I think you are being a bit harsh. The God Delusion is not invective. It is a well written argument against the illusion of religion. You may not agree with it, but, oh, well, that's Ok.
However, "...I find atheism in general to be more and more repulsive to scientific thinking - in that it rejects without proof any possibility of gods, fairies etc rather than just rejecting the theories as unproven... "
Huh? Atheism doesn't "reject without proof", but says that "my default picture of the universe does not include a supernatural deity. If you want me to believe in one, you'd better prove it." To my mind, that IS rejecting a theory as unproven!
"The definition of faith is not wrong, but there are several and it is important to pick the right one."
Yes, it is, and christians have a very good record of cherry picking the ones they want! I have heard more than one preacher use the alternative definition you reject.
Nice thing, christianity - let's you pick and choose those beliefs you personally like, so you can reject all the others.
And, no, Dawkins doesn't really use the word "evil", but he does paint them as bad for society. That is not silly, given all of the wars, pogroms, persecutions and state sanctioned human rights violations that religion has caused in just Western history alone. Come to think of it, if I had to pick a word, "evil" wouldn't really be a bad word to use after all...
"But that doesn't translate into world domination, or even that Apple is on track for world domination."
When the hell did I say that? Obviously if they aren't competing everywhere, they are not on track for domination, and Steve has let it be known thats not his plan or desire. You are the one that emphasized the small percentage that I corrected, because in the markets they DO compete in, they have a larger percentage, which your post neglected to consider.
I'm just saying that you cannot call Apple a "bit player" when they obviously dominate the industry in design, technology they are willing to risk putting in their machines first, and in customer loyalty. They are not, and if they were, the press wouldn't treat them the way they do. THAT'S irrational thinking, especially when their market share in their chosen markets is so large.
That's only if you talk about the entire worldwide computer market. You need to look at the markets where they actually compete.
First of all, they do not compete in all countries.
Next, they do not compete seriously in the business market - they mostly only concentrate on the home consumer market.
Also, they do not compete in the low end, cheap ass crapola market.
So, the figures that came out the other day that they DO have 21% of the US consumer computer market is more significant than it is obvious you are willing to admit to! Add to that the fact that they have consistently made a profit since 2001 - many times posting year over year gains in the 30% range with margins in the same range, and you have a computer company that is outperforming the rest of the industry by over 100%!!
So? Unless you are intimating that Microsoft is not capable of doing a complete rewrite... after all, if Apple, with far fewer software engineers can do it, why not Microsoft?
Of course, if past results are any kind of an indicator, you may be right. In which case I would not trust them to get it right, even with the older code as a base as you suggest!
Except that, in case you haven't been watching, Apple has increased their market share dramatically. Just the other day, Apple was shown to have gone to 21% of the consumer market. They couldn't care less about the businesses yet.
Huge chunks are not necessary - slow but sure is just fine. But, Ok, great, let them drag their feet- one day they'll turn around and Apple will have just walked away with their market share. It is happening right now, and Vista is a big reason why. If people need to buy new and more powerful hardware, why not switch, especially when most consumers won't need to buy any software, since most of what most people want comes loaded with a Mac anyway.
What lie? Internet Explorer IS tied into the OS!! That IS the way they screwed Netscape!
I do desktop support for the Feds, and we CANNOT remove IE, even to reinstall it. There just is no way to do so, the system will not allow IE to be uninstalled.
That was the original complaint, and continues to be in the EU.
If Win7 removes that roadblock and allows IE to be uninstalled, then they have answered that complaint. Frankly, if they DO toss out all the old Win code and start over, that'll be the smartest thing they've ever done, but it'll be eight years too late and again, waaay behind Apple!
Sorry to take so long to answer, but... (and the only stupid question is the one you DON'T ask!)
Why the particular use of "Tex-Mex"? don't know, I've only lived in Texas rather than other western states, so I don't know if there are other labels there or not. I would assume that others may have their own labels, but nationally, Tex-Mex has stuck probably due to Texas' wide association with and proximity to Mexico. That's just my guess tho.
I've never seen a particular geographic pattern as simple as north/south or east/west, but I would imagine that there would be differences depending on localities, probably more complex than that.
I do know that there ARE differences, based upon differing ideas, such as beans or no beans in chili. Sometimes they get pretty hot, too (Pun intended!) There are differing ideas as to which type chilies get used, and whether they should be dried and ground, or used fresh and chopped, use the seeds or not, etc. Some people like to use differing coarseness' of corn meal or flour (known as Masa corn flour), and there are lots of other examples.
There are a few well known restaurants in famous localities that each use their own associated recipes, which often become local favorites.
I currently live in Maryland, and I can tell you, it is almost impossible to get tamales here. Even bad ones!
As a native Texan I can assure you from long exposure that so called Tex-Mex cuisine is uniquely American. There are different 'flavors' of it depending whether you are from Texas, New Mexico, California, etc. A popular, and uniquely American dish is chili. It was developed in the early to mid 19th century as a supplement to the diets of poor Texans (of whatever ethnic groups), and was avidly used as an easily thrown together meal on the cattle trails. There are many different styles of chili now, depending on where you live. Personally, I subscribe to the meat version, holding that using beans in chili is just filler, as the original recipes did not use vegetables at all, save the chilies themselves.
If you ever get the opportunity to visit a truly "Mexican" restaurant serving real Mexican food, then do so! It is a real treat!
Cite some sources, please. For such a radical claim, you need to prove your assertions. Simply stating your opinion as fact won't cut it.
If such studies were in fact, introduced as evidence to the FDA or the panels that advise them, I promise you, this wouldn't be on the way to being approved.
No, the AppleTV can do 720p. From the AppleTV specs page:
* H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats
* iTunes Store purchased video: 320 by 240 pixels or 640 by 480 pixels
* MPEG-4: Up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 720 by 432 pixels at 30 fps) in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats
True, the iTunes videos are of lesser quality, but I think that's due to bandwidth costs to the iTunes store. I believe they're waiting for both content numbers and demand to get to a certain level before upgrading content resolution.
Of course, if YOU have higher resolution video from another source, the AppleTv will play it just fine.
Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 1
...and by "system", that's what I meant.
However, like I said, Apple has apparently hooked QT closely enough into the system that it wants a reboot. Yes, that's irritating... however, that doesn't happen very often with Mac OS X, either. Apple updates things several times a year with "security updates", and mostly, those need a reboot - but not always, depending on what's getting updated. Software updates, to iWork or iLife apps don't.
Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 1
Any Operating System will force you to reboot when the system itself has been patched. You'll never get away from that with current technology.
The difference is that for Apple software that is NOT part of the OS, there is no reboot required. That is why MS has been criticized - for forcing a reboot for software that is NOT part of the OS.
That said, QT isn't officially part of the Mac OS, although I guess it's become rather integrated with it, so maybe that explains why it wants a reboot.
Sorry, but your comment about our not crossing state lines made it sound as if that was an FDA preference, instead of a jurisdictional issue. I wanted to get that out so those that don't bother to know the facts wouldn't make an ignorant judgment based upon wrong information.
I've worked for the FDA for my entire Federal career, but don't think that I don't have my own thoughts about it. Like most FDAers, I do. What I write here is my own thinking, based upon my own knowledge, and in no way reflects the official position of this Agency. My pay level doesn't go that high.
Like most Federal Agencies, it is run by political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. While the career Civil Service employees actually still run the day to day operations, those political appointees have a powerful influence on how the Agency approaches its mission. It's supposed to be that way.
If you have a problem with the way this Agency writes its regs, or approaches any other aspect of what we do, then look at the White House. That's who our Commissioner works for. Many of us don't like that any more than you do. It's hard to work for an employer and see its standards slip over the life of your career, but I am employed by the US Government, not the Republican or Democratic parties. My loyalty lies with the United States, and ultimately with the American people.
That is the strength of our government, that there are so few political appointees to run things, and day to day ops are run by people that have no sectarian political loyalties.
"And the FDA doesn't even consider looking at it unless it crosses state lines."
That's because we CAN'T. The FDA is a FEDERAL Agency, and our mandate is to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. If you bottle water in Minnesota and sell it exclusively within that state, we have no jurisdiction. Only the State does, so in those cases, talk to the state agency that regulates bottled beverages.
And please cite some studies to prove your assertion. FDA has standards for bottled water that are at least as restrictive as EPA's. We inspect the bottlers, and when we find over the limit samples, we take action.
But otherwise, I agree with your statement about bottled water from municipal sources as safe. They are even sometimes filtered first to lower particulate matter.
"60 Minutes" did a story years ago that showed a blind taste test between bottled waters and municipal water from some major American cities. Mostly, it was a wash, but the one that won the taste test was municipal water from a city up North in the Midwest somewhere. I don't remember the city.
Well, I see that survival of the fittest is alive and well.
Someday we'll see if an attitude like yours ever gets the Darwin Award...
Fortunately for the species, most humans don't have such a give a shit attitude. Most of us care about, at least, our own survival.
Your post concentrates on a couple of questions that have plagued philosophers for thousands of years, and are answered in a thousand different ways by as many religious beliefs.
However, IANAP (I am not a Philosopher), so my post never means to answer those questions; I don't care if there isn't any fundamental reason WHY humanity should or should not survive. I just want it to, and I believe that expanding our living space to include space habitats as well as other planets is the long term way to do that.
Sounds interesting. Will we blast it using great big Saturns with tons of cash in each load, or could we use smaller payloads and larger denominations? What orbit will we put it in, and can we assume a rate of return for when we go pick it back up in 50 years?
Sorry, but blasting money into space is a stupid way to put it. Money spent on any endeavor by government gets spent right here on earth and goes right back into the economy. There may be BETTER ways to spend it, but nobody ever orbited cash in the space program. One can also look at the many spin-offs in technology we take for granted today as additional benefits.
Plus, if we can eventually off load enough people into extra-planetary habitats, maybe in a hundred years or two we can hope to begin to safeguard ourselves from planetary disaster causing extinction. The sooner we start learning how to do that, the sooner our species is safe from that particular kind of extinction.
My thirty years makes me much more knowledgeable about government employees and what they are likely to be involved in than you are.
I think you're engaging in partisan political bickering with these allegations, which will never be proved because there isn't anything to them. As I said, any allegation that attempts to show an employee of the US Government to have been knowingly engaged in the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
You can question the motives, actions and competence of the Bush Administration itself all you wish, but you'll never convince me that any career government employee had anything to do with it.
Sorry, if you are intimating that the US had ANYTHING to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers, you've been drinking too much of somebody's Kool-aid. I don't doubt that parts of the US intelligence community probably had information that could have stopped the attacks, but as an employee of the government for over 30 years, you'll have a damn hard time convincing me that anybody drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam was in any way deliberately involved in that, or deliberately let it happen.
I'm as much a patriot as the next guy but you'll never convince me of that.
I think it's your imagination running in overdrive.
If you've been reading the papers recently, US military sources have identified explosives and parts of exploded IED's as having their origin in Iran. That is a much better reason for going after Iran, and one that is easier to prove and garner International support for than what you propose.
And what do you mean by "Does anyone smell another 9/11 in the making..."? 9/11 was planned, instigated and carried out by forces commanded by Bin Laden, not the US. You may have been referring to the invasion of Iraq, which was planned and carried out by US forces...
Not hard to do. You simply right click (if you have a two button mouse or a mighty mouse configured for two buttons - option click if on a single button) on the file, and from the contextual menu, choose "Open with" and pick your program. You can either choose from the programs offered, or navigate to the Applications folder and choose the one you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah! So is that where we get "The Nine Billion Names of God"??
I think you are being a bit harsh. The God Delusion is not invective. It is a well written argument against the illusion of religion. You may not agree with it, but, oh, well, that's Ok.
However, "...I find atheism in general to be more and more repulsive to scientific thinking - in that it rejects without proof any possibility of gods, fairies etc rather than just rejecting the theories as unproven... "
Huh? Atheism doesn't "reject without proof", but says that "my default picture of the universe does not include a supernatural deity. If you want me to believe in one, you'd better prove it." To my mind, that IS rejecting a theory as unproven!"The definition of faith is not wrong, but there are several and it is important to pick the right one." Yes, it is, and christians have a very good record of cherry picking the ones they want! I have heard more than one preacher use the alternative definition you reject. Nice thing, christianity - let's you pick and choose those beliefs you personally like, so you can reject all the others. And, no, Dawkins doesn't really use the word "evil", but he does paint them as bad for society. That is not silly, given all of the wars, pogroms, persecutions and state sanctioned human rights violations that religion has caused in just Western history alone. Come to think of it, if I had to pick a word, "evil" wouldn't really be a bad word to use after all...
"But that doesn't translate into world domination, or even that Apple is on track for world domination."
When the hell did I say that? Obviously if they aren't competing everywhere, they are not on track for domination, and Steve has let it be known thats not his plan or desire. You are the one that emphasized the small percentage that I corrected, because in the markets they DO compete in, they have a larger percentage, which your post neglected to consider.
I'm just saying that you cannot call Apple a "bit player" when they obviously dominate the industry in design, technology they are willing to risk putting in their machines first, and in customer loyalty. They are not, and if they were, the press wouldn't treat them the way they do. THAT'S irrational thinking, especially when their market share in their chosen markets is so large.
That's only if you talk about the entire worldwide computer market. You need to look at the markets where they actually compete.
First of all, they do not compete in all countries.
Next, they do not compete seriously in the business market - they mostly only concentrate on the home consumer market.
Also, they do not compete in the low end, cheap ass crapola market.
So, the figures that came out the other day that they DO have 21% of the US consumer computer market is more significant than it is obvious you are willing to admit to!
Add to that the fact that they have consistently made a profit since 2001 - many times posting year over year gains in the 30% range with margins in the same range, and you have a computer company that is outperforming the rest of the industry by over 100%!!
So? Unless you are intimating that Microsoft is not capable of doing a complete rewrite... after all, if Apple, with far fewer software engineers can do it, why not Microsoft?
Of course, if past results are any kind of an indicator, you may be right. In which case I would not trust them to get it right, even with the older code as a base as you suggest!
Except that, in case you haven't been watching, Apple has increased their market share dramatically. Just the other day, Apple was shown to have gone to 21% of the consumer market. They couldn't care less about the businesses yet. Huge chunks are not necessary - slow but sure is just fine. But, Ok, great, let them drag their feet- one day they'll turn around and Apple will have just walked away with their market share. It is happening right now, and Vista is a big reason why. If people need to buy new and more powerful hardware, why not switch, especially when most consumers won't need to buy any software, since most of what most people want comes loaded with a Mac anyway.
What lie? Internet Explorer IS tied into the OS!! That IS the way they screwed Netscape! I do desktop support for the Feds, and we CANNOT remove IE, even to reinstall it. There just is no way to do so, the system will not allow IE to be uninstalled. That was the original complaint, and continues to be in the EU. If Win7 removes that roadblock and allows IE to be uninstalled, then they have answered that complaint. Frankly, if they DO toss out all the old Win code and start over, that'll be the smartest thing they've ever done, but it'll be eight years too late and again, waaay behind Apple!
Sorry to take so long to answer, but... (and the only stupid question is the one you DON'T ask!)
Why the particular use of "Tex-Mex"? don't know, I've only lived in Texas rather than other western states, so I don't know if there are other labels there or not. I would assume that others may have their own labels, but nationally, Tex-Mex has stuck probably due to Texas' wide association with and proximity to Mexico. That's just my guess tho.
I've never seen a particular geographic pattern as simple as north/south or east/west, but I would imagine that there would be differences depending on localities, probably more complex than that.
I do know that there ARE differences, based upon differing ideas, such as beans or no beans in chili. Sometimes they get pretty hot, too (Pun intended!) There are differing ideas as to which type chilies get used, and whether they should be dried and ground, or used fresh and chopped, use the seeds or not, etc. Some people like to use differing coarseness' of corn meal or flour (known as Masa corn flour), and there are lots of other examples.
There are a few well known restaurants in famous localities that each use their own associated recipes, which often become local favorites.
I currently live in Maryland, and I can tell you, it is almost impossible to get tamales here. Even bad ones!
I agree.
As a native Texan I can assure you from long exposure that so called Tex-Mex cuisine is uniquely American. There are different 'flavors' of it depending whether you are from Texas, New Mexico, California, etc. A popular, and uniquely American dish is chili. It was developed in the early to mid 19th century as a supplement to the diets of poor Texans (of whatever ethnic groups), and was avidly used as an easily thrown together meal on the cattle trails. There are many different styles of chili now, depending on where you live. Personally, I subscribe to the meat version, holding that using beans in chili is just filler, as the original recipes did not use vegetables at all, save the chilies themselves.
If you ever get the opportunity to visit a truly "Mexican" restaurant serving real Mexican food, then do so! It is a real treat!
Yeah, ten feet tall and bullet-proof!
I call FUD!
Cite some sources, please. For such a radical claim, you need to prove your assertions. Simply stating your opinion as fact won't cut it.
If such studies were in fact, introduced as evidence to the FDA or the panels that advise them, I promise you, this wouldn't be on the way to being approved.
You shouldn't reword people's comments unless you really READ them.
I noted that the AppleTV CAN play the higher resolution, NOT that the iTunes store will offer them.
That's why I started my comment with No.
No, the AppleTV can do 720p. From the AppleTV specs page:
.m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
* H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in
* iTunes Store purchased video: 320 by 240 pixels or 640 by 480 pixels
* MPEG-4: Up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 720 by 432 pixels at 30 fps) in
True, the iTunes videos are of lesser quality, but I think that's due to bandwidth costs to the iTunes store. I believe they're waiting for both content numbers and demand to get to a certain level before upgrading content resolution.
Of course, if YOU have higher resolution video from another source, the AppleTv will play it just fine.
...and by "system", that's what I meant.
However, like I said, Apple has apparently hooked QT closely enough into the system that it wants a reboot. Yes, that's irritating... however, that doesn't happen very often with Mac OS X, either. Apple updates things several times a year with "security updates", and mostly, those need a reboot - but not always, depending on what's getting updated. Software updates, to iWork or iLife apps don't.
Any Operating System will force you to reboot when the system itself has been patched. You'll never get away from that with current technology.
The difference is that for Apple software that is NOT part of the OS, there is no reboot required. That is why MS has been criticized - for forcing a reboot for software that is NOT part of the OS.
That said, QT isn't officially part of the Mac OS, although I guess it's become rather integrated with it, so maybe that explains why it wants a reboot.
Sorry, but your comment about our not crossing state lines made it sound as if that was an FDA preference, instead of a jurisdictional issue. I wanted to get that out so those that don't bother to know the facts wouldn't make an ignorant judgment based upon wrong information.
I've worked for the FDA for my entire Federal career, but don't think that I don't have my own thoughts about it. Like most FDAers, I do. What I write here is my own thinking, based upon my own knowledge, and in no way reflects the official position of this Agency. My pay level doesn't go that high.
Like most Federal Agencies, it is run by political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. While the career Civil Service employees actually still run the day to day operations, those political appointees have a powerful influence on how the Agency approaches its mission. It's supposed to be that way.
If you have a problem with the way this Agency writes its regs, or approaches any other aspect of what we do, then look at the White House. That's who our Commissioner works for. Many of us don't like that any more than you do. It's hard to work for an employer and see its standards slip over the life of your career, but I am employed by the US Government, not the Republican or Democratic parties. My loyalty lies with the United States, and ultimately with the American people.
That is the strength of our government, that there are so few political appointees to run things, and day to day ops are run by people that have no sectarian political loyalties.
Think about how much worse it could be otherwise!
"And the FDA doesn't even consider looking at it unless it crosses state lines."
That's because we CAN'T. The FDA is a FEDERAL Agency, and our mandate is to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. If you bottle water in Minnesota and sell it exclusively within that state, we have no jurisdiction. Only the State does, so in those cases, talk to the state agency that regulates bottled beverages.
And please cite some studies to prove your assertion. FDA has standards for bottled water that are at least as restrictive as EPA's. We inspect the bottlers, and when we find over the limit samples, we take action.
But otherwise, I agree with your statement about bottled water from municipal sources as safe. They are even sometimes filtered first to lower particulate matter.
"60 Minutes" did a story years ago that showed a blind taste test between bottled waters and municipal water from some major American cities. Mostly, it was a wash, but the one that won the taste test was municipal water from a city up North in the Midwest somewhere. I don't remember the city.
Well, I see that survival of the fittest is alive and well.
Someday we'll see if an attitude like yours ever gets the Darwin Award...
Fortunately for the species, most humans don't have such a give a shit attitude. Most of us care about, at least, our own survival.
Your post concentrates on a couple of questions that have plagued philosophers for thousands of years, and are answered in a thousand different ways by as many religious beliefs.
However, IANAP (I am not a Philosopher), so my post never means to answer those questions; I don't care if there isn't any fundamental reason WHY humanity should or should not survive. I just want it to, and I believe that expanding our living space to include space habitats as well as other planets is the long term way to do that.
Hmmm, blasting money into space...
Sounds interesting. Will we blast it using great big Saturns with tons of cash in each load, or could we use smaller payloads and larger denominations? What orbit will we put it in, and can we assume a rate of return for when we go pick it back up in 50 years?
Sorry, but blasting money into space is a stupid way to put it. Money spent on any endeavor by government gets spent right here on earth and goes right back into the economy. There may be BETTER ways to spend it, but nobody ever orbited cash in the space program. One can also look at the many spin-offs in technology we take for granted today as additional benefits.
Plus, if we can eventually off load enough people into extra-planetary habitats, maybe in a hundred years or two we can hope to begin to safeguard ourselves from planetary disaster causing extinction. The sooner we start learning how to do that, the sooner our species is safe from that particular kind of extinction.
My thirty years makes me much more knowledgeable about government employees and what they are likely to be involved in than you are.
I think you're engaging in partisan political bickering with these allegations, which will never be proved because there isn't anything to them. As I said, any allegation that attempts to show an employee of the US Government to have been knowingly engaged in the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
You can question the motives, actions and competence of the Bush Administration itself all you wish, but you'll never convince me that any career government employee had anything to do with it.
Sorry, if you are intimating that the US had ANYTHING to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers, you've been drinking too much of somebody's Kool-aid. I don't doubt that parts of the US intelligence community probably had information that could have stopped the attacks, but as an employee of the government for over 30 years, you'll have a damn hard time convincing me that anybody drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam was in any way deliberately involved in that, or deliberately let it happen.
I'm as much a patriot as the next guy but you'll never convince me of that.
I think it's your imagination running in overdrive.
If you've been reading the papers recently, US military sources have identified explosives and parts of exploded IED's as having their origin in Iran. That is a much better reason for going after Iran, and one that is easier to prove and garner International support for than what you propose.
And what do you mean by "Does anyone smell another 9/11 in the making..."? 9/11 was planned, instigated and carried out by forces commanded by Bin Laden, not the US. You may have been referring to the invasion of Iraq, which was planned and carried out by US forces...
Not hard to do. You simply right click (if you have a two button mouse or a mighty mouse configured for two buttons - option click if on a single button) on the file, and from the contextual menu, choose "Open with" and pick your program. You can either choose from the programs offered, or navigate to the Applications folder and choose the one you want.
I've been doing this since the early OS X days...
Ok, Ok, ya got me - shoulda been bribes, of course. (stupid Dell keyboard - shoulda known what I was thinkin'...)