...The fact that OS X has never had a virus or worm (don't know how true this is) doesn't necessary show the platform is secure....
Windows may be more secure, at least in your opinion, but it is definitely a fact that OS X is much safer in practice. The overwhelming majority of viruses on the Internet are for Windows. You may be able to give all kinds of excuses why this is so, but the likelihood of a Mac getting infected is still close to zero.
...That Mac OS X is more secure is a common misconception....
However, Macs are MUCH safer! There are 7 million Windows PCs infected with the conficker are worm alone. How many infected Macs are there? How many infected iPhones? It doesn't really matter WHY someone's computer is infected or someone's house was broken into. The facts are simply this: it is safer to surf the Internet with a Mac than with Windows.
........For sure the prime source of inspiration and functions for Windows comes from Apple's work!....
Of course that is the reason why Microsoft didn't let Apple die, but gave them some money and promised to continue developing Office for the Mac. They knew that if Apple bit the dust, there goes Microsoft's research and development department.
....not that they were trying to copy the Mac OS interface....
No, not much at all! Ladies and gentlemen! Start your copiers!
...To shut down, you go Start > Shut down ... >...
Yeah that's real intuitive isn't it, press the start button in order to shut down your computer!
...So Microsoft can copy "look and feel" all they want,...
Boy and they have been doing it too, wholesale! The problem is they do a pretty poor job of it. The task-bar, for example, is a second rate copy of the OS X dock. They have copied the transparency effect in the task-bar and Window frames. They even copied the crinkled paper sound when emptying the trash can they call they "recycle bin".
They still shut down the computer using the "start" menu. It still has the abomination called the registry. It won't open PDF files without downloading a reader program first. A user still has to go through a not always working "uninstall" rigamarole, rather than simply dragging the program to be deleted to the trash. Apple trusts their users by not requiring lengthy installation codes and don't require an Internet connection to activate their computer. The computer, even a Hackintosh is always activated.
What does Windows 7 have out-of-the-box that OS X won't do? Play as many games? Run some specialized corporate software? OK, what else?
The Apple Time Machine program is a far better backup system that requires no work, being fully automatic, after setup. It is able to backup multiple computers over the network. The Apple iLife programs are light-years ahead of what Microsoft offers.
....but that's only about 1% of the market....
Last time I looked, there were about 18 million happy owners of the iPhone, about 17% of the total smartphone market. Most users don't care if there's a mouse running around inside the phone making it do its thing, but what matters is that it is easy to use and works reasonably well. They could care less about Java or any other technical details. That's just for us Slashdot users to talk about. There is nothing standard about phones from other manufacturers that allows the same piece of software to run on them all. It's not like windows on PC. They are all mutually incompatible and that includes the various flavors of the Android system. It's just like the various flavors of Linux are generally incompatible out-of-the-box and require special tweaking, by someone knowledgeable, to adapt it to a particular flavor.
...they do not purposefully break said system that already works....
If you have a hacked system with an atom processor that works now, it will continue to work unless you install an update intended for Macintoshes. Apple is not forcing you to install anything at all.
...Intentionally breaking interoperability through blacklists...
is something you know for a FACT that Apple is doing? All of Apple's computers that they actually sell have multiple cores, or at least two. The atom is only one. Could it be, just possibly, that Apple has decided to increase the efficiency of their operating system by optimizing for multiple cores? Apple is entitled to do this, just as they are entitled to drop PPC support in their current operating system. If you don't update your hacked computer, it will continue to run just fine. Apple is not breaking it.
... A $500.00 price point would be about right ....
To make a measly profit, compared to the immense profit they are now making on their hardware. Apple is not a charity, but a for-profit stock company. Apple has been smart to avoid the race to the bottom in computer pricing.