I expect the heat will be vented out the sides like with current computer designs. Since this is cooling below ambient temperature then it seems sensible to assume that even more heat would be generated than just normal cooling methods.
The main problem I can see with this isn't anything to do with heat - it's power. Surely it's better to have an efficient low power processor that doesn't generate much heat to a superfast low efficiency (ie wasting a lot of energy through heat) processor that then needs even more power to cool it.. perhaps there is a happy medium where efficient processors can be overclocked to speeds that would be unattainable without this type of cooling, and still give better performance (in terms of speed rather than efficiency) than a more powerful CPU while still having better performance per watt though..
Well, I have a pretty good memory so I just recognised Soruk and Eridani from the FCYA reminder emails. There are very few geeks in the Free Church anyway, and probably even fewer with a slashdot account;)
I think I only ever had a short conversation with you about Linux at one of the YFs when I was in high school, so you probably won't remember me.
I remember Iver mentioning in a sermon about you using a mobile to connect to the net on your laptop and speaking to your American gf while he was driving you somewhere, I was rather jealous of your skills! I had had the idea of using a mobile as a modem, I just didn't know anyone who had done it - plus it must have been really expensive back then!
I don't think multi-core is going to cut it, it seems to me each processor needs it's own mememory and bandwidth to do massive calculations, and then sends the results of this information to where it is needed.
While multi-core isn't amazingly effective for doing 'massive calculations' of the variety that scientists usually do (compared to a supercomputer with thousands of nodes anyway), it is great for general purpose computing. It definitely helps for everyday use - whenever I use a single core computer (even with a high clockspeed), I notice the difference in responsiveness, especially when booting into Windows and all the system tray apps are loading, or running lots of applications at the same time. You have to remember that even if you're just running a single application on your dekstop, there are plenty of background processes too.
Not that I want to dissuade you from researching into more efficient processor methodologies, even if it's only for specific tasks - go ahead:) But when you get down to it, most tasks your average computer user does during the day are neither suitable for parallelisation, nor are they considered highly specialised. I'm just thinking of web browsing, chatting, checking email. Modern games do involve lots of operations that 20 years ago would be considered 'specialised', like 3D sound, graphics and physics processing, but we already have specialised processors for all of these things.
I'm really wondering if anyone has done any research into the geometry of information processing functions, of what can be specifically offloaded and what should not
I don't think you're giving the guys at places like Intel and AMD much credit.. if they hadn't thought about stuff like that then where did the idea for 'hyperthreading' and different CPU 'pipelines' come from? To me it seems that the only things that have changed in the last couple of decades is that we've gone from having computers that were mainly designed for integer arithmetic as far as hardware was concerned, to having computers with addons for floating point calculation, and now we have units capable of massively parallel floating point calculations and amazing amounts of memory bandwidth (graphics cards and supercomputers), and now we are getting APIs like CUDA to make use of graphics cards to do more supercomputer like things with our graphics cards. I'm not a CPU design engineer though, so the true progression is probably a bit more complex;)
That's what I believed too. But most sane people are quite opposed to Scientologists, and do you really think there is any truth in their beliefs? I abhor the way scientologists act.
Hardly photographs. Nobody knows what people like Jesus looked like, and there isn't really any need to have pictures of him being crucified.
Check out the Anglican/Episcopalian church, the Lutheran church, the Orthodox church. Maybe read some basic information [wikipedia.org] before spreading this kind of ignorance.
Those don't sounds very reformed to me. One of the first bullet points even refers to a Roman Catholic scripture...
Oh FFS. Mary is not your mother. I don't even believe in the things I used to, so it shouldn't really matter to me anymore, but from a biblical point of view, I don't think it makes sense. Maybe if you add in the Apocrypha it does, I don't know.
God says not to make graven images, it can be interpreted many ways, and one of the main ways is not to worship anything other than God. The cross can be a symbol/reminder, but depicting Jesus would seem to me to be making a graven image of a god *shrug* But like I said, I consider the whole thing bollocks now, and the whole fact that people still argue so much about different interpretations of the bible etc just shows how tribal people are, they'll argue about anything.
If on the other hand Christianity is true, then I still stand by the fact that the Roman Catholic church is trying to take control of it where it shouldn't be. Confessing to priests doesn't make much sense when you can confess direct to Jesus, likewise with praying to Mary as if she is going to intercede for you with Jesus, who is interceding for you with God. Meh. I wish I didn't know all this stuff now, it's rather pointless.
The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins
Which is another way of saying "it doesn't matter if the bible has things wrong, let's just forget this part of the bible and concentrate on the other stuff". Lots of the bible is 'good' morally speaking, and so useful in some ways, but I'd been brought up to believe the bible was 'infallible' and now that I see it isn't, and have thought about the incongruity of a few different things, it just seems very man-made to me now.
I don't particularly have a belief system right now, but yes everything requires faith and assumptions. That doesn't necessarily mean that your assumptions are correct either. A few of my assumptions may turn out to be wrong (though I'm trying not to assume too much at the moment - I do have some reasons to believe in spiritual things, but I have never seen any real evidence for Christianity specifically being true).
I have heard the reasoning behind things like punishment for sin before. I was part of the Free Church of Scotland which is a very fundamental branch of the church, Calvinistic etc. The ideas behind Calvinism make me think that prayer is a pointless exercise other than to brainwash people into continuing to believe things, or to get them to go out and actually do the things that they're praying for anyway. Church follows a lot of the patterns of brainwashing (scare people and offer them a solution, make them feel special/separated from the rest of the world by certain rites, blah blah blah).
Yes, you can explain away anything you want to like I said. I don't try to explain away evidence for God, I just believe that the Christian God either does not exist, or is not even worth worshipping if he does.
Gah! I knew I was overlooking something! Well, at least I have the Backup Tape, and tape deck to play HHGTTG music to remind everyone not to panic in a disaster scenario..
well if you kill everyone without first giving them a chance to convert, they are of course going to hell, so killing everyone immediately isn't the kindest solution!
The biological order isn't too bad, but first, the sun is a 'light in the dome of the sky' for one thing, and also the moon was probably there before water formed on the earth. THat was what I meant about the order.
Well, the fact that they say there are no updates and no risk of viruses in the same sentence really isn't a good start, for a web enabled device at least. I cringe (inside of course, I don't want to to look too weird) when I see ads for things that are "100% secure".
Since this is a desktop device and not a mobile one, then I'd think it could indeed last a very long time without needing to upgrade, as long as it does everything that you want it to. When holographic voice calling becomes popular then this thing probably won't cut it though:p
Just being with God/Jesus is meant to make you happy. Jesus' punishment on the cross was being separated from God (lots of people have been crucified, if you don't have much choice in the matter then it isn't exactly very noble). I always used to think, if God created us and the idea of happiness, he'd know how to keep people eternally happy *shrug*
Having been a Christian for 10 years of my life, and going to church for the other 14, I've heard all this before, and while it might be nice for those that get saved, it doesn't make God any less of a sadistic bastard. If he were benevolent, he would just wipe the sinners out of existence rather than punish them eternally. Eternal punishment for a lifetime of sin is hardly fair.
You can then say oh but God's justice is so much more perfect than ours! etc etc, but in the end it is just a load of bullshit (in my opinion of course, I'm not saying I definitively know the truth in anything, but that's how it seems to me).
God also hasn't had a chance to instill any ideas on people out in the middle of the jungle etc. And if some of them are going to go to Heaven because God is kind and saves some anyway, isn't it better just not to ever let people know about Jesus? Because according to the new testament we will be judged based on the knowledge and priviliges that we have been given. So for example I'm not going to have a 5 star hotel in hell because I was offered the chance to believe in Jesus.
I was actually thinking more of the widely held view of how the moon was created from the earth, and how it would have to be done before the water and all life.
I don't particularly believe the writers of religious texts are idiots, Paul must have been quite clever to come up with some of the stuff he did and affect so many people over the world, but I think that if God were the God that Christians think he is, then he would have just said we came from animals, because he would know that we would have found out eventually and it would cause many people to doubt and basically go to hell for using their brains. There are far too many things that need to be explained away. If you have to make lots and lots of complex addendums to a theory to keep it valid, it probably isn't actually a valid theory. Maybe you have to place limits on a theory to keep it simple (ie Newtonian physics only works on the level we see, it doesn't apply down on a subatomic level), and that's what you're doing by saying it's just a metaphor, but there are just too many issues for me to believe in it any more.
One of the most poignant things someone said to me in the last few months is that even if the Christian God does exist, they wouldn't want to worship him. And it's true. That a god would create a bunch of people knowing that some are going to hell, and still call himself 'good'/ is pretty sickening. The good thing to do would just be to blank those people out of existence. Roman Catholicism gets round that by creating the idea of purgatory, but the reformed church doesn't believe in that, and I consider the reformed church to be more 'pure' to what Christianity was originally meant to be. If something has been added later by humans then it's obviously not from God, though you could say that about the new testament over the original Torah too. Basically, you can explain away anything if you want to. But I no longer want to worship a god who would be such a jerk, and if I have to go to some kind of hell for that then so be it. I maybe won't get used to it like a hot bath (as Reverend Lovejoy or his wife mention in The Simpsons), but if I can't do anything about it but take then pain then meh, I can't do anything about it:p
There isn't one. If you take Christianity to complete logical conclusions then the best thing to do would be to not let anyone have more kids, so that nobody else can be created just for the purpose of going to hell (I suppose most Christian parents must think they can convert their kids and save them, either that or they just don't think about it at all..). Then convert as many other people as possible, and go to heaven and do whatever it is that people do in heaven.
I just did a bit of googling and the Vulgate and Septuagint are apparently latin and greek translations from original hebrew manuscripts (I had always thought they were actual Hebrew manuscripts), so the Old Testament isn't translated from Hebrew each time, but neither is it changing every hundred years either. The New Testament changed a lot around the time of the early church though.
I don't know what Jews use, but the bibles I've read always have the old testament taken from the Vulgate and Septuagint at least (I remember seeing those words mentioned a lot in footnotes). So modern bibles are a translation of a translation of copies of copies, which isn't a great start, but IMO it's still less messed with than this guy seems to think, because the original translations were taken from the Jewish Torah, not from a seriously edited version (though the Torah will likely have changed very slightly with each copy).
I was simply trying to point out that he is just one of those people that assumes there have been hundreds of rewrites when in fact a lot of the time, the bible is translated from a fixed source, so it's not going to change as often as people think.
You can't say it's "obvious" that the bible isn't a trusted source of factual information at all, because many people don't notice that. It's 'obvious' to you sure, and now it's obvious to me, but if it was really that "obvious" then a lot less people would be Christians. It's not obvious in the same way that if you leave your hand in a fire it's going to get seriously hurt (which you can tell just from the pain).
It's kind of sickening to me to think of all the people over the years being fooled with all different types of religion, but I suppose most people need something to believe in. In fact probably everyone does - just that for some people they believe in the pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of mankind through science, etc.
No, when I say I know something I mean I know it. Unless the translators who wrote the introductions to the NIV talking about the process were lying, which they could have been, but I doubt it.
You also are being a moron suggesting that original ancient hebrew texts were somehow rewritten. Tampering would be very obvious in such a case. Not so much with modern books because you can't tell so easily when someone has deleted text stored via a digital medium and replaced it.
The thing about Lilith is that there was plenty of information on her in my results, and none of it confirmed that guy's claim apart from something from a fricking game, so it is reasonable to assume that he has faulty sources and that Lilith is generally regarded as a demon rather than Adam's wife (though the game talks about both). It may be 'lazy' but I don't want to waste time on something that doesn't make that much difference to me personally other than to show some guy on slashdot he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he was a Jew then fair enough, but it seems more like another case of something I've seen many times - someone who has heard a part truth and then regards it as OMGPONIEZICANDISPROVETHEBIBLE! I wouldn't be surprised if he actually took his info from the game (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_(World_of_Darkness) ). If he wants to point me towards a more reputable source that's fine, but I'm not going to start looking into things in that much depth while I'm at work, neither does it really interest me that much any more (a few years ago it probably would have).
The fact you're getting so enraged about the whole hypocrisy etc doesn't help. If you don't believe that God is helping these people, then how do you expect them to be any better than anyone else. Perhaps that Christian driving past the car at the side of the road needs to go pick up their daughter, blah blah blah. I've met some awesome Christians, and I've met some particularly crappy ones (including myself I guess). There's no point going on to me about the hypocrisy involved because I've experienced it first hand many times, believe me.
When I was talking about logic I meant things along the line of the world hating Christians because it is still under control of the devil, and going out of their way to persecute the church. Posts like yours are the sort that used to strengthen my belief in that. The other explanation is that you just hate the hypocrisy and utterly illogical thought required to believe in Christianity, that you consider it an affront to all of the progress we are making without the help of religion. I can see why it would wind people up, but it really doesn't help to 'convert' people out of Christianity, it just affirms their beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect the heat will be vented out the sides like with current computer designs. Since this is cooling below ambient temperature then it seems sensible to assume that even more heat would be generated than just normal cooling methods.
The main problem I can see with this isn't anything to do with heat - it's power. Surely it's better to have an efficient low power processor that doesn't generate much heat to a superfast low efficiency (ie wasting a lot of energy through heat) processor that then needs even more power to cool it.. perhaps there is a happy medium where efficient processors can be overclocked to speeds that would be unattainable without this type of cooling, and still give better performance (in terms of speed rather than efficiency) than a more powerful CPU while still having better performance per watt though..
Well, I have a pretty good memory so I just recognised Soruk and Eridani from the FCYA reminder emails. There are very few geeks in the Free Church anyway, and probably even fewer with a slashdot account ;)
I think I only ever had a short conversation with you about Linux at one of the YFs when I was in high school, so you probably won't remember me.
I remember Iver mentioning in a sermon about you using a mobile to connect to the net on your laptop and speaking to your American gf while he was driving you somewhere, I was rather jealous of your skills! I had had the idea of using a mobile as a modem, I just didn't know anyone who had done it - plus it must have been really expensive back then!
I don't think multi-core is going to cut it, it seems to me each processor needs it's own mememory and bandwidth to do massive calculations, and then sends the results of this information to where it is needed.
While multi-core isn't amazingly effective for doing 'massive calculations' of the variety that scientists usually do (compared to a supercomputer with thousands of nodes anyway), it is great for general purpose computing. It definitely helps for everyday use - whenever I use a single core computer (even with a high clockspeed), I notice the difference in responsiveness, especially when booting into Windows and all the system tray apps are loading, or running lots of applications at the same time. You have to remember that even if you're just running a single application on your dekstop, there are plenty of background processes too.
Not that I want to dissuade you from researching into more efficient processor methodologies, even if it's only for specific tasks - go ahead :) But when you get down to it, most tasks your average computer user does during the day are neither suitable for parallelisation, nor are they considered highly specialised. I'm just thinking of web browsing, chatting, checking email. Modern games do involve lots of operations that 20 years ago would be considered 'specialised', like 3D sound, graphics and physics processing, but we already have specialised processors for all of these things.
I'm really wondering if anyone has done any research into the geometry of information processing functions, of what can be specifically offloaded and what should not
I don't think you're giving the guys at places like Intel and AMD much credit.. if they hadn't thought about stuff like that then where did the idea for 'hyperthreading' and different CPU 'pipelines' come from? To me it seems that the only things that have changed in the last couple of decades is that we've gone from having computers that were mainly designed for integer arithmetic as far as hardware was concerned, to having computers with addons for floating point calculation, and now we have units capable of massively parallel floating point calculations and amazing amounts of memory bandwidth (graphics cards and supercomputers), and now we are getting APIs like CUDA to make use of graphics cards to do more supercomputer like things with our graphics cards. I'm not a CPU design engineer though, so the true progression is probably a bit more complex ;)
Actually this could explain why even geeks sometimes use Vista - it's the only way they'll ever get any.
That's what I believed too. But most sane people are quite opposed to Scientologists, and do you really think there is any truth in their beliefs? I abhor the way scientologists act.
Hardly photographs. Nobody knows what people like Jesus looked like, and there isn't really any need to have pictures of him being crucified.
Check out the Anglican/Episcopalian church, the Lutheran church, the Orthodox church. Maybe read some basic information [wikipedia.org] before spreading this kind of ignorance.
Those don't sounds very reformed to me. One of the first bullet points even refers to a Roman Catholic scripture...
Oh FFS. Mary is not your mother. I don't even believe in the things I used to, so it shouldn't really matter to me anymore, but from a biblical point of view, I don't think it makes sense. Maybe if you add in the Apocrypha it does, I don't know.
God says not to make graven images, it can be interpreted many ways, and one of the main ways is not to worship anything other than God. The cross can be a symbol/reminder, but depicting Jesus would seem to me to be making a graven image of a god *shrug* But like I said, I consider the whole thing bollocks now, and the whole fact that people still argue so much about different interpretations of the bible etc just shows how tribal people are, they'll argue about anything.
If on the other hand Christianity is true, then I still stand by the fact that the Roman Catholic church is trying to take control of it where it shouldn't be. Confessing to priests doesn't make much sense when you can confess direct to Jesus, likewise with praying to Mary as if she is going to intercede for you with Jesus, who is interceding for you with God. Meh. I wish I didn't know all this stuff now, it's rather pointless.
The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins
Which is another way of saying "it doesn't matter if the bible has things wrong, let's just forget this part of the bible and concentrate on the other stuff". Lots of the bible is 'good' morally speaking, and so useful in some ways, but I'd been brought up to believe the bible was 'infallible' and now that I see it isn't, and have thought about the incongruity of a few different things, it just seems very man-made to me now.
I don't particularly have a belief system right now, but yes everything requires faith and assumptions. That doesn't necessarily mean that your assumptions are correct either. A few of my assumptions may turn out to be wrong (though I'm trying not to assume too much at the moment - I do have some reasons to believe in spiritual things, but I have never seen any real evidence for Christianity specifically being true).
I have heard the reasoning behind things like punishment for sin before. I was part of the Free Church of Scotland which is a very fundamental branch of the church, Calvinistic etc. The ideas behind Calvinism make me think that prayer is a pointless exercise other than to brainwash people into continuing to believe things, or to get them to go out and actually do the things that they're praying for anyway. Church follows a lot of the patterns of brainwashing (scare people and offer them a solution, make them feel special/separated from the rest of the world by certain rites, blah blah blah).
Yes, you can explain away anything you want to like I said. I don't try to explain away evidence for God, I just believe that the Christian God either does not exist, or is not even worth worshipping if he does.
it's right up there with people who say "I could care less about..."
I think I love you! :)
But ceriously. Losen up. Appearantly their are more to life then grammer nutsies.
The mystery of the frosty piss is finally explained! Thankyou. You should be more careful of it leaking around slashdot summaries in future.
My employer just modded me redundant because I spend all my time reading slashdot, you insensitive clod!
Batteries don't stop power surges
Power losses can cause data loss
Gah! I knew I was overlooking something! Well, at least I have the Backup Tape, and tape deck to play HHGTTG music to remind everyone not to panic in a disaster scenario..
well if you kill everyone without first giving them a chance to convert, they are of course going to hell, so killing everyone immediately isn't the kindest solution!
The biological order isn't too bad, but first, the sun is a 'light in the dome of the sky' for one thing, and also the moon was probably there before water formed on the earth. THat was what I meant about the order.
It's 'teem' btw :p
I tend to digest mine to prepare them for use on the compost heap.
Well, the fact that they say there are no updates and no risk of viruses in the same sentence really isn't a good start, for a web enabled device at least. I cringe (inside of course, I don't want to to look too weird) when I see ads for things that are "100% secure".
Since this is a desktop device and not a mobile one, then I'd think it could indeed last a very long time without needing to upgrade, as long as it does everything that you want it to. When holographic voice calling becomes popular then this thing probably won't cut it though :p
You really might as well throw away the whole puzzle if you already are missing a piece.
Depends if you can make a new piece or not.
Just being with God/Jesus is meant to make you happy. Jesus' punishment on the cross was being separated from God (lots of people have been crucified, if you don't have much choice in the matter then it isn't exactly very noble). I always used to think, if God created us and the idea of happiness, he'd know how to keep people eternally happy *shrug*
*sigh*
Having been a Christian for 10 years of my life, and going to church for the other 14, I've heard all this before, and while it might be nice for those that get saved, it doesn't make God any less of a sadistic bastard. If he were benevolent, he would just wipe the sinners out of existence rather than punish them eternally. Eternal punishment for a lifetime of sin is hardly fair.
You can then say oh but God's justice is so much more perfect than ours! etc etc, but in the end it is just a load of bullshit (in my opinion of course, I'm not saying I definitively know the truth in anything, but that's how it seems to me).
God also hasn't had a chance to instill any ideas on people out in the middle of the jungle etc. And if some of them are going to go to Heaven because God is kind and saves some anyway, isn't it better just not to ever let people know about Jesus? Because according to the new testament we will be judged based on the knowledge and priviliges that we have been given. So for example I'm not going to have a 5 star hotel in hell because I was offered the chance to believe in Jesus.
Apparently the list of books in the bibles is the same, but Roman Catholics believe in the Apocrypha - see http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm . I thought that those extra books were regarded as part of the Roman Catholic bible, but perhaps not.
I was actually thinking more of the widely held view of how the moon was created from the earth, and how it would have to be done before the water and all life.
I don't particularly believe the writers of religious texts are idiots, Paul must have been quite clever to come up with some of the stuff he did and affect so many people over the world, but I think that if God were the God that Christians think he is, then he would have just said we came from animals, because he would know that we would have found out eventually and it would cause many people to doubt and basically go to hell for using their brains. There are far too many things that need to be explained away. If you have to make lots and lots of complex addendums to a theory to keep it valid, it probably isn't actually a valid theory. Maybe you have to place limits on a theory to keep it simple (ie Newtonian physics only works on the level we see, it doesn't apply down on a subatomic level), and that's what you're doing by saying it's just a metaphor, but there are just too many issues for me to believe in it any more.
One of the most poignant things someone said to me in the last few months is that even if the Christian God does exist, they wouldn't want to worship him. And it's true. That a god would create a bunch of people knowing that some are going to hell, and still call himself 'good'/ is pretty sickening. The good thing to do would just be to blank those people out of existence. Roman Catholicism gets round that by creating the idea of purgatory, but the reformed church doesn't believe in that, and I consider the reformed church to be more 'pure' to what Christianity was originally meant to be. If something has been added later by humans then it's obviously not from God, though you could say that about the new testament over the original Torah too. Basically, you can explain away anything if you want to. But I no longer want to worship a god who would be such a jerk, and if I have to go to some kind of hell for that then so be it. I maybe won't get used to it like a hot bath (as Reverend Lovejoy or his wife mention in The Simpsons), but if I can't do anything about it but take then pain then meh, I can't do anything about it :p
There isn't one. If you take Christianity to complete logical conclusions then the best thing to do would be to not let anyone have more kids, so that nobody else can be created just for the purpose of going to hell (I suppose most Christian parents must think they can convert their kids and save them, either that or they just don't think about it at all..). Then convert as many other people as possible, and go to heaven and do whatever it is that people do in heaven.
I just did a bit of googling and the Vulgate and Septuagint are apparently latin and greek translations from original hebrew manuscripts (I had always thought they were actual Hebrew manuscripts), so the Old Testament isn't translated from Hebrew each time, but neither is it changing every hundred years either. The New Testament changed a lot around the time of the early church though.
I don't know what Jews use, but the bibles I've read always have the old testament taken from the Vulgate and Septuagint at least (I remember seeing those words mentioned a lot in footnotes). So modern bibles are a translation of a translation of copies of copies, which isn't a great start, but IMO it's still less messed with than this guy seems to think, because the original translations were taken from the Jewish Torah, not from a seriously edited version (though the Torah will likely have changed very slightly with each copy).
I was simply trying to point out that he is just one of those people that assumes there have been hundreds of rewrites when in fact a lot of the time, the bible is translated from a fixed source, so it's not going to change as often as people think.
You can't say it's "obvious" that the bible isn't a trusted source of factual information at all, because many people don't notice that. It's 'obvious' to you sure, and now it's obvious to me, but if it was really that "obvious" then a lot less people would be Christians. It's not obvious in the same way that if you leave your hand in a fire it's going to get seriously hurt (which you can tell just from the pain).
It's kind of sickening to me to think of all the people over the years being fooled with all different types of religion, but I suppose most people need something to believe in. In fact probably everyone does - just that for some people they believe in the pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of mankind through science, etc.
No, when I say I know something I mean I know it. Unless the translators who wrote the introductions to the NIV talking about the process were lying, which they could have been, but I doubt it.
You also are being a moron suggesting that original ancient hebrew texts were somehow rewritten. Tampering would be very obvious in such a case. Not so much with modern books because you can't tell so easily when someone has deleted text stored via a digital medium and replaced it.
The thing about Lilith is that there was plenty of information on her in my results, and none of it confirmed that guy's claim apart from something from a fricking game, so it is reasonable to assume that he has faulty sources and that Lilith is generally regarded as a demon rather than Adam's wife (though the game talks about both). It may be 'lazy' but I don't want to waste time on something that doesn't make that much difference to me personally other than to show some guy on slashdot he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he was a Jew then fair enough, but it seems more like another case of something I've seen many times - someone who has heard a part truth and then regards it as OMGPONIEZICANDISPROVETHEBIBLE! I wouldn't be surprised if he actually took his info from the game (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_(World_of_Darkness) ). If he wants to point me towards a more reputable source that's fine, but I'm not going to start looking into things in that much depth while I'm at work, neither does it really interest me that much any more (a few years ago it probably would have).
The fact you're getting so enraged about the whole hypocrisy etc doesn't help. If you don't believe that God is helping these people, then how do you expect them to be any better than anyone else. Perhaps that Christian driving past the car at the side of the road needs to go pick up their daughter, blah blah blah. I've met some awesome Christians, and I've met some particularly crappy ones (including myself I guess). There's no point going on to me about the hypocrisy involved because I've experienced it first hand many times, believe me.
When I was talking about logic I meant things along the line of the world hating Christians because it is still under control of the devil, and going out of their way to persecute the church. Posts like yours are the sort that used to strengthen my belief in that. The other explanation is that you just hate the hypocrisy and utterly illogical thought required to believe in Christianity, that you consider it an affront to all of the progress we are making without the help of religion. I can see why it would wind people up, but it really doesn't help to 'convert' people out of Christianity, it just affirms their beliefs.
Hey baby, wanna take a ride on the dragon*coughflycough*?