flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
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?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
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?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:53 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 10:00 AM
I like this term, very good!!! Subgames. (This is not to be taken as sarcasm.) With your permission, I'm going to use this from now on.;)
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
Um... it's not my term... I was publishing games with sub-games in back on the Amiga.
BUT feel free to use it!
iJohnHenry
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Vatican, and the Pope by extension, is rapidly becoming "Captain Dunsel" in the ST-TOS vernacular.
unlinked
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:28 AM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means. All you can think of is what "Love" excludes. How sad.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means. All you can think of is what "Love" excludes. How sad.
Stella
Mar 18, 10:00 AM
This is beyond the mark...
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
Wish he'd do something useful like cracking WMA.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 06:06 PM
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:34 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
Of course that all requires people actually caring more about the world than money, so it ain't gonna happen.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
I wish people would stop repeating this public relations line from the nuclear industry PR depts. If they were making cheese, would you believe their cheese is cheesier?
I posted on the first page of this thread that it only looks clean on your end because all the filth and pollution is on our end where it's mined. To wit, 60 MILLION TONNES of radioactive tailings waste from just one mine in just 20 years. Seriously think how much that is - it's one fifth of a tonne of radioactive tailings waste for EVERY man woman and child in the USA. EVERY twenty years. From JUST ONE MINE. Now assure me again how 'clean' nuclear is?
And then once the toxic fuel is spent where to dump all that filthy poisonous waste? In 40 gallon drums in the ocean? Pay another country to bury it so it leaches into their water table?
The *only* clean part nuclear power is the part with the white whispy steam. Ah, look, it's just water, how cleaaaaann! But for the non-steam parts, it really does sound like shatting over the edge of your nests onto others' heads where you can't see the diarrheous filth and delude yourselves into proclaiming that you are being 'clean'. If it was a cartoon it'd actually be funny.
skunk
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
FSUSem1noles
Mar 18, 08:24 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
Lesser Evets
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
$299 is impressive.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
I've been saying that if they put FCX online for $79.99 I'd buy immediately. I'm confused why Apple has an online App store and yet they offer paltry bits of programming.
millerb7
May 2, 11:31 AM
That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!
myamid
Sep 12, 06:17 PM
An interesting device it sounds like the El Gato EyeHome. As long as it can play all normal video/audio formats (whatever you have QuickTime components for) and it has support for El Gato EyeTV I'll happily replace my XP MCE box with one.
I actually have an EyeHome and if you ask me, the iTV is pretty much the same thing... There are only small obvious differences
-Wifi & HDMI on iTV
-Ability to stream Fairplay protected content...
Probably not enough for me to dump my EyeHome...
I actually have an EyeHome and if you ask me, the iTV is pretty much the same thing... There are only small obvious differences
-Wifi & HDMI on iTV
-Ability to stream Fairplay protected content...
Probably not enough for me to dump my EyeHome...
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 03:53 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:56 PM
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 12:33 PM
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
steveh
May 2, 01:17 PM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
Only if you're unclever enough to have "Open 'safe' files after downloading" turned on.
I guess you really don't use Safari.
Only if you're unclever enough to have "Open 'safe' files after downloading" turned on.
I guess you really don't use Safari.
cambox
Apr 13, 12:36 PM
Original post by gusapple
I think that this is counter-intuitive. By a long shot. Why would Apple leave their customer base? They still are including all of their "smoke and mirrors" but with a dumbed down option. All that I can see from it is that file management is FINALLY going to be better than a manual system. And anyways, Apple updated the UI from something that was popular in 2000 to something that looks better for today. Plus, there are lots of people who want to start using Pro apps but don't know how. I think that it is awesome that Apple is creating interest in an industry that will grow rapidly in the next few years.
I think what you are talking about is called Imovie? Accessible by 10 year olds and its wonderful for that and for people who do weddings etc, but in my world we use the traditional layout because it works just fine and why fix something thats not broken? 64 bit is great and yes we need that but not the shinny useless bits that kids want on the iphones, ipads and Garageband. I think Apple has lost the plot here and also lost the respect of pro app users..well those who truly are pro FCP users.
I think that this is counter-intuitive. By a long shot. Why would Apple leave their customer base? They still are including all of their "smoke and mirrors" but with a dumbed down option. All that I can see from it is that file management is FINALLY going to be better than a manual system. And anyways, Apple updated the UI from something that was popular in 2000 to something that looks better for today. Plus, there are lots of people who want to start using Pro apps but don't know how. I think that it is awesome that Apple is creating interest in an industry that will grow rapidly in the next few years.
I think what you are talking about is called Imovie? Accessible by 10 year olds and its wonderful for that and for people who do weddings etc, but in my world we use the traditional layout because it works just fine and why fix something thats not broken? 64 bit is great and yes we need that but not the shinny useless bits that kids want on the iphones, ipads and Garageband. I think Apple has lost the plot here and also lost the respect of pro app users..well those who truly are pro FCP users.
NT1440
Nov 5, 10:02 PM
I completely beleive it will surpass the iphone in marketshare, after all its going to be on just about every popular cell phone in the future, as well as crap phones. You gain marketshare when you flood the market, just like windows.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 05:33 AM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment