....People who find security holes in products should post full details and working exploits, the moment they find them......
Maybe that would be OK if the hole depends on user action, such as putting in a password. Someone merely connecting a computer to the internet, opening an e-mail or going to a website should NEVER infect a computer. AFAIK all of the exploits for Macs require some kind of user action giving them an indication that something strange is going on. Any common user action should never ask for a password and without a password Malware has a hard time on the Mac.
.....Well, Apple *is* advertising their security in their latest ads.....
Why shouldn't they advertise the superior security of Macs running OSX? Anybody can talk about potential, theoretical exploits. Until an actual malware shows up which is NOT based on social engineering, they should rightly let everyone know that their computers are much more secure. Here now is the opportunity of the world's best hackers to put egg all over Apple's face. NO computer can ever be made totally secure, especially against clever social engineering techniques. There are many actual real, nasty malwares out for Windows that do NOT depend on social engineering, but just connecting their box to the Internet. So far, AFAIK there is nothing like that for OSX.
.....If you find there is a flaw in all cars which could cause them to spontaniously explode,.....
There is a flaw in cars that causes them to explode. It requires that the driver run the car into a 6 foot diameter oak tree or heavy concrete wall at 100 mph or faster or drive off a 100 foot cliff. No Mac has ever yet gotten a malware attack AFAIK, without some action of a stupid user. Unfortunately, the only stupidity a Windows user has to do in order to get their, computer messed up, is to connect it to the Internet, especially without a good firewall.
.......Why? Because I don't run or install software if common sense says the source might be shady......
The problem is, unless the right protection software is already on your computer, you'd never know whether a rootkit ala Sony isn't running on your system. The makers of botnets don't want to mess up your computer, but just use it occasionally for their own nefarious purposes, without you even becoming suspicious. Because most Windows users run as admin and thereby have full access to every spot on the HD, also means that any code they may pick up somewhere, either purposely or by someone's stealth, will have free reign of the ENTIRE computer. On Macs that is not the case and that alone makes Macs more secure. Malware may mess up a user account, but there is no way it can imbed itself so deeply in the system so even the best experts can't eradicate it. If it were so easy to infect Macs, someone would have done it already, if only for the bragging rights that they managed to infect even a few hundred Macs, not the thousands or even millions of Widows machines that are still being hosed by old, well known malware, because their users have not taken the extra effort needed to protect their computers. Malware that warns the users by asking for a password isn't really a danger to even mildly knowledgeable persons. Any user should and could know that a picture music, e-mail or other file shouldn't ask for an admin password to be accessed.
In the early 1990s, a company named Radius made a monitor for Macs that rotated 90 deg and switched the screen driver software at the same time. It would display portrait for word processing and landscape for spreadsheets.
....At this point an Apple IS a PC and BOTH are modular in design....
The thing that escapes you and other posters is the fact that it is the SOFTWARE that makes any computer do its thing. Apple's systems are distinguished not so much by good looking and reliable hardware, but by the easy to use, largely malware resistant software they come with. NO Windows machine comes with software for creating and manipulating content the way Apple systems do. The integration of handling pictures, video, and sound is MUCH superior in Macs and that is all software based and comes with every Mac, out of the box. If a user wishes to only surf the Web, send a few e-mails and do simple word processing, then a cheap Dell running windows is no different than a more expensive Mac running Windows. Buying a Mac would be a waste for such simple uses.
The mini is marketed to people who already have such standard things from a previous PC and would like to have a cheap way to try out a Mac with its superior, yet largely malware free OSX software. How else can anyone can get a computer that will do music, movies and photos for that price. There is no software available for Windows that will even come close to what Apple offers to someone who wants to have some fun at creating content rather than being only a consumer sheep.
....Specialized computers are manufactured for practically every consumer product that uses electricity.....
Not only electricity, but also gasoline. Our Toyota Prius doesn't even have a key to start it, but a power button, that has the same symbol thereon as the the power button on my computer. The whole car "boots" and the computer embedded therein controls the electric drive, gas engine, battery and safety systems. The "key" stays in my pocket at all times. The car unlocks when I get within about a foot of any of the doors with the key still in my pocket. The whole car is a specialized computer that gets me from point A to B with pretty good efficiency in this day of $3 gasoline.
Even so, I believe that the PC as we have known it will be around for a good while yet, because it can be programmed to do things that its designers may not have thought of when they built it.
....blocking wikipedia type sites is unreasonable....
Reasonableness or not has nothing to do with it. If I give you money, I can be as unreasonable as I wish. If you don't like such unreasonableness, you may refuse to accept my money and find some without unreasonable strings attached. I agree though that this is unreasonable.
......Those computers are the sole method of internet access for many citizens who don't own a computer themselves.....
So what? There are some people who don't have phones and can't access the phone network. Should the taxpayers pay for free phones? There are some who don't have TVs and therefore have no access to the TV networks. Should the Government pay for those also? Does the library have to stock every book ever printed? Does the government not have the right to decide, just as you do, as to where to spend money and where not? If Congress passes this bill, are they not properly exercising their right to appropriate money as they see fit? It seems that nowadays there are many who claim "rights" that are only privileges. The constitution enumerates our rights as citizens. Getting a share of the public purse is not among these.
....Why not ban EVERYTHING that's not necessary on the net?....
Nobody wants to BAN anything whatsoever! All that this means is that neither the government nor any other entity is obligated to PAY for your access to certain content. You would not ask the grocery store to pay for your newspaper, so why should anyone other than YOU pay for your internet access? You have no RIGHT to a free paper nor free internet access.
If you want to access such stuff, pay for it yourself, but don't whine that someone isn't giving you a free lunch internet access. Legislators in our society are generally given the right to parcel out tax money. If you don't like the way they do this, vote for someone will legislate a free internet lunch for you.
....They are doing an end-around on the Constitution by saying they get to have virtually unlimited control over any entity that gets any kind of federal funding.....
Where in the constitution does it say that the government has to pay for your means to freedom of speech? Does the constitution mandate that the government buy you a printing press or even a PA system so you can express your views? So why should the taxpayer be obligated to fund free speech on the internet. The constitution forbids government from taking away or keep you from using your press, but you must pay for it yourself. If you want to access these sites, buy your own internet connection.
When you give free money to someone, do you not have the right to make stipulations as to how such money may be used? Congress is explicitly given the power of how to spend tax dollars and can attach whatever restrictions to these dollars they wish. There is NOTHING in the constitution that addresses this issue. If you don't like it, write your elected representatives, or better yet vote for a person more to your liking next time.
or any other Federal or other money with strings attached. The constitution requires the government not to abridge free speech, but does not mandate that the means of such free speech must be paid by the government. Any institution or individual that accepts free money, must comply with the stipulations made by the grantor of such money. That has always been the case, so what's the big deal about this now? You are exactly right here!
....the authorities wish to create and enforce law.....
whereby THEY can know when you've been screwed by a database break-in, but are may forbid the database holder from telling YOU that this happened, even if there are state laws that mandate the database holder tell their clients when such a data theft has occurred.
.....basically the parents should provide the controlled environment for their kids to make mistakes in.......
Not so much a controlled environment, but moral education and values, outlining how to avoid certain mistakes and what the consequences of said mistakes can be. They don't have to be in a 100mph car crash in order learn not to speed. Unfortunately, human nature makes it far too likely that the mistake gets made despite warnings. After that, we can only hope that the results of the mistake won't be too severe.
The problem with that statement is that it is not completely true. AIDS viruses go right though the pores of most, if not all condoms. They are not 100% protection against other STDs either. Condoms are better than nothing, but having such "protected" sex is like playing Russian Roulette with one live round loaded into a revolver. The ONLY 100% sure way to prevent STDs is the old rule: "One man, one woman, one lifetime". Using a condom is like having the fire in the fireplace, but neglecting to put the mesh fire curtain in front. A spark or ember may jump out and catch the house on fire. We know of some folks that this exact thing happened to. It is precisely because many, if not most people, not only in the US, but in other nations, don't abstain from sex, until married, that millions, world wide, die or get very sick from uncontrolled sex. Gay bashing is most certainly wrong, but the rampant homosexual practices are included in this raging world wide epidemic and resultant suffering.
....When you try to deny kids the chance to make mistakes, you deny them the chance to learn and mature......
The problem is that some mistakes that can make a complete mess of a young person's lives and they should be protected from that, preferably by their parents. Like fire, sex is a great thing in its place, but extremely destructive, often irrevocable in its effects. If both the boy and the girl understand that sex in the shelter of marriage is like fire in the fireplace, but outside thereof it will destroy their lives and burn the house down, then playing a video game or going out on dates should not make any difference in their good behavior. The problem with many things is that in and of themselves they are either good or neutral, but if wrongly used become extremely hurtful and damaging. It is the job of parents, not the state, to teach their children about the good and bad applications of video games, cars, sex, alcohol, medicines, movies etc. and so many of the other things in life, that can be either rewarding or terribly destructive. Unfortunately, many parents have not met their responsibility toward their children, and so the state is forced to step in to protect society.
Re:Wow, what a great comparison of 70s-80s vs now
on
Gadgets, Then & Now
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
.....Actually that's also true if you compare it to 1902."....
The cancer and heart attack rate in 1902 was much less than today. People died from infectious diseases, such as TB, flu, pneumonia, polio and others. However, the death rate today, overall, is still exactly what it always was, 100%.
......Why would God subject Himself to death just to beat death on behalf of humans, when he created it all in the first place? What was the point?....
The Bible, concurs with you, that its does indeed seem stupid and foolish to those who have chosen to disbelieve God.
Unless you choose to believe and understand what God has revealed about His nature and the human condition, you have come to the only reasonable conclusion. The issue boils down to these two issues:
1)God is absolutely perfect and holy and cannot have anything contrary to that intrinsic nature of His to enter His presence and realm where He exists.
2)The perfect man, Adam, rebelled against a simple command from God and thereby forfeited his right to come into and remain in God's presence.
We read in the scriptural record that before Adam disobeyed, God and he had intimate fellowship and interaction. After Adam violated God's directive, he hid from God when He came looking for Him. Humans have been trying to avoid God ever since. The now imperfect and tainted Adam and all his descendants have since been living in separation from God, called death - spiritual death, which in time results in physical death also.
In the nature and laws of God it is decreed that someone totally innocent may, if he so chooses, suffer the consequences of the transgression on behalf of the sinner. Since no other creature made in God's image, such as man is, was found to be willing to do this task, God, driven by love, chose to become a man and do this Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. If you choose to BELIEVE in the person and work of Jesus, the decreed consequences of sin -- eternal death -- separation from God will be lifted for you. That is the basic Christian message. It is your choice to believe it or not.
....The universe is not "subject to" the laws of physics, it will not be punished for violating them;....
Of course there is no punishment because there is no possibility for the these laws to be disobeyed. This is not true of social or moral laws. People can and do disobey these constantly. That is why society and God have decreed consequences for those who choose not to obey these laws.
The existence or not of God is beyond scientific examination. Science should stick to repeatable experiments and observations, rather than speculating about things beyond its grasp. Before real experimental science came to be a few centuries ago, there were many philosophical and religious conjectures about the physical world that were ultimately shown to be wrong. In the same way, conjecturing about multiple universes, cyclical bangs or other things not supported by even the most flimsy measured or observational evidence is NOT science and should not masquerade as such.
The existence of God and His nature can ONLY be either believed or not. Anybody may choose to believe or not and that has nothing to do with science.
....Why bring "the divine" in to this discussion?....
My point was simply that speculating abut other dimensions is NOT science, but belief. Other dimensions are not subject to scientific experiments or observation. There is quite a bit in the Bible and other religions about a spiritual world. These are no science however than can prove or deny these things and science should stick to what can be shown by experiment or observation.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: -1, Troll
....That's kind of the battle because there can be no direct "proof" of any other dimensions, if they exist. Yet the other dimensions can still affect our dimension.....
The Bible is the only religious book that tells us definitively that God dwells in one or more higher dimensions called eternity. It further tells us that He limited Himself to the dimensions we are limited to right now and became subject to even our biggest limitation -- death. He told us that there are indeed other dimensions, inhabited by intelligent beings, some of the good and others evil and that they do have influence in our world.
Many people of Jesus' day had a hard time believing Him, in spite of the fact that he demonstrated the powers of the higher worlds, ultimately triumphing over our greatest problem -- death. The criterion for Him enabling every human to also transcend these limits is faith in what he said and did. No other criteria, such as intelligence, wealth, athletic ability or any other requirement. Believing is the ONLY universally possible thing that everybody can do or not.
So, yes, there are other dimensions, but they are not accessible to science, but only to one thing: faith.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
....Then Einstein met the astronomer, Hubble and Hubble showed him proof that the universe was indeed expanding!....
Actually, Hubble measured something called the redshift of the light from distant galaxies. He then ASSUMED and so has everybody since then, that this shift is caused by the doppler effect. There is increasing evidence that this assumption is wrong and that the redshift is caused by the changing over time of certain so called "constants" which affect the way atoms radiate electromagnetic energy when excited. The speed of light is greatly affected by the medium through which it propagates. If the nature of space changes, then the speed of light and related parameters will also change. Space is not some empty nothingness, but has some definitely measurable electric and magnetic properties. It is these properties that affect these "constants" and then indirectly these "constants".
NOTHING in the observable universe is constant, and there is no reason to assume that all of the so called "constants" are either. The math describing the observed properties of atoms contains terms which depend on the value of these "constants".
Observation, not some theories, show that the laws of physics operate uniformly in the entire known universe. Speculating about other dimensions and universes is not science. Are the laws of physics an innate property of the universe or were the laws here first and the universe obeys them? In our human context of course, we know that humans with minds were there first to make laws for other humans to be subject to. Is it then so far out to say that a superior mind was there first to formulate the laws of physics which the universe and everything therein is subject to?
.....The Higher then average cost and the fact that Windows Apps will not run (excluding bootcamp/virtualiztion etc...) on the Mac......
I wish that people would stop comparing Yugos with BMWs and then complain how expensive the BMWs are. If people want to buy cheap Windows machines and then get all the malwares for free, they get after all what they paid for. Pay only a LITTLE more and get a computer free of and resistant to malware and actually looks designed rather than a cookie cutter copycat variation of thousands like it.
My G5 runs WIN2K under VPC for special software just fine. It works at least as well, if not better than the PC hardware that was available when Win2K was first released. Normally, the VPC cannot and doesn't need to access the network, so I don't have to worry about anti-malware or security updates.
.....I agree most Mac people I know don't even think about security....
That's because they don't HAVE to. So far, all threats have been theoretical and I suspect that will be true for a long time. Mac users don't run with full root privileges such as most Windows users must and do. A non-admin Mac user is able to run all software without inputting a password. However, when a new program is to installed in the normal applications folder, a password is asked for. Our users don't have the admin password and therefore cannot install anything in the system. They CAN however install things in their own user space and no password prompt will appear, unless the program they are running wants to have some write access to a part of the system. If the program, is a nasty, the damage will be confined to the user's space. Many Mac programs are drag and drop install and can be dragged into any folder in the user's account. If the program is useless or malware, it can be gotten rid of by simply dragging it into the trash.
Very few Windows program will install without an administrator password, unless the user is already running as an admin. The existence of the registry is a big reason why malware can imbed itself so deeply in the system and that special uninstall software is needed. Mac software doesn't scatter components of itself all over the HD and can be gotten rid of by simply dragging the offender into the trash. Compare that with editing the arcane registry. Until MS and all Windows programmers write their software NOT to require administrator access, Windows will never be very secure.
Slashdot Mirror
....People who find security holes in products should post full details and working exploits, the moment they find them......
Maybe that would be OK if the hole depends on user action, such as putting in a password. Someone merely connecting a computer to the internet, opening an e-mail or going to a website should NEVER infect a computer. AFAIK all of the exploits for Macs require some kind of user action giving them an indication that something strange is going on. Any common user action should never ask for a password and without a password Malware has a hard time on the Mac.
.....Well, Apple *is* advertising their security in their latest ads.....
Why shouldn't they advertise the superior security of Macs running OSX? Anybody can talk about potential, theoretical exploits. Until an actual malware shows up which is NOT based on social engineering, they should rightly let everyone know that their computers are much more secure. Here now is the opportunity of the world's best hackers to put egg all over Apple's face. NO computer can ever be made totally secure, especially against clever social engineering techniques. There are many actual real, nasty malwares out for Windows that do NOT depend on social engineering, but just connecting their box to the Internet. So far, AFAIK there is nothing like that for OSX.
.....If you find there is a flaw in all cars which could cause them to spontaniously explode,.....
There is a flaw in cars that causes them to explode. It requires that the driver run the car into a 6 foot diameter oak tree or heavy concrete wall at 100 mph or faster or drive off a 100 foot cliff. No Mac has ever yet gotten a malware attack AFAIK, without some action of a stupid user. Unfortunately, the only stupidity a Windows user has to do in order to get their, computer messed up, is to connect it to the Internet, especially without a good firewall.
.......Why? Because I don't run or install software if common sense says the source might be shady......
The problem is, unless the right protection software is already on your computer, you'd never know whether a rootkit ala Sony isn't running on your system. The makers of botnets don't want to mess up your computer, but just use it occasionally for their own nefarious purposes, without you even becoming suspicious. Because most Windows users run as admin and thereby have full access to every spot on the HD, also means that any code they may pick up somewhere, either purposely or by someone's stealth, will have free reign of the ENTIRE computer. On Macs that is not the case and that alone makes Macs more secure. Malware may mess up a user account, but there is no way it can imbed itself so deeply in the system so even the best experts can't eradicate it. If it were so easy to infect Macs, someone would have done it already, if only for the bragging rights that they managed to infect even a few hundred Macs, not the thousands or even millions of Widows machines that are still being hosed by old, well known malware, because their users have not taken the extra effort needed to protect their computers. Malware that warns the users by asking for a password isn't really a danger to even mildly knowledgeable persons. Any user should and could know that a picture music, e-mail or other file shouldn't ask for an admin password to be accessed.
....A widescreen panel that rotates....
In the early 1990s, a company named Radius made a monitor for Macs that rotated 90 deg and switched the screen driver software at the same time. It would display portrait for word processing and landscape for spreadsheets.
....At this point an Apple IS a PC and BOTH are modular in design....
The thing that escapes you and other posters is the fact that it is the SOFTWARE that makes any computer do its thing. Apple's systems are distinguished not so much by good looking and reliable hardware, but by the easy to use, largely malware resistant software they come with. NO Windows machine comes with software for creating and manipulating content the way Apple systems do. The integration of handling pictures, video, and sound is MUCH superior in Macs and that is all software based and comes with every Mac, out of the box. If a user wishes to only surf the Web, send a few e-mails and do simple word processing, then a cheap Dell running windows is no different than a more expensive Mac running Windows. Buying a Mac would be a waste for such simple uses.
....Add those things to a mac mini....
The mini is marketed to people who already have such standard things from a previous PC and would like to have a cheap way to try out a Mac with its superior, yet largely malware free OSX software. How else can anyone can get a computer that will do music, movies and photos for that price. There is no software available for Windows that will even come close to what Apple offers to someone who wants to have some fun at creating content rather than being only a consumer sheep.
....Specialized computers are manufactured for practically every consumer product that uses electricity.....
Not only electricity, but also gasoline. Our Toyota Prius doesn't even have a key to start it, but a power button, that has the same symbol thereon as the the power button on my computer. The whole car "boots" and the computer embedded therein controls the electric drive, gas engine, battery and safety systems. The "key" stays in my pocket at all times. The car unlocks when I get within about a foot of any of the doors with the key still in my pocket. The whole car is a specialized computer that gets me from point A to B with pretty good efficiency in this day of $3 gasoline.
Even so, I believe that the PC as we have known it will be around for a good while yet, because it can be programmed to do things that its designers may not have thought of when they built it.
....blocking wikipedia type sites is unreasonable....
Reasonableness or not has nothing to do with it. If I give you money, I can be as unreasonable as I wish. If you don't like such unreasonableness, you may refuse to accept my money and find some without unreasonable strings attached. I agree though that this is unreasonable.
......Those computers are the sole method of internet access for many citizens who don't own a computer themselves.....
So what? There are some people who don't have phones and can't access the phone network. Should the taxpayers pay for free phones? There are some who don't have TVs and therefore have no access to the TV networks. Should the Government pay for those also? Does the library have to stock every book ever printed? Does the government not have the right to decide, just as you do, as to where to spend money and where not? If Congress passes this bill, are they not properly exercising their right to appropriate money as they see fit? It seems that nowadays there are many who claim "rights" that are only privileges. The constitution enumerates our rights as citizens. Getting a share of the public purse is not among these.
....Why not ban EVERYTHING that's not necessary on the net?....
Nobody wants to BAN anything whatsoever! All that this means is that neither the government nor any other entity is obligated to PAY for your access to certain content. You would not ask the grocery store to pay for your newspaper, so why should anyone other than YOU pay for your internet access? You have no RIGHT to a free paper nor free internet access.
If you want to access such stuff, pay for it yourself, but don't whine that someone isn't giving you a free lunch internet access. Legislators in our society are generally given the right to parcel out tax money. If you don't like the way they do this, vote for someone will legislate a free internet lunch for you.
....They are doing an end-around on the Constitution by saying they get to have virtually unlimited control over any entity that gets any kind of federal funding.....
Where in the constitution does it say that the government has to pay for your means to freedom of speech? Does the constitution mandate that the government buy you a printing press or even a PA system so you can express your views? So why should the taxpayer be obligated to fund free speech on the internet. The constitution forbids government from taking away or keep you from using your press, but you must pay for it yourself. If you want to access these sites, buy your own internet connection.
When you give free money to someone, do you not have the right to make stipulations as to how such money may be used? Congress is explicitly given the power of how to spend tax dollars and can attach whatever restrictions to these dollars they wish. There is NOTHING in the constitution that addresses this issue. If you don't like it, write your elected representatives, or better yet vote for a person more to your liking next time.
.....Don't apply for USD money.....
or any other Federal or other money with strings attached. The constitution requires the government not to abridge free speech, but does not mandate that the means of such free speech must be paid by the government. Any institution or individual that accepts free money, must comply with the stipulations made by the grantor of such money. That has always been the case, so what's the big deal about this now? You are exactly right here!
....the authorities wish to create and enforce law.....
whereby THEY can know when you've been screwed by a database break-in, but are may forbid the database holder from telling YOU that this happened, even if there are state laws that mandate the database holder tell their clients when such a data theft has occurred.
.....basically the parents should provide the controlled environment for their kids to make mistakes in.......
Not so much a controlled environment, but moral education and values, outlining how to avoid certain mistakes and what the consequences of said mistakes can be. They don't have to be in a 100mph car crash in order learn not to speed. Unfortunately, human nature makes it far too likely that the mistake gets made despite warnings. After that, we can only hope that the results of the mistake won't be too severe.
.....that condoms prevent disease......
The problem with that statement is that it is not completely true. AIDS viruses go right though the pores of most, if not all condoms. They are not 100% protection against other STDs either. Condoms are better than nothing, but having such "protected" sex is like playing Russian Roulette with one live round loaded into a revolver. The ONLY 100% sure way to prevent STDs is the old rule: "One man, one woman, one lifetime". Using a condom is like having the fire in the fireplace, but neglecting to put the mesh fire curtain in front. A spark or ember may jump out and catch the house on fire. We know of some folks that this exact thing happened to. It is precisely because many, if not most people, not only in the US, but in other nations, don't abstain from sex, until married, that millions, world wide, die or get very sick from uncontrolled sex. Gay bashing is most certainly wrong, but the rampant homosexual practices are included in this raging world wide epidemic and resultant suffering.
....When you try to deny kids the chance to make mistakes, you deny them the chance to learn and mature......
The problem is that some mistakes that can make a complete mess of a young person's lives and they should be protected from that, preferably by their parents. Like fire, sex is a great thing in its place, but extremely destructive, often irrevocable in its effects. If both the boy and the girl understand that sex in the shelter of marriage is like fire in the fireplace, but outside thereof it will destroy their lives and burn the house down, then playing a video game or going out on dates should not make any difference in their good behavior. The problem with many things is that in and of themselves they are either good or neutral, but if wrongly used become extremely hurtful and damaging. It is the job of parents, not the state, to teach their children about the good and bad applications of video games, cars, sex, alcohol, medicines, movies etc. and so many of the other things in life, that can be either rewarding or terribly destructive. Unfortunately, many parents have not met their responsibility toward their children, and so the state is forced to step in to protect society.
.....Actually that's also true if you compare it to 1902."....
The cancer and heart attack rate in 1902 was much less than today. People died from infectious diseases, such as TB, flu, pneumonia, polio and others. However, the death rate today, overall, is still exactly what it always was, 100%.
......Why would God subject Himself to death just to beat death on behalf of humans, when he created it all in the first place? What was the point?....
The Bible, concurs with you, that its does indeed seem stupid and foolish to those who have chosen to disbelieve God.
Unless you choose to believe and understand what God has revealed about His nature and the human condition, you have come to the only reasonable conclusion. The issue boils down to these two issues:
1)God is absolutely perfect and holy and cannot have anything contrary to that intrinsic nature of His to enter His presence and realm where He exists.
2)The perfect man, Adam, rebelled against a simple command from God and thereby forfeited his right to come into and remain in God's presence.
We read in the scriptural record that before Adam disobeyed, God and he had intimate fellowship and interaction. After Adam violated God's directive, he hid from God when He came looking for Him. Humans have been trying to avoid God ever since. The now imperfect and tainted Adam and all his descendants have since been living in separation from God, called death - spiritual death, which in time results in physical death also.
In the nature and laws of God it is decreed that someone totally innocent may, if he so chooses, suffer the consequences of the transgression on behalf of the sinner. Since no other creature made in God's image, such as man is, was found to be willing to do this task, God, driven by love, chose to become a man and do this Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. If you choose to BELIEVE in the person and work of Jesus, the decreed consequences of sin -- eternal death -- separation from God will be lifted for you. That is the basic Christian message. It is your choice to believe it or not.
....The universe is not "subject to" the laws of physics, it will not be punished for violating them;....
Of course there is no punishment because there is no possibility for the these laws to be disobeyed. This is not true of social or moral laws. People can and do disobey these constantly. That is why society and God have decreed consequences for those who choose not to obey these laws.
The existence or not of God is beyond scientific examination. Science should stick to repeatable experiments and observations, rather than speculating about things beyond its grasp. Before real experimental science came to be a few centuries ago, there were many philosophical and religious conjectures about the physical world that were ultimately shown to be wrong. In the same way, conjecturing about multiple universes, cyclical bangs or other things not supported by even the most flimsy measured or observational evidence is NOT science and should not masquerade as such.
The existence of God and His nature can ONLY be either believed or not. Anybody may choose to believe or not and that has nothing to do with science.
....Why bring "the divine" in to this discussion?....
My point was simply that speculating abut other dimensions is NOT science, but belief. Other dimensions are not subject to scientific experiments or observation. There is quite a bit in the Bible and other religions about a spiritual world. These are no science however than can prove or deny these things and science should stick to what can be shown by experiment or observation.
....That's kind of the battle because there can be no direct "proof" of any other dimensions, if they exist. Yet the other dimensions can still affect our dimension. ....
The Bible is the only religious book that tells us definitively that God dwells in one or more higher dimensions called eternity. It further tells us that He limited Himself to the dimensions we are limited to right now and became subject to even our biggest limitation -- death. He told us that there are indeed other dimensions, inhabited by intelligent beings, some of the good and others evil and that they do have influence in our world.
Many people of Jesus' day had a hard time believing Him, in spite of the fact that he demonstrated the powers of the higher worlds, ultimately triumphing over our greatest problem -- death. The criterion for Him enabling every human to also transcend these limits is faith in what he said and did. No other criteria, such as intelligence, wealth, athletic ability or any other requirement. Believing is the ONLY universally possible thing that everybody can do or not.
So, yes, there are other dimensions, but they are not accessible to science, but only to one thing: faith.
....Then Einstein met the astronomer, Hubble and Hubble showed him proof that the universe was indeed expanding!....
Actually, Hubble measured something called the redshift of the light from distant galaxies. He then ASSUMED and so has everybody since then, that this shift is caused by the doppler effect. There is increasing evidence that this assumption is wrong and that the redshift is caused by the changing over time of certain so called "constants" which affect the way atoms radiate electromagnetic energy when excited. The speed of light is greatly affected by the medium through which it propagates. If the nature of space changes, then the speed of light and related parameters will also change. Space is not some empty nothingness, but has some definitely measurable electric and magnetic properties. It is these properties that affect these "constants" and then indirectly these "constants".
NOTHING in the observable universe is constant, and there is no reason to assume that all of the so called "constants" are either. The math describing the observed properties of atoms contains terms which depend on the value of these "constants".
Observation, not some theories, show that the laws of physics operate uniformly in the entire known universe. Speculating about other dimensions and universes is not science. Are the laws of physics an innate property of the universe or were the laws here first and the universe obeys them? In our human context of course, we know that humans with minds were there first to make laws for other humans to be subject to. Is it then so far out to say that a superior mind was there first to formulate the laws of physics which the universe and everything therein is subject to?
.....The Higher then average cost and the fact that Windows Apps will not run (excluding bootcamp/virtualiztion etc...) on the Mac......
I wish that people would stop comparing Yugos with BMWs and then complain how expensive the BMWs are. If people want to buy cheap Windows machines and then get all the malwares for free, they get after all what they paid for. Pay only a LITTLE more and get a computer free of and resistant to malware and actually looks designed rather than a cookie cutter copycat variation of thousands like it.
My G5 runs WIN2K under VPC for special software just fine. It works at least as well, if not better than the PC hardware that was available when Win2K was first released. Normally, the VPC cannot and doesn't need to access the network, so I don't have to worry about anti-malware or security updates.
.....I agree most Mac people I know don't even think about security....
That's because they don't HAVE to. So far, all threats have been theoretical and I suspect that will be true for a long time. Mac users don't run with full root privileges such as most Windows users must and do. A non-admin Mac user is able to run all software without inputting a password. However, when a new program is to installed in the normal applications folder, a password is asked for. Our users don't have the admin password and therefore cannot install anything in the system. They CAN however install things in their own user space and no password prompt will appear, unless the program they are running wants to have some write access to a part of the system. If the program, is a nasty, the damage will be confined to the user's space. Many Mac programs are drag and drop install and can be dragged into any folder in the user's account. If the program is useless or malware, it can be gotten rid of by simply dragging it into the trash.
Very few Windows program will install without an administrator password, unless the user is already running as an admin. The existence of the registry is a big reason why malware can imbed itself so deeply in the system and that special uninstall software is needed. Mac software doesn't scatter components of itself all over the HD and can be gotten rid of by simply dragging the offender into the trash. Compare that with editing the arcane registry. Until MS and all Windows programmers write their software NOT to require administrator access, Windows will never be very secure.