Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
more...
MacCoaster
Oct 11, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
I don't know. I'll run it on an UltraSPARC II sometime when I can. My step-dad's box isn't loaded up yet.
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Really? Code bug? How? It's a simple C/C#/Java/obj-C program. The G4 shouldn't be so slow with a task oh so simple. It's also no bug that Altivec doesn't include hardware double precision floating point. But then again, we weren't testing them with hardware support--just testing the pure CPU power. In fact, if you don't believe us--please, we beg you, look at the source code. Nothing Altivec/SSE/SSE2/3DNow/any of that crap there. 10-20 times slower isn't science fiction when it comes to double precision floating point on the G4. It simply blows.
leekohler
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
fpnc
Mar 19, 01:54 AM
tveric, actually, I didn't call any individual "stupid," I said you'd have to be stupid to use PyMusique (the former and the latter are not exactly the same thing). Sorry if you were somehow offended.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
Everybody relax.
I am.
I agree however that Apple will probably soon block access through PyMusique and that might not even require any changes other than on the server side of the music store. That's another reason why this whole story is pretty much overblown.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
more...
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:25 PM
Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
more...
Silentwave
Jul 11, 10:20 PM
YAY!
not that this was a big surprise. only other possibility is a high end Conroe in the low end machines. anything less than WC in the high end would be insulting.
iMac may well get Conroe (which could be either 2.4 or 2.67 but not the extremes due to the higher TDP, and conroe does not go slower than 2.4) but you never know we may see Allendale, which is a version of Conroe with a smaller L2 but the same FSB going from 1.6 up to 2.4ghz. Conroe is more likely, as is Merom, as both have 4MB L2s above 2ghz.
not that this was a big surprise. only other possibility is a high end Conroe in the low end machines. anything less than WC in the high end would be insulting.
iMac may well get Conroe (which could be either 2.4 or 2.67 but not the extremes due to the higher TDP, and conroe does not go slower than 2.4) but you never know we may see Allendale, which is a version of Conroe with a smaller L2 but the same FSB going from 1.6 up to 2.4ghz. Conroe is more likely, as is Merom, as both have 4MB L2s above 2ghz.
more...
rasmasyean
Mar 11, 08:06 AM
I'm in Tokyo. The big shake happened around 3 in the afternoon. I was walking around outside. Returned immediately to my apartment. Lots of broken glass and plates. Books have fallen from the shelf and my office was a mess, but my old mother, dog & cats, and Macs are okay. The aftershocks are continuing.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
Do they take those "people washed away" videos off Youtube or something right away? All I've seen are the same footages of "stuff" being engulfed by the front. It almost looks as if the entire area has been evacuated prior to this. I tried to find ppl, but I don't see any....unless they like instantly die and sink to the bottom or something or are stuck in the cars.
The damage in Tokyo seems to be fairly light. The situation in Sendai (northern part of Japan) is very serious. It's been hit by tsunami. The TV is showing these helicopter shots of tsunami coming in, and you can actually see cars and buildings and sometimes people being washed away. Can't do anything. I stopped watching TV.
Do they take those "people washed away" videos off Youtube or something right away? All I've seen are the same footages of "stuff" being engulfed by the front. It almost looks as if the entire area has been evacuated prior to this. I tried to find ppl, but I don't see any....unless they like instantly die and sink to the bottom or something or are stuck in the cars.
more...
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
more...
MacRumors
Mar 18, 01:23 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
more...
It is the mugshot of Jared
more...
shooter Jared Loughner:
Lee Loughner#39;s mug shot
Jared+loughner+glenn+beck
more...
Jared L. Loughner was
more...
Gunman Jared Lee Loughner
Jared Lee Loughner
more...
His name is Jared Lee Loughner
Jared Loughner apparently
A mugshot of Jared Loughner
more...
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
more...
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
more...
SiliconAddict
Sep 21, 08:48 AM
The more I hear about iTV the lest interested I am in it. I don't need something that integ. with my desktop computer and clogs up my home network. I want a stand alone solution. So it looks like I'm back to building a HTPC sometime next spring. Pitty too. It looks like a slick device. Just not what I'm looking to put under my TV. :(
nsjoker
Sep 20, 06:51 PM
either i'm missing the point of this iTV thing or people in america have ridiculous amounts of money to throw away and are willing to pay for tv shows which are free so they can stream them to their iTV box and watch them that way. it's a super efficient way to burn money, but not to watch tv shows. dvr please.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
i mean.. i do understand people want frontrow on their tv's, but it seems like an inital craze thing. i'm not going to completely knock this product though, because if anything it's a starting point for apple to infiltrate your living room, and then releasing dvr functionality in the future. we'll see.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:11 PM
Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
more...
cactusjackatu
Mar 18, 11:13 AM
To everyone that is running jailbroken and tethering (against your AT&T TOS) via MyWi. Did you purchase the app or are you pirating that as well?
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
Silentwave
Jul 11, 10:20 PM
YAY!
not that this was a big surprise. only other possibility is a high end Conroe in the low end machines. anything less than WC in the high end would be insulting.
iMac may well get Conroe (which could be either 2.4 or 2.67 but not the extremes due to the higher TDP, and conroe does not go slower than 2.4) but you never know we may see Allendale, which is a version of Conroe with a smaller L2 but the same FSB going from 1.6 up to 2.4ghz. Conroe is more likely, as is Merom, as both have 4MB L2s above 2ghz.
not that this was a big surprise. only other possibility is a high end Conroe in the low end machines. anything less than WC in the high end would be insulting.
iMac may well get Conroe (which could be either 2.4 or 2.67 but not the extremes due to the higher TDP, and conroe does not go slower than 2.4) but you never know we may see Allendale, which is a version of Conroe with a smaller L2 but the same FSB going from 1.6 up to 2.4ghz. Conroe is more likely, as is Merom, as both have 4MB L2s above 2ghz.
more...
mcarnes
Sep 20, 02:02 AM
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
:p Good one.
:p Good one.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
lilcosco08
Apr 8, 11:33 PM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
bradl
Mar 18, 02:01 AM
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
more...
firestarter
Mar 13, 10:01 AM
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia more...
more...
more...
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
Well, this is still playing out. If they avoid a containment breech, then they'll have stood up as well as needs-be.
Safety has to be designed in to reactors from the ground up. 40 year old technology is 40 year old technology - no matter what tweaks you do at a later date.
Pontificating about the fate of nuclear power stations on seismic fault lines isn't any sort of argument against using them in Western Europe or in much of the USA.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
Figures I'm reading say we have 80 years of identified deposits with more to be discovered.
Main sources countries are politically pretty stable (more so than the Middle East!)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
Australia more...
puma1552
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
more...
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
more...