And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.
You may not, but I do. I prefer to think for myself rather than accept dogma. The obvious answer about why some version of the Bible wasn't found in every culture to me isn't because God works in mysterious ways, or Satan, but because people all around the world were just making up religions. The Christian religion isn't anything special in that regard, except for being one of the popular ones.
Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.
I have a hard time understanding your answer. In the first part you lay out a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo in answer to why there are different religions, which in the end say, I think, "Satan's fault!". Why does God even allow an evil being like Satan in the first place? Where is the counter to Satan in these other civilizations and times? A random person growing up in one of these civilizations never would have had a chance to receive the message. Instead, they would have adopted one of the prevailing religions.
But then you reverse yourself, and say the Bible is everywhere, and ask what's the problem. You're looking at modern times and completely ignoring all of human history.
Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether.
A different variation of the same God. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity which is an offshoot of Judaism. Regarding whether "Jesus is God", even the Christians can't agree on that point. Which again highlights the problem with the Bible. You say the message is easily muddled but essentially there, but then you rely on it's authority in rather specific interpretations of it.
On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.
Yeah, Satan did it. What a convenient fellow to blame things on.
If the email is actually true, I'm with Jobs. The sense of entitlement in her email just pisses me off:
"I was incredibly surprised to find Apple's Media Relations Department to be absolutely unresponsive to my questions, which (as I had repeatedly told them in voicemail after voicemail) are vital to my academic grade as a student journalist."
Why should they be held hostage over her grade? It's also a ridiculous argument. The professor is going to downgrade her because Apple didn't respond to her question?
The other replies to you cover other points, but I wanted to address this one:
The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please?
What I mean is why the "straight dope" is delivered through prophets, of which there are many. Yet one, Jesus, happens to become popular and considered authoritative, and some time later we get varying accounts of his teachings and life. Yet if you look around the world and at history, everybody else came up with different religions, with no record of a Jesus figure.
You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time.
You think God is powerful enough to create universes, people from dust and ribs of other people, but can't manage to get the same message across in different languages and time periods? The most obvious explanation is that religion is man made, and the Jesus mythology isn't any different.
If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction.
Funny how civilizations all around the planet managed to survive before coming into contact with the Bible. Also funny how many wars people have over which flavor of God is the true one. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all essentially believe in the same God, yet they fight amongst each other and themselves. You'd think a just God that wanted to get his message across would deliver the message unambiguously and equally for all people, especially if he's going to punish them for getting it wrong.
You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear
On the other hand, the theory of where life comes from abiogenesis, is often lumped in under the same name as evolution, and yet it doesn't have nearly the support that natural selection does. We have vague ideas, that's all; we don't know how it happened. So she's right in calling that 'just a theory.'
First, all of science is "just a theory". The usage is taking a scientific term and twisting it into a scare term. Second, the vast majority of religious people who question evolution are NOT talking about abiogenesis, they are talking about evolution from simple life forms leading to humans. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible genesis story, and it doesn't leave much room for God (also known as God of the Gaps).
Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other.
I suppose you also believe that Eve was created from a rib of Adam? How about Noah's Ark? How's that Bible and science combination working now?
I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible.
Why doesn't God just give everybody the straight dope without all this prophet bullshit? Why do major religions rest their authority on texts hundreds or thousands of years old that suffer from translation and historical context problems?
I'd advise dropping the Bible as a source of useful information when it comes to science or pretty much anything except for whatever verifiable bits of history that can be gleaned from it.
You're talking here about just the AI. While the AI is in general impressive at first blush, it isn't very computationally expensive. First, it cheats. Second, it mostly just follows hard-coded scripts about what actions to take.
You forgot real-time path finding with a horde of units interfering with each other.
Now look at a Civ game, and all of the things that simultaneously happen each time one turn ends and another begins.
What simultaneously happens? The unit orders are sequenced.
You honestly think there is less to compute in a Civ game than in Starcraft II, just because Civ is turn based?
Well, um, YES. There's a difference between localized, separate battles at the end of every turn versus battles that update dozens of times a second all over the map. That you have thought about this and tried to equate the two is mind boggling.
There is an insane amount of behind the scenes tracking and calculations going on in a Civilization game.
Oh come on. I played Alpha Centauri on a computer from 2002 and it was blazing fast. Compare a Civ game to a real-time game like StarCraft 2 for "insane" amounts of computations.
I wonder if they ripped _Age_of_Wonders'_ Adjacent Hex rule... Every unit immediately adjacent the hex where the attack could occur were also pulled into that hex for combat.
Diplomacy had this first, at least some variation of it.
Of course you'll remember games you played as a kid more fondly
This is exactly the situation. Talk to some kids about the games they love. Don't you think 10, 15, or 20 years down the road they'll be talking exactly as you are now?
Remember when you were a kid and you hated those older people saying "back in my day", talking about their outdated stuff and bashing the new? You're that person now.
A big cloud in a box? Like, a mainframe? From the 70s/80s?
From the YouTube linked in the summary:
"We've [the industry] redefined cloud computing to include everything that we currently do. [...] We'll make cloud computing announcements, because if orange is the new pink we'll make orange blouses. I'm not going to fight this thing. "
Contrary from the summary/article, he didn't shift from his previous criticism at all. He did what he said he was going to do.
So here's one of the top links from your search, which you seem to be quoting from. It says:
"However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say 'I am going to kill you' or to announce in an airport, 'I am going to bomb this plane.'"
This directly contradicts your original statement:
The Supreme Court of the US has even ruled that death threats are protected speech, unless the issuer of the threat is carrying a gun or knife. But simply walking up to someone (say a KKK guy) and saying, "I hate racist mother fuckers and I'm going to kill you" is protected speech if said person is unarmed.
The Watts case was about political hyperbole, and it wasn't considered a death threat. So when asked to provide specific citations, your original claims do not hold up.
I really loved the guy that wanted to apply Moore's law to processor speed and was expecting to reach 128 Ghz very quickly.
I don't think it was so unreasonable, especially when you consider the comment that started this thread: "The wall or plateu or whatever you prefer to call it of electronics progress is similar to the recurring doomsday predictions. It's always right around the corner, but it never happens." [emphasis mine]
The counter-example was clock speeds. They were following an exponential curve right along with transistor density. Intel and AMD both gave up on clock speed around the same time and moved to multi-core.
Try reading the comment you are replying to: "Chances are a good portion of the economy cpus out there had a core or two disabled just to meet a shipping quota and price point, not because the core failed an integrity check."
Didn't the Intel roadmaps from around 10 years ago predict 6 or 7 Ghz CPUs by now?
Try 10 Ghz, and even that was scorned at the time for being conservative. It was quite an amazing ride from the earliest CPUs, but alas, it did come to an end. The comments on that page, a blast from the past, are priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
And it certainly doesn't seem fair, does it? But then, I don't define fair.
You may not, but I do. I prefer to think for myself rather than accept dogma. The obvious answer about why some version of the Bible wasn't found in every culture to me isn't because God works in mysterious ways, or Satan, but because people all around the world were just making up religions. The Christian religion isn't anything special in that regard, except for being one of the popular ones.
Hasn't He? I know Bibles are in well over a hundred languages, and pretty well dispersed. Again, I think I'm missing something in your question.
I have a hard time understanding your answer. In the first part you lay out a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo in answer to why there are different religions, which in the end say, I think, "Satan's fault!". Why does God even allow an evil being like Satan in the first place? Where is the counter to Satan in these other civilizations and times? A random person growing up in one of these civilizations never would have had a chance to receive the message. Instead, they would have adopted one of the prevailing religions.
But then you reverse yourself, and say the Bible is everywhere, and ask what's the problem. You're looking at modern times and completely ignoring all of human history.
Especially amusing when you say that, knowing Muslims and the Jewish people say Jesus is not God. They, essentially, believe in a different God altogether.
A different variation of the same God. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity which is an offshoot of Judaism. Regarding whether "Jesus is God", even the Christians can't agree on that point. Which again highlights the problem with the Bible. You say the message is easily muddled but essentially there, but then you rely on it's authority in rather specific interpretations of it.
On top of that, there's always someone lying... But I addressed that in my first answer.
Yeah, Satan did it. What a convenient fellow to blame things on.
How come the images have a noticeable swirl to them? No mention of it in the article.
If the email is actually true, I'm with Jobs. The sense of entitlement in her email just pisses me off:
"I was incredibly surprised to find Apple's Media Relations Department to be absolutely unresponsive to my questions, which (as I had repeatedly told them in voicemail after voicemail) are vital to my academic grade as a student journalist."
Why should they be held hostage over her grade? It's also a ridiculous argument. The professor is going to downgrade her because Apple didn't respond to her question?
The other replies to you cover other points, but I wanted to address this one:
The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please?
What I mean is why the "straight dope" is delivered through prophets, of which there are many. Yet one, Jesus, happens to become popular and considered authoritative, and some time later we get varying accounts of his teachings and life. Yet if you look around the world and at history, everybody else came up with different religions, with no record of a Jesus figure.
You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time.
You think God is powerful enough to create universes, people from dust and ribs of other people, but can't manage to get the same message across in different languages and time periods? The most obvious explanation is that religion is man made, and the Jesus mythology isn't any different.
If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction.
Funny how civilizations all around the planet managed to survive before coming into contact with the Bible. Also funny how many wars people have over which flavor of God is the true one. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all essentially believe in the same God, yet they fight amongst each other and themselves. You'd think a just God that wanted to get his message across would deliver the message unambiguously and equally for all people, especially if he's going to punish them for getting it wrong.
You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear
Plenty of other religious texts from history have survived.
On the other hand, the theory of where life comes from abiogenesis, is often lumped in under the same name as evolution, and yet it doesn't have nearly the support that natural selection does. We have vague ideas, that's all; we don't know how it happened. So she's right in calling that 'just a theory.'
First, all of science is "just a theory". The usage is taking a scientific term and twisting it into a scare term. Second, the vast majority of religious people who question evolution are NOT talking about abiogenesis, they are talking about evolution from simple life forms leading to humans. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible genesis story, and it doesn't leave much room for God (also known as God of the Gaps).
Interestingly contrary to what you've posted, the more I read the Bible, and the more I learn from science and history, the more they seem to join and support the other.
I suppose you also believe that Eve was created from a rib of Adam? How about Noah's Ark? How's that Bible and science combination working now?
I'd advise finding a Bible translated as directly as possible.
Why doesn't God just give everybody the straight dope without all this prophet bullshit? Why do major religions rest their authority on texts hundreds or thousands of years old that suffer from translation and historical context problems?
I'd advise dropping the Bible as a source of useful information when it comes to science or pretty much anything except for whatever verifiable bits of history that can be gleaned from it.
Capital letters are your friends.
Economic calculations. Research calculations. Diplomatic calculations. Borders expanding/contracting.
With the exception of diplomacy, there are similar calculations in StarCraft. It's not a big deal to compute once every turn.
A map that, by comparison to an endgame Civilization map, is pretty small.
The Civ map is broken up into big, discrete chunks. In StarCraft, the units, of which there can be hundreds, have fine-grained movement.
I'm just saying that there's more going on behind the scenes in a Civilization game than you realize.
No, there really isn't. You are trying to equate:
a) real-time, full map computation that has to allow fluid animation with
b) once a turn, battle at a time computation.
It's just a ridiculous argument.
See my reply to another poster regarding the AI.
You're talking here about just the AI. While the AI is in general impressive at first blush, it isn't very computationally expensive. First, it cheats. Second, it mostly just follows hard-coded scripts about what actions to take.
I'm not just taking a guess, either. I recently watched this Google Tech Talk about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI
You forgot real-time path finding with a horde of units interfering with each other.
Now look at a Civ game, and all of the things that simultaneously happen each time one turn ends and another begins.
What simultaneously happens? The unit orders are sequenced.
You honestly think there is less to compute in a Civ game than in Starcraft II, just because Civ is turn based?
Well, um, YES. There's a difference between localized, separate battles at the end of every turn versus battles that update dozens of times a second all over the map. That you have thought about this and tried to equate the two is mind boggling.
There is an insane amount of behind the scenes tracking and calculations going on in a Civilization game.
Oh come on. I played Alpha Centauri on a computer from 2002 and it was blazing fast. Compare a Civ game to a real-time game like StarCraft 2 for "insane" amounts of computations.
I wonder if they ripped _Age_of_Wonders'_ Adjacent Hex rule... Every unit immediately adjacent the hex where the attack could occur were also pulled into that hex for combat.
Diplomacy had this first, at least some variation of it.
Of course you'll remember games you played as a kid more fondly
This is exactly the situation. Talk to some kids about the games they love. Don't you think 10, 15, or 20 years down the road they'll be talking exactly as you are now?
Remember when you were a kid and you hated those older people saying "back in my day", talking about their outdated stuff and bashing the new? You're that person now.
Something got lost along the way
Yes, your innocence. What you're feeling is nostalgia.
On a side note I'm curious how the US postal service survives.
They're in severe financial difficulty and borrowing from the government right now.
A big cloud in a box? Like, a mainframe? From the 70s/80s?
From the YouTube linked in the summary:
"We've [the industry] redefined cloud computing to include everything that we currently do. [...] We'll make cloud computing announcements, because if orange is the new pink we'll make orange blouses. I'm not going to fight this thing. "
Contrary from the summary/article, he didn't shift from his previous criticism at all. He did what he said he was going to do.
So here's one of the top links from your search, which you seem to be quoting from. It says:
"However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say 'I am going to kill you' or to announce in an airport, 'I am going to bomb this plane.'"
This directly contradicts your original statement:
The Supreme Court of the US has even ruled that death threats are protected speech, unless the issuer of the threat is carrying a gun or knife. But simply walking up to someone (say a KKK guy) and saying, "I hate racist mother fuckers and I'm going to kill you" is protected speech if said person is unarmed.
The Watts case was about political hyperbole, and it wasn't considered a death threat. So when asked to provide specific citations, your original claims do not hold up.
That makes for a great story, but it's just a story.
I really loved the guy that wanted to apply Moore's law to processor speed and was expecting to reach 128 Ghz very quickly.
I don't think it was so unreasonable, especially when you consider the comment that started this thread: "The wall or plateu or whatever you prefer to call it of electronics progress is similar to the recurring doomsday predictions. It's always right around the corner, but it never happens." [emphasis mine]
The counter-example was clock speeds. They were following an exponential curve right along with transistor density. Intel and AMD both gave up on clock speed around the same time and moved to multi-core.
You can just get rid of the adjective completely. Politics is childish all the world over.
Try reading the comment you are replying to: "Chances are a good portion of the economy cpus out there had a core or two disabled just to meet a shipping quota and price point, not because the core failed an integrity check."
Didn't the Intel roadmaps from around 10 years ago predict 6 or 7 Ghz CPUs by now?
Try 10 Ghz, and even that was scorned at the time for being conservative. It was quite an amazing ride from the earliest CPUs, but alas, it did come to an end. The comments on that page, a blast from the past, are priceless.